By President Obama is vowing that he will allow gays to serve openly in the military:
President Barack Obama restated his campaign pledge to allow homosexual men and women to serve openly in the military, but many in his audience of gay activists were left wondering when he would make good on the promise.
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.
“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” Obama said. “Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.”
A day after the president’s remarks, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he expects the ban to be lifted, but he said it’s critical that the administration have the support of military leaders.
A Republican on the committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, agreed with Levin that support within the military is important and said such a policy decision shouldn’t be based on a “campaign pledge.” Both senators appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” [Stars & Stripes]
I still maintain that the fact of the matter is that gays serving openly in the military won’t be an issue because they are serving already and most servicemember including myself don’t care. However, the real issue is what comes after they are allowed to serve openly and they begin to demand special treatment? That is when you will see this issue create tension in the ranks.
Also I can never say this enough, gays are no where near as discriminated against as overweight soldiers. Far more servicemembers are discharged for being overweight than those who are discharged for being gay. It is too bad overweight soldiers being discharged do not have a well funded and organized lobby to help them.
11:47 pm on October 12th, 2009 1
Bill Maher has been on his case for this for the last couple of weeks.
“However, the real issue is what comes after they are allowed to serve openly and they begin to demand special treatment? ”
What kind of “special treatment” are you talking about?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
There is plenty of special treatment that could be demanded by the gay lobby like wearing uniforms in gay pride parades for example. Will the gay lobby claim it is homophobia when gays get brought up on Article 15 charges for having sex in the barracks? Will the gay lobby demand spousal privledges like the PX, commissary, health care, higher BAH rate etc. for their partners even though they are not married? I can’t wait for the first gay history month celebration.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Thanks for bringing this up.
The gay lobby has infiltrated the San Diego Fire Department. Now firefighters are ORDERED to go to gay pride parades where they are sexually harassed.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/17/bn17parade2-firefighters/?zIndex=54424
Amerian needs to learn what the gay lifestyle will lead to. Teabagger, if you want to promote the gay lifestyle, then do so in your country. If you love teabagging so much then do it, but quit trying to force others.
In Canada the homosexual lifestyle may be normal. I heard that the a-nal sex is what men do when there are no women around, so they don’t get bothered by it. In regular countries it is wrong to do that.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the “three holer” ladies just as much as the next guy, but GOD made Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.
Reply
1:58 am on October 13th, 2009 2
They will demand to have spousal rights and be able to register their partner in DEERS as a dependent.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 3:28 am
So, what’s wrong with that? They pay taxes like everyone else.
Besides, it’s not as if this means you’ll ever see a guy roller-blading down the streets of Yongsan Garrison wearing nothing but a speedo and a sparkler in each hand, so why is the idea so threatening to you?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Why do you think it is “threating” to him
Please explain, so I can better understand my gay brothers/sisters.
I’m looking forward to gay divorce myself. That mess will be funny!
My thinkin is that ANY special interest group will bring it’s own special problems. Females in the army certainly did. When you mix individuals from many “special” interest groups together in a Unit, there is no unity. Just a fact.
Again, your sexual preference is none of MY business. I don’t care. Unless YOU make it an issue by pushing your life style and demanding I respect it. Then you and I will have a situation to deal with. I don’t care what my married friends do. So why should I care what you and your special gay friend do.
Question: Why do you feel such a NEED, I repeat NEED, for me to know your gay. I don’t care. I have had gay friends. They knew I liked the gash. Nice susu’s also.
Clinton did gays a favor with don’t ask don’t tell. Now your not happy. You want to advertise. Why? If I want a boy to sock my tick, I don’t need help selecting that life style.
It isn’t that straights feel “threatened” by gays. As you seem to WANT to believe. It is JUST ANOTHER SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP wanting attention.
I think some of us are tiring of special interest groups screaming and crying and pulling their hair out for attention.
Not wishing to offend here teadrinker, but if you want to sock a tick then by all means go and sock a tick. I will only care if you want me to think your special for doing it.
Unthreated enough for you?
Reply
2:59 am on October 13th, 2009 3
And what would be wrong with registering their partners as dependents ?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Then should heterosexuals be allowed to register their partners as well for benefits even though they are not married?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Males and females marry in the army for the extra pay and being able to live off post ALL THE TIME.
