Then yay!  I wish more places were like that.

The "gays"?  You make it sound like every gay person has this agenda to make you  bat for their team.  The gay people I know don't talk about their sex-life because they act professionally.  Most of them probably couldn't give two figs about you.

Maybe you are just irritating and people like to bait you.

What?

Well, Since you asked...... I will tell!

I think it was Humbordt that said it was a transition policy.  From all taht I understand, it does appear to be one.  Whether the military is ready for it now or not, I cannot say.  But when all is said and done, they really should be the ones making the decision.  They are the ones laying their life on the line, and how they feel about it makes a big deal of difference.  How I feel about it is really irrelevant.

With the military now essentially Co-Ed, I think Tova hit the nail on the head.  Gays are really not the issue.  Sex in the workplace does appear to be the issue, and that is straight or gay.

[quote who="momijiki" reply="1" id="2035340"]

[quote who="Tova7" comment="23"]

Which I agree with... except they should also have straight people not talking about sex in the workplace
Oh believe me they do.  I was the only female in a squadron of over 500 men.  I can't tell you how many briefings we were forced to sit through explaining the implicit policy of keeping sexual conversation/topics/behavior out of the workplace.  And that was a long time before don't ask don't tell.
Don't ask don't tell in the military..applies as much to heterosexuals as it does to homos.



Then yay!  I wish more places were like that.

I know most dont have issues and dont care.... but its those that are really pro active that are the ones that want to make people just accept it.... its like those people that knock on your door from time to time telling you that jesus can save you...

Another point is that like I have said there is an artical which Ill try to find that was last week where schools in a country in Euro is now teaching more or less why gay sex is good ( something along those lines )

WT that's a good point, I feel that way too. It isn't people in the military that are making a big stink about this. It's the activist groups that are pushing their agenda. I'm sure few if any of them will be rushing the recruiters office to enlist. Gays that want to serve are already in the military. It's the agenda that bothers me. If I had to put money on it, I'd say their real mission is benefits for same sex spouses on a national level. If they can breach the military, everything else falls into place. They really don't give a damn about the person serving, they are just a tool. These people are not stupid, they see how it worked for race integration.

In theory, yes, but in actual practice not really. If a cammanding officer sees a an off-duty male soldier wearing makeup, a rainbow tank top, buttless chaps and a ball-gag, he still can't ask if the guy is gay. It's actually very hard to discharge someone for being gay, and so long as they don't bring their sexuality to work, it's generally overlooked.

That's what I mean when I say there are openly gay people in the military. Nobody asks, nobody tells, but EVERYBODY knows.

My stance on this issue comes down to when the troops are deployed and when they return home.  A heterosexual is allowed to passionately kiss their significant other in both circumstances without any fear for their job, a homosexual on the other hand risks being discharged as a result if anyone in the chain of command sees what's going on.

So basically I think the whole don't ask, don't tell policy needs to go away for that reason alone.  Any other sexual harrassment issues are already covered in existing laws so it really serves no real purpose other than to single out homosexuals.

Actually displays of affection are not authorized in public, it's just another (of many) things in the military that are not enforced or discouraged. I know how hard it can be to wait 5 minutes until your in the car. I've seen men hugging men, presumably fathers, brothers, and sons, but who knows. If there is anytime when people are not focused on you that would be the time. I was always focused about getting to the car before the traffic built up, the wife (or girlfriend, never together) would just have to wait until we got home, cause I don't want a teaser on base.

Anyway, chances are their significant other was with them the whole time they we deployed, and had their "homecoming" regularly, while your hand was getting a workout ....so I don't feel too badly for them because they can't stick their tongues down each others throats in full view for a few minutes.

TERPFAN WRITES:

If you check out the White House website, under "Civil Rights", you'll see how much Pres. Obama plans to support homsexual special interest groups....one is to repeal the military's DADT policy.

I agree...lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military has been a major goal of homosexual agenda for quite some time perhaps as far back as 1972. It's all about official societyal acceptance of homosexuality, which repealing the ban and allowing open homosexuals in would amount to. In my opinion, it's payback for the homosexual lobby financial and political support.

What "We the people" are left with is deciding the larger question which is...is it good public and military policy for the US Armed Forces to be doing so?

TERPFAN writes:

 "Orientation" is homosexual sophistry. The military is concerned with homosexual behavior or conduct......currently, grounds for discharge is openly practicing homsexuality.  The current law  prohibits against homosexual conduct stating,  

“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,”.

