jump to last post 1-50 of 61 discussions (255 posts)

Don't ask - don't tell:

  1. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    According to both MSNBC and FOX, 70% of those serving in the military favor the repeal of DADT. According to FOX's Shep Smith, it's the generals who want to keep it - not the enlisted men and women. Shouldn't these guys and gals in the trenches have more say-so than the generals?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the ones in the trenches, (combat troops) are not so supportive of a repeal - especially the marines.  This will probably bolster McCain's continuing opposition to bringing the armed forces into the 21st century.

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed. I worry that no matter how this goes we will loose good Service Members.

      2. katiem2 profile image60
        katiem2posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        YES!  Who knows better than they do?  Their voice needs to be heard!  Thanks habee for bringing this to our attention.  smile

      3. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Letting the Troops Decide", Not a good idea. If I were wanting to know which ammunition performed best or which 3" line lasted the longest, then yes, I would go to the troops. Questions regarding policy that affects recruiting, training and housing a million people, No.

        I hope the survey wasn't orchestrated to deliver a predictable outcome.

        What I can tell you is this: Having served 10 years, I never had problems with known gays. However, I have seen lots of gays having problems with other members who knew they were gay. Changing DADT wont change that. I left the military 10 years ago, maybe things have changed.
        Acceptances is NOT just a good idea in Military Units, it's required. It only takes one member of a unit to have a problem with it, from their it can divide the entire unit. So what you end up with is a great soldier who thinks it's moraly wrong to be gay. He/she acts on this belief or voices their opinion and will they now be ousted?

        Don't Ask Don't Tell was the best solution. DADT prevented "Activist" from serving. Typically "Activist" of any sort are not welcomed in the Military. In some cases "activist" are actually prohibited.

        If you are gay and in the Military. You simply do your job well and mind your own business. Typically what happens is, their attitude or performance leads to the witch hunt. I'ts easy to figure out someone's orientation. If a person has a problem with it. They will make provoking comments to the member who is suspected of being gay. If the gay person lets it get the better of them, they will loose. Bottom line, don't be a detriment to the Unit and you won't have a problem. This whole scenario is NOT unique to gays. The same happens with anyone who puts any cause or group ahead of the Unit.

        All that being said, if being gay is truly ok with 100% of the members currently serving, then it's all going to work out. If not, there will be a lot of scandal and headache between now and acceptance.

        1. Teddletonmr profile image82
          Teddletonmrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Semper Fi, so true, my brother in arms.

      4. 67
        logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I served in the military.  It is not, nor could it be a democracy.  If each person in the military got to choose what order they wanted to follow, we would have the keystone kops of all militaries.
        My personal feeling is that whatever one wants to do in the privacy of their own bed, is up to them as long as it is consensual.
        However, when you voluntarily join the military, it should be easily apparent what the policy is.  Don't like it, don't join.
        Without discipline and the willingness to follow orders we would just have another Iraqi police force.

      5. Jillian Barclay profile image86
        Jillian Barclayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Part of the job of being in the miltary is following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders. Times change, but that does not. There are plenty of miltary men and women that do not agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should they all be consulted about that, too? If the generals and the commanders in the field all agree that DADT can be repealed and implementation will be a "non-event", what is the issue? Civil rights is civil rights. Do not claim to follow the Constitution in which all men (and women) are created equal, but then choose to only follow the parts that you are comfortable with. The only difference between gay and straight is sexual orientation. I don't think that means that there is a difference in patriotism or in the ability defend one's country! Any excuse to be against homosexuals in the military is ridiculous when faced with the precepts of what we supposedly believe our Constitution stands for.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo...very well said.

        2. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, well said.  This is exactly why DADT should not even be an issue:

          "Part of the job of being in the miltary is following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders. Times change, but that does not."(sic)

          You've refuted the rest of your comment with the above opening statement.  DADT is already a policy under DIRECT ORDER enforced by the UCMJ, and has not changed.

          1. Jillian Barclay profile image86
            Jillian Barclayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Much like allowing no blacks or women. That was once the law and covered under the Universal Code of Military Justice and when the folly of those policies were recognized and changed, so was the code, as it will be when DADT is repealed. Just as those were implemented, so will this.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Being black isn't parallel to being gay.
              And if I were a black person, I'd be hugely offended at the deliberate parallel.
              Heck, I'm a white person and I'm offended at the audacity of paralleling a racial trait to a sexual perversion.

              1. livelonger profile image89
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Elizabeth Edwards funeral is going on now--don't you have a protest to join?

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Heck, I'm a white person and I'm offended at the audacity of paralleling a racial trait to a sexual perversion."
                tongue
                Heck, I'm a straight person, and I'm offended at the insistence on calling gayness a 'perversion.'

              3. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                sexual behavior that is abnormal and unacceptable to whom?  and, I'm speaking in terms of 'to whom it matters'.

                Being gay isn't about the sexual relations but about an ability to love another human being.  Is that wrong? 

                When it comes to spousal/partner benefits, Don't ask, don't tell is the only possible policy as long as the concept of marriage is understood as originating through the belief in God.  God created the institution of marriage and the laws against sexually deviant behavior - no matter what anyone thinks about marriage or homosexuality, the US Government does NOT have the right to abolish the Word of God.  (remember separation of church & state?)

                If it were possible to include whoever you choose (for insurance benefits or whatever) then there would be no reason for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. (except, maybe during Boot Camp as livewithrichard suggests below)

                1. livelonger profile image89
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The movement to legalize same-sex civil marriage was never about abolishing the "word of God" (whatever that means to you and your particular faith). Your church can choose to marry or not marry whatever it likes.

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means abolishing the word of God.  To me, it's simple.  God created the institution of marriage, therefore, no human being on earth is able to alter it.  But, does that mean there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships?  I don't think so.

                    1. livelonger profile image89
                      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Then why do we allow divorce?

                      The Catholic Church doesn't, citing Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6. Should we use the Catholic Church's definition of marriage, then?

                    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      "Legalizing same-sex marriage, to me, means abolishing the word of God."

                      No it isn't. And even if it were, in a secular republic, it doesn't matter.

                      Nobody is going to be invalidating your straight marriage. Legalizing gay marriage isn't going to change you marital status one bit. You're still going to be married, both in the eyes of God and the eyes of the law.

                      The legalization of gay marriage will allow gay people to get married in the eyes of the law. What god says about it isn't the law's business.

            2. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not even close to the same thing.  Read what Brenda said. Additionally, it was not a "law covered under the UCMJ", because the UCMJ only applies/ied to military personnel.  You can't hold someone accountable to something that doesn't apply to them.  In your reference meaning to individuals not even in the military yet.


              So, which is it? are military members supposed to,
              "following orders from your superiors, without commenting or even complaining about the orders."

              or decide when they don't like the orders to try and change them?

              1. 59
                Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What is a perversion to you is a way of living to others. Even if you choose to believe that homosexuality is purely a psychological exercise, that still doesn't give anyone the right to decide for others the rightness of a choice between consentual adults. In the life of Christ, the belief that a man, any man, could be the embodiment of the divine was considered a gross perversion.
                While I am not christian, I would fight loudly and at length for your right to see it otherwise and would denounce anyone who saw fit to stand judgement over your choice. You're a (assumed) consenting adult making your own decisions about your life. I'd do the same about smoking in the privacy of your home despite finding the habit despicable. To me, that is the heart of what american 'freedom' is about.

                Ediggity - Which is it? Both.
                Military members are expected to follow orders from their superiors without comment or complaint unless given leave by a superior to speak otherwise... but they, like any other citizen, do retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States. A right which is not superceded by even the orders of your superiors. This is demonstrated by the fact that your superior cannot order you to abstain from voting or select your vote for you.
                When acting as a soldier, they are expected to follow orders without question or comment. When acting as a citizen, they are expected to formulate their views upon the political landscape and the direction they feel best serve their country and to act upon those views. The responsibility of the military member is to understand when they are acting as each and align their responses properly.

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's sad that people like you post things like this.  You are part of the problem:

                  "Military members are expected to follow orders from their superiors without comment or complaint unless given leave by a superior to speak otherwise... but they, like any other citizen, do retain the right to take part in the governmental processes of the United States. A right which is not superceded by even the orders of your superiors. This is demonstrated by the fact that your superior cannot order you to abstain from voting or select your vote for you."

                  The only thing that is semi accurate about that statement is that military members have the right to vote.  The rest will require you to do a little reading to find out what military members can and can not do with regards to the "governmental process"

                  And please don't try to imply what is or is not "perversion" to me.  I can speak and write for myself thanks.

                  1. 59
                    Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "The rest will require you to do a little reading to find out what military members can and can not do with regards to the "governmental process""

                    Please, educate me. I appreciate references. I had been working off of the assumption that Article 88 of the UCMJ and and DoD Directive 1344.10 provided me an adequate understanding of what the US Military's stance on politics amongst military members constituted, but if I've missed some good old-fashioned required reading I would love to become more fluent on the issue. Based on these standards, a military member is expected to act in political matters only as a private citizen, never as a member of of their branch and to abstain from partisan efforts and actively taking part in organized movements. The right to act as an individual, private citizen is carefully avoided in the rights curtailed... but if I've missed something, you feel free to cite it for me.


                    For the record, I was not referring to what you thought was perversion, I was referring to Brenda's statement earlier in the thread and the general sentiment which went unquestioned in it, and more specifically aimed the part intended for you in particular with your name leading it. My apologies if I suggested your views were something other than what they are.

                    1. ediggity profile image61
                      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Normally, i wouldn't use a site such as about dot com for a source, but they actually do a decent job summing up on their military politics piece.

                      http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military … litics.htm

                      Have fun.  in addition to your references.

      6. proton66 profile image73
        proton66posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        These Generals may be thinking about unity through morality. If most of the servicemen and women support morality then there is a conflict of interest. Otherwise, let them serve.

    2. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago

      Right, Sandra. So what's the problem?? I don't get it...

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's a bunch of old soldiers who think war is for 'real men' and negros can't be soldiers - oops - Colin Powell proved that wrong.
        Well, women in the military would wreck morale. What, women are real soldiers? real officers? in real combat jobs?  Damn...
        Well, whose left to keep out of the military - this is supposed to be an exclusive club for real men? homos? OK - we can keep them out and that makes us 'real men' and superior to somebody.