I see gays doing the same thing. Hell, two dudes who don’t want to live in the barracks could SAY they were gay. An apartment or house is much better than the barracks.
Reply
4:29 am on October 13th, 2009 4
Comparing overweight soldiers to gay ones is a false comparison. Overweight soldiers can help that. Look at me. I was 40 pounds to heavy to join the Navy. I worked hard and took it off, and hey, what do you know, I’m an Ensign.
Gay people do not have a choice to be gay. You really think that someone would sign up for a lifetime of discrimination, possible vilification by thier family and friends, and relegation to a second class citizen? Not likely. Just like someone can’t help the color of thier skin, people can’t help which gender they want to have sex with.
And if its legal for gays to marry in thier state, why can’t they be registered in DEERS as a dependent? They’re married under the same law as straight people? And yes, DOMA blocks that for now.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
“Gay people do not have a choice to be gay.”
If you are a male, do you have a choice if you want to put the p-enis of another man in your mouth? Yes you do. Is there somebody forcing you to do that? No.
Gays get more pay then normal people, they go to college more often, they live anywhere they want and do anything they want to do. How is that discrimination.
“vilification by thier family and friends, and relegation to a second class citizen?”
So you want to make a law that families and friends must worship them? Many of the gays act abnormal, and so why should everone love them. This is just more rights for people who already get more then their fair share.
“people can’t help which gender they want to have sex with.”
Can people help it if they want to have sex with trees, animals or babies?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:21 am
I think evidence has shown that people cannot help it if they want to have sex with babies. Pedophiles have the worst (or highest) repeat rate of any group of criminals.
More relevant to the argument is the question of consent. I suspect that neither trees nor animals nor babies consent to sex. That sounded glib: I know minors cannot give consent for sex and there’s nothing funny about it.
Most adults can reasonably give consent or not.
—-
Regarding another comment here: The idea of showering with people who might be interested in me (by stealth, as it were) gives me the willies, too. And I have to admit that I am no-one’s pinup so physical attraction is more a hypothetical in my case.
Reply
7:52 am on October 13th, 2009 5
If I campaigned to desegregating male and female living areas and latrines, then people would think that I’m nuts.
If male soldiers cannot be trusted enough to shower with female soldiers, why can homosexual males be trusted enough to shower with heterosexual males?
Also, the major difference between obese soldiers and gay soldiers is that a person’s sexual orientation has never been proven to affect their military readiness. It’s for that reason that overweight people should be tossed out of the military. Besides, what message does a person’s weight send about their attitude in an organization that’s so centered on physical fitness?
Reply
8:21 am on October 13th, 2009 6
“If male soldiers cannot be trusted enough to shower with female soldiers, why can homosexual males be trusted enough to shower with heterosexual males?”
You ain’t my type, honey!
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Exactly.
What’s with homophobes? They sure seem to think an awful lot about gays, all gays, being attracted to them.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 8:37 am
By the way, gays have been “allowed” in the Canadian military since the early 90’s (for some reason, the Canadian courts allowed the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to discriminate against gays despite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom of 1982).
To put it bluntly, if there was anything going on in the showers, I never saw it.
Yup, imagine that, people in the military are very professional.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Yup, imagine that, people in the military are very professional.
Some are, some aren’t.
This has nothing to do with showers or foxholes or anything like that- it’s just more destruction of a respected and trusted institution, one chip at a time, by a vocal and angry group of people demanding acceptance for their “lifestyle”. The official acceptance will be granted. But they’ll still be fags.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
My comment wasn’t a demonstration of homophobia. What I was aiming at is the contradiction between the allowances that would be made for gays vs. the restrictions already placed on straight folk.
If homosexuals can be allowed to live in unfettered proximity to other people of the same gender, is it really fair and equal for everyone else? Latrines, showers, etc., are not segregated for physiological reasons but for privacy and protection from someone else’s sexual inclinations.
I do not doubt that I have unknowingly shared the showers with more than a few gay men over the years. I’m not gay, so I don’t know how a gay man feels when showering in the same room as a bunch of other men. Maybe a lifetime of fear and repression in public circumstances can train a wee-wee not to rise. Maybe the liberty allowed in serving openly would change something.
