By FITSNews || Don’t get us wrong, we hate almost everything that U.S. President Barack Obama and his Congressional allies stand for.
Socialized medicine? Phooey.
Cap and trade? Bologna.
Bailouts and deficits? Yuck and double yuck.
We do, however, agree with Obama and his socialized hordes when it comes to gays and lesbians in the U.S. military – and the fact that there should not be a ban against permitting them to serve.
Just as there’s no “gay way” to fill a pot hole, there’s no “gay way” to stop a bullet … or to shoot one.
Props to Congress for taking steps to end this ridiculous policy, which is one of the few things we never liked about welfare reformer and capital gains tax cutter Bill Clinton.
The other think we didn’t like about Clinton?
By Timetostop May 28, 2010 at 12:49 am
What a bunch of bullshit. You guys favor the majority being forced to accept a minority. It is not about being gay or not being gay, it is about the gay community feeling it is their job to tell the world they are queer. why keep it between you, your partner, and the walls, when you can proclaim it to the world and that is why so many are fed up with those types. If a straight citizen went around proclaiming they loved fucking blondes in the ass only on saturdays, we would be locked up. But lets makes it fair shall we, I as a soldier in the 3/4 marines want the right to shower and bunk with the female soldiers. I promise, as do the queers, I will not be attracted to them. I just want equal rights. my cock wont get hard on any of them as I would know they do not want me. I would of course only get sexually excited by the ones who do want me. So lets stop the equality and let me live in the rooms of the females. All this progressive bullshit has gotten way past old. Tell the queers to keep their mouths shut about what should be a private affair, tell them to stop the fake effeminate behavior, and no one will have issue with them. Until them, tell them to fuck off!
By Mike at the beach May 28, 2010 at 1:21 am
Go ahead and start throwing out the accusations that I’m a gay-basher, but here goes…
That sounds really good on it’s face, and in a lot of jobs the arguments are very similar to those used by the anti-female crowd years ago to exclude them from most military jobs that mattered. Here’s a reality most folks don’t get, though. Most jobs in the combat arms (I’m not talking about analysts, cooks, and mail clerks) require soldiers to operate in the most extreme, up-close, and invasive living conditions imaginable. “Togetherness” doesn’t begin to touch it. So much so, I won’t belabor the point here and try to explain it to you other than to say that it’s the reason that women haven’t yet (and likely won’t, at least for a while) broken into the full-on combat units and specops world. Men and women just can’t (normally) function together in those conditions.
During the Afghan/Iraq wars, I generally worked in small teams of 8-12 guys, and we sometimes lived in pickup trucks, caves, and a few really crappy tent cities (when we got lucky). We ate together, slept together, pooped together, and patched each other up as required- you get the picture. The situations dictated that no men’s room-women’s room construction would get done, so there certainly wouldn’t be time nor resources to build a male-female-male homosexual-female homosexual assortment of facilities. Lest you say bathrooms aren’t the crux of the matter, let me say that I agree. It does, however, illustrate the problems inherent to the core mission of the military- (combat) and the conditions attendant to wartime operations.
I liken this debate to the discussions which led to the integration of women into most military jobs. Intellectually, women are obviously as capable as men, but to say that in a general sense there aren’t real physiological and emotional differences between men and women which are relevant to this debate is just not true. To end DADT willy-nilly, before the Pentagon review is complete and a good plan for slowly integrating the new reality into military operations and culture is irresponsible and wrong. In some military jobs it may work; in others it would create bizarre problems. This issue is entirely separate from civil unions, insurance rights, etc., and should be treated as such.
Aaaaah, let the bashing begin…
By Cooter Brown May 28, 2010 at 6:41 am
Didn’t know ye wuz a social engineer, Mista FITS…
I knows dat it is fedral issue, so itz not th’ results, but ratha the intenshun ov th’ law dat counts, but frum th’ militarie folks I know, dey dont want it.
If folks wanna live alternative lifestiles, den far bee it frum Ol’ Cooter t’ git in da way, but t’ make alternative into da mainskreem by an act ov legislashun iz jest plum wrong.
Dis kinda forces ‘sociation didnt help black folks in 1964 an’ it wont help gays in 2010. It’ll end up makin’ things worst dan they alreadie iz for homersextuals.
By rodmiller May 28, 2010 at 7:11 am
What about the rights heterosexuals in the military? Frequently, combat situations necessitate an extreme lack of privacy. Must heterosexuals be forced to shower with homosexuals?
Just look what homosexual “seaman” former Democrat Congressman Massa used to do while “serving” in the US Navy–he regularly spent time in the showers “checking out” the young recruits who had no idea that they were being “evaluated.”
If homosexuals serve in the military and wear their orientation on their shoulders, then non-homosexuals should have the right to at least shower with non homosexuals. After all, no one would order women to shower with men, would they?
Repeal of DODT will open up a legal can of worms which will completely drain our treasury and distract our military from their war fighting missions. Just imagine a homosexual who is demoted for poor discipline. The soldier will claim harrassment due to his/her homosexuality and will sue the military. Our military will be awash in frivilous lawsuits which will completely drag us all down and ultimately compromise our military and national security.
But then again, maybe that’s the mission of Team Obama.
By Rick May 28, 2010 at 7:15 am
As a retired military member….think I’m going to spend a great deal of time and effort saving/treating a meat gazer? What happens when that meat gazer is your commanding officer? Think the sexual harassment rules will come into play? Think the troop affected when feeling that the meat gazer is picking on them or placing them in danger won’t frag the meat gazer? We have enough trouble integrating women in the military, another distraction isn’t in the best interests of this nation.
By haustre May 28, 2010 at 7:18 am
You guys opposing repeal of DADT are being plain silly!
Sure, homosexuals haven’t openly served in the US Armed Forces ever–over 230 plus years.
But Gen. Obama and Gen. Pelosi know better—their military experience is legendary, right?
What do those guys in the Pentagon really know about war-fighting?
By BZ May 28, 2010 at 7:54 am
“Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Is A Good Thing”
Rubbish!
Wasn’t there another battalion of homos who had a great fall?
Why yes, I believe there was — Alexander the Great’s.
