Skip to content

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) — To Repeal or Not to Repeal

February 24, 2010

If you know me personally, or have read my personal blog at all, it’s pretty obvious that I am a big fat hippie-loving, granola-eating tree hugger. With that, I believe that all people are equal, regardless of their choices. I  may not agree with somebody, but that doesn’t make me right and them wrong. To each their own, I say! Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), specifically, is a big issue right now, especially those of us attached to the military community. My personal opinion is a complicated one, because I can see both pros and cons to the repeal.

What I’ve been told in the past by people (i.e. people currently serving in the military) who feel very strongly against the repeal of DADT is that I have no business having an opinion or making efforts to repeal something that does not affect ME directly. I don’t have to serve with “them” (insert any slew of derogatory words and phrases here. Actually. Don’t. Because it’s not nice, Internet.)

But the problem for those people is that Gays & Lesbians CAN currently serve in the military. Which means that to those of you who are currently serving, you probably have worked with quite a few Gays and/or Lesbians and not even realized it. My husband has said that he has known more than a few over his time in the military, and most importantly, IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE JOB THAT THEY DO, nor does he think that it will effect their job if they are allowed to fully “come out.” Initial studies through congress and through other avenues have also shown that others serving in the military, who have experienced these same situations, feel the same way. There are obviously those who think it should stay the way it is, but regardless of their personal opinions (supporting a gay lifestyle or not), the general consensus is that being gay doesn’t matter, as long as the job is done correctly.

I think the fear, at least from those that I know that are severely homophobic,  is that every gay man currently serving in the military has a closet full of pink feather boas and sequined mesh tops waiting to be busted out, that all of a sudden those who are gay will be hitting on people left and right, and “forcing” their feelings and such onto others. You will know longer be safe in that fox hole down range because OMG he’s staring at your ass instead of trying to get the job done. Well guess what — if he’s gay, he’s probably already taken a glance at your ass. And look — you’re still alive. I have known many, many gay men in my life, and trust me — those who DO own pink feather boa’s and sequined tops are far too girly to ever serve in the military.

The issue, however, is causing more of a debate between those in office then I think those it would actually affect, and the switching and whipping around of ideas and opinions is enough to make my head spin. So why do we care what Congressman Joe Blow in office feels about this? We all know that congress is full of double standards. How many preach moral and family values, but then cheat on their wives? John McCain, one of the loudest opposers of repealing DADT, has said in the past that the top military officials should be the ones to make the decisions, but recently has changed his tune saying they should be left out of it. It’s confusing. And honestly, who cares? Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff has said the 16-year-old policy needs to be repealed, and has vowed to take a good look at how it would effect our military before doing so. So how about we let him do his job, huh?

The Cons of Repealing DADT

But what about the con’s about repealing DADT? The biggest argument has been to not mess with the military — to do a “social experiment” — in the time of two wars. Isn’t that just an excuse, though? Aren’t we ALWAYS in some sort of conflict? The United States Army is essentially the police of the world, and we are always somewhere, doing something. So if not now, then when? Iraq is in the process of being phased out, and Afghanistan — well, we don’t really know when that is going to be over. There will never be a “good” time. So why not now?

Then there is always just people in general, and the dynamic of some of the people in the military. It’s no surprise that a large population of the military are born and raised red state residents. With this comes a typical stereotype that I hate to bring up, but have seen proven to be true more times than not. My personal fear, and this is why part of me believes that the repeal of DADT may not prove to be as good as we hope, is because there are a lot of idiots out there who would do something stupid and harm an innocent person just because they don’t agree with their lifestyle choices. Case in point, my husband, who is currently out-of-state on training, told me that because one of the guys in his training unit is “suspected” to be gay. To him, it’s no big deal, but to others it apparently was. Said soldier came back to his room one night to find a very derogatory word written on his door in shaving cream — it had been on for some time, and shaving cream has a way of taking paint/stain off of a door. Which means after he cleaned it up, he continued to have to look at it.

It’s those type of actions, and the ones that I fear that will be much worse, that scare me about a repeal. Because all it takes is one. 99.9% of services members may not have an issue with it, or may not act on disapproval. But its the loud ones — the ones who will treat them differently because all of a sudden they are “out,” or say crude things, or even worse, physically hurt somebody — that scare me the most. I would hate to see a good person, who is just trying to serve their country and do right by what they believe in, and do their job. It’s disgusting, and it’s sad. But there are people out there who would do something. Something bad. And it’s that fear that makes me wonder if it’s a good time. However, my own counteraction to that argument is that there are ignorant, close-minded people out there NOT in the military. People are still burning crosses for Christ’s sake. People are ugly and mean. No matter what your job is.

I think, overall, the policy needs to go away. You’re uncomfortable if one of your soldiers brings a same-sex date to the dine in? Deal with it. I’m uncomfortable knowing that you sleep with a different woman every weekend, or that you’re cheating on your wife (which I have seen more times than I care to talk about).

You shouldn’t have to hide who you are. People should be allowed to be themselves. Whether you agree with their choices or not. It’s not up to us.

139 Comments leave one →
  1. LAW permalink
    February 24, 2010 9:45 am

    Applause, Applause… My DH, who has been in the military so long I think he knew Custer, has said ” yeah, gay in the military, so what? of COURSE there are… does he/she do his/her job? Ok. that’s all”

    The homophobic types – well, if you don’t like the order, there’s the door. This is the same argument that was floated when Truman de-segregated the military, and when women were allowed to serve – it will destroy the military, harm the military, make it unable to wage war… blah blah. Look around. The military is HERE, and is just fine, thank-you-very-much. Do we really WANT to have the homophobic jerk in the barracks? the ones who wrote that word on the door? is THAT the kind of jackass you want in the foxhole next to you? What if he or she doesn’t like the way you cut your hair, doesn’t like your religion? are we going to say “well, because Joe Ignernt doesn’t like you, we are going to kick you out, cause you are _insert here_” No. We can’t allow the Ignernt’s to rule our lives.

    LAW

  2. February 24, 2010 10:19 am

    Very well written. My viewpoint is different than many, since I am Canadian, and we have allowed our service people to be open about their orientation and have the support of their “home front”, no matter who they are, for a long time. Heck, our benefit package even covers the operation to trans-gender, if that is your desire.
    From the outside, I think the angst involved in contemplating the change to DADT is much worse than the reality of its disappearance will be.
    And this is the best quote: “You’re uncomfortable if one of your soldiers brings a same-sex date to the dine in? Deal with it. I’m uncomfortable knowing that you sleep with a different woman every weekend, or that you’re cheating on your wife (which I have seen more times than I care to talk about).” Love that. Two thumbs up!

  3. Wifey permalink
    February 24, 2010 10:30 am

    OMG. You are amazing. I love that, ” You’re uncomfortable if one of your soldiers brings a same-sex date to the dine in? Deal with it. I’m uncomfortable knowing that you sleep with a different woman every weekend, or that you’re cheating on your wife (which I have seen more times than I care to talk about)” line. Awesome!

  4. February 24, 2010 10:32 am

    Bravo! Great post!

    I agree 100% with what you are saying and I think this DOES need to go away… but like you said, I worry about our service men and women who do come out. Not because of anything they may do, but because of the 0.1% who will act out and do Lord Only Knows What. I would loathe to see our gay/lesbian service members sent out like sheep to the slaughter. That is the only thing that scares me about repealing it. While I would LOVE to think that the ones that have issue with it would be the ones leaving, I suspect that it will be the other way around, much to the detriment of our Armed Forces. The School Yard Bullies are rarely the first ones to leave the playground…

    If we do end up repealing it (again, which we should), there needs to be clarification and specifics within laws/rules/regulations for instances like you mentioned (the shaving cream). It needs to be laid out- up front- that these types of things will be severely punished- as severely as racial/discrimination issues, sexual assault issues, etc. We need to set up the supporting frame-work in order for this to be implemented successfully and with the least amount of negative impact. We can’t just say- HEY! Go forth and tell the world! and merely *hope* we aren’t feeding them to the wolves. There need to be rules, education and discussions prior to the repeal going into effect to let the proverbial wolves know that any negative actions towards an openly gay service member will categorically NOT be tolerated. We need to create an environment that is as accepting and supportive as possible in order to succeed. Otherwise the failures (negative incidences between straight and gay service members), however isolated they may be, will be the only thing people hear about or remember.

