jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (106 posts)

Gays in the Military, good or bad idea, or the right thing to do??

  1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
    Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago

    I am in the Marines and I truly believe everyone has the right to serve their country in the Armed forces.  The only issue I have the fact that the military mentality would make it very hard to start the process of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

    I serve around young Marines and let me tell you these guys can be the most testosterone driven individuals out there and just thinking about how can these guys share the barracks, working place, without getting in some kind of problem just gives me a headache, it is true we can make these Marines act a certain way so minimize problems but anyway you look at it, there will be a lot of adjusting and problems.

    I personally think it should have been kept the way it was, or is. I don't even know if anything has changed yet. "don't ask don't tell" works, it is my own personal opinion though.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Gays have been serving in the military forever, They serve openly without problems in the armed forces of most other countries. And of course they can be found in every civilian occupation from pro football to ballet dancers, What's so different about the Marine Corps?

      1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
        Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We are just different what can I say.

        Seriously though we are the smallest branch of the military, we are the only branch where we have male basic training and female basic training.  We have the lowest ratio of females in the military, even the Commandant of the Marine Corps has said the "dont ask don't tell policy" works.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marine-c … id=9948516

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The policy may work for him, but not for everybody, I would be surprised it you haven't served with a gay Marine or two who everybody knew was gay.

          1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
            Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure I have, I'm sure many have but we just find it better if our Marine Corps lifestyle is not changed, will we adapt if our Commander In Chief tells us to change we will of course, but it will be painful, in my opinion of course.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I've worked in numerous jobs in private industry, in state and the federal governments and in the U.S. Army alongside gays in nearly all cases without experiencing any significant or "painful changes in lifestyle" as a result. I'm afraid you'll just have to suck it up, soldier! [In any event, I respect you and I'm grateful  for your service to our country!]

              1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
                Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                With all due respect please don't call me Soldier, I have great respect for them but I am not a soldier.  One of those things we Marines take pride in to be called Marines

                You're right if we're told to enforce regulations we will and suck it up. Just the way it is.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, "Marine!" No offense intended!

        2. dutchman1951 profile image59
          dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I fought in Viet Nam, Operation Hastings. We had gays in the squads
          they Bled red, fought hard, and were no different under fire than any of us were. Reguardless we all were in togeather man, weither we wanted it or not.

          If they keep there personal life style to themselves no problem, if they make it a political agenda, with loose behavior spilling out into the barracks..?

          than that is something else and I am sure the brass will answer

          God Bless Bro, keep your head and heart, and thank you for your service
          your in our thoughts, always.  all of you guys are.

          1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
            SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ...same to you Dutchman...vietnam...wow...glad you made it!

            1. dutchman1951 profile image59
              dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ty, and you also Bro, hang tough it gets better, it really does.

          2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            there were no known gays in ranks with us that anyone knew about. i am a vietnam vet also and remained in till 81' completed tours  in a lot of places.

          3. Ruben Rivera profile image79
            Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My hat off of to you man, thanks for your service that you have given to our country.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This whole thread sounds like an exact duplicate of an earlier one;  that's odd.   But still a good thread.
      And my answer is still the same---I agree with you.

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I think anyone regardless of sexual orientation has the right to serve in the military if they feel they want to serve their country like that. I have no problems with it. Although i can understand where your coming from and I agree with everything you said, but I know gay activist are trying to abolish the "don't ask, don't tell" policy because many feel they shouldn't have to hide their sexuality to serve their country.

      It's a tricky situation to say whether or not "Don't ask, don't tell" is a fair policy, as it works both ways.  However, i'll just say it bluntly by saying ANYONE, if physically and mentally able, have the right to serve their country if they choose.  It's their right and choice, that I think we all should respect regardless of who they are.

    4. 0
      Jasmine JellyBabyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I seriously don't get why your sexual preference should decide what you do. I always say "I don't care who you fcuk behind closed doors, just don't tell me about it!! PERIOD..

      This whole gay rights thing is so infuriating.. let people be what they want and not rub it in our faces. We don't need to know what you do behind the veil!!

      1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
        JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thank you thank you! my question exactly! why do they want everybody to know?

    5. tritrain profile image77
      tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I was in the Navy during a time when women weren't allowed on warships.   Things have changed a lot.

      The concern on my ship was space. 

      Having compartments (rooms) for women would have been a challenge, as most of the ship included people dressing in the passageways.  I can't imagine how a submarine could do it these days.

      Now factor in privacy concerns of hetero and homosexual males and females, and possibly the need for separate compartments for them. 

      Most people probably wouldn't care, but what about the ones that do?

      I'm sure other branches of the military would have their own challenges.

    6. tritrain profile image77
      tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I actually agree Ruben.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Hi Ruben,
    Thanks for sharing your practical perspective on gays in the military.
    The fact is, gays ARE serving in the military. They will CONTINUE to serve in the military.
    The issue seems to me more that being open about their sexuality can get them kicked out of the military than the potential disruption to morale.
    Although I have read several polls that show that military personnel favor getting rid of the "don't ask/don't tell" rule.

    Hundreds if not thousands of specially trained personnel (including a lot of interpreters -- surely those are not sharing barracks with you and your men?) have been outed and booted.
    They were performing their duties perfectly well.
    Did their sexual preference have any effect on their ability to do their jobs? No.
    In reality, the spirit of the "don't ask/don't tell" rule may well continue even when the letter of the law is ended.
    The important thing is that these people are serving their country just like you are.
    Just like gender, skin color or ethnicity should not subject you to discrimination, neither should sexual orientation.
    That's my opinion, anyway. MM

    1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
      Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have no doubts that gays can perform as well as anyone in the military, but one thing is for sure is that good morale boosts performance in the field and that is where there might be an issue.