        1. livewithrichard profile image84
          livewithrichardposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think that most people forget that the majority of our enlisted military, especially the infantry, are very young (18 - 23) And if you have never been in the military or been to Boot Camp then you have no idea of the mind-washing that occurs.  In Boot Camp, a soldier's innocence and free will is replaced with a disciplined (like a beaten dog) orders-following mindset that is, yes, trained to kill people.

          Males and females do not do Boot Camp together not because of Unit Cohesion but because of Social Cohesion which refers to the nature and quality of the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness among group members and the sharing of a common path. 

          Military males and females work well together not because of Unit Cohesion but because of Task Cohesion which refers to the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group.

          Clearly, Gays can perform the tasks of any job they are trained for and Task Cohesion will allow the military to excel at its mission.

          I'm of the opinion that Don't ask Don't tell should remain in place until after the soldier has finished Boot Camp and Advanced Training.  Not because they need to prove themselves but to maintain the Social Cohesion through out the training period.  After training, their sexuality should have no bearing on their career so long as no fraternization between enlisted and commissioned soldiers takes place.

          1. brimancandy profile image83
            brimancandyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What you said about the Boot Camp thing makes sense to me. I'm a gay man, and I would never join the military myself, because I don't believe that killing people over our so-called freedom is worth the price of lives lost for what? Has there ever really been a winner? I don't think so. Just a whole lot of misery and constant questioning of if those involved are right.

            But, I would say to those gay people who want to join, prove yourself. Be ok with allowing the military to give you a trial period, to see how you handle it and work with your unit. If you pass with flying colors, you should have every right to continue on with your duties without conflict over  your identity. They kick people out for a lot of reasons during boot camp, why shouldn't being gay be one of them?

            Then once you pass boot camp, they could NOT use your sexuality as a reason to give you the boot. Of course we know they will come up with a ghost reason to kick you out. But, you will at least know that they gave you the chance to try.

            I know several gay people who have been in the military who left at their own will. They say that there are a lot of known gay people in the service, it is just never talked about, and they are part of the unit, and nobody really cares. It is usually someone from outside the unit that is on a witch hunt that finds the gays and boots them.

            I heard there are even soldiers who routinely bait gay soldiers, and entrap them, with the sole purpose of getting them out. No one is sure if the ones who are doing the queer baiting are under orders. But, the former military guys I talked to seemed to think that they are.

            One reason why I would never join.

    3. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

      Gays, and recently lesbians, have been serving in the military since the invention of the military. We went through this same BS back during the Civil War over the argument of letting blacks in the military, even though blacks served in our previous wars. The Military and same sex marriage bans shouldn't be an issue. These bans is discrimination at it's finest!

      1. Jed Fisher profile image87
        Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The transparent plan of the Scammers is to let gays into the military, so that the services can't meet their recruiting goals, so the Scammers can re-enstate the draft, then offer exemptions to the draft that clearly exclude heterosexuals, then send all the gays off to a conventional land war in Asia to get turned into hambuger.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You clearly put a lot of thought into your response.

          1. Jed Fisher profile image87
            Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do some pushups.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Is that a gay euphemism?

              1. Jed Fisher profile image87
                Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Now, roll over and do some sit-ups.

          2. 0
            kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            pee

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ha!Ha!

    4. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      It was on the news today that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the time has come to repeal DADT and insisted that reversing the policy would not be as 'wrenching' as many have feared.
      Of course, Gates himself is a lame duck, having announced his plan to retire in 2011. (Is that January 1st or some date as yet unspecified?) So probably his opinion is no doubt discounted/ignored.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

    5. EPman profile image61
      EPmanposted 6 years ago

      Someone's sexual preference does not affect how they perform in ANYTHING. A gay man is just as capable as a straight, and a straight is just as capable as a gay.

      To refuse or discharge a perfectly able, qualified, and skilled individual simply because they are a homosexual is a complete waste. It's like not hiring someone because they tested positive for pot. Very competent and proficient candidates are fired (or never hired) because they smoke. Similarly, gay soldiers are excluded, squandering potential any potential these men and women may possess.

      Why shun individuals who are skilled and useful at the job you need them to perform? It doesn't make sense.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

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

        why the hell do so many people care if gay people want to die "for our country"?

        I'd rather have gay volunteers do it than have my arse be drafted.

        wurd

    6. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
      Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago

      There is a reason that combat troops are against repealing DADT. For any of you that have served as a combat troop, you know why. It's not about ability to do the job. It really isn't. The issue is, you have to shower, sleep, and just plain live in VERY close quarters. Let us not forget, that combat units are groomed to be hostile. It's not the boyscouts. They live and train to kill people. Even in peace time, life is made difficult to help form unity and toughness. I think at the combat level, it will effect troop cohesion.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        All the gay men I know are not interested in harassing hetero men. Why put yourself through homophobic hate? Get real. If a homosexual man hits on a hetero sexual (yes, I know it happens) then there are some problems. And those types of problems run through humanity, not just homosexuals.

        Hetero men make advances which are clearly unwanted on women, and sometimes on girls. It always goes both ways.

        Point is, in GENERAL, homosexual men have the decency and courtesy NOT to hit on their hetero friends and coworkers. Hetero men, however, seem to have less sense of appropriate boundaries in hitting on women in such circumstances.

        1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
          Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How long were you in the infantry?

          1. Daniel Carter profile image90
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's completely irrelevant to this thread. I think you may be outing yourself as one who is less tolerant, because clearly there are people who served in the military posting on this thread who do NOT share your feelings.

            1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
              Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It was pointed out that combat units are against it. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the examples of people being okay with it were not from combat units.

              I don't care what a person's preferences are. I am just not sure how much it could effect unit cohesion in units that are full of young aggressive males.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "If a homosexual man hits on a hetero sexual (yes, I know it happens) then there are some problems."

          Not always. I've been hit on by gay men a couple times in the past. I turned them down. End of story. There was no problem.

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

            yeah, right?

            Like - it's astonishing! If some gay guy hit on me (not that they would, I'm not much of a looker)... It really wouldn't take that much to end the "issue at hand".

            "Dude, I like girls. I'll buy ya a beer, though"

            Ta-da. Everyone's happy

    7. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

      Men have to realize that all gay men are not going to be interested in having sex with them just because they see them naked...

      1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
        Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you took a shower with 40 guys, do you think you might notice 1 you'd like to have sex with? (40 women if you're gay?)

    8. Michael Buchman profile image61
      Michael Buchmanposted 6 years ago

      Right on Wayne.

    9. Michael Buchman profile image61
      Michael Buchmanposted 6 years ago

      Uninvited...

      Its not the "all" I'm concerned about.  It is the "one" who decides to make an unwelcomed smart ass comment who will cause the problem.

      He'll end up in the bottom of a foxhole then all hell will break loose.

    10. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

      Many of these same arguments were used against using women in combat roles.

      1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
        Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        At least women get seperate showers and living quarters. Should we just combine all of them? I still haven't seen any women in the infantry either.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True, and the same arguments before that were used against allowing blacks to serve in integrated units with whites. What the opponents are really saying is that there are enough  prejudiced men and women in the military to cause significant problems. The answer to that is to expell them if they cause trouble, not the gay and lesbian men and women.

    11. rotl profile image60
      rotlposted 6 years ago

      It is a shame that patriots who want to serve their country cannot simply because of who they choose to love. Shame.

      It doesn't even matter what the majority of enlisted men think. It's the right thing to do. If we went by polls, there would be no blacks, Jews, women etc. in the military today. That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights, so that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who said gay patriots couldn't serve? All that is required is to leave your sexuality out of it. When I was in the military we didn't have a lot of heterosexuals running around telling everyone their sexual preference.

        "If we went by polls, there would be no blacks, Jews, women etc. in the military today."

        What polls are these? Could you direct me to them?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If a soldier states that he or she is heterosexual, does he/she risk being discharged?

          Are gerbils included in the standard issue field pack?

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Just do a little looking on the Net. NPR reported that when Truman integrated the military 65% of white service members opposed serving with blacks. That didn't slow Truman down one bit. And despite the resistance integration proceeded with few problems.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Truman? Really?

            You want me to go back 60 Years or more for proof of how attitudes are today?

            Times and feelings have changed a little in the last 60 years.

            They really have...

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's true that attitudes have changed. Nobody's advocating re-segregating the military, but a few diehards in the military are opposing the repeal of don't ask don't tell.


              "If Truman had followed opinion in the military, he would never have issued Executive Order 9981. (Indeed, perhaps, as shown below, he would have created separate platoons for Jewish and non-Jewish soldiers.) Nevertheless, he did issue 9981–despite the objections of an overhwelming majority of the views of white service members and even though 1948 was an election year, one in which his future in the White House was very much in doubt. Truman chose to lead rather than follow, a lesson that President Bill Clinton chose to ignore in 1993, when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented."

              http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/7/ … -dont-tell

              Within two weeks of his election, Truman issued Executive Order 9981, racially integrating the U.S. Armed Services.[130][131][132] Truman took considerable political risk in backing civil rights, and many seasoned Democrats were concerned that the loss of Dixiecrat support might destroy the Democratic Party. The fear seemed well justified—Strom Thurmond declared his candidacy for the presidency and led a full-scale revolt of Southern "states' rights" proponents. This revolt on the right was matched by a revolt on the left, led by former Vice President Henry A. Wallace on the Progressive Party ticket. Immediately after its first post-FDR convention, the Democratic Party found itself disintegrating. Victory in November seemed a remote possibility indeed, with the party not simply split but divided three ways.

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

              Indeed.  Now gays have got to where black people were in the era of Truman.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "When I was in the military we didn't have a lot of heterosexuals running around telling everyone their sexual preference."

          I call BS. You and your fellow soldiers never talked about your girlfriends/wives? Never got married? Never participated in or attended each others' weddings? If you mentioned your girlfriend, you told your sexual preference. If you mentioned your wife, you told your sexual preference. And I'm sure that at least some of your fellow soldiers talked about their girlfriends/wives. How? Because guys talk about their girlfriends/wives, whether to brag or to complain or to just bond with their fellow guys.

    12. Mikeydoes profile image79
      Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago

      Don't ask, don't tell... More like, don't care!

