What I find most disturbing is that when we were drafting people to go to nam openly gays were forced to serve and fight but after the combat was over the military threw them out.

Why the outrage? Gays can still serve. Stop your bi#*%in about all that gay rights crap. You can still serve your country. Just keep it to yourself. If a gay person can shoot them 300m targets with ease i dont give a fu*%. Welcome aboard.

The outrage is that even saying you are gay is grounds for dismissal. The policy, as currently written, means that if it is even KNOWN that you are gay you're kicked out.

Even getting married or a civil-union is grounds for dismissal. What does that have to do with conduct IN the military?

Of course, the same rules of sexual conduct should apply to everyone within the barracks. Straight or gay. But, just SAYING you are gay should NOT be a good reason to kick someone else.

People should be able to join the military without lying about who they are. As long as you follow the same rules as everyone else in doing your job, it shouldn't matter whether you're a guy with a boyfriend or a woman with a girlfriend.

We're losing good people over this, and it's time for it to stop.

bodo1152

As long as the rules for "keeping their private life private" are the same for straight and gay, I could live with that.

I agree, jock.

bobdaddytoo

I assume you are insinuating you were in the service during the Viet Nam War - if so, thanks for the service - if you did not serve during that time period you may be misinformed.

as a Viet Nam vet myself it is at times hard to remember that was 40 years ago but I would ask you this "bobdaddy" exaactly how many "openly gay" soldiers were you aware of?

I personally don't recall any "openly gays".....and I am pretty sure they would not have even survived boot camp let alone a tour in Nam. And I am certain any other veterans from this time period will concur.

And if they were "drafted" it was for two years active service - boot camp, ait ,and a tour in Nam took care of the obligation so they were out - they didn't need to be thrown out after a tour in Nam.

Times have changed, society has changed - I am for "open" service of any and all gays.

But I'm pretty certain that was not the mood of the Military 40 years ago - very certain.

Sorry, bopdaddytoo, but your statement (1.1) is just plain bullsh**t! I was assigned to a basic training installation during the Vietnam buildup, and as soon as gays were identified, they were given a general discharge as quickly as possible.

Ralph,

Who cares why they want to seve;if they want to be there let them. I'm only guessing here, but I believe the "Don't ask" policy is there to protect gays from being harassed or worse. No, it may not be right that they have to keep it to themselves, but that's the rule. Until the rule changes, that's what they have to abide by.

I agree. The policy simply says don't be open about it. The gays want everyone to like what they do. Most poeple don't and they don't want to know, see and hear about it day in and day out. That's just the way it is.

The outrage is that even if these men and women in uniform keep their private lives away from the military and abide by DADT, it hasn't stopped people from reporting them to the military because they are honest in their public lives outside of the military. This has happened many, many times and brave men and women who fight for us lose their careers over this unfair policy.

I agree that any advertisement of one's sexual preferences should be kept private.

This includes any posters (for example those Betty Grable ww2 posters, which could indicate a soldier's preference), right?

What IS unconstitutional is that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" guideline appears to apply only to homosexuals. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" applies to everyone, then fine!

But it doesn't.

Straights should keep their private lives private, as well. In fact, no one should be allowed to say anything to anyone at any time. There should be compelte silence about everything, and then everyone will be happy, because they won't have to be concerned about anything at all since nothing can offend them.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach didn't tell, he was outed by someone else. So I guess the policy is "Don't ask, don't find out, don't tell." Apparently medals awarded in the military are meaningless.

Most of you people commenting on just this first string alone are ignorant, hypocritical, BIGOTS who sadly still make up at least half this country, and that's exactly why the U.S. is far from being "#1" anymore. Hell, up until only 4 months ago, we were a shoe-in for @$$holes of the universe grand-prize award!

Did you know that Marines refer to women as "Suzie rotten crotch" in boot camp? Anybody see the statistics of women who are brave enough to serve in the military who are often sexually harassed or worse? Oh, but I'm sure they deserve it right??? Oh, and BTW; making fun of an entire minority group of people because they want equal rights and protection!?? SHAMEFUL, SHAMEFUL, SHAMEFUL.

I too am a Vietnam era veteran. The military did not draft openly gay citizens into the military services during the Vietnam war for combat duties or otherwise. That assertion is clearly not based upon facts.

My experience was similar to the other veterans who were drafted or joined during that conflict and have made comments here: if a guy in our unit had been identified as being gay during our basic training, advanced training, or our service unit, the tenor of the other guys would have reflected their disapproval of that lifestyle and the person. That was 40 years ago.

Times have changed since then and the acceptance of individual lifestyles has changed as well. Overall, - not totally - not completely - but, overall, people across the U.S. are more accepting of the lifestyle for many different reasons.

However, the Court, and Mr. Obama's own administration - interestingly enough - have recognized that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is "rationally related to the governments legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." And that's the issue for the government. Does the government have a legitimate interest in military discipline and the necessary cohesion of a unit for that unit to effect its mission in the field to adhere to the don't ask, don't tell policy?

An off-handed comment about Christians dying for their country instead of gays was made by a commentator as well. Contrary to media reports, uninformed blogger comments, and stereotypical ignorance of Christians in general, I know no Christians who are "homophobic" demoralize or "throw stones" at those who engage in the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, those who practice that lifestyle are welcome in homes, churches, and other gatherings and made to feel welcome. While the Scriptural message that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is sin, the person is not condemned because of their sin. But for the Grace of God, we'd all be condemned.

ANY American Citizen that WANTS to defend our country should have that RIGHT. Who they sleep with, who they want to marry, who they have relationships with, who they are sexually attracted to is NOBODY'S BUSINESS but their own.

I think they got it right north of the border, in 1967 when then Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said "There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Now why doesn't our government, in 2009 have that same attitude when our government is supposed to be secular, based on separation of church and state? Oh that's right, because the majority of voters in this country are Chiristian, because the Christian right is still powerful and because our politicans are afraid to piss of Christians, who make up the majority of their voters. Now THAT is what I consdier to be "immoral".

I'm not even gay but I'm fed up of this non-sense. I have friends who are gay and I'm fed up of people treating them like dirt and I'm fed up of our government being for majority rights and not minority rights based on equality. It will change one day. The older generation is still holding us back in this country. That will change in a few years.

The more troublesome issue here isn't the policy itself, but the fact that the Supreme Court of the most powerful country in the world (a country who prides itself on spreading freedom and democracy, a country who is willing to fight to the death for freedom) is afraid to step into the fray and rule on this issue.

What we have, my friends, is a bunch of 'fraidy cats on the Supreme Court. They don't want to upset anyone.

Isn't this sad?

Very sad. Shameful.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think for everyone's protection in the military, the don't ask, don't tell rule seems to work !

For those of you who have not been in the military, I can only ask that you defer to the opinion of many who have on this issue.

Most of us know that we were serving with gays (the old numbers, I heard were that about 1 in 20 were gay in the military.) Not a problem as long as it was not an open issue.

Everyone in the military has an opinion about what is correct conduct, do you think for a moment that in combat, someone is not going to act upon it, if the opportunity arises ? Yes, I believe it is better to go with everyone in the unit supporting their comrades in arms.

I equate this issue along with some of the "DUMB" comments that I have heard over the years. I have heard so many people say, why don't we take criminals from the prisions and put them into combat units to fight? WOW ! That one always amazes me. My usual response was: Do you as a parent think that you want your son or daughter serving along side known felony criminals ?

This issue may seem different, but overall it will boil down to something similar. Do you want your higher ranking NCO or Commanding officer to be openly gay and able to solicit favors from the lower ranks ? (Yes, some of you will say that there are procedures to stop that kind of activity whether by a heterosexual or homosexual, but I would strongly suggest, that these actions will not result in a cohesive unit.)

Out society still has a very strong religious majority (??), that views this type of conduct as both immoral and illegal, so the present policy is in keeping with our Nation's norms.

The ruling was correct. As I have stated in previous posts, our Troop's duty is to protect our country, not declare their sexual preference. Don't ask, don't tell lets eveyone serve equally. They enlisted to SERVE, not troll for sex partners.

Thank you Thomas! Thank you so much for such a thoughtful anology! As a law-abiding gay man, I just love being compared to felons. Have you considered sharing your wisdom with the masses on a broader level? Perhaps a radio show in North Dakota or Kentucky?

Wow! You're so right willowbrook! Because armed services men NEVER shoot the $hit about nailing chicks! That would be wrong and disgusting! No those gay men will talk about sex like nothing. Perverts I tell ya, perverts!

The ruling was correct. As I have stated in previous posts, our Troop's duty is to protect our country, not declare their sexual preference. Don't ask, don't tell lets eveyone serve equally. They enlisted to SERVE, not troll for sex partners.

I can't figure out why any gay American would want to put their life on the line to defend scum like you, but apparently some LGBT people in this country do indeed love this country so much (despite our lack of respect for their rights) that they would want to sign up to defend it. It is WRONG for our government to deny them that right.

As for soldiers declaring their sexuality ... believe me, if you have ever spent any time around Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, NC, then you would KNOW that sex isthe most discussed topic in that place ... oh but those are just straight men talking about screwing women, I guess that's "different" right? Yeah. That's what I thought. Hypocrite.

The Supreme Court made the correct ruling. When will these people who want everyone to know how they have sex think that we all want to make this out to be normal. It isn't.

I believe in liberty and that includes the right to be who you are. That would also mean we should allow people to disagree with us as long as they don't impose on our liberty. If I demand you respect my values at your expense I may be stepping on your freedom, it seems to me there is a fine line between respecting and imposing. Maybe we should all think about that idea.

This law makes it very difficult for gay/lesbian people to get into the army and stay there. As secretive as the army is, personal gossip flies in downtime when not much is going on. It inserts a very weird era for the army, in that some members have not learned to embrace everyone they fight alongside (which is the bigger issue, they should be reprimanded for that behavior, not the target of their misconduct). Because when it comes down to it, you are right the unit comes first, and soldiers should treat those they fight alongside like soldiers regardless of who they are. Asking a small group to rise above the misconduct of others is just wrong. Special treatment for gays in the military? No. Supporting a law that makes it legal to boot them when you find out their sexual orientation? Absolutely absurd.

There was a time when Blacks couldn't serve.

There was a time when Women couldn't serve.

It would have been difficult for them to "don't ask and don't tell", eh?

We need to lose religion when it comes to forming policies for the military. What idiot wouldn't want 'gays' to help in defending the country?

Yeah! Seperate but equal! Right UncleReamUs!? Oh, wait, I think that was deemed unconstitutional a few DECADES ago. "Wish to be gay?" Mmm hmm, because it was always my dream to be a second class citizen now that I think about it! Pathetic.

Doubting Thomas 1

Do you want your higher ranking NCO or Commanding officer to be openly gay and able to solicit favors from the lower ranks ? (Yes, some of you will say that there are procedures to stop that kind of activity whether by a heterosexual or homosexual, but I would strongly suggest, that these actions will not result in a cohesive unit.)

I saw plenty of this happening with heterosexuals in charge in the eighties when women were integrated. If the ratio of gays to straights in the service is 1 to 20 like you say, How often do you think this will happen??? Hmmmmmmmm? Allot less than heteros doing the same I can assure you. There was allot more sexual hanky panky (fish bowl parties, adultery, rape.....etc.) going on from heterosexual service members when I was in, than was with homosexuals.

Out society still has a very strong religious majority (??), that views this type of conduct as both immoral and illegal, so the present policy is in keeping with our Nation's norms.

Homosexual conduct is not illegal in this country. Hasn't been for a long time pal.

More dribble from the mis-informed I see.

I agree with the decision to keep the don't ask don't tell. Heterosexuals should also keep their sex lives private as well. Here is the part I find distressing--the court didn't hear this on the request of the Obama administration. Not only has Obama this week usurped the Constitutional rights of the Legislature (see "Grassley"), Now he is usurping the Supreme Courts right to be a separate branch of government by exerting undue influence on them.

Obama, read the Constitution you say you taught occassionally as a visiting instructor (you claimed to be a professor) at Columbia. Read the part about separation of powers which is to supply checks and balances--primarily checks on the Administrative Branch--YOU!

You don't write bills, you sign or don't sign what is sent to you and you keep you hands off decisions by the Supreme Court unless you are the one who has standing to bring forth a case. That's what I learned in Constitutional Law anyway.

Shame on the Supreme Court for this one. Their support of the argument that "the policy fosters cohesion in military units" or that the "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." is anything but ludicrous. Then the military should not be allowed to discuss politics, or religion, or even sports because those topics really wreak havoc on cohesion; we have all been witnesses to that!

This is a matter of freedom of expression. If GLBT people have the right to express their orientation and identity in other venues of life, why should this right be restricted to them in the military?

And shame on Obama too, for not helping overturn the policy, as he said he would during his campaign. But I guess one more unkept promise no longer comes as a surprise to many.

Who wouldn't want gays in the military you ask??? Well a lot of straight men do not want to shower or sleep in close quarters with some amorous gay (male or female). Yikes!

The ruling was correct. As I have stated in previous posts, our Troop's duty is to protect our country, not declare their sexual preference. Don't ask, don't tell lets eveyone serve equally. They enlisted to SERVE, not troll for sex partners.

actually, dadt PREVENTS everyone from serving equally.

it needs to go, it's an outdated bigoted policy!

Yes! Exactly! Those gays are just so without any self-control whatsoever! Stay classy juno, stay classy!

This is an issue that gays and gay rights supporters just do not seem to understand.  Although Christians and other people like me who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, we understand that there are those who choose (and YES, I did say choose) the gay lifestyle.  If that is the life they choose to live, it is their choice and we hope someday that they will see that that lifestyle is condemned by God and man.  We see that it is sin, and as it is with any other sin, it is morally wrong.  Here is where the rub comes in...  Where there is sin in my life, I recognize it as such, and I try to change it.  I do not make excuses for it or try to change the world to make my sin acceptable to God and man.  Gays try to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us.  They look for validation from the straight world that their choice is OK.  They look for the straight world to say, "Same sex marriage should be legal."  It does not matter that a civil union grants the same rights and privileges as a straight couple union, they want those who are straight to acknowledge their union as a legitimate and moral choice.  Since the majority of people see that homosexuality is immoral and sinful, they look to the courts to make the straight world accept it as legitimate.  That is the whole purpose of "Don't ask, Don't Tell".  We realize their are gay people in the military that want to serve their country... You are welcome to do that and we thank you for your service, but do not try to use the military to legitimize your sexual choice.

Interesting Obama is the one who kept the court from considering and perhaps striking down don't ask don't tell. Now all you homosexuals who voted for him because he promised to take care of this--what do you think of him now! Cheney was much more supportive of the gay community and you vilified him. What think you now??

Obama isn't keeping many campaign promises--except those about sitting down with our enemies and having tea while insulting all our allies. Nice move! From this we will probably need all bodies gay or straight, men women and children to inlist in all the ward brewing because of Obama's failed policies.

Yesterday PM Rasmussen polls reported that those who Strongly believe Obama is doing a good job is 35% and those who Strongly oppose his work so far is 32%. Rasmussen is statistically the most accurate poll in the nation and they give Obama now a +3. I'm thinking with all the gays there are this interference by Obama should put the poll at equal or even minus numbers and sinking fast--as it should. Obama had no business interfering with what the court does or does not hear.

Drowning Grover--

For the same reasons, I doubt women enlistees would feel comfortable showering with men even those with "self control." Get it now??? Gays are actually the opposite sex to normal males.

Yes Dennis, because you obviously are an expert in human psychology/sociology because you believe in an invisible, intangible, and omnipotent being on high. You're still a discriminatory bigot, whether it be in God's name or not. Jesus will be so proud! As a matter of fact, I can't wait for you and your ilk to meet him! Where's that rapture when you need it?????

Since when does the President advise the Supremes?

Sad. Sad days. Sad times. Pitiful.

I suppose this is what Obama meant by "Change".

A few thoughts from a 29 year veteran of the Marine Corps--who has two lifelong friends, both wonderful people who I dearly love, who happen to be homosexual. We can deal with the world the we would LIKE it to be or the way it IS. When it comes to having an effective military (the only kind worth having), it's better to deal with the world the way it IS. Say what you want about the military's role being to "defend" not to "kill". Indeed, our role IS to defend. But let me tell you something--the way we fulfill that role is by being prepared for, and being effective at killing. And by that, I don't mean just pulling a trigger, which anyone can do. I mean driving home the bayonet (figuratively speaking); I mean closing with and destroying the enemy through fire, maneuver and CLOSE COMBAT. The personal qualities required to be an effective combatants are as much in the spririt as in the physical. That spirit, and those qualities are inherently masculine. Gay men, with some exceptions, are inherently UN-masculine, and some are very effeminate. Their very presence (or more specifically, their "open" presence) in a unit will undermine that unit's collective self image as a "tough" "macho" (fill in the adjective) band of brothers. the warrior mindset, driven by self image and other purely psychological factors, is at least as important to combat effectiveness as equipment and training. Napolean's way of expressing this transcendent fact was his statement that, in combat "...the spirit is to the material as three is to one." Put an other way, psychological factors are MUCH more important than material factors. The psychology of testoterone driven 19 year old young men (the population we draw upon to fight our battles) does not follow an enlightened script. It's visceral and it's even primal whether we would wish it to be so or not. Spirit, sometimes called fighting spirit or esprit de corps is something vaguely understood by many, but it's vital role as the foundation of combat effectiveness is understood by few who have not served in the combat arms. Logic may tell you that sexual orientation shouldn't matter. The psychology of young--primarily masculine--men says otherwise.