    But yes, it is about damned time.

  5. February 24, 2010 11:17 am

    Great post!

    I have to wonder how many would act out that aren’t already. And if there’s training and a crackdown on unprofessional behavior (such as shaving cream incidents), might that curtail some of the abuse? Of course, it’ll still happen. But it’s happening now.

    One thing that galls me about this is the overt – AND APPROVED – bigotry. Let me illustrate:

    I don’t want to serve with gays.
    I don’t want to serve with women.
    I don’t want to serve with Muslims.
    I don’t want to serve with blacks.
    I don’t want to serve with hispanics.
    I don’t want to serve with Asians.
    I don’t want to serve with Native Americans.
    I don’t want to serve with Jews.

    Regardless of whether you understand science and logic or you believe that being gay is a choice with no biological impetus to it, it’s prejudice, and it’s not okay. If you substitute any group besides the white, male Protestant, and a shitstorm will ensue. Why is it okay, then, to damn those who aren’t making every effort to hide whom they choose to sleep with?

  6. February 24, 2010 11:36 am

    Let’s be honest here. Everyone probably already knows who is gay and who is not. Usually it’s fairly obvious if anyone cares enough to take the time and figure it out. And you know what? The majority of people don’t care! And furthermore, they keep it to themselves because they don’t want to get capable people thrown out of their positions and have a loser in their place. Who would matter more in a fight? I guarantee you a gay solider is NOT going to take the time to size you up in terms of attractiveness when bullets are flying past his head. Heck, he’s probably already done that years ago!!
    My boyfriend, who is no supporter of gay marriage nor the repeal of this policy (which is where he and I disagree), says he could give less of a crap about whether or not someone is gay. To him, the fact that they do their job well is far more important.
    I don’t know what will happen. BF seems to think it would cost the military a lot of time and money to repeal the policy. He used the example of Ranger School, that if you let minorities like gays in, you would have to let women in, etc. He might be right, but does that still make it okay to keep it the way it is? I don’t know.

    • LAW permalink
      February 24, 2010 12:29 pm

      If a man or woman can qualify in the Rangers, or any other unit – they should be in that unit. until we look at people’s QUALIFICATIONS and not their sex, orientation,colour, religion, or whatever else makes them “different” – we aren’t going to be able to treat everyone equally.

      • February 24, 2010 12:51 pm

        I think that’s what Kayla was trying to get at. That there are a lot of biases in the military — gender being one of them as well — and that gays serving openly isn’t the only hurdle we have to get over.

        • ArmyWife permalink
          February 28, 2010 11:09 pm

          Im not condoning it at all….just passing on what my husband tells me it’s like.

        • February 28, 2010 11:15 pm

          Do you think (in the Rangers, at least), from what you’ve heard and/or witnessed, that an out homosexual in the Rangers could be at risk? Or do you think a gay Ranger would even own up to his sexuality given the climate he has to work in?

          I know you only have the perspective gained through your husband (one guy in a large group of guys), but I’m interested to hear as much conjecture as you’re comfortable offering.

      • ArmyWife permalink
        February 28, 2010 2:39 pm

        “If a man or woman can qualify in the Rangers, or any other unit – they should be in that unit. until we look at people’s QUALIFICATIONS and not their sex, orientation,colour, religion, or whatever else makes them “different” – we aren’t going to be able to treat everyone equally.”

        Okay, let me start off by saying I am def not here to start an argument, but after I stumbled across the blog and read the comment about Rangers I felt the need to reply. My husband is a Ranger and I read him many of the comments and he said, he doesn’t know about the POGS, but in the INF and the Ranger Rgt the guys most def care if another guy is gay. The Rangers would flip out if there were any indication whatsoever that someone was gay. I’m not saying whether this is right or wrong, I’m just letting you guys know from someone who does have experience in the Rgt as well as in an INF unit. Like my husband said, it could be completely different in a POG unit, but from what he’s seen and experienced, being gay is absolutely not accepted. I know that it should be about qualification, but it’s not, and I don’t know how easily someone could change these guys opinions.

        Aaahh….please, please don’t attack me. I just thought I would throw in his 2 cents because like I said, he does have first hand experience, so I guess do with it what you will.

        • LAW permalink
          February 28, 2010 5:26 pm

          attack you? no.. that’s not how we roll here. If your husband doesn’t think that there are any gays in the Rangers, perhaps he is correct.

          Oh, and POG isn’t the nicest thing to call other units, do you think? we are all in the military family.

          LAW

        • February 28, 2010 5:36 pm

          ArmyWife — I understand what you’re trying to say, but I guess my question is does your husband feel comfortable speaking for EVERY Ranger that’s out there? Not an attack, just a question. I think sometimes there are misperceptions. I happen to know a couple of Rangers myself, and plenty of infantry guys, and this in no way would be their reaction.

          My point, and this is just in general (for everybody!), is that we need to stop speaking for other people. I would bet that there are plenty of soldiers out there who go along with what your husband feels, but I bet there are plenty out there, Rangers included, that DON’T feel that way. But what would happen if they spoke out? People tend to go with the crowd, hypothetically, when they know they are a minority in a group. It’s called the Spiral of Silence theory.

        • ArmyWife permalink
          February 28, 2010 7:24 pm

          I said “from what he’s seen and experienced” I def did not say that he thinks that every Ranger and every INF guy thinks or feels this way. From what he has seen, heard, and what not, he says it is very apparent that the MAJORITY of the guys arent ok with it at all. In fact, if any guy is even suspected of being gay they are called out, made fun of, and excluded. But again, this is his own experience!!! He is in no way, shape or form speaking about all units, POG or not—yes, that’s the term I use. its not meant to offend. if it does offend you, don’t read my posts.
          I don’t know what to tell you about people feeling comfortable to speak out. I guess if they felt strongly enough about something they would speak their minds, but I really dont know (that’s what I would do though).

        • February 28, 2010 10:59 pm

          “In fact, if any guy is even suspected of being gay they are called out, made fun of, and excluded.”

          Just…wow.

        • Tammy permalink
          March 1, 2010 11:06 am

          I appreciate you telling us what your husband’s experience has been. And I do believe that a lot of active duty people will take issue with the repeal of DADT. To me it comes down to this though, the choice should be up to the gay/lesbian service member to make decisions for themselves. They know that being out as well as being in some of the more “hardcore” (sorry it’s early in the morning for me, can’t quite think of the right word here) could put them in a difficult or even dangerous position. Of course this isn’t right but it is the truth. I hope over time this bigotry continues to diminish as it has slowly done over the last 4 decades. But the choice should be up to the homosexual service member.

      • 20Navy Wife21 permalink
        September 21, 2010 8:07 am

        Yes, but when women were let into the military they had to make preparations. Even to this day no living quarters are mixed in rooms for effectiveness. All males are assigned to a room and all females to another. Boot camp areas are gender divided, then to schools they have buildings of one gender, then further in they have almost living situations like appartments. Why? Because they don’t want co’ed. Whether these people who were put together would find each other attractive to begin with doesn’t matter because over time high stress can cause people to confide and become close. What are they going to do with those who are gay? Search them out and separate them as well?

        Seems like a giant waste of time and money with no plan to boot…. What you do should stay at home.. (that includes the gay/straight individual getting laid by 10 different people every week, it goes both ways.)

        The only thing to do for ANYTHING is compromise. I don’t care if gays are allowed to server… my husband knows a few who are. You’re suppose to be professional at work.. Sertain things are banned that even straight couples do but its within the “don’t ask, don’t tell”<<<<<) sorry if I'm all over place…

        • TammyJ permalink
          September 22, 2010 10:10 pm

          I understand a lot of the arguments against DADT, I don’t agree with them, but I can understand where the person is coming from. But the one that continues to blow my mind is the very literal translation of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” There seems to be some sort of assumption that if DADT is repealed gays will suddenly be making loud announcements about their homosexuality and telling people details of their sex lives. I agree that everyone should be professional at work. BUT your husband will not get kicked out of the Navy for letting it slip that he has a wife. He can probably even let other people see a picture of him with you and not be forced out of the military. If he is killed in action, the military will send someone to your door. A gay servicemember does not have any of these rights. It does not matter how professional that service member is, it does not matter how many times that service member puts his/her life on the line, it does not matter if they are wounded in the service of our country…if they are gay and someone reports them, they are out.