      I can care less if someone is a homosexual or not, I have my own things to worry about. I'm not on earth to tell them what to like. It is good to see that most people are like this as well, great news!

    13. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      This "close quarters" stuff is nonsense...

      From the first day of Marine bootcamp on, we were in close quarters....90 men taking showers together, stripped naked together...and it was known that we had homosexuals in our unit...

      When I was at my first station, in Arizona, it was more of the same...

      In fact, the way our sergeants and other higher nco's put it, if you go to a gay bar, march in a gay parade, have gay pornography or sex toys, etc, it was your own business...they way they put it, "you could be doing research"....and they didn't care...

      In Hawaii we had openly gay members of my battalion, and no one cared....(except for the officers and senior enlisted that this guy secretly video recorded having sex with him)...

      Being a former Marine, and knowing that the Marines have a higher percentage of homosexuals than any of the other services, any talk about "the troops don't likt it....close quarters"...is nonsense...

      Ultimately, it comes down to the man or woman next to you following training..protecting one another, taking down the enemy...surviving in a traumatic situation (combat) and living to fight another day....

      Keeping homosexuals "in fear" helps the power of senior enlisted and officers who are gay.....  If they find a "toy" (soldier/marine/etc.) that they like....(and the person isn't smart like that Marine I was telling you about) then the higher ranks can take advantage of you....and they do...

      Imagine being gay and being a young enlisted man or woman....and imagine that there was an officer who was also gay...if the officer wanted to abuse the young enlisted sexually....it could definitely happen.. Then the young enlisted man or woman would have to shut his or her mouth about what happened, or risk being "outed" in some way...

      By the way, many, if not most, homosexuals in the military look for a way out of living in the barracks, or on base period...

      They often set up sham marriages....meaning a homosexual man or woman marries a heterosexual of the opposing gender, and they get to live off base in privacy...without fear of inspections...

      Of course, military members get extra pay for living off base....so its a win-win situation...

      This is a loophole that must be closed....  If we are interested in saving money...right?

      1. Jed Fisher profile image87
        Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for sharing. Yep, speaking for my little corner of the military, the US Army Field Artillery, there's more gays than straights, especially the officers. I mean, for real , it's a gay pickup line at off-base bars to ask "Are you an officer?" 
        The biggest problem with gays in the military is the way the constant stress of living a secret, double life affects their duty performance. They might get all confused and sell a pile of secret documents ot Wikileaks, for example. Get rid of DADT, that problem goes away.
        But really, nobody cares. All this hooplah is just meant to stir the pot and distract us while the Banksters steal all our money.

      2. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
        Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How long were you on ship sharing a berthing area with 100 other jarheads? I spent 4 years in the infantry and didn't know any gay Marines. If they were and kept it to themselves I don't care. And judging by your duty stations, I'm guessing you weren't in the infantry, which is mostly what I've been talking about.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Here's the real problem:

          "I heard there are even soldiers who routinely bait gay soldiers, and entrap them, with the sole purpose of getting them out. No one is sure if the ones who are doing the queer baiting are under orders. But, the former military guys I talked to seemed to think that they are."

          This will disappear when Don't ask don't tell is repealed and proper command leadership is applied.

    14. livewithrichard profile image84
      livewithrichardposted 6 years ago

      I agree with most of what you wrote Mikelong but like I wrote above, being openly gay during the training period of Boot Camp will cause problems with the social cohesion of the group.  You said "..and it was known that we had homosexuals in our unit..." Can you honestly say it was accepted by all in your unit? A small handful may not have had a problem with it but face it, they mostly immature kids, at that time.

      Granted, I've been out of the service since before Don't Ask Don't Tell was around (I got out of the Army in 1990) but the fact remains that the kids that are going through Boot Camp today are of the same mindset as the kids that bullied a gay student to commit suicide last month. 

      I believe that once they are finished with training and possibly Advanced training, they will be better prepared and disciplined to accept alternative lifestyles as equals.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        With proper leadership there will be few problems. I've worked with gays and never been hit on once. That's a non-issue. I was hit on once when I was a teen ager at a hotel pool. The guy was not obnoxious. He just made a couple of comments about my sun tan and engaged me in conversation. He gave up when it became apparent to him that I wasn't interested.

    15. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      My workstation was the rear of a Light Armored Vehicle...

      MEWWs platoon of 1st Radio Battalion roll with the Light Armored Regiments...

      I've shared foxholes....and small, tight quarters with other men...

      We also have Radio Recon...our Bravo Company... 

      Feel free to check out 1st Radio Battalion...the most deployed unit in the United States Marine Corps.

      The grunts "worried" about the "gays" have been relying on us and our "gays" for half a century....and just realize that these men were in those berthings with you..

      1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
        Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, no they weren't. And if they were, they weren't talking about it or acting on it etc. Which is fine. To be honost, if they came out that they were gay after they've been through training with all these guys, it would probably not be as big of a deal. But, coming into boot camp being open, just makes things complicated from the start.

        sidenote: Since when does the Marine Corps have foxholes? Foxes hide in holes. Marines fight from holes. That's why they're fighting holes.

    16. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Evidently, Wayne, different terms are used by different people...

      I've used both terms....

      Again, concerning bootcamp....there's no time, place, or privacy for sexual activity....

      1. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Apparently you were unaware that the  Navy tried mixing the sexes during boot camp. It didn't last long. Apparently there was plenty of time. The Army and Airforce tried it as well.

    17. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Don't assume anything Mr. Wright....

      I know all about this...

      I can also tell you that their bootcamps are completely different from the Corps....and anyone having any sex, legal or otherwise, would be subject to punishment...

      If I left my barracks (again, in bootcamp..which would be pretty darn impossible seeing that there at least 3 are people on guard duty 24/7 in every squad bay)..to go meet up with a female on base, and I got caught, there would be hell to pay...

      Though I believe you state that you had been in the military, your comments make me wonder....

      With the way time is managed, the type of oversight that the D.I.'s have, and the intensity of training, the guys I was with had no time to use "happy socks" by themselves let alone try to find some place to get it on with someone...  In fact,most of the guys couldn't even "get it up" throughout the duration of bootcamp.... I know there were a lot of allegations that there was saltpeter in the food and such... 

      I remember when this one particular recruit in my platoon actually became arroused... It was shower time, which meant that all 90 of us guys were either completely naked, or just wearing little towels around ourselves, and this one guy came in all excited... He said "Hey guys! Look at this!!" and he pulled off his towel to show everyone his "excitement"....everyone thought it was hilarious....plus, it gave them hope that their "junk" would start working again too...

      Again.....homosexuals have been in the military since there was a military....

      When I hear people complain about the "gays" it becomes very clear that there is a personal problem with the complaining individual as opposed to the larger issue.....

      If there is an insecurity problem then that individual must have a few internal "quandries" to work out....

      The way so many Marines play "grab-ass" with one another.....it is clear to me that homosexuality is not an issue at all...

      Also, there is that wonderful term itself..."grab-ass"...

      "Hey Marines! When you two are done playing grab-ass with each other perhaps you would like to join our formation?"  ---I can't put a number on how many times I've heard that line....

      "Grab-ass"...sounds pretty homosexual to me already....

      1. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Doubt my service if you wish. I didn't make anything personal. I simply stated fact. Co-ed Boot Camps were tried and failed in the Navy, Army and Air Force. The USMC, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY never made an attempt. You will have to agree that the Marine Corps is not the most "Progressive" of the armed services. I have 20 years in the DOD, ten in the Navy, by the way.

        Of course there have always been gays, homosexuals as you prefer in the Military. I have served with several. As I stated had no problems with them. Most were above average in fact. You, having served in the Corps should know better than most what that enviroment is like. You can't seriously tell me that open homosexuality will be readily accepted in the Marine Corps.

    18. Rattigan profile image82
      Rattiganposted 6 years ago

      I'm in favour of a DADT policy for homophobes. Don't share your homophobic opinions and you won't be asked about them. If you're so insecure that sharing close quarters with a gay soldier affects your service, get out of the military. You can shoot and kill and blow people up, but you get squeamish if a gay guy gets too close? Give me a break.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        smile

      2. EPman profile image61
        EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL.

      3. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm in favor of allowing military people, period, to do their duties and their jobs without bringing their drama-queen antics into it.  This issue should've never even become an issue at all.
        My God!  We have two on-going wars and soldiers are giving their lives both literally and time-wise to protect this Country, and yet the gay agenda wants to become the center of attention.  Such carp!  Who gives a darn what their fetishes are!?   They need to focus on doing their jobs instead of claiming "civil rights" to perform unnatural sex acts.   Drama! Drama!  Everything isn't ABOUT THEM, though they want to make it that way.

        I am also in favor of legislating that calling someone who opposes the gay agenda a "homophobe" is hate speech.    Heterophobia is what's caused this controversy in the first place, hatred for abiding by God's laws and the natural laws of man.

        1. Rattigan profile image82
          Rattiganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          When you insist being gay is a "fetish" and that it's all about "drama queen antics," you fully deserve the label "homophobe." Straight people don't leave their sexual orientation at home when they go off to serve in the military. They talk about their wives, girlfriends and families. When they return home, the media broadcasts their reunions and celebrates with them as they hug and kiss the ones they love. But a gay man wants the simple right not to be forced into the closet and he's told to shut up and know his place? Nonsense and bigotry.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well said, Sir.

      4. K9keystrokes profile image94
        K9keystrokesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!

    19. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

      The gay agenda is not the issue, the number of soldiers being thrown out of the army even though most 'didn't tell' but were 'found out'.  Thats about 500 willing and fully trained soldier in the last year being thrown out of the service while territorials are doing multiple tours.

      *That's* "carp".

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

        So, yeah, the ever-oppressed gay soldier gets the attention, while the straight soldier whose psyche and morale is diminished by a fellow soldier who wants to claim rights to perversion has no rights to an environment where his moral compass is held in place.   Truth is that, just like any issue, when the moral foundation is allowed to crack, the whole institution starts coming down.  You may think a politically-correct military is gonna be strong, but you are wrong.  If a gay soldier has any moral strength, he/she will stop whining about twisted "rights" and start being a real soldier.   Male soldiers whose temptations are toward other males have no business putting themselves or others into that situation,  just like female soldiers have no business bunking with male soldiers. There are other ways to support our military without trying to insert that paradox into it.

