I'm not sure if Obama has told Spence what to think on this issue yet, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

i want homosexuals to enjoy every happiness and opportunity they can.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering. You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Jim,
I've never been in combat or the military so I really cant say. From an outsiders view, I dont think we should stop people from serving their country based on their sexual affiliation. Any issues that arise could be handled the same way that issues with woman serving would be handled. Their should be strict rules of conduct and they should be enforced.

I heard this argument yesterday, what if the gay guy/gal refuses to take the hill because he/she thinks they're singled out for swiss cheese duty simply because they're gay.....but anyone could make the same case for virtually anything...."you're sending ME because I'm the only white, black, hispanic, married, single, left-handed, Jewish soldier in the platoon"....not sure that really holds up but if you "don't ask don't tell"...then.....at least one minority would be tougher to single out for swiss cheese duty :uhuh:

btw, I know plenty of very happy gay people...also know some that had a tough time growing up and are resentful for the way that they've been treated as a result of being gay, but this is not something that is unique to being gay....I knew a combat pilot who was gay and happy and very successful....

does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field. seems like it shouldn't be a big deal. i mean, all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives. maybe the military is filled with homophobes, i don't know. pretty lame stuff....if someone can do the job there should be no problem regardless of their background.

If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.


Personally don't care....If a person wants to serve so be it.

Those same choices can be made if its your drinking buddy, or the guy that tapped your wife when you were on duty. As an officer you need to make your decision on whats best at that moment. You are picking the guy because you're a homophobe then its your issue...if the guy is blaming you because he thinks you're singling him out for whatever reason...then he's the one with the issue.

Bottom line is if you can both perform your duties while disregarding everything but the mission...then all is good

I am using "You" as figuratively....not saying you Jim in CT

I'm with these guys. If someone is going to put their life on the line to protect me and my family, I don't care if their gay, straight, bi, bi-curious, etc... I appreciate that they are doing it. They also have had the best training available to them and hoepfully aren't thinking about other soldiers' junk while in combat. If a straight soldier is worried about serving with gays, they need to get over themselves.

btw.....got a call from someone heading up 24 out of Fall River this morning and they were in awe of the dozens and dozens of State Troopers streaking south and every overpass filled with fire engines and ambulances waiting to salute the return of the body of PFC Ethan Goncalo of Fall River......gives you a chill...very sad that he is gone and very good to see the community displaying such enormous respect..

As long as they fight like a tiger , I don't care who or how they get their rocks off with.

I just don't understand why people have to even mention their sexual preference. I don't see how its part of the job or why anyone else even cares. Man or woman , keep your hands to yourself and be a soldier. I guess I just don't get it!

gay soldiers may be a bit victimized by the general protrayal of gays in popular media and culture and then trying to translate that somehow to fighting on the battlefield....would you watch a gay pride parade and then relate that to "fighting like tigers"?...or any gay characters on televsion, movies etc.....unfortunate but if the prevailing stereotype particularly gay men is not necessarily lending itself to the macho fighting machine image...was there a soldier in the Village People?

Personally don't care....If a person wants to serve so be it.

Those same choices can be made if its your drinking buddy, or the guy that tapped your wife when you were on duty. As an officer you need to make your decision on whats best at that moment. You are picking the guy because you're a homophobe then its your issue...if the guy is blaming you because he thinks you're singling him out for whatever reason...then he's the one with the issue.

Bottom line is if you can both perform your duties while disregarding everything but the mission...then all is good

I am using "You" as figuratively....not saying you Jim in CT

Dad, I didn't make my point well I don't think. I'm not saying the problem is if I order a homosexual guy into harm's way because I'm a bigot, although that would obviously be a problem. I was saying, if I'm an officer and I'm gay, and I have involuntary feelings of affection for one of my men, even if I'm not hooking up with the guy, I'm still more likely to put others at risk to protect the guy I like. I can't think of anything that would render a unit inefefctive as fast as that would.

I also reject the comparison of homosexuality to blacks. One's race is not a lifestyle choice.

Also Dad, there are rules in the military against going after someone else's wife. The rationale for that rule is exactly the same as my rationale for supporting the prohibition of gays from serving incombat units, it creates an environment that lends itself to bias.

There are also rules that prevent officers from being drinking buddies with men that you may have to order into harm's way. Those rules also serve the same purpose as my opinion.

If I'm in a firefight, I want the best soldier next to me, regardless of his personal choices. But in order for combat units to function day to day, guys need to have absolute trust in the chain of command. When you introduce sexual tension into that mix (whether it's homosexual or heterosexual), it opens the door to some very serious issues.

I'm glad it's not my problem to solve...

would you rather be in a foxhole with Barney Frank or Major Hasan? I know it's a tough one :confused:

would you rather be in a foxhole with Barney Frank or Major Hasan? I know it's a tough one :confused:

I'd rather be by myself...

As I said, in the throws of a firefight, the orientattion of the guy next to you doesn't matter.

But in terms of the day-to-day functionality of a forward serving combat unit, I think it matters. Unless you had a unit that was composed of nothing but homosexuals (and boy does that image lend itself to some immature jokes) I can see major problems.

does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field. seems like it shouldn't be a big deal. i mean, all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives. maybe the military is filled with homophobes, i don't know. pretty lame stuff....if someone can do the job there should be no problem regardless of their background.

"all our armed forces are out there doing a job, not talking about their personal lives"

I couldn't disagree more. In the service, I got to know my boys better, in a shorter period of time, then anyone else I ever met. You get to know each other in a very deep way.