There are those who will ask that if "masculinity" were so important, then why are women so successful in the military? I will tell you that the support units in which they serve are typically very good and very professional in their support roles of admin, logistics, maintenance, etc. They are also much less effective combatants than they once were as all male units. You can argue all you want about how this shouldn't (logically) be the case. I will just tell you, with no political filters, that it IS the case. Most women are feminine (sue me, but it's true). Their presence in a unit introduces a feminizing factor that, while it has some advantages, also works against the "warrior" mindset that is part of a maculine combat culture. That loss has been deemed acceptable in non-combat units--though the performance of Jessica Lynch's maintenance unit when suddenly thrust into a "death match" should be a poster child for the loss of this warrior mindset. The Army tried to sell it--and her--as the opposite. To her great credit, she refused to accept the "Amazon warrior" story they tried to build around this incident. She acknowledged that all she did was drop her weapon and hide her face in her hands. They were a great bunch of mechanics--not such a great bunch of warriors. There is not--in the history of man--a culture or civilization that uses women as warriors. For those that claim Israel does: you're wrong. They tried it in their first war, discovered what a failure it was and women's roles in the Israeli military are now FAR more limited than in ours. It goes to many things (muscle strength, aerobic endurance) but the primary driver of their decision--after having actually tried it--was the effect it had on morale and cohesion in combat units.

Closing with and destroying the enemy, the mission of combat units, is all about self confidence and self image. It goes hand in hand with swagger, "manliness" if you will. For young men, homosexuality is the very antithesis of those qualities. You can recite to me the list of countries that allow open homosexuality. I've seen them in action. Most of the non gays are humiliated and the mindset in those units is categorically NOT a warrior mindset. Are there gays who can perform in combat as well or better than any macho, straight guy? Absolutely. Will seeing them walk around hand in hand with their "boyfriends" or in a liplock with another guy destroy cohesion in their units? In spades. But hey, no price is too high for those who can't abide traditional values.

The overwhelming majority of the manpower pool that we depend upon to man and lead our combat units are young, straight males (with a disproportionately high percentage being very traditional in outlook and mindset). They will stay away in droves rather than serve in a military that is "gay friendly" and most of the people driving this agenda aren't going to sign up to replace that loss of manpower. For the average American, this issue is viewed as one of "fairness." Since the average American is also inherently fair minded, they support the open service of gays. That support is based on a very superficial understanding--and since the media is inherently on the left of this issue it won't do anything to incease the depth of understanding of the public at large.

In the end, the military's role is to preserve the liberal society and its freedoms. But if forced to conform itself to ALL of society's liberal standards, it will become less and less effective in that role--eventually to the point that it will not be sufficiently effective to preserve that society. No one has an inherent "right" to be in the military. This may not be pretty. It's certainly not politically correct. But it's fact nonetheless.

The solution is simple. A separate all-gay military. Any ideas on the uniforms and artillery? I've got some but, I'll let someone else start it off.

Michaeal Martinez said:

Yes Dennis, because you obviously are an expert in human psychology/sociology because you believe in an invisible, intangible, and omnipotent being on high. You're still a discriminatory bigot, whether it be in God's name or not. Jesus will be so proud! As a matter of fact, I can't wait for you and your ilk to meet him! Where's that rapture when you need it?????

Dennis said:

I am always amazed when someone is personally attacked because they do not agree with another's opinion. I do not hate you, dislike you, or want any bad thing to befall you, I simply do not agree with you. I said nothing discriminatory or bigoted, I just stated facts and my opinion. I am sorry that your homosexuality has made you thinned skinned and sensitive. I did not mean to make you want to "scratch my eyes out". I just pointed out that the true and living God says that homosexuality is a sin, as well as the majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is sinful and wrong.

Michael Martinez-430183

Thank you Thomas! Thank you so much for such a thoughtful anology! As a law-abiding gay man, I just love being compared to felons. Have you considered sharing your wisdom with the masses on a broader level? Perhaps a radio show in North Dakota or Kentucky?

Obviously, some of us need a reading course, when it comes to comparisons. I was equating "DUMB COMMENTS" made by people as solutions to problems, not that GAYS were as bad as FELONS.

I do see that there is always going to be a issue as others have pointed out that many of you, if you are gay, want the rest of us to openly accept your behavior, it's not going to happen for many of us as far as the military goes.

Gay Vet

Please don't think that the argument that there are problems with heterosexual conduct, and everything that goes along with it justifies that we should go ahead and have additional problems with openly Gay conduct in the military.

Women in the military are going to present problems with the very same issues as mentioned above. How do we solve that problem ? Don't know other than what is being done under UCMJ. (Keeping the command structure separate for men and women in the military might help, but I know it will not solve the problem.)

Also, I did not imply that there was a current problem with Gays in the military, I was refering to the future, if there were changes made to the rules.

You are correct that the current law in America does not view homosexuality as illegal, but if you look at much of the world it is still considered a crime.

I just can't resist.

"Here we have Juan in a tight-fitting pair of camoflauge Rock and Republic brand bootcuts with a sequined baby blue halter top. In this outfit, your enemy will have no problem "sizing up" the competition on the battlefield. 'Semper Fi' boys"

Since gays, apparently, choose to be gay, then why don't they just sign something when they join the military that says they won't be gay while showering?

I applaud teh high courts decision and hope that the integrity of the military be set apart from what is ocurring in the six states, and New Hampshire's new law will also be overturned. Contrary to the arguemetn, America is not on board with same-sex marriage.

Dennis, when you're opinion encroaches on my civil rights or in this case lack thereof, please forgive my lack of enthusiasm towards your "opinion." I'm sorry that your membership into organized religion has made you narrow-minded. I certainly don't need to "scratch your eyes out" either, since you seem plenty blind already. Speaking of blind, here's a verse from your precious bible: Matthew 15:14; "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." That "ditch" for those who don't know it back then is what we call a grave today. Forgive me if I don't bring you flowers Dennis.

"Next is Brad in a pair of olive drab Levi's Capital E's. Matched with a hot-pink 'Celebrate Diversity' T-shirt, your opponent will be saying 'I surrender' faster than a proposition-eight protester can to a riot cop."

Well Said.

Doubting Thomas

Also, I did not imply that there was a current problem with Gays in the military, I was refering to the future, if there were changes made to the rules.

There are gays in the military now, enlisted and officers. Do we have this problem currently? What makes you think it will happen if they are open?

You are correct that the current law in America does not view homosexuality as illegal, but if you look at much of the world it is still considered a crime.

Mute point as we are talking about the U.S. Military and not another countries military.

This is nauseous....

That we should have to be bogged down with this non-sense is incredible. My son serves in the military and finds it ridiculous to think that one of his fellow soldiers is sizing him up in the showers and that it is okay. Hope they never meet in the waters... because someone will get decked in a hurry. And it won't be my son.

The whole gay issue was better left in the closet... but unless those who beleive it is a perversion in life (and a wrong choice that is made in confusion) step to the microphone and keep a clear conviction... with a huge accent of tolerance... then we will be plaqued further down the line with a relentless assault on sanity.

"Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant of gay marriage than are older generations".

This is what the new system of eroded education has brought us. There needs to be a reversal. The school system and the breakdown of good traditional values (not stereotypical) has taken over control of the family unit and convinced us that Dad is a burning intolerant and misunderstanding person. Mom is out of touch and has a monopoly on wisdom in the family, and children are born far wiser than their parents.

With the path that America is taking... the latter may be a true statement.

"And here we have Sebastian. With a DKNY brand black leather vest, worn open to show off the time spent down in the weight room and a pair of red leather pants, this soldier will be a hit at the officer's club or in the back room getting his 'weapon' ready for target practice. 'Ready, Aim, Fire!"

Funny, after reading your discriminatory, hateful, bigoted post, I'm suddenly nauseous too Where is America?! Thanks! I hope you're wearing your "#1 dad" cap as you dole out these words of wisdom! Classy!

P.S. - You know where your America is? It's on it's deathbed. Maybe it'll be buried next the Americas of the past such as slavery is ok America and raping your wife is legal America. Ooh, let's not forget about the late uncle nobody-can-vote-except-men America!

So if the policy changes to allow openly gay service personel will we then have to create another set of baracks for those service personel or do we house the gay guys with the straight girls and the gay girls with the straight guys?  If not, than I sure would have liked to have slept next to a nice young lady when I was in boot camp.  I would probably even lie about my preference to get housed with the girls.  Same thing with being in a fox hole.  Don't think it's a good idea to have a straight male and female in the same hole.What's the difference?  Give me a break people.  Either leave the "don't ask don't tell" policy in  place, no matter how lame it is, or go back to what was before that.  Can't the homos leave some things alone?

Dear Mikey Martinez...

Just where is the hateful?

Where is the bigoted?

Where is the discriminitory?

And #1 Dad Caps are cool when they're given to you by someone who thinks you are number one. Why are you against them? Do you have a problem with traditional families?

Svenolafson

You don't have any self control?

"Last is Remy, with a pink beret and matching combat boots, a pink denim v-neck top and short-shorts, this outfit screams 'Out of the closet and onto the battlefield."

UncleReamUs

"They should just make a Openly Gay Division for those who wish to be Gay. I mean if their willing to saddle up and put it on the line like the rest. Let'em have at it."

Now that's something I can get behind. No pun intended. I can see it now. an openly gay division takes out the enemy in one battle we have a huge propaganda coup. "Gay soldiers beat enemy". Even if they lose the battle it still is great propaganda. "So you beat a bunch of gay guys."

Michael Martinez said:

Dennis, when you're opinion encroaches on my civil rights or in this case lack thereof, please forgive my lack of enthusiasm towards your "opinion." I'm sorry that your membership into organized religion has made you narrow-minded. I certainly don't need to "scratch your eyes out" either, since you seem plenty blind already. Speaking of blind, here's a verse from your precious bible: Matthew 15:14; "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." That "ditch" for those who don't know it back then is what we call a grave today. Forgive me if I don't bring you flowers Dennis.

Dennis says:

Wow... Thank you for opening my eyes! All this time, I have followed God, when YOU have all the answers. How could I have been so blind and narrow minded? OK let me see if I have this straight...lol, silly me, let me rephrase that. OK let me see if I understand the road to ... to where ever it is that you are going.

#1 Don't believe in anything silly... like God or moral value.

#2 Don't say anything that everyone doesn't agree with.

#3 Gay is Good, God is bad. Ignorance will save you in the end.

#4 Refer to a Bible scripture that has the total opposite meaning to what you think it means.

Sorry, I can't follow your lead... on many levels. You may be a great guy... you may be a jerk. "As for me and my family, we choose to serve God." The following is not meant as a slam or an insult or to be demeaning in any way... I will pray for you. And that is the truth and I will keep my promise.

To Glen - an incredibly good post, very insightful.....

To Michael Martinez - I don't want to hear the heterosexual or gay sex talk. I find both offensive. (and that goes for you calling me scum and a hyoocrite Independent Thinker, you are way off base!) I also find it offensive that you both would attack me when my stance didn't say you couldn't be gay or that you shouldn't be in the Military. BUT, when in the Military, you need to CONFORM to the rules. They can't make exceptions because you don't like it. The Military spends a lot of time teaching their recruits to toe the line. There is a reason for that. The continuity they teach makes a better soldier. You are there to be a soldier, not an activist. If you want to be an activist, don't sign up. This is a VOLUNTEER Military, you can choose not to participate. Keep the soldier's priorities in line with his duties, not his recreational activities.

To Dennis, post 1.64, that was GOOD!

I will pray for you too Dennis. As hard as it is to do so, I must wish you well, and remember that no weapon forged against me shall prosper, even yours made in the name of God. So keep cursing us, because you bless us more. As hard as it is, I'll keep thinking about how the true God asks us to pray for those who mistreat me.

Love the bold BTW Dennis. Nice and flashy!

I can't imagine being an honerable soldier of any gender, and having to lay next to an openly gay person in a Veteran's Hospital of any sorts.  That would Gag a Magot!!!

If your wounded in action beside me.....Bad New Is.....your gonna die!!! 

After a comment like that, I can't imagine you to be an honorable being of any kind either DaughterRevWar. Not only are you without honor, but you couldn't even spell the word correctly. LOL! ROTFL!

Gay Vet

"You don't have any self control?"

Gay Vet, if you truly are a vet, why do you think they house the male and female recruits seperately? I was 23 when I enlisted. I saw how 17, 18, and 19 year old boys acted. All hormones. Young, dumb and full of you know what. So don't give me that crap about self control. You're either a liar about your service or a denier about how young men act.

"Last is Remy, with a pink beret and matching combat boots, a pink denim v-neck top and short-shorts, this outfit screams 'Out of the closet and onto the battlefield."

Hey Colonel, you're pretty good at those descriptions. You sure you're not a little light in the loafers too nancy?

Hey,gays were automatically denied from military service during the draft.People would then get a draft card showing they were exempt from service,like 4F.I suggest using a search engine to correct your misconceptions.

To the Colonel,

You posts making fun of gay service member's and you "suggestions" for uniforms are extremely rude and uncalled for.

May Gay men and women have fought honorably for the country they love, the SAME ONE YOU DO! They should be respected for their sacrifices as American Soldiers.

What an ignorant stereotypcial view of people. Do you like it when people generalize about you because of your faith or your political views?

Gender is a culturally created idea of how certain sexes should behave, they have no scientific bearing on someone being normal or not. Just because someone acts more "feminine" doesn't make them abnormal or gay, just like when women act more "masculine" it doesn't make them abnormal either.

The greatest military in history not only support homosexual activity but encouraged it. You are more likely to protect your unit or comrad when you have the most intimate connection with your comrades, (I am not in any way saying we should adopt this, I'm merely pointing out that those who think being openly gay is going to hurt our military are grasping at straws).

I support ALL of our US service members both past or present whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, women or men! You have ALL given so much for so many who don't appreciate you or your sacrfices. This American thanks you, I know I owe you my liberties and my freedoms. Thank you.

Svenolafson

I saw how 17, 18, and 19 year old boys acted.

You're either a liar about your service or a denier about how young men act.

Well, I'm not a liar. You can ask General John M. Shalikashvilli, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. if I am a liar. I think he would tell you otherwise as I was a part of his staff.

Maybe if these "boys" are too immiture to have self control and exercise the responsibilities that we expect them to as soldiers, then maybe they shouldn't be in the military representing our country.

They knew the rule when they signed up. Don't like it don't join. And for those of you clowns that think only little more than half think gays are deviants. Think again. The number is more like 85%. The only reason they sympathize is because of the violence and so called mistreatment of gays perpetuated in the media.

Having worked with many gays I can safely say that they are only loyal to the gay cause and nothing else. Not even their partners. I have heard them mock their parents, back-stab their friends, and generally care only about themselves. In fact both that died of aids refused visitor from all their so called friends/co-workers over over 8+ years, some emancipated from their parents, a couple died from drug overdoses, they are generally the dregs of society.

There was a time when it was felt that African Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans would cause a disruption in the field. They did , but people got over it and these American service men and women have served bravely and some have given their lives.

Why should gay personnel be any different. Why should they have to worry about being "outed" . I don't believe for one minute that this is about flaunting one's sexuality. It is about having to worry about one's "comrade in arms " being a jerk or threatening to out a a fellow soldier as some sort of revenge or possibly an extortion angle.

The sexuality of military personnel shouldn't be an issue period.

To the U.S.Armed Forces... GET OVER IT!

Gays should be able to openly serve just like women should be able to be openly sent into combat situations.

Some of you have a very large misconception about gay people. Most gay people are just plain Americans with the same feelings and desires has everyone else. Very few of them are fundamentalists that turn every issue into a gay issue. But heck (depending who you talk to) all christians are fundamentalists or all muslims are fundamentalists. This blind hate our country has for everything (both from the left and the right) needs to stop.

Also, since women are already sent to combat situations, we need to lift any and all bans on them serving in combat and combat jobs. However, this is one of the few seperate but equal clauses that fundamentalist women love.

Anyway, women and gay people should have the opportunity to serve openly in all military positions.

4thepeople, you're a liar.

This is a sign!

Gay people in CA - listen up. We won't ask about your sex life so please do not tell us about it.

Thank you.

The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is un-American and un-constitutional. Some army we have. You're pround to fight for your country but you'll only do it fighting against straight people. That's total bull.

The gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone, they should be allowed to serve openly in the Army just like straight people do. They're willing to fight for their country, that's the only thing that should matter when you apply to be a solder. Not you're sexuality.

GayVet

4thepeople DID NOT lie. He expressed his opinion and certain facts to which he was a witness.

I confirm that I have experienced many similar situations as expressed by 4thepeople.

As far as I am concerned, I do not agree that gay people have the right to get married because I don't want them adopting any children.

I have never been in the military but for those who do serve, I think it is well within their right to have this rule - don't ask, don't tell - because whether you agree or not - many people find the homosexual lifestyle to be abhorent to them. They have a right to feel this way.

