By That is what the Pentagon is looking at right now:
At the White House, officials continued reviewing options to repeal the Clinton-era policy that the president vowed to repeal. The administration still believes that any repeal should start in Congress and have the backing of top military leaders.
To that end, Obama and Gates planned a meeting next week to discuss, among other topics, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies. The president was also likely to speak with Mullen, who has signaled he would carry out a repeal if ordered by Obama and Congress.
Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military’s command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don’t, what should the Pentagon do about it?
The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was imposed by a 1993 law intended as a compromise between President Bill Clinton, who wanted to lift the ban on gays entirely, and a reluctant Congress and military that said doing so would threaten order.
Under the policy, the military can’t ask recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can’t say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Between 1997 and 2008, the Defense Department discharged more than 10,500 service members for violating the policy.
The review to be announced next week was expected to delve into practical issues that surround changing the law: Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex? Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member’s partner? Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren’t passed over for promotions? [Associated Press]
This just supports what I have been saying all along, this isn’t about gays serving in the military because they already are and most people like myself could care less, it is about what special treatment are they going to receive. As has been speculated before, are soldiers going to be forced to celebrate Gay Pride Month with banners hanging in the PX sayng “AAFES Proudly Salutes Our Gay & Lesbian Soldiers!”?
As far as recognizing civil union for gays once again I could care less as long as they are held to the same standards as a heterosexual married couple.
What will really piss people off is if quotas are mandated for promotions. How can a lifestyle choice be a factor for a promotion? If this is even being considered as stated in the article, it would prove this has little to do with just gays serving openly, but instead wanting to impose the gay lifestyle on the ranks.
3:56 am on January 31st, 2010 1
That quotas comment was likely a red herring thrown out there by the reporter. I doubt if anyone in the military leadership suggested that was a possibility.
As far as I recall, when women and minorities gained equal status rights in the military, there were recruiting goal quotas, but I don’t recall there being any promotion quotas.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 4:00 am
Yeah, I always wondered what those DA photos in the promotion packets (which contain no mention of race or gender) were for…
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 4:45 am
Did you ever sit on a promotion board?
Reply
4:14 am on January 31st, 2010 2
It seems that GI Korea is manufacturing most this drama.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Not at all, in order to maintain a “diversified” population the Army has continuously lowered standards for special popluations.
—-
I watched several male classmates get booted from West Point for failing classes while their overall grade point averages were well above 2.0 failures included. I also watched one of the female divers fail three classes and graduate with a 2.01 overall(remedial As countering Fs). The number of female cadets had fallen too low and she was pretty much bullet proof. She was not alone.
—-
The same went for PT and weight standards. The old joke was what do you call a male cadet walking at the mile marker on the PT course…a Civilian. What do you call a female walking at the start point? A pass.
Reply
5:02 am on January 31st, 2010 3
“…most people like myself could care less, it is about what special treatment are they going to receive.”
I heard the same line when the RCMP decided to allow Sikh officers to wear a turban. “I’m not racist, but that’s special treatment”.
“…are soldiers going to be forced to celebrate Gay Pride Month with banners hanging in the PX sayng “AAFES Proudly Salutes Our Gay & Lesbian Soldiers!””
Come on. I doubt people will get carried away with it as they do with Christmas and Thanksgiving.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 5:03 am
Actually, it was most often, “I’m not racist, but that goes against RCMP tradition.”
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
After all- with the Sikhs, it was indeed all about them- not about them becoming part of their new adopted organisation.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 10:47 pm
The opposition was based on xenophobia. You’ll rarely see a police officer in dress uniform (and the brown Stetson wasn’t even adopted until 1904).
January 31st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
We are not allowed to celebrate Christmas or Thanksgiving, they are officially the “Holidays.” Didn’t you get the memo?
