Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale

[Father Time]

al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.

When all hope is lost, when you can't convince people you're right on your own merit, act like you're being persecuted to smear the other side and gain some pity.

You sir are pathetic.

 

[Father Time]

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?

If they were REALLY ALPHA MALES, they wouldn't give a damn.

It's you boys who aren't quite sure of your own hetero instincts who are homophoboic morons.

You don't have the right to question my sexuality and I'm more than secure enough in my own heterosexual instincts. If homosexuals were really dedicated about serving their country they wouldn't put so much of an emphasis on DADT.

Because you can't wish to serve your country and want to get rid of arbitrary unneeded rules.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?

If they were REALLY ALPHA MALES, they wouldn't give a damn.

It's you boys who aren't quite sure of your own hetero instincts who are homophoboic morons.

You don't have the right to question my sexuality and I'm more than secure enough in my own heterosexual instincts. If homosexuals were really dedicated about serving their country they wouldn't put so much of an emphasis on DADT.

OF COURSE we have the right to question your sexuality just as much as YOU have the right to question gay's MORALITY!!! So FUCK YOU you queer ass HOMOPHOBE!!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

DADT gave gays the option and privilege of serving as long as they keep their sexual life to themselves. If it gave them the right to serve why are they going against it?

The DADT policy only provided them a way out of the service. Many of them came out and admitted their life-style merely to get out of deployments. Now Obama is putting the kabosh on that practice. It's a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not sure what he has up his sleeve but the end result isn't exactly what people think.

Fraudulent enlistment and lying to get discharged is already a violation of the UCMJ, DADT wasn't implemented for the reason you're claiming.

Hey.......Flayed Load, get a clue........

In the Navy, there is a program called the AEF program (Advanced Electronics Field Program), which consists of a 6 year enlistment. Once you pass A school, they send you to C school, and halfway through that, they give you a meritorious advancement to E-4 (usually happens at about the 1 year mark), and you are on shore for 2 years during school.

After that? Forward deployed to a mobile command for the next 4 years.

How many people did I see before DADT take advantage of that program, report to their first command, and then claim to be gay? Several. Three from 86 to 91. One guy reported onboard, claimed to be gay, and was out in a month.

Saw him around 6 months after that and he was driving a nice car with a beautiful girlfriend and making 50,000/yr as a defense contractor.

Yes, that is just one reason that DADT was implemented.

Try again you Army 'tard.

By the way ground pounder, how many months have you spent outside of the United States on 6 month or longer deployments?

Me? About 8 years.

 

[ACG22]

"Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers."

Dumbest thing I've read so far on these boards. But it's only been a week, so the rest of you have time to do better (worse?)!

 

[goldcatt]

"Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers."

Dumbest thing I've read so far on these boards. But it's only been a week, so the rest of you have time to do better (worse?)!

Stick around. If that's the dumbest thing you've read so far, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism. This is going to happen, sooner or later.

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

Why should they be denied? I guess some people just have to discriminate and hate. I don't see any other explanation. The fight against such ignorance never ends.

No one has been denied. If a gay person wants to serve in the military they can do so. And no one will bother them. As long as they do it within the confines of the regulations, same as everyone else. prior to DADT we heard the same BS why can't the gays serve...Well they can now and they have been, and that should be enough, but no, now they want to come out of the closet and change the social makeup of the military during a 2 front war. The brass has told the President and the congress to slow down and not to push it. They have very valid reasons for that. I can only hope that congress actually thinks for a change.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.

I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.



My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.

What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT? Whatever the hell that means.

The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran.

Oh shut up. You like the policy so you're going to pretend no one has a right to try to change it which is just plain wrong.

The military serves the people and is funded with tax dollars so we should get to decide how it is run.

Great, next time the XVIII Airborne Corps deploys a Brigade to Afghanistan maybe you can go along to direct them on how they are supposed to run things....

 

[Father Time]

I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.



My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.





The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran.

Oh shut up. You like the policy so you're going to pretend no one has a right to try to change it which is just plain wrong.