      Like I said I don't question anyone's ability but do question the ability to maintain camaraderie across the troops in the beginning, the adjustment period.

  3. skyfire profile image75
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Straight Soldiers will use sniper instead of close combat. Close combat against GAY soldiers is more dangerous than bullet.

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Only for Americans, apparently.  Every other first world nation has an integrated standing army and has not experienced any significant problems.  So either gay Americans are weirdly dangerous, or other Americans in the army are weirdly bigoted?

      1. skyfire profile image75
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, never thought this will turn serious. Just posted to be funny one but i guess these days we are taking this just like racism eh ?

  4. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    As long as they can should straight, its okay I think.

    1. Super Chef profile image65
      Super Chefposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi there 5 years ago the UK armed forces deemed it ok for gays to serve. As long as they do not show the rest of the guys what they get up to i.e displays of public affection.  As all military accomodation has just had a multi billion pound overhaul it is all one man rooms anyway. As i used to serve in the forces I do not see it as a great problem at all as they are just humans like the rest of us.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
        prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, humans is all! and they must pass requirements too.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Barry Goldwater.

    3. xobliam profile image60
      xobliamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      shoot straight.....lol..........you're a poet and you don't know it.

      Armies are such a commoner thing....wars are fought by houses that are much more than houses of commoners.....our poor soldiers are nothing more than drones in a bigger scenario.....again IMO how the heck can anyone have serious conversation about sacrificing souls, gay, straight, or transgendered, when the big picture is about an international conflict where the house of the oligarch clashes against the house (houses) of the commoner..........

      wake up folks....

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Since we do not currently have an active draft, anyone who is serving in the military is doing so because they want to serve their country. They are not there to make a point and try to prove something about their sexuality -- if they wanted to be flamboyantly "out" they could do that in a far less volatile (and dangerous) environment.

    I understand the morale issue. Same thing occurred with assimilating black soldiers with white, women with men in combat.
    There will be a period of adjustment. But you're there to do a job -- a very important job -- not play hookup, right?

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    People are getting thrown out of the army if the are not flamboyent, and even of they are not 'out' but someone reports to a superior officer that they are gay.  In one case a police officer called to csomeone's home reported that the female soldier living there cohabited with a female, and she was thrown out.


  7. xobliam profile image60
    xobliamposted 6 years ago

    I don't see the point of the argument.

    What does sexual preference have to do with wielding a sovereign gun ?

    People are not in the military to have sex. Usually one joins the forces to fight for sovereign beliefs.

    What am i missing ?

    1. 0
      Jasmine JellyBabyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      my point exactly ... I don't think you're approved in the army just to have sex.. For goodness sake the sooner the put to rest this gay thing the better

  8. dharris74 profile image60
    dharris74posted 6 years ago

    Many skilled soldiers are being discharged from the Armed Services because they are outed by others or found out by their superiors. Most other armed forces around the world have gays serving openly and they have experienced no problems. I think it time to do away with this outdated policy and allow gays to serve openly in America.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    So, maybe the solution is to allow gays to serve openly in the Army, Navy and Air Force, but if they want to be Marines, they need to stay in the closet.
    Does that work for everyone???

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, the solution is to leave in place the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and keep gays from inserting their personal fetishes into the already-difficult status our soldiers all are subjected to.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the real solution is to disband the military.

        1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
          Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah the most powerful country in the world with no military.  Might as well say hey "China, Russia, Any country that hates us come and get whatever you want" peace and love will never happen because the nature of man is to be ambitious and to compete.

          If you had a big mansion, would you just leave your gate, doors, windows open?

          Seriously in my opinion what disturbing thing to say.

          1. libby101a profile image60
            libby101aposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I totally agree! We need military to defend our country if invaded for one! I honestly don't think we should be where we are now in war...but to disband our military is insane! It's an open invitation to 911 all over again! Imagine the outcome??? We would be attacked quickly with no means to defend ourselves!!! Any country in the world could just decide to take over america and that would be the end!!! That's just crazy!!

      2. lrohner profile image84
        lrohnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Their "personal fetishes?" You can't be serious...

    2. Ruben Rivera profile image79
      Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure the Commandant will not mind, hey that is what he said. We Marines will follow our CMC.

  10. libby101a profile image60
    libby101aposted 6 years ago

    I know when I was in basic training(Army) in Fort LeonardWood MO a girl was discharged because she openly admitted she was a lesbian! At first, nobody knew she was a lesbian, then a couple of weeks into the training...when people became a little more relaxed around other privates she began telling people. Anyone who has been through basic training or boot camp knows that all privates shower together in one big shower... most of the girls did not want to shower with a known lesbian! But nobody objected because in basic training you do not complain about anything! She was discharged just by her confessions of being lesbian!

    I think if they're American they should have every right to serve in the armed forces! I don't think your sexual preference determines your ability to defend your country!

    1. xobliam profile image60
      xobliamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If the problem is about showering or operating in close quarters with a gay then the problem is not with the homosexual....

      I'm not an expert on US military protocol when it comes to marriage and sexual relationships between members of the force but I would imagine that the rules are about par with any business in the private or public sectors.

      You don't get any on the job.........

      Seriously though.....if a gay was on my sub and fell madly in love with gay guy number two i would not want to hear their bunks squeaking all night or even see them petting in the nuke room.....

      Allowing gays in the military IMO requires that very strict laws be written as per the conduct of such.....However those rules should not be much different than the rules that direct the conduct of male-female relations.

      I still think it's a morality issue............

