Post User Polls

What should be done with "don't ask, don't tell"?

By Local Editors  |  September 9, 2010; 11:08 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should Mexico's drug wars affect U.S. laws on marijuana use? | Next: Does Obama have a message problem when it comes to 9/11?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Hey, this is America land of the freek and home of the depraved, remember?! If anything feels good, it should be allowed as long as both or all parties consent -- homosexuality, bestiality, incest, whatever.

And while you're up, would you mind making potty-training unconstitutional also? Thanks.

Posted by: YondCassius | September 10, 2010 6:41 AM

yeah YONDCASSIUS, I'm sure THAT is what they're saying. Grow up.

Posted by: bentoenail | September 10, 2010 7:21 AM

You could have figured it would be a ruling by a California Superior Judge, and especially one with zero military experience or knowledge. We ought to give California back to Mexico with our blessings.

Posted by: GordonShumway | September 10, 2010 8:09 AM

I don't understand the logic of NOT knowing whether the person you are taking a shower next to is gay. Does not knowing change anything? And does not knowing protect our soldiers or our country?

Posted by: DGSPAMMAIL | September 10, 2010 8:26 AM

The ruling needs to be implemented immediately.

Posted by: Maddogg | September 10, 2010 8:26 AM

If you think for one minute that there are not gay men and women already serving this nation with dignity, integrity, and pride then you are extremely out of touch with reality. But comments like the one from YONDCASSIUS remind me that there are some pretty ignorant people in this country who can't get past their 8th grade mentality.

Posted by: clintatl | September 10, 2010 8:33 AM

I believe in the philosophy that "Birds of a feather flock together".
To me, this explains the rulings that we are now seeing from the courts, especially those on the West coast. The asinine policy of "Don't ask; don't tell" was perpetrated on this country's military by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Ever since that time, the courts have been peppered with like-minded and oriented appointees at every opportunity, not only by Clinton but every other President since. And it is like a cancer - it continues to grow daily both from the Congress and the Courts.
These rulings have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the issue or of equal rights. But it has everything to do with changing the mores of this society and making homosexuality a perfectly acceptable form of societal behavior.
This element in our judicial system has as their main goal the promotion, alteration, and changing of our society's mores that will not only legitimize their own being but, at the same time, to also show their superiority in intelligence and being to the rest of us mortals. As a group, these people see themselves as being not only wiser than Solomon, as found in the Old Testament, but also wiser the God himself.
They are a clear and present danger because they want make our country a truly Godless one.


Posted by: chsuje | September 10, 2010 8:35 AM

As Barry Goldwater said, you don't have to be straight, to shoot straight.

Posted by: Arlme | September 10, 2010 9:07 AM

Neither a judicial system or congressman vying for re-election should be deciding military policy. The policy in place is currently the best it can be.

This is not about whether or not it is alright to be gay. The military (or government for that matter)has no jurisdiction over with whom a consenting adult decides to have sexual relations on their own time and in their private spaces. There are not many of those private spaces in the operational military setting.

This policy is about logistics and the need to know. There is no reason that enyone in the military needs to know whether or not you are gay. It should not affect the way you do your job and it should not affect your ability to do what you want on your own time in your own home if they do not know.

Knowing wether or not someone is gay does however create problems logistically. Should someone who does not want to get naked in front of people that look on them as a sex object be forced to shower next to a person for whom that is true? If that were the case, men and women should have to shower together as well. Should a same sex couple be allowed to room together in a military barracks? If that is true then any heteroexual (non-married) couple should be allowed to do the same thing. It would become a logistical nightmare.

Not knowing whether a member is gay not only prevents the above logistical nightmare, but it also prevents an open invitation for hostility in the workplace. Forcing recognition of someone's sexual preference is inviting problems with cohesiveness and effieciency of the work group.

Do gays currently serve well in the military? - yes. Does the current policy prevent them from doing so? - no. Is there any need to know a person's sexual orientation in the military? - no. So, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" makes perfect sense.

Posted by: lindavillareal | September 10, 2010 10:33 AM

How many Arabic speakers, how many Middle Eastern specialists have we drummed out of the military now? These are men and women who can give special service to their country and who volunteered to do so. I don't care about their sexual orientation, nor should the military. And please leave what Saint Paul allegedly said out of it. A bunch of upper class Englishmen approved that translation to support their own prejudices. Word of God? Maybe.