        When one group's so-called right to liberty infringes upon another group's actual right to liberty,  injustice ensues and chaos begins.  The machine crumbles.   THAT is the agenda and will be the end result of this whole mess, if people don't wake up and stand up for what is morally right.   There is no legitimate pride in immorality.  And each person should have the integrity to limit their behavior on that scale.  They used to.  But the liberal agenda has jumped that fence, with the help of the majority of rebellious people who want to dance in the streets while our soldiers die in the field.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What took you so long to get here? smile

          1. K9keystrokes profile image94
            K9keystrokesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            smile

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "while the straight soldier whose psyche and morale is diminished by a fellow soldier who wants to claim rights to perversion has no rights to an environment where his moral compass is held in place."

          What utter nonsense are you spewing now? Do you have even one example of a straight soldier who has been 'traumatized' by a gay one? One real-world example, that's all I ask.

          Even if you weren't speaking hypothetically, the proper response to this kind of harassment is the same as the proper response to heterosexual sexual harassment: the harasser gets a court-martial, and if found guilty, gets a dishonorable discharge.

    20. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

      AND for those people who have been wrongfully dismissed (if one is to assume they have been), on the basis of human rights (not "gay rights"), there should indeed be a recourse for them to regain their status as soldiers or have their names cleared and any perpetuators of physical violence prosecuted.  But those cases should have never ever been the catalyst for this mountain of nonsense that's been allowed to invade our military system and our Nation in general.    The wave of "civil rights" activism that's being allowed now is hogwash.  All a person has to do is claim they're being bullied and some greedy lawyer will fit them into a little niche of "minorities" or "oppressed"  groups of people just to make a name for himself or line his own pockets.  It's ridiculous.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The wave of "civil rights" activism that's being allowed now is hogwash."
        Yes, people should just shut up and conform, right?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          People should shut up their mouths from spouting advocacy for perverted ideas, thereby conforming to the moral laws of God AND man, yes.

          There was a time when people actually were held (and held themselves) accountable about good manners and integrity, whether they liked it or not.

          1. 59
            Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perverted ideas in whose opinion? Mine is that you and your interpretation of your religion are perverted and hurtful to the country as a whole. The constitution protects my opinion as much as yours.

            There was a time when people remembered that their beliefs and religions aren't the only ones that shaped the world, whether they liked it or not.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "People should shut up their mouths from spouting advocacy for perverted ideas, thereby conforming to the moral laws of God AND man, yes."

            Excellent. Do you also have a plan for making the trains run on time?

    21. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      I absolutely believe that homosexuals can exist openly...

      If we have to base our society on appeasing bigots then what kind of nation is this?

      What is even worse is that by backing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" one is encouraging people to keep themselves back from their unit....  Hide....lead a secret life...don't be honest with your team...don't be honest openly about who you are...

      Really? Be a good "hider"?

      There is no way to compare co-ed bootcamp to homosexuality in the military...

      For those who point to the problems with the co-ed Army and Airforce, I knew airmen and soldiers who had sex while in bootcamp....but, I also look at the average basic training of the airmen and soldiers after bootcamp as well....My training schools were mostly joint-service...and I spent extensive time on both Army posts and Navy bases....  I assess the discipline standards (as well as pride) to be low compare to the Corps...

      This isn't going to turn into an inter-service rivaly posting....however...

      Brenda...you can keep creating the "demoralized heterosexual" military man/woman...but this isn't the reality...

      In terms of perversion (which is what Brenda has commonly used to define homosexuality) I witnessed far more heterosexual debauchery in my service time to fill volumes.....

      From senior enlisted taking advantage of lower rated women (who were drunk out of their minds), to the "hogging" crowd who competed each weekend to see who could "bang" the fattest girl (and they had trophies), to the two o'clock in the morning in a Denny's completely blasted (not me, mind you..I look out for my fellow Marines with a sober mind only) talking dirty to a guy in a dress, to the guy who brags about the "mother-daughter combo" he scored.......  I have seen it all...  Including the verbal abuse of women who didn't "put out"... They would still be called "sluts" to their faces and behind their backs....the spread rumors about which girls had what std's and which sexual acts which Marine did to whatever girl...

      I remember showing up in Arizona, being handed my check-in sheet, and then being told, unofficially, that the Air Force barracks was right down the road, and every Marine male gets two "Air Matresses"...meaning two girls to play with...

      I remember well my detachment in Arizona...200 Marines, 195 of which were male...whenever a new female showed up the guys would be lined up out the door to try to help her with her stuff....and then the competition would begin to see who would "score" on her first....  I have seen it all....

      I can go on from here, and in much more graphic detail...

      I think the military culture could use some real change...and it starts with being honest with how sexuality is used in the military...and the privilege of the heterosexual archetype...

      While I am not gay, I firmly believe that it is time to acknowledge a civil rights issue when we see one.....  It you are a sexual bigot, then that is your issue....at least your intolerance will be exposed...and then perhaps you can become more "civilized".....  Who wants to live in a society of wanton hate-mongers?


      What "happens on float" does not always "stay on float."

    22. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 6 years ago

      The military is an all volunteer force.  Every military member takes an oath and is fully explained the policies, rules, regulations, and orders.  DADT shouldn't even be an issue of repeal, because it is a policy under direct order enforced by the UCMJ.  If one doesn't like the policies, rules, regulations, and orders then don't volunteer, and if you do volunteer don't complain.

    23. Rattigan profile image82
      Rattiganposted 6 years ago

      I'll add that, frankly, DADT is effectively just like saying no gays in the military. I know from first-hand experience the stress and anxiety of trying to keep my sexual orientation a secret; did it until I was in my mid-twenties. Can you imagine as a straight person going into the military and being told you can't let on you have a wife and family? That if anyone finds out, your career is history?

      1. JOE BARNETT profile image62
        JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        then why did you go?

        1. Rattigan profile image82
          Rattiganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't go, if by that you meant join the military. I was talking about keeping my orientation secret in general. And the question "Why join?" is just my point. You may as well ban gays all together as tell them they can join if they keep their orientation secret.

    24. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Illegal orders are not to be followed...and the same is with illegal/unconstitutional rules, even within the UCMJ...

    25. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

      Every time I see the heading, "Don't ask- don't tell" I think, don't ask, don't lie.

    26. JOE BARNETT profile image62
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago

      ya know i served ten years in the military. i am a democrat which most people say is a liberal. but all that i know that are the same sre not in agreement with this, including me.

      i saw the day when if you walked in a public restroom to use a urinal, they would walk right up while you were using it to look at you.all public bathrooms were filled with men hanging around and walking in the stall to look at you. that was strange. alot of the people talking here have no connection to the real world. you simply sit in the comfort of your home and make decisions.everyone wants to seem nice so you are being beaten down. the proponents of the repeal, act as though they  just want to do their job and they will,but thats not the issue.

      people not wanting blacks or, women in other positions in the military is not the same. for blacks they didn't want them because they did not like them period(predjudice),eventhough the blacks acted exactly like the whites in every way on and off duty, only a different color. for women they didn't think they could cut the mustard. they got the chance and they do great in the right positions. this is not the same. we are not concerned with their level of competency. it is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue. so people that try to use or compare the two are comparing apples to oranges.

      first let me ask the women if they want to shower or use the bathroom with a bunch of guys looking at you everytime you do it? how about the men that are hitting on you can come and watch you shower even though you can't stand them?

      at 4;30 on friday evening, the military looks like a college campus. everyone is in civi's heading downtown. by twelve you begin to see the drunks coming back home and that is where this social experiment is gonna break down.  flamboyant as they are, you can expect to see every possible combination of things that make them gay in the bushes, in the barracks, in closets, accidently walked in on in rooms etc. i'm sure that their will be a pda rule(public display of affection) so that shouldn't occur wink wink but everyone will know. their will be leather pants with no butt in them walking through the barracks, lipstick on guys and as i said every possible combination. now monday when it's time to go on patrol who wants to go with who?

      how about hitting on the women all day. well we know this happens so what did we do? we seperated them, an understandably so. now what will the seperation be?

      i don't think there is anything insecure about this view.gays want the people to have an insecurity about it or they try to use it as a whipping point to "MAKE" them feel bad about it.

      repealing this won't improve their soldiering skills, it won't improve the military. it will only give gays a license to do whatever they want around people that don't agree. i don't see any need for this especially ound people that have to live so close together and at such a young age.

    27. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      I remember countless times that, when having to use the urinal, we would be three deep on just one...blazing away hoping not to spray on the others...

      No one was thinking about sex...no one was "checking the other guy out"....we just really had to "take one"....and we had "tennineeightsevensixfivefourthreetwoone!" seconds to be in formation..

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it seems people have this notion that if a gay or lesbian is engaged in battle they would be thinking about boinking.  It's incredibly ridiculous.

    28. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Not to intrude on your question to Rattigan, Joe, and I am in no way speaking for Rattigan...

      But may I interject....

      As we should know, the honorable discharge comes with free (nearly free) health care for life...

      The G.I. Bill and enlistment bonuses cannot be gained in any civillian form....especially to a young person with little to no training/knowledge...

      Three hots....very nice ones depending on where one is...and a cot...free travel...

      The ability to get away from family, "home", start a new path...

      To then say that "we really only want straight people, but will tolerate you "others" if you pretend not to exist".....is beyond ridiculous and justifiable....

      The only hinderance of the repeal of DADT is the religious fundamentalists and their bigotry....  Again..why should we lower our standards to intellectual crevasses to appease their hate?

      Let those who "don't like gays" stay home, and miss out on the education, health care, home loans, and numerous other benefits that truly honorable....meaning honest, reliable, and responsible...earn as their just reward...

      Let their heaven be in heaven, and let the rest of us try to make some kind of heaven on Earth.....

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No it doesn't.  I was honorably discharged and I did NOT get free or nearly free healthcare for life.  In fact, I have been rejected several times for any healthcare whatsoever.

        1. K9keystrokes profile image94
          K9keystrokesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I totally agree with you Sandra. The cost would be prohibitive, and those who received an honorable discharge after serving less than a year would break the bank in no time!

