RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,188478,00.html

My questions is why is this young man worried about polls of what the generals or what civilians think? Why not do a poll of what active duty, reserve, and guard members think of gays in the military.

I've served with gays (males & females) in the military for 21 years. Some served honorably, but others didn't just like heterosexuals.

The problems started when it became known that someone was gay and was wearing it on their sleeve. Most heterosexuals are afraid of being blamed for sexual harrassment or sexual discrimination, but to throw in the homosexual into the equation creates new dynamics to the equation.

Are we going to grant same-sex dependent status to gay couples now? Just a question for the taxpayers. How many would really be gay or just want to hang out with their friends for join-spouse assignments?

I have worked with and respected some of the gays and heterosexuals and despised others of both sexual nature, but let's ask the troops what they want, not what some Columbia law professor or a General who never had to live the E-1 to E-4 life.

Are we going to force military religious institutions to accept gays as their leaders next. I would be interested in what the Catholic or Islamic chaplains have to say about that...

I'm retired, so it's up to PBO to take a step or stay the status quo.

Enlisted in 1983, retired in 2007 - do not agree with the writer's point of view. Respect his right to voice it; but feel he is off target on this one. DADT should stay.

The author is being disingenuous with the comments "Break the all-volunteer force? For one, that type of overwhelming homophobia just isn't representative of the military I knew during my time in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wondered why so many senior leaders -- men who'd sacrificed so much in their own rights on behalf of the nation -- would suddenly come out against a repeal of the outdated policy."

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexuals serving in the military is considered homophobic? Has the author considered there may be other reasons why people disagree? Is he so wrapped up in HIS opinions that he has forgotten others, who may actually be smarter and wiser, might be correct and he is in error?

The author is simply branding people who are in disagreement without regard for the reasons behind the disagreement. His actions speak volumes when it comes to trusting his opinions or words..................

If someone that is openly gay wants to serve, fine. However, having served in the infantry, I've seen what happens to someone that is percevied as a homosexual. If DADT were lifted, I'm sure that initially there would be problems but after awhile, it would be no big deal. Militray folks adapt quicker than anyone else. Weren't the armed forces the first to be integrated? I'm straight but if the guy in the foxhole next to me ain't I really could give two ****s as long as he did his job. I don't condon homosexuality but everyone is allowed their choice in life.
"Hate the sin but love the sinner!"

Just after 9/11 when the US was desparate for foreign language skills (amongst others) of which talent was in dire shortage, the armed services fired people with these hard to find talents simply because they were gay.

Our leadership that had sworn to protect our nation deliberately compromised our security (and safety of our citizens) in a time of national emergency. It would seem that their priorities/motives are questionable.

The IDF has had gay people in service for years without any problems - and NO ONE disrespects the IDF.

Don't degrade someone who gives their professional opinion. Lets have an honest discussion instead of throwing around terms like hoomphobe, etc.

Both sides are dug in.

I say don't ask for something, you just might get it and there will be additional problems.

I thought the DoD was short of Muslim related language speakers? Isn't homosexuality against Islam?

I, for one, don't like the idea af a bunch of gay men being in the locker room with me.

The time is now when Democrats control congress and we have a fraudulent Democrat in the Whitehouse to legalize pot, give the kweers full-reign and make children attend school even more.

quote:

Originally posted by StaffSgtGraham:
The time is now when Democrats control congress and we have a fraudulent Democrat in the Whitehouse to legalize pot, give the kweers full-reign and make children attend school even more.

See boys and girls, the above quote is a prime example of an ignorant debater. If one wishes to argue a point, one should use facts, with cited references, to back up one's opinion.

For instance, how does the above poster back up his claim that we have a "fraudulent Democrat in the Whitehouse"? Where is his source?

What source is he using to claim that Obama is legalizing pot?

