DONT ASK DONT TELL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Cheaper2buyit]

to stay on topic I think this story will die very soon on both sides were tring to be scared of what the voters were going to say. Its always hard to know who to piss off the gays or the conservs. However Obama did get 1 win out of many hits. Please don't turn my obama comment in too a debate

[john_galt]

Catnip open your eyes, I have already written that two of my best guys were gay. I didn't then and I don't now have a problem with individual gay because they are gay. Being a conservative I judge people as individuals. Some people are just A**holes whether they are gay, black, women, or butterscotch. I'm not going to shy aware because someone is of a "protected class".

[Guest052813-01]

As far as I am concerned, the commissioned officers in charge of the military (i.e., the Joint Chiefs of Staff) should know what is the right thing to do when it comes to the recruitment, service and discharge of members of the armed forces, in all aspects, including sexual orientation. I was originally thinking that the civilian leadership should accept the recommendations of the JCS when it comes to how social experimentation would affect the morale of the members of the armed forces, including allowing openly gay servicemen/servicewomen to remain in the military. But then, I remembered when African-Americans were finally integrated into the active service - at first, the JCS wanted to keep blacks segregated for fear of the backlash and morale issues (especially in areas of the South where Jim Crow laws existed). It took the civilian authority to order the military to integrate and it became successful. Same thing could be said for having women being allowed into all military divisions except for active wartime infintry divisions - that has become successful too. Why can't gay military members be allowed the same consideration?

And, just to remind you, I am a conservative who understands that the purpose of the military is to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and, when called upon, to kill people and break things. And whoever volunteers to serve the country in this matter, regardless of their personal beliefs, deserve our respect.

[Miss_Mya]

Having very limited knowledge in the way the American military works I guess now that the DADT policy is gone they would have no choice to allow them to be open and proud. I mean from a recent article I read they are now going to allow women officers on board submarines so now maybe it is about time to put everything else on the table as well. IMO.

[dirty dog]

To those of you who stayed on topic and answered the question thank you, to those of you who just like to hear yourselves talk or tell the world of your life experiences as if it cares well...................... I better not say what I am thinking

[john_galt]

To answer the question; the military will obey orders whatever they are. Do I think that gay people belong in the military? Anyone who is not in control of their impulses causes problems with the military. Rape, assault, counter-assault, exposed public sex are all problems along with the creation of close personal bonds that influence decision making between commanders and subordinates. From my experience the military does not want to get involved in sexual matters between servicepeople if it can be helped. I can just imagine the problems that will be involved. Finally, I see this as a political ploy by a very small minority to score a victory, any victory. Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder championed the cause for women in the military but held back from holding women fully accountable; the draft, voluntary discharges for being pregnant, avoiding duty assignments for being pregnant hurting a units ability to take the war the war to the enemy.
I think this should be discussed in the terms of not social agendas but military readiness. The earlier comparison between being black and gay is not applicable. I would keep DADT even if it looks like Bill Clinton may have gotten one right.

[dirty dog]

"Do I think that gay people belong in the military? Anyone who is not in control of their impulses causes problems with the military. Rape, assault, counter-assault, exposed public sex are all problems along with the creation of close personal bonds that influence decision making between commanders and subordinates."

From this are we to assume you believe that gay people are not in control of their impulses? Careful this comment might be thought to be homophobic. If nothing else its a ridiculous comment and shows a very limited view of the facts.

[john_galt]

No, you can't assume that. Read what I say and not read something into what I say. I'm talking about the straight man who can't keep his hands off the women serving next to him and I'm talking about the gay man who can't seem to help doing the same thing. Neither of them belongs in the service. If this inability is in everything that they do then we end up with My Lai and Abu Graib. People who can't control themselves.


Let's also dispense with media created term "homophobic" which would mean "fear of yourself" if properly translated. I prefer to think for myself rather than let Dan Rather do my thinking.

[dirty dog]

"Let's also dispense with media created term "homophobic" which would mean "fear of yourself" if properly translated. I prefer to think for myself rather than let Dan Rather do my thinking."

I think for myself quite well thankyou. You might want to review your posting because you begin by referencing Gays and never mention straight men, so it's pretty obvious that you wrote what you meant. Fraudian slip maybe?

[BiggestBest]

No dog in this hunt, but I'm just curious:

Can you name one person who can control themselves?

Wherever people are involved, we will always end up with some level of crapola. It's learning to work within that reality that generates success.

[TH64083]

Originally Posted by topnotchmassage

I say this with no offense intended...
but As educated as you are, this post 'sounds' relatively ignorant.
It is true that of new HIV infections among men, approximately 60% were spread through homosexual sex BUT
It is ALSO true that approximately 50% of the men infected are black.
and Of new HIV infections among women, approximately 75% were spread through heterosexual sex.
Perhaps we should not allow straight women or black men to serve, eh?..

If we are talking HIV here, sexual orientation has little or no place in the discussion. It is a killer of people regardless of how it contracted. You always have the risk of contaminated blood supplies. The blood bank does not put sexual orientation on the blood bag label, nor should the military put that label on the "walking blood bags". Sorry for stating the obvious.

If the discussion is gays in the military, I have never served and can not comment on unit cohesion or morale issues. However, if the logical progression of the argument is to eliminate gays in the military to eliminate contaminated blood supplies . . . . well that is not supported by fact or logic.

[topnotchmassage]

"You might want to review your posting because you begin by referencing Gays and never mention straight men, so it's pretty obvious that you wrote what you meant."

That...sorry, JG...is very similar to what I was thinking...
and how it came across to me.
Maybe he didn't mean it like it read.