By po May 28, 2010 at 8:16 am
Homosexuality is an abomination—Romans Chapt 1. This present administration is the most extreme immorally.
By Myles Keogh May 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
You have obviously never served in the military to come out in support of such garbage as this. If this goes through you can expect to see enlistments and reenlistments drop like a rock.
By sclawboy May 28, 2010 at 8:41 am
Po,
Where does Jesus say a thing about homosexuality? He doesn’t. That was Paul’s hang up.
By lars May 28, 2010 at 8:42 am
Who in their right mind will risk contracting possible HIV by performing mouth to mouth on an open, promiscuous homosexual soldier?
Who is willing to risk contracting HIV by plugging their fingers in a gushing femoral artery of an openly homosexual soldier?
I suspect the Left’s contempt of the military is driving them to ignore the advice of the Pentagon Chiefs who are stating they need more time to complete their studies on the effects of repeal of DADT.
A demoralized and ineffective military is what Team Obama needs and wants.
By tim May 28, 2010 at 8:48 am
seems like the hate mongers on here are still at it…repeal dont ask dont tell is a good thing..you guys are making it like gays are not in the military now…estimated there are 66,000 gay troops…let them serve..without fear of a witchhunt…78% of Americans are FOR REPEAL…Britian, Isreal, Spain, Germany, all allows open gays to serve…our military is ALREADY working just fine with them!! Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, China and North Korea dont let gays serve openly..hmmm..whos company does the US want to be in! Hate to tell you boys..but gays are already sharing the shower..your bunks etc with you!! They dont give a damn about your ass..they want to do their job and serve their country..lets not call the military an honorable institution..and then make people lie and hide about who they are….most people dont give a damn what they do…the standards in joining the military have dropped so low..overweight, criminals etc can now join..its a disgrace…REPEAL dont ask dont tell now…
By The Vigin Mary May 28, 2010 at 8:58 am
It might be an abomonination in your eyes, po, but same sex love, especially the love making, is right on the money, baby.
By vicupstate May 28, 2010 at 9:20 am
To all of the anti-repeal posters, your arguments all fall in the face of the facts. All soldiers are screened for HIV before they ever wear a uniform. There is also no gurantee that a hetro soldier doesn’t have HIV.
As for the boner in the shower argument, GAYS ARE ALREADY SERVING and SHOWERING. They ain’t gonna start getting boners because a law passes!!
If any man or woman is willing to put their life between me and those that would do us all harm, I say Thank you, and I am not going to ask what they do in the bedroom. I suggest you do the same.
This isn’t about ‘gay pride’, it is about good soldiers losing their jobs and being dishanoarably discharged for no good reason.
Within 12 months of DADT’s demise, everyone will wonder why we took so long.
By lars May 28, 2010 at 9:40 am
vicupstate-Why is the radical Obama administration ramming this policy down the throats of the Pentagon professionals without the appropiate studies as requested by the chiefs of all the braches of the military?
Hmmmm…
And Tim, maybe we should wait to see what the currently serving troops think about repeal of DODT before we act so presumptively and brashly over the heads of the Pentagon war planners.
By John May 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
Precisely, Vic. You couldn’t be more correct.
http://www.sldn.org/
By Just Saying May 28, 2010 at 9:47 am
Vic – you are obviously an expert on the subject! Not!
Yes, we get screened for HIV – every two to five years whether we need it or not but that isn’t the real issue.
The real issue is unit cohesion and adherence to standards. We have enough problem keeping Joe and Molly out of the sack when we billet them in separate sleeping areas. What do we do now, have “his”, “hers” and “homos” billeting? You cannot even begin to comprehend the issues that heterosexual “affairs” cause in Army units and now we’re going to invite open sexual behavior into the barracks. That’s the real difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual, the manner and choice of partners when engaging in sexual behavior (along with a keen and innate desire to decorate and accessorize)
I know for a fact that two of the female Soldiers in my unit are lesbians. They are both professional, competent Soldiers. Neither is in favor of repealing DODT because of the backlash that the “We’re here and we’re queer” crowd are going to cause. I do not allow conversations of a sexual nature that have the potential to cause offense or misinterpretation to occur in my unit. My heterosexual Soldiers don’t talk about who they slept with and if the “here and queer crowd” would just keep their mouths shut, no one would know or care that they were “here and queer”.
By Brandon May 28, 2010 at 10:37 am
Does this mean cross dressing men can now wear the standard female uniform?
By pat May 28, 2010 at 10:49 am
With the repeal of DIDT, we may expect Christian chaplains who preach on bibical concepts regarding sexuality will be forced to recant Judeo-Christian teachings regarding homosexuality.
Speech codes will be strictly enforced and any chaplain who dares preach against homosexuality will likely either be thrown in the brig or dishonorably discharged for being “bigoted” and for inspiring “hate crimes.”
Why do Democrats demand that the military recklessly abandon over 230 years of proven military policy?
Can anyone truly claim that reversing DODT will make America’s soldiers better fighters and more effective at protecting America?
I think not.
By Rick May 28, 2010 at 10:57 am
Brandon-why not? Why just think of it….Bob is now Jane…which barracks,head,and job is it entitled to? Does it now have the right to determine which uniform they want to wear on a given “feeling” morning? How does Jim deal with Janes rooming with him? Does Bob move into the womens barracks and shower with Sarah? The problem with the issue is that Meat gazers aren’t happy to just exist and serve, they want you to know and approve. When you know and don’t approve, then the legal profession and the bleeding hearts will jump in. This will lead to other issues. What happens when the Corpsman refuses to do whatever is necessary to save “Bob” after knowing Bob has been crusing?
By Corey May 28, 2010 at 11:29 am
Why not just admit you guys are libertarians, and not conservatives? Because clearly you’re ideologically committed to equality, even in a setting such as the military that does not reflect the society at large, in a way that conservatives cannot be. While gays deserve equal rights in our society, the military does not exists for one purpose: to kill people. If implementing (read: imposing) some policy or another on the military means reducing their ability and morale for killing the bad guys, then it’s not something we ought to be doing. Simply arguing that DADT (which is not in the law that is being repealed) is discriminatory does not justify overturning the military’s ban on openly gay service.