By the way, how well would a NASCAR fan take to the attentions of a homosexual soldier? Doesn’t the military already have enough on its hands with instilling toleration for women, blacks, hispanics, etc., amongst its predominately white, male population?
I’d say that universal acceptance of gay marriage if of greater consequence to Gay America than the right to serve in the military. Why can’t the president focus on that? The Middle Americans serving in the military won’t be all right with gay neighbors until Middle America is.
I don’t know.
p.s. Everyone knows that Canadians are a more enlightened people than citizens of the USA, on all topics. Every Canadian on the internet and on TV does a fine job at pointing this out all of the time.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“Every Canadian on the internet and on TV does a fine job at pointing this out all of the time.”
That’s only because we care.
The point I was making is that allowing openly gay people to serve in your military shouldn’t be something to fear.
Oh, as for the overweight thing…
Who would you rather have on your side in battle? An overweight guy or a butch lesbian. I’d pick the lesbian.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:15 am
To Teadrinker
Yes indeed the butch lesbian wins. I lifted weights with one in Korea. She couldn’t bench as much as me, but she was a great spotter.
Stronger than many of my male friends.
She told me once when I was looking at this blond across the street, “forget it. I’ll get some of that before you do.” I smiled and asked if she would let me watch. Something I would not have said if all parties had been male.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Now I know why people call you teabagger. Why are there so many Canadian hetrophobes. Why do Canadians hate that a man and women can reproduce?
Teabagger hates that free people can discuss their disagreements, while in Canada, they are trying to end their concept of free speech.
Google the “Canadian Human Rights Act”
By the way, teabagger, next time you disagree with me about anything, I plan on filing a complaint against you.
GAME! SET! MATCH! —> LORD OF E2
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Lord of E2…I bet you teach kindergarten.
12:43 pm on October 13th, 2009 7
A vastly disproportionate number of women are discharged for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell than men. I guess the obvious explanation is gay women may be more willing to out themselves than the men.
With the constant rotations to the Middle East, I bet even some straight people are turning themselves in as gay. Pregnancy is not the easy out that it used to be. Before I take criticism from the young people, yes, in the ’70s and ’80s women readily admitted their intentions to get pregnant to get out oftheir term of service.
But the fact that gay women are discharged raises another question? All the complaints and fears people express about open gays in the military seems to only consists of guys discomfort about being around gay guys. Do women have the same issues about being around lesbians?
Any women out there care to comment?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Joec;
My only first hand experience with a female being outed for being gay was a Platoon Leader. She was turned in by her Lover!
I don’t think gay women are outing themselves. Since there are more of them than gay men, the competition amoung the women might be high indeed.
Not such a jump to get your lover kicked out of the army and yourself, there by ending much of the competition.
I knew a straight female troop at Hood that bragged about taking her boyfriend’s stuff, puting it in his car and then burning his car. I’m sure gays have their own mental problems with love/sex just as straights do.
I knew this one troop —-
Reply
4:01 pm on October 13th, 2009 8
Are soldiers discharged merely for being overweight or are these soldiers unable to meet minimum physical fitness requirements. While there are fit, fat people, I suspect most of those discharged for being overweight were unable to demonstrate physical fitness required of military personnel.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Sonagi I would say half the soldiers I have seen chaptered for overweight could not pass a PT test and deserved to be chaptered. The other half could pass a PT test but were still overweight. I had a sergeant before that could score over a 270 on the PT test but because of his body dimensions could not pass the tape test. I have seen other people who can pass a PT test have to stop drinking water and eat no food a day prior to a PT test to pass the tape which is a dangerous thing to do.
It is frustrating to see many capable soldiers being discharged when they are capable of doing their jobs. If I was Secretary of Defense for a day I would change the weight standard to be similar to the Marines where the higher you score on the PT test the more weight you are allowed to have.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Yep GI
I have been a weight trainer (on and off) since a teen. I’m 64″. Max bw of 160lbs. I weighed between 160 – 185 during my 20 years. I always made the tape. But for twenty years, every six months someone would tape my waist and my neck, three times, use a magic formula, and give me a go.
I knew some real fatasses that made weight or had a fat neck and made tape.
But when ya need a gp medium put up, who you looking for? When ya go to the field, who are ya looking for? Upload for a mission? Download for recovery?
That tape test is a good intimidation tool also—if your close—or are disliked by the chain. You can really mess with someone, if your one of those NCOs or 1st sergeants that have nothing better to do.