Posted by: greyK | September 10, 2010 10:46 AM

This poll only proves that 23% of the Post's readership is actually sane.

Posted by: forgetthis | September 10, 2010 11:11 AM

"But it has everything to do with changing the mores of this society and making homosexuality a perfectly acceptable form of societal behavior. "

That has already happened. I guarantee you your kids don't have a bit of a problem with gays being full members of society.

My own nephew, a devout conservative Christian, recently surprised me by telling me how not a single one of his friends has a bit of a problem with openly gay people, gay marriage, gays in the military, etc.

You've lost this battle. Give it up already.

Posted by: TheHillman | September 10, 2010 11:51 AM

There seems to be a couple of misconceptions here. First, while many services members are forced to live together in the early months/years of a military career, most people do not live in a barracks environment when serving in the military. They live off base and shower at home. With an active duty force of 1.8 million, of which 40% have never been deployed, and 30.3% have only deployed once, we are talking about a significant number of people who will NEVER be faced with a situation where they shower with anyone, but the people they choose to.

Second, DoD has spent a great deal of effort, because they know it is important to a service member’s Quality of Life/retention, to integrate and involve all family members into military life. Wives/Spouses clubs, family centers, Command functions are all geared to develop a sense of community within the military. Unfortunately, under current DADT, gay service member’s families cannot participate. This is fundamental discrimination (if you believe DADT is good policy), and represents a loss of potential service member retention opportunities (if you believe that these family integration policies are sound).

Saying that DADT is good policy is justifying a bad compromise.

Posted by: The_Rat | September 10, 2010 11:57 AM

My grandfather served with distinction in the USAF, died in uniform, and is buried at Arlington National Cemetary.

My dad served with honor in the USAF, and is doing fine.

I served in the Army, and I'm doing fine.

None of us were gay, but all of us would think this DADT policy is revisionist 18th Century thinking, and has no part in the 21st Century that America is proud to be in.

Glad it's ending.

Posted by: WillSeattle | September 10, 2010 12:55 PM

No, LINDAVILLAREAL, no one is buying your sophistry anymore.

If an unmarried straight couple wants to move onto base, they get married and move onto base. If an unmarried gay couple gets married, the spouse in the military gets discharged.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not exempt same-sex relationships if they are off-duty and off-base. Having a same-sex relationship anywhere in the world at any time in any circumstances violates the policy and requires discharge. Stop pretending it has a narrower scope. You cannot even marry you partner under the policy. You are required to remain celibate and single for the entire time you are in the military.

As there are gays and lesbians in military showers now, I won't even dignify your hysterical potty justification with a response.

Spare us your manipulation, you common bigot.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 10, 2010 1:06 PM

If members of Congress can be openly gay, so can the military.

Posted by: mountainsister41 | September 10, 2010 1:24 PM

All these anti-homosexual institutions (the military service, the Roman Catholic and other churches, the religiously motivated anti-homosexuals in congress and business) are fooling themselves. Gay people are already there among them.

All "don't ask, don't tell" will do for the military now is generate lawsuits. This ruling (even if it is reversed) has opened the lawsuit Pandora's Box.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | September 10, 2010 1:47 PM

The misperception is on your part - ask any Marine or Solider who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for multiple combat tours how close their living quarters, showers, latrines, heads etc. were. As close as it gets and for a lot longer than you could ever imagine. Ever not taken a shower for 30 days? Ever slept with 1, 2 or 3 other guys to stay warm because you were cut off from your gear by the situation and enemy?
The real military these days isn't the Air Force or Navy on a nice clean ship, base or plane far from danger - It is the Grunt, MP, Tanker, Artilleryman etc.. who is living on FOBs for weeks or months taking showers with baby wipes and using a hole in the ground for a latrine.
You know what every man smells like - and it isn't perfume...