"does that stuff really come up when your in basic training or under fire in the field"

Yes it does. I did have first-hand knowledge of an officer who had some kind of relationship with the wife of a guy under his command. As a result, the officer had no moral authority whatsoever to order that guy into harm's way (because maybe the officer wanted to get the guy killed so he could be with his wife), and it basically ended the officer's career as a combat commander, because none of his men respected his authority to give them dangerous orders. It's hard to explain, the fact that nothing works unless everyone has absolute, 100% confidence in the orders you get from above. One chink in that armor, and it falls apart.

"if someone can do the job there should be no problem"

I agree 100% with that. I just think that when sexuality is brought into this unique situation of combat, one's ability to "do their job" is potentially severely compromised.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;
"I agree 100% with that. I just think that when sexuality is brought into this unique situation of combat, one's ability to "do their job" is potentially severely compromised.[/QUOTE]

as much as gays may suffer with a certain stereotype and how it may translate to performance military combat in many minds..... the vast majority of us forming opinions on this have absolutely no idea what it is like to actually be in combat...I'm trying to understand exactly how, in combat, would someone's sexual orientation affect their job or ability to do their job, I'm not talking about the affair between the superior and subordinate, just...soldier open about the fact that he's gay(we're generally talking about men since we're talking combat) and how would that affect the situation of combat...I'm just curious, not trying to be a wise guy...I could see that in a situation where you are dealing with the jacked up pack killer mentality needed to go out and do what these guys do, it might be very difficult for an openly gay soldier to fit in, be welcomed and earn the confidence of his peers depending on the individual and various biases that might exist and if you are infact forcing a social experiment and demanding acceptance and punishing for intolerance his peers, it could potentially be a very bad situation

as much as gays may suffer with a certain stereotype and how it may translate to performance military combat in many minds..... the vast majority of us forming opinions on this have absolutely no idea what it is like to actually be in combat...I'm trying to understand exactly how, in combat, would someone's sexual orientation affect their job or ability to do their job, I'm not talking about the affair between the superior and subordinate, just...soldier open about the fact that he's gay(we're generally talking about men since we're talking combat) and how would that affect the situation of combat...I'm just curious, not trying to be a wise guy...I could see that in a situation where you are dealing with the jacked up pack killer mentality needed to go out and do what these guys do, it might be very difficult for an openly gay soldier to fit in, be welcomed and earn the confidence of his peers depending on the individual and various biases that might exist and if you are infact forcing a social experiment and demanding acceptance and punishing for intolerance his peers, it could potentially be a very bad situation

I have no doubt that gays can admirably perform just about any task expected from a combat serviceman. I am 100% confident in that conclusion, and i have never heard any rational person suggest otherwise.

And if I was in combat, for-real combat, you can bet that no one would care about the sexual orientation of the guy watching his back.

And while I have no direct experience with gays in the military, I can forsee problems with morale, spirit, and confidence, based on the hypothetical, but not outlandish, scenarios I posted earlier.

There are other things like logistics. Because while I have no problem with homosexuals, I wouldn't want to shower or bunk with them, just as I would be opposed to men and women bathing and bunking together.

I'm very curious to see how this goes, and I hope my concerns prove to be groundless.

Jim,
I've never been in combat or the military so I really cant say. From an outsiders view, I dont think we should stop people from serving their country based on their sexual affiliation. Any issues that arise could be handled the same way that issues with woman serving would be handled. Their should be strict rules of conduct and they should be enforced.

Exactly my opinion.

in 4 years there will be a brigade of highly skilled Killers. They will be all 250 lb bull dyke lesbians in tank tops and mullets and they will avenge all of the womens rights violations in Afghanistan.

in all seriousness, people were saying the same things when they integrated blacks into the military.

in 4 years there will be a brigade of highly skilled Killers. They will be all 250 lb bull dyke lesbians in tank tops and mullets and they will avenge all of the womens rights violations in Afghanistan.

already in the works..in book and soon to be at the movies at least....something tells me these gals will look more like Baywatch beauties than.... well...what you described...

The Athena Project by Brad Thor

Description
The world's most elite counterterrorism unit has just taken its game to an entirely new level. And not a moment too soon . . .

From behind the rows of razor wire, a new breed of counterterrorism operator has emerged.

Just as skilled, just as fearsome, and just as deadly as their colleagues, Delta Force's newest members have only one thing setting them apart—their gender. Part of a top-secret, all-female program code named The Athena Project, four of Delta's best and brightest women are about to undertake one of the nation's deadliest assignments.

Also Dad, there are rules in the military against going after someone else's wife. ...


Then Things have changed since I was in....because the minute a ship left port...that night the E.M. Club was loaded w/ wives looking to hook up....and plenty of Sailors more than willing to oblige


There are also rules that prevent officers from being drinking buddies with men that you may have to order into harm's way. Those rules also serve the same purpose as my opinion.
...

Also remember My Division Officer whipping out his AMEX Gold card and treating some of the Guys in our Division to some of the "Joys" of Amsterdam"

Just because there are rules doesn't mean they are always followed to the "T"....there we always rules against fraternization....didn't matter, If the Officer was cool we would drink together.

I was saying, if I'm an officer and I'm gay, and I have involuntary feelings of affection for one of my men, even if I'm not hooking up with the guy, I'm still more likely to put others at risk to protect the guy I like. I can't think of anything that would render a unit inefefctive as fast as that would.

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?


also reject the comparison of homosexuality to blacks. One's race is not a lifestyle choice.


And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

Off topic, but there are a great number of our servicewomen who are suffering at the hands of our own servicemen in country....A lot of rapes and unwarranted advances being kept from the public. Happens within military personnel stationed here at home as well, but the numbers skyrockets when on deployment. This was one of the concerns about women in the military from the beginning. Sex plays a part in any and all societies. It just complicates things in a theater of battle. No way we should go back to not having women in a warzone, as they have repeatedly proven themselves. But maybe there are correlations and lessons to be learned....

I have a handful of friends I grew up with who are gay (all females)

That being said we are put on this planet for 1 purpose,
REPRODUCTION !

