Since we are a christian nation, isn't Don't Ask Don't Tell unnecessary?

It seems like God would just strike down the necessary parties as needed.

You are mistaken, we are not a Christian nation. And you'll notice that the only people that are striking down the necessary parties seem to be investigative reporters and offended parties that are fed up with the treatment they are getting - God doesn't seem to be in evidence. And there aren't many Christians making news right now either (although a lot of infamous pagans are claiming to be Christians).

The term Christian has been debased by it's users to the point of being non-descriptive - which is a lesson in itself. Be careful how you abuse a word if you want it to continue to mean something in the future.

Because, in America, minorities are to be protected and given equal rights. It shouldn't matter about one's sexual preference as long as the behavior of all while in the military is above reproach; the military code of conduct. Should a straight or gay military serviceman act inappropriately, then he should be removed, but only then. Otherwise, gay or straight should be allowed to freely serve their country.

You've obviously missed the underlying point of this article; it is about equality. You have served for 17 years and have chosen to do so without having to compromise who you are. Why should these individuals? I think once you and many other Americans step outside of yourselves and begin to think rationally this will no longer be an issue. Just as an ending thought, if you are as tolerant as you claim to be then why do you have an issue serving with a gay American?

What would you say about a person who chooses not to have sex at all or some other predilection? Sexual orientation should have nothing to do with whether you can carry a gun, understand tactics, are healthy, in-shape, smart, committed and willing to defend your country. There have been a lot of creep stories about military personnel that were not gay, by the way. You need to look at the person.

The fact that servicemembers are stretched so thin is exactly why the ban needs to be lifted. There is a generational split on this issue, in both military and civilian populations - older people generally have more trouble with it than the younger folks who are on the front lines, doing 2nd, 3rd and 4th tours of duty, while being unable to speak the language of the nations we are in, and while we ban from the military able-bodied and courageous service-members, some of whom have been awarded medals, and many of whom speak the languages of the countries in which we are fighting. Meanwhile, the military relaxed standards to let in the likes of Charles Graner and other soldiers with serious problems. The effects of combat stress multiply after numerous tours of duty, and if you are really working on the front lines in Baghdad, you should understand the importance of having translators whose loyalty is unquestioned.

Why should you need to house gay servicemembers separately? They don't have separate locker rooms in high school, where they are targeted much more than heterosexual kids are. Don't you believe that the heterosexual service members can control themselves, or can be trained to do so? And why should they be restricted form doing certain jobs? Which jobs is a gay, Arabic speaking soldier, who has passed basic training, unqualified to do?

While I am sympathetic to the civil rights issues, the most important reason to allow every able bodied, willing person in our society to serve is that our armed forces are overstretched and we need them. It should be obvious why our armed forces would be better off if we stopped expelling from the service people who are fluent in other languages.

Go back through your message and replace the word "gay" with "black." Imagine how you would view your own message if you did that. I haven't offered a civil rights manifesto here, but rather the exact national security justifications that the experts have offered. All you have offered is prejudice.

Clearly you do not mind the multiple and extended deployments impacting our soldiers, but in case you haven't been paying attention, some of your comrades are really hurting from being overstretched, while you advocate turning qualified soldiers away.

Thank you for your service to the country, but on the question of DADT why not frame the question otherwise: do you have a problem serving with openly gay servicemen and women? If you don't, then why discriminate?

Humor-In-Uniform, you seem to forget or have overlooked that OUR military is the same military that protects gay Americans - just as it does straight Americans. Gay people want to serve for the exact same reasons straight people want to serve and we aren't going to jeopardize mission accomplishment in order to fulfill some "agenda."

And when it comes to figuring "out how to accomodate this" the WE you speak about includes a lot of gay service members. We're serving in the Middle East - Iraq - Afghanistan and around the world right now.

Equal rights are not a minority agenda. And wtf does everyone think is going to happen if DADT is repealed. Suddenly helpless straight guys in the armed forces are going to be raped in the showers? Give me a break. Repeal it and get on with more important issues. The juvenile arguments against it are not even worth acknowledging anymore.

Oh and Rodzilla, get some education.