The military serves the people and is funded with tax dollars so we should get to decide how it is run.

Great, next time the XVIII Airborne Corps deploys a Brigade to Afghanistan maybe you can go along to direct them on how they are supposed to run things....

DADT has nothing to do with war strategy. To say I never served therefore I don't get to complain about how the US military does things is an ad hominem (or close enough).

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh shut up. You like the policy so you're going to pretend no one has a right to try to change it which is just plain wrong.

The military serves the people and is funded with tax dollars so we should get to decide how it is run.

Great, next time the XVIII Airborne Corps deploys a Brigade to Afghanistan maybe you can go along to direct them on how they are supposed to run things....

DADT has nothing to do with war strategy. To say I never served therefore I don't get to complain about how the US military does things is an ad hominem (or close enough).

Then allow the professionals to run their business completely. Civilians give the military a mission then get the hell out of the way. At least that is the way things should happen.

 

[goldcatt]

Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nopbody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.

Why should they be denied? I guess some people just have to discriminate and hate. I don't see any other explanation. The fight against such ignorance never ends.

No one has been denied. If a gay person wants to serve in the military they can do so. And no one will bother them. As long as they do it within the confines of the regulations, same as everyone else. prior to DADT we heard the same BS why can't the gays serve...Well they can now and they have been, and that should be enough, but no, now they want to come out of the closet and change the social makeup of the military during a 2 front war. The brass has told the President and the congress to slow down and not to push it. They have very valid reasons for that. I can only hope that congress actually thinks for a change.

If your argument is the timing rather than the substance that makes some sense. What do you think is gained if repealing DADT is put off? Or are you against repealing it at all?

 

[maineman]

Great, next time the XVIII Airborne Corps deploys a Brigade to Afghanistan maybe you can go along to direct them on how they are supposed to run things....

DADT has nothing to do with war strategy. To say I never served therefore I don't get to complain about how the US military does things is an ad hominem (or close enough).

Then allow the professionals to run their business completely. Civilians give the military a mission then get the hell out of the way. At least that is the way things should happen.

the framers insttituted civilian control over the military... are you saying they were wrong to do so?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why should they be denied? I guess some people just have to discriminate and hate. I don't see any other explanation. The fight against such ignorance never ends.

No one has been denied. If a gay person wants to serve in the military they can do so. And no one will bother them. As long as they do it within the confines of the regulations, same as everyone else. prior to DADT we heard the same BS why can't the gays serve...Well they can now and they have been, and that should be enough, but no, now they want to come out of the closet and change the social makeup of the military during a 2 front war. The brass has told the President and the congress to slow down and not to push it. They have very valid reasons for that. I can only hope that congress actually thinks for a change.

If your argument is the timing rather than the substance that makes some sense. What do you think is gained if repealing DADT is put off? Or are you against repealing it at all?

I was actually against DADT before it became policy. Today I am against rescinding it. Timing is only one argument. Permitting openly gay troops in our military is a huge social change for our military and one that i personally feel is wrong on many different levels.
But i'm retired now so what ever i have to say about it really doesn't matter much.

 

[SFC Ollie]

DADT has nothing to do with war strategy. To say I never served therefore I don't get to complain about how the US military does things is an ad hominem (or close enough).

Then allow the professionals to run their business completely. Civilians give the military a mission then get the hell out of the way. At least that is the way things should happen.

the framers insttituted civilian control over the military... are you saying they were wrong to do so?

Yes Civilians do have control. And when they assign a mission and allow the military to do it's job then they have performed their function.

 

[maineman]

Then allow the professionals to run their business completely. Civilians give the military a mission then get the hell out of the way. At least that is the way things should happen.

the framers insttituted civilian control over the military... are you saying they were wrong to do so?

Yes Civilians do have control. And when they assign a mission and allow the military to do it's job then they have performed their function.

when someone is "in control", they get to define their "function". Do you think that the military WROTE the UCMJ or do you think civilians did?

Oh... and by the way.... have YOU ever violated article 125, OLLIE?