I just keep thinking about the transexual who lied about HIS identity to a man. The man killed him when he found out the truth. While I do not condone murder, I also do not condone what the transexual did. The transexual should have been honest.

The military does not have the time or inclination to be involved with matters such as this so... DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.

I have never been in the military but for those who do serve, I think it is well within their right to have this rule

What right? To promote homophobia in the army? Some right.

I have never been in the military but for those who do serve, I think it is well within their right to have this rule - don't ask, don't tell - because whether you agree or not - many people find the homosexual lifestyle to be abhorent to them. They have a right to feel this way.

Well.........I find "Christians" abhorrent. Do I get a law that says they are banned from the military or that I don't have to see or hear them?

4thepeople saw or experienced no such thing and was exaggerating. His last sentence was a generalisation and bigoted.

Gay Vet

You have a right to your opinion. We also have a right to not care about your opinion just as you have a right not to care about our opinion.

How dare you call someone a liar. You are not God and you are not a Judge.

You have a right to your opinion.

Yet in the courts and army's opinions gays shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in the military and that opinion was put into effect.

we understand that there are those who choose (and YES, I did say choose) the gay lifestyle.

That's just it. You understand nothing. You are completely and utterly ignorant. You try to sell your myths as a fact and present the facts as myths. You live in some kind of upside down world that ignores reality.

Religion can be proven a choice. Being gay cannot. Religion does not occur in nature, yet homosexuality does. For religion to grow and to continue existing, members must be recruited, whereas the only thing required for continued homosexuals is heterosexuals to keep making them.

Which one was a choice again???

As I said below..(stupid browser made me post too far down)

Dennis is obviously attracted to men. Since he thinks you can choose to be homosexual, he understands that he chose to be heterosexual. He just chooses not to date men even though he finds them physcially attractive.

Isn't that right Dennis? Your sexuality is a choice you made?

Ah... the joys of bantering around with Gays!

Gays by far and away are more judgementaland "hetrophobic" than straights are. They flaunt their lifestyle about and try to convert... always. They have convinced so many that they are sane and monogamous... and maybe a few are monogamous. But their bitterness at those who do not agree with this "chosen perversion" is far greater than the common persons... many of whom have thrown up their hands and just let this thing slip into an accepted alternative.

And I am surprised that we as a society are letting this "being led about by uncontrolled desires" be legitimized as though it has to do with ethnicity. Blacks, Hispanics and all other true minorities should be offended by this equalization propaganda. They had some true bones to pick and needed to make headway. Gays don't have a real bone to pick. We are wasting our time and energy on unmovable truth and if the States decide to accept this propaganda... it still will not be right.

Men are men.... and women are women... and they were meant for each other.

Kudos Karen and 4thpeople

Where is America:
Gays by far and away are more judgementaland "hetrophobic" than straights are. They flaunt their lifestyle about and try to convert... always.

Flaunt their lifestyles? You mean like strip joints? Like men and women posting their wedding dates in the newspaper? You mean the constant use of sex-sells advertising that is aimed always at heterosexuals? Men and women that engage in public Displays of Affection? Men hanging up posters and calendars of naked women in places like a public mechanic garage????

Name ONE source that proves your statement that they try to "convert" people into being gay. Because I can give you one that shows heterosexuals trying to convert gay people.. hell I can give you many.

Judgmental? How have you been judged by a gay person? Ohh maybe because you'd like to see them have no rights since you do not agree with their sexual orientation. I'd call that defense not being judgmental.

And if you think it is a choice then you too must be acknowledging that the same sex has the ability to attract you. Because being heterosexual is as much a choice as being homosexual is.

Heteros are annoying, especially those girls who freak out every time there's a hot guy around.

These "inalienable" rights you speak of were "endowed by our Creator." It amazes me that anyone would demand the rights they were endowed with yet refuse to acknowledge he who endowed them to you.

It is like laying claim to the water but being offended by the faucet - pure stupidity.

I admit I am annoying although, I am way past the girly-freaky-outty thing when a good-looking guy looks my way. It does still make me smile though.

Auteur - re: 1.89

That is also very annoying. Gay guys THINK they are the only attractive men on the planet.

Well, my VERY STRAIGHT boyfriend used to be a male model and actor. A leading man type of actor - not a character actor. I had to say that so that you would know that HE'S HOT. He's Italian-American too.

You all just can not believe it. You think all attractive men are gay. WRONG!

He also knows how to dress - all by himself. Some people would call him metrosexual.

He's all man and did I mention he's very attractive?

So - take that stereotype and shove it.

These "inalienable" rights you speak of were "endowed by our Creator." It amazes me that anyone would demand the rights they were endowed with yet refuse to acknowledge he who endowed them to you.

"Our Creator" didn't give us our rights, the people who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did.

It is like laying claim to the water but being offended by the faucet - pure stupidity.

How does that even make sense?

That is also very annoying. Gay guys THINK they are the only attractive men on the planet.

Where did I say that gay men think they're the only attractive men on the planet? I don't know one gay man, and I know a lot of gay men, who has ever refered to himself as the "only attractive man on the planet".

Well, my VERY STRAIGHT boyfriend used to be a male model and actor. A leading man type of actor - not a character actor. I had to say that so that you would know that HE'S HOT. He's Italian-American too.

Good for your boyfriend, glad he's not mine. I prefer the Brits, Scots, Greeks, Irish and Aussies.

You all just can not believe it. You think all attractive men are gay. WRONG!

No, you're wrong and you sound like an idiot saying it.

He also knows how to dress - all by himself. Some people would call him metrosexual.

Wow, what a big boy he is. Go give him a big cookie! *sarcasm*

auteur

when opinions clash -sometimes the courts rule on it.

nevertheless, sometimes there are unresolved opinions and in that case, people ask the courts.

However, the Supreme Court will not hear this issue, so, I guess the opinion of don't ask - don't tell - remains the law.

auteur

Tom Cruise is not gay. My straight boyfriend is just as attractive as Cruise.

That baby Tom and Katie have LOOKS just like Tom.

Do you think Ms. Katie had artificial insemination? It's probably against Scientology.

Where did I say Tom Cruise is gay? I could care less about what Tom Cruise and Katie do.

Quit making a fool of yourself.

And for the record, not all gay men are "good dressers", some of them I wonder what the hell they were thinking when they got dressed. Sexuality has nothing to do with fashion sense.

But let me tell you something--the way we fulfill that role is by being prepared for, and being effective at killing. And by that, I don't mean just pulling a trigger, which anyone can do. I mean driving home the bayonet (figuratively speaking); I mean closing with and destroying the enemy through fire, maneuver and CLOSE COMBAT. The personal qualities required to be an effective combatants are as much in the spririt as in the physical. That spirit, and those qualities are inherently masculine. Gay men, with some exceptions, are inherently UN-masculine, and some are very effeminate. Their very presence (or more specifically, their "open" presence) in a unit will undermine that unit's collective self image as a "tough" "macho" (fill in the adjective) band of brothers. the warrior mindset, driven by self image and other purely psychological factors, is at least as important to combat effectiveness as equipment and training.

This is the absolute DUMBEST stretch of logic and reason I have ever read. This post SOUNDS intelligent but is anything but.

Last I checked, women serve in the military, and they most definitely have less testosterone than even a gay man...

By your "logic" (or lack thereof) Glen the only women we should let serve are butch, 'manly' lesbians because they are the only ones "macho" enough to get the job done. A heterosexual woman just could not cut it!

Oy

:rollseyes:

Wow. As a servicemen this is a very tough issue. Personally I have no problem serving with gay members...hell the guy sitting in the desk next to me is as gay as they come...but he's a good troop. I could care less who he screws when he leaves work. I think the problem is the majority of the folks serving aren't as tolerant as myself. Sure times are changing...but in the military not so fast. I do feel like don't ask don't tell was a good step in the right direction. Somethings can't be done over night. Given enough time this issue will be a non issue. But at the present moment "openly gay" is not the best for unit moral/cohesion. When i hear the term "openly gay" i immediately think of the most flambouyant type of gay person. I think "really gay" like flameing type of gay. And like most the thought of that type of personas scares most in the military. Its just a stigma...and I do believe over time we will get over it. But today, this day and time, maybe not be the right climate to make it happen.

I know for a fact masturbation will get you a discharge just as fast as being gay so why not special rules for UNO SEXUALS.Lets also not forget many countries will not allow our soldiers in there countries if homo sexuals are in there ranks.If they do allow many would be arrested and convicted and put to death for this.Last thing we need to be doing is picking where 1 goes based on sexual preference.Or having 100's of battles in courts around the world.Get Real don't ask don't Tell bet your butt you do don't tell when in most Islamic countries.

auteur said:

Heteros are annoying, especially those girls who freak out every time there's a hot guy around.

karen in la said

take that stereotype and shove it.

Pardon me for bringing Tom Cruise into it. I only did because 99% of the gay male population claim Cruise is gay, presumably because he fits the stereotype gays like to portray - that they are all so attractive.

I presumed you were one of the 99%, especially since you brought up annoying heteros.

Tempest19 said:

As I said below..(stupid browser made me post too far down)

Dennis is obviously attracted to men. Since he thinks you can choose to be homosexual, he understands that he chose to be heterosexual. He just chooses not to date men even though he finds them physcially attractive.

Isn't that right Dennis? Your sexuality is a choice you made?

Dennis-956826

I just happened to loggin again. I am happy that I did so that I could reply to Ms. Tempest. You probably subscribe to the myth that scientists have found a homosexual gene in DNA. If you believe that, then is there a gene as well for bestiality? Is there then a gene for pedophilia? Is there then a gene for gay pedophilia? How about violence associated with sex? Is there a rape gene? How about all sexual perversions and fetishes, is there a DNA match for each of them? Of course not. They, like homosexuality, are choices. People that are sexually excited by perversion are excited for a number of reasons ranging from low self esteem, to high self esteem, to doing something that is incredibly wrong, to control issues, to anger issues, etc. All coming to the point where an individual chooses to act or not act on this temptation. There is only one union blessed by God, that is the one He created, the union between one man and one woman. That is what the Bible says, that is what I believe, and no matter how much it meets your disdain, you know in your heart that it is true.

99 %, this is news to me. Do you have the article to prove it?

Pardon me for bringing Tom Cruise into it. I only did because 99% of the gay male population claim Cruise is gay, presumably because he fits the stereotype gays like to portray - that they are all so attractive.

What "gay stereotypes" does Tom Cruise fit? What stereotypes are there that gays like to portray?

Second, I'm a girl and I'm bisexual, and I don't think Tom Cruise is gay.

dennis, you know nothing of what you speak...

:shakes head:

There is only one union blessed by God, that is the one He created, the union between one man and one woman. That is what the Bible says, that is what I believe, and no matter how much it meets your disdain, you know in your heart that it is true.

oh i see, you're just a bible thumper. Nothing to see here folks...

Tempest....

Frustrated?

I can name you many proofs that I have personally experienced with the gay community. I worked in Hollywood for many years and watched as the gay community levelled itself through unprotected sex and their desires run wild. I was "hit on" constantly and told of the many escapades that went on the night before and how fun it was. I watched the spread of aids kill many of my co-workers who couldn't keep it zipped-up. They had to meet at the local connection place for their lunch time "get-off"!

Don't try to tell me that the gay community does not try to convert! That is the only way for them to propogate their growth because naturally speaking... it doesn't work.

I did not condone the promiscuous attitudes of hetro's in any way. There are boundary lines that they must acknowledge also. But they are not trying to pass laws and redefine what life is all about to legitimise their sexual orientation. Those laws are already in "their being" and guide them to what is the proper order. Those who legitimise the worlds oldest profession do it for profit (aka Hugh Hefner... "the old man who has to buy love but has none" ) and the lust for it.

As far as heterosexual people trying to convert gays.... I say go for it... because you are right! And don't back down like cowards! Pointing out to someone that red means stop and green means go is "corrective" and when you are right... and heterosexuals are right in the head about sexual orientation (though not perfect) there is no need to shy away. Gays need to be corrected because they are just plain wrong...period! Anyone who has any sense at all understands the function of man and woman! Even non-religious people by far understand it.

Run away desires for men do not attract me. I "could" let them if "I let" perversion enter into that area of my life just like I could cheat on my wife with other women if I let myself entertain that side of life. I choose... and so do you! To say that sexual contact with a man would not affect my natural desires would be to say that "taboo's" do not turn people on. I choose to be moral or immoral. I choose to stay away from the gay taboo because it destroys and does not further the dignity of mankind.

The gay lifestyle is immoral and always will be. I hope U.S. citizens who agree with this point of view will step-up to the plate and be counted. I will always vote against legitimising any gay agenda.

Everyone in America has freedom, that includes freedom of speech, freedom of opportunity, freedom of choice and freedom of sexuality. To take that away is unconstitutional and un-American.

Auteur wrote

"Our Creator" didn't give us our rights, the people who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did.

The founding fathers acknowledged in their signing of the Declaration of Independence that our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights.

That said; you can not lay claim to your God given Inalienable rights without acknowledging God; just like you can not lay claim to water without acknowledging the source of the water.

That's about as basic as it could be spelled out; surly someone with as limited an intellect as yourself can grasp such a basic concept.

bobdaddytoo, you sure remember a different Viet Nam war and Army then I do.

Autuer...

And you have excersised that right without being hindered. Being Bi-sexual means that you swing both ways. Can't do that without different partners. Should the United States allow you to marry a male and female at the same time? Maybe you believe in open marriage. Then why worry about a marriage lisence. Just sign a contract!

Drowning Grover....

Being called a "Bible Thumper" is a high calling for Dennis. It is a shame that you think of it as a lower calling! Now being called a "gay activist" should be thought of as a lower calling... but our country is just a little twisted about that at the moment.

Keep it up Dennis! Take the high road!

Jesus said.... "go and make disciples of all nations!"

I didn't say I believed in open marriage. Being bisexual doesn't give you the right to cheat on your partner.

God didn't write the bible, humans did. Our current laws are man-made.

They should just make a Openly Gay Division for those who wish to be Gay.

I agree. If we aren't ready yet for Equal, then lets give them Seperate-But-Equal.

Maybe in a couple more decades as the kids who are growing up watching MTV shows like Third Wheel, Queer Eye for a Straight Guy, and Ellen get old enough to replace the folks who were raised in the 1940s and 50s, then we might be ready for Equal.

Auteur...

God didn't write the bible, humans did. (I'm sure you got this on inside authority)

Who wrote the humans?

Without the acceptance of Biblical standards, it's easier to go ahead and be bi-sexual or homosexual. Cast moral authority aside... and then you can do anything you want. That makes it alot easier to justify a lifestyle. You can then be your own compass.

Randy K

The founding fathers acknowledged in their signing of the Declaration of Independence that our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights.

That said; you can not lay claim to your God given Inalienable rights without acknowledging God; just like you can not lay claim to water without acknowledging the source of the water.

They did not say "God" given rights. The said "creator". My creator was Glinda "the good witch of the north". So therefore I can claim my rights. Surely someone with as limited an intellect as yourself can grasp such a basic concept.

Auteur

I am finished chatting with you today and I do not have to prove a thing to you.

I will close with my opinion that bi sexual people are the scariest of all because they are not certain with whom they want to have sex.

Have a good evening.

Oh Karen, next you will be telling me that Jodie Foster isn't gay either!!!

Gay Vet makes a valid point. If certain religions can claim that its their inalienable right of religious freedom to REMOVE the right of another group to marry - what prevents any of us from having a religious perogitative to remove the right of brown eyed people to marry, or short people to marry, or Mormons to marry?

Nothing in the US Constitution says anything about protecting the rights of brown eyes or them shorties. Lets round 'em up, make some chain gangs. I say we use them as farm labor, maybe that would save the California economy.

I am finished chatting with you today and I do not have to prove a thing to you.

Because you can't prove anything. You're just spewing a bunch of @!$%#.

I will close with my opinion that bi sexual people are the scariest of all because they are not certain with whom they want to have sex.

No, heterosexual people are because they've driven this world to hell.

They have isolated genes in certain species of birds for mating rituals. Turned these genes on/off, female birds would try and court and mate with other female birds. If this does not show a genetic link to homosexuality, than I do not know what does.

There are many species of animals where small populations exhibit homosexual tendencies. I would think calling homosexual animals a bunch sexual deviants is somewhat of a laughable statement considering many are driven heavily by genetics.

The biggest reason why no genetic link in human homosexuals has been found is because fundamentalist homosexuals do not want one to be found. They fear that many people will practice eugenics to eliminate this gene. Also, they do not want to be labeled as having a genetic defect. They want acceptance first before they prove the genetic link (which I think is the wrong way to do it). Personally I think they should find a gentic link. Someone should fund a genetic study like they do for finding genetic links for diseases (and not I am not comparing homosexuality to a disease).

Saying being gay is a choice is naive. I do not think I am straight out of choice. I do not consciously see a pair of ***s and go mmmm (it is all subconscious). If you have to consciously decide you are straight, than maybe you are denying something. I am a man attracted to women because my genetics tell me i should be. As such, I would not have it any other way.

Auteur, attacking all straight people, does not help your cause. It just makes heterosexuals who support gay rights look crazy, and makes you look crazy too.