The non sequitur that there is “no gay or straight way to stop a bullet” has nothing to do with the argument against gays serving in the military, either.
By WTF? May 28, 2010 at 11:42 am
As a combat veteran, I don’t give a damn about your sexual preference when the bullets are flying. Having said this, I DON’T want to know what your preference is, was, or might be……. Hence, I have no problem with DADT….. What you do as a consenting adult, behind closed doors, is your business, and I far prefer it that way.
By vicupstate May 28, 2010 at 11:56 am
BTW, the law that passed requires the Pentagon to complete it’s review before this becomes law. Petraus and Poweel are certainly in favor of repeal.
Just Sayin’, the rules on hetrosexual and homosexual SEXUAL RELATIONS will not be changed, nor should they be changed. All this does is end the witchhunts.
If hetrosexuals can’;t serve without having affairs with other soldiers, then I say don’t let them serve. A homosexual only service might be the answer. [see how illogical your own logic is ??]
Why haven’t you reported those dykes ??? Could it be that they are DAMN GOOD SOLDIERS? How about letting other DAMN GOOD SOLDIERS serve in peace!!
By John May 28, 2010 at 11:57 am
It’s no wonder that anyone from SC with half a brain leaves the Palmetto State and heads north. Bunch of seersucker and bow tie wearing rednecks.
By vicupstate May 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
Pat
NOT removing trained, capable service men and women from service WILL inprove effectiveness.
By Bobby May 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I agree with you. Anyone who wants to wear the uniform of our nation’s military should be allowed to. Gay or straight, they are all more courageous than the numerous politicians who have found a way to avoid serving.
By pat May 28, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Will the VA pay for sex change surgeries now that homosexuals are given the green light to “serve”?
Will tax payer monies appropriated for defence spending instead pay for sex change surgeries?
Will transexuals be issued a special uniforms?
Will there be “special” bunking for transexuals?
Will non-transexuals and non homosexuals be given the “right” to refuse to shower in front of transexuals and homosexuals?
Will non transexuals and non homosexuals be afforded the same rights as homosexuals and transexuals?
Will polygamists, pediphiles, and those who engage in bestiality be afforded the same rights as hemosexuals?
Where will the military draw the line at sexual deviance and sexual impropriety?
Will clergy be charged for hate crimes for preaching biblical teachings condeming sexual deviance?
By lando May 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Who is more qualified to construct military policy in the time of war?
A.career politicians who have never served in the military
B. career military professionals who have risked their lives serving their country all over the world in various conflicts
Apparently, Team Obama believes that they know more than the Pentagon leadership.
By The Colonel May 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Just a request for all of you posting on this issue. Please factually state whether you have served or not.
By WTF? May 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Well Colonel, I think I did say so…. but in answer to your question. YES, I served for over 20 years, and oddly enough, I’m also a Colonel.
By Myles Keogh May 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
US Navy 1989 to 1994.
By The Colonel May 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm
WTF – you were the only one that did, I just thought it would shed a little light on the perspective of the commentor. I happen to be in SWA now. The general consensus among the soldiers I’ve spoken to is don’t change the policy, or, and I’m quoting here, “…people just need to keep there f&@#ing mouth shut and their hands to themselves…”. I think the quote best captures the issue.
Someone else referred to the “here and queer” crowd and I agree that if that becomes a norm, we wil have issues. If they just “keep their mouth shut and their hands to themselves”, we may not have a problem but anyone who thinks that it will be painless has never “walked a post”. I think we will have issues in billeting but in the end, it’ll work out.
I find it odd that it is always a Democrat president, who has never served, that makes this an issue. We’ve got bigger issues facing the military but the “social change crowd” sees a window to climb through and is taking advantage of it.
By WTF? May 28, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Colonel, I couldn’t agree more! I did the SWA thing, before most people ever heard of SWA. I jumped into Grenada, did several tours in Central America, and several MNF tours in the Sinai and Lebanon. I even served with a guy, who after going to work for the Pentagon, decided to have a sex change. I never knew he was a Transgendered person, and frankly wish I didn’t know about it now. Still, it is his business, and while we were getting shot at, I wouldn’t have cared. Hence my belief that DADT worked just fine. Probelm with “social change” people that never served is that they are 1. Too quick to pull the trigger; 2. Too quick to “fix” something that isn’t broken; and, 3. Too quick to listen to polls from a sampling of people who also never served.
By cat48 May 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Curious, did you hate the car and bank bailouts when Bushie did them or just when a Dem completes what the Repubs start???
Also, Poppie Bush had capntrade for acid rain, but I guess it’s ok if your a Republican, as so many things seem to be here in good ‘ol SC.
By Rednecks 'R Us May 28, 2010 at 2:54 pm
If DADT applied to heterosexaul servicemen and women, those in favor of maintaining DADT might — emphasis on might — have an argument. But it doesn’t, and they don’t.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/repealdadt?source=feature
http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/jcs-chairman-admiral-michael-mullen-supports-repeal-vote-sldn-responds-to-s/
JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen Supports Repeal Vote; SLDN Responds to Service Chiefs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2010
Paul DeMiglio: (202) 621-5408 or pdemiglio@sldn.org
JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen Supports Repeal Vote; SLDN Responds to Service Chiefs
Critical votes in Senate Armed Services Committee and on the House floor just hours away
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), highlighted today that Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed to media that he is comfortable with impending repeal votes expected in the House and Senate. Adm. Mullen made his comments to The American Forces press Service: http://bit.ly/dfGOAT. SLDN also responded to a letter released by the service chiefs of the armed forces to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) advocating against repeal of DADT repeal.
Statement by Army veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis:
“Repeal is moving forward with the support of the Pentagon and we welcome the comments by JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen. As he said: ‘The language in there right now preserves my prerogative – and I believe, my responsibility – to give the best military advice.’
“Admiral Mullen is on the right side of history. The service chiefs, however, appear to have forgotten that Congress is the policy maker here, and that they do not determine when Congress votes on any given issue. The letters from the Chiefs to the Republican opposition in the Armed Services Committees is not only inappropriate, it is also unfortunate.