  7. February 24, 2010 12:53 pm

    I should add, which I meant to do in the article, that I totally agree that this shouldn’t be an OVERNIGHT thing, as in — tomorrow! Hooray! I think there needs to be some thought put into that, and I believe that Adm. Mullen is doing just that. He’s researching what others think and feel about the topic, and I totally support him on that. I agree with Tucker 100% in that there needs to be some order to the repeal, not just a blanket free for all. Otherwise I think things could get ugly.

  8. February 25, 2010 8:18 am

    Very well written. My husband has been in the Army 17 years and says its about QUALIFICATIONS for the job, not sexual orientation. We’ve also had the discussion where leaders can’t use the excuse that it will create more sexual encounters during deployments because that’s already happening with more frequency than they’d like to admit, and amongst heterosexual soldiers. The arguments to leave the policy in place are just plain archaic.

  9. Kate permalink
    February 25, 2010 6:02 pm

    This was very well written and I applaud you for being able to see both sides, which is rare.
    I have a few questions about the possible repeal.
    What happens when it comes to housing? Will gay couples receive housing if they are not married?
    What if an individual (male or female) really doesn’t feel comfortable showering with an openly gay individual (yes, even if they’ve showered with them before)? Should they be forced to shower with that individual or should they be given a choice?
    If an openly gay individual is injured and bleeding how many will rush to their aid? I’d like to hear a realistic answer, because we don’t live in a world where everything is perfect.
    What about the families that don’t want to expose their children to the gay lifestyle? Should they be allowed to move out of housing if a gay couple were to move near them? Keep in mind that a family has every right to not want to live near a gay couple and this does not necessarily make them bad people. I’ve found that those on the left tend to label anyone who does not agree with them as racist, homophobic, sexist, a bigot, etc. Those who do not support the repeal of DADT are just as entitled to their opinions as the supporters are, and frankly, they should not be judged on said opinion.
    My brother-in-law is gay. I like him and I have no problems with him, but I still don’t support same sex marriage. Does that make me a bad person? To some people, yes it does and I find this not only sad, but rather pathetic. Those on the left claim to be open minded but I have found just the opposite; if one does not hold the same opinion, that individual is immediately judged and looked down upon. Individuals with the opinion that DADT should not be repealed should not be called bigots or any other disparaging name for that matter.
    Not everyone who supports DADT is a homophobe (yes, some are, which is not okay).
    Even though I am in support of DADT, I can definitely see the other side. I understand why many want it repealed, but there’s a lot that comes with it.

    • February 25, 2010 10:04 pm

      Hey Kate. Thanks for the compliment.

      I see where you’re going with this, and I think you’re brought up some interesting points. I’ll try to answer all of them, so bear with me (it may be long!)

      First off … the housing issue. I happen to work for a military housing company, and so I know that every installation is different. At my installation, for example, if you’re not married, you don’t get on post housing. If you do live on an installation that allows single service members to live in Family Housing (Fort Rucker, for instance, does) then you would have to assume that BOTH individuals are service members, since a civilian can not live on post. So, there’s that.

      It seems to me that these are questions that you could ask about ANY couple in general, but they seem, and please correct me if I’m wrong because I’m really not trying to be rude, but they seem to show more of a fear of being around a gay couple than anything else.

      Let’s reverse the roles here for a second. Ok. So a guy (or a girl) is uncomfortable showering around somebody of the same sex, who they know is gay. Since you are straight, do YOU think that every single guy that you meet in life is hitting on you or attracted to you? Every time you have an encounter with the opposite sex do you think oh my god, he’s probably looking me and what do I do??! Probably not. What makes you think that just because somebody is gay that they will automatically be attracted to every single person of the same sex? This is very unlikely.

      So with the showering issue, my opinion on that is that if said soldier is uncomfortable, then go home and shower. I know PLENTY of guys who go home after PT — some 30 minutes away — just to shower in their own homes. If you have a problem, then you need to deal with it.

      If an openly gay man is bleeding, you don’t think that somebody will go to help them? The military does HIV testing on all of their service members once a year. If, by chance, somebody does happen to show up with HIV, then they are taken out of a forward movement unit, and placed into a non combat MOS. Basically, they are taken out of the fight without removing them from the army. They are given details, such as at a hospital, where they can be monitored. They do this because they don’t want a service member to second guess helping another individual. According to my husband, the likelihood of an individual with HIV, let alone a gay individual, serving in a combat zone where they are bleeding so much that they are putting others at risk is “unimaginable.” A known service member with HIV is never even given the opportunity to be in that situation.

      What about the families that don’t want to expose their children to the gay lifestyle? Should they be allowed to move out of housing if a gay couple were to move near them? Keep in mind that a family has every right to not want to live near a gay couple and this does not necessarily make them bad people.

      I never said that anybody who doesn’t agree with the lifestyle is a bad person. But what about the wife that’s cheating on her husband while he’s deployed? I don’t want my kids (if I had them) exposed to that, and yet its VERY common. If you don’t want to live next door to a gay couple (assuming that you live in a state that supports gay marriage OR again, you live on an installation that allows single service members to live on post) then move. Nobody is stopping you. Same as I can move if I don’t like the people living next door to me, or agree with their lifestyle choices. Pay your lease cancellation fee and move off post.

      I’ve found that those on the left tend to label anyone who does not agree with them as racist, homophobic, sexist, a bigot, etc.

      I’m sorry if this has happened to you. Nobody here (and a lot of us are definitely left) are calling anybody any of those things.

      Those who do not support the repeal of DADT are just as entitled to their opinions as the supporters are, and frankly, they should not be judged on said opinion.

      I agree. Same as those who do support the repeal are entitled to their opinions, and should not be judged as well. Correct?

      I also never said that every single person who disagrees with the repeal is homophobic. As I mentioned, in length, in the article, I’m not 100% sure if I think it should be repealed. 99% of me thinks that it should. There’s a slight portion that doesn’t, and I am as far from homophobic as you can get. I think that everybody’s comments here have been very kind and very open-minded.

      The bottom line is that we all have problems with SOMETHING. We don’t always agree with everybody’s lifestyle choices. Nobody thinks that anybody else is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. We all have flaws. So why judge? Why not let people just live their life and be who they want to be? YOU have that right. Why take it away from somebody else just because you disagree with something?

      • Kate permalink
        February 26, 2010 10:55 am

        But what about the wife that’s cheating on her husband while he’s deployed? I don’t want my kids (if I had them) exposed to that, and yet its VERY common

        How would children be exposed to a wife (or husband) cheating? That tends to be pretty private and even though adults may know about it, most children do not. Unless one’s children saw another man’s wife actually cheating on her husband I don’t know how they would be exposed to that. When it comes to the gay lifestyle it tends to be more open (which is fine), but some may not want their children to see two men or women holding hands, kissing, being affectionate, etc. I’m not saying that I don’t want to expose my children (when I have them) to the gay lifestyle, because they obviously will be considering their will-be uncle is gay, but I can understand why some parents would want to. I can’t say I’m particularly thrilled about having to teach my future children about the gay lifestyle, but I don’t have much of a choice.
        I’m kind of playing devils advocate here. These questions aren’t necessarily about me and my opinions, I’m just curious about how the little things will be handled. Most people tend to look at the big picture (allowing gays to be out), but they forget about everything else that comes with it.
        I am perfectly aware that not every gay man or woman is attracted to every man or woman they see. That’s not my point. Some people may feel uncomfortable whether that openly gay person is attracted to them or not.
        This raises the question that if openly gay men are allowed to shower with straight men, should straight men be allowed to shower with straight women? FYI: this is not necessarily my opinion. I have heard this question several times and I am very curious to hear others opinions.
        Also, should openly gay men and women have separate quarters, since straight men and women are separated?
        I understand that not all gay men will be attracted to every guy, but not all straight men are attracted to every girl, so along those lines, it should be okay for men and women to live and shower together if gay men are allowed to live and shower with other men. Again, this is just a question. Please do not jump on me about this. Like I said, I have heard this “argument”/opinion many times and am interested in hearing other thoughts and viewpoints.