Is your main issue with repealing DADT having gays serve at all? If so, I'm afraid that's not the crux of the issue.
As for how to treat them, no differently than the closeted servicemen are treated now. There seems to be an unspoken assumption that, if DADT is repealed, all gay servicemen will start making passes at their comrades.
It will make for a more effective force because talented servicemen will not be expelled simply being gay.

Because many of the people who have been expelled under DADT have been Arabic translators. Because all of the people who have been expelled are excellent soldiers who have served with distinction. Of course there are men who would refuse to serve with gays, but there are men who would refuse to serve with minorities and women.Because our military is currently being used as a sociology experiment, just as it was when the military was segregated because no white man would share barracks or take orders from a black man. For the old argument about sharing showers, do you feel better now when you walk into the shower and can't be sure if guy standing next to you is gay or not? Wouldn't the time, effort, and money being spent investigating a expelling people based on their sex partners be better spent elsewhere?

Military Code of Conduct covers any problem with any military personnel. Seems the problem exists with heterosexuals so the bottom line is that all personnel need to be held accountable for undermining the military if they engege in sexual misconduct.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed......we are running low on Cannon Fodder. We need to reinstate the draft.

It worked out well for integration back in the 50s.

I don't see why the Army's hiring policy should cater to the least tolerant among the ranks.

We don't ask Jewish soldiers to keep their beliefs a secret, because there are anti-Semites among the ranks and having openly Jewish soldiers might "cause dissension," or because asking anti-Semites and Jews to work professionally together would be some sort of dangerous "social experiment." No, we ask all soldiers who sign up to serve to set aside their quibbles and personal beliefs in service to a larger cause.

Regarding barrack segregation, I've always felt there was a confusion between sexual preference and sexual identity. There's a south park episode that enunciates this difference.

That said, I agree with 'humor-in-uniform' that this will end up becoming a sociological experiment. Given that we are forcing on our military, conditions of living (common barracks, shared bathrooms etc), the line between equality and privacy thins with this issue. i.e equality for homosexuals versus privacy of the individual servicemen (gay or otherwise). If what I'm saying is not clear, imagine removing male/female separation entirely and having unisex showers and bathrooms and shared living arrangements for all. While, I'm actually all for it I'm not sure if the rest of our country is.

In private institutions or in our homes, we have say in the kind of lifestyle we live. However, for practical reasons, we cannot offer the same to our men in uniform. If each person serving in the military could be guaranteed private quarters (regardless of place of deployment) then homosexuality would not be an issue.

This isn't a sociology experiment, and it's not fulfilling a minority agenda. It's a very, very simple matter of discrimination, and the nation's continuous move away from it.

MY military would pay its full respects to all the men and women, of every ethnicity and every orientation, who serve it well and serve my country well.

I respect the opinion of active duty soldiers, and I am glad you area reading and posting here.
what do you think of the guy who was a skilled interpreter (forgive me for not having all the details) and got dismissed when he was found out to be gay? It seems to me like DADT is not to encourage major signs of gayness, but to retain the people who might be gay who are already serving effectively. If what they are doing is helping the military, and who they are privately is not hurting anyone, why rut them out and destroy their careers in and contributions to the US military?

Who cares who someone sleeps with. Anyone who is willing to give their life to The United States should be able to serve in the capacity of a service member of US Forces.

The question should not be about how much more effective our military will be if Gays are allowed to serve, but how much less effective it already is because of the don't ask don't tell policy. This is because Gays are already serving in our military, just not openly. If a gay soldier is serving while keeping his sexual orientation private, how would an open declaration of his sexual orientation change how he performs? We spend millions on training these soldiers gay and non, but we discharge the gay ones not because they cannot perform, nor because they cannot work with other soldiers, but purely out of prejudice, that they are not like us. More than once Army Arab translators are dismissed because they are gay, not because they can't translate, and definitely not because we have an excess of Arab translators. Aren't we fighting a war against terrorist and Al-Queada? If we are, should we use our resources to the fullest to achieve our military objectives, including the use of all of our soldiers gay or otherwise?