      2. JOE BARNETT profile image62
        JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        mike the military started one way and everyone new what is was before they got there. i knew i would have a great many pushups to do, too many! i didn't get there and then try to turn the military around to my liking. that is all that is happening here for whatever reason you may say, but it boils down to gays wanting there lifestyles to be "ACCEPTED" by people that are not gay. according to the reason you just gave then we should allow the blind, mentally challenged, felons and anyone that wants va benefits in then huh.

        that is their choice. i don't like it but,i'm cordial to them  and i don't think this should be forced on a bunch of innocent hormone filled teenagers either and the answer from you to that would be. . .?

    29. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      I and every veteran I know is able to enroll at a VA Hospital...

      Depending on the amount of income one makes, there may be some co-pay....and for dental you have to pay for the tooth extraction, per se, but it is far cheaper than finding an outside dentist...

      When did you serve?

      (Don't mind the questions...I also used to work for the VA, so I am curious to find out why you are not covered)..

      In terms of the GI Bill, it is optional...and it hasn't always been open for all...  It used to be "white only".... My benefits paid one thousand dollars per month for two years..tax free..while I was in school...  My military service opened a lot of doors...and not just for myself..

      The benefits post-911 are phenomenal... I don't speak out of my own experiences, but the guys in my unit have all since come back, mostly earned bachelors if not post degrees, and one guy in particular is currently in Moscow going to school....  I met up with him before he ran off to the University of Chicago for graduate school....I couldn't believe how much money he was being given....
      Again, I am curious as to why you have been rejected....

    30. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Joe, you may not have sought to change a system, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't change...

      Just imagine if African Americans in the military, Japanese, and others who had served just sat and took it when GI benefits went to whites following World War II and Korea....

      "Oh well...the system didn't think I should have these benefits...who am I to change the system"....Really?

      I'm not buying it.....

      Its time for bigots to finally be outed for who they are, instead of giving them any cover to hide behind.... DADT is a travesty of law..

      1. JOE BARNETT profile image62
        JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ok i notice that you use the word bigot on anyone that doesn't agree with homosexuality. then i ask you to embrace heterosexuality and if you don't then you my friend are a bigot.

             A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions, prejudices or group, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
           
          i hear you name calling and what is the answer to my question?
          my family has been in every war since the spanish american war, that we know of. we've never been denied benefits and neither have gays. however if you are court martialed for drugs, a crime or whatever the offense, you will not get those benefits. so maybe we should go back and get the awol, bad urin tested people. insubordinates, bad attitudes, conscientious objectors etc.

        we start to digress. i just believe that removing dadt will begin to taint and create a seedy environment on our kids!  is there anyone that can't understand that?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "I just believe that removing dadt will begin to taint and create a seedy environment on our kids!  is there anyone that can't understand that?"

          I can understand that you believe that. I don't understand why you believe that. Can you explain exactly how the repeal of dadt will begin to taint [the military] and create a seedy environment?

    31. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Embrace heterosexuality?

      Okay?  I'm hugging myself?  So what?

      Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bigoted policy.....

      Those who support it support bigotry...even if they themselves may not explicitly be bigots...

      I would like to hear an argument against homosexuality that wouldn't involve some form of bigotry....

      Sir...if you believe that removing DADT will result in a "seedy environment for our kids" you must have never served.....

      Read a few of my posts in this thread where I share the evidently "wholesome" environment they are participating in...

      In fact, I'll spread a bit more "family fun" for you....

      When I was in "A" school there was a group of guys who liked to sneak into one anothers rooms (and the rooms of others) when they were asleep and take turns putting their "junk" on one anotner's faces...and worse..  One guy, after pt in the morning, would run upstairs, making sure he was the first one, just so he could strip naked and do various things with his "things" as we all walked by....

      Again....this is heterosexual behavior.... 

      And he was quite a popular guy amongst the entire Marine Detachment....and had his share of "air matressess"....he also would give girls different nicknames like "gonorreah"...which he would use to their faces...

      Are you getting my drift Joe?  I'm not making this stuff up..this was the "norm"....

      How would two people of the same gender loving one another have a worsening affect?

      To equate homosexuality to the use of illegal drugs is ludicrous....

      How many wars your family has fought in, or how long your family has been here is irrelevant....

      And I never called you a bigot...

      But, I am very curious to find out why you think homosexuality is inappropriate....

    32. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 6 years ago

      Looks like the Senate blocked the DADT repeal 57-40:

      http://content.usatoday.com/communities … ilitary-/1

    33. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

      I don't understand why homosexuals are a special class.
      So why is there a need for them to be recognized by the military.

      The military like any organization has its rules and regulations, and if you want to get in you apply.

      If your application is accepted then you get in, and once in you have to follow the rules.

      Is there anything about homosexuals that bestows a right?

      There are only two things that make a homosexual.
      1. Preference
      2. Genetic Defect

      Preference

      We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
      We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT

      There is no Right to DRive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.

      There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requiremens.

      There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
      There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.

      The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.


      GENETIC DEFECT

      Many Babies are born with congenital defects, and as sad as that is they don't have any more Rights than babies born with out congenital defects.

      The LGBT may just be a case of eggs that got confused and didn't follow the blueprint.

      If that is the case, then we should treat LGBT in the same way that we treat anyone with congenital defects.

      Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA.

      ---------------
      So where is the RIGHT for LGBT, other than possible protection against being persecution for admitting it. Sort of like being a Republican at a Democrat rally, or vice versa.

      Remember these so called Rights are double edged swords that could also be applied to those other people preferences mentioned above.

      If you want to reply to my comment, then at least answer to the questions here and not generalizations.

      The main questions Preference or Genetic Defect or ?
      What Right is being claimed?

      BTW, I am not a HomoPhobe, I have no fear of them, I just disagree with them and their Rights, which generate mostly from the Left. ~:}

      If prefer HomoNot.

      Thanks

      1. 59
        Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'll take the counterargument on this one.

        Firstly, any argument that is based on the idea that the military takes in volunteers who accept its regulations is a reason why DADT is acceptable is bunk. Period.
        That argument only works if it is being suggested that military members should disobey orders such as DADT because they believe differently. That has not been suggested (though I am sure there are liberals that might find this acceptable, they have not spoken in this thread).
        The military regulations are a series of rules, limitations, expectations and operational guidelines which reflect the military's current beliefs about what constitutes a proper military, operation and soldier serving in the aforementioned groupings. These guidelines have never been set in stone nor suggested to be meant to be unchangeable. We (the nation) change them on a yearly basis in a variety of ways. So the idea that because the regulations state something it should be so, and that we should not question the wisdom of it because it lies within those regulations is both paradoxical and irrational.

        Secondly, "preference" and "genetic defect"

        PREFERENCE

        It's ironic that you have listed most of the things you have, as there is a clear strain in legislative thinking about -all- of the things on your list : That limitations exist to protect the public against an action which is willfully or negligently dangerous to one or more individuals.

        (Before I begin, I should state that the counterarguments here are sticking to fact, rather than my own opinions on any matters. I reserve my own opinions on many of these things.)

        We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
        -Because the legislative thinking of the time witnessed cases of this displayed a serious trend of multiple women who lacked many of the rights of men of their time were being indoctrinated into polygamous relationships which left them at the mercy of the husband. This, coupled more importantly with a serious fear that mormonism in Utah was giving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints control over a frightening amount of land, resulted in the laws that you are referring to. It was not nearly as cut and dry as you've supposed and it would behoove you to avoid delving into certain legal stances that may be more questionable than you were aware.

        We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT
        -Both of these are considered situations in which a nonconsentual party through lack of sentience or majority, is being harmed physically, emotionally and/or psychologically by coerced fornication. Again, another case of protecting from harm.

        There is no right to drive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.
        -Again, the licensing process is specifically aimed at ensuring that an incredibly powerful weapon in the form of a ton-plus vehicle is being operated with full recognizance of the dangers and with training in proper operation. Of special note is that you -can- drive a vehicle in the united states without a license under a number of specific provisions. One example is the right to drive a vehicle on private land that is not intended for public access (such as a farm). In the united states, you can be eight and drive a thresher on a privately owned farm without a license.

        There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requirements.
        -This is patently incorrect and plays on a common misunderstanding of US marriage laws. A civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same things. One can be religiously married by any church without any permission or jurisdiction from the government on any terms that you like. Only a civil marriage, which imparts a number of legal rights and expectations, requires a license. This is intended to protect the individuals involved from being forced into a legally binding contract which they may not fully understand or be capable of agreeing to under their own recognizance. Another case of protecting those who might otherwise be unable to protect themselves.

        There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
        -You're absolutely right -- Because the fundamental idea of a crime is that it involves an action which harms another individual or the government in a clearly observable manner. Government's alllll about stopping that harm.

        There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.
        -Yes, there are limits and requirements.. such as consent by an individual who has reached their legal majority capable of answering in their own recognizance. In short : Limits and requirements which shield the parties involved from harm.

        The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.
        -Actually, that's incorrect. The constitution specifically states that in the second sentence.

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

        The term liberty specifically refers to the constitutional right to be free, and the pursuit of Happiness refers to the constitutional right to seek what makes you happy. What follows after this are specific limitations upon when this is -not- the case, and detailing specific cases that it -especially- should be protected. The implicit statement here is : If we don't tell you otherwise in the form of a law, you have that right--and if a law prevents you and this is found incorrect, it can be changed.

        GENETIC DEFECT
        I would love to take this section seriously but... there's just no way that half of this isn't just plain group-based hate speech. If we assume that it is in fact a genotypic feature, then almost everything you've stated in here would never be tolerated if compared to other features. If it is genetic, then try switching the topic of this section to 'black' or 'female' instead of 'homosexual' and see how that goes over. I don't think I need to state anything else about that.
        The idea that this is a defect is similarly uninformed. Genetics does indeed have a definition of the word 'defect' but it isn't what you seem to think.

        "Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA."

        No, a malfunction in DNA is called a mutation and is indeed not derogatory or inflammatory... a -defect- refers to a mutation which is detrimental to the survival of a species. As homosexuals have proven that they are capable of sexually reproducing even if it goes against their desires, it is unlikely that you could find an accredited geneticist willing to use that term when discussing the potential issue, anymore than they would suggest that frog species that exhibit periodic explosive growth of asexual members is a 'defect'.