It's none of my business what someone's sexual preference is unless they tell me. The gay men and women that I've had the priviledge to work with were all stellar in their performance and good company , too. I really do not understand why this is an issue other than fear.

Janet Reno and Ellen are gonna wipe out the Taliban. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates?




And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'

"Couldn't the same be said if your best buddy was one of your subordinates? "

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way. I've known officres who were removed from combat command specifically because they were too chummy with the enlisted guys. If being friendly with enlisted men inhibits one's ability to lead in combat, then certainly being sexually attracted to enlisted men is even more serious.

"And many would reject that it is a 'lifestyle choice'"

True. But I've heard an awful lot of blacks say they resent that comparison. Being born homosexual may not be a choice. Acting on those impulses is a choice. Being born black involves no choice whatsoever. That's not my argument, by the way, but many people make that argument, and I think there's validity to it.

It's none of my business what someone's sexual preference is unless they tell me. The gay men and women that I've had the priviledge to work with were all stellar in their performance and good company , too. I really do not understand why this is an issue other than fear.

Backbeach, I can only assume you didn't read any of my posts. I am not afraid of homosexuals.

Combat command is a little different than working in an office. You simply cannot be an effective combat commander if there is any sense among your men that decisions might be based on sexual attraction. If I was gay when I was in the USMC, and I had a crush on one of my privates, I might be inclined to consistently select others for dangerous assignments. Once my men suspect that, I'm done as an effective commander.

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with fair, especially when life and death are on the line. If I tell a private that he has to kick down a door and secure a house, he has the right to know for certain that I'm not picking him because I want to protect the other guy in the squad that I have a crush on. It would be difficult for me to imagine that a leader could send someone into harm's way that they had feelings for. That sexual chemistry makes objectivity harder to come by. It might not make objecticity impossible, but it makes it harder. Combat is hard enough without needlessly making it harder, just for the sake of political correctness.

Then Things have changed since I was in....because the minute a ship left port...that night the E.M. Club was loaded w/ wives looking to hook up....and plenty of Sailors more than willing to oblige




Also remember My Division Officer whipping out his AMEX Gold card and treating some of the Guys in our Division to some of the "Joys" of Amsterdam"

Just because there are rules doesn't mean they are always followed to the "T"....there we always rules against fraternization....didn't matter, If the Officer was cool we would drink together.

"Then Things have changed since I was in."

Article 134 of the Uniform Code OF Military Justice has been used to prosecute adultery. I don't know when yuo served, or how long that article has been in there. Also, there's a difference between the letter of the law, and how it's enforced, differences by branch, etc...

That being said we are put on this planet for 1 purpose,
REPRODUCTION !

with eating and fishing closely following

Yes, the same could be said. And that's PRECISELY why there are guidelines that suggest that folks who decide who goes in harm's way, shouldn't be too friendly with those they'd send into harm's way.

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......:uhuh:

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

OK, thats what I thought. However I see a scenario I presented being more likely then some unrequited love story you presented....

RIROCKHOUND, maybe you're right that male bonding is more likely to be a problem that sexual attrac tion. But the sexual component DOES NOT HELP, it can only hurt, the only question is how much will it hurt.

And I also feel that if you are on a 13 month combat tour, living in close proximity to those you are attracted to, it's not that crazy to assume that things will happen. Look at all the stories of rape and harassment with women. If integrating women into the military has been one problem afetr another, why is letting gays in going to be any different?

Interesting conversation going on. While I don't have an issue with the basic premise of Gays / Lesbians serving there are going to be some real bad issues to resolve that will be done for reasons of equality or diversity and not for the effectiveness of a fighthing force - BTW the reason we have a military.

Even worse than the issues that are going to need be solved - we have significant forces engaged around the world that could use these resources - we will now how have yet another layer of bureaucracy to provide counceling to, opportunity for, and protection from.

From what I've read, the upper levels of the military are incapable of (or hindered from) focusing on what makes a military tick: people, leadership, gas, guns, and bullets but having to spend considerable time and effort on equality and diversity training. I'm all for equality and diversity, but we have ships and planes that don't get required maintenance becuase the personnel that would be performing that are conducting or receiving the diversity training. Now we're going to add more layer to that?

And now, the backlash will begin (has begun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003908.html)). People that were asked to provide their honest, professional, military opinion and did not support repeal will be labeled as homophobes, unfit or unworthy of the uniform. They will be the next boogeymen steamrolled by the diversity squads that thing that diversity in the military is far more important than the effectiveness of a military.

I don't care what race you are or if you are gay or straight. If you want to server your country, fine. If I were in the military and you were gay, I might sit down and have a beer with you and not have a problem with it, I probably wouldn't want to shower with you. I don't think that makes me homophobic.

DADT might have been the easier way to do this and might have been sufficient until there was some level of peace to work out the kinks.

Ehh, don't think I explained myself well enough, but I have to go to work...

...I'm trying to understand exactly how, in combat, would someone's sexual orientation affect their job or ability to do their job,


Lets use the case of Ted Rubin a Medal of Honor recipient.(not gay)

His sargent was anti- Semite, Rubin is Jewish, he was a holocaust survivor, joined the U S military and fought in Korea. The sargent hated Jews and always gave Rubin dangeous asignments hoping he would be killed. The company was ordered to retreat and the sargent ordered only Rubin to stay behind and hold off the enemy, Rubin held off hundreds of the enemy and was finally wounded and taken prisoner.
Rubin was repeatedly nominated for various medals and awards, but was overlooked because of anti-Semitism by a superior: according to the Washington Post, "in affidavits filed in support of Rubin's nomination, fellow soldiers said their sergeant was an anti-Semite who gave Rubin dangerous assignments in hopes of getting him killed."