It's 2009. The majority of Western democracies have integrated their militaries already. They have had very little problem doing it. And it's worth noticing that the cover of this month's *Soldier Magazine* (the UK's official Army periodical) features a decorated gay soldier. See http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/feature1.htm

The UK and several other countries made the same objections, saying their armies wouldn't accept it. But guess what, they are PROFESSIONALS, and they follow orders. Wow, what a concept. I think you underestimate your fellow soldiers.

BTW I am a former Marine.

I agree, why is it that when gays are involved so much attention is focused. This is an experiment to get people more comfortable with gays in out everyday life. The gay rights orgs., need to understand that nothing they do or fight aganist will make them more acceptable. We live in a democracy, people don't have to like or accept you.

Hi Humor.....

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know any 'gay' military folks? I'd bet there are some you might suspect, or maybe fit a "stereotype" you happen to hold. Are you "married" or do you have a girl/boy-friend? Can you imagine having to LIE about him/her every damn time someone asks what you did on leave or over the weekend? What about attending a military social function... graduating from the NCO Academy or a ceremony to recognize you as NCO of the Quarter or Year? Maybe all the other folk will have their significant others meeting them when your rotation returns to your home base.... and where's your significant other? Waiting at home or skulking on the perimeter to avoid drawing LEGAL attention to you! That's just the tip of the iceberg... what happens when he/she is sick and you can't ask for time to sit in the hospital (oh, you can't cover them on your 'medical benefits!). Maybe you need to think of how stressed you'd be NOT being able to be open and honest!

"Our" military has ALWAYS been a 'sociology' experiment! In the 1950's, executive orders decreed that segregated units would no longer be tolerated. When I first entered the military (1973), we were STILL fighting racial bias, intolerance and bigotry. Then, we had the opportunity to see women being allowed into traditionally male AFSCs/MOSs. I can remember when women were first brought into my career field. It "didn't work", they were a test program, and subsequently retrained into other fields. A few years later, it was done again and this time it worked. It took education, time and a different group of people to get past the bullshit.... is it perfect? HELL NO! But it's a start, and as people get over their individual hangups, the rough spots smooth out.

So to is it time to cease the stupidity of homophobia. Look at the former JCOS members and leaders.... they KNOW the 'gay ban' is harming the military. How many translators have been lost because they happened to be gay?

USAF LtCol Vic Fehrenbach flew more and longer combat sorties than ANY other pilot in his squadrons during Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Hand-picked to fly security over Washington D.C. after the attacks on the pentagon. He (was) responsible for training pilots for an entire Wing as the assistant DCO for his wing. Oh.... he's gay, lets throw him out and don't worry about the MILLIONS of dollars spent training him to do the job he apparently does so well!

If repealed, will a gay guy who does wear his sexuality on his sleeve sign up? Probably. Not to serve his country but to seek attention. It's bad behavior not classification of a soldier that should be punished.

What I appreciate the most about the gay rights movement is that, in general, it hasn't claimed victim-hood as a primary platform. Openly gay men and women have instead used what makes them different (say, creativity) and are rewarded in a capitalist democracy. They struggle through discrimination by hard work, gaining more education and spending disposable income on brands that support them. In my experience, it's been about changing perception (and gaining acceptance) in America by using the system to its benefit. Given the openly gay person's demographic, it's likely they'll eventually achieve higher ranks in the military too. Just sayin.

It's not a case of meeting a need, but of removing a restriction. If a person is qualified and capable of serving, then the fact that they're gay shouldn't make any difference.

It's sometimes useful to substitute another characteristic in place of gayness, and see if the restriction makes any sense. For example:

In the highly complex and technologically dependent military of the 21st century, why should we take the risk of allowing people to serve who use Bronze-age tribal rules to guide their lives.

"...can argue how this will make us a more effective and efficient fighting force, please do...I have devoutly religious friends and extended family member and we discuss this, so it's not because I hate them, it's because I don't see the need."

The restriction should be removed because only an idiot would be unable to serve in an integrated military, and we really shouldn't be designing govt. entities with a view towards making fools comfortable in their foolishness.