  11. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh, right. Because all gay people have personal fetishes and they seek to insert them (was that pun intended, Brenda?) into military life. I mean really, what other reason could a gay person have for joining the military except to try to push their "gay agenda" on their fellow soldiers?

    BTW, interesting that this law has only been on the books since 1993. As I was looking up the history I came upon this little tidbit, circa 1993:
    "the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment.It concluded, in measured language, that "circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention"  if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    if gay people wanna go across the and sacrifice their lives for some stupid thing called the "government"...

    ... then go right ahead.

    I sure as hell ain't gonna do it.

    actually, wait...

    ... to be non-contradictory, I guess I should say "I'm against gays in the military, but not because they're gay, but because I'm against the military".

    It should be "no ONE in the military".

    1. xobliam profile image60
      xobliamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      perhaps you live on a different planet than I do. After fifty years I am now convinced that this is hell and that each one of us is cast out of the heavenly dimension and likely very few of us will return...hard concept to accept if u r a pregnant mother or but easy concept to accept when you look at how we all play ball for the house of X or the House of Y.

      Most of us are commoners lead by elected officials who go up against oligarchs who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

      War is a part of the House of man so military is a necessity. Someone has to go against the house of the oligarch, or the madman,  Unfortunately those who represent the commons interest may start with good intention but special interest groups can quickly stop or slow down good intention just long enough.........etc...

      The problem with military and forces that protect individual and group sovereignty is that they are so easily corruptible and who's corrupting it ?

      Not gays as a group.....Maybe an individual gay or lesbian...but not the group as a whole.

      The issue here seems to be more one of morality and evangelical christian crap. So all of a sudden the American nation is looking at a politico-ecclesiastic issue.

      So imo in hell there needs to be military to fight those who would oppress us. So what if you shoot like a girlyboy....................xob out.....Pass the plate

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this


  13. JOE BARNETT profile image60
    JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago

    well i served ten years in the military. i notice that some here talk for the removal of don't ask don't tell. my question is  . . . why? what is the relavance of that. they are in the service and serving there country. why do they feel that they must tell everyone that they like guys. it sounds like advertising to me. also what SOLDIER can you imagine wants to sleep in a pup tent with a homosexual? if you are found with a girl in your barracks you're out or court martialed and vis-versa. now these guys want to walk around advertising as if it's ok. defending the country is one thing, homosexuality is another! people are attempting to say that if someone wants to fight for there country then they should be allowed to walk around in lipstick, heels and jeans with the butt out on saturday night, and then you call them sir on monday morning.respect is earned and demanded in the military. without it there is no military. what you have seen thus far is people concealing the fact that they were gay.if dadt is removed you will see what i have said and more.

    they are  certainly allowed to be gay in america but if it's normal and they are allowed why does such shame engulf them when they are discovered? if i was discovered having sex with a girl when i was 18 i certainly would not have killed myself.it's not normal and because some other country does it does not make it normal. it makes them weird. there are countries that allow sex with children, should we. there are countries that allow sex slavery, should we? i think dadt is diplomatic enough to meet everyones goal without stepping on anyones toes. anything more has an arbitrary, social bending, ulterior motive!

  14. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    ..why not?...g/l, etc. are already in the military...as a matter of fact they are part of society...just like hetros are...it'd be kinda hard to prevent 'people from being people' and chasing their dreams/careers....whoever they are....

    'that darn penis!'...what's up with that!

  15. 61
    Mark7725posted 6 years ago

    I don't believe you. You are lying.

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what don't you believe Mark?

  16. Beth100 profile image82
    Beth100posted 6 years ago

    A bullet, whether shot or recieved, sees no difference in color, race, sexual preference or gender. 

    When one is fighting for their country and their very life, there is no time to think about trivial matters such as this.  You're there to do a job -- it's a team and the team sticks together to get the job done.  You wear one hat, not multiples of different hats when on a mission.

    Good or bad?  It's how you personally take it -- you can accept it or you can condem it.  The decision is yours.  Ultimately, your lives depend on each other and the trust you have built between each other.  If that were me, I could care less about sexual preferences, gender, race or color.  And don't forget, you're serving for the same reason -- for the beliefs that you are fighting for to keep or to instill.  That is all that should matter.

    1. A la carte profile image58
      A la carteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I really think this was a great answer smile

      1. Beth100 profile image82
        Beth100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks a la carte.  smile

    2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      i think it funny that everytime someone says gay immediately the other person adds race gender religion or whatever they can to somehow blur the line. it is not the same and if it were then all those categories would be called the same thing. they're not because they're not.

      how will you build that life depending trust? what will you have in common.if you're gay you will have something in common, if not you will think it laughable and constantly try to analyze the confusion and where it began and why it began. there is no middle of the road. the military is not some 24 hour a day blood running battle.you have to live together in the closest of quarters. to one that has never done this i would suspect you can't understand. men seeking to reflect the epitome of being a man. how do you do that when every time you are looked at everyones imagination begins to work and the whispers behind your back. the laws can change but human nature won't i suspect

      1. Beth100 profile image82
        Beth100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        For every individuals' rights, there have been battles to prove that right is valid.  The right to freedom is one that the majority of the world has fought for and is still fighting for.  Individual rights and freedom are commonalities betwixt gender, race, sexual preference and every single right we have fought for. 

        This issue revolves around how people judge others.  It is about how they are intolerable, inflexible and judgemental about anything that is out of their "norm".  This issue is not about the people are who homosexual.  It is about the people who are not.  They are the ones who should be examining themselves as to why they feel that a person who is gay is lesser than them to serve their country.

