Ok I haven't been on much and this may have already been discussed but
What is your opinion on it? Mine is this GAYS ARE PEOPLE just like
anyone else and these people are citzens in AMERICA. Why should we give
them a free ride? That's just what it is too. Because men and women have
paid the price for freedom for hundreds of years and because of thier
preferences in something that has NOTHING to do with protecting our
country. Anyway yeah I just thought I'd see what other people think.

Woops I pasted that and I cut some out hehe ok after our country I meant
to put "gay people can't do the same?" K? LOL

i dont know if bein gay is a good thing in our military....what if your
in the war and the soldier right next to you is gay.....and he sees the
enemy and says...ooh hes hott!..and drops his damn gun!!?......the very
thing to save his own ASS!...haha!!....idk

Well see if that was the case straight women in the military would do
it. It's silly to assume that every gay man falls into that sort of
stereo type of man purses fashion tips.

I ned to get to bed I need an EDIT button i forgot and hehe

me too imma head to bed...i guess no crackheads out tonight...late..

With all due respect...

... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR OPINION !!!

When you say : '... 'gays' (homosexuals) are people, and that these
people are citizens in America'. That is a matter of constitutional law
under the US constitution and bill of rights and freedoms!!! NOT A
MATTER OF PERSONNAL OPINION.

Don't get me wrong, I am a male and 100% admirer and appreciating lover
of WOMEN. And I also appreciate the topic that you bring to this forum!
But again , it is NOT a matter of opinion.

What I find interesting in this forum, is that it raises the question of
resistance and non-acceptance by somem of our most fundamental and
cherished principles of freedom and democracy. Those very values and
principles that our forefathers and current army contrymen and women
(heteros, homosexuals) are risking their lives today to preserve and
promote.

We will never get rid of ignorance, prejudices, fear of differences and
bigotry. But we can at the very least gard against elevating those
shortcomings, and avoid giving them the undeserved privilige of
'legitimate opinions'.


Again with all due respect.

Thank you for this forum.

well to the last comment. First I am a veteran of Desert Storm and am
here to say democracy doesn't play in the military. The military is (by
definition) a dictatorship. It has to be to work.
Second in a platoon the men have to function like parts of a machine;
all working perfectly together. If one part doesn't mesh with the rest
the machine breaks down and lives are lost. This will happen if a
platioon has a known gay in it. Remember all it has to take is one
soldier feeling uncomfortable for the machine to break down. Wether that
is fair or not to the Gays is irrelivant. Because that is reality and we
can't risk a soldiers life because someone wants to be openley Gay in
the military.
And by the way "don't ask don't tell" doesn't work gays are found out
eventually.
On a civilian note I don't have ANYTHING against gays except in the
military

I have had my head in the sand on this one for a long time as I don't
know what my opinion is. Yep, you read that right.

I see both sides of this argument and have not been able to form a solid
basis for a lasting opinion. I agree with the military as to what
constitutes "a fine well oiled machine" and agree that all should have
the freedom to be who they are.

It is a quagmire for me and I have a hard time with grey areas. If a
greay area exists, forming an opinion takes me a lot longer as that line
is too blurred. I am not a leftist liberal, far from it, but this issue
has had me confounded for some time.

No opinion truly formed here.

Verb

Just a thought, make alternative life style units. Israel made all
women units, that worked. Know a young lady, law enforcement, self
defense trainer, has had Navy seals in her classes. alternative life
style, job forces her to stay low on the radar, don't ask don't tell.

You know what? I got this to say about it.
I couldn't give a rats ass about your sexual prefrence...In the heat of
battle....are you gonna cover my back as well as I will yours? We both
want to get the job done and come home safe and in one peice.

There are both sexes at war these days, regardless of the one you
prefer..... I want everybody's ass covering mine! LOL!

and by the way - who ever said if there is a gay man on his team there
is a weak link - they're right - however the weak link is the guy who is
writing.

nuff said.