Because we have already discharged 13,000 servicemen and women under DADT. Since we have a difficult recruiting anyone for the military, we could use those people.
Because quite of few of the people discharged are Arab linguists, in which we have a critical shortage of translators. I think our military is much better off if it can intercept enemy messages and translate them before they do damage, don't you?
Because every Western ally has already integrated the military with openly gay people, including Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, most NATO countries and Israel, and no ill effects have been reported in any of those militaries. Therefore, the burden is now upon you to prove that the US military is somehow uniquely homophobic and our men and women somehow just can't deal with a gay in their ranks.
Because many gay people are ALREADY out and open in the US military in many units, and no one cares.
Because the ONLY reason, according to the military, for not allowing gays to serve openly because they believe it will harm 'unit cohesion.' Since we already have out gays serving, and also serving in our allies militaries, this concept is increasingly dubious.
Because even under the current policy, gays are welcome to serve in the military. Your argument is to ban all gays, but even the military doesn't ask for that.

So yes, the military would certainly become a more effective fighting force, because you would actually have the numbers that you need to fight the enemy, you will have enough medics to treat the wounded, you will have enough translators to interprete what the enemy is saying and because you might actually learn that a gay soldier is just a trusting as a straight soldier

Does that answer your question?

America has fought and argued for freedom and for human rights all over the world. And here at home, we don't practice what we preach and fight for. It is an embarrassment. Relationships in this modern world should not have to be kept quiet. Gay men and women have a right to be free and open. They have a right to serve in the military if they wish to. Proper behavior should be required by all. We all as American citizens should show responsibility for ourselves and respect for others. As a result, it wouldn't matter whether we are a member of some minority group or some majority group. It should be irrelevant.

My generation is sick and tired of sitting around and waiting so other people don't have to face their own ignorance. Protecting intolerance should never be a reason to deny someone their rights.

I'm pretty sure Obama knew about Gillebrand wanting to do this, and probably pushed her on.

This is how things are done in Washington with these kinds of issues. Had Obama brought it up, the GOP would be having an even bigger hizzy.

This makes us a better fighting because from 1993 to 2006, over 11 thousand soldiers have been dismissed from the military for being gay.

How many of those do you think would still be in the military had they not been thrown out? How many gay soldiers are still in uniform... praying they don't get that military pink-slip? Has any wrong or disturbing action ever been reported and affirmed concerning negative actions involving a soldier that is gay BECAUSE OF being gay? How many Arab translators that are gay have been thrown out?

Do you really think it is better to have open racists, open gang members, criminals, drug addicts, those not as smart, than someone who is gay serving in the military? The gov't thinks so.

You can call someone a racial term, or rob a convience store, or be a shit to women... but you better not be attracted to those of the same sex and serve in the military. That's MUCH worse... right?

I have to say... I am a firm believer in gay rights pretty much across the board, and I have also never served in the military, but as a member of the armed forces, don't you think it's wrong to have a policy that promotes dishonesty among servive men and women? What I mean is, regardless of how we may feel about gay people, DADT doesn't keep gays from serving in the military, it just keeps them from being open about it.

Like I said, i have never been in any kind of combat situation, but I would assume (emphasis on assume) that trust is on of the main things that allows men and women to go into such dangerous situations with one another. How can you trust someone to help protect your life, if you know they could be hiding such a huge secret about their identity? If I had a friend that I found out was gay after years of knowing them and thinking they were straight, it would bother me not that they were gay, but that they managed to hide it from me for so many years... I'd think to myself, wow... you lied about that, managed to decieve me about something so huge, I wonder how many other lies and deceptions you pulled on me throughout the years???? I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I was going into a situation where I could be blown up by an IED, knowing that the people around me were possibly lying about who they really were...

Why is this considered anything other than having the best military and one that is representative of our country?

According to the article below, there are over 24 nations that allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. I get that you are earnest about not looking homophobic, therefore you keep repeating the "social experiment question". The very apt responses asked you to think about women and African-Americans in the military, & yet you keep repeating the mantra of social experiment. I think you are being intellectually dishonest. A military that asks people to be all they can be, yet blackmails them to be ashamed or live in fear of reprisal isn't giving us the "best".