Ted Rubin was finally given the Medal of Honor in 2005


My point is that a anti-gay superior can put a gay military person in harms way.

right...if I was a heterosexual....wait, I am a heterosexual...and I found myself in my early 20's in combat(or anywhere else for that matter) in a women only platoon and my sexual orientation oriented me toward....women.... I'm sure I'd not develop any unrequited affection for these women, I certainly wouldn't sneak any peaks and they definitely woudn't be a distraction...even if they were all lesbians......:uhuh:

seems like the same people that will tell you to give your kids birth control becuase they are going to do it any way and can't control their impulses will also tell you that 18-20 something soldiers can serve together even in the most difficult situations and their "impulses" can easily be controlled and will not affect their performance...which can mean life and death

This is a great post Sc ott, and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals will say that abstinence doesn't work, you can't stop people from having sex. Those same folks will then say, 5 minutes later, that having homosexuals in the military won't necessarily have any consequences, because those people can just put their sexuality aside. For a whole year, while living in close quarters with those you are attracted to, and under very trying, often lonely, circumstances. Right.

There is no debating these people, because their platform has no foundation of logic. Amazingly, they see no incostincies in those arguments.

I was an average combat commander, no better, no worse. I was very very glad I never had any girls under my command. I had enough problems to deal with.

JohnR summed it up very nicely

and gets to the heart of why I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich! :buds:



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

hey John...I think Barney would like to shower with you :biglaugh:

Not allowing gay military personnel to shower with straight military peronnel would be “discrimination.” That’s the position of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress who is a proponent of banishing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Frank told CNSNews.com that the idea that people might be concerned over gays and straights showering together, and the possible disruption it could case, is a “silly issue”:

“To accept the principle that homosexuals can’t shower with other people is a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this. We don’t get ourselves dry cleaned. We tend to take showers when we go to the gym; when we play sports,” Frank said.

Jim: small nit to pick.

Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? .

WoW...imagine commanding a platoon of hookers? :uhuh:

Jim: small nit to pick.

I enjoy discussion with you, and find it respectful and you have a good perspective having served... BUT... can you please stop saying that "I Say liberalism.." this... it is a Michael Savage Quote (and book title). I said it before, if you used this in public forums before him, sue that whack-job and get rich! :buds:



As far as the perspective of the inability to control ones sexuality.

Were you married when you were deployed? Did you manage to control your sexual impulses for a year and not have an affair with a female soldier? Hooker? I assume no as you seem like a stand-up guy.

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

When liberals stop supporting an insane agenda (murderers deserve to live, but not unborn babies), I'll be happy tp stop referring to it as a mental disorder. It is what it is.

To your other points, I got married on leave, during my service. No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to. If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?

Your argument literally could not be weaker. A heterosexual soldier, while on duty, has no temptation for sexual distraction. A homosexual soldier would be surrounded by temptation.

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize

because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to. If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?

A heterosexual soldier, while on duty, has no temptation for sexual distraction. A homosexual soldier would be surrounded by temptation.

I don't know, you remember that episode when George was visiting his mom in the hospital and the male nurse was giving the guy in the next bed a sponge bath and he said he felt a twinge...."not that there's anything wrong with that"

I think assuming a gay soldier is going to be more prone to rape or assault another soldier is shaky ground.

Please don't put ugly words in my mouth, hold me accountable for what I actually say, OK?

Homosexuals are not more likely to rape or assault, I never said any such thing. I do think they are just as likely to be distracted by sexuality towards those they are attracted to, as heterosexuals are. So why open up a messy can of worms when people are already dealing wityh life-and-death situations?

Please don't put ugly words in my mouth, hold me accountable for what I actually say, OK?

Homosexuals are not more likely to rape or assault, I never said any such thing. I do think they are just as likely to be distracted by sexuality towards those they are attracted to, as heterosexuals are. So why open up a messy can of worms when people are already dealing wityh life-and-death situations?

it's that mental disorder thing...:uhuh:

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue. :huh:

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

hey John...I think Barney would like to shower with you :biglaugh:

Not allowing gay military personnel to shower with straight military peronnel would be “discrimination.” That’s the position of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress who is a proponent of banishing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Frank told CNSNews.com that the idea that people might be concerned over gays and straights showering together, and the possible disruption it could case, is a “silly issue”:

“To accept the principle that homosexuals can’t shower with other people is a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this. We don’t get ourselves dry cleaned. We tend to take showers when we go to the gym; when we play sports,” Frank said.

No, not showering with Barney, nor will I have a beer with him.

So, if I base who I want to take my shower with by gender, I get to shower other men, but if I chose to shower with those of my preferred sexuality I get to shower with women, but since we know THAT won't happened I think I have just found a new consideration for the equality police. Who will protect my desires rights?

(disclaimer: that was an attempt at humor. No people, races, genders, possible genders, sexuality, multiple sexualities, multiple race/sexuality/gender/futuregender were intended to be offended).

Im getting lost here, are we talking golden showers?

No, not showering with Barney, nor will I have a beer with him.

So, if I base who I want to take my shower with by gender, I get to shower other men, but if I chose to shower with those of my preferred sexuality I get to shower with women, but since we know THAT won't happened I think I have just found a new consideration for the equality police. Who will protect my desires rights?

(disclaimer: that was an attempt at humor. No people, races, genders, possible genders, sexuality, multiple sexualities, multiple race/sexuality/gender/futuregender were intended to be offended).

Jonn, you are a white, heterosexual, middle-class, stable, successful, happy male. As such, the liberals have not anointed you with "victim" status, and therefore, their agenda doesn't include giving you whatever you want.

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue. :huh:

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.

Very well put TDF. I seriously doubt that there are going to be hundreds of Carson Kressley types lining up at the local recruiting office to enlist because they can now openly serve.

Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military...they've always been there....they've always fought side by side, showered w/ you, kicked back a few beers w/ you. Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue. :huh:

As long as they are capable at doing the job they are tasked w/....its a non-issue.


(1) Under DADT, gays had to choose between coming out, or serving in the military. They could not do both. By repealing dadt, gays can come out and serve, so it stands to reason (to me) that more will enlist. Furthermore, today, if a soldier comes out, they are discharged. After dadt is repealed, coming out won't be grounds for discharge. Given those realities, how can we NOT expect more gays in the military.

(2) as far as changing the current reality. Under dadt, gays in the military cannot come out. Therefore, no one knows they are gay, and they cannot act gay, so all of the hypothetical problems I proposed are eliminated. Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

Very well put TDF. I seriously doubt that there are going to be hundreds of Carson Kressley types lining up at the local recruiting office to enlist because they can now openly serve.

If your point was valid, and it's not, then why bother repealing DADT? Every single argument I've eber heard in support of repealing DADT centered around the fact that openly gay folks can't serve. Remove that barrier, and please tell me why we won't see more gays enlisting. Please don't just say "no more gays will enlist", please tell me WHY more won't enlist.

Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

how come I keep picturing Corporal Klinger in my head?

(1) Under DADT, gays had to choose between coming out, or serving in the military. They could not do both. By repealing dadt, gays can come out and serve, so it stands to reason (to me) that more will enlist. Furthermore, today, if a soldier comes out, they are discharged. After dadt is repealed, coming out won't be grounds for discharge. Given those realities, how can we NOT expect more gays in the military..


Again, there wasn't a problem w/ them being there before so who cares if more enlist...as long as they are capable of doing the job, welcome aboard.

(2) as far as changing the current reality. Under dadt, gays in the military cannot come out. Therefore, no one knows they are gay, and they cannot act gay, so all of the hypothetical problems I proposed are eliminated. Without dadt, gays can "be gay", and therefore all of my hypotheticals become more relevent.

How does one "Act Gay"...more Show Tunes in the Barracks?....pinup posters of Judy Garland? Navy changes there song from Anchors Aweigh to In The Navy by the Village People?

I really don't think anything will change....

Or I could be wrong and its already happening...:hihi:

YouTube - Monty Python Precision Drilling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y)

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

OK, I've been on the side lined reading this thread so I asked a good friend of mine who is in the Marine Corps about this. His response: "I was in a fox hole one time overnight and it was really cold. We huddled together to stay warm and used each others body heat basically by spooning to stay warm. The last thing I would want on my mind in that situation is if the guy in back of me was going to pop a woody". That is a true story and the answer he gave me. I'm not saying they shouldn't serve and to be honest, since I was never in the military, I don't even think I should have an opinion on it since the military knows better than civilians what impact this has. They are the ones who should decide. I feel that if it compromises moral or effectiveness the answer should be no. It's lives on the line that needs to be thought about, not inclusioon and making everyone happy. Let the military decide, give each soldier a vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A few other countries have handled this in their military and have openly gay people serving. It can be done. However, I am not so sure those other countries have the Politically Correct Police who could give a rat's buttocks about military effectiveness pulling the puppet strings.

I want the military of my country to be made up of warriors, scholars, and warrior scholars.

I do not want it to be made of nor directed by progressive thought police allocating based on race/religion/socio-economic background, and now sexual persuasion.

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice. :hihi:

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice. :hihi:

I'd like to think that too, unfortunately it doesn't seem like that from some of what I have read attributed to Gates, Mullen, Roughhead, etc...

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.
Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.
In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering.
Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.

You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.
Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Again, there wasn't a problem w/ them being there before so who cares if more enlist...as long as they are capable of doing the job, welcome aboard.



How does one "Act Gay"...more Show Tunes in the Barracks?....pinup posters of Judy Garland? Navy changes there song from Anchors Aweigh to In The Navy by the Village People?

I really don't think anything will change....

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong.

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there.

You don't know what "act gay" means? Really? Under dadt, gays have to conceal the fact they are gay, and therefore, NO ONE KNOWS THEY ARE GAY. If you repeal dadt, then 2 generals could dance cheek to cheek at a military ball doing the tango, and tongue kiss, announcing their love to all the world.

If you repeal DADT, gays can come out, announce they are gay, and then, everyone knows they are gay.

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice. :hihi:

If it wasn't for liberal politically correct bullsh*t, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.


In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.


Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.


Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Spence -

"Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society."

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

"In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest."

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

"Social engineering has nothing to do with it."

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

"Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are."

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

"but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time."

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

"The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare,"

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

Spence -

Can you do somehting for me? As pointed out by Scott W (brilliantly, I might add), can you explain an apparent flaw in liberal ideology?

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

I'm tired, I have a cold, and my one year old has been puking on me all day. Sorry, I'm tired and cranky.

Marine Corp has ordered all Marines to be issued aluminum pie plates as standard combat gear to be used to protect backside when in close proximity to another Marine. And mandatory compliance to start using soap on a rope. :rotf2: :rotf2: :rotf2: :rotf2:

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.



In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Likwid -

"Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard."

Like all liberals, you completely dodged my question, which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. You dodged like the intellectual coward you are, and asked me a different question. But that's OK, because I can handle that one.

When it comes to preventing STD's and unplanned pregnancies, abstinence is the only method that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Many recent studies show that abstinence education probrams reduce casual sexual activity.

Let's look at the liberal approach to this problem, which is to tell folks it's OK to have casual sex, as long as you're careful. That argument surfaced in the 1960's during the sexual revolution. Liberals argued that if birth control was readily available to everyone, that would lead to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STD's.

Well, the liberals got what they wanted. Birth control is readily available. And what happened was a huge INCREASE in unplanned pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, abortions, STD's, adultery, and divorce.

