The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Montrovant]

Gays already serve. Have been for years. They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.

rltw

That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy. There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.

The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell. They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men? When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then. No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.

I don't think the issue is a need to tell. Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse? I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.

 

[kaz]

Gays already serve. Have been for years. They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.

rltw

That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy. There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.

The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell. They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men? When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then. No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.

I don't think the issue is a need to tell. Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.

Don't ask don't tell solved that.

Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse? I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.

I don't shower and sleep with the women I work with. To not be able to say, "My husband is Steve" seems like a pretty small price to pay. You seem like you're still stuck on the need for the political statement.

 

[yota5]

Toome, I see from your unit patch that you were in the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (Airborne.) Let me be the first to thank you for your service to this country. You've earned the right to your opinion. I have earned that right too.

You and will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. My most recent reply above address' the sexual aspect of this issue directly. I can't think of anyone that I've served with, veterans that I've met, or current active duty personnel that agrees with the concept of gays serving actively in the military.

I believe that unit cohesion, and esprit de corp is at risk here. Active duty personnel have been ordered to keep their mouths shut about this matter. You know the drill. These suppressive measures don't make the problem go away. It continues to fester, and the troops feel as thought they've been betrayed. I don't see how that can lead to a positive outcome.

 

[sinister59]

Gays already serve. Have been for years. They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.

rltw

That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy. There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.

The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell. They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men? When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then. No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.

I don't think the issue is a need to tell. Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse? I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.

I agree

 

[kaz]

That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy. There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.

The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell. They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men? When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then. No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.

I don't think the issue is a need to tell. Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse? I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.

I agree

You agree we should ignore that we have don't ask don't tell and continue to fight the battle that's over and won?

 

[yota5]

Gays in the Military
Obama’s social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can “find another place to work.”

Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senator’s serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chief’s office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, we’re all in deep trouble.

At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider “getting out” rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.

Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces — and their families at home — are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obama’s radical social experiment.

— Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Times–bestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online

 

[kaz]

Gays in the Military
Obama’s social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can “find another place to work.”

Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senator’s serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chief’s office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, we’re all in deep trouble.

At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider “getting out” rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.

Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces — and their families at home — are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obama’s radical social experiment.

— Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Times–bestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online

The military's to blame for this, it's payback for their own success. They have been so successful Democrats no longer grasp they live in a dangerous world. In the rest of the world they recognize the threat and that the military protects them. The left in this country's disconnect from the reality of the world we live in where they're more interested in driving their social agenda then helping the military perform it's mission. They hysterically think our most important military issue is having gays serve openly. This level of cluelessness could never have been achieved without such extraordinary accomplishment. I suppose in a way it's a compliment.

 

[Zona]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

So "the troops" are you sons words? Great factual thread. I appreciate you linking us to something tangible. YOu know, your sons views on this.

I can link you to someone saying the complete opposite of course but so what, your son said so, so it must be true.

I can tell you during my 20, most could care less if they served with gays. Do a good job and tell everyone to stay out of your bedroom.

 

[rightwinger]

"Homosexuality is about sexuality. The esprit d'corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a "gay right" to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn't serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today's military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic enough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one's sexuality and sexual intentions. Making "gay rights" an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.

There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide brail for the blind in public education. We are a kind and magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as "protected" in any way."

Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve "Openly" in the Military

Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military? You are the one trying to kick them out

 

[yota5]

You keep trying to get into that shower room don't you rightwinger. That may turn out to be a very painful experience.

 

[rightwinger]

You keep trying to get into that shower room don't you rightwinger. That may turn out to be a very painful experience.

Why are you afraid of showers?

Personal inadequacies?

 

[yota5]

Why are you afraid of showers? Personal inadequacies? (rightwinger)

No fear here rightwinger. Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body. No fear is there. I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion. Do you know what I mean?

 

[rightwinger]

Why are you afraid of showers? Personal inadequacies? (rightwinger)

No fear here rightwinger. Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body. No fear is there. I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion. Do you know what I mean?

Keep your sexual fantasies off the board

 

[Gadawg73]

My problem with the repeal of DADT was that the study used to gauge attitudes on openly gay soldiers didn't specifically ask whether the troops wanted to serve with gay soldiers or if they felt DADT should be repealed. I get why they don't consult troops on policy matters, but then, it looks curiously timid to ask around the issue instead of being direct. My guess is they were just looking for cover to simply repeal it so liberals wouldn't be disappointed.

Barry Goldwater called for the repeal many, many years ago.
He wasn't a liberal and was military.

 

[yota5]

No sexual fantasies from me rightwinger. Besides your the one who is talking about meat and pudding. Maybe you should clean up around your own porch.

 

[Gadawg73]

Gays in the Military
Obama’s social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can “find another place to work.”

Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senator’s serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chief’s office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, we’re all in deep trouble.

At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider “getting out” rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.

Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces — and their families at home — are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obama’s radical social experiment.

— Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Times–bestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online

It is not "Obama's social experiment"
The Pentagon, Gates and Mullen all advocate it.
Get over it. This is not a priority. If it was your son would be here posting that it is a priority. He isn't and no other active duty have. I also have concerns about enacting this in war time but it should have been done 30 years ago.
Tell us with a straight face that when you served if you were pinned down by enemy fire and a tank came to blow away the enemy and you knew the commander of the tank was gay you would radio the tank "Leave me here. I do not want a deviant saving me".
Yeah, right. So quit shitting us.
That is the real world. You know it, I know it and EVERYONE knows it.
If a gay or lesbian can not do their job BOOT THEM OUT, NO special favors for anyone.
And when this is initated I want NO special treatment for anyone. NO PC BS but they should be allowed to serve openly.
We all heard the blacks were not good enough when I played in the late 60s and early 70s.
They proved they could carry their fair share.
Shouldn't that be the standard? That is the standard from now on. If they can get the job done they are allowed.
Case closed. Move on to something important like the deficit and debt.

 

[rightwinger]

No sexual fantasies from me rightwinger. Besides your the one who is talking about meat and pudding. Maybe you should clean up around your own porch.

You are demonstrating your cultural illiteracy to go with your homophobic rants

 

[kaz]

Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?

I think that's what they're trying to avoid...

 

[Gadawg73]

What North is claiming in his article is that combat troops are more concerned with the sexuality of fellow soldiers than doing what they are supposed to to:
Their job.
How is knowing the sexuality of another soldier affect the combat readiness of anyone?
Not very professional if you are that way. Accordingly, if that does bother you and are so undisciplined as a soldier you need to find another job.

 

[rightwinger]

Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?

I think that's what they're trying to avoid...

How so?

Are you claiming homosexuals are less professional than other soldiers?