“The chiefs are objecting to the beginning of the legislative process, to the first votes, and to the very compromise that insures service members and their families will be strategically engaged and heard from throughout this debate, during the summer, and well into the fall before the final vote is cast and this becomes law. What is unprecedented about this side show is that the chiefs have volunteered to be drawn into a political distraction orchestrated by a few in the minority.
“This is not about how the legislative process is unfolding, as the chiefs now suggest in their letters to McKeon and McCain, this is about open service versus hidden and fraudulent service to our country. These chiefs were already on record earlier this year testifying in House and Senate hearings in opposition to open service, and I might add that testimony violated their own agreement with Admiral Mullen to support the engagement process that he and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had outlined before Congress in early February.
“Former JCS Chairman General John Shalikashvili got it right yesterday — the repeal compromise allows for service members and their families to be heard from and for Congress to set in place a path that will lead to open service in a matter of months. A historic record is being built here and the history books will show that these chiefs and Mr. Mckeon and Senator McCain were not only on the wrong side, but that they fought their darnest to keep this injustice in place. It will also record that they went to the edge in pushing the chain of command.”
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A journalists’ guide is available here.
By Buzz May 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I’m waiting for the day when goat lovers can feel free to express themselves and serve in the military. Those arab countries are full of goats …. a great place to serve.
By Myles Keogh May 28, 2010 at 3:12 pm
CJCS Admiral Mike Mullen = Dumber then a bag of hammers
Served with him. He is a politcal opportunist whose leadership skills leave a lot to be desired.
The previous CJCS General Peter Pace would have told Obama politely and respectfull to go jump in a lake rather then subject the military to this kind of social engineering.
If this goes through watch morale, enlistments and reenlistments drop like a rock.
By WTF? May 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I agree with you Myles… on both points. The bag of hammers is definitely an opportunist. After all, if you as Chairman of the JCS do not please the Commander and Chief, you will be politely asked to leave and they will find a muppet that they can control. I’m also not particulary impressed with the argument that it doesn’t apply to heterosexuals, since that argument is a wonderful blend of apples, oranges, and BS. Finally, anyone who cites to the “official talking points” website, (written by someone who probably never heard a shot in anger), is also not exactly going to impress me.
By ChrisM May 28, 2010 at 4:20 pm
4 years US Navy 2 tours of shore duty in a war zone. There were gays there when I got there and they were there when I left. I never missed a shower, wasn’t molested and am sure enough of my identify that I was in no way threatened by someone elses. So, get over it folks DADT will soon be history, as it should be, and you can direct all of your hatred and stupidity toward something else.
By Mike at the beach May 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Here’s another “big un-said thing” most of the pro-repeal folks are ignoring. Four-star generals are political animals; don’t equate their support for an issue as a wholly military decision if it occurs off of a battlefield. They read polls and have political ambitions, too.
Also, for the few who have asked, I did serve. I also saw first-hand a few incidents where DADT was working just fine (although we didn’t call it that back in the day) until that soldier decided to act upon their homosexual orienation. Several of you are also correct in that this whole thing is self-evident- I just disagree in regard to why. Although I usually pride myself on the proper use of logic and rhetoric, this thing makes me just want to say, “Really?!” Can’t we just leave the combat units alone? How do you not see how weird this be for the soldiers?
By lando May 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Myles Keogh,
Your point is well made. Obama wants to de-fang the fighting capacity of the American military. There’s no better way than to drive off the warriors in droves. Obama knows that by repealig DODT prematurely and against the advice of the Pentagon, “morale, enlistments and reenlistments will drop like a rock…”
That’s Obama’s mission and that of the anti-patriot, Radical Left.
By Rednecks 'R Us May 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm
ChrisM — brilliant.
May 27, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I served my country for over 30 years. I enlisted in the Army as a private and retired as a Major General. During that time, I saw a great deal of change in the Armed Forces. Racial segregation was ended in the ranks, women were recognized as equals and we moved to an all volunteer force.
My father was a laborer, my mother a domestic worker. I knew that there was no way I was headed for college. As a young Black Man I enlisted in the army long before President Truman desegregated the armed forces.
I served in segregated units (all Black) before being selected for Officers Candidate School. I then attended an integrated Leadership Academy and then Officers Candidate School which was also integrated. After graduation from OCS I was assigned to a combat arms unit for which I had been trained. I was reassigned to a service unit (Graves Registration) that was all Black.
The message was clear: It did not matter that I was qualified to serve in a combat arms unit that happen to be all white. It only mattered that I was Black.
Mr. President, I know what it is like to be thought of as second-class, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of who you are or what you look like. I also know what a difference it made to me and others when President Truman eliminated segregation in the Armed Forces and placed qualification ahead of discrimination.
As a retired Army Commander, I also know how disruptive it is to remove a trained skilled member from a unit. In Korea, I had a Sergeant First Class in my unit who was gay. it was no secret. He was in charge of the unit’s communication. He was essential to our performance and our survival and he was dam good at his job. If I had to remove him, our unit’s effectiveness, as well as morale, most certainly would have been harmed.
Military leadership is about being able to constantly adapt to change, and I have seen the Army implement significant change and react to new directives since I enlisted. Perhaps the greatest military change is that we are now an all volunteer force. I cannot believe that we could have made that transition successfully if the services were still segregated or if the roles of women in the ranks had not been greatly expanded.
The services have, for the most part, kept pace with changes in American society as to matters of race and gender. Likewise, they must now keep pace with the changed attitude among the American people, especially younger generations, concerning sexual orientation. If they do not, military service will become a less viable option for more and more young people, and the quality of our forces will suffer. I suggest that the warriors of tomorrow will not want to become a part of an institution that does not respect their peers.
The men and women who volunteer to serve, especially in dangerous times, are the most important resource of our armed services. This includes the lesbian and gay troops who have served – and – are serving honorably. Just like their heterosexual service members, they risk their lives to defend our country. Our country owes it to them, and to all our troops to treat all who serve with respect and gratitude.
Our armed services believe in, and promote, the idea that one person can make a real difference. To commanders on the ground in Iraq, an Arabic linguist can make a difference. To a parent, whose son is bleeding on the battlefield, one lesbian nurse can make a difference.
You, too, Mr. President, can and will make a real difference here. You can make a difference in whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed this year, and whether implementation comes shortly thereafter.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Mr. President, do all you can; stand with us and work with us to end this denigration of our American values.