____________________________
There seems to be a couple of misconceptions here. First, while many services members are forced to live together in the early months/years of a military career, most people do not live in a barracks environment when serving in the military. They live off base and shower at home. With an active duty force of 1.8 million, of which 40% have never been deployed, and 30.3% have only deployed once, we are talking about a significant number of people who will NEVER be faced with a situation where they shower with anyone, but the people they choose to.
Second, DoD has spent a great deal of effort, because they know it is important to a service member’s Quality of Life/retention, to integrate and involve all family members into military life. Wives/Spouses clubs, family centers, Command functions are all geared to develop a sense of community within the military. Unfortunately, under current DADT, gay service member’s families cannot participate. This is fundamental discrimination (if you believe DADT is good policy), and represents a loss of potential service member retention opportunities (if you believe that these family integration policies are sound).
Saying that DADT is good policy is justifying a bad compromise.

Posted by: chargersix | September 10, 2010 2:10 PM

In addition to the social issues involved here, there economic issues. Are same sex couples going to have family housing? If so, will brothers (or sisters) serving on the same installation also be eligable for family housing? Or, living off base, receive quarters allowance at the with dependents rate? This doesn't begin to scratch the surface if we choose to follow this path.

Posted by: RetiredArmy63 | September 10, 2010 3:23 PM

YondCassius, you lowlife homophobe. You are a one person advertisement for abortion.

The choices were too limited. The policy should immediately be rescinded because the policy is unconstitutional. Courts and Congress are irrelevent. The policy is unconstitutional. IT should cease to exist immediately.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | September 10, 2010 4:42 PM

I say let the military decide. Gays try to equate their status with racial minorities, which is a fallacy and in fact an insult to minorities. Maybe the members of the military don't want to be in close quarters like shower rooms and barracks with gays. That's their prerogative. In civilian world, the hetero can make the choice of who they are living with. In the military you cannot.

And the cost of retrofitting all ships, bases, military installations, etc. to satisfy the "rights" of 2% of our population will be prohibitive.

Posted by: Afraid4USA | September 11, 2010 6:50 AM

The military thinks this is a done deal. Let them get on with it. The Canadians are the closest to us culturally, with the British and the Israelis being next and none of them have any problems in their fully LGBT integrated militaries. Let's quit wasting time and money on this already.

Posted by: digtalcomp | September 20, 2010 11:39 PM

What is the difference between having closet gays in the military and openly gay. Currently the straights are showering next to a gay. The policy is an abomination. It only exists to please the far right, those staunch proponents of freedom and liberty as long as its on their own specified narrow terms. They are so threatened by what others do.

Posted by: chucko2 | September 20, 2010 11:47 PM

Regarding who qualifies for miltary housing, as long as it's done fairly, it's none of our business. If I want a brother to live with me so he can watch my kid while I go and shoot people, what business is it of YOURS? If I serve, I'm as entitled as anyone else to a housing space, aren't I? Whether I wish to have a disabled parent or a long time friend dying of cancer in my house, is again, NO BUSINESS OF YOURS!

Posted by: digtalcomp | September 20, 2010 11:49 PM

anyone DUMB ENOUGH to want to be in the military should be aloud in.

Posted by: Plutoryan | September 21, 2010 12:15 AM

If "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional, then we should have a right to inquire concerning mind altering prescription drugs---especially those used to manage menopause. Maybe the new Communist healthcare plan will bring about mandatory testing, and public disclosure, concerning the exact chemical nature of all females brains, especially those serving in government.

Posted by: swordmakerkurtisdavis | September 21, 2010 6:22 AM

What exactly is Lady Gaga's interest in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Is she a lesbian? Has she served in the military?
Who really cares what she thinks of the issue? Will the military leaders and the President base their decisions upon what Lady Gaga thinks?


Did those 2,000 people come to hear her opinion---and act on it, or just to see if she'd wear her weird 'meat dress' again?

Posted by: momof20yo | September 21, 2010 6:39 AM

If Lady GaGa is so interested in our troops why doesn't she go over and entertain them. For free.

Posted by: bobbo2 | September 21, 2010 6:40 AM

@CHSUJE, it takes a lot of arrogance, I would say, to call every judge appointed in the last two decades arrogant. They interpret the law and there is sound argument, right or wrong, that gays deserve equal rights. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean you get to go all ol' testament on them.
@MOVETTE, thank you for being the first person to say what every other person who agrees with this policy wants to say. No matter how you dance around it,saying gays don't deserve certain rights or privelages, even gays that risk their lives for people who hate them, is dehumanizing them. Calling them "faggots" is refering to American soldiers as non human kindling ready to be burned for their crimes. Should these American citizens face Taliban-esque attacks in Afghanistan and here?
And by the way MOVETTE, if we don't know who is gay and who isn't, then technically everyone needs their own facilities. I volunteer you for the outskirts.