        • February 26, 2010 11:13 am

          I guess this is just the blanket difference between you & I. I don’t see a couple and see a “gay” couple. I see two people that love each other. To me, it makes no difference. Do you (again … blanket statement) have a problem with mixed race relationships? Or mixed religion relationships? Do two people have to be exactly the same in every single aspect of life in order to be together. No. So to me, gay, straight, black, white, whatever, jewish, catholic, whatever — I don’t see it that way.

          If you (blanket statement) want to keep your kids from being exposed to something, then you’re going to have to lock them in a closet. It’s called life. They will figure it out on their own.

          The point of this post was that gay men and women already serve in the military, and most people already know of their sexual preferences, yet make no issue of it. The point was that it shouldn’t matter what your sexual preference is, same as it doesn’t matter what your religious preference is, or what color you are, or what your heritage is. If you get the job done, then what does it matter?

          If we are going to discriminate against one, then we need to discriminate against all. Let’s kick EVERYBODY out of the military that isn’t a white, christian male. But then again, that wouldn’t solve anything, would it?

        • February 26, 2010 12:20 pm

          Kate,
          It’s a “life,” not a “lifestyle.”
          Start there.

        • Kate permalink
          February 26, 2010 2:21 pm

          It’s pretty obvious you didn’t read anything I wrote. I said several times that these were not my own opinions, but opinions I’ve heard numerous times. Personally, I don’t really have much of an opinion about DADT. It more than likely won’t have any affect on me. I don’t have to spend time with gay people if I don’t want to, so there really shouldn’t be any problems.
          Like I said I was playing devils advocate. I try to have an open mind (and yes, I’m a Republican-we have open minds too), I like to hear a wide variety of opinions and I wanted to hear some opinions on the different statements/questions I made. I would appreciate that when you’re replying to me that you just don’t assume (yet again) that these are my opinions (EVEN THOUGH I TOLD YOU THAT) and that this is the way I feel or think. Goodness. I can’t ask a question without people assuming, and you know what happens when you assume….
          It’s completely fine that you don’t have a problem with gay couples, but is it okay for people to not be fine with this? I would just like to see respect for all opinions, not just the one you have. I see both sides of the controversy and I respect both sides point of view. I don’t believe that one side is right or wrong. The one thing I would like to see is that those who do support DADT aren’t labeled as homophobic or not tolerant. Hasty generalizations are almost never a good thing.

          Lopsidedmom,
          Um, okay. If one is gay, they tend to lead a gay lifestyle.

        • February 26, 2010 2:41 pm

          Um, okay. If one is gay, they tend to lead a gay lifestyle.

          No, Kate, they tend to lead a life. Just like you and me.

          None of this gets any more complicated than that.

        • Kate permalink
          February 26, 2010 3:14 pm

          Okay, and what difference does that make?

        • February 26, 2010 6:51 pm

          Okay, let me put it this way.

          Granted, my husband is gone for the next five weeks and I’m a nursing mama to a wee one, which means my hormone levels are rock bottom, but even if I could find my Rabbit Habbit, the batteries are probably dead. I’ve spent oh, maybe two minutes of the past 24 hours thinking about sex, let alone engaging in sexual activity.

          In other words, I’ve spent the past 23 hours and 58 minutes living my life. Not some hetero lifestyle, but my life.

          Unless gays are having sex while picking up groceries, paying their mortgage or dropping their kids off at school, I’m pretty sure they’re living their life too. It is nothing but stereotyping to assume that gays and lesbians ARE the sex that they HAVE. It is nothing but hetero arrogance to assume that gays and lesbians think about or have any more sex than heteros – and if they are, bless ‘em. Glad someone is.

          I’m actually not trying to be glib here. This is a fundamental understanding. If you understand how little difference there is between hetero and homosexuals, the arguments around DADT and how to eliminate it fall like a house of cards. The rest, for me, is nothing but chatter and the rationalization of prejudice.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, our friends are cooking for us tonight while Hubs is gone. Those gays next door make a mean lasagna.

        • Kate permalink
          February 26, 2010 7:53 pm

          Hmm..interesting. Although I’m not quite sure where all of this is coming from considering I never said that gays think about sex more than straights. I am perfectly aware that gays live a life and are not attracted to every person they come in contact with. That being said, someone can still feel uncomfortable around a gay individual whether they feel that individual is attracted to them or not.

      • February 26, 2010 8:56 pm

        “…someone can still feel uncomfortable around a gay individual…”

        But why would they? If you truly understand a person as an individual and not a gay – or straight – individual, why would anyone feel uncomfortable because of their sexual orientation? Don’t get me wrong, there’s lots of reasons to be uncomfortable around individuals in general, but what you perceive they do behind closed doors is not one of them.

        And before you try to pull the false indignation card on me too, in the above paragraph I mean “you” in the global sense. You yourself lost me at “What happens when it comes to housing? “

        • February 26, 2010 9:05 pm

          I agree with what you’re saying and I get where you’re going with this. Reverse the roles — how would somebody feel, or react, if a gay person said “I don’t feel comfortable around straight people because they have sex with somebody of the opposite sex. They shouldn’t be included in our activities/place of work/etc.” It sounds silly to say that, and totally ludicrous. And it would never happen. So why say it about a gay couple?

    • TammyJ permalink
      February 25, 2010 10:19 pm

      “What about the families that don’t want to expose their children to the gay lifestyle? Should they be allowed to move out of housing if a gay couple were to move near them? Keep in mind that a family has every right to not want to live near a gay couple and this does not necessarily make them bad people.”

      This argument holds little water with me…what if you don’t want your children exposed to the Jewish “lifestyle” or to the African American “lifestyle”? How does that question sound now?

      • Kate permalink
        February 25, 2010 10:59 pm

        It’s one’s right to not want their children to be exposed to a particular lifestyle. It wasn’t an argument, just a question, but thanks for assuming I was talking about my children (oh wait, I don’t have any).

        • Tammy permalink
          February 25, 2010 11:15 pm

          Kate, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Perhaps it’s a regional thing. My use of “you” did not mean you personally but any person who would be having that concern. Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

        • February 26, 2010 8:09 am

          Tammy, she may have been referring to me …. but ditto what Tammy said. I apologize. I was not referencing you in particular. It’s more of an “all encompassing” thing.

    • February 26, 2010 2:32 pm

      Kate:

      I realize that you may have been playing devil’s advocate, and yes, I saw that you stated that they were not necissarily your opinions. But you asked questions that you essentially demanded answers to. I gave you those answers — answers that were my own personal opinion. I’m not sure how you expected me to respond to you. As I said before, using the word “you” was not meant to be directed towards YOU specifically, but more as an all encompassing tone that represented anybody who had a problem with said issue.

      As I have said before, I believe that everybody has a right to their OWN opinion. Mine is not any better than yours. Yours is not any better than mine. You are just entitled to your opinion as I am. But at this point, I feel like you are trying to pick a fight just for the sake of picking a fight, and I’m not really appreciating the passive aggresiveness that is coming from your comments. A discussion goes both ways. Don’t start one if you’re not going to be able to handle what comes from the other side.

      • Kate permalink
        February 26, 2010 3:30 pm

        How on earth am I picking a fight?? I completely respect your opinions, but I was very curious someone who supports the repeal thought about the questions and/or statements.
        By the way, I know more than one gay person and thanks for calling me a bigot when I’ve been nothing but respectful :-)
        I told you many, many times that these are not all of my opinions, and that I really like to have an open mind and try to see the other side, but yet I’m still called a bigot. I guess that proves my point :-/
        I honestly do not want to start a fight. I don’t know how many times I have to say that not only was I playing devils advocate, but most of the things I said were not my own opinions. They were opinions I have read and heard others say (who are against the repeal) and I wanted someone who is for the repeal to put their two cents in. I don’t believe I was being disrespectful in any way and I completely see your point of view. I’m sorry if you took it as me trying to start a fight, because that was not my intention at all.