        How do you build trust?  You obviously are not a team player. As a unit, you are taught that you must trust each other as your life is in the hands of the other unit members.  This is proven over and over.  It's drilled into the core of you.  Trust is not dependent upon sexual preference.  Either you trust or you don't.

        Homosexuals are people.  They have had many attacks throughout their lifes because of narrow mindedness.  I am sure many of them wear battle scars from verbal, mental and physical attack.  Frankly, there is always behind the back talk -- it isn't sexually preference.

        I don't have to live in close quarters with my own gender to understand.  I have plenty of friends in the military to have the understanding of how things work and how they feel.  As they have told me, when you're looking at being sniped, blown to bits or just plain old shot to death, they only thing you care about is that your back is covered by one of your team mates.

        1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you're obviously quite nieve. you speak with hollow words. you speak from some utopian view of how you wish the world could be, but. . . it's not! homesexuality just stopped being a felony! why was it a felony? because the rest of the people determined that it was sodomy and against the law! they are re categorized sex offenders! sex offenders in prisons are hurt. thats a place where nature takes it's course. that is how morality is determined, by what is natural.
          i can't imagine two soldiers being in love or rather can you imagine two soldiers in love in the same unit. guess we'll have to watch them pat eachother on the but and touch eachother in ways that guys don't always going into the shower together. but you can't understand this. if you would really like to know where the problem lies, look in the mirror. we are not homophobic , they are female phobic thats a problem and they have it!
          in africa they are about to pass a law to hang homosexuals. i say thats extreme. but the basis for that punishment is that homosexuality is wrong. there are one or two countries that allow it and the rest of the world says it's sickening and has extreme punishments for it.you choose the country that has it as a basis for dadt.
            i say it's a crazy issue and obviously so. we live in a liberal country. everyone has to make allowances for homosexuals by saying "well their people too"so are pedophiles. pedophiles can shoot a gun. rapists can shoot a gun. those people walk among us but we don't know who they are. how about if they start to say i'm a pedophile, i'm in the military and i want to be able to tell everyone without repercussions. you would ask . . . . why? and now so do we.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You got that one all wrong,  Joe!

          2. Stevennix2001 profile image83
            Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            no offense buddy, i could see where you were coming from up to a point. However, when you brought in pedophiles and rapist into the discussion, you just demonstrated on how extremely naive you are.  It sounds to me that you think that all pedophiles and rapists are homosexuals.  Not saying that's your point of view, but that's what it sounds like.  Let me tell you something, are you against women being in the military too?  After all, it is possible that a female and male soldier could also fall in love with each other just as easily as two gay ones, so how is that any different?

            Secondly, my mother was raped as a child by her own damn adopted father, so that blows your little assumption that pedophiles and rapists are all gays, as straight men and women can be pedophiles and rapists too.  therefore, your argument has no valid.  seriously, if you honestly think this way about homosexuals, then maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror and ask if there's something wrong with your morals or beliefs.

            1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
              JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              STEVENIX_ noone has said that pedophiles are homosexual but you. the point that i was making is that pedophiles and rapists are morally corrupt as with homosexuals. so should we allow pedophiles in the military and then let them announce that they are pedophiles. why? what benefit? WITH homosexuals nobody wants to know. i don't! why do they always want to be in everybodies face, bent over? why do they want us to know sooooo bad, that they have a PROBLEM AND HAVE NO ATTRACTION TOWARDS WHATS NATURAL(WOMEN)? how can what i said be wrong and what they are saying be right?

              1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                again, your ignorance is really shining through.  Don't get me wrong, I have a lot respect for those that serve our country through the military, and I appreciate all that you've done to serve in the marines.  Truly, you are a hero, for your years of valued service. 

                However, with all due respect, your opinion and logic on this matter is completely flawed.  One, you claim that homosexuals are morally corrupt as pedophiles.  How exactly is that so?  Just because they're different from you, as there is a damn difference. If you can't see that, then you need to pick up a dictionary and look it up, as it just makes you look like a ignorant jerk.

                Saying a homosexual is every bit as bad as a pedophile is essentially equivalent if you said to a bunch of minorities that they're morons for not being white.  One pedophiles are predators, that stalk their victims and take advantage of young children that are often too naive about sex, so the pedophile will take advantage of their innocence.  Whereas a homosexual, nobody is getting taken advantage of at all, as it's like sex between a man and woman, where both parties are consensual.  Don't get me wrong, like you, I'd prefer girls myself.  However, unlike you, I wouldn't label a gay person a monster or compare him/her to a damn lowly pedophile like you would. 

                It's people like you that make me sick.  It's people like you who threw temper tantrums and fits over the idea of a minority dating a white person back during the civil rights movement back in the 1960s.  It's people like you that probably used to condone segregated schools.  It's people like you that opened up the klu klux klan, after the civil war, to stop the minorities from this country from exercising they're free rights.  Seriously, why are gay people immoral in your eyes?  just because they don't share your idealogy for life?  is that it?  if so, i guess you and ADOLF HITLER have a lot in common then, as he too slandered and put down people that he deemed different than what he considered the normal status quo.  I suggest you grow up if this is how you think about life.  Good day to you sir.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Pedophiles have nothing to do with this discussion.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Joe...

              God created the animals... And over 1500 species exhibit homo/bi/trans sexual behavior.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … in_animals

              Looks like god likes gay individuals.