Posted by: ethanfredrick | September 21, 2010 6:43 AM

If Lady GaGa is so intested in our troops then why doesn't she go over and entertain them? For free.

Posted by: bobbo2 | September 21, 2010 6:43 AM

Lady Gaga??? Seriously? So celebrity is to be given credibility even if the celebrity is for being an absolute wingnut space cadet? Why not just ask NAMBLA's president to testify about pedophilia before Congress. I'm sure it will bring a tear to your eyes.

Posted by: theduck6 | September 21, 2010 6:55 AM

Not all, but most of Corporate and Christian America perpetrate the myth that productive lives are led only by straights. The US is no longer the ominpotent world power. TV is the predominating religion soon to be ovetaken by the Internet.The integration of globalization into the fabric of American life and the disintegration of traditional family units heightens awareness of homosexuality. Most corporations openly cater to homosexuals and factions of Christians within the Catholic denomination harbor pedophiles. Homosexuality is no longer as readily susceptible to tarnishing. The legislation preventing its common acceptance among the public and the legal system is waiting to be amended.

Posted by: orojas1 | September 21, 2010 7:06 AM

Let's see:

The Liberals listen political advice from Lady Gaga AND THEN they say TEA Party people are weird.

What's next, an inexperienced community organizer with no real job experience as President? Oh wait, they already did that.

Since Biden thinks he's second in line for the presidency, how about Lady Gaga for VP? She'd fit right in!

Posted by: AprilF1 | September 21, 2010 7:55 AM

Oh if only the Homos and Liberals would serve their country with the same zeal that they pursue their social agenda then all would be well. Lady GaGa who will never come close to serving a minute of military service thinks she knows what's best to field a force that can fight and win.... Does she even have a high school education like most entertainers? This silly twit should just shut her yap and sing.

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | September 21, 2010 8:17 AM

Posting here is pointless. The homos are all over every story that has anything to do with homosexuality. Plus, they are nasty, resorting to name-calling whenever somebody makes a good point. It's homophobephobia (at best). At worst, it's hate speech, directed against moral conservatives. You gave yourselves the right name: queer. Why are you surprised that people don't want to be around you acting that way? Why are you shocked (shocked!) that people don't want you to influence their son or daughter to turn out like you? You are depraved, and storing up judgement against yourself, and the rest of us don't want to be near you when it falls. I don't hate you, or fear you. I feel very sorry for you.

Posted by: dmm1 | September 21, 2010 8:25 AM

While watching this short video I was really taken back to how ugly this woman is in her appearance and her words. Let me help you miss ga ga, and believe me we ain’t goin ga ga over you. Let’s do as you say, let’s bring home and boot out all the heterosexual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and let the homosexual soldiers hold down the fort, fight all the wars, keep the peace. Oh and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines DON’T choose when they fight, who they fight and why they fight, they don’t choose when to get up, when to go to bed, when to eat, who they serve with blah blah blah. In other words miss ga ga, they choose to volunteer to serve their country. Don’t stop there Ga Ga, make sure females serve in combat arms, make sure they are in shape to carry (hump) crew served weapons, and trained in infantry tactics. Make sure they know how to KILL… Okay Ga Ga, and I want you to lead them. Now let’s see how secure this country will be. Go for it you idiot.

Let me help out all you that support homosexual “rights” what ever that is, you all need to find some other that this idiot to fight for your cause, that is if it’s a cause.. Have fun…

Posted by: vatownsend | September 21, 2010 8:44 AM

I believe it was Barry Goldwater who said something to the effect of "you don't need to be straight to shoot straight."

Posted by: delray | September 21, 2010 8:46 AM

Gays in the military, hmmmm... What are they going to do? Ahhh, I know, they will make their counterparts uncomfortable this is a FACT!!! Let's have them marry the terrorists and move them to California.

ASK the enlisted man and women THEIR opinion on how they feel serving beside a depraved person, DON'T LET A PERSON THAT HAS NEVER SERVED MAKE THIS DECISION.