Respectfully,
Major General Vance Coleman
United States Army (Ret.)
By lando May 28, 2010 at 5:54 pm
My granfather was a retired major general in the Army. He volunteered to fight in WWII. He was a warrior’s warrior. He’s rolling in his grave now. The only “denigration” of American values is the wholesale sell-out of our national security to a bunch of military-hating, radical leftists who view the military as a platform for social experimentation.
Mr. Coleman, one’s sexual preferences are a CHOICE.
One’s ethnicity isn’t.
Big difference.
( And I suspect Gen. George Patton would oppose repeal of DADT–but then again, my grandfather and Gen. Patton actually fought wars America actually WON–)
By myles keogh May 28, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“4 years US Navy 2 tours of shore duty in a war zone. There were gays there when I got there and they were there when I left. I never missed a shower, wasn’t molested and am sure enough of my identify that I was in no way threatened by someone elses. So, get over it folks DADT will soon be history, as it should be, and you can direct all of your hatred and stupidity toward something else.”
Chris,
I am sure that will ease the memories of one of the former sailors with whom I served who was raped on shore leave by a fellow sailor with whom he served in the same command with.
By Mike at the beach May 28, 2010 at 6:39 pm
As usual, if you’re out of logical arguments just accuse your opponents (even those with intellectually honest and logically held views) of “hatred and stupidity.” I won’t stoop to that level, because I am confident in the efficacy of my view. You have shown us where you are, though.
By myles keogh May 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm
While I respect General Coleman’s service to our country he is completely WRONG. As Mike at the Beach points out the attempt to link racism with a person’s opinion support of DODT is not going to fly.
By Miguel May 28, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Mike, your logic is what, exactly? If DADT applied to men who like to bang chicks, as opposed to other guys, then you might have something. This is not 1950, though it sounds like that’s how you roll.
And admit it, Mike, you know you’ve thought about kissing another guy.
By Rednecks 'R Us May 28, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Reasons to repeal DADT.
1. END DISCRIMINATION
No other law mandates firing someone because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual.
2. STRENGTHEN MILITARY READINESS
At a time when our armed forces are increasingly strained, “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” has resulted in the discharge of over 11,000 service members, including dozens of Arabic linguists and hundreds of people with skills for which the military is experiencing critical shortages.
3. SAVE TAX PAYER MONEY
A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission report found that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” caused the Pentagon to waste over $360 million in tax payer funds between 1994 and 2003.
4. HONOR OUR TROOPS
The at least 65,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans currently serve in the US Armed Forces, and one million gay veterans, should not be treated as second class citizens.
5. STOP THE DOUBLE-STANDARD
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” requires gay service members to hide the truth about who they are, which runs counter to the military’s ideals of honesty and integrity.
6. STAND UP FOR WOMEN
While women comprise 15% of military personnel, they account for 30% of discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
7. JOIN OUR ALLIES
American troops serve without incident side-by-side with personnel in foreign militaries and national security agencies which do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
8. REPEAL THE HYPOCRISY
Consistent with trends in past conflicts, discharges have dropped about 50% since 9/11.
9. LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE
Every report commissioned by the Federal government has concluded that the ban could be lifted without determent to readiness.
10. DO WHAT’S RIGHT
Recent polls show about three-quarters of the American public believes that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be able to serve openly.
By Rednecks 'R Us May 28, 2010 at 11:53 pm
April 26, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
If you end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), I’d re-enlist the day you sign repeal into law.
For thirteen years, I served in the United States Air Force where I attained the rank of major before I was discharged under DADT.
As the Senate Armed Services Committee considers including repeal in the Defense Authorization bill, we’re very close — just two or three votes — to passing repeal in committee. I ask for you to voice your support to put us over the top.
I come from a family with a rich legacy of military service. My father is a West Point graduate who taught chemistry at the Air Force Academy, flew helicopters in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a senior officer from the Air Force. One of my uncles retired as a Master Gunnery Sergeant from the Marine Corps, with service in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Another uncle served in the Army in Korea.
Growing up, I didn’t really know what civilians did, I just knew I would follow in my father’s footsteps and become a military officer.
I joined Air Force ROTC in 1988 and was awarded a scholarship. I earned my jump wings in 1991. In 1992, I graduated from ROTC in the top 10% of all graduates nationwide. In 1993, I went on active duty, just as DADT was becoming a law.
Stationed in Oklahoma, I was named officer of the year for my unit of nearly 1,000 people. Later, I was one of six officers selected from the entire Air force to attend Professional Military Education at Quantico, Virginia.
During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times. In my last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq. We came under daily mortar attacks, one of which struck one of my Airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air Force.
In the stress of a war zone, the Air Force authorized us to use our work email accounts for “personal or morale purposes” because private email accounts were blocked for security.
Shortly after I left Iraq — during a routine search of my computer files — someone found that my “morale” was supported by the person I loved — a man.
The email — our modern day letter home — was forwarded to my commander.
I was relieved of my duties, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated.
In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops wrote character reference letters for me, including one of my squadron commanders. Their letters expressed their respect for me as an officer, their hope to have me back on the job and their shock at how the Air Force was treating me.
Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my Wing Commander recommended I be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing my discharge.
But instead, after 16 months, I was given a police escort off the base as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security. The severance pay I received was half of what it would have been had I been separated for any other reason.
Despite this treatment, my greatest desire is still to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the United States Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military.
Mr. President, I want to serve. Please fulfill your promise to repeal DADT and give me that chance.
Thank you,
Major Mike Almy
United States Air Force
By Mike at the beach May 28, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Miguel,
Man, when you folks run out of logic you really hit a wall. To answer your question, though, my logic is just that- logic.
DADT does not relate in any way to the race issue, heterosexual troops, the 1950′s, or whether or not I thought about kissing some dude when I was in the Army. I’ll break it down for you from a logical standpoint, then you can throw some more of your silliness back at me later (this may save you from having to take an undergrad rhetoric/reason/logic course one day).