        BTW : When someone calls refers to a HomoPhobe, this is usually a misunderstanding. You may think they are referring to a fear of homosexuals as the word suggests. They aren't usually. They are using the term homophobe as a euphemism for hate-filled ignorant bigot, because the person attempts to use weak logical arguments, incomplete understandings of science and the ever fun tool of religion (something that nobody is expected or required to accept, much less respect) to argue a stance. Perhaps you would be wise to reconsider your stance on being called a homophobe. It sounds so much nicer.

        You're welcome.

        1. OpinionDuck profile image60
          OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Firstly, any argument that is based on the idea that the military takes in volunteers who accept its regulations is a reason why DADT is acceptable is bunk. Period.


          That argument only works if it is being suggested that military members should disobey orders such as DADT because they believe differently. That has not been suggested (though I am sure there are liberals that might find this acceptable, they have not spoken in this thread).
          The military regulations are a series of rules, limitations, expectations and operational guidelines which reflect the military's current beliefs about what constitutes a proper military, operation and soldier serving in the aforementioned groupings. These guidelines have never been set in stone nor suggested to be meant to be unchangeable. We (the nation) change them on a yearly basis in a variety of ways. So the idea that because the regulations state something it should be so, and that we should not question the wisdom of it because it lies within those regulations is both paradoxical and irrational.

          Opinion Duck says: Your answer is meaningless, the question is why are LGBT special to have the military or any organization be pressured by them.

          Secondly, "preference" and "genetic defect"

          PREFERENCE

          It's ironic that you have listed most of the things you have, as there is a clear strain in legislative thinking about -all- of the things on your list : That limitations exist to protect the public against an action which is willfully or negligently dangerous to one or more individuals.

          (Before I begin, I should state that the counterarguments here are sticking to fact, rather than my own opinions on any matters. I reserve my own opinions on many of these things.)

          We don't consider the Mormons preference for multiple wives a RIGHT.
          -Because the legislative thinking of the time witnessed cases of this displayed a serious trend of multiple women who lacked many of the rights of men of their time were being indoctrinated into polygamous relationships which left them at the mercy of the husband. This, coupled more importantly with a serious fear that mormonism in Utah was giving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints control over a frightening amount of land, resulted in the laws that you are referring to. It was not nearly as cut and dry as you've supposed and it would behoove you to avoid delving into certain legal stances that may be more questionable than you were aware.
          Opinion Duck says: That has nothing to do with their preference. Stick to the point as the law doesn't just single out Mormons it is applied to everyone.

          We don't consider the people that prefer to have sex with animals or children as having a RIGHT
          -Both of these are considered situations in which a nonconsentual party through lack of sentience or majority, is being harmed physically, emotionally and/or psychologically by coerced fornication. Again, another case of protecting from harm.

          Opinion Duck says:
          There is no substance to your assertion. All of these situations could be done without harm, and with consent.
            .

          There is no right to drive A Vehicle, You need to get a license, and you have the meet the requirement.
          -Again, the licensing process is specifically aimed at ensuring that an incredibly powerful weapon in the form of a ton-plus vehicle is being operated with full recognizance of the dangers and with training in proper operation. Of special note is that you -can- drive a vehicle in the united states without a license under a number of specific provisions. One example is the right to drive a vehicle on private land that is not intended for public access (such as a farm). In the united states, you can be eight and drive a thresher on a privately owned farm without a license.
          Opinion Duck says:
          Again you have missed the point. There is no Right.
          .

          There is no Right to get married, You need a license, and you have the meet the requirements.
          -This is patently incorrect and plays on a common misunderstanding of US marriage laws. A civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same things. One can be religiously married by any church without any permission or jurisdiction from the government on any terms that you like. Only a civil marriage, which imparts a number of legal rights and expectations, requires a license. This is intended to protect the individuals involved from being forced into a legally binding contract which they may not fully understand or be capable of agreeing to under their own recognizance. Another case of protecting those who might otherwise be unable to protect themselves.
          Opinion Duck says:
          Marriage without a license is not recognized as a marriage.
          Another missed point.
          .

          There is no Right to commit crimes because someone prefers that instead of working.
          -You're absolutely right -- Because the fundamental idea of a crime is that it involves an action which harms another individual or the government in a clearly observable manner. Government's alllll about stopping that harm.
          Opinion Duck says:
          The point here is that preferences are not Rights.
          .

          There isn't even a Right to have Sex, there are limits and requirements on that.
          -Yes, there are limits and requirements.. such as consent by an individual who has reached their legal majority capable of answering in their own recognizance. In short : Limits and requirements which shield the parties involved from harm.
          .[/i]Opinion Duck says:
          Putting an age restriction is a rule, like saying that only a male and a female can be married. Puberty hits at about 11 to 13 and in the old days children were married at around 13, so this was changed by society of later times.
          Again there is no Right and there really isn't any harm to do it the way it was done.
          .
          [/i]

          The point is that just because you prefer to do something doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional Right to do it.
          -Actually, that's incorrect. The constitution specifically states that in the second sentence.

          "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
          Opinion Duck says:
          Thisis the most vague and meaningless reference that you have made so far. It is as ridiculous as "All Men are Created Equal", or "This is a Free Country".
          .

          The term liberty specifically refers to the constitutional right to be free, and the pursuit of Happiness refers to the constitutional right to seek what makes you happy. What follows after this are specific limitations upon when this is -not- the case, and detailing specific cases that it -especially- should be protected. The implicit statement here is : If we don't tell you otherwise in the form of a law, you have that right--and if a law prevents you and this is found incorrect, it can be changed.
          Opinion Duck says:
          You have just undermined your previous justification between Rights and Requirement. You are using subjective and meaningless interpretations that you have made of the constitution.
          The Constitution was an idea and over the last fifty years that idea disappeared thanks to the liberals. Do you really think that the founders of this country were even remotely thinking about forming a gay country. The Supreme Court has continually messed up in interpreting the Constitution. How do nine well to do people sitting in seclusion for their entire tiem on the bench have any idea about whet is the correct interpretation for the well being of the country. In most cases the Supreme Court decisions have been a five to four decision. Which means that it really wasn't a great deicsion because even the court' majority couldn't agree. Supreme Court Decisions should have been required to have the same percentage among the court, as it takes for the states to ratify an amendment.
          Again you failed to make a argument that works.
          .

          GENETIC DEFECT
          I would love to take this section seriously but... there's just no way that half of this isn't just plain group-based hate speech. If we assume that it is in fact a genotypic feature, then almost everything you've stated in here would never be tolerated if compared to other features. If it is genetic, then try switching the topic of this section to 'black' or 'female' instead of 'homosexual' and see how that goes over. I don't think I need to state anything else about that.
          The idea that this is a defect is similarly uninformed. Genetics does indeed have a definition of the word 'defect' but it isn't what you seem to think.
          Opinion Duck says:
          Wow, if you were bowling blindfolder you would have hit more pins than you have here.

          Gender is the main genetic plan,so male and female are built into the DNA. Race is an adaptation that doesn't change the purpose of the DNA. LBGT changes the attributes of gender as a result of an incomplete process. It is the case where the body and the mind are not fitted for the result. The only reason that we have reproductive systems is to reproduce. That doesn't mean that we have to reproduce but that is the purpose of our DNA, as it is for more other species. It is more reasonable than not to make the conclusion that if babies are born with a purpose that wasn't part of the DNA process of the majority that the process wasn't completed as intended. Unlike wild animals we don't live by the rule of the survival of the  fittest. So we take weak genes and we put them into the big DNA pool, and over time they are all around us. Does that mean that is a good thing, No. It is probably the cause of most of our prevalent and deadly diseases today.

          The laws of incest were expressly made because of this problem. You would probably try to make an argument that it would be a violation of their constitutional rights. Your constitutional arguments are not compelling because you interpetation would say that smokers really do have constitutional rights.

          If we allowed preferences, then why is sex for money illegal?
          "Defects here is not used in a derogatory or even inflammatory intent, it is mere a statement of malfunctions in DNA."

          No, a malfunction in DNA is called a mutation and is indeed not derogatory or inflammatory... a -defect- refers to a mutation which is detrimental to the survival of a species. As homosexuals have proven that they are capable of sexually reproducing even if it goes against their desires, it is unlikely that you could find an accredited geneticist willing to use that term when discussing the potential issue, anymore than they would suggest that frog species that exhibit periodic explosive growth of asexual members is a 'defect'.
          [b][i][color=red]Opinion Duck says:
          Another missed point, Gays have not reproduced on their own ever. Before technology the only way that they could reproduce was because of bisexuals. These bisexuals would propogate the defective genes to other bisexuals and even heterosexuals.
          I don't know how you think that your arguments on this forum are compelling?
          Mutation or defect it is the result that is important. If there is a genetic cause to the LGBT population then forcing it on to the rest of society is only meant to have the entire population with these genetic defects.
          .

          BTW : When someone calls refers to a HomoPhobe, this is usually a misunderstanding. You may think they are referring to a fear of homosexuals as the word suggests. They aren't usually. They are using the term homophobe as a euphemism for hate-filled ignorant bigot, because the person attempts to use weak logical arguments, incomplete understandings of science and the ever fun tool of religion (something that nobody is expected or required to accept, much less respect) to argue a stance. Perhaps you would be wise to reconsider your stance on being called a homophobe. It sounds so much nicer.
          Opinion Duck says:
          That is so BS, the majority of the time that I see the word "homophobe" being used, it is in the context of being bad, derogatory and inflammatory.
          If the LBGT champions don't want to be called fags, queers, and worse, then they should refrain from euphamisms themselves.

          .


          You're welcome.

          .
          After your entire reply, you have failed to answer the question that I poses when I made my original contribution to this forum.

          LGBT, A Preference, or a Genetic Defect

          If it is none of them, you haven't said what that other might be that causes them from being the end result of why there is male and female.

          Thanks for making all my points.
          .

          1. 59
            Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Having you play semantics and reading only half of anything I posted is a delight.

            Quick bullet points :
            If I pass a law against turbans in the United States, it might strike folks undergoing chemotherapy, but I think most would agree this is a clear movement against middle-eastern cultures. Moving against polygamy during that period was clearly a move against mormons, despite it 'applying to everyone' as they were a clear and obvious majority in those impacted. Further, the Edmunds Act actually went further ontop of that law and specifically aimed at The Church of LDS property rights through it. Yeah, no confusion there.