Reply
6:19 am on January 31st, 2010 4
The military recognizes Black History Month every year (I think it’s February). Is everyone in the military “forced to celebrate” that? I don’t ever remember being forced to celebrate anything when that month has rolled around. I think they have a breakfast with an invited speaker – but that’s totally voluntary. They might have a display or two on base. You can stop and check it out – or just walk on by and completely ignore it.
You sound like you’re afraid of something…what is it?
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 7:24 am
“you sound like you’re afraid of something—what is it?”
You sound like a Liberal or a Modern Progrssive with that bait line.
Which is it?
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 9:29 am
Hey I see my bobber moving…I must have a bite. But you know what…only idiots or fools take the bait…how’s that hook feel?
But to answer your question – I’m neither of those – not even close.
Only because I’m not a homophobe doesn’t mean I’m on the left.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 10:53 am
“Only because I’m not a homophobe doesn’t mean I’m on the left.”
Exactly.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:51 am
Speaking of takin the bait—liberal love to use name calling.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:57 am
That Teadrinker agrees with you takes away all questions.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Retired GI,
You use the world liberal as a pejorative…Ironic, don’t you think?
I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative. I’m too pragmatic to pigeon-hole myself one way or the other.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:29 am
Teadrinker, in the past you have stated you were not a “liberal”, because your Canadian. As if the one excludes the other. Nice try.
Now you say you’re too pragmatic to fit so easily into any classification.
I say you’er a near perfect fit for the liberal title. Arrogant to the point of disavowing allegacy with any group of thought. Your likely a fine enough individual when face to face. But to borrow an old line, “walks like a duck-quacks like a duck. Probably a duck.”
But you’re not quite there yet. You need to work on your “name calling”. That is a sure sign of “condescending liberalism”. Perhaps you could hook-up with Guitard. She seems to believe she has it down.
In the process, try to get off the fence. No one respects a fence sitter. You foot is firmly down on the liberal side by your comments.
You may believe you can’t be pigeon-holed, but you words reveal you.
January 31st, 2010 at 9:08 am
I already clearly said I could care less of gays serve openly, I just don’t want people who make certain lifestyle choices to receive special treatment from the military. Should we have Goth appreciation month along with promotion quotas to make sure they are not discriminated against? What about the Wiccans? I could go on and on. Let the gays serve and leave it at that.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 10:37 am
“I just don’t want people who make certain lifestyle choices to receive special treatment from the military.”
Don’t you think that the notion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is a convenient way to justify discrimination?
In reality, sexual orientation is determined by a variety of biological factors.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 10:55 am
First of all the military discriminates all the time, just ask people who are overweight, handicapped, mentally challenged, out of shape, felony convictions, etc. etc.
Secondly you are making an argument against me that is false. I have already said I don’t care if gays serve openly so stop trying to make it out that I am discriminating against them. The argument you continue to ignore is about special treatment. Why should gays receive special treatment? I say let them serve and leave it at that.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:54 pm
What special treatment? Again, you oppose demands the vast majority of gays aren’t making.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:49 am
Wiccans probably don’t need special holidays since many of the Christian holidays (and their symbolism and traditions) are actually pagan in origin.
Goths are regular people when the take off their makeup…Gays are still gay when they do.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
It’s hilarious that we’re now going to encourage this behaviour, just when there are new stories out about how “confused” Afghan men are about their own injectum in the rectum culture.
Reply
6:50 am on January 31st, 2010 5
I’d like to see ChickenHead caption that photo.
Reply
4:56 pm on January 31st, 2010 6
“NEX Proudly Salutes our Gay and Lesbian Sailors!”
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Good one, here’s mine:
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight
Get ‘em up against the wall
There’s one in the spotlight
Now he don’t look right to me
Get him up against the wall
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 10:56 pm
The could have the Village People appear in recruitment ads.
“In the Navy, in the Navy…”
Reply
6:16 pm on January 31st, 2010 7
more fearmongering *yawn* Hilarious to see the military squirming over the pink peril. Next thing you know those ask-and-tell gays will be wanting military weddings. Imagine two male marines holding hands while walking under the arch of swords! The horror!