              Guess you'll just have to deal with the truth now

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What truth would that be?   That many humans refuse to behave in a civilized manner and instead choose to behave like animals?
                Prisons and jails are full of people who make those wrong choices, thieving and killing and commiting fraud and all such things.   Nothing new there;  your theory and whatever theory that link advocates is simply age-old refusal of mankind to take responsibility for its own actions, and to hold others responsible for their actions.   Including today's modern liberal Judges, who should be impeached.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thieving and killing and defrauding are violations of someone else's rights. Consensual sex between informed, competent adults violates nobody's rights.

                  Please, either stop pretending that it does, or explain how it does.

              2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
                JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                evan g rogers- i'm glad you said that because the flaws that nature produces we try to eliminate. for example murder that should be allowed right, because it's in nature. and all the rest of the flaws of nature. we have the handicapped or the mentally challenged, the physically challenged. they are americans, we stand by them but are they normal . . . . NO! and no matter what you say or do or how far you manipulate to try to make what you do appear to be normal. you will know and you will know everyone else knows that it can't ever be seen as normal. it will always be homosexuality and that says it all!

                1. livelonger profile image91
                  livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You and other social conservatives can't decide which way you want it: you want to denounce homosexuality as unnatural, but when evidence is presented that proves it exists in nature, you compare it to animalistic behavior (unlike all those other behaviors that we share with lesser creatures).

                  The fact is that people who actually study these sorts of things - scientists, doctors, geneticists, psychologists - have come to a very clear conclusion that homosexuality is  a perfectly natural variant of human sexuality. The fact that you point to historical disapproval and treatment as proof that there's something "wrong" with it is a line of argumentation that is deeply ironic for a black man to take.

                  Your own lack of comfort with the topic and steadfast refusal to acknowledge the heaps of evidence out there that homophobia is the real sickness, not homosexuality, suggests that you might want to reconsider entering into discussions where you don't have a leg to stand on. This would be one of them.

                  1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                    Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this


                    encore! i agree!

              3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Some say Jesus was gay.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Why, because he never got married, and always hung around with a dozen fellow bachelors?

          3. Stevennix2001 profile image83
            Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            i don't think anyone could've said it better.  as always, i think you always give us insightful opinions about things. smile

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this


        2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty much identical arguments were made about integrating Blacks in the military. Truman's decision was implemented with few problems.

          1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            there was no moral issue regarding blacks. whites just didn't want them to be at the same level as whites and that attitude stemmed from slavery. whites received a false sense of superiority during slavery which made them resent sharing equality.

            this issue ralph is moral. at some point in the past it was determined that homosexuality was corrupt and a crime. how could this have happened if it is normal and natural? convince me ralph.i am enlightened. i do see where it shouldn't be a crime, i don't see how dadt is a problem for them unless they want to tell, if so . . .why?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              NO MORAL ISSUE REGARDING EQUAL TREATMENT OF BLACKS IN THE MILITARY?  Your definition of a moral issue is quite different from mine. There was nothing fair about the way blacks were treated in the military and there's nothing fair or constitutional about how gays are currently treated.

              1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
                JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ha ha ha wait let's clear this up. blacks mis treatment was immoral but being black was not immoral.

                homosexuality has been and is immoral, eventhough decriminalized and excused. eventhough these changes have occured and all for the better. what possible benefit will removing dadt do? that is my question. this will prompt seedy behavior in the barracks, which will provoke violent behavior from "soldiers". dadt was carefully drafted. before when signing up you were asked if you were homosexual. gays thought that was unfair. so now they don't ask and if gays don't tell, there is no issue! my question is  . . .again. if they are currently "serving their country" why is it necessary and or relavant to tell anyone. just what part of soldiering would make knowing who you screw be necessary.why do they want to tell everyone?

                if they are soldiering today in afghanistan and the 1st seargent walks in and says "a law has been passed. if you are gay you may say you are gay" then what will happen? at this point what will the substantial change be? they will relax and begin to ask guys out and everything else. all of which is irrelevant to soldiering and will disrupt unit cohesion.

                young soldiers that are not gay will be forced to fight off advances. it will be a mess. i think dadt is a perfect solution for an issue that i think nature will never allow to settle in this country. also it appears that i am not the only one that thinks this. when the majority thinks different, it will change, i'm sure! i am logical in all of my thinking and to me this issue just doesn't add up for soldiering or anything other than social bending

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

      I cannot believe that this is even a issue.

      Alexander the Great was openly bi-sexual.  Now, there is no way I will ever be convinced that his sexuality made him weaker or even a  pansy. Come on, sexual preference should not be an issue.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In Alexander's day and also during the hayday of the Roman Empire, homesexuality/bisexuality was open and excepted. I'm straight and I have no problem and will support openly gay people serving our military and I'm for gay marrage. There are 32+ countries that allows openly gay individuals to serve in their militaries including Britian and Germany. Why can'y we follow their lead and be more tolerable. Sexual orientation does not affect performance.

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
          IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Precisely! What he says.

    4. Diane Inside profile image87
      Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

      I don't have a problem with removing the don't ask don't tell policy, But I am worried that if these gays come out of the closet, that some bad seeds will decide to take matters into their own hands.

      So, I don't know I think it would be very scary to be openly gay in the military, even if it is without the fear of being dismissed. That will be the least of their worries.

    5. rafken profile image75
      rafkenposted 6 years ago

      Everybody should have the right to serve their country, whatever their sexual preferences. However, gays could perhaps be put in regiments of their own. That way they would not have to pretend that they are something different from what they are and the straight soldiers would not have to be concerned if their "buddies " were gay or not.

    6. schoolgirlforreal profile image75
      schoolgirlforrealposted 6 years ago

      maybe they can have seperate shower stalls and everyone will feel ok?