I just happened to loggin again. I am happy that I did so that I could reply to Ms. Tempest. You probably subscribe to the myth that scientists have found a homosexual gene in DNA. If you believe that, then is there a gene as well for bestiality? Is there then a gene for pedophilia? Is there then a gene for gay pedophilia? How about violence associated with sex? Is there a rape gene? How about all sexual perversions and fetishes, is there a DNA match for each of them? Of course not. They, like homosexuality, are choices.

I know this much.. you did not CHOOSE to be a heterosexual and if you say you did you're either lying or you admit you can choose to be attracted to other men. I don't care about science and genes but I know I didn't choose to be a hetero no more than you did pal. I was born that way. You cannot force yourself to be attracted to something you are not. You either are or you're not.

Gay Vet wrote:

They did not say "God" given rights. The said "creator". My creator was Glenda "the good witch of the north". So therefore I can claim my rights. Surely someone with as limited an intellect as yourself can grasp such a basic concept.

Thomas Jefferson - The man who wrote the Declaration of Indepence - also wrote the following on the back of his Christian Bible:

...I have no doubt that our entire nation will soon be rallied to the side of our Creator."

So let there be no doubt that when our founding fathers penned "...endowed by our Creator..." they were referring to the Christian God of our fore fathers and not Glenda the Good Witch of the West like you homo's would like to believe.

Homosexuals hold their collective ignorance in high regards.

Randy, if that was the case, then the First Amendment would be clearly wrong. If Jefferson intended that the US to be a Christian Nation, there shouldn't have been the freedom of religion part in the the First Amendment.

Not everyone believes/worships in God or your God and thanks to the First Amendment, we don't have to.

If Jefferson intended that the US to be a Christian Nation, there shouldn't have been the freedom of religion part in the the First Amendment.

Checkmate

Do you realize how stupid this sounds? It is BECAUSE we have freedom of religion - ALL RELIGIONS - which make us a Christian Nation.

I am not certain how many Muslims existed in the world during the time of the revolution, but religion is religion. It's because we grant this freedom, we are a Christian Nation.

By the way, my constitutional law professor is an expert on Thomas Jefferson and he would agree very strongly with Randy K.

The founding fathers correctly believed that the Christian ideal was an undeniable truth and by affording freedom for all they would ensure that this undeniable truth would reign supreme.

The homosexuals choose to turn their backs on the undeniable truth that is the Christian faith because the homosexuals do not want to be held accountable for their choices to God, Country, or themselves.

"I always thought atheists where nothing more then a bunch of selfish people"

My Grandfather.

The First Amendment protect religion from the encroachment of Government; it does not protect Government from the encroachment of religion as you would prefer to believe.

Oh Karen, next you will be telling me that Jodie Foster isn't gay either

Greg and Jeff posted this. Probably in response to mine about Tom Cruise.

Frankly, who freaking cares one way or the other? Gay people like to "out" others - like that documentary about gay politicians.

I can only believe that gay people do this - to legitimize themselves to society. How insecure.

Who cares one way or the other? Tom Cruise IS NOT gay and why is your business to share another person's sexuality with the world?

It's not any of your business.

The First Amendment protect religion from the encroachment of Government; it does not protect Government from the encroachment of religion as you would prefer to believe.

Explain more into this.

And what defines as 'truth?' There is no true religion. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Islams, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Un-orthodx, Baptists, Pagans, etc.

I have never heard of a Christian say that this is a Christian Nation and you are free to worship whatever religion you want. More or less, I have heard Christians (and to be fair, other certain religions) state: My religion is the only one and if you are not part of it, go to hell, etc. If the Christian Nation is accepting, then shouldn't Christians be accepting other religions as well (unless of course, there is violence involved)?

Frankly, who freaking cares one way or the other? Gay people like to "out" others - like that documentary about gay politicians.

I can only believe that gay people do this - to legitimize themselves to society. How insecure.

I can only think that people do this to show that so-and-so is living and lie. Here they are, married, have a child together; no one would expect if one of they is gay.

And it isn't gay people that do this. I would know because I did it to my friend. He was gay-in-denial. It was HORRIBLE how he would put up an act to say that he wasn't gay. Finally, he admitted it and he actually felt like a better person. Better than hiding it.

NJ governor McGreevey was married, had children, and was gay. Did not see that one coming either. He admitted it. It didn't bother me that he was gay, but it bothered me that he had an affair while being married.

Ah........but there is doubt. I think you assume much to much. Read on...........

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner,

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner,

I could bring up many, many more quotes if you would like.

Heterosexual bigots hold their collective ignorance in high regards.

Karen

Do you realize how stupid this sounds? It is BECAUSE we have freedom of religion - ALL RELIGIONS - which make us a Christian Nation.

Do you realize how stupid you sound!? ALL RELIGIONS are not christian. How can we be a christian nation if ALL religions are free to practise in the U.S.?

Sorry, didn't have enough time:

But for Tom Cruise: You are correct that it is no one's business. HOWEVER, he's a celebrity and the media LOVES to tell you everything about them. They love gossip.

Just like Obama, we are finding EVERYTHING out about him and what he did today, etc., etc.

Plus, who is to say that it is the gay people trying to get Tom Cruise to admit he is gay? It can also be straight people. Think about it:

Gay people are looking for a role-model like this actor and by the way that he acts, he might be gay.

At the same time, straight people who HATE this actor for any reason, might look at hims and say that he might be gay because of the way that he acts, therefore, trying to spread hatred for this actor through the anti-gay community.

At the same time, gays can say Tom is straight along with other straight people.

Randy K

The homosexuals choose to turn their backs on the undeniable truth that is the Christian faith because the homosexuals do not want to be held accountable for their choices to God, Country, or themselves.

I don't believe in nor do I answer to your god. You point is moot.

"I always thought atheists where nothing more then a bunch of selfish people"

My Grandfather.

Who gives a @!$%# what your bigoted grandpapi had to say.

The First Amendment protect religion from the encroachment of Government; it does not protect Government from the encroachment of religion as you would prefer to believe.

Ah........there it is. You would prefer this land to be governed by religion and not free. Tell me Randy, let's say it was governed under christianity. Which denomination should it be governed under? Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Methodist......................and on and on?

The First Amendment protect religion from the encroachment of Government.

And that is why RELIGION is a protected class under the strict scrutiny of judicial review of the 14th amendment.

Homosexuality IS NOT a protected class. Neither are women.

checkmate

Gay people are looking for a role-model like this actor and by the way that he acts, he might be gay.

IMO actors aren't nor should they be considered role models.

Karen

Homosexuality IS NOT a protected class. Neither are women.

Wrong again! For a "negotiator" you're not very well informed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

True, Gay Vet, but people are ALWAYS looking at actors/actresses as role models.

There are a few cases where an actor/actress can be considered a role model.

So let there be no doubt that when our founding fathers penned "...endowed by our Creator..." they were referring to the Christian God of our fore fathers and not Glenda the Good Witch of the West like you homo's would like to believe.

This is why we should not rely on religion to govern us, because far too often people missunderstand the words and messages and then they force them on others to suit their agenda.

Much like the Homosexual working to force their beliefs on everyone else; that's a double edged sword you are playing with.

Lets do some math:

38 Million Citizens in California

18 thousand Illegal Homosexual Marriages = 36 thousand citizens

1/2 of all Homosexual Marriages in California were to out of State partners

36,000 X .5 = 18,000 citizens

18,000 / 38,000,000 = .047% of the population demanding that the other 99.953% of the population that disagrees with them accept what they know to be unacceptable.

the only Bigots I see are waving a rainbow colored flag while demanding that school aged children be taught that going against nature is morale. Seeings how 30% of all pedophiles are homosexuals I can see why you would send your recruiters to elementary schools.

Frankly, who freaking cares one way or the other?

Apparently YOU do Karen since you are the one who brought Tom Cruise into the discussion, not anyone else.

It's not any of your business.

Thank you. Remember that next time you are voting on my marriage at the ballot box. It's none of your business.

the only Bigots I see are waving a rainbow colored flag

18 thousand Illegal Homosexual Marriages

Yeah right. Calling 18,000 marriages illegal when they have been ruled quite valid, doesn't make you a bigot. Riiiight. You not only are being a bigot, you are dumb as rocks if you think those marriages are illegal.

You might wish gay marriages illegal

You might even wish abortions were illegal.

But the fact remains, they are not.

"Only Marriage between a Man and a Women is legally recognised..."

That would mean that same sex marriage is illegal in the State of California. I did not make same sex marriage illegal in California; the California State Constitution did. The only bigots here are those who refuse to follow the rule of law when said law does not sanction their crimes.

Randy K

38 Million Citizens in California

18 thousand Illegal Homosexual Marriages = 36 thousand citizens

1/2 of all Homosexual Marriages in California were to out of State partners

36,000 X .5 = 18,000 citizens

18,000 / 38,000,000 = .047% of the population demanding that the other 99.953% of the population that disagrees with them accept what they know to be unacceptable

Hmmmmmm. Fuzzy math expert are we? Did you play with your sisters Barbie, that said "math is hard" , too long.

Let's see...the correct answer is.

38 million citizens of California

47.9% of Californians opposed to Prop 8

38,000,000 X .479 = 18,202,000 people for approving Gay Marriage.

Homosexuals = 5% of the population (conservatively)

18,202,000 X .05 = 910,100 gay citizens of California.

18,202,000 - 910,100 = 17,291,900 heterosexual citizens of California for Gay Marriage.

WOW!

Seeings how 30% of all pedophiles are homosexuals I can see why you would send your recruiters to elementary schools.

70% heterosexual pedophiles I can see why you guys would send your recruiters to schools and churches. You can cover allot of chicken that way.

Randy, aren't you going to refute my earlier responses? Hmmm?

Nothing fuzzy about the math. The fact remains that the majority voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment that clarified the definition of what it is to be Married in the State of California.

Unlike your thumb on the scale approach based on unfounded estimates the actual numbers show that less then 1/10th of 1% of the population took part in illegal homosexual marriages.

Unlike homosexuals; the heterosexual community does not require that right minded physical relations needs to be taught to elementary aged children, nor do heterosexuals advocate the discussion of sexual relations of any type in the public school systems.

It is the bigoted Gay Bangers who are demanding that their lies be taught as truth to elementary aged children.

Randy K

nor do heterosexuals advocate the discussion of sexual relations of any type in the public school systems.

You don't want sex education of any kind in schools!!?? I certainly hope you do not have children for their sake. If you do, don't be shocked when they come home pregnant or with an STD.

It is the bigoted Gay Bangers who are demanding that their lies be taught as truth to elementary aged children

Another lie you heard from Pat Robertson or some other false prophet. Sex education should be taught no earlier than sixth grade.

I got news for ya Rand..........the California courts ruled that the 18,000 gay marriages performed before Prop 8 were LEGAL and would stand. Why do you think they did that? Hmmmm? They did that so 18,000 law suites would be filed and taken to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Which is currently in the works. Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional eventually and then we are going to move in next door to you.

Still no rebuttal to my earlier remarks aye? The ones about Jefferson and what denomination you want to run this country. I'm getting greyer.

There are many species of animals where small populations exhibit homosexual tendencies. I would think calling homosexual animals a bunch sexual deviants is somewhat of a laughable statement considering many are driven heavily by genetics.

I dont think that analogies to nature are ever going to make sense for deciding issues of human social contract.

I mean, there are animals that are homosexuals, heterosexual, hermaphroditic, polygamous, monogamous, eat their parents, eat their children, eat their siblings, eat the weaker fetus while still in the womb, and many many more behaviors that are even stranger. You can't really learn anything about human morality by looking at animal behaviors.

I think you should learn from history. For example, in 1948 when the military was desegregated, thousands of officers signed a letter saying that serving with black soldiers would destroy unit cohesion. White soldiers would not be willing to defend black soldiers, and vica versa. No white soldier would be willing to billet with a black soldier, etc.

Sound familiar?

Actually those homosexual marriages were legal at the time. Not only that, ex-post-fact does not apply to them, so they are still legal. What that means is that there are still roughly 18,000 gay marriages that are legal in the state of California.

And yes heterosexuals want sexual education taught to elementary school students. Heck, I had sex ed in 5th grade. While that was 10+ years ago, that mandate was pushed by heterosexuals.... If you are going to teach sex ed in elementary school (which they already do in some places) you might as well teach the whole truth and not the PC truth.

Using the majority to prove a point is naive. The majority of people in this country didn't think black people were people, did not want them to vote, did not want them to join the military, did not want them to marry white people. While the majority of these issues were solved in the 1950s, it took almost 200 years for black people to be granted full citizenship rights in this country. We can say the same for women as well (except that took til the mid 1960s for that to happen).

The reality of the matter is that if you leave it up to the majority, they will more often than not oppress the minority (majority refers to people in power not people in numbers).

The simple fact of the matter is that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people. Denying them rights is on the same level as denying women, black people, native americans, and all other minorities their rights. While their struggles and methods are different, oppression is still oppression.

To cipher: my statement was not of morality but of genetics. People on here were denying the genetic link, so I gave them a non-human example. If there is a genetic link in non-humans, chances are there is in humans as well.

The courts did not rule that the Gay marriages were legal. What the courts said is that those marriages will remain valid. Valid and legal are two entirly different words with entirely different meanings.

I know the homosexuals and their supporters believe it is their right to redefine words as they see fit, but you will need to redefine every word in the English language to make your lifestyle choice appear moral.

Sexual education in public schools is limited to biology and does not focus on the one to one relationship; unlike the homosexuals who demand that their lifestyle choice be taught as an acceptable and natural alternative to traditional coupling.

What they need to teach the children is that the muscles in the rectum are designed to pushe things out; when you push things in you are slowly killing yourself each time. Now that is sexual education.

Firstly, they did not say the marraiges were illegal, or they would have been abolished. You might want to follow your own advice about throwing words around.

Secondly, homosexuality is part of biology (it occurs naturally in human and non-humans). As long as they stick to the same guidelines they currently use for sex ed, I am pretty sure it will be fine.

Thirdly, straight people have anal sex too. Defining it as a homosexual activity is somewhat misinformed. Interestingly enough, some states that had anti-sodomy laws still protected the right for straight people to do it.

I guess mouths are only for mastication, breathing, and removing of toxic substances from your stomach than? So no one have any oral, or you will be going against the strict functionality of your mouth.

What they need to teach the children is that the muscles in the rectum are designed to pushe things out; when you push things in you are slowly killing yourself each time. Now that is sexual education.

Then why do the doctors and hospitals always stick things up your arse? Are they killing us?? OMG! I'm suing!

Randy K

Main Entry:

val·id

Pronunciation:

\ˈva-ləd\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, potent, from valēre

Date:

1571

1: having legal efficacy or force ; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>2 a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b: logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>3: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>4of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

Well...........look at that. LEGAL. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Your point?

The court still did not rule on the legality of the issues. The California Supreme is letting the pre existing coupling stand, but when the Federal Court of Appeals hears the lone outstanding challange you stand a very real chance of that court ruiling that the pre existing coupling are no longer valid as well because according to the California State Consitution "Only Marriage between a Man and a Women is legal, or recognised in the State of California."

The Constitution does not contain a caveat that states "Except for those people."

Gay Vet

As a legal professional, I recommend that you not obtain legal information from Wikipedia.

Silly person you are for relying on information that is not fact checked or verified in Wikipedia. However, here is a website to prove my point that

GAYS ARE NOT A PROTECTED CLASS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/266387/CON-LAW-OUTLINE-PUSHAW-v3

As a legal professional who LOVES constitutional law, I state that this outline is dead on accurate, and if you will note, gays are not even a quasi-suspect class, only gender is. Gender DOES NOT mean sexual orientation.

I like Tom Cruise. He's an excellent actor and one of my favorites along with Nick Cage, Sean Penn and Brad Pitt.

Well Karen, guess what. You are correct! We aren't a protected class yet. But............

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002029585_gaymarriage08m.html

I like Tom Cruise. He's an excellent actor and one of my favorites along with Nick Cage, Sean Penn and Brad Pitt.

I still have no idea what this is about or how it pertains to my discussion.

Well Karen, guess what. You are correct! We aren't a protected class yet. But............

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002029585_gaymarriage08m.html

I like Tom Cruise. He's an excellent actor and one of my favorites along with Nick Cage, Sean Penn and Brad Pitt.

I still have no idea what this is about or how it pertains to my discussion.

the only Bigots I see are waving a rainbow colored flag while demanding that school aged children be taught that going against nature is morale.

Where did you read that? From an actual article or your own twisted psyche?

And using Tom Cruise as an argument against homosexuality doesn't work.

Well Karen, guess what. You are correct! We aren't a protected class yet. But............

I have to give you kudos for admitting you are wrong. AND you will not be a protected class. Don't feel bad. Women won't be a protected class either.

You post an article from the Seattle Times as your proof that it will change? I did not read it because I know the law better than some reporter who is only asking people like me what the law is.

Like I said - primary sources are always the key. Never read Wikipedia if you have to rely on the information being true and factual.

In addition to Tom Cruise and the A list, I like Tommy Lee Jones too.

The fact that we [women] and gays can report hate crimes as well as abuse and discrimination in various forms and also have a case in court, and even win, doesn't sound like we're an "unprotected class".