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
I would refuse to attend that wedding, unless it had an open bar. Weddings are boring. I’m not sure where the fear mongering comment comes from, a number of individuals are concerned with adverse impacts on military service which a badly worded policy could do. The truth is that Today the only homosexuals kicked out either want out or can’t keep it in their pants so to speak.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 4:54 am
It’s always “fear” with you people, isn’t it? Some of us are just tired of the freak show.
Reply
6:49 pm on January 31st, 2010 8
I’m a retired soldier. I support the current policy. While it’s true that homosexuals have always served & all still serving the current policy keeps a lid on things which maintains morale & unit cohesion. Hell, when I was stationed at HAAF in the 547th Medical Co(CLR) from 1976-1979 there was 2 lesbians in the unit that everybody knew about including the 1SG. They owned a ‘gay’ bar along with 2 civilian male homosexuals. A bunch of us including the 1SG used to go to the bar to drink sometimes but the other customers never bothered us because they knew we were straight. The point I’m making is if people keep it quiet & maintain a low profile & just do their jobs then nobody gives a s**t. Let’s worry about what’s best for America’s defense & not try to kiss the piper of every single group.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Agreed!
My weightlifting partner, one year in Korea was a lesbian. I would rather have gone to war with her than some of my straight buddies.
But she never waved the gay flag. I was walking to the gym with her and saw these two blonds. I looked over and she “informed” me not to bother by saying, and I quote “I’ll get some of that before you do”.
But we were buds and talk about many things between sets. That was in or around 89/90.
Reply
January 31st, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Thanks for proving my suspicions that you are much more open-minded (dare I say, liberal
) than you let on. You like playing the grumpy old man, don’t you. 
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 9:30 am
As a matter of fact, your right. I do like playing the grumpy old man!
It feels kind a Natural. My niece would likely think me quite old.
I tend to not be as conservative as my Associates. I don’t fear gays.
Nothing special about them to fear. I do wish they would learn that NO MEANS NO! I also like strong independent women. Sadly I know so few.
I understand why liberals believe the “commoners” must be cared for, controlled and stripped of individual freedoms. I’ve been to Walmart.
But PLEASE Sir. Liberal?! There is no cause for name calling!
I do wish the current CIC were much (MUCH) more like JFK. He can keep the current skin color. As, not liking ones programs or cutting the Constellation program is different from not liking “The One”. He has a nice smile and can read well. That is why most of the 54% voted for him. Unless, they woted for him BECAUSE he’s black. In which case — they are racest. “actions based on race of said individual” But I digress. Nancy tells him what to say. Joe is just not up to the job.
Oh, and I STILL want to see that birth certificate! I think he hides it because it states his race as — wait for it —- it’s coming — the race of the Mother. Have not looked into it. I only find it amusing.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
You contradict yourself. You say the “current policy keeps a lid on things which maintains morale & unit cohesion”, and then give clear examples that people in the service really don’t care if someone is gay or not. Food for thoughts.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 12:18 am
The problem isn’t with gay’s serving in the military, most really don’t care. The problems start when you have flaming gays flaunting their life style in everyone’s faces or they start screaming their being discriminated against because their gay. Then we get into all sorts of PC problems happening. Or did you miss out on the MAJ in Fort Hood being allowed to pass medical school because his raters were afraid of political problems.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 12:59 am
Assume what you will, but, as I’ve said before, you most probably won’t be seeing a guy in a Speedo roller-blading down the streets of Yongsan with sparklers in his hands when don’t ask don’t tell is scrapped.
12:01 am on February 1st, 2010 9
What I said is not a contradiction because under the current policy people have to be very discreet not bringing attention to themselves. A few people may know about a homosexual or lesbian soldier but there were so few that it could be handled. For example when I was stationed at Ft Leornard Wood, Mo there were 2 Sgt’s who were homosexual who shared a room. My problem is if you let it out in the open obviously more would enlist & then you may have to take a shower or get dressed/undressed with having to worry that somebody may be checking you out. If you say ‘just get over it’ then you might as well say integrate male & female facilities. There is NO difference. One of my sons is a submariner. There would be no way to seperate gays & straights on a sub or women & men.