I never saw any officers on the fat-boy program. I did indeed see some fat officers.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I could be wrong, but I don’t beleive officers were subject to weight standards, (per se) however, were “expected” to present the proper military image. Usually it would have been his/her reporting officer that would make any needed comments on the officers OER.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:16 am
I have seen officers on the overweight program (a few lieutenants and one captain) but yes it is rare.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I lost a power lifter to failing his weight. He could knock out 90-100 perfect pushups in 2 minutes, 70 or so situps but would cross the run line about 30 seconds under his limit. Great Mechanic and definitely the guy you needed for heavy lifting. (Hell of a shot with the M88’s 50 caliber by the way.)
—-
Officers typically don’t go on the fat boy program, it is listed directly on the OER: Part IV c. Weight xxx Pass/Fail. Without a profile or medical excuse you are toast.
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Your power lifter sounded much like myself in PT.
I normally maxed my PU, got into the mid 70% for SU and made the run with some small time left over. But I seemed to be usefull at field time and motor pool days. NCOER was consistently above standard. E7 board just never cared for me. (hight/weight)? (race)? (sex)?
In Iraq in 2004, I told my toon daddy that I would be droping my retirement request in a couple of days. He made mention that since we were at war I could stay in two more years as an E6. I laughed out loud! The army didn’t think enough of me to promote me but would ALLOW me to work for those of less experience than myself for two more years. I couldn’t retire fast enough. Sick of working for those that knew less than myself. Enough of my bitchin. It felt good to air it out anyway.
My home is paid for. My car is paid for. When I get bored with the peace and quiet I can afford a trip to the PI. Pension isn’t much for an E6, but it isn’t my only source. I’m good and no strangers taping me every six months. Proud to serve and proud to retire.
4:03 pm on October 13th, 2009 9
If you even have to ask why this is a problem, you just don’t get it, and never will.
It’s just another indicator of what these people intend, taking down respected institutions, one at a time, bit by bit. It has nothing to do with “fairness” and everything to do with an agenda.
(Ducking for cover)
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
You’re wrong about that. It’s time for America to move forward. My problem is that suddenly forcing the military into acceptance before the rest of the population isn’t fair. Even in California, it’s still illegal for two gays to marry. Isn’t that a more fundamental restriction than serving in the military?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
No. It has nothing to do with “moving forward”. It has everything to do with another institution being infiltrated by people who know so much more and are than us old dumb b@stards. We’re just old and evil, and we live to oppress poor “minorities”.
Don’t worry- your circus will happen. I’m not going to object to it. I’m just watching the whole civilisation come unglued, and I am much older than many of you here so the full effect will be something I won’t have to live to see. Have fun in with this “equality” thing; especially when you find out that some protected groups are more equal than others.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Ouch! Speaking the truth will get you nowhere, Junior. Please report to your nearest University for re-education training immediately.
7:39 pm on October 13th, 2009 10
I agree with JOEC, its mostly women who will be the benificiaries. Its the nature of the beast. Gay women “tend” to be more masculine in their sexual makeup, so “tend” to drift toward male jobs. What better job than the military.
Don’t expect a rapid influx of gay males on the feminine side. It would not be in their nature.
They have been accepted in other militaries with little upset.
I did hear from a former female marine who said every time she took a shower, some other female was grabbing her breast. She got out after her enlistment.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I bet you that the military would just about hang a man if he walked into womens locker room and eyeballed a woman undressing. But gays get to do that everyday, and all day long. Go to any gym, and you will find gays eyeballing your naked body, licking their lips. Women and men get to look forward to unit un-cohesiveness, because gay soldiers get to eyeball them undressing.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“But gays get to do that everyday”?
Right, because you’re so irresistible to them.
(Read one of my earlier comments about that).
In any case, we aren’t talking about the gyms you like to frequent, were talking about the military. I served in an ‘unsegregated’ military, and never have I seen or heard of anyone behaving in the manner you suggest. In other words, you’re full of it.
Reply
October 13th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“Right, because you’re so irresistible to them. ”
You are living in the stone age. So are OK with gay sexual harassment as long as YOU can judge that person by their looks.