        • February 26, 2010 5:01 pm

          I’m really confused.

          “but yet I’m still called a bigot”

          Who said that, besides me (before you even posted, and if you’re only playing devil’s advocate, the comment wouldn’t be aimed at you anyway)? Everyone has answered your questions. Perhaps there was confusion with the use of you (plural) taken as you (singular), but even then, I haven’t seen the word “bigot” flung at you.

          “How would children be exposed to a wife (or husband) cheating? That tends to be pretty private and even though adults may know about it, most children do not. Unless one’s children saw another man’s wife actually cheating on her husband I don’t know how they would be exposed to that. When it comes to the gay lifestyle it tends to be more open (which is fine), but some may not want their children to see two men or women holding hands, kissing, being affectionate, etc.”

          Again, I’m a little confused here. Either kids are aware of who’s sleeping with whom next door or they’re not. If the adults don’t make a big deal out of the same-sex couple next door, the kids won’t think twice about it. They’ll grow up to realize that this is normal*. If the wife next door has an open-door policy for her string of lovers while the husband is deployed, the kids will notice only if the adults are making a big deal of it. Or if the kids are old enough to understand. In which case they WILL be exposed to that “lifestyle” in the cheater’s house.

          Frankly, I find it very sad that people are so close-minded about this issue. Folks can say “My friend’s brother is gay” or “My nephew is gay” and claim to be okay with it…yet they’re not, and it shows with comments like “discussing sex with the kids is hard enough…how do I explain GAY sex???” Or “I’m okay with hetero PDA, but I throw up in my mouth if I’m subjected to gay PDA.”

          Do I think that people who don’t agree with me are bigots? Hell no. Everyone’s got an opinion. Do I think that people who want to discriminate against someone because they don’t live by the protestant, white, male, heteronormative standard are bigots? Yes. HELL yes. I go back to my original comment here to point out that bigotry is bigotry, regardless of how the prejudice is presented. “I’m okay seeing two whites or two blacks blacks kissing and holding hands. But if I have to see a mixed-race couple, I throw up in my mouth.” Bigot. Yet how does that differ from seeing same-sex couples kiss or hold hands? It doesn’t.

          When is a comment not bigotry but still in complete opposition to mine? How about…Gays can’t be allowed to come out because the cost of additional training (like the current sexual harassment training…only gay harassment) required by policy would be too high. It’s a valid argument and certainly isn’t a matter of prejudice. It’s only bigotry when someone refers to the “other” as less than and deserving different or segregated services and rights than the mainstream.

          Kate, don’t assume anyone here has called you a bigot. Unless, of course, my definition of bigotry fits. Then, yes, I likely implied it in my post preceding yours. If you think I’ve called you a bigot and you disagree, by all means clarify. Show me how your beliefs don’t relegate gays to a lower tier of society, and then I’ll adjust my definition to avoid future misunderstandings. Of course, if my definition doesn’t fit you at all, then clearly you’re not a bigot.

          *By normal, I of course mean natural and okay but accepted in the way that apples can be green, yellow, or red. They just are.

        • Kate permalink
          February 26, 2010 5:54 pm

          They called me a bigot on twitter.

        • Kate permalink
          February 26, 2010 6:11 pm

          “Show me how your beliefs don’t relegate gays to a lower tier of society, and then I’ll adjust my definition to avoid future misunderstandings.”

          Now I’m pissed. I don’t know how else I can tell you guys, but NOT EVERYTHING I WROTE IS MY OWN OPINION!!!!! This is seriously unbelievable. I think I’ve made it very clear that those were not my opinions and that although I did not support the repeal, I am becoming more apathetic about it. Like I said before, it more than likely won’t affect me or my future children.
          Let me clear some things up…
          I don’t care if I would happen to live next door to a gay couple, as long as they weren’t obnoxious, rude neighbors (which straight people can be) then I DON’T CARE!
          If I was a Soldier I probably wouldn’t be really excited about having to shower with an openly gay person, but guess what? I would do it anyways and not make a big deal about it, and I would hope that I wouldn’t be judged or called a homophobe just because I may feel uncomfortable.

          “My nephew is gay” and claim to be okay with it…yet they’re not, and it shows with comments like “discussing sex with the kids is hard enough…how do I explain GAY sex???” Or “I’m okay with hetero PDA, but I throw up in my mouth if I’m subjected to gay PDA.”

          Is this directed towards me because m brother-in-law is gay? By the way, I don’t like any PDA, by anyone.
          Why is it so bad that some people (NOT ME) don’t want to have to explain gay sex or aren’t okay with someone being gay? IMO as long as those people don’t harass, make fun of, put down, etc the gay person then there really shouldn’t be a problem. If you like gay people, great; if not, great. As long as you can be respectful then have whatever opinion you’d like.

          I would really appreciate it if you didn’t just assume things. The comment you were replying to was not directed towards you, and you obviously had absolutely no idea what I was referring to.

          I’m finished trying to explain that although I wrote certain things and asked certain questions, it does not mean that that is how I think or feel.

          By the way, I was called a bitch and a bigot via twitter. It’s pretty cool.

        • February 26, 2010 8:00 pm

          Unfortunately, it’s easy to see why you feel targeted on this blog (I’m not addressing Twitter – I’m not part of whatever discussion happened there). Here’s what I wrote:

          “Kate, don’t assume anyone here has called you a bigot. Unless, of course, my definition of bigotry fits. Then, yes, I likely implied it in my post preceding yours. If you think I’ve called you a bigot and you disagree, by all means clarify. Show me how your beliefs don’t relegate gays to a lower tier of society, and then I’ll adjust my definition to avoid future misunderstandings. Of course, if my definition doesn’t fit you at all, then clearly you’re not a bigot.”

          You say none of what you asked about was your opinion. Then that part where I said “IF” applies, and this whole thread has been moot. I haven’t declared you’re a bigot. I’ve only stated that, if your opinion fits my definition of bigot but you disagree with the label, prove me wrong. Open invitation. Seriously!

          I have a feeling you expected everyone here to attack you, so you’re reading only half the comments or else ignoring the very plain statements that nobody is targeting you.

          Again, I’m talking about this blog. NOT Twitter. That’s a separate discussion.

          I’m honestly sorry you haven’t understood that the responses began in an earnest effort to answer your questions. I’m also sorry it escalated, but I definitely see the cause was miscommunication.

          When you have a cooler head, come back to this discussion and try reading through the threads again. Nobody attacked you until you declared you were being attacked. And even then, it was only in response to comments you made in reference to yourself and your as-yet-to-be children.

          Peace.

  10. Belinda permalink
    February 25, 2010 8:07 pm

    The social acceptance of same-sex/gay couples has come very far in these last few decades but the topic (and lifestyle) is still working to become more socially acceptable. Just because one person welcomes it with open arms and sees no reason to question it that does not mean everyone else has to. And further, just because you do and they don’t, that doesn’t make them wrong. We were all raised differently and therefore our morals are different too. Not to say any one moral is right or wrong, but they are just very simply different.

    For example, living together and sex (with anyone) before marriage was highly frowned upon decades ago. There were shot-gun weddings as soon as a pregnancy occurred… and look how far that social norm has progressed.

    My point is, regardless of how anyone feels about the same-sex/gay couples, I think this is all too much change too fast. Right now the entire country, civilians and legislatures, can’t even decide on legalizing gay marriage. The Maine legislature passed a gay marriage law and then voters repealed it in November 2009.

    Then to look at the military, which as a whole, is very traditional and seems much less willing to accept change (even on basic and simple matters outside this topic), so how can we truly expect the military to accept this huge change with open arms? The “right time” to me would be after more time has passed and this social norm progresses to where more people are comfortable with it.

    • LAW permalink
      February 25, 2010 9:58 pm

      Belinda – the military has always been at the forefront of change, it desegregated before most other parts of society (it was an order, it was obeyed, those that didn’t like it, either didn’t shut up and moved on, or shut up and served) Women in the military – same thing.