Reply
12:52 am on February 1st, 2010 10
Again, I think people are missing the larger picture here. For one very good reason I hope that if gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, they DO receive special treatment, at least in some respect: they need to be provided their own barracks and latrines. Just as separate facilities are required on ships and in units to accommodate both men and women, they will need to accommodate both straight and gay. Working side-by-side with a gay person is really a red-herring. No one cares. BUT, living with them is different…it is a violation of privacy to force a heterosexual to live next to and shower next a gay every bit as much as it would be to force a woman to live in a man’s barracks and shower in a men’s head. Why is it ok to guarantee a woman’s right to not be placed in a sexually harassing situation but it’s ok to put a straight man in the identical situation? Anyone who thinks that is ok is a creep. BUT, all that aside, if the military wants to fork out the dough to build separate facilities for gays, then I’m all for it. Gay powers, activate!
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 4:45 am
Got news for ya, buddy. You’ve probably already been checked out other men, both heterosexuals and gays. As other commenters have noted, gays are already in the military and they’re in every other workplace, dormitory, and recreation facility, too, so how exactly does “Don’t ask, don’t tell” protect heterosexuals from being ogled by other men?
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 5:23 am
Good one. I find it hilarious that homophobes spend so much time thinking they are irresistible to gays.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 6:52 am
I don’t see why you have to call Mr. Chips a homophobe? The name calling of trying to label people as homophobes when they clearly are not is pathetic and meant to stifle debate.
He said he wants separate barracks room like men and women currently have. What is homophobic about that? It is reasonable and something that I think can be handled at the small unit level without having to construct separate barracks for gays.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:43 am
Yeah I really don’t get the argument there. Being checked out and being forced to put up with it are not the same thing. If you want to label folks as homophobes for simply wanting a measure of privacy and security, then by all means please support unisex-only latrines and force women in the military to live with men in the barracks. No women’s group would stand for such nonsense nor should they. Sonagi’s snide comment aside, do you think a woman’s sense of security and job performance would not be affected by being forced to sleep every night surrounded by a bunch of horny guys. That’s exactly what you’re advocating in having gays serve openly without providing for separate facilities. They’re an awful lot of terribly fat ugly chicks out there who would feel no more comfortable about being stuck in guy’s barracks than an attractive one regardless of how few looks came her way. That’s life…the bottom line is you can’t FORCE people to put up with that. But, again for you, apparently, only women deserve that special treatment. I guess that’s what they mean by equal treatment.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:25 pm
“Sonagi’s snide comment aside, do you think a woman’s sense of security and job performance would not be affected by being forced to sleep every night surrounded by a bunch of horny guys. That’s exactly what you’re advocating in having gays serve openly without providing for separate facilities. “
My comment wasn’t snide. You really don’t get it. Gay men are estimated to comprise about 10% of the population. If gay men were to enlist in proportion to their numbers, military barracks would not be swarming with gays, so there is ZERO danger of “being forced to sleep at night with a bunch of horny guys” unless you mean guys who are horny for the opposite sex.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
You really don’t get it. %’s have nothing to do with being forced into a situation that violates your personal privacy. Let’s force YOU to live in a barracks with all girls and ONE guy next to you leering at you or even giving you the impression that he is leering at you. Your dismissive attitude of people’s right to privacy is astounding. I doubt you are so consistently dismissive when the subject of the privacy is you, or perhaps a woman’s right to privacy. Bottom line is that military morale and productivity will be compromised when straight people are forced to live in what they feel are sexually harassing situations, percentages be damned.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:21 am
Yes, it was a snide comment.