Well done, liberals...kudos to you all...

"In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?"

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

Yes, you have a job to do. The majority of people who have some experience in combat, feel that openly homosexual people have a harder time doing that job effectively. Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

I responded directly to your points. Maybe you can try to show me the same courtesy, and answer the question that I was asking.

P.S. Dont worry, we all know why you didn't answer, because you can't. There is no explanation for why liberals claim abstinence doesn't work (based upon the belief that you can't stop people from having sex), yet those same liberals claim that homosexuals can put their sexuality aside while serving in combat. There is simply no earthly way to reconcile those two positions. So you dodged and asked me what you thought was a "gotcha" question.

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.
The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

It's called drawing a parallel.

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.
I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.
I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".
This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

we all know about Spence's "facts" :rotf2:

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.



It's called drawing a parallel.



Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.


I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.


I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”


This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?



The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

Spence, the Sec Defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs want to repeal DADT. And like you said, most Americans want it repealed.

You left out one tiny fact. Every poll taken of servicemen who are serving in combat shows that a vast majority don't want to overturn DADT.

So you say you'll let the military decide? It sounds like you only listen to the military folk who agree with you, and you're ignoring the guys who will be most impacted.

Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?
Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

Mhy take on DADT is this, by the way...if a huge majority of combat troops are OK with it, and only a few homophobes are opposed, then I say repeal DADT and letthe military deal with the few bigots.

But that's not the case. Every poll I've seen shows that if you ask guys who are serving in combat commands, 65% want to leave DADT in place. Those are the guys putting their necks on the line, so I would choose to defer to them.

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda. There is no limit to how inane a spin you will put on facts that you don't like.

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...:)

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...:)

Scott, one of my favorite hobbies is blowing holes in the logic (or lack thereof) that liberal ideology is based upon. Your observation was a perfect example, and one that I would never have thought of. I have repeated that several times in the last few days, and I look forward to nailing my communist sister-in-law with it, when I see her at Christmas!

You know how effective it was, based on the fact that the liberals here refuse to respond to it!

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong..

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. :wall: I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" :huh:.

Trust Me...I've been married 20 years....I've mastered the art of admitting that I'm wrong....

I see "thoughts" as being opinions, and as far as I knew sombody's opinion is never wrong....facts are wrong...but not opinions. I gave my opinion...and I stand by it, I have no issue w/ gays serving in the military...period. My Opinion...don't care if you don't like it....I'm not changing it.

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there..

I thought I was pretty consistent on my stand, where did I contradict myself in this thread...I'm not seeing it. I never said no more would enlist, I did say I don't have a problem if more want to serve their country...not denying that. And again it is pretty consistent w/ my stand on the issue.

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. .

I guess we don't....and I'm OK w/ that

You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.

I don't think I dodged anything...I answered what I thought was correct to me.....I don't know what more you want me to say...Repealing DADT doesn't bother me...

A Lot of things in this forum get "Tiresome".....but its like a train wreck I guess because I keep coming back to poke around...shame on me

Jim:
"which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. "

There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. Contraception is not a liberal ideology, although it is against Catholic ideology. I'm sure lots of conservative's have sex before marriage. Maybe not devout Catholics, but give me a break. I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married.


I asked if you were married while deployed because you were able to control your sexual impulses. No affairs, no hookers.

Your response was "No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?"

So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? I suspect you would have done your job and stayed faithful. Yet you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight.

I have one other thoughts/question and then I have to get back to work to get finished up so I can take tomorrow off.
1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job.



Nebe and I had coffee with a friend of ours (and Spence's) last night. He posts, but not in the Political forum. Vietnam Vet, paratrooper, shot in combat and a lot of time in that jungle. Still crazy as hell in his early 60's. I asked his thoughts and he reiterated a story of his time in Nam where one of the toughest, 'killing machine's in his unit was gay and they all knew it. No one person had a problem with it, ever. During combat, where as he said, your so scared and focused on staying alive that everything else doesn't matter". I can't offer anything as I don't share that perspective or experience with you guys.


Happy holidays to you and yours (Sincere!)

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. :wall: I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" :huh:.

Trust Me...I've been married 20 years....I've mastered the art of admitting that I'm wrong....

I see "thoughts" as being opinions, and as far as I knew sombody's opinion is never wrong....facts are wrong...but not opinions. I gave my opinion...and I stand by it, I have no issue w/ gays serving in the military...period. My Opinion...don't care if you don't like it....I'm not changing it.



I thought I was pretty consistent on my stand, where did I contradict myself in this thread...I'm not seeing it. I never said no more would enlist, I did say I don't have a problem if more want to serve their country...not denying that. And again it is pretty consistent w/ my stand on the issue.



I guess we don't....and I'm OK w/ that



I don't think I dodged anything...I answered what I thought was correct to me.....I don't know what more you want me to say...Repealing DADT doesn't bother me...

A Lot of things in this forum get "Tiresome".....but its like a train wreck I guess because I keep coming back to poke around...shame on me

Dad -

First, I was exgausted and cranky last night, sorry I came across ruder than I should have...

"I never said no more would enlist"

Here is what you said, which I interpreted, incorrcetly, as meaning more would enlist...

"Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military"

Yuo also said that since gays are already in the military, repealing DADT doesn't change much. You said this...

"Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue"

My point is that if someone is hiding the fact that he is gay, and no one knows he is gay, that's one thing. If that same guy comes out, tells everyone he's gay, and is openly lusting after other men, that is something different. Maybe it's not more problematic, but it's different. It seemed like you were suggesting that repealing DADT would not change anything.

All this concern about Gay's, I'd be just as concerned about Greeks, they carry the VASELINE with them, hooooooo. :rotf2: :rotf2: :rotf2:

Jim:
"which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. "

There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. Contraception is not a liberal ideology, although it is against Catholic ideology. I'm sure lots of republican's have sex before marriage. Maybe not devout Catholics, but give me a break. I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married.