Posted by: riceldi | September 21, 2010 8:59 AM

Who is this skank Lady gaga?

Posted by: password11 | September 21, 2010 9:10 AM

Let the military decide. It is their situation we are talking about and they'll know what will suit them the best and allow them to be comfortable in their own surroundings and be the most effective military possible. We should not care what a celebrity entertainer who has no concept of what this is about has to say.

Posted by: GenXer1 | September 21, 2010 9:27 AM

I have lived in the same house with gays and had no problem with it. However, I would not share a bedroom with a gay, and that is the point. Soldiers find themselves in close quarters in the military.

Posted by: hipshot | September 21, 2010 9:35 AM

How about sending ALL the gays to Afghanistan and bring the straight soldiers back home?

Posted by: riceldi | September 21, 2010 9:37 AM

Well, we must listen to Lady Gaga who obviously is one of the world's deepest thinkers.

Posted by: jack711 | September 21, 2010 9:38 AM

The opinions of stefani "gag me with a shoe" are irrelevant. She has never served in the military and she is a freak celeb.
She will run her course and disolve into the woodwork as all self absorbed wackos do.

Posted by: tjmlrc | September 21, 2010 9:41 AM

how about sending all the neocons to Afghanistan and bringing all the gay troops home. If you think gays haven't served and served with distinction, you are living in a
vacuum.

Posted by: bozhogg | September 21, 2010 9:47 AM

Communicates...

A new mood…of...

Femininity and sensibility...

A tension between sensuality and energy...

So…strong and intense...

A…fiercely motivated, driven, independent woman...

A…Legend...

...Aronne

Posted by: aarongluzman | September 21, 2010 9:59 AM

Gays should ask Lady Gaga to say out of the discussion. She's a world class FREAK and will do nothing other than hurt your chances of changing the peoples minds. When they look at her they can't help thinking, this is what we can look forward to??? NO WAY........

Posted by: askgees | September 21, 2010 10:03 AM

And once DADT is repealed, there will be ZERO TOLERANCE to ANY OPPOSITION to the new policy! (This is part of today's amendment).

Zero complaints by liberal decree.

Zero opportunity for a straight to express a concern about the new policy or new behavioral norms.

Zero questioning by liberal decree.

Zero tolerance for any opponent to express their First Amendment Rights by liberal decree!

Zeig Heil Mein Liberal Fuhrers!

PC BS!

Posted by: Patriot12 | September 21, 2010 10:04 AM

I'm retired military, and a heterosexual. We had our share of gays and lesbians in the military when I served and we never had any problem with any of them. The problems always were with the intolerant anti-gays who felt that they were free game for violent and sadistic acts. And of course, the homophobic leaders who rarely prosecuted the haters, referring to the fact that the gays were now outed, they could be summarily discharged.

Sexual Abuse or Harassment of any kind is detrimental to good military discipline. Our solution to the problem has been to apply education, corrective measures, punishment, and discharge to those military members who fail to adhere to that standard. Racial integration didn't cost us anyone in any specialty that we couldn't do without. Integration of women didn't cost us anyone in any specialty that we couldn't do without. And integration of gays and lesbians won't cost us anyone we couldn't do without either.

The President, Congress, and military leaders opposing immediate integration have shown themselves to be ignorant, homophobic cowards.

Posted by: mhoust | September 21, 2010 10:20 AM

"There seems to be a couple of misconceptions here. First, while many services members are forced to live together in the early months/years of a military career, most people do not live in a barracks environment when serving in the military. They live off base and shower at home. With an active duty force of 1.8 million, of which 40% have never been deployed, and 30.3% have only deployed once, we are talking about a significant number of people who will NEVER be faced with a situation where they shower with anyone, but the people they choose to.
Second, DoD has spent a great deal of effort, because they know it is important to a service member’s Quality of Life/retention, to integrate and involve all family members into military life. Wives/Spouses clubs, family centers, Command functions are all geared to develop a sense of community within the military. Unfortunately, under current DADT, gay service member’s families cannot participate. This is fundamental discrimination (if you believe DADT is good policy), and represents a loss of potential service member retention opportunities (if you believe that these family integration policies are sound).
Saying that DADT is good policy is justifying a bad compromise.
POSTED BY: CHARGERSIX"
-------------------------------------------------

What a load of utter twaddle. There are less than 10,000 people affected by this policy but individuals like yourself want to use the Armed Forces in a ridiculous and dangerous experiment in social engineering. Do you know the difference between peace and war? "Family integration policies"?! WE ARE AT WAR, even if President Hussein refuses to state the obvious, and we are only in the vegetarian phase.