As Mrchips states above, it isn’t about %. One is enough if he decides your his type. I’ve had the experience. Didn’t like it.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
“%’s have nothing to do with being forced into a situation that violates your personal privacy. “
Relevant fact: Gays are already in the military now.
Relevant fact: Since there are already gays in the military, gay and straight soldiers of the same sex share housing and bathing facilities.
Relevant fact: Sexual harassment is a violation of military code regardless of gender.
If gays are already in the military, already sharing living quarters, and sexual harassment is a punishable offense, please explain how the lifting of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” violates your right to privacy.
12:53 am on February 1st, 2010 11
I wrote that before seeing what Tom wrote…ditto Tom.
Reply
4:42 am on February 1st, 2010 12
Look at this short list of names. It proves that homosexuals have no trouble making rank even without a quota system.
Reply
4:51 am on February 1st, 2010 13
It’s just another stab at a respected institution.
Have fun with it! I’ll be watching the circus. There was a time when I actually cared which way we were heading, but I guess it really doesn’t matter.
Reply
5:15 am on February 1st, 2010 14
“I’d like to see ChickenHead caption that photo.”
Hmmm…
“I’d get down on my knees and poke that little twink ensign right in the butt and finger his prostate ’till he screamed like a mutineer being keelhauled.”
(poking motion with finger)
“Well, I’d grab him by the forehead like this, pound him in the butt and give him a reacharound ’till he blasted like a sub observing an emergency surface drill.”
(hand moves up and down)
Reply
7:36 am on February 1st, 2010 15
Gays and lesbians live together with straight soldiers now – and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Why change the system if it ain’t broke?
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 7:47 am
Because they don’t know it and ignorance, in this case, is more than bliss, it’s at least a sense of privacy which you are saying straight men alone in the world are not entitled to. Let gays serve openly and their lifestyle will, rightfully and legally, be suddenly and suprisingly aware to you, and then that feeling of privacy has been taken aware, no matter how much ignorance had to do with it.
Reply
February 1st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“Gays and lesbians live together with straight soldiers now – and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Why change the system if it ain’t broke?”
The answer to that question is, because they have to live in fear of being persecuted for it.
It’s kind of like being Wiccan 300 years ago, being Jewish in Central Europe 60 years ago, or being an atheist in some American States today.
I analogize with religion because it doesn’t show externally. The question is why should someone have to deny who and what they are?
I don’t foresee gays flaunting their gayness anymore than Wiccans flaunt their Wiccan-ness. Even today, those groups know there would be a backlash for trying to excess their rights.
I bet’cha, even in San Francisco, gays and lesbians are expected to dress and act conservatively and professionally in most work places.
Reply
7:46 am on February 1st, 2010 16
Special treatment for gays in the military?
Fine,
50% off KY Jelly at the PX on Fridays.
Reply
9:47 am on February 1st, 2010 17
Thinkin of the WACs. We could try the GACs.
At LEAST, we would have a Corp where no one could get pregnant.
Reply
3:43 pm on February 1st, 2010 18
“Gays and lesbians live together with straight soldiers now – and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Why change the system if it ain’t broke?”
Yeah. I have a dog and cat living together, hell they sleep together-all curled up, in my house right now. Boris the Basset and Natasha the cat get along just fine. Sometimes one chases the other one way then they switch off. For a while, I thought I had a self cleaning litter box, until I discovered Boris was having late night snacks… I guess allowing dogs and cats to live together and all, I best recuse myself from this discussion.
Reply
4:43 pm on February 1st, 2010 19
Why Gaay Soldiers are Better than Straight Ones
Gaay soldiers don’t need any logistics training to drop a load off on you.
Gaay soldiers don’t need to be a mortuary affairs specialist to properly handle a stifff one.
Gaay soldiers don’t need experience as a parachute rigger to pack your chute.
Gaay soldiers don’t need to be a sergeant to inspect your privates.
Gaay soldiers don’t need to be on patrol to bring up the rear.
Gaay soldiers don’t need to be senior enlisted to shamelessly kiss arse.