If so, did you report yourself, Mr. "I do everything by the book"??

 

[Article 15]

It's a matter or perception. I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.

Thats your perception, but not the perception of my soldiers every morning during PT. A 33 year old SFC is not a crusty old sarge, if any of my soldiers told me that I'll put them in the front leaning rest position and let them rethink it.

Whatever ...

No, it's not. Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.

Serving proudly is about work, discpline and professionalism, sexual orientation is not conducive to serving honorably. Serving in the military is not a right, you must remember that.

Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.

I am heterosexual but I don't openly spill the details of my sex life for all to hear. I am not known as Heterosexual SFC __, I am known by by rank and my actions.

You may not give the details but I bet everyone at least knows that you like chics and you don't go out of your way to hide it by not mentioning your girlfriend, wife, or whatever in casual converstation.

I am not making the same argument, an orientation based on voluntary sexual acts and race-ethnicity are not the same.

You are making the same damn argument. Replace "homosexual" with "black" or "colored" and it's the same thing.

If it gets repealed on my watch I will not enforce homosexual activism and homosexuality. I do enforce the military's EO program, not black, white, latino or gender based activism.

You will enforce the law meaning if you see someone harassing the gay soldier for being gay you will bring it up the chain. If you look the other way it's your ass you are risking.

Your against heterosexuals who don't share your one sided homosexual agenda activism.... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-heterosexual agenda.

I'm a heterosexual. I am anti-anti-homosexual bigots i.e. you.

Straight soldiers don't wate their time and energy oopenly saying they're straight, homosexual activism wants gays to waste time talking about their homosexuality.

They don't waste time because it takes no time to show you are straight but a whole bunch of time to hide you are gay.

How often is this said around work?

"I went out to dinner with my girlfriend last night."

That troop just announced his sexuality ... OH NOES

So are you saying if DADT is rescinded the old problem people causing lack of unit cohesion are going to be those opposed to it? Have you ever thought that maybe the action of rescinding DADT is the problem?

Your first question is incoherent. To the second, yes, briefly then I realize no, that's retarded.

As they should be. Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.

Getting rid of those who may cause physical harm to gays is not going to make all soldiers accept homosexuals openly serving in the ranks.

No, it wont but it's one hell of a deterrent. Plus, inflicting physical harm isn't the only thing that will get them in hot water.

Things will never be perfect. Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks. They just don't associate with them.

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.

Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts? This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.

 

[Flaylo]

Whatever ...

Touche, I agree.

Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.

The military believes the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted DADT, a policy which allows gays to serve as long as they keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.

You may not give the details but I bet everyone at least knows that you like chics and you don't go out of your way to hide it by not mentioning your girlfriend, wife, or whatever in casual converstation.

I'm professional at all times, thats the biggest part of the NCO Creed that I live by. When I'm at work I'm totally all about business, not discussing my personal life. Do you think a gay mentioning their botfriend in casual conversation is going to welcomed with open arms the same as a man casually talking about his wife? neither one of those things are essential to running the military, the military is not a talk gossip show or day camp.

You are making the same damn argument. Replace "homosexual" with "black" or "colored" and it's the same thing.

I'm not making the same argument and gay and black or colored are not easily interchangeable terms that can be applied to any situation.

You will enforce the law meaning if you see someone harassing the gay soldier for being gay you will bring it up the chain. If you look the other way it's your ass you are risking.

I will not enforce gay activism if DADT is rescinded. If the military rescinds the policy and makes acceptance of homosexuality one of its sensitivity training requirement I'm as good as out of the door, but I don't think they would take it that far considering the various religious backgrounds of servicemembers. Harrassment of anyone for any reason is wrong, but if the military upholds DADT its one less thing to worry about, assuming gays keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.

I'm a heterosexual. I am anti-anti-homosexual bigots i.e. you.

I disagree with DADT being possibly rescinded from the standpoint that the military is not a proving ground to see how far gay activism has come and also from military readiness standpoint, not because I have any personal bias against homosexuals. You one sided homosexual activists can call me whatever you like, but thats not not going to change my mind about what I feel about the military. Outside of the military gays can do what they want, I care only about what goes on in the military.