Your entire argument is a straw man, in that it misrepresents my position. Your reference to “men who like to bang chics” is especially puzzling, since it serves to reinforce my point. This is precisely how we (as a society) choose to stratify, separate, and address the gender issue. In the vast majority of cultures throughout history, collective gender groups have been separated in situations involving intimacy, nudity, bodily functions, etc. It’s the reason restrooms are male/female (or have good locks). It’s the reason women (generally) aren’t comfortable bunking, bathing, and defecating with men, who (generally) “like to bang chics.” It’s really as basic as that.
You are right in one respect; DADT does not apply to heterosexual men. The natural assumption is that we “like to bang chics.” Therein lies one of the core problems. It’s that assumption (that a group is homogenous in certain respects) that provides the cultural and social ability to successfully live in conditions like we’ve discussed.
To compare this debate with your Red Herring of the painful and wrong-headed history of discrimination faced by people of color in this country is not only another logical fallacy, but disingenuous (I assume that’s what your “1950′s” reference was all about, since that’s when the racial integration of our military began in earnest). I won’t monopolize the space here, but attempts to equate the racial struggle for civil rights to that of gay rights is a wholly separate issue for a myriad of reasons, most notably that the generally accepted gender differentiations I referenced earlier cut across a broad spectrum of races and cultures- they’re two separate issues.
You also employed the classic logical fallacy of the false dilemma. Why does the DADT debate have to be either-or? The obvious answer is that it does not. I think I made it rather plain that my position is a bit more nuanced than that. I likened the service of gay soldiers to that of female soldiers. I am against neither, by the way, for the military at large. In ground combat units (or other units where close quarters billeting issues may arise) I simply made the argument that integrating openly gay servicemembers would be problematic at best.
Finally, you provided a little additional insight as to your attitude toward homosexuals by the use of your last ad hominem attack directed at me; your inference that I thought about “kissing another guy” can be interpreted in one of two ways- either as a pejorative (in that you think that if I was gay that would render me inferior to you), or, that I am some raging homophobe who’s head would catch on fire at the mere accusation. Sorry to disappoint. Although I happen to be straight, I am also a small-L libertarian who believes that what you do with your genitals is entirely your business until it effects another person(s). Hence, my position on DADT reconciles perfectly with my underlying belief in homosexual rights elsewhere in the social equation, just not in ground combat units.
Finally, an aside. Several posts have referenced the majority of public support for the repeal, to which I say a big “so, what?” A majority of Americans in the 1940’s and 50’s favored de jure racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc. If Obama used that logic, he would have dropped his health care push by now, but he obviously believes it’s the right thing to do.
If the majority is right, rest comfortably within it; if it’s wrong, work to change their opinions. I believe I’m right on this, I just worry that as a society we’ve lost our ability to intellectually debate an issue. Oh, well; I’ll go down swinging…
By Runargorun May 29, 2010 at 9:00 am
Most of you are complete idiots.
There ARE gays in the military, plenty of us. We are all around you in all walks of life. If you could meet the ‘straight’ men I have had an ‘inappropriate physical relationship’ with you would realize the gays can be your best friend, your neighbor, your DAD.
You think I’m kidding? I’m not.
DADT was stupid to begin with. It’s about time we get rid of it. To the gay bashers on this post – a hefty percentage of you are wrestling with your own homosexual impulses and your inability to accept them. Others are naive in your thinking because you don’t seem to realize how many people are homosexual you never DREAMED are homosexual. Without your knowledge you are probably in daily contact with gay individuals who you probably actually like, but have no idea they’re gay.
For all you raging ‘phobes out there: May your sons grow up to like men, may your wife leave you for another woman and may your daughters try to wear a tuxedo and take a girl to the prom.
Karma’s a bitch, man.
PS – you guys who were in a college fraternity – hahahahahah – the joke’s on you. 30 years after college I have heard the fantastic tales of sanctioned homosexual behavior in fraternities by the former members who finally came out. It’s quite illuminating how a bunch of guys can be in denial about what they are doing. (Elephant walks! Nude rituals!) Fraternities have always operated on a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Pretend Like Jacking Off Your Buddy Doesn’t Mean Anything’ kind of philosophy. Half of the alumni of fraternities (and the Boy Scouts) have indulged in some gay hanky panky but they just pretend like it doesn’t mean anything.
By john larson May 29, 2010 at 9:19 am
the problem no one wants to acknowledge is most of us “know” there is something wrong with being gay…something has gone wrong…it is not normal…but you can’t say that without being called a bunch of names
By Sarah Shelton May 29, 2010 at 9:44 am
Comparing “blacks” to “gays” is like comparing apples and oranges. Anyone, with any common sense, would know people are saying the gays are being discriminated against as the blacks were.
Get a grip people and use the common sense God gave you
By Miguel May 29, 2010 at 10:47 am
Mike,
You still have not clearly articulated the logic that supports your (what I believe to be) flawed conclusion that DADT should remain in place. As best as I can decipher it, your polemic is based on the false premise that homosexuals are somehow different than heterosexuals. Aside from being attracted to the same sex, homosexual men and women are no different than heterosexual men and women. Some work hard, some don’t. Some are smart, some aren’t. Some are in committed, monogamous relationships, some aren’t. Some are fathers and mothers, some aren’t. Some attend church, some don’t. Some volunteer their time to make their communities better, some don’t, et cetera. DADT is founded on fear, prejudice, and myth, not fact, logic, or reason.
BTW, were you using “myriad” as a noun or an adjective?
C’mon, you’ve never thought about feeling the touch of another man’s nude body on yours? Just messin’ with you.
By Gus May 29, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Openly homosexual is a safety issue. Here’s a scenario: Openly homosexual 2nd Lt and former ROTC member at Harvard, degree in biology (pre-med) is the first to join the military after DADT is lifted.
He bravely leads his platoon into a firefight and takes an enemy round to his thigh. An evac helicopter is called and till it arrives the medic performs first aid. The medic believes the Lt. is losing blood so the medic tells the currently lucent Lt. that a transfusion is needed. The medic looks at his handheld and finds two in the platoon share the Lt’s blood type. The Lt obviously knows both well–one is also an admitted homosexual the other is married to a woman.
Who do you think the Lt who studied biology and was the top in his stats class would want the transfusion from?