Reply
4:10 am on February 2nd, 2010 20
WOW. It has been quite entertaining to read this banter. My only question would be to those who think the military should build seperate facilities for gays. Does that include restrooms/showers in MWR facilities on base? What about the civilian institutions on base? i.e. Burger King, Starbucks, etc etc. And exactly who is it that is going to enforce that only those authorized be assigned to the male/female/gay housing facilities? Not like a gay male or female has to state his/her sexual orientation when they enlist and then be forced to not change their mind when they get in. With pedophiles it would be hard for someone to claim they were 14 when they are actually 35 but a gay individual can easily claim to be straight or vice versa.
And what concessions do we make for those that are bi-sexual?????
All I care is that I have a qualified and competent serviceman (non-gender specific) beside me in the time of battle.
But please keep going on and on as this is probably the most fun I have had in months (reading this dribble).
Reply
6:11 am on February 2nd, 2010 21
Here is some more trivia from the past. Before Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, one of the arguments against having gays in the military was that they were security risks who were vulnerable to being blackmailed by enemy agents who would threaten to expose their secret. Since DADT passed, I never heard that argument anymore.
That excuse had to be dropped because the whole premise of DADT is that as long as they kept their life secret, there would be no problems. Even though they could still be blackmailed with photo or video evidence, they were no longer a security risk? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Reply
8:02 am on February 2nd, 2010 22
Fairly visceral responses by some on this issue. Has anyone yet addressed why an unethical non-lifestyle is to be promoted by the government and imposed upon the nation’s military? Or are situational ethics the modern thing? Let alone the legal implications resultant that boggle the mind, considering federal laws, various state laws and the UCMJ.
What of the practical effects and/or unintended consequences of promoting this non-lifestyle upon the military community writ large? There are significant incidences of sexual harassment in the military already and there are indications same-sex offenses are increasing. It has a negative impact on the services. The impact of sexual harassment in the military is seen in the funk of Political Correctness, anguish from unfounded charges as well as legitimate cases. And it’s not confined only to a barracks, but ripples outwards to affect the individuals involved, family and/or friends, fellow service members, leadership, entire units, and ultimately military readiness. This adverse trend would likely increase if the government dismantles this “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, creating even further confusion, distraction, corrosion, distrust, diversion of resources and turmoil within a military already task saturated and stretched around the world.
It’s so easy for folks of various persuasions to rationalize or say “who cares? What does it matter?” Especially those rather removed from the relatively tight-knit consequences within a military environment when you get to go home at the end of the day to wherever you choose to live and associate with whomever you wish. Not as many choices in the military. Even fewer when deployed far from home, and fewer still in the combat zone.
This whole thing has grave implications for the military as well as long term health and integrity of American society and family structure and should not be so lightly discussed. Better watch out! You will certainly reap what you sow.
Reply
3:47 am on February 12th, 2010 23
So… there was a poll to determine the public’s opinion on ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
“a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.”
…and the majority of people (non-military people who’s opinion on the matter really shouldn’t mean much), believe it should end.
…BUT…
“The results highlight the importance of wording on the issue. In a test, half of the poll’s respondents were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, and the other half were asked about permitting “homosexuals” to serve.”
Ho, ho, ho… you didn’t know there was a difference between gays & lesbians and homosexuals… neither did I.
“Democrats in the poll seemed particularly swayed by the wording. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly.”
So all you non-homosexual gay men and non-homosexual lesbian women have 36% more support from the Democrats than all you plain-old dirty homosexuals.
I’m not sure what this all means.
I always suspected “Democrats”, or, more accurately, “liberals” were pretty emotion-based in their opinions and politics… and were easily misled by inspired wording and broad concepts more clever than their intellect.
I guess it’s true.
“Republicans and independents varied less between the two terms.”
Well, I guess the future course of action is clear.
The people have spoken…
…sort of.