I don't think being gay should be grounds for dismissal.

And that's really all I have to say about that.

~Zoo

I agree....and it isn't....it's acting on it that's grounds for dismissal, at least for the time being.

To my fellow heteros that have a problem with gays in the military or gays in general, you remember that day when you decided to be hetero?  Remember?  You were on the fence, right?  Not sure which way to swing...and then you chose to be hetero, right?  

No?  But you HAD to have chosen, because you weren't just born that way, and genetics has nothing to do with it...right?

Oh, Leuki...from a couple of pages earlier where you suggested, with tongue in cheek, that you are forced to accept heteros in the workplace.  *I* got your point even if that fear filled douche with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader didn't (funny how those things tend to go together - fear and low intelligence).  Don't sweat it

I am!

I am also forced to accept homos in the workplace. We have both.

And despite the existence of all those people here I still have little interest in the sex lives of other people, certainly not enough to care which faction they want to belong to.

I wonder just how these people arrive at their conclusions.

Just a few weeks ago a self-proclaimed Christian proclaimed me, after we disagreed on Islam, a violent homosexual (who beats his partner). What is it with those people?

It's here.....

Legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives.....

H.R. 1283

The "Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009"

http://www.opencongress.org:80/bill/111-h1283/text

And here's the latest with over 1000 retired military officers against HR 1283......

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31416

1,000+ Retired Officers Change Debate on Gays in the Military
by Elaine Donnelly

Posted 04/10/2009 ET
Updated 04/10/2009 ET


Despite mixed signals from the Obama administration, a distinguished group of retired leaders called Flag & General Officers for the Military has taken a stand in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve openly in the military. That law, frequently mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," has been upheld by the courts as constitutional several times. It enjoys solid support among active duty military men and women who recognize its positive effect on recruiting, morale and readiness.

Legislation to repeal the law (H.R. 1283) nevertheless has been re-introduced in the 111th Congress. That initiative prompted the release of an open letter (http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FlagOfficersLetterPOTUS-033109.pdf) personally signed by more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who support the 1993 law.

The list (http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList29-033109.pdf) of statement signers, which includes 47 four-star leaders from all branches of the service and has since climbed to more than 1,100, is posted under the banner Flag & General Officers for the Military. The group's website also displays an Issue Overview setting forth reasons why the high-ranking retired officers have reason for concern. Recruiting, retention, and overall readiness would be undermined if Congress passes legislation to repeal the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.

Obama administration officials appear equivocal on this issue, even though the White House website continues to declare support for repeal of the law regarding gays in the military. In January, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs answered a question about the administration's intent to repeal the law with one word: "Yes." But on a recent Fox News Sunday program, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Chris Wallace that the administration wants "to push that one down the road a bit."

The situation remains unpredictable because liberals in Congress have declared their intent to act on their own. Initial hearings and possible legislative committee action could occur in May or June, accelerating to actual repeal if supporters of the law are not prepared to defend it. Anticipating contingencies, on March 31 the independent Flag & General Officers for the Military project delivered a concise and respectful open letter addressed to the White House, Pentagon, and Members of Congress, which was supported by 1,050 hand-written signatures. An introduction to the open letter notes:

     Among us are a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several Service Chiefs, a number of combatant command, theater, and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with a Medal of Honor recipient and hundreds of flag and general officers who have led the men and women of our armed services at every echelon, and in both peace and war, past and present.

The letter continues with an unequivocal declaration that could be decisive in refocusing the debate:

     .Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.

     As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.

The timetable for consideration of the repeal bill is uncertain, but action could begin when the House Armed Services Committee considers the National Defense Authorization bill for FY 2010. Roll Call has reported that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) will replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who has accepted a State Department post, as primary sponsor of H.R. 1283. In the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy reportedly is seeking a Republican cosponsor for companion legislation.

Current law recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct, and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."

H.R. 1283 would scrap all of that and forbid discrimination based on "homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Commanders, mid-level career officers and non-commissioned leaders would have to divert valuable time from combat training trying to define what the new law means.

Absent current law, "nondiscrimination" policies would require the accommodation of professed (not discrete) homosexuals in all branches and communities of the military, including Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships, and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis. Mandatory "human rights" classes and non-judicial disciplinary proceedings will enforce "zero tolerance" of dissent, regardless of the impact on team cohesion and mission accomplishment.