I also threw in the article about the 37 arabic translators kicked out during 2003. I would think they would have made a great addition to our fighting forces.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/5/despite_increased_post_9_11_need

Greetings HIU. United States Navy currently serving with 9 years of active duty. I have a couple of points to make regarding some of your ideas in your prior posts. I am married, no kids. Obviously heterosexual. To ascribe the desire to do away with a policy that actively discriminates against your fellow servicemembers as nothing more than part of a "minority agenda" completely misses the point. I want to do away with DADT. The vast majority of my fellow servicemembers want to do away with DADT. Most opinion surveys completed within the past two years place support for removing DADT at over 70%, with even higher levels of support among the younger generation, who in turn will comprise our future fighting forces. I'm afraid that your opinion is in the minority.

I see that you acknowledge that you have gay friends and extended family, and that you "discuss this." Do they agree with you? I have gay friends and family members too. I have fellow Sailors who are gay. None of them support DADT. I would find it hard to believe that your friends or family do either.

You question when "we stop defining minorities." Hypothetical question: If I see that a small group of Sailors is attracted to morbidly obese women, whom I personally find repulsive, am I allowed to discriminate against them because of behavior that I instinctually find discomforting? Sex, both straight and gay, has been going on since the dawn of our species. I personally feel that consenting adults have the right to pursue their own personal attractions amongst each other as long as they don't harm anyone else.

As far as your concern about the second and third order consequences of doing away with DADT, I sympathize, but only to a point. Command picnics would be a little different. Some people may take issue with having their children in the company of gay people. I foresee these problems occurring. Personally, I have witnessed much more scandalous public behavior taking place between straight people than I have ever witnessed amongst gay people, and I've been to some pretty gay places. I have little sympathy for those who choose to teach their children to be intolerant, however. As far as where we house them, we house them right next to the rest of our people. Sexual misconduct is already covered under the UCMJ. If it occurs, prosecute it. I challenge you to show me any valid research that indicates gay people are more likely to commit sexual assault.

As far as what jobs we "confine" them to, that's ridiculous. They already do every job in the military. I know gay sub-riders, aviators, intelligence analysts, SEALs, BMs, MAs, CTs, DCs, etc. etc. They are fighting and dying just like everyone else. The only difference is, the present system forces them hide a significant portion of their lives. I have personally witnessed instances of blackmail and punitive outing, in one case resulting in the separation and loss of retirement of a 17-year Sailor.

I have sacrificed plenty during my time in the military. I tend to hesitate before holding my service over the heads of others, however. While Larry's reply was definitely personal in nature, his point, as you acknowledge, was valid. Should policy change, we will adapt. We always have. Personally, I would hesitate to refer to the United States as a social utopia. Furthermore, citing confirmed kills impresses no one.

@Humor
I'm a retired military man who was molested 1965 at Eglin AFB. The molester was removed and discharged immediately....However my posts on this subject have not been allowed to be posted on this site.

Humor-In-Uniform, first I would like to thank you for your commitment and service and then commend you on your dialogue on the topic. Many would just walk away from it without discussion and to me that just builds stereotypical images of what people have had ingrained into them by society. Should you have a vote because you are in uniform? I think when you decided to put on that uniform you had your vote. You voted for the principles of this country and defending them.
You stated, 'My question is, how does this make us a better fighting force....YOUR fighting force!' My answer to that is it makes OUR fighting force evolve to a better representation of the principle of this country of equal rights and justice for all. On 9/11, I saw a touching interview of a man who said, 'Today I am not a gay man first, I am an American first.' As a lesbian, I can tell you that is what I would like for every American, that we are all just that, Americans first, foremost and always before we are stereotyped and classified by judgements that only God can make.
There are good and bad people in every label given in life and the United States of America is suppose to be a country where we are all put on a level field of civil rights. If any, break the law, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but NO ONE should be persecuted for being who they are. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Interesting... Humor wants to "VOTE" on equality.

Do you think white men should have had the opportunity to "VOTE" on allowing blacks into their units?

In WWII, lots of ethnically Asian-Americans were interred in special "camps". It seems they were a security risk. They were allowed to enter the military, but were invariably sent to the European theater. Why weren't German or Italian-Americans separated from their homes, placed in special "camps" and only sent to the Pacific theater?