Reply
10:36 pm on February 12th, 2010 24
And…
Today’s award for the most unintentionally funny sentence in a major media publication goes to…
…Stars and Stripes…
…for…
“A New York National Guard soldier who last year announced his homosexuality on national television is again drilling with his unit, The New York Times reported Friday.”
I bet he gets pounded after work, too.
Reply
February 13th, 2010 at 12:22 am
I hope he’s having a ball.
Reply
11:15 am on February 13th, 2010 25
I would assume that the soldier in question is Lt Dan Choi. I thank Lt Choi for his service. I have commented in previous post that homosexual service members have always served in our armed forces. Where I take issue with Lt Choi is when he decided that his desire to proclaim his private sexual orientation was more important that his oath for duty, honor, & country. I don’t give a rats rear end who or what Lt Choi is sexually attracted to but there is no need to proclaim this to the world disrupting good order & discipline. Lt Choi knew or should have known the laws and regulations before he raised his hand, if he thought them unjust then don’t enlist. I would agree with the proposed change that ‘witch hunts’ should not be initiated on third hand information on suspected homosexuals who have not ‘come out’.
Reply
7:06 pm on February 13th, 2010 26
Is it important if I prefer A-hole or BJs?
Then why is it important if one is doing it with the same sex?
STFU and do it.
I don’t understand the desire to hang a sign around the neck. “Look at ME!”
Reply
February 13th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
It’s the special treatment and feeling of entitlement we keep talking about. At the very least there will be a “Gay Awareness Month” of some sort, whatever name they use. There will be a banner at the PX, something like: “AAFES salutes our military same sex spouses!” Hide and watch. I guarantee it.
Reply
10:01 pm on February 13th, 2010 27
“Lt. Dan Choi, who has been away from his unit since coming out publicly last March, said he participated in exercises last weekend at the urging of his commander, Lt. Col. John Andonie.”
Well… his commander supports his return…
…so I guess he doesn’t suck at his job.
Heh.
As a side note worth considering, Lt. Col. Andonie certainly can see which way the wind is blowing (so to speak).
As soon as Obama starts trying to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Andonie was quick to demonstrate he is a leader in the new equality.
He must be the first to get his boxes proudly checked for inclusiveness, tolerance and equal opportunity.
Leon is right, you all know… unofficial quotas for homosexuals, insuring that statistic-fearing leadership can’t be shown to be anti-gay, is right around the corner.
Reply
February 13th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Oh yes. Seen it with women. Will see it with the “rainbows” as well. The Army will be out in front leading the Rainbows.
The clubs in the ville will never be closed down now. They will import the “ladyboys” from the PI. They will fight over GI cock-a-doodles with the Korean “Ladyboys”.
Might be quite a show on the weekends. 
Reply
11:37 pm on February 14th, 2010 28
Chickenhead, your last comment was spot on. We also have to remember that Defense Secretary Gates and Joints chiefs chairman Adm Mullen serve at the pleasure of the President and they both know what the new mantra is supposed to be. Funny, when President G.W. Bush was in office I don’t recall either gentleman coming out in favor of the repeal of DADT. The generals and admirals supporting this are not junior enlisted troops who would have to dress/undress & shower with homosexual troops. It sure looks like LTC Andonie is bucking for full bird and higher. Maybe in the next 15 yrs or so we might be looking at the future chairman of the joint chiefs, God help us!
Reply
7:08 am on March 1st, 2010 29
I’m going to say it. I think homosexuality is disgusting. Be it biological or a lifestyle choice or a mixture of the two, I just do not like it. I think it is unnatural and repulsive. I don’t care if my comments offend some or all of you. Repeal DADT or leave it in place it makes no difference I will still be repulsed by homosexuals. Yes I acknowledge they are people with rights and blah blah blah. I put up with them because I have to. A lot of us do and because of wanting to appear gay friendly or pc we compromise our own personal values or our integrity. I am sure I am not alone in this I am just the only one with the guts to admit I don’t like homosexuality. That being said I don’t hate people individually if they are homosexual, I just find them repulsive. And to finish, I don’t care if you don’t like it or think I’m small minded. I know this comment will bring a lot of flak, I just don’t care.