Anyone can report a hate crime; much like the hate crimes perpetrated by homosexuals against those that refuse to agree with them.

By the way; Alameda voted two to three to begin teaching the validity of homosexual relations to ninth graders. Once again the homosexuals move their recruiting efforts to elementary schools - sick bastards.

Anyone can report a hate crime; much like the hate crimes perpetrated by homosexuals against those that refuse to agree with them.

What hate crimes have homosexuals perpetrated? Name ten.

By the way; Alameda voted two to three to begin teaching the validity of homosexual relations to ninth graders. Once again the homosexuals move their recruiting efforts to elementary schools - sick bastards.

Where did you read that? In some Christian propaganda article used to get people to vote yes on Prop 8? Why is it so wrong that children learn about the reality that there are gays and lesbians and that they can love each other just like men and women can, and that gays and lesbians can take care of children and that gays, and that gays and lesbians are just as equal as straights are? What are you afraid of?

Read it right here on good ole MSNBC/Newsvine thank you very much.

Schools do not teach heterosexual relations, they do not teach bestiality, nor do they teach polygamy and they certainly have no business teaching CHILDREN the value of living the immoral life of homosexuality.

Clearly the homosexuals are actively recruiting elementary aged children. Nothing screams hypocrite quite like being homosexual.

You got your research from a blog?

Schools do not teach heterosexual relations, they do not teach bestiality, nor do they teach polygamy and they certainly have no business teaching CHILDREN the value of living the immoral life of homosexuality.

First off, they do teach about heterosexual relations, it's called Sex-Ed. They don't teach about beastiality because a) beastiality is not a legit relation and it's animal rape, and b) beastiality is nothing like homosexuality and to link the two together is poor research and ignorant. They don't teach polygamy in school because a) polygamy is bad and b), just like beastiality, homosexuality and beastiality have absolutely nothing in common. You are using propaganda as research and that isn't going to hold up as logical research or justification. You are just showing people that you lack any knowledge about homosexuality and it is pathetic that you can't tell the difference between homosexuality and beastiality and polygamy.

Schools are supposed to teach children about tolerance as well as the subjects - Math, English/Literature, and Science - and the parents are also supposed to teach children about tolerance. Calling homosexuality immoral is not tolerance, it's teaching hate and prejudice which is psychological child abuse.

Clearly the homosexuals are actively recruiting elementary aged children. Nothing screams hypocrite quite like being homosexual.

Again, where did you read that? Is there an article?

What is immoral about homosexuality? You keep saying that is immoral, but never state how or why?

I know the references in Levitacus, Romans, and Corinthians (the Bible), to it being wrong, but there is no moral grounds to argue against homosexuality. Saying the bible said it does not give you clear moral high ground when the bible recognized and regulated slavery (in multiple parts of the bible), the bible supports honor killings, the bible supports many things that are morally repugnant. If you want the verses for these I would gladly give them to you. If you still do not believe me, you can always read your bible (I know I have read mine).

This is not an attack on the bible, but it is hard to argue a point of view using the bible as your only source. Homosexuality was widely accepted throughout Europe before the rise of Christianity. The only real source for anti-homosexual resentment is the Bible.

You are also going to have to define heterosexual relations. Sex ed teaches reproduction, which is basically heterosexual relations. Depending on your age, safe sex practices within the comfines of heterosexual sex were also taught (atleast when I went to school they were).

You say that homosexuals wanted homosexual relationships taught to 9th graders, but then say they try to recruit elementary school students. Last I checked, 9th graders were not elementary school students.

Heck, I will even let you try and argue Kant's view of morality if you want to argue against homosexuality (even though I think his views are highly flawed).

They say it's immoral because the bible says it's immoral. They don't know how to think for themselves, they let a book think for them.

Greg&Jeff wrote "Religion can be proven a choice. Being gay cannot. Religion does not occur in nature, yet homosexuality does. For religion to grow and to continue existing, members must be recruited, ."

This is another controversy: are humans pre-wired for religion? Is belief in a higher order (or spirit, cosmic communication and even consciousness) a genetically-coded behavior given the prevalence of religions throughout the world, modern and old. While believing in a higher order may be a behavior unique to humans, we may yet identify this behavior in other animals. Even so, that does not justify the behavior in humans. Many are quick to point out particular behavior in primates, but a scan of near-relative species such as bonobos (matriarchical, promiscuous), chimpanzees (patriarchical, promiscuous), gorillas (patriarchical, highly polygamous) easily identifies contradictions.

The recruiting you mention may simply be identification and invitation of those pre-disposed to religious behaviors rather than conversion.

There's a difference between "inviting" and "forcing".

Religion didn't come into play until the Middle Paleolithic era, a.k.a. the Stone Age, in 6000 C.E., homo sapiens [modern humans] lived around 200,000 CE.

Scientists debate that religion is an outgrowth of the brain structure that evolved early in human history, but others disagree about the mechanisms that drove the evolution of religion of the mind. This is an article about the evolutionary of psychology of religion.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm

While an interesting article, I found it to be a little too PC. He fails to mention a fourth reason for the creation and propagation of religion. There has been undeniable evidence that religion has been used to control the masses.

Nobody can deny the benefits of being spiritual, but it is only beneficial when it promotes fundamental ideals of equality. community, and good will.

It would be interesting to see if there is a genetic trait associated with religion. Most humans are already genetically programmed with a sense of community (you would not have survived in the wild by yourself). A sense of greater purpose or higher calling would be a natural progression. Also, usually by adulthood, someone's sense of a greater power rarely changes. Faiths/religions may change, but a belief in god (or lack there of) is generally cemented.

While it is possible to cement non-genetic trats into people, they are more eaasily lost than reinforced genetic traits. Belief in God seems to be a common trait people are willing to die for which begs the question even more. I believe in God and have no qualms with it being genetic. As the article said,most genetic things (especially those that widely propgate throughout humanity) either are reinforced by some purpose or truth. While I would like it to be some truth, I have been wrong many times in my life and can never say with 100% certainty.

The problem with dealing with children is that an invitation and a force are not always cut and dry. Children are highly susceptible to authority figures (including adults) and are more willing to blindly follow what they say. I seriously doubt the Gay Pride movement is trying to convert children, or the media and parents would be all over the issue (especially considering the large divide on the issue).

American was founded on if you want something you have to fight for it. While the fight for gay rights has created backlash, but so did every other fight by every other group.

Randy K

Clearly the homosexuals are actively recruiting elementary aged children. Nothing screams hypocrite quite like being homosexual

Yes Randy, our recruiting stations are in every mall right next to the Military's recruiting stations.

This guy obviously is not worth talking to anymore. He won't answer serious questions. He just wants to spread his bile around.

What they need to teach the children is that the muscles in the rectum are designed to pushe things out; when you push things in you are slowly killing yourself each time. Now that is sexual education.

Then why do the doctors and hospitals always stick things up your arse? Are they killing us?? OMG! I'm suing!

Funniest thing I have seen on Newsvine EVER. Thanks for making me laugh harder than I have in awhile Gay Vet! Slowing killing ourselves....ROTFL. Randy K you are too much. I can't even be mad at you, the things you say are so ridiculous and so out there they only make me laugh. 18000 Illegal marriages? Slowly killing yourself? ROTFL OMG...you really should be taking this act on the road to some comedy clubs!

Now why can't they also teach women how to control their vaginal muscles so childbirth is less painful and much quicker?

Basic human biology is not your strong suit is it?

What I stated regarding the muscles in the rectum is a scientific fact. Just because you ass munchers do not want to believe that inserting a but plug will end badly for you does not mean the Farrah Faucet will not die from a disease the is most commonly associated with anal sex.

You perverts desperately want children to be lead to your deviant lifestyle to the point you will join civic minded organizations under false pretense just so you can force your agenda on an unsuspecting public. Your victories are hollow and will be short lived; much like you pathetic lives.

And basic spelling and grammar aren't your strong suits are they? Her last name is FAWCETT. She's not a water FAUCET. And it's BUTT not but. Perhaps a little less time on the message boards and a little more time learning the English language is in order?

So now your implying that Farrah Fawcett has anal sex too? And that's why she's sick? I take it back. You're not funny. You are disgusting and sad.

Your victories are hollow and will be short lived; much like you pathetic lives.

The only thing that will be pathetic and short lived is the vendetta people like you have for gays. I feel very sorry for someone so consumed with hatred. Hopefully you can work through that someday.

Disgusting and sad? I could not agree with you more. The fact that you acknowledge your lifestyle choice is disgusting and sad is half the battle; now you need to just walk away while you are still physically able .

The fact that you focus more on spelling then content shows you have no defense for your position other then to focus on perceived - valid, or not - shortcommings of the loyal opposition.

While many diseases are more easily passed through anal intercourse than standard intercourse, probability dictates that if you have intercourse at all with a diseased person you will get it.

If you are in a stable monogamous relationship and both partners are hygienic, anal sex has every low rates of infections. While anal cancer is associated with HPV, the rates are so low that even if you get an HPV infection from anal sex, you have almost no probability of developing anal cancer. An average of 5,000 people get anal cancer (American Cancer Society, 3000 being women). About 40% of heterosexuals (from the CDC in a 2005 survey) have anal sex during their life time.

While 40% of the population had anal sex, 0.0014% get anal cancer in any given year (many of those cases were not cause by HPV either). The probability of getting it over a lifetime is is roughly 0.11% (0.067% for females, assuming a rough life expectancy of 80 years for both)

Now if you compare that to cervical cancer rates (also associated with HPV), 11,000 people get in on average every year. So almost 4x as many women get cervical cancer than anal cancer. Looks like regular intercourse is more harmful.

Besides, most of the people that have anal sex are straight. Straight females have anal sex 7x more often than gay males (also from CDC reports).

If you want to argue biology, atleast look at statistics..... You will clearly find that they do not support you position. Anal sex is not this deadly end of you life action. Just having sex at all exposes you to all sorts of nasty diseases, and anal sex does not have significantly higher rates of infections compare to normal sex.

Oh Randy, clearly you have the intellect of a four year old if you think I was talking about anyone but you. And I can MORE than defend my position against the likes of people such as yourself.....anytime. Just like the godhatesfags group, you are our best form of advertising on why we need protections! Go on...spew some more nonsensical hate. Make your side look even more irrational and crazy then you already do. The more you shoot yourself in the foot with your crazy talk, the faster gay rights moves forward. So keep it up!!!

I wonder if Randy was ever spanked by his father as a child...

He didn't have a father.

What a coincidence, neither did I! But it's never bothered me.

You folks consistently respond to factual data with claims of nonsense and hate-mongering. The only hate on display here comes from those who refuse to acknowledge the validity of the oppositions position. You think by simply having your rainbow flags you will force three billion people to turn their backs on their faith just so your faction can do to the United States what you did to Rome?

The evidence is all around you. Congress, the Senate, the Judiciary, and even the President of the United States displaying sympathy for immorality; and what do we have to show for it?

The complete destruction of the U.S. financial system and near total loss of U.S. prestige around the world. Like all - so called - minorities you crave power, not equality.

You are what you hate.

"You are what you hate."

Who would have guessed that in the end, it turns out Randy is gay?

Randy you respond to factual data that does not support your position by ignoring it.

The economic meltdown has nothing to do with this immorality (which you have yet to even prove is immoral). Homosexuality did not bring down Rome. Homosexuality in humans has been going on since the dawn of humanity and existed on the Italian peninsula even before Rome existed. Rome fell because of corruption, because their military was overstretched, because their system of slave labour started to fail, etc, not because of homosexuality.

You also sound like the Confederate leaders who used the Bible to support slavery. The bible support slavery. Do you have slaves? Do these 3 Billion Christians, Muslims and Jews own slaves? I know I do not. The Bible also thinks women are lesser than Men, but I do not proscribe to this either.

Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

If you are married, is this how you treat your wife? Do you treat all females like this?

Just because the Bible says it does not make it moral. You can either take the Bible for what it is (a history book, mixed with opinion and satire), or take a strict view of it. You cannot pick in chose what you follow with you faith. Right now there is a pandemic in religion about which parts of the Bible people should follow and which they should ignore.

You cannot say the Bible says the homosexuality is bad then turn around and say you are going to ignore the fact that slavery is good and women are subserviant to men. I could go on, but you will ignore any view that is not supportive of your own.

You folks consistently respond to factual data with claims of nonsense and hate-mongering.

And what have you been responding with Randy?

endo said: straight females have anal sex 7x more often then gay men

How is that possible? Besides oral what other kind of sex are gay men having? For this to be true all the women of DC would have be having nothing but anal to compete with the gay male numbers. I guess they don't call DC chocolate city for nothing. :)

I think those numbers are wrong too. That being said, overall gay men do not have anal sex nearly as much as straight people seem to think. Oral sex is another story though.

I think it's half and half with gays and straights.

I probably need to qualify the information from the CDC. That number is not on a per person basis, it is on a total basis. On a per person basis, the numbers would only be slightly higher for gay men.

I was trying to illustrate two things at once. The first being that the risk of disease and cancer from anal sex is not signifcantly higher than regular sex, the second many straight people have anal sex as well (and in large enough quantities to overshadow the total amount of anal sex gay men have)

That's the problem... even saying you are gay means you're kicked out. Practicing within the military is one thing--being gay is another. People shouldn't have to lie about or hide who they are. Same rules should apply to everyone.

Totally agree. At no time during the duty day should a sexual preference be discussed. The problem is gay people are given a "direct order" not to discuss this and multiple warnings. What happens? A gay or heterosexual person wants out of the military so they make an issue and the military is nice enough to give them a general discharge. I would given them a dishonorable discharge for disobeying an order but the military is nice to gays. What will happen? Gay people will want their own billeting: One for gay men, women and one for straight men and women. Logistic nightmare. The ones who say this will not happen have never been in the military. Gay people are in the military and we work besides them and everyone is happy.

At no time during the duty day should a sexual preference be discussed.

The problem is that a lot of people overlook the fact that these men and women are ope and comfortable about their sexuality when they are not on duty during their private lives. There have been many cases where soldiers have lost their careers because somebody reported them based on the lives they lead while not on duty. That is unfair.

Robbob, then don't practice your preference openly either. The double standard is the problem. Why is it any different if you state that your heterosexuel or homosexuel? It's not. If "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to everyone equally it wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't. "Keep your private life private" should apply to heterosexuels just as much as it does to LGBTs, but people like you LOVE a double standard, as long as it doesn't affect you in a negative way.

I'm beginning to worry about what, exactly, our military is up to these days.

Sounds like people are spending a lot of time lounging around their barracks, taking lots of showers, and worrying about who might see what!

"Is this a spa, or bootcamp?" Hard to say, really.

Change takes time. Its sad. It took almost a hundred years from the Emancipation proclamation to Truman's order to desegregate the military.

A few thoughts from a 29 year veteran of the Marine Corps--who has two lifelong friends, both wonderful people who I dearly love, who happen to be homosexual. We can deal with the world the we would LIKE it to be or the way it IS. When it comes to having an effective military (the only kind worth having), it's better to deal with the world the way it IS. Say what you want about the military's role being to "defend" not to "kill". Indeed, our role IS to defend. But let me tell you something--the way we fulfill that role is by being prepared for, and being effective at killing. And by that, I don't mean just pulling a trigger, which anyone can do. I mean driving home the bayonet (figuratively speaking); I mean closing with and destroying the enemy through fire, maneuver and CLOSE COMBAT. The personal qualities required to be an effective combatants are as much in the spririt as in the physical. That spirit, and those qualities are inherently masculine. Gay men, with some exceptions, are inherently UN-masculine, and some are very effeminate. Their very presence (or more specifically, their "open" presence) in a unit will undermine that unit's collective self image as a "tough" "macho" (fill in the adjective) band of brothers. the warrior mindset, driven by self image and other purely psychological factors, is at least as important to combat effectiveness as equipment and training. Napolean's way of expressing this transcendent fact was his statement that, in combat "...the spirit is to the material as three is to one." Put an other way, psychological factors are MUCH more important than material factors. The psychology of testoterone driven 19 year old young men (the population we draw upon to fight our battles) does not follow an enlightened script. It's visceral and it's even primal whether we would wish it to be so or not. Spirit, sometimes called fighting spirit or esprit de corps is something vaguely understood by many, but it's vital role as the foundation of combat effectiveness is understood by few who have not served in the combat arms. Logic may tell you that sexual orientation shouldn't matter. The psychology of young--primarily masculine--men says otherwise.

There are those who will ask that if "masculinity" were so important, then why are women so successful in the military? I will tell you that the support units in which they serve are typically very good and very professional in their support roles of admin, logistics, maintenance, etc. They are also much less effective combatants than they once were as all male units. You can argue all you want about how this shouldn't (logically) be the case. I will just tell you, with no political filters, that it IS the case. Most women are feminine (sue me, but it's true). Their presence in a unit introduces a feminizing factor that, while it has some advantages, also works against the "warrior" mindset that is part of a maculine combat culture. That loss has been deemed acceptable in non-combat units--though the performance of Jessica Lynch's maintenance unit when suddenly thrust into a "death match" should be a poster child for the loss of this warrior mindset. The Army tried to sell it--and her--as the opposite. To her great credit, she refused to accept the "Amazon warrior" story they tried to build around this incident. She acknowledged that all she did was drop her weapon and hide her face in her hands. They were a great bunch of mechanics--not such a great bunch of warriors. There is not--in the history of man--a culture or civilization that uses women as warriors. For those that claim Israel does: you're wrong. They tried it in their first war, discovered what a failure it was and women's roles in the Israeli military are now FAR more limited than in ours. It goes to many things (muscle strength, aerobic endurance) but the primary driver of their decision--after having actually tried it--was the effect it had on morale and cohesion in combat units.