Don't know if my data has entered the fray yet, but I served 20 years and think its damn STUPID to deny a person based on sexual orientation. There was a guy who everyone suspected was gay or bi.... he was one of my very best nuclear security entry controllers. I couldn't have cared less what he did off-duty, when he was on-duty, he was conscientious to a fault in his performance.

I asked for thoughful dialogue, not a personal attack, larry. You sound like someone who hasn't almost died multiple times for their country. You sound like someone who hasn't seen good friends' dead bodies being abused by the enemy. You sound like someone who doesn't have to live with having killed over 100 people while protecting for the children of YOUR nation from the air. When you have sacrificed some of your humanity for the good of your country, then I'll accept your peronal attack on someone who has done all of this and doesn't go more than 30 minutes of their life without thinking about it, day in and day out.
So, while you slither around the social utopia that I protect, why don't you think about that and all of the people who have sacrificed EVERYTHING to allow for the stupidity that flows from your lips. You and people like you bring shame to my and others' sacrifices.
We would handle just fine, larry. We wouldn't like it and it would require adjustment, but we would do it. I'm not negative, I'm a realist....since, golly, I'm serving in Iraq for the 3rd time while you sit at home tossing grenades.

The Seabees "can do" doesn't mean they can do each other and the Marines "pull together" certainly doesn't mean pulling on each other!! I'm a retired military man...and I'm telling you flat out...you start messing with the military like it was the YMCA...and you will see a military force destroyed faster than you can blink...however that is exactly what some people want to see.

If it's not true...why all the lawsuits against catholic priests!!!!

the only problem with what youre saying, though, is that straight people get to go on and on about their marriages, their sexual exploits, look at magazines, talk about hot girls, or whatever... so if you're gay, you basically have to lie about your identity to fit in.

I agree with you that sexuality shouldn't matter, but it very much does... and there are MANY men who would NOT want to serve with gays, and there are also many people who if they knew that someone was gay, would mistreat or abuse said person... so obviously it is an issue. Which is where DADT comes in, it prevents only GAY people from being open about their sexuality... but it also promotes dishonesty and deception among people who are supposed to trust eachother and work together in extremely dangerous conditions to protect eachother, as well as you and I... and thats the main problem I have with DADT.

ideally, it wouldn't matter, but it does.

What of those discharged after being outed?

"""They're not homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual people. Their sex life is irrelevant. And the only people that care is them. I promise you 99% of the men and women in the military have no problem serving with or under a homosexual."""

You are wrong.

As humor in uniform has pointed out, he does not want to serve with a gay man. But I don't really think he's representative of the armed forces, just a voice...

BUT... their sex life apparently is NOT irrelevant. Tell me, what would happen if a gay man, serving 'in the closet', was seen out on a date with another man while on leave? Or seen going into a gay club? He would be dismissed.

And yes... PLENTY have been kicked out for BEING GAY. It is AGAINST that rules of the US military to serve and BE GAY. I suggest you do some research on those kicked out when it was found out they were gay and serving.

I'm not sure where in the US you are living (San Fran?) but it DOES matter to A LOT of people if they were forced to serve along side another of the same sex who MAY think they are attractive. This is not a safe country to be gay, let alone a safe military.

"But Don't Ask Don't Tell is the perfect solution."

If that is the case, then why are the gay soldiers that had their sexuality revealed by someone else be subjected to dismissal? The Army didn't ask, and He/She didn't tell, yet it is the homosexual soldier that is dismissed and must suffer the consequences not of the Army, nor his/her own doing. The Army wants to keep the Gay soldier, and the Gay soldier wants to serve, even if it meant serving while hiding their sexuality. As the law it is written right now there is no differentiation if it was the gay soldier who did the telling, or someone else that did the telling out of spite, this results in an undue punishment on both the Army and the Gay soldier. Don't ask don't tell is a deeply flawed piece of legislation written in haste out of prejudice against someone that is not like the rest of society. It is time that we take a second look, unclouded by hate, at purpose of this policy. Does it serve our nation? or does it serve to satisfy our prejudice?