      The military has traditions, yes. and it’s fair share of the good ol’ boy ethos as well. However, that doesn’t mean it gets to discriminate against someone who is otherwise qualified to serve! As Snarky said, substitute any other term besides gay – white, woman, black, Jewish, Catholic, and it’s discrimination. why is it NOT discrimination to deny a person a right to serve because of who he or she chooses to sleep with? again, the issue is QUALIFIED TO SERVE. If the only disqualification is their sexual preference – how is that not the same as discriminating against them for being white, black, etc…..

      I asked the DH, again, what he thought. His standard response – if you don’t like it, there’s the door. Either learn to get along, hide how you feel and get the job done, or decide that you cannot serve with a person who does not live the way you feel they should.

      Do I think everyone that doesn’t agree with me is a bigot? no.

      LAW

      • February 26, 2010 7:35 pm

        LAW

        I did not mention QUALIFICATION in my comment because there is nothing in the DADT policy regarding a person being QUALIFIED to serve or not to serve based on sexual orientation. The policy prohibits DISCLOSING their sexual orientation “don’t tell” and keeps superiors from investigating to determine sexual orientation of a soldier “don’t ask.” I don’t understand at all how people are being DENIED the right to serve and why that is the focus of the discussion and your comment back to me, especially since I did not even mention it.

        The policy is in place to help prevent discrimination because there are people out there, as I explained in my initial comment, that are not as comfortable with this change in the social norm. They are not DISQUALIFIED to serve, they are just asked not to share their sexual orientation.

        • LAW permalink
          February 26, 2010 7:58 pm

          OK, I said it because, when someone is “outed”, no matter how “qualified” they are, they are thrown out of the military. Because someone’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be a reason to throw out a “qualified” person. It’s called discrimination. To repeat what we have all been saying – ad nauseum- if you put another descriptor instead of the word gay – such as white, black, woman, presbyterian, blue eyed… WHATEVER, and continue to say that you have to hide what or who you are, because if you disclose it, you will lose your job, your career and your living… IT’S DISCRIMINATION. Don’t ask, don’t tell, just hide it… just deny who you are, don’t bring your partner to a party, don’t travel with your partner, introduce them as your friend.

          ” they are not disqualified to serve”… REALLY??? they are told that they cannot serve their country, because of WHO and WHAT they are! what would you call that? that means they are disqualified because of one thing, and one thing only.

          Discrimination – if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a freaking duck… if you deny someone the right to get a job, to keep a job, it’s discrimination. If you had to hide who you were, to keep your job, would you? If you had to hide how old you were, if you were catholic and had to hide it – what would you call it??? It would be called and prosecuted as discrimination.

          THAT’S why I talked about the real reason for this ridiculous regulation, put in place to satisfy the little minds who are scared of someone who is different, who makes them uncomfortable.

          LAW

        • February 26, 2010 8:28 pm

          Ok I see your point. It is discrimination to be “kicked out” if that is what happens to someone when they are “outted.”

          But you are still missing my point. It takes time for everyone to get on the same page. This is an evolving social norm that is not yet accepted by all of our society. Things are changing in that direction (you can’t deny that) but that doesn’t mean it is going to happen overnight. Seriously think about how long it’s taken for minorities’ rights to grow over the years. Women still aren’t getting equal wages and AGAIN the country can’t even decide on legalizing same-sex marriage.

          I have said nothing against the ending of DADT nor have I disagreed with you, but you really need to be open to seeing another view point, especially when you want others to see yours. But I am not going to go back and forth about this. Until you are ready to accept and acknowledge my points that changes do not happen overnight and that this social norm needs more time to evolve – then we have said our piece and there is nothing left to discuss.

  11. TammyJ permalink
    February 25, 2010 10:28 pm

    Great post. I know a lot of people have expressed concern for homosexuals who do come out but I don’t think this is an argument that should deter the repeal. First, it would still be up to that individual whether or not they come out. Many will still choose to remain in the closet for a variety of reasons. Second, similar hateful things have happened to other minorities and we should not deny them the opportunity to serve based on the failures of others. Can you imagine where our military would be now if we kept African-Americans from serving for their own good, so to speak. As for disciplining those who violate the rights of homosexuals, I don’t think any new rules are really needed…vandalism, etc is already illegal. Finally, the benefits issue will be very complicated because marriage laws are so complicated right now. It seems to me though that DoD could say for now we’ll let you serve openly while we research how to handle the spousal issue. It makes more sense than continuing to kick good people out of the military just because they are gay. Let them serve openly now but use the one year (or whatever reasonable time frame) to handle the spouse issue.

  12. February 26, 2010 11:25 am

    Mkay I’ve been watching all of this conversation, and I need to chime back in.
    (Preface: I’m not speaking to any one person here… just in general)
    This is not a debate on what a parent should or should not expose their children to. This is a debate about officially allowing gay people to openly serve in the military. This is a policy choice, not a personal one. You don’t like someone else’s lifestyle in the military? That’s your problem, and your preogative to teach your children whatever you like. I don’t like that Pvt Joe Smith drinks himself into oblivion every night and sleeps with half his company. So I don’t hand out with him. You have a choice with you you chose to associate. I would hazard a guess that if that was your stance, that gay people wouldn’t want to be around you anyways.
    I fail to see how this possible policy change in any way infrignes upon family life. Sure, if you want to move out of on post housing from someone who is gay, that’s your perogative. That’s your choice. If you don’t want to be around someone who is gay because you think it will disturb the values you teach your children, again that’s your issue as a family and its not the military’s job to do it for you.
    Furthermore, it would do people well to remember that the policy was put in place to prevent discrimination and further hardship for gay people in the military. While it may not seem like that for some, that was certainly the intent. It has kept people from losing their jobs (and qualified, irreplaceable skill sets) that would otherwise would have been left empty at the expense of safety to our soldiers. As much as the lifting of the policy would “equate” everyone, clearly the world is not as progressive as some would hope.
    I’m just saying… :)

  13. February 26, 2010 1:33 pm

    The thing that got me thinking about the separate quarters is this:

    As it stands now, men bunk with men, women bunk with women.
    This is presumably to keep sexual encounters to a minimum (and obviously for privacy reasons, etc.)

    So, if this is repealed… some (not specifically anyone here) have called for the gay soldiers to be living together in their own quarters and segregated from the straight soldiers. Would that then mean a set of barracks that was full of gay guys? And ones that were full on gay gals? How would that work??? Wouldn’t that facilitate sexual encounters more than the current situation? Wouldn’t that, ultimately, be more problematic than just keeping it to men and women? And then, would the straight soldiers ask to be put in quarters according to their sexuality- like men living with women? Because that is the same damned thing. Where do you draw the line? Either it is the same for everyone- regardless of sexual orientation- or all we are doing is further segregating this sub-popuation of the military and inflaming the situation.

    The other thing is this: Just because a soldier is gay- doesn’t mean he/she wants to ‘get with’ or date his straight co-workers. He/she likely wants to date or get with or whatever someone of the same sexual persuasion as them. A gay soldier might be showering with another straight soldier, but that in NO WAY implies anything other than they both have decent personal hygiene. IMHO.

    (Also, for any of you who are straight and have showered in public showers -I, as a college athlete, was practically required to- just TRY to tell me you haven’t EVER looked at someone else in that public shower… we all have, it is human nature. Would you then appreciate it if I implied that JUST because you looked at another person in a public shower you automatically wanted to sleep with them? I think not. So why is it fair that we use this example to chastise gay service members?)

    I just think that the best way to implement this isn’t to create further segregation, it is to educate and create regulations preventing harassment.

    • LAW permalink
      February 26, 2010 8:39 pm

      discrimination is not a social norm that needs to “EVOLVE”. OVERNIGHT???? This has been going on for decades! I’ve been an Army Wife for almost 30 years, and they’ve been talking about this for the entire time and gays have been getting thrown out of the miltiary for decades before that. That’s more than long enough.

      You came here to tell me your opinion, I told you mine. If that’s not being openminded, oh well.

  14. February 26, 2010 8:49 pm

    It’s not DISCRIMINATION that needs to evolve. You really like to twist words don’t you.

    Someone not being ok or comfortable with same-sex couples/marriage is NOT discrimination. Being fired for having the preference IS. Sure, ok they have been working on it for a while. Well so has the entire country and MY POINT IS if the country as a whole is not on board with same-sex anything, don’t expect the military to be either.