By Mike at the beach May 29, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Miguel,
Dude, if homosexuals weren’t different from heterosexuals we wouldn’t need different terms. They most certainly are different. Different doesn’t mean sub-human, or even less worthy of fair treatment, but different it is. Nothing I wrote can be construed as any sort of value judgment regarding the backgrounds or worth of homosexual persons. I was dealing strictly with one practical aspect of their service in a narrow slice of military units. I can’t explain it any more thoroughly that I did, so I guess we’re at an impasse there.
I also disagree with your assertion that DADT was “founded on fear, prejudice, and myth, not fact, logic, or reason.” DADT was, in fact, a political cop-out designed to avoid directly addressing the issue. If fear, prejudice, etc. had really created some kind of homophobic hysteria, homosexuals would have been clearly banned from service and that would have been that. This issue is fraught with all kinds of subtexts and side issues; it’s not nearly as clear-cut as many would like it. Gay activists tend to portray DADT as a straight-up civil rights / victimhood thing, but that’s not accurate.
As for the grammar lesson, the “myriad” debate takes me waaaay back to the ol’ AP English days…
Writers now use “myriad” as a noun or an adjective, although the older use (generally considered “more correct”) is the noun, as I chose to write it. Check it out; if “a myriad of” was good enough for Thoreau, it’s good enough for me…
As for your continued homoerotic weirdness at the end of your posts- still not getting to me. If I suddenly have a full-on mental breakdown and realize that you have somehow made me recognize that I am, after all, gay, I will let you know. I’m not thinking that’s in the cards, though…
By Miguel May 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm
If one supports equal treatment of people, does that make him or her a “gay activist” or just someone who supports equal treatment of humans? I’d say the latter.
I’m aware of DADT’s evolution and the political compromises involved, but continuing to not allow openly gay service men and women to serve in the armed forces is still a policy based on myths, fears, and stereotypes. The United Kingdom, among other nations, allows homosexuals to serve in its military, and they’ve not imploded, nor has the sky over there fallen. Mike, I think I agree that we disagree on this topic.
Call me old fashioned, but the notion of bad grammar becoming acceptable simply because we keep dumbing down the mother tongue is, well, not cool in my book. I suppose I’m not “modern” enough.
Most of my heterosexual friends have shared with me that, at one time or another, they’ve been curious about what it would be like to have sex with someone of the same sex. Maybe it’s because most of my friends aren’t from the repressed South, where the wounds from losing the War of Northern Aggression still fester.
Gus, your hypothetical, while imaginative, is devoid of critical facts necessary to reach an informed decision. For example, does the “admitted homosexual” use condoms when he has sex? Does the other guy who’s married to a woman (is he an “admitted heterosexual”?) cheat on his wife? Does she have sex with others when he’s deployed? Do they use condomes? Are they all HIV negative? I’d bet that the serviceman would take blood from whomever was closest, assuming he or she was not ill. I guess I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. That the United States’ prohibition of openly gay men and women from serving in the military is justified because you incorrectly assume that heterosexuals don’t have HIV?
Now that we’ve had this fascinating exchange, maybe FITS will drop a bomb and provide photos of his alleged inappropriate whatever it was . . . .
By lincoln May 29, 2010 at 5:45 pm
It’s intriguing that homosexual activists liken their “struggle” with that of minorities achieving “rights.”
As a minority, I am deeply offended by the comparison.
I can’t change my chromosomes or my ethnicity (nor would care to).
I sure as hell can control where I insert my genitals.
Homosexuality is a choice.
Don’t compare your lifestyle choice to ethnicity–it’s intellectually dishonest.
By Hugh G. Rection May 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Abe, congratulations on being able to control where you insert your genitals. Your father and mother must be very proud of you. What kind of minority are you?
Not sure if anyone compared homosexuality to ethnicity, aside from you. Have fun arguing with yourself.
I wish you all the best in your quest to control where you insert your genitals — aside from your right hand, do you insert your genitals somewhere else?
By C20H26N2O May 29, 2010 at 9:53 pm
The Gay PARADOX: A gay man has the brain chemisty of a female, and is really a woman trapped in a man’s body, and is therefore attracted to a man. His partner looks like a man, but also shares the same brain chemistry, and is therefore technically a woman as well. So we got 2 women here – trapped in mens’ bodies with parts they weren’t supposed to get from the factory, trying to have a relationship. It turns out bad any way you look at it. I feel sorry for them, but they have established a poor record with monogamy, and have set world records for sexually transmitted diseases. The good gays have to accept the standards set by the whole gay population. No sane person should risk the integrity of the US military by allowing open gay service. Not ever.
By Mike at the beach May 30, 2010 at 2:34 am
Miguel,
I can’t take any more DADT debate with you, because every time you reply you bring up more unrelated points (e.g., the UK military- with whom I have fought- but don’t necessarily want our military to model, the “repressed” south, etc.). It could go on for decades…
I feel compelled, however, to address one final non-DADT point prior to saying adieu; You totally missed the gist of the “myriad” thing… its use as a noun IS proper, and the manner in which I used it is actually the original usage, which dates back all the way to the 16th Century. It only became commonly used as an adjective in more recent times. Henry David Thoreau famously used the phrase “a myriad of” in several of his pieces, and as writers go he’s probably considered at least as successful in the art as we are. So, if anyone’s trashing the Queen’s English it would have to be on your side of this transaction.
Adieu, and best of luck.
By Timetostop May 30, 2010 at 3:22 am
You pro appeal folks never cease to amaze me. For most of the military and normal society, excluding dumbasses who simply live to put down others, it is not nor has it ever been about queers serving. No one is stupid, we all know they have been in the military for a long time. What it boils down to is, people are fed up with the queer agenda…”tell everyone and make them like it!” The issue boils down to keep you mouth shut, hetro and homo, serve your country, and when you get out you can scream to the heavens how you like to screw. As a general rule, a man no more wants to be naked with another man who openly admits he wants men then does a woman want to be naked with a man who she know like women when they do not have a relationship. Most do not care if gays serve, they simply want them to keep their private affairs where it should belong.
By charlie May 30, 2010 at 7:00 am
All you homosexual activists on this site are spewing disinformation.
66,000 homosexuals in the military.
What a bogus number!