They don't waste time because it takes no time to show you are straight but a whole bunch of time to hide you are gay.

This is the military, not a gay support group, the military has standards that all people must adapt to and a lot of people must quit doing certain things if they want to stay in, if the gays can't adapt or disagree they need to leave, the military is not a democracy. The military should only change things only if its going to overall improve the military, not to help people because they don't like having to keep certain details of the personal life a private matter.

How often is this said around work?

"I went out to dinner with my girlfriend last night."

That troop just announced his sexuality ... OH NOES

Do you think the military is going to be a better military with better cohesion and morale with gays anouncing that they went out with their boyfriends lastnight? Do you think anyone would be interested in even hearing it?

Your first question is incoherent.

It was a question you do want to answer because you know the answer. The second question is another valid question but since you're a one sided homosexual activist you're always going to blame the opposition and not yourselves and the gays because you arrogantly believe that your agendas are right without any faults and the opposition is wrong in every detail. You actvists look at things through one pair of eyes.

No, it wont but it's one hell of a deterrent. Plus, inflicting physical harm isn't the only thing that will get them in hot water.

You cannot get rid of soldiers for not accepting the notion of gays openly serving in the military, if they could the military would be depleted. The military cannot forcefully change people's attitudes. Rescinding DADT has no benefit for the military as a whole.

Things will never be perfect. Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks. They just don't associate with them.

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.

Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts? This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.[/QUOTE]

 

[Article 15]

Whatever ...

Touche, I agree.

Well at least there's that.

Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.

The military believes the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted DADT, a policy which allows gays to serve as long as they keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.

While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...

I'm professional at all times, thats the biggest part of the NCO Creed that I live by. When I'm at work I'm totally all about business, not discussing my personal life. Do you think a gay mentioning their botfriend in casual conversation is going to welcomed with open arms the same as a man casually talking about his wife? neither one of those things are essential to running the military, the military is not a talk gossip show or day camp.

What military are you in? There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military. The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.

I'm not making the same argument and gay and black or colored are not easily interchangeable terms that can be applied to any situation.

Yes, you are. It's the same thing. It's a group of people being discriminated against for being who they are.

I will not enforce gay activism if DADT is rescinded. If the military rescinds the policy and makes acceptance of homosexuality one of its sensitivity training requirement I'm as good as out of the door, but I don't think they would take it that far considering the various religious backgrounds of servicemembers. Harrassment of anyone for any reason is wrong, but if the military upholds DADT its one less thing to worry about, assuming gays keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.

Good. Like I said, once the bigoted dinosaurs are gone this wont be an issue. Since you refuse to adapt, leaving would be the correct choice of action for you.

I disagree with DADT being possibly rescinded from the standpoint that the military is not a proving ground to see how far gay activism has come and also from military readiness standpoint, not because I have any personal bias against homosexuals. You one sided homosexual activists can call me whatever you like, but thats not not going to change my mind about what I feel about the military. Outside of the military gays can do what they want, I care only about what goes on in the military.

It isn't a proving ground. It's time for the rest of the country to catch up with the military in this sense. If any other employer tried to implement the military's policy on gays they would be sued in heartbeat ... because it's ILLEGAL

This is the military, not a gay support group, the military has standards that all people must adapt to and a lot of people must quit doing certain things if they want to stay in, if the gays can't adapt or disagree they need to leave, the military is not a democracy. The military should only change things only if its going to overall improve the military, not to help people because they don't like having to keep certain details of the personal life a private matter.

More hyperbole. Noboby is looking to make the military a gay support group just no more seperate but equal nonsense.

Do you think the military is going to be a better military with better cohesion and morale with gays anouncing that they went out with their boyfriends lastnight? Do you think anyone would be interested in even hearing it?