Reply
March 1st, 2010 at 8:17 am
I’m curious what you mean by this. Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of what a person does in order to put up with gay people.
The reason I ask is because I can’t ever think of a situation or time in my life when I had to put up with gays. But since I was career military, I was never knowingly around gays – although I’m sure some of the soldiers I worked with were gay. I’ve been places over the years (big cities usually) where I have seen people who by all appearances were gay. But there wasn’t anything for me to put up with as it was just someone I saw – not someone with whom I ever had any interaction.
Reply
March 1st, 2010 at 10:36 am
88mm
I got your six. I agree with you 100% and it needed to be said.
Reply
8:28 am on March 1st, 2010 30
To guitard. Why would I address your question properly if you refuse to post my comment? Obviously free speech doesn’t hold much bearing with you and you censure anything you don’t like.
Reply
March 1st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Please forgive me for inhibiting free speech and censuring your post. So here is your post in it’s entirety:
And once again, here’s my question:
I’m curious what you mean by “I put up with them because I have to.”
Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of what a person does in order to put up with gay people.
The reason I ask is because I can’t ever think of a situation or time in my life when I had to put up with gays. But since I was career military, I was never knowingly around gays – although I’m sure some of the soldiers I worked with were gay. I’ve been places over the years (big cities usually) where I have seen people who by all appearances were gay. But there wasn’t anything for me to put up with as it was just someone I saw – not someone with whom I ever had any interaction.
Reply
March 1st, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Dammit Guitard, stop inhibiting free speech you bastard!
Reply
4:49 pm on March 1st, 2010 31
“examples of what a person does in order to put up with gay people.”
When a woman in the military feels she is sexually harassed, she has recourse through her chain of command and, ultimately, the EO office. If a straight man feels he is being sexually harassed by a gay man (and if you think it doesn’t happen even with DADT you are walking around with your eyes closed) you have ZERO recourse. There may be some chains of command out there sympathetic to such complaints but the EO office isn’t set up to handle that. Do away with DADT and that will become more pronounced. In fact, given the nature of the people supporting this change and their blissful ignorance of how it will affect peoples’ private lives I suspect that a straight man complaining of sexual harassment from a gay man will be, at best labeled a homophobe, and at worst will be charged for harassment himself, all in an effort to pacify gays whose right to serve trumps any else’s right to privacy.
“All I care is that I have a qualified and competent serviceman (non-gender specific) beside me in the time of battle.”
That’s the blissful ignorance I spoke of…sooo, when you’re not in battle you don’t care that the guy in the rack next to you is wacking off while staring at you, and you won’t have the system in place to complain about it, like women do…So, I assume you are also in favor of forcing women to live in barracks with men.
“So what about civilian institution?” How do they handle it for women?
“What about Burger King, Starbucks, etc etc?” How do they handle it for women?
Dumbass, stop creating fictional issues. They were able to provide separate facilities for women, PRIMARILY, to ensure their security. Why can’t they do the same after lifting DADT?
“Not like a gay male or female has to state his/her sexual orientation when they enlist” Of course, they don’t – ITS CALLED DON’T ASK DON’T TELL!!! If they drop that, however, who’s to say that stating one’s orientation shouldn’t be grounds for determining where you sleep and shower.
Bottom line – forcing people to be placed in sexually harassing situations is a violation of privacy. The “they already serve” red herring line doesn’t hold water. It’s no different than a woman showering when she thinks she is alone but if she found out there was a peep hole in the room she suddenly feels violated…the peep hole has been there all along. Does that make it ok to just go ahead and let the men who were watching through the peep hole into the shower with the woman and she has to accept it because she was already being watched??
Retards, and willing ones at that. I’m still stunned that the same people who advocate DADT being dropped are the same crowd crowing about a woman’s right to privacy…hypocrites and retards.
Reply