I just can’t get my head around the spectre that some soldier, armed to the teeth, engaged in exchanging mortars and rifle fire with some “enemy,” might not be at his sharpest because he knows the guy risking his life beside him is non-heterosexual.

I don’t know about you… but I wouldn’t give a shit if the guy next to me had both a functioning vagina and a set of male tools that would make a donkey drool… and, was in drag…. just so long as he was focussed on the gunfight and was watching my back (if you’ll pardon the heresy).

ursomniac:

An air force master sergeant recently said, “When I joined, homosexuality was forbidden. Now it’s optional. I think I’ll retire before it becomes mandatory.”

You said, “Instead let’s keep DADT, but change it so that it refers to homophobes.”

Sounds like he was on to something.

According to some estimates, there are around 65,000 gays and lesbians
currently serving in the U. S. military.  That’s not counting, apparently, those
who would probably label themselves as “bisexual.”  When surveyed, most
serving members of the military say they know someone in their unit who is
same-sex oriented, and most of those have no problem with it.  Whether the
ban on identified same-sex oriented persons serving openly in the U. S.
military is lifted or not, they will continue to join and continue to serve.

They will continue, for whatever reason, to sign up for service in an officially
hostile organization to fight our wars for us.  They make a choice to do so. 
What they did not make a choice to do is to be born same-sex oriented into a
society that is socially and legally hostile to them, despite gains in recent years
to overturn some of that homophobic hostility.  Some do not stick around, as
the higher suicide rate among same-sex oriented teens shows.  They get
overwhelmed by the taunts and bullying and the lack of support in their
schools, communities, churches, and - yes - even their families.

At least those who make it past those hurdles can make a choice whether to
serve all of us in our military under DADT-DP (-Don’t Pursue).  They just have
to hide and lie about who they are in order to do so.  As Adm. Mullen said, that
is not an acceptable circumstance to place those courageous and determined
enough to serve.  What more is there to “study”?  The military suffers losses to
its “effectiveness” when same-sex oriented troops are yanked out, usually
based on an accusation by some disgruntled person, leaving previously
“cohesive” units with gaping holes, and again when it has to allocate scarce
funds to recruit and train replacements.  This totally counterproductive charade
that is intended to protect the small percentage of neanderthal homophobes
must be ended without further delay.

DATG: Don’t Ask The Generals!

Well, chuckie2u, if you think:

“Opening the doors to allow sexual self expression can open the doors to sexual orgies between officers,noncom and enlisted personell.”

...will present a problem, I’d like to hear what it is. Just what about a few “fellows” getting together for a litte “fun” IN PRIVATE is SO THREATENING to you?

There’s absolutely NOTHING WRONG with a “sexual orgy” as far as those who want to participate are concerned. And for all those who do NOT want to participate - IT’S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS, is it?

There are sexual liaisons between both sexes between and among all ranks now. Just how is being a little more HONEST about them is going to lead to such a disaster?

Honestly, I can’t figure where people come from who ASSUME they have the right to determine for others what is acceptable behavior. If YOU don’t like how someone else behaves, your ONLY REMEDY is to SAY SO. Going beyond that to “get your way” violates their right to do as they please.

Just so my message isn’t missed here: NO ONE has the right to apply their own rules and regulations to others. If YOU don’t like something, that is YOUR right. But you have NO right to insist that others alter their behavior based on your likes and dislikes. (Common sense applies: if someone’s behavior presents some sort of risk to anything or anyone other than themselves, THEN society gets to set some boundaries for the Common Good.)

If one person “indicates” to another an interest in “getting together,” the other has a choice to accept or reject the offer. A simple, “Yes, please” or “No thanks” is ALL that is required. If THAT response is violated by insistance or pressure of any kind, THEN YOU CAN BRING ON THE DOGS. (Some “together” heterosexual males I know, when “hit” on by a gay man, take it as a COMPLIMENT - isn’t it rather nice to be regarded as ATTRACTIVE? I mean what’s the alternative - you’d rather be regarded as UNattrative?)

I love it, ursomniac! I wish I’d thought of that.

There are Gay people in the military now.  There were Gay people in the military yesterday, last year, during Vietnam and Korea and World War 2 all the way back to 1776.  The sexuality of military personnel is their private business and should be a non-issue.  What the generals and the politicians are afraid of is not a decline in the efficiency of the troops, but backlash from religious reactionaries.

American ethnocentrism is alive and well eating away at the very foundation of its society like dry rot.

What is a success elsewhere in the world is irrelevant to Americans. We non-Americans are considered, by definition, inferior beings in the same way that persons of (any) colour in America are considered substandard by whites whether the whites will admit it or not. And no one takes advice from or the example set by an “inferior.”

There are many in America who are trying to enlighten their fellows about the ways of the world without much success. The American superiority complex is as strong amongst the masses as it is pure fantasy. It’s a defense mechanism, of course, to cover for that uneasy feeling deep inside that just perhaps they’re not as superior as they’d like to think.

The games now being played in the American military about gays are generated by an almost inborn genetic prejudice against anything or anybody that doesn’t fit their idealized vision of what “should be.” Such deliberate ignorance is pathetic and deserving of great pity. They’d have it from the rest of the world if it weren’t for their irritating arrogance about it.

America is following Great Britain and all previous “empires” down the road to “has been” status. And the only way Americans will be able to cope with this reality is to turn up the volume on their fantasies. They’ve built their castles in the sky and are now getting ready to move in.