As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

It was a question you do want to answer because you know the answer. The second question is another valid question but since you're a one sided homosexual activist you're always going to blame the opposition and not yourselves and the gays because you arrogantly believe that your agendas are right without any faults and the opposition is wrong in every detail. You actvists look at things through one pair of eyes.

The first question was incoherent. If you clarify it I will gladly answer it as I haven't ducked a single point you have tried to make.

You cannot get rid of soldiers for not accepting the notion of gays openly serving in the military, if they could the military would be depleted. The military cannot forcefully change people's attitudes. Rescinding DADT has no benefit for the military as a whole.

Yes, you can. The military forcfully changes people's racists attitudes with it's laws then it can forcefully change people's attitudes on homosexuals with it's laws. And unless you can put forward some hard figures that shows how many men and women the military would lose in comparison to the number they would gain from recinding the policy your statement here is based on nothing.

Things will never be perfect. Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks. They just don't associate with them.

Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.

Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.

Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts? This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.

^ Bears repeating.

 

[Father Time]

That's all they have is hyperbole (well that and claims of being persecuted)

Wanting to mention that you're gay to soldiers who get to mention that they're straight =homosexual activism, gay support group, flaunting it/shoving it into people's faces etc. etc. Strange this never applies to straights.

 

[Flaylo]

While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...

They're not living double lives, nobody is asking then to live as straights, they're being told to serve and keep their sexual lives a personal and private matter.

What military are you in? There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military. The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.

I'm in the real Army, unlike you. The Army for disciplines professionals. If it isn't work related it isn't necessary.

Yes, you are. It's the same thing. It's a group of people being discriminated against for being who they are.

Two people of same sex having sexual intercourse is not the same as being black or white.

Good. Like I said, once the bigoted dinosaurs are gone this wont be an issue. Since you refuse to adapt, leaving would be the correct choice of action for you.

Its the gays that need to adpat, not me, I have no problem with DADT and the things I disagree with I have adpated to, why can't gays do the same? Don't demand for me to do adapt and not demand gays adapt.

It isn't a proving ground. It's time for the rest of the country to catch up with the military in this sense. If any other employer tried to implement the military's policy on gays they would be sued in heartbeat ... because it's ILLEGAL

The rest of the country is not open arms with homosexuals. If the behavior and presence of gays in a workplace disrupts an operation employers do have the right to dismiss, especially if the goals and aims of that workplace and homosexuality are incompatible.

More hyperbole. Noboby is looking to make the military a gay support group just no more seperate but equal nonsense.

Yes you are, anybody that disgarees with you and stands fast to their opinion you label a homophobe. The military is not a support group for anyone's activist agendas.

As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

Then you don't have a clue about the Army, I'm in the Army and I've also had the opportunity to be on the trail as a drill sergeant and I can tell you with 100% certainy that you are wrong. No soldiers that I'm aware of are interested in hearing about the love life and personal lives of what gays do with other gays. If they do exist they are very few in number. Don't tell me you know my fellow soldiers better than me.

The first question was incoherent. If you clarify it I will gladly answer it as I haven't ducked a single point you have tried to make.

The question was straightforward, I'm a professional with high standards, I don't dumb things down for anyone.

Yes, you can. The military forcfully changes people's racists attitudes with it's laws then it can forcefully change people's attitudes on homosexuals with it's laws. And unless you can put forward some hard figures that shows how many men and women the military would lose in comparison to the number they would gain from recinding the policy your statement here is based on nothing.

Show me some evidence that people's attitudes can be forcefully changed by military policies, just because someone follows policy don't mean they agree with it and accept it with open arms. It hasn't worked for stopping racism and it will not work homosexuality, attitudes simply shift from overt to covert and cause people uneeded stress.

id I say so they could talk about their sex acts? This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.

No one wants to hear about homosexuals private lives whether it be sexual or about having dinner with a boyfriend. I guarantee that if DADT is rescinded and gays start discussing those things in the workplace and the environment becomes hostile and disruptive one sided homosexual actvists like you are going to blame these flare ups of homophobia because you only see things from one side and don't look at the bigger picture on the military is affected.