I asked if you were married while deployed because you were able to control your sexual impulses. No affairs, no hookers.

Your response was "No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?"

So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? I suspect you would have done your job and stayed faithful. Yet you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight.

I have one other thoughts/question and then I have to get back to work to get finished up so I can take tomorrow off.
1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job.



Nebe and I had coffee with a friend of ours (and Spence's) last night. He posts, but not in the Political forum. Vietnam Vet, paratrooper, shot in combat and a lot of time in that jungle. Still crazy as hell in his early 60's. I asked his thoughts and he reiterated a story of his time in Nam where one of the toughest, 'killing machine's in his unit was gay and they all knew it. No one person had a problem with it, ever. During combat, where as he said, your so scared and focused on staying alive that everything else doesn't matter". I can't offer anything as I don't share that perspective or experience with you guys.


Happy holidays to you and yours (Sincere!)

Wow.

"There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. "

So you're syaing there's no contradiction because asking high schoolers to control themselves is one thing, but asking soldiers to control themselves is somehting else? If that was valid, and it's not, I wonder why women in uniform have had as many problems as they have had? If anything, sexuality is more pervasive in uniform, especially in combat commands, because it's such an intense, stressful, depressing, lonely existence.

"I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married. "

Good for you. The fact still is, that the availability of contraception, with the inevitable degredation of sex into a casual thing, has led to an explosion of societal problems. It might have been good for you, it has not been good for society. That's a different debate...

"So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? "

No. What I meant was this. Let's say I was single, and there was a girl in my command I had a crush on. Or even if I was married, maybe there was a young girl that I wanted to look after, maybe I feel like a father to her. I might have let those feelings influence my decisions, decisions like who has to kick down a door and secure a room. I'd like to think I could still be just as objective, but human nature is what it is.

I guess what I'm saying is, at a minimum, repealing DADT will make effective combat more challenging. And in my opinion (rational folks can certainly disagree), combat is challenging enough without needlessly injecting more challenges, just for the sake of political corrcetness.

But at the same time, I can respect the feelings of a patriotic homosexual who feels the same calling to serve that I felt.

"you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight. '

nope, that way more extreme than what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this. Let's assume I'm a private and my lieutenant is openly gay. I'm straight, but I know there are other gays in my platoon. If I suspect that the lieutenant is giving me the dangerous jobs because he's got a crush on the other guys, that's a serious problem. Even if I have no valid reason to believe that, it's still a problem. The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

"1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job. "

In my company, I didn't suspect anyone was gay. I'll say this. If one of my guys was gay, I still would have died for him without hesitation. But I'd bet that if one of my guys was gay, some of the men would have complained to me about thinking it's immoral, about not wanting to shower with him, not wanting to bunk with him, etc...I had enough going on, I was glad I didn't have to deal with that distraction.

As to your heroic friend...I have said repeatedly that when in actual combat with bullets flying (I've been there twice), sexual orientation is not on anyone's mind. But the day-to-day living in a forward-serving combat command, things are a little different. Morale is very important, respect for the chain of command is vital.

I've been in combat, and now I work in an office. They are very, very different environments, they are very different realities. What works in one may not work in the other. In fact, what may be required in one, may be disastrous in the other. I may not trust my boss or co-workers in the office, but I can still do my job effectively. I cannot function in a combat command without that trust. That trust has to be absolute and total. And I'm not saying that repealing DADT necessarily erodes that trust, but it makes it a little harder, it invites additional challenges to overcome.

Hope you have a wonderful holiday too. God Bless all here.

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.
That's not what I said.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda.
Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...
If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

Based on this line and the rest of your last post, do you feel the same about women in combat?

That's not what I said.


Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.

Based on this line and the rest of your last post, do you feel the same about women in combat?

Same logic, yeah. I hate saying that I want to deprive patriotic women of their desire to serve in combat, but it's a rough environment. The introduction of women into combat areas has not been without problems.

I love my wife and my mom, and I don't think that my opinion that women shouldn't be in combat is based on sexist notions, it's not like I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I believe in equal opportunity for women in the workplace, I guess I feel that combat is a different animal.

If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

Yes I would. Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed. If you don't see an indefensible inconsistency there, you aren't seeing clearly. If you think big government and high taxes is the answer, despite what's happening in Europe as I type this, you aren't thinking clearly, rather you have been indoctrinated. I know how patronizing that sounds, I just can't come up with another explanation of an ideology that claims that serial killers have the right to live but not unborn babies.

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.
I doubt you are, but here goes...

Of all the military leadership, the Marine Commandants have voiced perhaps the most vocal opposition to DADT on the basis that it won't enhance the fighting force and may be a distraction that would cost lives.

If my direct leadership said the same in context of my personal duty it would certainly be a factor in my position on the matter.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.
Good to see you use the updated statistics.

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. I also mentioned that from what I've heard this concern is being factored into the strategic shift in direction.

Hell, this is validation if anythings else, and a far cry from an accusation of "coercion". Once again, you're just applying your radical left-wing template on the situation, rather than reading it for what it is.

-spence

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. :wall: I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" :huh:.
Ah yes, the principle reason I've, for the most part, stopped posting in here - Constructive *discussions* are impossible.

"What's your opinion (though I don't really care unless it's fully in line with mine)?" is a common theme.

Try to create dialog and you're an idiot (or #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&) as soon as you don't agree with someone else's opinion. Political commentary from the media is considered fact and every topic turns into a repetitive, nitpicking, out-of-context battle of selective hearing and verbiage spinning, where someone challenges the people they disagree with to disprove their own outrageous hypothesis.

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.