No one has explained how repeal of the 1993 law would improve discipline, team cohesion, and readiness in America's armed forces.

The remaining week of Congress' Easter recess will present many opportunities for concerned individuals to discuss this issue with their own members of Congress. More than 1,000 retired general and admirals have stepped forward to defend sound principles and policies for the All-Volunteer force. Active duty men and women and civilians who care about the military certainly hope that Congress will listen.
---------------------

Ms. Donnelly is a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces and President of the Center for Military Readiness. 

The US military needs to learn from the IDF and the tolerant Israeli model regarding homosexual soldiers and officers, concluded a research project on gay and lesbian service in the IDF, undertaken at the University of California, in Santa Barbara.

...

David Saranga, a former IDF officer and now Israel’s consul for media and public affairs in New York said, "It's a non-issue... You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one and be gay at the same time."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html

Personally, I think it has been demonstrated, by the Israeli military, what was already obvious: homosexuals fight just as well as heterosexuals and neither group is a problem for the other. And I think that defence is far too important a field to be subject to the whims of some groups' problems with other groups.

Leauki posts:

There is no doubt that defense is a most important field of government....and that's exactly what these 1,050 signers---- former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several Service Chiefs, a number of combatant command, theater, and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with a Medal of Honor recipient and hundreds of flag and general officers who have led the men and women of our armed services at every echelon, and in both peace and war, past and present-------
are so concerned about.  

However, for homosexualists, it's not about defense...oh that it were!  In the USA, ever since the 60's sexual revolution, the military has become a target of the whims of homosexual agenda...having open homosexuals in the military is a not about defending the country, rather it's about public acceptance and respectabliblity of their sexual behavior.

This latest move of Obama and the Congress isn't about defense of the country or building up our armed forces..it's purely political pay back and very much about catering to the whims of some homosexualists.

There you have it, in a nutshell what their concern is...defense of the country....

What is better for defense...an all volunteer force or a draft?

Anyone who is not willing to serve or lend their sons or daughters to serve because of their feelings about homosexuality should reconsider what's more important: their prejudices or the defence of the country.

Israel's army is drafted, of course, but there is no question that being in the same army as homosexuals does not have a detrimental effect on morale and power.

What's more important? Your country or your prejudices?

There are not provisions for openly flaunting either hetero or homosexual behavior in the US military. It doesn't belong one way or the other IMO. Why give any group with an agenda the bragging rights to a victory, when the only reason they want it is to advance their cause? I doubt they truly have the service members feelings at heart, it's just a stepping stone to other things. And, if you allow one group that has a different live style, should you allow them all (polygamists, pedophiles, and on and on)? Pretty soon you would have a circus, not a military. Only one lifestyle should be tolerated, and that is the military life style. Everything else is a side show. Plenty of homosexuals serve now because they want to. Not to promote their personal life style. Nobody should. It would be wrong to serve to advance some non-military agenda. The current policy is working fine, if it's too much too stress for you, perhaps it's not a line of work you should consider.

What's more important? Your country, your prejudices, or your personal agenda? IMO the first two can co-exist fine and currently do. This issue is not the black and white, simple good or bad thing some folks make it out as. People that never have, or will serve want to make a statement. I say they can go to hell, since the only correct way is their way.

Leauki posts:

And this fact should be taken into consideration. IF Isreal's armed forces were all volunteer, the US military might have something to learn from.

Precisely.

Becasue it wouldn't end there....Picture the next step of the homosexual agenda hitting the military.... Today open homosexuality in the military...tommorrow open transgenderism. It's in their 1972 platform...repeal all laws prohibiting transvestitism and cross-dressing!

My country.

And that means that _I_ am right and both the crowd I argue against here and the homosexuals are wrong.

Leauki, I'm not bothered by homosexuals serving, they have always been there. If that's all there were to it, I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal. Nobody is persecuting these folks, and trust me people know who does what. What bugs me is the bigger force behind it. They want to force feed it to everyone, sticking it in your face. The military is for one basic purpose, defense of the country, not a political grandstand.

So why are we talking about it?

Just make a rule that says that ANYONE serving in the military is not allowed to talk about his prive life in such a way that sexual orientation could be deduced from the information and see how well that works.

I agree with you.

It's not the military that is making the issue, it's these outside concerns that are pulling and pushing. I guess we are guilty too.