Closing with and destroying the enemy, the mission of combat units, is all about self confidence and self image. It goes hand in hand with swagger, "manliness" if you will. For young men, homosexuality is the very antithesis of those qualities. You can recite to me the list of countries that allow open homosexuality. I've seen them in action. Most of the non gays are humiliated and the mindset in those units is categorically NOT a warrior mindset. Are there gays who can perform in combat as well or better than any macho, straight guy? Absolutely. Will seeing them walk around hand in hand with their "boyfriends" or in a liplock with another guy destroy cohesion in their units? In spades. But hey, no price is too high for those who can't abide traditional values.

The overwhelming majority of the manpower pool that we depend upon to man and lead our combat units are young, straight males (with a disproportionately high percentage being very traditional in outlook and mindset). They will stay away in droves rather than serve in a military that is "gay friendly" and most of the people driving this agenda aren't going to sign up to replace that loss of manpower. For the average American, this issue is viewed as one of "fairness." Since the average American is also inherently fair minded, they support the open service of gays. That support is based on a very superficial understanding--and since the media is inherently on the left of this issue it won't do anything to incease the depth of understanding of the public at large.

In the end, the military's role is to preserve the liberal society and its freedoms. But if forced to conform itself to ALL of society's liberal standards, it will become less and less effective in that role--eventually to the point that it will not be sufficiently effective to preserve that society. No one has an inherent "right" to be in the military. This may not be pretty. It's certainly not politically correct. But it's fact nonetheless.

Well, if homosexuality is the antithesis of self-confidence, I wonder why?

I'm getting fed up with the homosexual lobby saying how the military should hold the straight soldiers to the same standard. They do! No PDA.

Glen, I appreciate your input. I also have several lifelong friends who happen to be gay.

I disagree with your claims in several points. First, much of the bonding that happens in the military, the tough macho attitude, centers around camaraderie. You are tough, because you want to be every bit as tough as the guy next to you. You don't want to be the guy who lets down his company. There's nothing about homosexuality that precludes that, in fact arguably the opposite.

Second, you seem to imply that homosexuals aren't tough, macho people. You've never been to downtown San Francisco if thats what you think. Many of those guys are in about 5 times better shape than us flabby heterosexuals.

Finally, you suggest that soldiers wouldn't be willing to fight on behalf of homosexual comrades. You yourself said that you have life long homosexual friends. You don't think you, as a soldier, would be willing to fight for the freedom of your lifelong homosexual friends? What if they were carrying a rifle and fighting along side you, you think that you wouldn't be proud to fight along side them?

In my view, if a man proves himself, proves he can fight, and doesn't let his fellow soldiers down, then I don't care what he does on the weekends. If he pays his taxes and fights for his freedom, then he deserves equal opportunity with the rest of us.

Dennis

we understand that there are those who choose (and YES, I did say choose) the gay lifestyle.

Well then Dennis I guess you chose to be heterosexual. So it stands to reason that you are physically attracted to men, you just do not choose to pursue them. That's good to know.

I think you misinterpret the post, cipheranarchist. I expressly stated that the issue is not about fairness, nor is it about my personal views. It is fact. Young men must believe themselves to be superior on the battlefield in order to survive. Anything that detracts from this cohesiveness is a detriment to all of our freedoms. I believe anyone can serve, as I've stated. Homosexuals do serve honorably and competently. But when acceptance of their chosen behaviors becomes more important than unit cohesion, we all lose. Let's be honest, some think of this as an issue of fairness. Some are more concerned about gaining acceptance of their lifestyle with no intent to serve. I'm saying neither of these are relevant to me regardless of my personal tolerances. My only concern is for the effectiveness of my men, and the security of our great nation.

"Young men must believe themselves to be superior on the battlefield in order to survive."

You don't think that homosexuals are self confident enough to be soldiers? Those I have known have had no problem either with confidence or success, either in business or military environment.

"But when acceptance of their chosen behaviors becomes more important than unit cohesion, we all lose."

I guess this is the point that we fundamentally disagree on. I don't see why acceptance of their chosen behavior is necessarily important. If they fight well and bravely, then let them fight.

I don't have to accept Catholicism to fight next to a Catholic. If a Catholic isn't going to let me down and I can trust him to do his duty, then I'll fight next to him. I might not like his religious beliefs and I might in fact personally disagree with them, but thats just what he does on Sunday.

"You don't think that homosexuals are self confident enough to be soldiers?"

I never said this. I said that for them to openly serve affects the morale and cohesion of others. Right or wrong, the effect is negative.

"I don't see why acceptance of their chosen behavior is necessarily important. If they fight well and bravely, then let them fight"

EXACTLY, and thus DADT policy should not be an issue to any gay honestly wanting to serve their country. The last two paragraphs of the original post speaks to this. I believe in our great nation, and the freedoms it provides to all. To lessen the effectiveness of our military would harm us all.

benrw - see my post 1.80.

Don't ask - don't tell - is the RULE. Period.

Frankly, the 97% of the population who is not gay could care less how a person enjoys sex.

Why in the world would we care to know if a military person is gay or not? We could care less.

Their job is to defend our country and take orders. Why does sexual orientation have an effect on that - one way or other? and if you agree there is no purpose, then why the F do you care?

Well, I don't see why secrecy is needed.

I don't accept Catholicism, but I'd still fight next to a Catholic. If a Catholic isn't going to let me down and I can trust him to do his duty, then I'll fight next to him - even if he told me he's one.

Why force one minority to live in secret, fearing that someone might find out who they are?

cipher, I'm not forcing anyone to do or think anything. I'm simply stating what my experience in leading men in combat and studying warfare for the majority of my life has taught me. It is what it is. The only position I hold to is that I want an effective military in order to preserve our rights. For some, no, for all that serve... this means putting the group before one's self. Still want to serve? Grab a rifle and I'll place you where most needed. But you'll have to suppress your need to open the closet door. That's really not asking much, considering the sacrifices you'd have to make that actually will be more uncomfortable than you supressing self-expression.

Glenn

re: 2.8 - well said

EVERYONE read it. This is the BEST perspective in my opinion.

cipheranarchist - you can not compare religion to sex.

In fact, Glen-323564 is the only person who makes any sense on this issue.

Whatever Glen says, I agree.

Whatever Adolf says, I agree.

That's what many of Hitler's followers said. If Glen said you were an ignorant douche would you agree?

Maybe she would, and maybe she wouldn't. Funny thing is though, I wouldn't even say those things about someone disagreeing with me, much less someone that is in agreement.

Glen

Point taken. I agree with everything you say about don't ask - don't tell.

If you don't appreciate me for that, it's OK. I do have a right to express my opinion and you effectively stated your position that caused me to agree with you.

Take a hint Gay Vet - politics (or negotiation for that matter) requires you to convince other people that your position is correct. I negotiate for a living.

I'm sucesful at it for one reason - I remember my father telling me that I can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

you can not compare religion to sex.

Why not? They are both minority groups. Some people are Jewish heterosexuals, some people are Catholic homosexuals, etc.

Not so long ago, being Catholic or Jewish was every bit as strong a reason to ostercize someone as being homosexual is today.

Its difficult to take yourself outside of yourself, and try to learn from history. But the bottom line is that every generation has its biases and stereotypes. In 1945, Obama wouldn't have been allowed to serve in the same unit as Glen here. But today, he can, and no one thinks twice about it.

Quoting from the book Judgement Days, 'In a speech at a Democratic Party dinner in Miami on Feb 27, [President Johnson] had pedged to "press forward with legislation and with education - and yes with action - until we have eliminated the last barrier to intolerance." Speaking before the Georgia state legistlature on May 8, Johnson told lawmakers "not to heed those who would come waving the tattered and discredited banners of th past, who seek to stir old hostilities and kindle old hatreds, who preach battle between neighbors and bitterness between states." The president summoned a vision of a new South that would cast off its legacy of poverty and racism and join "the entire nation to insure that every man enjoys all the rights secured him by the American Constitution."'

The issue in question was the desegregation of the US school system that finally allowed blacks to study right alongside whites. That was just 45 years ago.

I do appreciate the sensible debate, cipher. Rather than completely shifting topics to religion or race, I'll just say that I do take your point. It was not long ago that blacks were segregated in the military. And many of the same reasons given for DADT would have held true in that era. Right or wrong, unit morale would have been affected if segregation occurred in the climate of those days. It affected morale and effectiveness long after segration of race ended. I will again direct you to my original post. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't/haven't/don't serve honorably. I'm saying that it is indeed a reality that for gays to serve openly in combat arms fields would negatively impact their combat effectiveness. Perhaps one day this will not be the case, just as with blacks serving exceptionally today. However, you can't hide skin color. And for the forseeable future, I believe DADT should remain only for the effectiveness of the military that serves you and I. This should not be an issue to use for certain people's crusade for acceptance. Many people serving today, gay and otherwise, are more than willing to suppress/hide things about themselves in order to conform to the group. A rifle company is not the place to start a "me" party.

If you are looking for a bigot to attack (and I don't think you are), then you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm merely stating what I believe to be true about the young men that serve in combat arms today.

Totally agree. At no time during the duty day should a sexual preference be discussed.

You act like this is the only issue. This is not about gays being able to talk about being gay. This is about the fact that they can not have any gay relationships or be openly gay in their PRIVATE lives.

If it is this way for gays then it should be for heterosexuals as well. No girly posters, no girlfriends, no wives.. NOTHING that declares or hints at what their sexual orientation might be.

Guess we'll just have to recruit priests.

Karen

Take a hint Gay Vet - politics (or negotiation for that matter) requires you to convince other people that your position is correct. I negotiate for a living.

I learned along time ago that trying to debate with close minded homophobes is a waste of time, so I just point out the hypocrisy of their statements. And, I have seen allot from you toots.

I'm sucesful at it for one reason - I remember my father telling me that I can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Too bad you're not successful at spelling.

ugh, glen posted his crap again....

If it is this way for gays then it should be for heterosexuals as well. No girly posters, no girlfriends, no wives.. NOTHING that declares or hints at what their sexual orientation might be.

this, this is the only fair option. If you send pictures to your wife/husband, you're kicked out of the military. You're flaunting your heterosexuality.

Have a girlfriend/boyfriend? Can't serve cause you just told the world your sexual preference.

It's the ONLY way that's fair.

BESMART

Please cite your sources. I have never heard of a case where the gay or lesbian did not openly flaunt their sexuality to be dismissed. I think you are lying. But that is OK this is how the agenda was brought up. Most dismissed gay and lesbians made their sexuality well known before being dismissed to the point of being dismissed. Plenty of gays serve in the military and people know they are gay. It does not matter. You have no idea what you are talking about.

They're proud and willing to fight for their country and people, isn't that all that should matter when one enters the army?

Glen, just so you know, the Spartans promoted homosexuality in their military because they thought it would improve cohesion. They believed that if you "loved" your fellow camrade, you would fight harder to protect them.

Does anyone else find it interesting that our policies have flipped to be the opposite? While I am not promoting the Spartan way of life nor think it is as affective as they thought it was, but I do find it interesting how effective they were. However, alot of it had to do with the fact that the strongest unit generally fought the weakest unit in Greek warfare (either that or the unit whos leader the other side wanted to die).

I find it interesting how our society is going backwards.

If your faking just to get out, good luck if your commander is really gay and asks you to prove it.

That is why the G/L group is mad because people have been discharged. Why? Because they make an issue out of being gay to the point they have public displays of it. Terriable and the gay community should be ashamed of them. Using their sexuality to leave the military dishonors everyone.

pddoc, most homosexuals that have been discharged have been outed by other people. I read a story a couple years ago about a man who was discharged b/c someone traced his email account or something. He didn't tell anyone in the army. It's a stupid law. If it is in place it should apply to gay & straight.

Whatever, I think that if you sign up to serve you should serve. The majority of soldiers are straight, thats the way it has always been in the US Military. If you want to be a s--tbag and quit, go for it. The military is not persecuting gays anymore so I am confused why this is an issue. Last I checked this was a democracy where the majority rules. So if you are gay and serve then serve and keep your mouth shut because frankly nobody wants to know and secondly NOBODY CARES!

If your faking just to get out, good luck if your commander is really gay and asks you to prove it.

Real well thought out statement there. Why would a gay commander ask someone to prove they are gay when he is under the same policy. Did you study under the George W. Bush school of Republican Ideology?

No, i got it from an episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian pretend to be gay so they can leave Iraq. Its called humor. You should try it sometime.

One can learn much from Family Guy.

No, i got it from an episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian pretend to be gay so they can leave Iraq. Its called humor. You should try it sometime.

Plagiarism..........I see.

Plagiarism? You are the one that copied and pasted my posts "twice". Hah! Hypocrite.

You're a real intelligent one aren't you. You made no reference to the original author of your first statement, nor did you place it in quotation marks. I did not plagiarize your statements because I used the quotation button to show your remarks as quoted and I gave you full credit for your stupid remarks. I guess they don't teach you that when you get your GED, huh?

and try to act older than a three year old.

Gay Vet you need the GED. Because you use his comments and do not indicate the author. Quotations often indicate a spoken phrase or direct quote. This is plagiarism so you get an F- just like you did in the last 15 years of elementary school.

Quit attacking people because you're too simple minded to comprehend the context of a given statement in a satirical delivery system. Besides how many three years old children would make, let alone post, snake09's comments in a Newsvine forum. Again an F- in Understanding Basic Human Behavior of 1-5 YO Adolescents .

After reading your comments I'm sure you serve as honorably as Lt Ehren Watada.

4thepeople

Having worked with many gays I can safely say that they are only loyal to the gay cause and nothing else. Not even their partners. I have heard them mock their parents, back-stab their friends, and generally care only about themselves. In fact both that died of aids refused visitor from all their so called friends/co-workers over over 8+ years, some emancipated from their parents, a couple died from drug overdoses, they are generally the dregs of society.

You don't attack people?? You don't make generalisations? Proves my earlier statement that you are a liar.

Besides how many three years old children would make, let alone post, snake09's comments in a Newsvine forum.

Nice grammar professor. You don't get the satire of me telling him to stop acting like a three year old? GFU and you get an F. But you get an A for being a bigot.

txrosi

if the percentage of gays in the military is the same as gays in the general population, a grand total of 3% will walk. WOW.

Their positions will be filled by the young people whose only chance at a career is the military - especially now.

Their positions will be filled by the young people whose only chance at a career is the military - especially now.

So you would prefer to deny gay youths a chance at a career?

f the percentage of gays in the military is the same as gays in the general population, a grand total of 3% will walk. WOW.

It IS a big wow when literally hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent training and then discharging gays. It IS a big wow when that includes arabic translators whom are much needed and hard to come by. According to Lt. Dan Choi, if we had had more translators, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. For whatever reason, Mr. Choi states there is a high percentage of translators in the military who are gay.

So go ahead Karen...make the call to fire all these people. And then see if you are any safer.

Last I checked this was a democracy where the majority rules.

uh oh, looks like someone failed 3rd grade civics class!

Amy-1026029

Please cite your sources. Again another person with no proof. Also no hearsay after the discharge. Of course if you are a coward and use your sexuality to get out of the military what are you going to say? "Ohhh they outed me". Give me a break.

LU, it isn't that we don't have gay people in the military. It is that they are not allowed to serve as openly gay--once again they are "closeted". I am so disappointed in the SC that they would not hear this case. Our President needs to end this policy for good and forever.

pjw, I disagree. I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' is a good thing. In the workplace and in ethics classes, we were taught there are a few things you don't EVER discuss in the workplace:

Religion

Politics

Sexuality

We don't discuss them. There are people in our workplace that we get a long great when they don't mention any of those three things. I always find it funny that we are always told to 'accept' other's etc., etc., but that isn't going to happen. There will always be someone who is uncomfortable and/or won't tolerate other people's politics, religion, sexuality. Sad, but true.

What ! that's stupid. Next you would be the one to say that we should have these gay folks have it oakyed to wear dresse's while fighting somewhere in the bush. It's self expression.

Checkmate, you have a point, but in our 21st century all kinds of things are discussed that weren't back in that "long ago" 20th century. Because we in the gay and lesbian community have been closeted for so long, uncomfortable or no, this issue is going to be discussed and brought into the open. Heads in sand is not really a viable option anymore.

General Gray was gay and he was the Commandant of the USMC for years. He even married his mother's nurse, because Marine Commandant's are required to be married. Ha! Ha!

IMO The current policy should be kept in place. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," has worked for years, only the people with agenda's and lack of control are complaining. Heterosexuals will be discharged if they demonstrate lack of control of their sexuality or have agendas also.

Semper Fi - MSgt ret

So, we can assume by your statement that homosexuals are the only ones with any sense of kindness and would not torture others. Wow! You need to lay off the Woodstock kool-aid! There are those in the G/L community that would gladly torture as well as the hetero folks. You are completely in the dark about human nature. We simply need accountability for actions!