MP

Yep, gays are people and in the Bible they are grouped with adulterers.
So, I believe that homosexuality is no more 'just another life style'
than adultery is. That said, I don't think that being gay (dang, I wish
we hadn't given them that name) should exclude them from military
service. As for being weak links, I believe the military has a way to
weed out those, whether they are gay or straight.
That's my opinion.
OleJeb

I have avoided comment of this subject for a while trying to put
everything in perspective. When I was in the Army gays were not
allowed. Were there gays in the Army? I am certain there were. Did
anyone know? Not likely. In the heat of battle, I would be more
concerned with someones ability to shoot and his intestinal fortitude
rather than his orientation. But as was mentioned earlier, an openly
gay person would be a cog that did not mesh with the gear of the unit
that would cause a problem that would be insurmountable. A totally gay
unit would not work either, each unit is a cog in a bigger gear. You
would have the same problem with a totally gay large unit that you would
have with a gay in a small unit. Until a more enlightened attitude
pervails it just won't work. I don't see attitudes changing real soon
because a lot of people need someone to look down on to make themselves
feel better.

Well that's just a cranky old rednecked conservatives opinion anyway

barstow,

First off, I want to salute the war veteran in you. It's by far the
ultimate contribution one can make to his country and fellow contrymen.

Now back to the debate.

When you say that the military is a 'dictatorship' and that Democracy
doesn't enter in to the Military equation so to speak, I could only
agree if you say that as a figure of speech.

In fact, when you say that the military is a 'dictatorship', I would
say that the military is given, by decree of the US government and the
Congress, and fully within our democratic rule of law system, a vast yet
'limited lattitude' to organize itself under military rather than
civilian governance.

Inside military governance, authoritative chain of command definitely is
the reality as opposed to the consensus reaching approach of civil
governance.

But, the military governance, and its authoritative COC style within,
are both 'subordinated' to civil governance in the end. Otherwise we
would live in a 'Military State', where the military would be
accountable to no one. Clearly not the case of the US.

Suffice it to say that the military Commander in Chief is the official
democratically elected representative of all citizens of the US, to whom
he is fully accontable in return.

So, agreed that one loses certain civilian privileges when entering the
military, but none of his RIGHTS.

That is where the line is drawn. This is where the Military is
subordinated and accountable to the civilian society (government not
political).

It can run its 'authoritative' Chain of Command to the extent where it
doesn't intervene with anyone's fundamental rights, including foreigners
whose own countries may not afford the same rights (see Guantanamo and
Abou Grahib vs our own civil liberties).

Under those rights, and the rule of law which serves to enforce them,
the US constitution (whithin which the Military must operate) GUARENTEES
everyone a number of fundamental rights and protection. Among those
guarentees, everyone has the right of equal treatment, and cannot be
discriminated against on the basis of religion, race or sexual
orientation.

Now 'barstow', don't get me wrong, I am not playing down the very
real, and potentially serious issue of sexual orientation 'intolerance'
in the military that you bring up. It is real. And it is something that
a law, by and of itself, doesn't help address.

But unless we push through our political and democratic channels, to
change them, 'thems' are the laws to which the military is accountable.

The point being, we must reconciliate the two imperatives in the right
order. Fundamental rights FIRST, because thats the way it is, but also
Military Chain of Command rule, becouse that's the way it is also.

That brings us to the domain of creative and functional solutions, where
both Fundamental Rights and Chain of Command priciples coexist
effectively.

That's the challenge, and the gift of all democratic societies.


Thanks for your angle barstow.

I've stated it in another thread and I'll repeat myself here. We had a
gay in our outfit. He was our medic. Not a one of us cared less about
his orientation. What mattered was that he could do the job. If a fellow
grunt can fire his weapon, cover my back and do the tasks assigned I
don't care about his orientation.

Well said karmafury

I agree with what the General said on the matter.
The United States military is voluntary, and is only interested
in the best people available.
Gays fall short of that due to their perverted lifestyle, and therefore
unsuitable for military life.
This is not my opinion, its a fact based on previous comments by most
politicians elected by you the people of the United States of America,
and since when do we care what of countries do, let them recruit all the
gays they want, just don,t come to war against us.

Gays are human, lesbians are human. Their affections for whoever is irrelevant to their loyalty, dedication, and courageous acts for this country.

There is nothing wrong with them in the military.

the only thing wrong with that choice of life style in the military is engaging in it breaks certain rules of the UCMJ