No we are talking about close quarters, and even in fox holes. Soldiers will have to have one eye on the fox hole “buddy” and the the other fighing fighting the al qaeda, and terrorists for freedom. What about on a submarine, when the guys start recruiting for their “team”?
They will use the military for recuriting for the gay lifestyle.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:02 am
“You are living in the stone age. ”
You don’t get sarcasm.
“They will use the military for recuriting for the gay lifestyle.”
You’re the one who’s living in a cave.
11:03 pm on October 13th, 2009 11
I am waiting to see what BS reason Harvard comes up with to continue banning ROTC after the policy is gone. Much like the “good war” in Afghanistan support dried up after the election, I’m sure that one will morph again since it was never about the DADT policy.
Reply
4:10 am on October 14th, 2009 12
This is the best thing that could happen in the US-ROK alliance.
Imagine how happy the Good Neighbors on both sides of the fence are going to be when the money starts rolling in…
…bacause ajushi is going to move a lot of juice with a stable of freshly-waxed and primped teenage Filipino twinks at Bumpluggers Juicy Boy Bar.
In other news…
I’m going to take a wild guess here and say a lot of the guys who are worried sick that some homo will “look at them” have no hesitation to eye-rape every acceptable female that comes their way… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Grow up, boys.
If some flamer checks you out, take it as a complement and move on. If he grabs your junk, pop him in the mouth (pardon the pun) and move on.
This course of action is no different than if some dude was checking out your Harley… so what’s all the fuss about?
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 8:25 am
“if some flamer checks you out, take it as a complement and move on.”
I do CH! I do
ya can’t touch this–no no
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 5:58 am
“If some flamer checks you out, take it as a complement and move on.”
Chicken it’s a slippery slope. One minute the gays are hooting at normal people, then the next minute they are trying to put their finger in your bum. A gay general has a lot of power over people. Once the gays take over the military, the normal people will quit so they don’t have to follow the gay lifestyle.
What needs to be done, is to find the gay gene, so the fetus can be scraped off.
Retired GI, why do I get the feeling that you have had more then a few late night latrine bj’s.
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 6:08 am
maby it is wishfull thinking on your part
can’t touch this
Did you forget how you respect my ability to service the juice girls in angeles city
Reply
8:10 am on October 14th, 2009 13
Argue all you want, it’s a done deal. Openly gay men and women will now be free to serve in your military. Like I said, it won’t change a think. The next day will be business as usual. Been there, done that.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 8:35 am
“think” or did ya mean thing?
Well, if it won’t change a thing, what’s all the fuss about then.
I can only conclude that since there is a great fuss, a great change should follow. More (SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP) change.
I still think the change will be more of a humorous nature.
Gays were so happy when Clinton did “don’t ask – don’t tell”. Now they want to advertise. Shows a lack of dicipline if you want to throw it in others faces.
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 3:41 am
It’s not about advertising. If a gay soldier gets married, which is legal in some states now, he or she can lose his job. Think about it for a moment.
You don’t have to agree that it’s discrimination (it is) to understand the stupidity of it all. I think you’ll agree that the cost of training and the difficulty to find good recruits is a strong enough argument to drop the policy.
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 5:48 am
As it stand now, many places make it illegal to fire somebody becasue they are gay, but it is legal to fire someone because they are straight.
The gays always want special rights even though they already have much more rights then normal people.
Teabagger, you seem to only care about the extra rights you want to give the gays, but you don’t seem to care about equality or justice.
Lots of people can’t join the military, the gays, retards, criminals, druggies, cripples, the blind the obese for example. The military needs to be cohesive and orderly to operate. By the way, most of those people claim that their abnormality is not their fault.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:59 am
I agree with you for some MOS. But most are not difficult to replace.
From my experience, things were fine before DA/DT.
Marrage: as I said before, gay divorce will be a laugh.
Love does not require a license.
So it comes down to money and benefits of marrage.
As a single soldier, I can understand that. Private’s go home to the wife the cat the kid and the dog, while the Sergeant goes to the barracks room (to be called on at will) when needed.
Gay’s in the military are STILL a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. I have seen the problems that special interest groups cause in the military in the USA. The american military is reluntent in the extream to except change. Example the m16 in vietnam.
On a personal note, I would like to see the DISCRIMINATION against single soldiers ended. But it never will. We are not a special interest group.