However, the military is about effectively protecting the country by being able to blow things up and killing the the enemy-period! If your sexuality is going to get in the way of doing that, find something else to do!!!

Checkmate, to ask someone not to be open about who they really are is unrealistic. You should try going to work one day and not mention anything about your family (Wife/Husband and kids). Yes religion and politics should never be discussed at work but people reference their sexuality even when they don't realize it. Being a gay man I have to hear about my heterosexual co-workers spouses and their children all the time. If you're going to force someone to hide what is so clearly a part of their life then by all means stop talking about your family for one day and then tell me how easy or unfair you think that really is.

Ruckus, I DON'T mention anything about my family at work. And guess what? Majority of the workers don't, either. Hell, my own family doesn't even know if I am straight or bi or gay.

Checkmate, it sounds like you are an extremely private person and I applaud you for that. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of people are not. People enjoy talking about their lives. I know I do. I enjoy sharing my life with all my friends and family and they enjoy sharing their lives with me. That's all our gay service men and women want, is the freedom to share their life experiences with their fellow heterosexual service men and women. Nothing more nothing less. To deny them that right is unconstitutional.

I see nothing wrong with what you are saying, but I see many problems that can come from it. We lift the the don't say, don't tell, and I'm questioning the safety of our soldiers (homo and hetero). Legit safety from violence from racists, etc. A lot of people say that we should do what the British armies do and just have the gay people be themselves. Nice idea, but one has to remember that American culture and British culture are also very different from each other (example: British people, I have found, talk more openly about sex than Americans do).

I understand the safety concern for both sides but that doesn't make it right. You can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it violates their basic human rights. I'm sure white's had the same argument when African Americans were fighting for equal rights. And we had the same safety concerns when African Americans wanted to serve in the military but whites didn't want them to. Now both races serve side-by-side proudly. There's always a learning curve when it comes to understanding another individual’s culture or way of life and as Americans we need to be willing to take that step forward instead of always going backward. Yes, I agree, American culture is much different than British culture. The British aren't close minded in their ideals like Americans are about certain issues. In this respect, I personally think they are more superior to Americans. We Americans pride ourselves of living in the land of the free yet when you think about it we only have the freedom to think the way our Government wants us to think. I'm sorry, but that's not freedom, it sounds more like communism to me.

Even if I agree with what you say, is the middle of two wars really the best time to try that theory?? Can we afford to make changes that like it or not will affect unit cohesion and mission effectiveness? Do our soldiers that are fighting this war have time for a learning curve at this precise time?

Again, just asking.

Army Wife, I can't beleive you actually asked this question. One of the biggest reasons our men and women are in these wars is to help prevent the spread of hate. To spread democracy so the people of these nations can have the freedoms they deserve. I would think our service men and women would be more understanding now more than ever. If we can't stop the spread of hate within our own nation and our own military then why are we even fighting these wars?

Whoa, whoa. Hold on, ruckus. Spreading democracy will just get us into more trouble. Not every country wants democracy. Iraq said, 'Thank you for helping us get rid of Saddam,' but that's it. They want (and they have voiced it many times) to create their own government. Whether that will turn into democracy or something else, that is what THEY want. That is another reason why they are pissed at the Americans because the Americans are telling them how to run their country. In fact, Iraq isn't that only country to think this. There have been other countries who think that America should back off on the democracy-is-the-best wagon and think America is a bully for trying to force it on another country.

That, is the double-sided sword.

You're right...the thought of putting our soldiers in additional danger while they deal with the learning curve (your words) is a price everyone should be willing to pay. What is the term?? Collateral damage? Seriously!?

I wonder how opinions would change if you served in combat? I believe alot of things need to change, especially in regards to our military. I am also smart enough to know that making those changes while engaged in two seperate but equally dangerous conflicts is not the time to do that. Too much is already asked of ALL of our soldiers. Their focus should be on their mission...PERIOD. Discuss policy changes when they come home.

Checkmate, whether or not another country want's to be democratic or not was not my point. I too agree that democracy isn't the best for every country. However, Army Wife was asking if this was the best time to ask our service men and women to be respectful of other people's rights. My point was if they can't respect and accept them now then we as a nation have learned nothing from either of these wars. Hate is hate. To think that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a good policy is to support teachings of hate and intolerance.

Ah, ok. Sorry, misread it.

Jesus wouldn't do a lot of the things the religious right claims in his name.

Now you are stretching. Obama hardly cares about appeasing the religious right now days... He won't end this as promised and it really is in his hands... of course it's one of about 5 big promises broken so far... But hey.. he's a politician...

If you have an LT (01-02) with 9 DSMs then there is something wrong with the way the Air Force dispenses medals. Come up with a better story.

pjw

nor would he accept a lot of things the atheists left are doing or support

and I said atheists left because you are presuming that the right are all religious so I presume the same of the left.

By the way I believe in the don't ask don't tell, so if they want to serve don't tell, till and if the rules of present policy are changed. Glad the 1st post sees the light that Obama is true to his word ! ha!

By the way it is a LT. Col.

Fehrenbach didn't tell, he was outed by someone else. So I guess the policy is Don't ask, don't find out, don't tell. Apparently medals awarded in the military are meaningless.

Bo

No he didn't tell, he just went on national TV and ran at the mouth, come on get your story straight.

Don't assume you know the situation unless you were personally involved. The military and the media will only publish the view they want known. The military is not able to just throw someone out because someone else said so.

As for his medals (which seem slightly exaggerated) they have nothing to do with UCMJ action.

He was outed by a civilian. Some of you watch too much Fox News.

you watch too much TV period. Learn about how military justice is carried out and by whom and how people are discharged before you go running at the mouth

Fehrenbach is a Lt COLONEL! And he has every one of those medals and more! And for the ones saying sexuality should be kept to yourself...I agree; however, think about what it really means to be heterosexual. You are out with your girlfriend or wife and you introduce her as such...you have just discussed your sexuality. You deploy and your girlfriend or wife shows up to show her support and gives you a kiss or hug as you depart...you have just discussed/displayed your sexuality. A co-worker asks what you did on the weekend and you say you and your girlfriend or wife went to the movies...you have just discussed your sexuality. You have a squadron/unit function and your girlfriend or wife shows up with the rest of the girlfriends and wives...you have just discussed/displayed your sexuality. Gays are not asking for special treatment, only that they don't have to hide with the fear of losing their hard-fough for career. They want to be able to go to the movies with their significant other, to hold hands in public, or, heaven forbid, introduce them to a co-worker as the person most important in their life...the same way you would your girlfriend or wife. Sexuality is displayed EVERY DAMN DAY by heterosexuals...you just don't give it a second thought.

Navy nuke

BoOwn had part of it right....

1. He is a Lt Col not a LT

2. He served 18 years in the Air Force

3. He was awarded 8 "Air Medals" one for heroism - not 9 dsm's

Proud army wife - how nice for you that you can MARRY the person you love. How nice for you that your husband can serve and not have to hide you. How very nice for you.

Of course, since you say " Don't assume you know the situation unless you were personally involved", maybe he DOES have to hide you and deny that he has a WIFE?

I am sorry, but I think that President Obama has a hell of a lot more to worry about right now than gays in the military.

You mean he was a Lt.Col. He was kicked out and rightfully so for disobeying orders. Regardless of how he felt about it, he disobeyed orders. A man who has been in the military for 18 years and has acheived the rank of Lt. Col should know how important it is to obey orders.

Way2go...

You poor thing! Crying over an issue that should never have become an issue. But you and your partners keep on trying to convince us that it is as American as apple pie.

A legitimate relationship of Husband and Wife should never even be in your equation of "having to be hidden in the closet". There is no comparison! Being in the closet is the best place.

You got "don't ask don't tell"! That was one hell of a compromise and I hope that we never do anything more than that. Gays always try to get more and keep themselves on top of the news flashes.

You have a point, Worm. However, this policy (law) now needs to go away. We are loosing good men and women in the military because of sexual orientation and that is just plain stupid.

Like I said. If he can deliver a bullet to its target with excellent marksmanship whether he's gay or not, welcome aboard.

We all know there is no such thing as "gays" anyway. Just people with traumatic childhoods, or previous heterosexual relationships that were messed up. Guess those things can mess up people's minds.

Why dont' all the heterosexual people just go around announcing "I'm not gay" wouldn't that be stupid, it's just like the gay population going around saying "I'm gay, and I want everyone to know" it shouldn't be an issue or something to fight for, the president has enough to be concerned with in our country like NUCLEAR WAR, a current war, the economy, come on what is wrong with this country???

This is a minor set back. The younger generation is more excepting of gay people than the previous generation. This law will fall, unfortunately after we have lost some great people.

You're both right. Our society is not yet fully ready to accept gays, but it will be. Such changes in attitudes can take decades, but this particular issue is progressing quite rapidly. I only hope that the homophobes are as willing to stand up for the "will of the people" when the people start voting FOR equal rights.

The ununited States even elected a political group of crooks and a false prophet as leader.

I know! I can't believe people voted for Bush and Cheney! Geeesh!

Half of America voted for Bush as did half of America for Obama.

So? What's your point?

And that scares the hell out of me as a citizen of the "We Might Keep Our Word When It Serves Our Purposes States of America"

And this is different from any other political party/elected official how?

Good point Tom. I would just hope that the President of The United States would be the exception rather than the rule.

Glad I didn't vote for this mess.

Did I miss something? Is Obama's four year term done already!!?? Wow, that was fast. Too bad Bush's didn't go by that fast.

J.P.

You may recall Secretary of Defense Gates had asked Obama to "give him somemore time to deal with this issue"......Gates supports changing the policy but wants to make sure he knows how it will be implemented..

To call Obama a liar seems a bit premature (but I'm sure you know alot about premature".)...as Obama said he would deal with this during his term - since he has 7 1-/2 years to go - I think he has plenty of time to prove you and your ilk that he will keep his word on this.

I do not see how one cannot respect a Commander in Chief honoring the request of his Secretary Of Defense for some additional time.

* as for your statement "Glad I didn't vote for this mess"....pretty sure you didn't vote at all........

You may recall Secretary of Defense Gates had asked Obama to "give him somemore time to deal with this issue"......Gates supports changing the policy but wants to make sure he knows how it will be implemented..

What more time is needed? You make a proclamation that this is the way things are going to be and the soldiers march in line and follow your orders. It's their job. How hard is that? This footdragging is just a cop out excuse.

Well, I guess there is no pleasing everyone.

The fact it may be just over the horizon I thought would give hope, apparently not.

I would also assume since neither you nor I are in the Military that there maybe other issues to look at and some legal aspects to look at. Will this be retroactive? Are there potential legal issues to deal with? Will; housing isssues need to be addressed, showering issues, training issues addressed?

Probably just a little more complicated then just issuing a Proclamation

Foot dragging - your right - it has been all of 4-1/2 months - he should have been able to accomplish everything by now.....guess you thought the last 8 years of not even addressing the issue was what?

You are mistaking my point. I never said Obama was footdragging so the 4 1/2 month reference of yours does not apply. In fact, I didn't say anyone but what I meant was the military in general. There's no reason this could have been done YEARS ago.

If all the other NATO allies can do it, so can we and we need only ask them how. It's not difficult. Why must we always bring up the rear on social issues? No wonder the entire planet thinks we are backwards. We are!!!

It already fell apart the day that many Americans voted for this piece of sludge.

Little Nobody

I guess you were the one out there leading the Protests against the don't ask - don't tell policies for the last 8 years>>>>>>.......

Then how about you keep YOUR sexuality to yourself. Don't ever talk about, show pictures of, or be present in the company of your significant other anywhere in the vicinity of your place of employment or you lose your job. Don't make any references to your being heterosexual, just pretend like you're asexual. Deny who you are and see how great you feel. You'd be whining like crazy if someone told you to do all that or get fired.

We don't need to keep our sexuality to ourselves because it is not against military law! Soldiers in their off time like to do one of three things. Drink, meet girls, and blow off steam. For those of you that have not served it is easy for you to sit in your little chair and write about how appaling it is that gays cannot openly serve. I am sorry but most soldiers do not give a s--t. Your life as a soldier is full of enough BS to have to worry about another mans sexuality. Keep it the way it is, end of discussion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! So much whining on here.. keep your sexuality to yourself and do your job. If not " please leave ".... there are plenty of people to serve the military guaranteed. GET OUT.. and quit whining da— — little bi%ches.. hahahaha

I didn't know three year olds knew how to use the computer so well!

I am not impressed with Obama so far either. Better than that nut Palin though. Again, a vote for the lesser of two evils.

Nice one BoOwnslzzo. You don't even know who Obama was running against. I'll give you a hint - It wasn't Palin. I know you just don't like her cause she's a hot, successful woman; something that has no appeal to you.

Same as when they began allowing women on ships, you spend a ton of money to create berthing etc just for them. So now you have to have 4 (or 6) berthing areas just in case, straight male or female, gay male or female and transgendered male or female. Next will be a quota system to be sure all the new berthing areas are utilized.

We could ask the British how they do it. Or pretty much any other country to went to war with in Iraq. We can fight next to gay soldiers from other countries but not are own? What is it about the flag on their shoulder that makes it difficult?

The "open showers" argument is a legitmate debate, although I think it has more to do with machismo and homophobia than any real practical problems. But can we at least agree that the "showers" argument does not apply to Arabic translators with an office in the Pentagon? The rest we can figure out as we go.

Something like 60% of the women serving on ships return pregnant! Apparently they don't "berth" separately all the time.

So to me that says more money spent to accomodate the few. The money has to come from somewhere...pay? equipment? benefits?

Having been a soldier myself, I am also not a big fan of (most, there are exceptions )females in combat areas and integrated (men/women) basic training for the Army (can't speak on other services). No matter how much you try to ingrain into soldiers that men and women are equal in the military, it will never be seen that way. There will always be soldiers who feel they need to "protect" the women in the unit or that they are not fully able to protect themselves, therefore putting the unit in danger. There will also always be female soldiers trying to play the system to get out of work or job requirments that are difficulct. I believe if women are serving they should be treated the exact same way as men. If they can not meet all of the criteria they need to find an MOS that is less demanding. Whining soldiers annoy me!! As for training...you always have more drama when there are men and women training together. Basic training is about learning to be a soldier, putting men and women together means they are worrying about other things (who likes who and who said what) and there really is no time for that.

Sorry got a little off track...I am stepping off my soap box now before I tick everyone off. :o)

How old are you? Did you husband fight at Gettysburg? I know quite a few Army women who can kick ass! My mom was a Lt. Col in the first gulf war.

I agree in theory with the translator issue, although they still go through training and other schools where this could be a potential problem.

As for how other countries do this, I would be interested to know that myself.

jock59801

The "open showers" argument is a legitmate debate, although I think it has more to do with machismo and homophobia than any real practical problems. But can we at least agree that the "showers" argument does not apply to Arabic translators with an office in the Pentagon? The rest we can figure out as we go.

It doesnt have anything to do with machismo or homophobia. In a Hetro relationship you have a male and female partnership. Both get aroused when around each other, so they have been segerated in Showers and Living Quarters ( as it should be) When you think about it, the person of the opposite sex doesnt even have to have the same sexual orientation to get someone aroused.

So now we have a same sex relationship. They get aroused by the same sex, so should be segerated just like in a hertorelationship. so as someone above said, we now need at least 4 different living quarters and 4 different showers.

Just like a woman does not like to be stared at when she is showering by a man, I know I would not like to be stared at by another man while showering. Its not only respect for the G/L, its respect for the normal ppl too.

Bo please reread my post. I said there are exceptions to my opinions. As a soldier there is also a difference from being in a combat MOS (job) and a combat zone. My husband is a senior NCO NOW with 3 tours to Iraq. I went through basic training in the early 90s. I was one of the last classes to go through with women and men training seperately. Based on the number of women since then who have gotten pregnant during training since they combined them, I would say it was not the best decision.

As for your mom, I am grateful for her service, but I am sure if you ask her you will discover two things...1) she is not an infantry soldier and 2) she has seen MANY soldiers getting out of work because they play the system and use the fact that they are female to do less. I am sure it bothers her as much as it bothers me. It is no different than a soldier "riding a profile". If you are unfarmilliar with the term...ask her.

Actually the only thing she is frustrated with is the fact that she felt she had to work harder than the men who got the the same position. She was very frustrated that many would not even give her a chance to prove herself that she could do the same job just as good if not better than some men.

Excellent points ! wow. I hadn't even thought about that in the manner taht you expressed it. I did know a Gya guy that was in the service in the don't ask don't tell situation and he told me because I asked how hard was it for him not to gok at the other men and he told me very hard. He loves men that is how his head is wired and he sometimes felt like he was raping the other men he couldn't have in his head to get the satisfaction of arousel.

Don't you think they are showering together already? The only people it would bother would be the straight ones, b/c they know who's gay. It's a ridiculous law. Should be outlawed.

She was a field nurse. Gay, Straight, Man, Women, if I am hurt I want whoever can carry me out the fastest helping me.

RE: Gays showering with Straights. I am a Lesbian and my gym does not have a "don't ask don't tell policy". Does yours?