And that private better be NJP'd or have his face stomped in.

Yes I would.
Then why answer the question?

Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed.
"Flip-flopping" and "hypocrisy is redundant...as is "ScottW" and "unwittingly" :humpty:

-spence

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. -spence

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

Then why answer the question?


-spence

Because maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong and that there is a sound, valid reason for the seeming flip-flop. Since you keep dancing around it, I assume you have no response. Maybe you asked the question on The Huffington Post, and you're waiting for Sean Penn to tell you what to say.

I am open-minded Spence, despite the fact that I am a wise-ass. I was radically pro-abortion when i was younger. I also don't think conservatives are always correct (I have no issues with gay marriage, I think we need way more strict gun control laws).
I voted for Bill Clinton and think we was a pretty good president. I also think Bush 41 was an awful president.

Your view on every single issue seems to be, liberal = good, conservative = bad. The world isn't that simple.

I look at the facts open-minded, and let the facts tell me what they're trying to tell me. When I'm confronted with a fact that doesn't fit my agenda, I don't cover my ears and scream "Bush stole the election! Bush stole the election!"

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

Great idea! Although rest assured, I'm laughing plenty over here.

The troubling thing is, I believe deep-down we all want what's best for our country, we all want the best possible future for our kids. But when our opinions are so diametrically opposed on such vital issues, I don't know how to solve that?

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".
This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence


Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site :deadhorse::rotflmao::scratch:

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site :deadhorse::rotflmao::scratch:

you really checked? :) I wouldn't be able to figure out how...:uhuh:

you really checked? :) I wouldn't be able to figure out how...:uhuh:


I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer :rotf2:

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.
No, that the statistic (58%) showed a concern.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.
I think it's reasonable for the Marines to be more sensitive to this issue than the other branches of the military. This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do the culture and mission demands.

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. I think the military leadership at the top is looking at the strategic implications and basing their decision on what's best over the long haul. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer :rotf2:

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=125871)

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that...:uhuh:...sign em' up!

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that...:uhuh:...sign em' up!

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.




***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.






***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

Reminds me of the joke about women in combat:
If we lost, so what you beat a bunch of girls; if we win our girls beat you. You can't lose either way. (Dad's disclaimer incorporated by reference.)

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=125871)


shhhhh!

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

Come on, if it weren't for the US, any Isreali military (gay or straight) would not be able to fight in our current world. Bad example in my opinion

I also don't think Isreal has a voluntary Military like ours but I could be wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, if it weren't for the US, any Isreali military (gay or straight) would not be able to fight in our current world. Bad example in my opinion

Piscator: I do not see the relevance between the fact that the US supports/gives aid to Israel and whether gays in their military has been a problem for them. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces. If this was an issue that impacted effectiveness of their combat forces they would have dealt with it without regard to any PC concerns. That is why I think their experience might be worth looking at.
Israel has a draft system covering both men and women. After an initial two or three year stint you stay in the reserves with a yearly period of active service for a number of years after your initial commitment is completed. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces.

Piscator: I do not see the relevance between the fact that the US supports/gives aid to Israel and whether gays in their military has been a problem for them.
Because there isn't any.

Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces. If this was an issue that impacted effectiveness of their combat forces they would have dealt with it without regard to any PC concerns. That is why I think their experience might be worth looking at.
I'd agree. Aside from the US Marines Corps, I'm not sure any fighting unit can come as close to the close quarters counter-insurgency experience as the IDF.

Israel has a draft system covering both men and women. After an initial two or three year stint you stay in the reserves with a yearly period of active service for a number of years after your initial commitment is completed. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces.
Perhaps this is a motivator. It would be hard to make service mandatory, then exclude some because of their sexual orientation.

You might have a lot of Corporal Klingers :humpty:

-spence

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.
Since they do have a draft, it may be needed to include openly gay soldiers, if they didn't let them enter, it would be an easy way out for someone who didn't want get drafted.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what the right answer is, I think the Military (and not just those at the very top) should be the ones who decide. As I stated earlier a good Marine friend of mine strongly feels it would hurt moral and take focus away from soldiers. His is just one opinion. I hope it works out and does no harm. Check back with you guys after Christmas. Going to spend time away from the computer the next few days. Merry Christmas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.

I still don't think this has anything to do with it. Sure the US provides monetary aid (and political cover in the UN) but this is no substitute for leadership, training and a very tough minded attitude.

-spence

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh



How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

I'm not sure if Obama has told Spence what to think on this issue yet, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

i want homosexuals to enjoy every happiness and opportunity they can.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering. You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.


My good side says live and let live..................the cynical side says what better place for a gay male to be than to have all those guys around to hit on, but one of our armed forces.

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

I dont really......................but then again I do think being gay is a choice and not in one's DNA.

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

That is the reason why the Spartan's were so good, they never left their friends behind :rotf2: (sorry, couldn't resist)

***Disclaimer, this is a joke. It's ok to laugh at serious issues***

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

I was being sarcastic...

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not really...if your contention is

"we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve."

the Armed Forces should be made to accomodate All Americans who would like to serve lest they be guilty of some sort of descrimination or lack of tolerance and compassion....

after all..." While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well."

what's a little "disruption" in the name of diversity and making the military better reflect all of our society....?

not really...if your contention is

"we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve."

the Armed Forces should be made to accomodate All Americans who would like to serve lest they be guilty of some sort of descrimination or lack of tolerance and compassion....

after all..." While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well."

what's a little "disruption" in the name of diversity and making the military better reflect all of our society....?

Apples and oranges. There are basic standards deemed necessary to for various roles to support expected mission demands. While some may argue exactly what those standards should be, once set, it's pretty clear cut if a mental or physical standard can't be met.

You're just trying to stir the pot with a counterproductive spoon. Yet again.

-spence