As far as "Kweers" having full "reign" (as in a king??? or did you actually mean rein, as in what you use on a horse?).....haha. This is an example of fear mongering/the sky is falling. It is fallacious as well as down-right asinine and shows the intelligent reader how juvenile the writer really is.

As for the last part: "make children attend school even more". Are you frigging joking??? hahahaha.

OMG!!! Heaven forbid that our children actually spend more time in school!!! Gosh, they might even learn something! We definitely wouldn't want that, now would we?!!! If they actually learn, they might become free-thinkers!!! Then we couldn't fill their heads with ill conceived, biased opinions!!! GASP!!!

So in conclusion, boys and girls; when you argue a point, please debate intelligently. Thanks.
This has been a public service announcement.

As far as the other poster just above his: "gay men being in the locker room with" you. Guess what dude; they probably already are there in the locker room, latrine, shower, etc; and they probably have been for years. Have they caused you any problems yet? Do you think once they dump DA/DT, they're going to 'jump your bones'? ha Maybe you think they're going to 'slowly undress you with their eyes'. haha Come on, dude. Get over it. If anyone sexually harasses you, report them. It's very simple.

And the other poster, in regards to homophobe:

(ho•mo•pho•bia)
n.
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discriminationagainst homosexuality or homosexuals

(Bold is mine)

It's not an insult to be called a homophobe. If a person does not like gays or lesbians or is averse to them, or discriminates against them, this IS in fact defined as homophobia. Look it up in a few dictionaries.

As usual: The bottom line is:

Dump DA/DT

Thanks

Peace
Paul J.

Obviously gays do not reproduce more gays so the "gay gene" should have evolved out of the human species a long time ago. What gays do is recruit lonely, confused, heartbroken or horny young men. Once these young people participate in those acts they feel compelled to continue until the guilt goes away. Guess what? It won't.

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
.....What gays do is recruit lonely, confused, heartbroken or horny young men. Once these young people participate in those acts they feel compelled to continue until the guilt goes away. Guess what? It won't.

Is this your opinion, or your theory, or are you claiming this as a fact?

If it is a fact:

When was your survey conducted?

How many gays did you poll?

What were the questions you asked them?

Where was the poll taken?

Or did you get this 'fact' from another source? If so, please cite the source so I can look it up for myself.

If none of the above questions are answered, I will just take it that your statement is .....yet another one of your opinions.

As usual, thank you for sharing your entertaining and insightful thoughts.

But yet again, I request that you please provide facts if you really want to make your case.

So far in all these threads (including this one), I have seen no logical reason why we should keep DA/DT. I have seen a great many facts (supported by cited references) in favor of repealing DA/DT. I have seen no facts, no studies, no polls, zip in favor of keeping DA/DT.

Please, give me scientific reasoning, give me facts, give me logic. Argue your case intelligently.


Peace,
Paul

No one seems to be addressing the logistics of gays in the military. I see many other problems with Gays in the military that will result in deaths in combat and assaults on Post, but will limit my discussion primarily to this one aspect as I think it has been overlooked. Obviously, gay men showering with the general male population would be equivalent to unisex showers. Or, separate quarters and showers for gays like we now have for males and females destroying the comradier that makes units effective.

We may have fairly private peacetime living quarters, but on my recent trip to Iraq (JUL 08 - JUN 09),and my return, I was frequently quarterd where showers were large rooms with multiple shower heads mounted along the walls. I suspect a gay man seeing someone bend over to pick up their soap or shampoo would be affected much as I would be to see a female in the same position - and after many months of sexual abstenance, I predict disasterous results.
Quarters for E1 thru 06 were frequently open squadbays for nearly a hundred soldiers (some places provided VIP rooms for Colonels) where soldiers normall return from showers and are seen in various stages of dress - to naked. Being observed by a gay soldier would cause problems even if it did not amount to anything more then "looking." I base this on my experience in civilian Gyms, which I have in the past quit because of being over oogled (and I'm 67)! Unit cohesion? Trust in your "Battle Buddy?" Please!