            Can you prove there's no psychological or emotional harm visited upon animals or children when engaged in sex? Because almost to a T, modern studies beg to differ.

            Again -- learn to finish reading. I specifically stated civil and religious marriages were different terms and not to confuse them. A religious marriage is recognized with or without an agreement by that religion. If you're talking about civil marriages, you need to be specific.

            Licenses are only required on publicly accessable land. There is a Right on private non-publicly accessable land. You missed the point. The government is only regulating driving on land that is clearly intended to allow others in (and therefore exposes them to danger).

            If you're actually going to found an argument on the sole strength of colloquial evidence such as 'ancient cultures did it', you might want to try that argument with eating three-day rotten food, incest, and using urine to treat mosquito bites. Otherwise, you need to accept that 'ancient cultures did it' isn't conclusive evidence of a wise choice and need to back it up with more modern information on the subject. If you research sex standards, at best you will find wildly conflicting reports about the impact of sex on many of the parties we currently exclude and at worst, it tends to go against ancient wisdom on the subject.

            Don't hate me for the interpretation of the opening articles of the Constitution, as that is the original interpretations as seen by the US legal system and current legal precedent.

            Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)
            "[The pursuit of happiness] represents the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."

            and lest you think that this limits the scope to only employment or career,

            Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
            "[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

            As for semantics, the psychological definition of homosexuality does not refer to having sex exclusively with your own gender, it refers to attraction to your own gender primarily or exclusively. If you think that no homosexual man has ever concieved a child without the aid of modern fertilization methods, you need to get out there more. You can bandy the word bisexual around as you like, it's an interesting debate point in circles gay, straight and everywhere between-But it doesn't change the rest.

            Oh, and as a sidenote - Smokers do have rights, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is the grounds that state bans on public smoking were enacted. Love smokers or hate them, that was the majority argument used both on the floor and to uphold the laws.

    34. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 6 years ago

      If a person is deemed physically fit and mentally stable then I think they should have no problem joining the military as long as they can maintain a military standard of conduct.
      I would rather see them looking to axe the out of shape people who keep the rest from performing at the standard level of opperations.
      While in the Army I ran long distances in large formations under the principle that "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link," which means that we run as fast as the slowest person, and it was always a snail's pace.
      In my oppinion if everyone is held to the same standard in at least the physical sense, the military would be far more compitent.

      1. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Onusonus

        I agree, the requirements are the important part, especially for the military.

        There is no Right to serve in the military, and you get in and stay in by their rules. Their rules are to be a military force and not a social club.

        Thanks.

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

          But, there were a time when they didn't allow blacks and women in the military. What makes gays and lesbians any different?

          1. Onusonus profile image85
            Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm pretty sure that Black people have fought in every war since the establishment of the United States. Although I'm not sure wether or not precolonial Gays and Lesbians were treated with todays standard of tolerance.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image79
              Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes that's very true that blacks fought in previous wars before the Civil War and so did a few women (disquised as men in some cases). But blacks were never fully intergrated until after WW2. Since gays make up 10% of the population, it's obvios that they were in the military since the invention of the military. They kept to themsleves and they fought and died with distinction like their fellow soldiers.

        2. 59
          Aimlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree there's no right to serve in the military, but having bad rules costs them opportunities at sometimes optimal members. For instance, in my last year of high school I had a burning desire to enter the Navy. I was at the top of my class, an athlete, I scored in the 99th percentile on my ASVAB and pulled a 138 on my DLAB. I passed the security clearances required for a CTI and was offered a shot at being an officer in the navy. After months of preparing myself I finally decided that I couldn't stand the idea of dedicating my life to my country when my country couldn't handle my life. It broke my heart, but I strongly believed in the ethical code they were impressing and felt that keeping that lie violated the trust that I would hope to have with future brothers in arms.

          I have to wonder-if the military seeks the best of the best and judging by their standards, I qualified for that in at least a few respects, how is it a good idea to keep standards in place that obviously cost you prime candidates?

          1. OpinionDuck profile image60
            OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Don't expect the Constitution, Society, the law, or political parties to define and support the best course for the country.

            They have allowed Smokers to cause problems for themselves and non smokers, and since 1964 they allow smoking with just a warning label as their answer. Yet, in the 1970s several people died from a tained process of Tryptophan made in another country, and they banned it. In recent times Tryptophan is back but with limitations.

            As for immigration, the government itself is violating, Equal Protection, and discriminating against immigrants that are going through the full legal process of immigration. While refusing these legal immigration applicants into the country, they want to wholesale the entire population of Mexico as citizens of the US.

            Obama and the Federal Government won't enforce the Federal Immigration Laws, but they will sue Arizone for trying to deal with their own problems from the border because the Federal Government won't do it.

            The border problem is not just illegal aliens, it is drugs, and national security from terrorist activities.

            The taxes that put higher tax rates on the rich is also discrimmination, yet the government does it. They are bound by that Constitution that you like to reference.

            They allow each state to determine the minimum alcohol drinking age, yet it should be a federal minimum age. Or else they should allow the states to determine at what age someone can be drafted into the military.

            It is also discrimmination to draft only males. You can't have equality if it is not applied as in this example.

            Marijuama is not really that different from Alcohol or Tobacco yet neither of them are listed in the Federal Constrolled Substance Act. Marijuana could be regulated just like Alcohol and Tobacco. I could likve without all three.

            A Drivers license should be a qualified right rather than a mere privilege. We need to drive to earn a living, but we need to prove that we can drive or at least know how to drive safely. Although many people in the United States drive without a license, or insurance.

            Marriage and Children should not be part of the IRS Tax Form. The Federal Government has enumerated people into units. I am for replacing Personal Income Tax with a National Sales Tax. Most states have a State Sales Tax and the National Sales Tax could use those same state mechanisms for sales tax.

            We would then not have to distinguish between single, married or children.

            It is also discrimination to give free medical services to illegal aliens but not to citizens that don't have insurance.

            There are many more examples of where the Federal Government violates our Constitution. That is my point why the Constitution is not the answer to the problems of abortion, homosexuality, or any social issue.

    35. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago

      Even my Beck-watching, very conservative husband is all for repealing DADT! I think I've made him more tolerant of others. lol

      As for being a Christian and being tolerant at the same time, look at the example Jesus provided. He "hung out" with the dregs of society - prostitutes and tax collectors. "Judge not..."

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The difference is that you're actually a Christian, while some others claiming to be Christian are just "today's pharisees."

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
          prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Agree

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well said.

    36. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago

      This is not a question of being more tolerant.
      It is a question of why the majority has to follow the rules, but others want to make their own rules.

      This includes the Congress and the President, and I am not talking about all the ones that we have had since the founding of the democrat and republican parties.

      Having these two parties is the root cause of the problems in this country.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "It is a question of why the majority has to follow the rules, but others want to make their own rules."
        No, it's a question of changing rules that are discriminating against a minority for no good reason.

        Look, under DADT, a gay person can be a soldier, but he can't make any mention of his boyfriend (or her girlfriend), can't keep his boyfriend's (or her girlfriend's) picture in his (or her) footlocker, etc. But straight soldiers can talk about their boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, and wives. They can apply for--and get--leave to to get married or attend their friends' and family members' weddings. If they haven't got a girlfriend, they can talk about wanting to meet a girl.

        But if a gay soldier talks about his boyfriend, or talk about hoping to meet the right guy, boom! Discharge. And none of this has anything to do with combat readiness.

        Fair? Heck, no.

        I have to wonder, why are so many anti-gay people doing their very best to make sure gay people stay out of harm's way? It's funny...

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good point, Jeff. You'd think they'd want them on the front line!

          I just don't understand this at all. Why would one's sexual orientation make him or her a less proficient soldier?? I applaud them for their patriotism!

          1. OpinionDuck profile image60
            OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The military is not the vehicle for gays to try and validate there preference.

            Again it is a preference and not a right.

            Minorities can and should be discriminated against, if there reason for being a minority is against society.

            Mormons are discriminated on both a religious aspect and on how they choose to have relationships.

            They have had to change the way that they used to do things under their religion. Gays don't have any difference and they don't even have a religion that allows it.

            So if the Mormons can live with it why can't the gays.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Minorities can and should be discriminated against, if there reason for being a minority is against society."

              And who decides if a minority is "against society?" You?

              "Mormons are discriminated on both a religious aspect and on how they choose to have relationships."
              Polygamy between informed, competent, consenting adults should not be illegal. The problem is that historically, polygamy has not been between informed competent consenting adults. There has usually been coercion or deception or both involved. The answer is not to use polygamy laws as a justification of another brand of oppression, but rather to reform polygamy laws to prohibit deceptive and coercive polygamy. (I think we can all agree that deception and coercion should not be part of marriage).

              I'm reminded of a story about individual sticks, and a bundle of sticks, and how it's harder to break a bundle all at the same time.

              Can anyone help me to recall the Latin name for a bundle of sticks? Anyone? Bueller?

        2. OpinionDuck profile image60
          OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is a good reason, they don't fit into any part of our culture or society. It is a square peg into a round hole.

          There is discrimination from every part of society and a lot from the government itself.

          The minority has to have a Right and a reason to change the rules, and preference is not a Right.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

            Unless the preference infringes upon another's rights without their consent, then yes it is.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It does indeed infringe upon people's rights.  The right to engage in daily life and personal life and workplace/military duty without being subjected to lewd or inappropriate behavior and speech.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There is no such right.  You are confusing preferences with rights.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not so.
                  The laws of human decency still stand, however much they may be backed into a corner right now.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There are no such laws.  Your imagination is running amuck.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "The right to engage in daily life and personal life and workplace/military duty without being subjected to lewd or inappropriate behavior and speech."

                Yes, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to walk around with a gag in their mouths to keep them from saying something lewd.

                We simply don't say lewd things, and if someone does, he gets chewed out by his boss.

                You seem to be assuming that gay people will necessarily be saying and doing lewd things all the time. But in my experience, most of the lewd behavior (and the most lewd behavior) comes from my fellow straight people.

    37. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 5 years ago

      Opinion, I disagree with much of what you have said...

      To say that the current administration isn't enforcing immigration laws is completely baseless.... It has been clearly shown that ICE has been more active during the past two years than during the entire 8 year period of Bush....

      In terms of the undocumented population, I think you need to ask yourself a few questions....