In every gym and every school in the USA the gays and straights use the same bathroom, locker room, shower, sauna without any problems. Are your saying military personal cannot act civil in a locker room because they are immature or less disciplined than the rest of the population?

Jeremy - Gay and straight men have been taking open showers together in the military for centuries, and nobody ever died of embarrassment.

Armywife...I commend you for being open-minded. Really. But nothing really needs to be done...no special arrangements need to be made. Virtually ALL of our allies already allow gays/lesbians to serve openly. Nothing special was done. Gays/lesbians already serve in our military...and they already shower, sleep, eat, etc with the rest with no special arrangments. It appears they aren't sexual deviants waiting for the chance to jump on the first person they see. I guarantee that you and your husband have already slept/showered with a gay or lesbian soldier. Once DADT is lifted, you are still unlikely to know who they are. It's not like they are going to wear a sign or something. Military life will not change...the ones who say it will are using fearmongering tactics to keep a VERY discriminatory policy in effect. Please, use google and read how other countries (again virtually all our allies, including Israel) have implemented it. Great Britain ran into the same arguments that the US is and in the end, everybody said..."what was the big deal?" It was a non-issue.

Amy you clearly missed the point. Yes, it is about being uncomfortable. would you be comfortable showering with 60 men? Even knowing that not all of them would be attracted to you for variousl reasons, there could still be that one person that falls into the category that would be attracted to you, and aroused by showering with you. What you are basically saying is all gay men and women act the same way and would never be aroused by watching someone in the shower.

I realize there are plenty currently serving in the military. That was not my point.

Great point Jeremy, and COMPLETELY true. It would be 'odd' having someone who is turned on by the same sex standing there in a shower environment getting turned on by the scenery. Just very antomically incorrect and strange behavior.

AustinK, you best check your figures there. It's 60% of the military women who worked during pregnancy return to duty. Navy estimates 5% of women on ships were pregnant at any given time of which . Women on ships had a lower pregnancy rate than those assigned ashore and 62% of those women are married.

A straight man in a group of woman doesn't just go crazy and start having sex with every one of them. The sexes are devided for practical purposes. Most LGBTs are incredibly respectful of heterosexuals and would never dream of taking advantage of a situation like that, just as most men and woman who are straight would not go ape@!$%# just because they happened to see someone of the opposite sex in their skivies or in the buff. Do you check out every man you see walking around in swimtrunks?

We can fight next to gay soldiers from other countries but not are own? What is it about the flag on their shoulder that makes it difficult?

Christian extremism is an issue in the United States. I know this first hand, as I am not a Christian. I am not gay, but I am not a Christian, so in some parts of this country, I would still be viewed as "non Christian scum". I lived in the south for a few years. When my neighbors asked what church I attend and my honest response was "I don't attend church" ... the look of shock, I will never forget. And then of course after that, they wouldn't dare look at me or even acknolwedge my existance ever again. I won't even begin to tell you the type of political bumper stickers they had on their cars. Truly disturbing.

In most developed countries, they view it as religious extremism to deny civil rights to a group of people based on religion. Our government in this country still does that, thus it is not wrong for me to say that religious extremism is an issue in the United States.

No one said they would go crazy...but just as you can not GUARANTEE the reaction of a man showering with 60 women you could not guarantee the same with someone attracted to the same sex. That is why men and women shower seperately. And just as there are deviants in the heterosexual community there are also deviants in the homosexual community. I am just saying...that is why men and women use seperate facilities.

Oh and if I had 60 men in good shape parading naked through my shower, I would be lying to say I would never notice a single one. It is just human nature.

Army wife I agree with you one hundred percent. I think that the numbers would not justify the action. If the old numbers of 20 to 1 are correct then in a company sized element that would mean that out of 150 soldiers you would have roughly 8 gay men. That would constitute special treatment for basically a squad sized element simply because of their sexual orientation.

NJ-Miami made an excellent point.

I served aboard two ships in my Naval career and sexual orientation in our berthing areas and showers were never an issue. There were men and women who were very openly gay and they were never out of line with lewd looks or gestures. Sexual harassment is a responsibility for everyone regardless of which way your door swings. In the grand scheme of my service though, the last thing on my mind was who was watching me shower. I was more concerned with keeping myself and my shipmates safe when I went back out on deck or in the field. Aside from that, most of our showers on deployments were limited to two minutes or less. Not much time to be taking in scenery and lounging around like some sort Caligula-style bath house that everyone seems to think will happen if the camouflage is yanked off the comfort zone.

One of my very gay shipmates said it best: "I'm insulted that anyone would think that I would be eye-f&*(&ing them in the shower. I have standards you know...."

Just my two cents worth everyone!!

These group sex shower senerios are so ridiculous. Someone has been watching too many porno movies.

And as the old saying goes..."methinks people protesteth too much...."

All are very good points...as I said in my original post, I am just asking the question.

NJ-I want to clarify something about your post. You equated this to showering in a gym, where most people are strangers. I am talking about a close environment where you know everyone you are near. In my mind, I would never want to shower with the men I served with. Yes, there were wonderful professional people, but there were also those few that I would not even want to be next to. That said, the army did not require me to shower with them. But the only argument I have gotten on this issue thus far is that heterosexuals act that way (inappropriately) but all homosexual men and women know how to conduct themselves properly. I am not buying it.

So I would like to hear VALID arguments. As I said, I am undecided on this issue and it's affects on the military.

As a military veteran, I myself think it is time to get rid of the policy, I served along side several gay and lesbian airmen during my nine years of service. That is because the military has a code of conduct that applies to all that serve. There are rules about pda(public displays of affection), there are rules about relationships within your chain of command, there are rules about officers having relationships with enlisted personnel, there are rules about married service members having affairs, there are rules about sexual harrassment, ther are rules about harassment, it does not matter sexual orientation all of these things are addressed. So I think if the rule is lifted it would not change the way things are in the military. The only thing I think would change is that a married gay couple could apply for govt family housing and that is something you do not see in the miliary at this time because of the dadt ruling. To me as long as you serve your military honorably what does it matter. There is a special bond that devolopes amoung military members, because you are serving away from home, so the men and women you serve with become your family and because of that closeness, most people know your sexual orientation and most people respect that what ever your orientation is, so again, lifting the dadt policy in my opionin will not change the foundation of the miltitary.

Proud Army-Wife

You bring up some interesting points in your above post. Even though I agree that I might be uncomfortable showering in front of my male counterparts I can't say as if I have ever wanted to shower in front of my female shipmates either regardless of their sexual orientation. I can very visibly remember the awkwardness of boot camp and group showers for the first few weeks but everyone gets over it like mature adults should.

Not everyone albeit, hetero or homo sexual, knows how to conduct themselves professionally and those individuals should face those charges accordingly which many have already voiced in this thread. Homosexuality is already in the military so what's the big deal now? Many said that women had no business in the military not so many years ago as well. Seems to be the same issue and infringement of rights just a different minority demographic.

Military discrimination has little to do with comfort while taking showers. Homosexuality is fundamentally an unmasculine behavior. The military cultures masculine behavior in men. If you want to act in unmasculine ways while serving, they kick you out. The ban on homosexuality is a protection for masculine culture, which seems to under attack in America.

NJ to Miami......

In every gym and every school in the USA the gays and straights use the same bathroom, locker room, shower, sauna without any problems.

To say that there are no problems is an out and out lie! There are plenty. But many in these locker rooms that you mention have a choice to shower and participate... or not. The military is a totally different situation.

And as one writer here mentioned.... "do you know what a bunch of year 18 olds are like?" Hormones run wild! They are not yet very mature. And their reactions to gays might not be very pleasant in some instances.

Don't ask... don't tell is as far as we should go. It was too big a concession then... and should never have been made.

I think I covered that in my post.

I am well aware that gay men and women are not attracted to "everyone" and are not out of control sexual predators...that said, I would not want to shower with men wether they were attracted to me or not. I am asking for a logistical solution to this issue.

Why in the world are we sexualizing showering and bodily activities?

Proud Army Wife- First, thank you for your service and for your husbands service! It seems that the problem is open style showers. How hard would it be to put up partitions in the shower that allow every soldier a private place to shower? No one should be naked in the bunk house. Often times, it's the simple solutions that are the most overlooked.

Be realistic. I do not know your sexual orientation, but you would not have a single sexual thought while sharing the shower with 60 people of the gender you are attracted to?

There is no logistical problem exept for homophobes who are too immature to shower with others in general. The straight soldiers who can't handle showers with Gays probably also act immature in the shower with other straight people (towel snapping, penis jokes, name calling).

Proud Army Wife - people have sexual thoughts about people they see walking down the street. Are you going to try to prevent that as well? Realistically speaking, heterosexuals even have sexual thoughts about the same sex at one point or another, though not all. You can't prevent your thoughts from straying, but you can be respectful and not act on those thoughts or make them known to someone who would be uncomfortable with them. I believe you are the one that is being unrealistic. Do you think those male soldiers never have sexual thoughts about their female counterparts while exercising or on duty? Or the other way around, that the woman don't have sexual thoughts about their male counterparts?

They also do not wield the most powerful military in the world.

Yes everyone has sexual thoughts...that was my point...we are all human. But I am not showering with heterosexual men regardless of their thoughts. And no one walking down the street is doing so naked (at least not where I live). And as for how straight men can act immature in the locker/shower room. I wouldn't know as I am a woman and do not shower with them. That is the point!

I'd say anyone who can't control themselves in a shower isn't going to sign up for the military in the first place. (Maybe I am too naive.)

I honestly don't think that there is a single gay man out there who signs up for military duty to cruise the showers and barracks. (And for those of you who think this happens, maybe you've been listening to too many Village People records.)

I am obviously not going to get an answer or logical argument out of anyone today. Everyone is to busy jumping to the wrong conclusions to read what was written. And the argument that straight men and women dont know how to act appropriately but gay men and women do is just nonsense. No one said anything about joining the military to troll for sexual partners. We are all human. I happen to be attracted to men, if you parade a large group of naked men in front of me, I would be lying to say I didn't notice and yes, it would make me uncomfortable. Now, if I were a gay man, the same would be true.

That is the reason men and women do not shower together in the military. so if no one has an argument that really gets to the heart of the issue, which is HUMAN sexuality (gay or straight) then I would have to say I hope they uphold the ruling until these issues can be addressed. I also do not believe in making drastic changes to the military during a war or wars.

Have a good afternoon.

I think if we look to the Country's that have already addressed the service of gay miltary members we would already have the answer, they are allowed the same rights everywhere else. It is already been done in so many other countries, why must the US act like such babies. Get over it, it's going to be allowed someday, we will catch up to other modern countries in this. Why not now? Why argue amongst our own nation? How do we continue to fight for rights in other countries but deny our own service members?

We have lowered our standards in terms of age, mental health issues, and criminal records to get more people into the armed services but we still kick gays out. Aparently some would rather serve next to a 45 year old lunatic with a record than your son. What a shame.

Because some people want the rest of the world to bend to their hangups, religious beliefs and prejudices.

I think the problem here is the "heterosexuals" in the shower who are terrified that the gays won't given them a second look!

I feel that most people really don't care who sees what in a shower.

Ben. Good for you. Open, that would mean out of the closet. I, too, am a professional and conduct myself in a professional manner. I would guess that you had co-workers that knew you were gay, whether you said so or not.

I do think it is sad that talented military men and women are being discharged because of their sexual orientation. And, sadly, this has become a real issue. (Or perhaps it is a good thing.)

People should be as open as they damn well please. At work all my coworkers have pictures of their spouses and kids. Does this make them openly heterosexual? On Mondays they all talk about what they did with their families over the weekend. Would it be wrong if a gay person did the same thing?

Thank you! Finally, someone speaking from common sense!

My guess is, that MOST of those commentary on this issue is coming from those who have never served in the military however seem to KNOW so much about it.

One does not need to serve in the military to know the basic freedom of expression rights.

As someone said before, there was a time when black people could not serve, there was a time when women could not serve; a time will come when it will finally dawn on the Supreme Court (or the Congress) that allowing GLBT people to serve, but asking them to refrain from expressing their orientation and identity is against freedom of expression and thus, unconstitutional.

My brother who served on the USS Truman said he saw quite a bit of heterosexual sex in the passageways late at night. Never homosexuals.

Psolaris, exactly.

Eventually, the Supreme Court MUST rule that "Don't ask, Don't Tell" MUST apply to everyone, otherwise it is unconstitutional.

EXCELLENT point. You can mention you're heterosexual and not be kicked out, but if you mention you're gay, you are.

People don't understand the full extent of this policy. Nobody is advocating legalizing homosexual sexual conduct in the barracks. What people are advocating is letting people not deny that that they are gay or lesbian.

The military is about honesty and integrity. We're asking gay people to lie about who they are are--to be dishonest--and nothing could be more anti-military or un-American.

Argument #1: So, if you were a woman in the Army and were living in a barracks with all men and had one shower and had to share that shower with men, how would you feel while you were showing and a man came in to shower?

Would you not feel that while you were standing there wet and naked that that man was checking you out and perhaps did not have your best interests at heart? And wouldn't you feel pretty uncomfortable? Vulnerable? Threatened? Maybe you would only feel violated because he was looking at you yet somehow you knew that there was no physical threat but the fact that you were being looked at naked was emotionally disturbing. Maybe the guy that walked into the shower was someone who had approached you before for a date or whatever. If I were a woman I think I'd be pretty disturbed over such a situation and I'd do what I could to avoid such a situation.

So what if you're a man and a known homosexual who has made advances to you in the past comes into the shower while you're wet and naked? Do you feel the same as that woman who was in the shower when the man entered? Or can you shrug it off because it's just another guy?

The thing the military has to protect is the morale of its members. If you're living in a barracks with forty guys and one is known to be gay, who would want to be naked in the shower with that one gay man believing that he's checking you out - just as a man would check out a naked woman in the shower.

Just as the military does not put women in a situation where they have to shower with men because of how it would make that woman feel - it does not want to have a morale problem caused by openly gay men checking out straight men who do not want gay men checking them out.

Argument #2: The military does not always attract the most intelligent, sophisticated, urbane folks. If you were a gay man in the military would you want to have Joe the Redneck find out you're gay just so you could get harrassed or beat up?

It's not a matter of "fairness" or "free expression". It's about morale and being able to keep a military unit in fighting shape so it can accomplish it's mission. It's also a matter of safety for the gay person.

Probably a tough post to read for some. But true enough. And I'm a verteran - I'm not just making this up.

Great post Greg. Having servicemen serve openly just opens the door for more problems down the road (separate restrooms/barracks, joint spouse assignment considerations, etc...). Not to mention in some of the countries that we serve the host nation has very strict laws and views for homosexuals. I just don't know. This is a very tough issue to get around. On one hand I want to say lets just do it and on the other, i'm kind of like just leave things the way they are. :(

There other NATO countries who have gays in the military must get around these issues SOMEHOW. Why can't we? Are we dumber than them? More sensitive? What?

I think they're just glad they have soldiers, sexuality isn't an issue if you're willing to fight for your people and country. America is a hypocrite, basically you have freedom to be who and what you want to be so long as you're straight and Christian.

So Greg Johnson, my question to you is this:

If the military has punishments for those men that take action against women in a sexual way, then wouldn't there logically be punishments against any man that takes advantage of another man, or a woman against another woman? If anyone were to take sexual advantage of anyone else, then there is fair punishment to fit that crime. This rule must apply to everyone, not just a certain group of people.

I agree that the military doesn't attract the most intelligent people, but you can train those people properly to be aware of their actions towards others. And you can teach them that should they take inappropriate action towards anyone, whether it be their skin color, religion, gender, or orientation, then you will be punished for it. I also acknowledge that there might be the danger of "checking someone out in the shower," those individuals need to learn how to mature...these are adults now, and if they can't think and act beyond the age of a 15 year old pervert, then perhaps they need not be in the military in the first place. You can't assume that just because someone is gay, they're automatically attracted to everyone in the shower. And those that do think that way flatter themselves too much.

Come on folks, grow up.

Psolaris - It isn't about punishing people for committing a violent crime against another person. It's about the morale of the unit and about preventing the violent act. When I was in the Marine Corps another Marine made the statement that he was gay. He was gone the next day - destination unknown - but I presume he was transferred to another unit and advised to keep his mouth shut. This was not because the Marine Corps thinks gays are socially reprehensible, it was to keep the guy alive.

What bugs me most: if a soldier writes about being gay in a personal diary, someone can steal it, read it and report it. Boom, out of the army even if the soldier in question didn't do @!$%#.

Re: the shower issue... if someone is perving on you, that's inappropriate. Doesn't matter who does it. I just see some homophobe freaking out the instant a known gay person comes into the shower. Doesn't matter if he even looked in his direction. The fact that his gay cooties are in the shower is it.

"This was not because the Marine Corps thinks gays are socially reprehensible, it was to keep the guy alive."

It's sad to know what our military will beat a gay person to death.

Yes Thank God this country still has a few morals left. Sorry in most states you can't marry your Life Partner. Get youself a butt warmer is you need one

go out side get some fresh air my friend, we do not need anymore bleeding hearts in this country, they are destroying it.

No such thing as "gays" anyway. What a joke. Just screwed up people that have had problems.

George, you are a card. Pretending to be so ignorant is really quite humorous. Of course, no one could be that stupid.