One million homosexual vets…
Pleeaaase, people!
Don’t resort to hyperbole and completely unverifiable stats.
You guys seem dishonest and desperate.
By myles keogh May 30, 2010 at 9:25 am
The homosexual lobby is well known for disinformation ie., Lying.
66,000 homosexuals in the military.
One million gay vets.
Lies about historical or entertainment figures that were or are in the closet ranging from St Paul to Abraham Lincoln to John Wayne and Tom Selleck. St Paul, Lincoln and Wayne were all dead and could not defend themselves. Thankfully Selleck is a alive and filed a libel lawsuit and won against these loons who claimed he was gay.
Campaigns on college campuses that if you wear blue jeans on a particular day you support gay rights knowing that pretty much all kids wear jeans as part of the fashions.
Any lie or misinformation they can use or a fact to completely distort to try justify their perverted life style.
They militant and in your face because it is a direct reflection of individuals who are not only mentally imbalanced but emotionally unstable because they know deep down they are fucked up and they can’t handle it.
By charlie May 30, 2010 at 11:04 am
What’s the big rush in repealing DADT?
We are in the middle of two wars.
Why don’t the Democrats trust the Pentagon enough to give them a few more months to complete their study?
What’s the big rush?
How many BILLIONs of dollars will have to be wasted on contructing transexual bunks, showers, and living arrangements in every single military installation?
By ceilidh10 May 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Gays have always been there in the miltary and they apparently do as good as job as any straight person. A person who does not do his job in the miltary get released, right? a person who admits he is gay also gets released, as of today. people who misbehave also get released and receive a less than honorable discharge. Just as there are rules and regulations governing conduct between men and women, there should be rules about male/male behavior. Just becuase you are gay does not mean you will be as free as a bird in the military. Rules of conduct can and should be utilized to govern all behavior whether straight or gay. It’s about maintaining good order. Your capacity to serve your country and do a good job should have nothing to do with your orientation and everything to do with your behavior and conduct and attitude while serving.
By madcock May 31, 2010 at 6:51 am
This is not about discrimination. This is about moving some socially progressive agenda on our U.S. Military. If gays want to serve fine. Just don’t tell anyone about it. I do not go about telling everyone the relationship between me and my wife. If I were a soldier, I would also not want to know that a fellow recruit was gay. First of all, I agree with the above that it is an abomination and should not be viewed as normal. In fact, if one were to look back prior to all of the “social reform”, there was a diagnosis for those who viewed themselves as being gay. It was a psychiatric diagnosis and treatment was recommended. Maybe, if they self identify, we could enroll them in a treatment program to get them the help they need to overcome this afflication. Let’s start with helping them overcome this problem instead of just openly recognizing it and wearing it like a badge of honor (which it is not!).
By No Way! June 1, 2010 at 6:41 am
Maybe we should focus on finding a cure for this deviant behavior instead of just accepting it! Should we allow rapists to have additional rights in the military?
Fight homosexuality! Find a cure!
By vanhellslinger June 2, 2010 at 11:41 am
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
What a mistake giving gays this right. Gay males have one thing in common with straight males, and that is they are endowed with male aggression. The proof, gays seeking to join the military, gay priests that molest children, and patient zeroism. The straight male would find thousands of sex partners if he could, but the female acts as a counter balance and keeps the rate down. Aggressive gay males encounter other gay males and there is no stopping the sex, which is why patient zero is considered the father of the AIDS plague. MRSA is proof that AIDS didn’t teach the gay men a lesson. If gay men were not aggressive then AIDS might have not made it globally, it’s all about the growth rate and how gay male promiscuity accelerated the disease to the mainstream. Giving into gay activism is like enabling alcoholics
• The point was simply that the average woman acts as a counter balance to common male aggression. That is they are the opposite of male aggression. Defining what is male aggression may make you realize who you are Bullfrogpond! You certainly have some of it! The territorial imperative isn’t all there is to understanding the evolution of male dominance.
This is simply math and it’s factually based. The Law of Probability say’s gay males are a threat to public health! Patting them on the back with this promotion is wrong and dangerous.
If you stop to help a woman with a flat tire, and she didn’t ask you, that’s male aggression. Maybe you say there is no intent to make sexual advances, but the subconscious mind may very well be reacting habitually and instinctively.
If the average straight male has 1 to 20 sex partners per year and the average gay male has 20 to 500 sex partners per year, which one is more likely to spread a disease?
From Tom Dickens, University of East London, 2005 study,” These results suggest that homosexual men are not less aggressive than heterosexuals per se, they simply express their aggression in different ways.”
“According to the findings of the study, to be published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, homosexual men score higher for empathy and show significantly lower levels of physical aggression than heterosexual men. However they do show similar levels of non-physical and indirect aggression, that is the ability to inflict pain while avoiding identification and counter-aggression, for example by spreading malicious gossip. “
This explains why gay men have gone on record in polls and questionnaires denying having a larger number of sex partners. They are liars! The statistics showing gay men have a higher HIV rate than hetro males is evidence of that their aggression is sex related, they have more sex partners than others.
By Interesting June 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I find it interesting that everyone is always talking about gay men and not lesbians in the military, when trying to prevent the removal of DADT. Afterall, theres nothing wrong with two girls being together (in most men’s eyes). As an active duty hetersexual woman in the military I could care less if someone is “straight” or not. What matters is conduct and work ethic. We already train, shower, and live with homosexuals–we already know who “is” even if we follow DADT. You can almost always tell.
The policy is useless and it’s abused. People use it to kick out HARD workers who are dedicated to the mission instead of the people who actually mess up! I find people in the military are more leniant towards underage drinking, DUI, etc than they are towards homosexuals whose only “crime” was to date someone of the same sex. Its not fair–and for all its worth it seems the gay guys are hit harder than the lesbians worth.
It truly seems as if the issue is not gays in the military but homophobia in the military!
By Red June 23, 2010 at 10:57 am
Why should you get special treatment just because of who you like or don’t like to screw? That’s NOBODY’S BUSINESS. Your sex life has (or should have) nothing to do with your work life. You go to work and do your job. When it’s time to screw, you go home and do it. Golly. I don’t know why we try to make simple things so complex.