    7. Ruben Rivera profile image79
      Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago

      A lot of people here have said "what's the big deal, gays are now openly working in the civilian sector". The military is a lifestyle, the ones you see during the day you generally hang out during the night, during the weekend and maintain bonds even when you move to a different duty station.

      If the "don't ask don't tell" policy stops and for example a gay individual gets stationed in a military unit then I can guarantee you 9 times out of ten, that individual will be an outcast and can even be in danger.

      I guess what I'm saying is that there will probably be careers that will end, individuals may be hurt, the victims of adjustment. Nowadays we have a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, the number of Marines may go down, so we add another issue it just creates more stress in the organization as a whole and again the Staff Sergeant highly decorated in Iraq or Afghanistan may end up being relieved because one of his Marines who is openly gay was badly harassed and he didn't protect him. Leave it the way it is now until we have time to deal with what if scenarios.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've worked in the same workplace with gays many times, and never had a gay person come on to me. Maybe I have halitosis, but I don't think so. Only once in my life was I approached by a gay individual. It was around a hotel swimming pool when I was 19. When the individual complimented me on my sun tan the light came on, and we parted company without any embarrassment,

    8. Beth100 profile image82
      Beth100posted 6 years ago

      Hey Steven.... smile

      Now, choosing to become a pedophile or a rapist is a choice. Being homosexual may not be a choice.  It is a gene that causes this -- and this has been proven through chromosone analysis in the past few years.  You cannot compare a criminal to someone who is born the way they are.

      I agree with Paul and Steven.  You say that it was not immoral to be born black.  Tell that to the thousands that were persecuted because of their color -- and that was before they were enslaved onto ships from Africa and had their freedom taken away.  Explain the difference to the millions who have been killed because of their race, color, belief or gender. 

      As I said before, this issue is not really about the homosexuals.  It is about those people who are not able to accept that everyone is different.  Differences range in height, beliefs, sexual preference, skin color and a million more physical and mental aspects. 

      If one cannot embrace the differences that we have in our society, then that society is doomed to fail.  Society is dynamic.  It changes.  Humans have the capability to change. The question is, are you able to change.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
        Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        hi beth, hows it going?  It's always nice to see you. smile

        I think you bring up a lot of valid points on this, as I think society will always evolve and change over time.  Plus, I think the only true way world peace can ever happen is if we learn to embrace and accept our differences.  Otherwise, there will always be discrimination and war.

      2. Ruben Rivera profile image79
        Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Of course the issue is not about being a homosexual but being able to change and adapt. The reality of this is that even if the government gives us tons of classes, mandates that we do this and that and the other, it will take time to truly say "ok we did it". I don't think in my seven years left in the Corps I will see that.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
          Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          like all things ruben, it will take time.  after all, it was only a few decades ago when minorities and caucasions were desegregated in society to where it is now, and gays openly coming out is still a fairly new concept.  Therefore, I predict it will be another fifty years, before you'll start to see a dramatic change in society.

          1. Ruben Rivera profile image79
            Ruben Riveraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well my question would be then, are we ready to do this now given the climate around the world and talks of downsizing the military.

            Or is this politically driven?

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
              Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              as of right now, it's hard to say, as i just said the whole terminology of "coming out" is still fairly new.  I don't think society is ready for it right now, but I do think it should go that way in the future, as future generations become more educated and accepting of people for their sexual orientation.  this is one of the main reasons why i think homosexuality should be taught in grade school's sexual education courses, as there seems to be a lot of confusion about homosexuality as Joe Barnett clearly demonstrated through his ignorance. 

              after all, people tend to fear most what they don't understand.  ideally, i think in a perfect world, nobody should ever have to hide who they are to serve their country and if a gay guy/girl wants to fight for their country like you, then who are we to stop them?  sadly, i don't think society could handle it now, as there are a lot of people that don't understand it too clearly.  In the future though (assuming that we're not dead in 2012. lol), I think society will be ready.  I just hope I'm not too old to see it. smile

    9. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago

      STEVENNIX= debate is what makes hubpages fun.this is not some personal attack of your views. this is an airing of our views. what i find funny is when the topic of gay comes up. no matter what the subject if you don't agree with it then they tell you that you are flawed ha ha ha and everything that they are they flip to say we are e.g.
      . they have said we are homophobic when in reality they are female phobic and that is their problem not ours.the only time i can see homosexuality flourishing is due to fear of women or lack of women.

        no-one in this country bothers gays. they are able to function just like all the rest of society.i don't have anything against them. i don't understand the point but so what that's their business.

      this topic was regarding dadt's removal. THERE WILL BE NO BENIFIT TO ANYONE BY REMOVING DADT. the gays that are in the military will not become better soldiers and the ones that aren't gay won't have to deal with the problems that will arise if it is removed.
      it was said that i can't change or society but change should be  made to improve. gays have come from being labeled sodomizers to insane to todays present view of "different". change has been made for the better.i'm for that but gays want to be called normal, today one said that it was a gene that makes them that way. well thats fine. nobody bothers them but still, it's not normal

      they think that society is unable to see just what the point is.i may be alot of things but ignorant is not one of them.it angers you because i don't say what you want me too.decisions that we make must be for the good of society. removing dadt would benefit noone.