1:36 pm on October 14th, 2009 14
“bacause ajushi is going to move a lot of juice with a stable of freshly-waxed and primped teenage Filipino twinks at Bumpluggers Juicy Boy Bar”
Ever been to Itaewon? You were probably in one of those bars and didn’t know it. LOL.
I did 20 years and retired. I really didn’t give a shit if someone was gay or lesbian.
Could they shine their boots?
Could they press their uniform?
Could they make the PT run every morning?
Could they hump a ruck and a tripod up to the OP on hill 555?
Could they qualify with their weapon?
etc…
If they could do all those things, the same as all the other soldiers, then I really didn’t give a damn who they wanted to have sex with.
Do you think they might end up being better soldiers if they don’t have to live with the psychological pressure of hiding who they really are?
I’ve been in places from El Salvador to Tikrit, and let me tell you, gay soldiers bleed and die the same as straight soldiers.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I’ve been in places from El Salvador to Tikrit, and let me tell you, gay soldiers bleed and die the same as straight soldiers.
Yes they do. And they usually do so without proclaiming their fondness for the c*ck in their last breath.
This isn’t about fags- it’s about the greater movement which has embraced their “cause” in taking down another institution.
Not like I give a sh!t anymore- have fun with it. I’ll remember when we didn’t get all worked up about the whole thing and when men were expected to act like men, and being a moral pussy was something to be ashamed of.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I’ve been in places from El Salvador to Tikrit, and let me tell you, gay soldiers bleed and die the same as straight soldiers.
Yes they do. And they usually do so without proclaiming their fondness for the c*ck in their last breath.
This isn’t about f@gs- it’s about the greater movement which has embraced their “cause” in taking down another institution.
Not like I give a sh!t anymore- have fun with it. I’ll remember when we didn’t get all worked up about the whole thing and when men were expected to act like men, and being a moral coward was something to be ashamed of. There’s no “stand” to take here- it’s all contrived.
Reply
October 14th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I think that pretty well sums it up. Well said.
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Not necessarily.
When you think about it, the policy has probably prevented many from achieving their life long dream of serving in the military (says a thing or two about the strength of character of those who actually went through with it). This, on top of the fact that it’s normal to fight against discrimination, I can understand why this issue is important to the gay community (and should be to all Americans. Patriotism, in my opinion, is loving your country for how it treats your compatriots).
Reply
October 15th, 2009 at 5:33 am
“I’ve been in places from El Salvador to Tikrit, and let me tell you, gay soldiers bleed and die the same as straight soldiers.”
Pedophiles bleed the same as straight soldiers too. Now that I thnk about it, everyone bleeds. It looks like the gays are all over this comment section.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:18 am
To hell with their dreams. This isn’t “Make – A – Wish”. Don’t know what Army you were part of, but the ones I was in weren’t sports teams or hiking clubs. They were- even with the addition of the EO and PC baggage to weigh us done with that faggotry- organizations designed to close with and destroy the enemy, and were often pretty rough places to be, and REQUIRED some strong adult leadership. It was all about the hardest, smartest, and toughest hombres. Rough sports were good gauges for leaders and commanders to actually see some of their strong natural leaders in action. Leadership and the art of command might not be a sexual preference thing, but in a combat arms unit, it is a serious Type A personality thing for the most part.
Again- this is just another agenda. If the law changes, then those who are professionals will figure out a way to implement it. But with every action comes an equal and opposite reaction.
Enjoy your faggot army if it happens. I’ll watch from the sidelines, crack a chibuli, and say “Told ya so”…
October 15th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Teabagger, if a fagger had a dream to be a NFL quarterback, does that mean he gets to be one? Forget about the skills necessary, the fagger wants to be a QB, and now its homophobia to deny him new “right.” Now, the center will quit when the fagger starts to try and finger his bum. The team is no good becauset the QB literally sucks, and the center has quit.
6:53 am on January 28th, 2010 15
Well… it’s getting closer.
At Obama’s State of the Union…
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Wait and see… instead of boosting the economy, reducing spending or achieving victory in our perpetual wars, the next big focus will be the fight over an issue that is currently working as well as anyone can hope.
And, with the probable failure of the healthcare debacle, the hissing liberals in congress are going to jump all over this like… like… uh… hungry fags on a kock sandwich.
Reply