President Clinton tried to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military in the first month of his administration. The net effect was to turn an administrative rule banning gays and lesbians in the US military into a federal law with the same prohibition. If President Obama wants to overturn the ban, he will have to get the US Congress to do it. He'll have to move pretty quickly because the 2010 elections are coming up. He just might lose one or both houses, and this is one of those emotional, hot-button issues that inflames the passions of "values voters." 

 

On the other hand, it just might be another one of Mister Obama's empty promises to a constituent group of his ruling coalition. You never can tell with this president.

 

   

Now you see it's the beginning of homosexual racket that will get all of us killed.

I do not see it.

I don't think homosexuals will necessarily become a protected class, and that is not what Obama is talking about.

Wait until you start to see some lawsuits. Don't worry, I'll be feeding the news here so you won't miss it. Then you'll hear about certain kind of diversity training awarded to certain sexual-oriented rights group by DOD. You can start call it "political correctness industry." Beware of the political-correct industrial complex.

 

 

All the fuss about this is misplaced. Homosexuals have been allowed to serve in the Australian military since 1992 and it is still an effective fighting force. All that is needed is for all members to know their responsibilities towards each other and for that to be backed up with effective military discipline.

 The US military does not implement rules barring homosexual personnel from service. Most high ranking people couldn't careless about servicemen's sexual orientation. However, the reality is the reality. Some knowledge is best left unknown. The current rule is designed to minimize bureaucratic burden instead of being against homosexual. As long as you have the rule like that, some 8-year Major in the Army can't just come out of the closet and sue the Army for discrimination by denying his promotion. Apparently you need to take Conservatism 101. In the third week we will talk about what is "work the system" and rules designed to further the interests of litigation industry.

the whole argument of gay rights is completely facile. sexual identity and racial/ethnic identities are two seperate categories within the human identity...and yet is conveniently and slovenly lumped together. If a heterosexual community is forced to tolerate homosexuality within the community, then why not multiple partners, or say incest or whatever hoowy alternative lifestyle you can concoct....I am one that says whatever you do in your house is your freedom lovin choice, but on the street, i believe the heterosexual community has a right to define the sexual norms and more of its society for its children and its children's children. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers weren't discussing sexually defined communities when the concept of "equality" was being discussed in building a framework of a democratic republic.

 

as for the military now becoming a political correct organization on paper, it will engender disharmony and discomfort, when this is one organization that needs to have its eye on the ball, a complete unit working together...questions of homosexuality only serve to demoralize/distract/politicize a vital nation-defense structure.

 

'Liberty cannot exist without morality, and morality cannot exist without faith.'

E. Burke

 

 

As I said on the individual level to each his own, I have multiple homosexual friends....its when a homosexual identifies as a community, and demands recognition as a community, that I see a problem, especially given a judeo-christian morality that is the backbone of this republic.

Other than to piss off people who are already pissed off about something, basically racist and fundamentalist religious types, it isn't going to matter. There are plenty of gay people serving and everybody knows it. THE worse that will happen is a few beat downs in the barracks on the lower enlisted side until the brass put's the boot down and makes an example of those responsible. That already happens anyway. I don't agree with homosexuality but I don't feel compelled to take a stand on this issue. When we were deployed and suspected one soldier of being gay, this dude was at least bi-sexual, other than to rag on him it wasn't a big deal and this is in a line infantry unit. He was a 42A and one of the young Joe's actually gathered up a whole bunch of soap and somehow melted it down and molded it into a gigantic girthy foot long d*ck and balls and left it on his desk one evening...lol. It would have made the producers of "Superbad" proud. It was absolutely one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen. I thought I would die laughing. Even the Chaplain laughed his holy ass off. I ended up having to do the peer-to peer counseling on the poor guy but not because he was a F@g. Anyway, it was funny as hell and ultimately we dealt with it. It didn't affect operations and ultimately this is one of those problems that just sorts itself out depending on how flamboyant the individual in question is. It's kinda hard to look gay when you have a M203 slung across your chest but this guy did it...LMAO!

Imagine me sitting there telling this guy, "Hey man, you can't get on the net and sound like mini-mouse with a lisp. People are gonna talk sh*t if you do"...lol. OMFG it was so funny. We tried to get him to admit to being gay but he never would. Oh well. This whole issue isn't a big deal.

-DA 

[oxymoron]

How dare you use the word F@g! How dare you show your contempt and superiority over homosexuality. You must be homophobic, and you need to go to diversity training to learn a thing or two homosexual sensitivity.

[/oxymoron]

You may be missing the whole point here. This will result in what amounts to a privileged status for gays and an enshrining of their "lifestyle". It's going to be about gay marriage in the military. It's going to be about making PX privileges available to same sex partners as well as other benefits.

 

Your mistake here, I believe is that you don't see it as the camel's nose under the tent. This is a lead-in to a whole host of radical changes.

 

It's going to be political.

I don't think Obama will do it, any more than he will support forcing the states to support gay marriage.  There'll be a few pithy quotes, a few nice speeches, and before you know it, 2012 will be here.  He might ramp up the rhetoric then, because he'll need the gay vote to stay in office.

 

Gay voters need to realize that they represent one thing to the Democrats: votes.  That's it.  Anything more than that, other than window dressing, is doubtful.  And to be perfectly honest, that's the way it should be.  The federal government doesn't need to be involved in sexual orientation.

 

My question is, the US military has existed since 1775.  DADT has only been around since 1993.  Somehow the US armed forces survived over 200 years without having a formal policy.  I think it can handle it.

 

I do notice that the ones who are pushing this the hardest seem to be people who aren't in the military.  Gays in the military would probably be just as happy if their sexual orientation remains none of anyone's business.  Which it isn't.  The only ones this matters to are those who want to make a profession out of their sexual predilection, the kind of people who frequent gay pride parades and the Folsom Street Fair.  Don't see a lot of folks from those events flocking to recruitment offices.

 

Homosexuals have just as much a right to openly acknowledge live their lifestyle as any other group, . What you are suggesting is akin to the US military having a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for one Christian denomination because the majority of soldiers were from another. There would be no justification for that and there isn't for this either.

Your example is just a red herring as the fictional homosexual who has sour grapes over missing a promotion an sues the military would have to prove that the military was being discriminatory. It would be a pretty hard thing to prove but if it was true and proven then that is what torts are for, to right wrongs. The fact that the taxpayer has to pay for it doesn't change a person's right to justice.

 

In any case I frankly don't see it happenning. Most gay's in the military would be discrete about their lifestyle because of the prejudice that they would face irrespective of a policy change.