      Why do we go to places like Vietnam and Iraq....blow the place to hell, and then enable people from those nations to emigrate as refugees.....while at the same time causing the same destruction in El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, and elsewhere in Central America while refusing to enable those refugees the same treatment?

      I can tell you why, but I'd like to read your response....

      In terms of "tolerance".....concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell (the purpose of this thread)...this has no bearing...

      An illegal order or law is no order or law at all...and that is basic military knowledge... The fact that Americans have been too bigoted or insecure to realize that homosexuality is a civil rights issue demonstrates their own weakness and complicity to encourage discrimination....

      Opinion, you bash the two party system we have, but when I read your hubs I see a definite GOP taint.....  There is no doubt about this...

      Having the Democratic and Republican parties are not by any means the root cause of problems in this nation...

      The real problem is that too many Americans know next to nothing about their political responsibilities....and charlatans like Palin and Bush could run around passing themselves off like credible candidates....

      The problem is that big money.....the Mellons et al...dominate our system...

      Heritage Foundation? Mellon-Scaife Foundation....and many more... Look at what these organizations push for and who they finance, even beyond political races...

      Check out the connections between Scaife-Mellon and the Social Contract Press.....(among other ridiculous groups).... Note how they also support the ongoing publishing of the "Camp of the Saints"...

      Read that book.....and then let us discuss the "real" problems....

      Get to know the Mellon Family....and then look at American foreign and domestic policies.....

      1. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This seems to be in the wrong forum Mike

    38. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago

      There are only two things that make a homosexual.
      1. Preference
      2. Genetic Defect


      Neither one is a RIGHT

      I need an answer from the other side, is it preference or defect. And on which do you base any constitutional protection, and specifically where in the constitution.Po\\

      Police are arresting the homeless, the constitution doesn't seem to help them.

    39. Jane Bovary profile image89
      Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago

      Genetic variation...not defect

    40. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 5 years ago

      Not the wrong forum Opinion...

      Does this mean you have no answers for the points I raise?

    41. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago

      House passes DADT, what do you think will happen in the Senate?

      http://content.usatoday.com/communities … nt-tell-/1

    42. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      I think Senate will pass DADT as well.
      Although I haven't read anything linking the two, I would not be at all surprised if DADT is somehow a tit-for-tat gift for extending the tax cuts....
      Otherwise, the timing is just too coincidental...

    43. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      Your order is reversed. Genetics is the primary determiner of sexuality. And it would be really nice to delete the value judgment. As Jane Bovary said,it's a genetic VARIATION not a defect.
      Just like variations in genetics can lead to all kinds of differences between people. Do you need them spelled out for you?

      Dwarves come from a genetic variation. Should we not allow them to marry or serve in the military either?
      How about left-handed people?
      Albinos?
      People with wine stain birthmarks?
      How about geniuses?

      Where does it end????

    44. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
      Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago

      Does the straight soldier or Marine have the right to not shower with a gay man/woman?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All soldiers/sailors/marines have the right not to be harassed by others of any orientation, in or out of the shower.

        1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
          Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not asking about harassment. I'm asking in general.

          1. 0
            china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            no - there is no right to refuse a shower with a same (physical) sex person - as far as I am aware in any armed forces anywhwere.  However in a 'don't ask don't tell' situation there can be no complaint because the situation would not be recognised,  would it ?

            1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
              Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So I personally don't have the right to not shower with someone that may be looking at me in a manner I feel uncomfortable with?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Don't be so paranoid.  Many men feel "short-changed".

                1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
                  Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  HA HA. Not worried about that part of it Ron. I could stir your coffee from here if I wanted to.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a pretty lewd statement. Be careful, or you'll have Brenda thinking you're gay. tongue

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Better, stir Brenda's coffee.

              2. 0
                china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I guess objecting to someone looking at you would get you laughed out of court ?   and 'feeling uncomfortable' was no kind of reason for anything when I was in there big_smile  You can imagine putting up your hand and calling "hey sarge, I feel really uncomfortable shooting at those nice enemy soldiers over there, could I go to the back of the line please" big_smile

                1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
                  Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So if I don't have the right to object to taking a shower with someone that may be enjoying watching me shower, then women shouldn't either right?  So the military no longer needs seperate facilities for men and women. This should save tax dollars lots of money.

                  1. 0
                    china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    NO - the right is in place to protect them from you buddy !!  big_smile

                    1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
                      Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      To protect women from a man that may be sexually attracted to them? Is that what you're saying?

                  2. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Good common-sense point.

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Not it's not. It's a silly point.

                      You have the right not to be harassed by others.

                      You don't have the right not to be worried that others might harass you.

                  3. psycheskinner profile image81
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There are gay men in the military and in the military showers right now.  So the problem is not who is looking at who. 

                    I would repeat that no other westernised nation had trouble with openly homosexual people serving.  So can someone explain to me why Americans are uniquely unable to cope.  Are they especially bigoted, particulalry coy about who sees their weiner?

                    1. 0
                      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      They are not unable to cope.  They're simply unwilling to put up with crap being shoved in their faces.  That's their right to protect their sense of common decency.

                    2. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
                      Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      I'm just asking, if I went back into the military and there were openly gay men, do I have the right to take a shower away from them and not share a room.

                      Psycheskinner-Would you want to shower or room with a man in the military?

                    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      The people who object, in effect, are saying that there are so many homophobes in the American military, especially the Marine Corps, that repealing the arguably unconstitutional law would adversely affect military performance. Bigots in the late 1940s made the same argument against integrating blacks and whites in military units. Truman didn't let those objections slow him down. He issued an executive order, and the American military was integrated with few problems. The same thing will happen when "don't ask don't tell" is repealed.

                    4. Paul Wingert profile image79
                      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      By repealing DADT, we are our way of joining the rest of the industrilized countries, but we still have a ways to go. We're still lagging behind in health care and education. This country need to do some adjustments to the health care bill and convert to universal health care.

                  4. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Female soldiers also have the right not to be harassed, whether in or out of the shower.

                    Nobody has the right never to feel embarrassed, if that's what you're fishing for.

                    1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image77
                      Wayne Orvisburgposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      I guess my whole point is, what about the rights of someone that doesn't want to be looked at in a manner that they might feel violated in some way? What about the rights of someone that doesn't want to share a room with someone that will have their gay boyfriends over to the barracks to hang out and may cause an uneasy atmosphere in the only place they have a limited amount of privacy already?

                      I do not feel that I am intolerant. I have no problem talking to, eating with, working with, being friends with, etc. a gay person. I don't however feel I should have to be put in a situation where I have to expose myself physically to them. Nor, be made to live in an environment where other's may be coming into my living space and participating in any activities that would make me feel uncomfortable and that my quality of life is even worse than normal military life is already.

                      I'm sure I'll be called a bigot or homophobe. To be honost I no longer care. However, if DADT is going away, I believe there should at least be some segregation (poor word to use but best my limited vocabulary could come up with) when it comes to living spaces, just like there is now with males and females.  In my eyes, a woman showering in front of a straight man is no different than a man showering in front of a gay man.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but the resulting odor may make him more unwelcome in the unit than Ru Paul or Harvey Firestein.

    45. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago

      I think a lot of people forget the importance of Unit Solidarity. It's not a nice thing to have. It's required. A divided Unit destroys combat readiness. So while some things may not be fair, they are not without reason. As long as the Military is dominated by a western style, uber macho male your going to have problems with homosexuals serving openly. Your options, change the attitudes, that takes time. It can't be legislated. You can also simply not allow the majority, white christian males to serve. After all they are the problem right?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "As long as the Military is dominated by a western style, uber macho male your going to have problems with homosexuals serving openly."

        The same argument was made against integrating the armed forces, and later, integrating units, back during the civil rights era. But white and black soldiers serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group.

        Eventually, straight soldiers and gay soldiers will serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group.

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "The same argument was made against integrating the armed forces, and later, integrating units, back during the civil rights era. But white and black soldiers serve side-by-side, despite some of each group having prejudicial ideas about the other group."

          True, that took time though. My point is this. DADT has opened the door enough to change the hearts and minds. However, there has not been enough time. You can see a HUGE difference in the attitudes of the senior and junior ranks. You can also see a huge difference in attitudes of Combat Units and Support Units. We are a war. There are enough distractions already.

          So are height and weight restrictions descrimination? Physical strength restrictions, descrimination? Apptitude restrictions, descrimination? What about restrictions on prior affiliations?  What about quotas, descrimination?

    46. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

      A bath house is a much better place to pick up a man than a shower.  If a soldier is in a bath house, reasonable assumptions can be made.

    47. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago

      Now that Don't ask don't tell is history what do we get?

      "I didn't ask but you're gonna tell me anyway?"

      "I told you but you better not tell?"

      "Does this camouflage go with my boots?"

      "Does this rucksack make me look fat?"

      Seriously who gives a crap?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Seriously who gives a crap?"

        The people who give a crap are mostly the ones who want to keep the gays out. Most rational people don't care one way or another, and think the restriction is--excuse me, was--silly.

    48. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      Hooray! What heartening progress we are making!
      With the senate and house votes, soon our gay servicemen and women can serve their country with the same civil rights afforded to other workers under EEOC laws. Hallelujah!

      They can go to war and even shower with other servicepeople and not be booted out just for being gay. What a concept!

      However, the majority of them still don't have the right to marry. So if they are lucky enough to make it through the war and come home, there will be no recognized spouse waiting to greet them at the airport.
      And yes, I do realize marriage is not federally regulated.
      Too bad. Looks like our Congress might be coming to its senses! lol

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        More like it's coming to its senses before the composition changes. wink

        Will it survive a filibuster in the Senate? Did Brown and Murkowski come on board?

    49. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 5 years ago

      The funny thing about the Corps is that the mindset within believes that they have the largest percentage of in-the-closet homosexuals....

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That probably explains the high opposition. It's probably the same people.

    50. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 5 years ago

      Like I've said before....keeping young enlisted and young officer homosexuals under pressure can create quite a pool of people to take advantage of....

      Sexual predation is not an uncommon thing, even in the military...

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't doubt it at all.

        I remember a friend explaining that the reason all the right-wing closet cases are against DADT repeal and marriage equality is that it would reduce the pool of available closeted men to pick from.

     
    working