      1. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Costs of DADT enforcement:
        - about $290-500 million
        - $22,000-43,000 to replace someone discharged under DADT
        - lifting DADT would bring in est 36,700 additional recruits

        http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi … 264625908/

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image83
        Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Says the man that just called being a homosexual immoral and indecent, even having the audacity to compare them, in the same category as a pedophile and rapist.  roll

        female phobic?  wow, that's a strong terminology.  Are you like a psychologist in real life or something to come up with that?  Or you just basing this off of your own narrow minded opinion?  If you are a licensed psychologist, I would love for you to explain exactly what female phobia is, in your alleged expert opinion.

        the issue is that people still get persecuted to this day just for being gay.  In fact, if you ever looked up various reports on this, there's even been incidences where boy scout troop leaders and teachers have lost their jobs, for coming out of the closet.  How is that fair?  The issue isn't whether or not your against or for gays, it's about why should they have to hide who they really are to make the rest of society comfortable?  Why should they?  Would you like if society told you that you couldn't be openly straight? 

        I agree.  That's why I think society isn't ready for it's removal yet, as there's still too many people like yourself that seem to be confused about the whole homosexuality ordeal.  That's why I think sex education courses should incorporate and openly teach homosexuality along with procreation, so kids can be more informed and understanding about it.  This way in about 50 years or less, society will be ready to remove such a policy like the "don't ask don't tell."

        So let me get this straight, your saying being gay isn't normal?  Wow, you see, this just demonstrates even more how ignorant you are.  You started out good with this comment, but now your showing your true colors.  What exactly is normal then if you don't mind me asking?  I would love to hear your perception of it.  Is it similar to the Nazis way of normal where everyone is required to be a certain way, and the ones that aren't, you'll consider them freaks and weirdos.  Is that your perception?  Granted, I'm sure that's not what you meant to say, but it sounds like that's what your implying in your posts.  Just a thought, as you should really THINK about what you say or type next time.

        It angers me because you won't say what I want?  What exactly do you think I want you to say?  I have no issue with you other than you insulted my friend and started to compare rapists and pedophiles to homosexuals.  Calling them immoral, as i'll gladly copy and paste one of your previous statements here.

        Joe Barnett said this:

        "the point that i was making is that pedophiles and rapists are morally corrupt as with homosexuals."

        Is that not what you just said?  I think the reason why your angry is that I just compared you to something negative like you just did to homosexuals with your arrogant statement. That's the real reason why your mad.  Doesn't feel so good to have a taste of your own medicine, right?  Maybe that will give you a taste of how many homosexuals feel when they're called unnatural and compared to deviants like you eloquently just did.

        1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          hey stevenix in life if you have ten potatoes that grow 9 come out one way and one comes out another is that one normal. gays are 1% of the population. from time to time they try to inflate that number. normal equals the majority and or larger populations than 1%. my intention here is not to trample anyones feelings. hubpages is a place where people can get the facts. everyone here researches things, digs then factchecks. if you don't want to know the answer don't come to hubpages.we here enjoy the facts and the thought provoking  debates. and my view is just the tip of the ice berg.how do you sugarcoat facts? peace and debate is healthy

          1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
            Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So in other words, your saying anyone that disagrees with your skewered ideology is wrong and shouldn't come to hubpages?  Gee, that's a pretty bold arrogant logic.

            I agree peace and debate is healthy.  I just don't agree with your level of calling people naive for disagreeing with you, and that you would dare compare a deviant to a homosexual.  When clearly they're not the same damn thing, as you can look that up in a dictionary.

            1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
              JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              stevenix- this is a true example of the pot calling the kettle black. because i don't agree with and or see any point to homosexuality and because history has shown even more stringent views and this is a fact.you say that because i tell you what the law of the land is and was that my ideology is skewered.i stated facts not my ideology. if this is the logic that you use to negotiate this life then you are in for some angry days ahead.it's like you ask a rigged question. if the person is gay they will answer affirmatively, if they are not gay they won't and if they don't then you are offended.STOP ASKING. no one is bothering you so why do you care what we think? you are constantly in everyones face asking the same questions.  when you ask then this is what you get. STOP ASKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well Joe if you can't honestly see the damn difference between a pedophile and a homosexual by now through this discussion, then I'm convince you never will.  The fact of the matter is that you compare the two is your opinion, as it has nothing to do with facts.  In fact, here's the dictionary terminology for both words, in case your curious.

                pedophilia:   sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

                homosexual:   1) of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

                2)of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

                I'm offended if they don't?  What the hell are you talking about with that question?  First of all, I could give a rat's a** how any man, woman or whatever chooses to live their life.  My philosophy as long as you respect me, then I show you respect.  Or, if you leave me alone, then I'll leave you alone.  I never asked for anything else from anybody.  However, I am against people persecuting and hating on others just for being different from their own ideology of how life is supposed to be, in their eyes. 

                Excuse me?  What exactly are you insinuating with this?  Stop asking what?  And who's face am I asking the same questions?  Seriously, I don't even know what the hell your talking about now, and it seems like your trying to divert the topic into something else because you obviously don't have any answers to back up your flawed ideology.

                Are you talking about in regards to this forum?  If I'm not mistaken didn't Ruben Rivera start it?  Therefore, how am I asking the question if HE'S THE ONE THAT STARTED THE FORUM?

                Secondly, do you have wax in your ears or you just didn't read anything I just said?  As I believe I did answer you in one of my previous posts, as to why I have a serious beef with you.  If you didn't read it, this just shows how much of a hypocrite you are for saying you want a debate, but you refuse to acknowledge or even listen to the other parties point of view. roll 

                Well Joe, your free to believe what you want. I'm done trying to debate you, as you only want people to tell you what you want to hear.  It's not surprising as most people typically believe what they want to believe anyway.  I just hope we're both alive in 50 years, when I can see the look on your face when society does remove the dadt policy and society is more open to different sexual orientations around that time.  I won't be the one to tell you I told you so but like Michael Caine said in "The Dark Knight"..."I did bloody tell ya."