I don't recall repealing DADT adding a "come out of the closet" clause. I'd imagine, in it's early implementation, many probably would still choose to hide their reality (and on the counter, many have chosen to share their secret with those they trust - hence the poort young soldier who was murdered recently.)

"Don't Tell"?

What does that mean exactly? Imagine the following scenario:

"Say John, why were you so withdrawn and quiet today?"

"I'm really upset because my boyfriend just broke up with me."

That constitutes "telling." John is discharged. Here's another:

"Hey Susie, who's that pretty girl in that snapshot with you?"

"Oh that's my girlfriend, I'm so in love with her, we've been together for five years now."

That constitutes "telling." Susie is discharged.

Don't even try to tell me that this is not discrimination.

This user is no longer registered.

Sorry sweetie... you are absolutely DEAD wrong.

You presume that it's a great thing.... let the 'fag' serve, as long as he/she keeps silent. Can't have EQUAL benefits because that would mean "shouting" about their orientation. Can't anticipate EQUAL treatment, because that would be "flaunting" their orientation.

If you are demanding this group remain "silent", shouldn't that same policy be applied to the hetero?Think how much we could save by NOT insuring all the dependant wives/husbands or the children!Think how much we'd save by just housing all the military members in barracks rather than building all that 'base housing' for all those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are "Standing on a Mountaintop and Telling Everyone Who They Are"!

As to your remarks about nobody cares, nobody is 'asking'.... AIC Joe Brown is pissed because SSgt Harry Gaie wrote him up for a haircut. AIC Brown sneaks off to OSI and reports SSgt Gaie was trying to convince him to visit "Blair's" (a 'known' gay bar downtown).Now we've got an investigation going... and is SSgt Gaie actually 'gay'? Who knows!

"And since you've chosen to serve your country, do it service by not telling announcing irrelevant information about yourself."This is your statement... ever see a wedding at a military church?Isn't that individual doing what you're crying about?

Your words stink of hypocracy! It might be unintentional... perhaps you never thought about what the world looks like from the other side?~!

I wish they would start a "don't pray, don't tell." Prosletizing would be put back in people's private lives where it balongs.

This user is no longer registered.

This user is no longer registered.

I don't fear them, but I can't speak for everyone that is not as open minded as you and I are. Many signed up under the notion that they wouldn't have to serve / work with gay people. That's their choice and you can't fault people for not being comfortable. LIke I've said, I have gay friends and extended family members and have no issues with them, but this issue needs to be well thought out. You can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly everyone that has issues with it doesn't mind.
Also, we have the WORLD'S best military, we're bigger and stronger than all the ones mentioned above. You won't see this sort of thing in China or Russia's militaries....so that argument doesn't hold water.

exactly!!
people make it seem like DADT is keeping people from walking around in assless chaps and singing cher! Most of the time, it is based on a suspicion... and then the person has a choice: lie under oath (illegal and against everything you're taught in the military) or lose their military career. That is unjustice if i've ever heard it...

It's like, people think if there was no DADT that all these guys would be waltzing around covered in glitter and having orgies in the shower or something... ridiculous

An intriguing notion, that those against gay rights "will lose in time because young people look at it different."

But young people mature. Maturity and life experiences (combined with demographics and maybe a little cheerleading) are enough to keep the issue moving toward our side.

I got a free toaster for converting two 19 year olds last week !!
Oh and by the way, remember all that sexual abuse and rape committed at Abu Ghraib and the other torture sites.......guess what, most of the people that committed those crimes were straight.

Ya those horrible gay demons! I hear they climb up your anus sink their claws into your lower spine and control you thru electrical impulses to your brain. Watch out they're growing numbers all the time infiltrating and converting and you might be next. So bust out your butt plugs and pray to Jesus to keep you safe.
p.s I like to think of my Jesus as a ninja fighting evil gay demons.

I guess it's different because it involves straight guys. Women can handle lecherous assholes coming on to them all the time, blacks can deal with racist jerks, but God forbid straight guys have to deal with gay guys! Someone's dick might fall into their assholes! Oh heavens!

Val, Scott -
You've hit the nail on the head! After a career of being groped, leered at and molested, it cracks me up how delicate and sensitive some of these guys are.