Posted by: garrafa10 | September 21, 2010 10:20 AM

Patriot12,

By "zero tolerance for opposition" you are basically whining like the old plantation owner who said that his God given right to own slaves was being infringed by emancipation.

In terms of private views and private associations repeal of DADT would have no impact on the ability of bigots to be bigots in their own private affairs. On the other hand, the repeal would create uniformity in the conduct of professional duties.

Posted by: JPRS | September 21, 2010 9:10 PM

Today's Republicans are a blight on America........

A Heterosexual Viet Nam Vet and Independent

Posted by: aeaustin | September 21, 2010 10:16 PM

When one is ready to take a bullet for their Country, leave them to their own secrets and do not leer into their lives.

The decorum agenda set to keep others alive while the hell of war is taking lives like flies beside you, never separates anyone or their preferences from Luck of the draw.

It is wasted money to worry about it to the taxpayers.
In life and death on a battlefield of honor... don't ask don't tell standards means just that.
No one cares when death has arrived and is leeching your exsistance with every drop of leaving blood.

Posted by: dottydo | September 21, 2010 10:35 PM

In an age of fops and toys,

Wanting wisdom, void of right,

Who shall nerve heroic boys To hazard all in Freedom's fight,

— Break sharply off their jolly games,

Forsake their comrades gay

And quit proud homes and youthful dames For famine, toil and fray?

Yet on the nimble air benign Speed nimbler messages,

That waft the breath of grace divine To hearts in sloth and ease.

So nigh is grandeur to our dust, So near is God to man,

When Duty whispers low, Thou must, The youth replies, I can.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted by: dottydo | September 21, 2010 10:44 PM

The only people who care about this are sickos who can't mind their own business. They're perverts, and frankly gay people are way more healthy than this crowd of nuts.

I'm surprised no one has claimed to speak for Jesus yet in the comments, since hating in his name is one of their favorite tactics.

It's par for the course for the GOP to take a `wide stance' on this subject... They're buffoons after all, and what else should we expect from them but the same old tiresome lies and hate they've become so iconic for.

Posted by: Nymous | September 22, 2010 2:28 AM

Gratifying to know that a huge majority believes that the policy should be immediately changed. It is also interesting to read some of the comments of bigots like yondcassius to realize that even in a country with as many great educational institutions as we have, we still are able to turn out petty little homophobic pieces of garbage like this.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | September 22, 2010 10:20 PM

I, a gay man, served 26 years and retired, never being asked and never telling. I have no clue if any of the people I served with knew but I doubt very much many of them would have cared.

I would like to see Congress repeal the policy, but I am tired of waiting. I have read the Justice Dept. Has ubtil tomorrow to appeal the judge's ruling in CA that the policy is unConstitutional. I will be very disappointed in Obama if he does appeal. He should decline to do so and simply announce that the government accepts the verdict and the policy is dead.

Posted by: BTinSF | September 23, 2010 12:12 AM

"ASK the enlisted man and women THEIR opinion on how they feel serving beside a depraved person, DON'T LET A PERSON THAT HAS NEVER SERVED MAKE THIS DECISION."

OK, riceldi, I just went over to the shop and took an unscientific poll of 13 young enlisted guys. Not one of them had any problem serving with gay or lesbian soldiers. Especially the latter, for some reason.

If we let the young troops everyone is SO worried about make the decision, then DADT will be repealed. The kids coming in to today's military just aren't worried about it. They've spent years in public schools coexisting with gay students, even in gym class, and they have never developed the kind of irrational bigotry that leads to things like DADT.

It's only the old retired or soon-to-be retired homophobes that have issues with repealing DADT.

Posted by: Chindokae | September 23, 2010 1:01 AM

"I just went over to the shop and took an unscientific poll of 13 young enlisted guys. Not one of them had any problem serving with gay or lesbian soldiers."

What branch of the service? And what are their jobs? And how many of these individuals are literally scared stiff of being labeled a "homophobe" if they say anything different?