  15. LAW permalink
    February 26, 2010 9:00 pm

    sigh. OK. once again. what has to evolve is the mind set that says that gays are allowed to be discriminated against.

    comfort level? If you read any of the linked articles, you would have seen that the majority of enlisted personnel are fine with it. and honestly, its not up to yours, or mine, or anyone else’s comfort level! it’s actually what the law says, it’s also what is right. My comfort level includes NOT going through multiple deployments, but that’s life in the military. the country “as a whole” was NOT integrated when Truman desegregated the military, it was the biggest catalyst to the desegregation of the country. We don’t follow the rest of the country, we lead it. Those who cannot get on board – don’t need to. Majority doesn’t rule in the military.

    • February 26, 2010 9:11 pm

      If so many are “for it” like you said, then there should be no trouble at all getting DADT ended then.

      YOUR comfort level is YOUR comfort level. Everyone has their own and if you can’t accept that others feel different about it then don’t expect them to accept how you feel about it either.

      *sigh* OK. So very sorry everyone else has to wait to catch up to your mind set. I just don’t get how you aren’t seeing how long it’s taken other things that people weren’t comfortable with to be socially acceptable. Such as segregation, women working, etc.

      I am not arguing that it SHOULDN’T happen. I was offering facts as to why it HASN’T YET.

      • LAW permalink
        February 26, 2010 9:32 pm

        I simply don’t understand the mind set that says we have to wait until everyone is comfortable with a change. Congress and some very conservative groups are the reason that DADT isn’t repealed. Congress said “we’ll leave it up to the military leadership”. So CJCS stands up and says, repeal it, allow gays to serve… and whoops, members of Congress decided that maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.

        Socially acceptable; and who decided that gays aren’t socially acceptable? I feel very sorry for those who feel that way. Whether you do or not, is completely besides the point. The military doesn’t do “socially acceptable”..

        but honestly, you don’t want to hear anything different, and I’m tired of trying to explain my opinion.

        • February 26, 2010 9:44 pm

          Yes laws have to change and the reason they are not changing right now is because people are not comfortable with it. I can’t explain why. It is what it is. As more become comfortable with it, the laws will change. I’m sorry you don’t understand that mindset, but in the same respect they probably don’t understand yours either. I told you I see where you are coming from. I am only trying to give you a reason why it hasn’t happend yet.
          Seriously, in the initial post it said “if not now then when” and I was only trying to share a view point on when that might happen. You don’t agree that’s fine. I didn’t post to argue, only to share a view point. I really do see your side but there is no other way I can try to explain why the policy hasn’t ended yet. Sorry I tried.

  16. February 27, 2010 10:22 am

    End the policy ….ok. BUT! ItMUST be done with care, so as to NOT cause problems between gays and heterosexuals. Example I as a heterosexual makes an inadvertant comment “I’m going to dinner with my wife tonite” and get a sexual complaint from a “WITCH HUNTER” trying to make a point or get revenge for past actions. In the military gays have and are serving. It becomes a problem when they jump up and make an issue. In other words want out to not deploy! That is the bottom line.

    • February 27, 2010 3:27 pm

      I understand and agree with the first part of your statement. But I’m not sure I understand the second part. Witch Hunter? I don’t see how stating that you are going to dinner with your wife would results in “sexual complaints.” And I’m pretty sure if you’re gay, you still have to deploy. But again, I think I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

  17. Lauren permalink
    February 27, 2010 11:12 am

    There’s no point in trying to reason with liberals. They refuse to see any other peoples point of view. They’re right, you’re wrong, and that’s the end of it. No wonder our current president is failing so badly.

    • February 27, 2010 3:24 pm

      Have you actually read the post or any of the comments? Everybody here, minus one or two people, has been very understanding and open to both sides. It has been said, more than once and by more than one person, that no ONE opinion is the right or the wrong opinion, but that we’re all entitled to how we feel. Please make sure you read everything before making blanket statements. Kthx.

    • February 27, 2010 7:44 pm

      There’s no point in trying to reason with conservatives. They refuse to see any other person’s point of view. They’re right, you’re wrong, and that’s the end of it. No wonder our last president failed so miserably.

      I’m not sure how answering questions honestly and standing by an argument constitute not listening to or respecting another opinion. But I suppose that’s an easy accusation to make when you don’t have a valid argument in defense of an opinion…or when you realize that we differ in opinion on such a fundamental level (basic human rights, to start) that we will never convert to your opinion – and that pisses you off.

      I’m also lost on the hopscotch, logical and otherwise, in this statement. Trying to reason with liberals? Reason means “to think or argue in a logical manner.” If you claim that we can’t see your perspective, isn’t that more a reflection on the quality of the argument? There’s no refusal to understand. Give us a good reason to deny basic constitutional rights to a minority, and we’ll understand. Tell us you don’t want Those Dirty Gays holding hands in your vicinity, and we won’t understand. It’s pretty simple.

      Then there’s the logical leap from lack of reasoning and lack of understanding to a president’s ability to perform in office. Yeah. That makes sense.

      I have a stunning offer to make conservatives: Come to us with logical, emotion-free arguments; make valid statements in support of your opinion; discuss and be ready to come away with a stalemate on a debate. It’s okay if we agree to disagree. We learn by exposing ourselves to the opinions of others just as much as we do by exposing ourselves to fact.

      I agree that we’ll forever disagree as long as you stand by your democratic ideals (as in the democracy, which favors the majority) and my republican ideals (as in the republic to which we pledge our allegiance and which protects the minority). We’ll also agree to disagree as long as you think it’s okay to discriminate against someone because of how they have sex.

      On this argument at least, our government will determine whether our military should be allowed to discriminate. Between us, it should be an honest debate that doesn’t resort to superstition or illogical supposition. I’d welcome that, but in my experience it’s pretty rare (in the blogging world, at least) to find a conservative who’s willing to come to the table without fear, baseless accusation, or recycled conservative-commentator hate-mongering.

      ***I’ve used “you” in here several times, and I’m replying to a specific comment. However, the “you” here is plural and is pointed blanket-style at conservatives who’ve brandished the generalizations about liberals and who would prefer that some Americans be denied their constitutional rights.***

      • February 28, 2010 9:21 am

        Notice how every “liberal” on this board has gone out of their way to be respectful of conservative views.
        Notice how the only opposition has been a little, well, rude. Sorry but its true. Thank you for insulting us in what began as a fair discussion. This is exactly why the current president is failing: because he’s going out of his way to try and appeal, appease, and listen to an opposing party that merely wants to argue for the sake of argument and embarrassing their opponents to gain votes. I’m sorry if I find that a waste of my tax dollars that I voted in (yes I voted Republican, so there).
        I do understand your conservative views Kate and Lauren, I really do. But I happen to disagree, and I think there’s common ground somewhere as long as some people can get off their high horses.

  18. February 27, 2010 7:54 pm

    I also want to make one other comment. So many are unaware of what the UCMJ actually says. So here’s Article 125 – Sodomy:

    “It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal. ”

    That’s right. If you and your spouse get with the buttsecks or engage in oral sex, according to the UCMJ, you’re going DOWN. It could also mean that two lesbians, if they play their cards right, could get around this altogether.

    So tell me how this refusal of a homosexual’s right to serve her or his country isn’t blatant hypocrisy. I seriously doubt that at least a few folks raging about overturning DADT haven’t also violated UCMJ Article 125. And tell me how it’s okay to prosecute a homosexual without going after every heterosexual who has engaged in this “kinky” behavior.

  19. LAW permalink
    February 27, 2010 8:00 pm

    Snarky!!! Standing ovation – hi Fives all round. thank you for saying what I’ve been trying to say, but didn’t have the skill to do. It was superb!

    when the only argument someone (yes, used in a generic form, for those picky persons) can bring to this discussion is either “it makes some people uncomfortable” or “it’s wrong because we think so”… it does make it difficult to reason with that! Uncomfortable??? good grief, your comfort level is besides the point! It’s a person’s right to serve we are talking about! If someone wants to serve his or her country, isn’t that something to celebrate? It’s so rare, or haven’t you noticed? This is not the Army of John Wayne, this is the army of the 21st century (and before someone has a coniption, I use Army because – well, I’m an Army wife, and I think that way). This is an Army that needs all of the skills we can find, whether it’s a linguist, a tanker, an analyst, a nurse, a sniper, a drill sgt, or a cook. His or her sexual preference is NONE of my business, your business or anyone else’s business.