                Have a nice life Joe.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this


    10. waynet profile image47
      waynetposted 6 years ago

      Well it's a great idea because gay men can take their handbags with them and carry extra grenades!

    11. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      Waynet lol

      Don't make me go there on the advantages of butch Marines!

      LiveLonger = That doesn't count as "government waste" because it is enforcing morality. big_smile

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It the Tea Tards get in we'll have another "War On," in addition to the war on terroism, war on drugs with similar results.

    12. wingedcentaur profile image87
      wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago

      I don't usually venture into the political forums but I'm just going to say the following little bit and then get out of here.

      You know, I thought we were living in a time of monstrous intergalactic Islamo-fascist terror. I thought it was a time of national, if not (free) world emergency code red! One would think that at a time like this with Arabs and Muslims being targeted by the American security services in a variety of ways that this righteous battle of Good Versus Evil requires an "all hands on deck" approach.

      Whatever happened to sensible conservatives like Barry Goldwater who said something to the effect of (I don't care if you're gay or straight, as long as you can shoot straight)? Given this period of cosmic crisis I'm surprised the draft hasn't been reinstated yet.

      There are just two points I'd like to make briefly.

      1) From my own political perspective I would like to see a lot more discussion about how wars can be ended with what NGO negotiator, professor, and the "Father of Peace Studies," Johan Galtung calls conflict resolution (Google him -- he thinks the American hope of "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan are a fairy tale), negotiation and diplomacy without more troops and bombs; and how can war itself be overcome -- as opposed to talking about who else can we or can we not throw onto the battlefield, and thus subject them to the risk of: being killed; if not killed being severely wounded or crippled for life; post-traumatic syndrome; the high rate of suicides and divorce we hear about of soldiers as a share of the American population. Etc., etc. So on and so forth.

      A. And if this effort against Al Quaeda and the Taliban is so important why did the government allow America's Troop's to be treated the way they were by KBR (remember the scandal about the faulty wiring in the showers, electrocuting soldiers, for example?)?

      Why didn't they have proper equipment, at least in the beginning? Recall a few months after the American invasion of Iraq. Remember the scandal about soldiers being reduced to jerryrigging their own tanks to give the SOME protection against IEDs? Remember how we heard about the families of soldiers back home taking up collections so they could buy their sons and daughters body armor? Remember that?

      Oh well, at least the private military contractors (Blackwater, for example) had the latest weaponry and equipment.... Remember the legal tap dancing they did, saying that the Uniform Code of Military Justice couldn't be applied to them because they were civilians; but they shouldn't be sued by civilians for wrongful death or anything like because they were part of the American "Total Force?" Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist has done the most extensive reporting on private military contractors, especially Blackwater.

      2) There is an issue these discussions always tip toe up to but never confront. Why are the military so afraid to have gay men serve (at all) openly in the military? I think this should be looked at. There are various euphemisms that are used: "morale" "operating efficiency" "team cohesion," yada, yada, yada.

      The idea here is that, somehow, gays serving openly in the military would threaten the effectiveness of the unit. People who say this need to be asked why they BELIEVE this is so? They need to be asked: Why do you believe that gays serving openly in the military would hurt morale and unit effectiveness?

      You see, there is something they are trying NOT to say and we must get to that if we are ever to stop have such circular discussions. I admit I am speculating here but I think that there is a fear embedded in the collective unconscious of the community of American men in general and American military men in particular, that openly serving gay men will try to forcefully seduce them (the heterosexual soldiers) and that somehow they will not be able to resist -- I think there is sexual fear at work, they see gay men as sexual vampires out to vampirically leech away their "virtue." There is the residual fear the homosexuality is contagious.

      I'm not saying that All heterosexual men and heterosexual male soldiers, individually feel this way; only that I suspect this dread is embedded in the American male collective unconscious.

      But why should American males (and male soldiers) be so fearful? Is there any evidence of homosexual vampiracally libidinous rampages against the poor, helpless American male community? Of course not, all of the violence has come from the heterosexual male community directed at the LGBT community!

      But still, why are we men so fearful (and I think we as a collective are)? Well, sometimes it happens that victimizers are afraid of becoming victims, yes?

      There is something that is not talked about a lot. But a real problem in the military is men raping their fellow FEMALE soldiers. They're all supposed to be "on the same side," America, leading the "free world" against the scourges of the Taliban and Al Quaeda and American women soldiers often seem to be in more danger from the enemy within than from any "Islamo-fascist" "terrorist." I'll leave it there, but I do think that only until this tension is dealt with can we really come to a resolution about gay men serving openly and safely (with respect to their fellow soldiers) in the United States armed forces.

      1. tritrain profile image77
        tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In reference to part of your statement, it's the direction of our cost-cut military. 


        Outsource the logistics (via a non-Bid contract with KBR - Subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton). Very expensive.

        Outsource much of the policing, protection, and some fighting to Contractors. Expensive up front, but it "saves money" by not providing medical care beyond $50K.

        Now we outsource much of our intelligence to former CIA analysts and operators. *This is actually costing us greatly.

    13. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

      I wish we had more homosexuals at the Battle of the Bulge

    14. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago

      @joe barnett

      by the way, sorry i got your listing of service wrong. I remember i said i appreciated your years of service in the marines but when i read your profile it said army and air force.  sorry about that.  I think I got you confused with Ruben who said he was in the marines.  my bad.

    15. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      Breaking News on this subject:
      (from an AP writer as reported on my local NBC affiliate's website).

      Judge Orders 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Injunction
      Federal Judge Orders Nationwide Injunction On Military Policy

      http://www.kcra.com/news/25368709/detai … 0110122010