The place where this really matters is on the front lines, where you have got to trust that your fellow soldiers will cover your back.

When it comes to people who will not defend their own temples from an alien force that is making mincemeat out of their own God-Given identity, speaking of homosexuals here, you would be a fool to expect them to cover your back. I would say that 80% of front line soldiers will understand that without you having to explain it. And you will get an additonal 15% when you explain it.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | September 23, 2010 2:41 AM

Me says, whether or next guy in the shower is gay or not, is very useful to know when you are planning to pick up the soap.

Posted by: ChingChongChang | September 23, 2010 4:22 AM

Very likely, DADT needs to be done away with. But we have lived with it for some time, and we have other urgent problems.

The US has a population of more than 300 million, and armed forces numbering around 1.5 million. That means that less than .5% of Americans are in the armed forces.

By comparison, 14% of Americans (28 times as many) are jobless and others are living in poverty. We need to address these issues first.

I feel personally that there are rights to food, lodging, education and health care. Both gays and heterosexuals have these rights. But should there be an equal constitutional right for gays to kill Afghan civilians? And if so, why?

Let us get away from our obsession with constitutional rights, and address the actual needs of people.

Posted by: rjpal | September 23, 2010 5:30 AM

I have two daughters in the Army, and a grandson in the Air Force. My daughters have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, one is preparing for her second tour in Afghanistan. They have served beside gay and lesbian soilders who have protected them and stood beside them fighting these wars. They felt nothing but respect for these fellow soldiers, whatever their sexual orientation was, because they had their backs. We need to stop trying to make everyone into 'christian, white, married..man and wife, 2.5 children, cookie cutter America', and respect peoples' differences especially those serving in our military, protecting our rights to say, do, and legislate stupid stuff like 'don't ask/don't tell'.

Posted by: alesterp | September 23, 2010 9:06 AM

"I have two daughters in the Army ... "

It is my understanding, that females are not assigned to front line fighting positions. And therefore, they seldom come under fire, and this idea that some homosexual protected them, and stood beside them, does not mean very much.

Because homosexuals do not have the character strength to defend their own God-Given identity, they do not have this general character trait required to sacrifice their lives for another. This is simply common sense. To expect courage under fire from a homosexual is like expecting to harvest figs from a thorn bush.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | September 23, 2010 3:10 PM

The Term “GAY” Represents an Utter Falsehood

Whenever anyone uses the word “GAY” to describe an individual homosexual, or the homosexual movement in general, they are giving us prima facie evidence of the indisputable fact that their minds have been programmed by the homosexual movement to parrot an outright LIE.

For the sake of the integrity of one’s own character, people should think about this in a sober manner.

There is nothing on this earth less “GAY” than a homosexual. Homosexuals shake their angry fists in the face of God every day for “making” them outcasts in society. The truth is that homosexuals are the most miserable people on the planet. They are fighting a continuous inner battle against the voice of nature which never ceases to point out to them the truth, that their same-sex passions are perversions of the natural order.

Why do you think they want the whole nation to march in their parade? They want to enlist us in their never-ending battle to prove that inner voice wrong.

What is the real reason they want to serve in the military? They want to wrap the honor of the military services around this shameful inner condition to help them feel better about it. Yes, as another counterpoint to prove the inner voice of nature wrong.

The adoption of the word “GAY” is a thoroughly unprincipled attempt to hide their faces from this inner agony.

Whenever any non-homosexual uses the word "GAY" to describe a homosexual they are helping homosexuals hide from the truth concerning what they have become. If homosexuality was so great, they would simply call themselves homosexuals. I am a heterosexual, and I don’t have to adopt a cover-story to make myself feel good about that. I am at peace. My passions fit the sexual apparatus with which I was born. There is no inner battle. Not so with homosexuals. By contrast, every time a homosexual refers to himself, or herself, by the proper term, they literally shudder in shame at the truth of what they have become. And that is why they hide behind a lie.

The word “GAY” is a total LIE. And every time ANYONE uses the word "GAY" to describe a homosexual, the word LIAR become more and more a part of their own character and identity.

Yes, in this way we see that anyone's sympathy for the homosexual movement is actually causing the integrity of their own character to be compromised.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | September 23, 2010 3:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company