    LAW

    • LAW permalink
      February 27, 2010 9:27 pm

      Since Snarky gave us a definition and delineated what this whole discussion is about, here are more…

      Homophobia: (American Heritage Dictionary)

      1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
      2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

      Bigot: (Britannica)

      a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

      Liberal (dictionary.com

      –adjective
      1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
      2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
      3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
      4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
      5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
      6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
      7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
      8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
      9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
      10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
      11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
      12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
      13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

      Conservative

      1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
      2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
      3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
      4. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
      5. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
      6. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
      7. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
      8. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

      Now, for ME, and this is MY OPINION.. I’m a very proud liberal, I reject homophobia and bigotry. There, my view.

      LAW

  20. TammyJ permalink
    February 28, 2010 2:36 pm

    I’d like to comment about the word “uncomfortable.” My wonderful husband, who today celebrates his 20 years of service, will admit to being uncomfortable around homosexuals when they show affection to eachother. BUT he knows that is HIS problem and not theirs. He supports the rights of gays and lesbians even if at times he’s uncomfortable around them because again he knows this is his problem and not theirs.

    I know many wonderful people who are uncomfortable around physically handicapped and/or developmentally disabled people. I don’t think this makes them bad people unless they somehow believe that their “right” to feel comfortable is more important than the basic human rights of others. It was not that long ago in our country when such people were hidden away, thrown away. I hope that we can all agree that these people have value whether or not everyone feels comfortable around them. I hope that we can agree they shouldn’t have to hide or lie about what makes them “different” just to make the majority of people who were not born this way feel more comfortable. And it seems to me this reasoning (not that I am at all implying homosexuality is a handicap, just the judgement of others that accomponies it) should apply to our fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual… especially when they are willing to risk their lives to serve our country!

    • February 28, 2010 4:10 pm

      AMEN. Very well said Tammy… very well said.

    • loveluvnow permalink
      May 1, 2010 2:10 pm

      Well I am sorry but, I don’t care of comfort or not, I have respect for people when I am in public with my husband. I don’t care about what gays do in their own home. As long as it stays there! I don’t care what anyone’s sexual preference is, who would? Just keep it to yourselves! Why do gays really want to be accepted? So do prostitutes, but that is just not going to happen because disease spreads and then again it could due to TAXING sex for money! This is stupid! Just like the religion thing, Muslims want to put out death threats to the production company of south park, well south park puts down Christians too but oh no they can do that just keep their religion out of it! Sorry but it doesn’t work out like that. I am a christian and proud of it! And I will pray and I will speak my peace as loud as want! If someone doesn’t like it, they don’t have to listen.

  21. loveluvnow permalink
    May 1, 2010 2:02 pm

    I think it needs to stay the same… Why change something over sexual preferences? This is stupid. I don’t give a rats bottom what gays want to do… Keep it to yourselves. I don’t go around saying “I am heterosexual.” I certainly don’t see all of the skanks out their say, “I sleep around with everyone, EXCEPT ME for being that way!” This is stupid and for the gays protection, I think they need to keep it. No threats from me, but from the straight guys in the military! Come on now? If I were in the military and I some girl is lesbian and I have to change in the same room, oh heck no! It aint happening!

    • Tammy permalink
      May 3, 2010 1:45 pm

      Admittedly I don’t know a lot of homosexuals, but the ones I do know (and of course I’m sure I know gay people that I don’t know are gay)…not one of them walks around proclaiming they are gay. The only ones who seem overly concerned with what happens in the privacy of a gays person’s home are those who oppose them.

  22. Straighttalker permalink
    May 26, 2010 11:02 pm

    This is BS. If this goes though we might just as well get rid of all separate men’s and women’s locker rooms.
    Just one big locker room for everybody?
    Who knows maybe a few years from now we can go to the malls with our family and take our kids into a unisex restroom?
    I am just saying why were they separated in the fist place? MAYBE DECENCY! We are a civilized race after all, are we not??

    • May 27, 2010 6:42 am

      But see, now you’re just being ridiculous. They AREN’T Separated. Not even now. Gay women still use the WOMENS locker room. Gay men still use the MENS locker room. There are plenty of closeted gays currently serving in the military. It doesn’t seem to change anything, and MOST people don’t have a problem with it.

  23. Former Navy Sea Bee permalink
    May 30, 2010 1:32 pm

    In all the comments about repealing DADT, I haven’t read where anyone wants to discuss the unintended consequences. I served in the Navy on the ground, in the war zone in Vietnam. I didn’t care about anyone’s sexual preference. The thing I cared about most was that the person responsible for covering my back was doing just that, covering my back and not coveting my butt. Gays and lesbians in the military are no less dedicated, competent and patriotic than there heterosexual counterparts.

    There are, however, consequences of repealing DADT that haven’t been discussed. The military segregates male housing and female housing for obvious reasons. How would the military segregate male/female/gay/lesbian/transsexual/bi-sexual housing if DADT is repealed. (I purposefully added transsexual and bi0sexual because that’s the next logical step if DADT is repealed.) Would there a check box on the recruiting form that asked your sexual preference for housing arrangements. Would the barracks be segregated by sexual orientation?

    When I served, the barracks were either big open room affairs or later we were assigned to 2-4 person per rooms (stateside) with male segregated from female. How would that change? Would men and women be in the same living areas regardless of gender or sexual orientation? Would individual members be able to request (demand) a particular gender/sexual preference for a room mate, and if so how would that play out? Talk about a can of worms. The military budget is out of control now. How much would repealing DADT add to the budget?

    From my own experience as a heterosexual male in the military and considering DADT does pass, I would not want to be assigned housing by the “luck of the draw” method. I suspect no one else would, regardless of their sexual preference.

  24. Jessie permalink
    June 30, 2010 3:07 pm

    I’m not making any comments or opinions about the conversations above here but I am writing a paper for my portfolio in school on this subject. I want to thank everyone of you for helping me out, and seeing all the different views on this subject. This really did help me out a lot and if you don’t mind if I use some of your experiences and opinions in my paper? If you don’t want me to, that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s your words your opinion and you have a right to put it where ever you want. THANK YOU AGAIN!

    • Former Navy Sea Bee permalink
      July 30, 2010 7:28 pm

      Jessie,
      Any chance you could share your paper with us? It would be interesting to know how the younger generation feels about this issue.

  25. Deric permalink
    July 14, 2010 1:37 am

    One thing you completely fail to address, and its a key issue– living conditions.
    I am active duty in the military, I have no problem with homosexuals, and have a couple friends that are gay and lesbian.
    With the policy that is currently in place the military, specifically the Navy, can turn a blind eye to gays and lesbians. When you live on a ship and share berthing and shower area, to be openly gay would be like openly allowing opposite gender to shower together, which is contrary to good order and discipline. Further, if a heterosexual male is in the shower area with an openly homosexual male, that could make one uncomfortable and affect overall morale and welfare. Regardless as to whether the homosexual male has an interest in the heterosexual male, it can make an individual uncomfortable.

  26. Jeff permalink
    August 8, 2010 2:09 pm

    This issue has been decided and the DOD is only trying to figure out how best to implement it. As a nation we have embraced this part of our culture and there is no better a forum for symbolic gesture of acceptance than the military. There is no pressing need to repeal DADT. According to supporters of the repeal many of my coworkers are actually gay. Who knew?

    The Secretary of Defense has compared this issue to military desegregation. I think this is a clear sign of the policies to come. I suppose we will soon see openly gay couples at the workplace and at the BX, the commissary, softball games, the gym, and in military housing. Don’t worry. You probably won’t have to explain anything to your kids. They already see it on TV. Those who don’t approve better come to terms with it or keep it to themselves. Otherwise you will be labelled a bigot and the implications to your career and reputation will be the same as that of a racist or a sexist. I personally can’t wait to attend my first mass briefing on gay discrimination and harassment. They will probably fit it in between suicide prevention and SARC training. Maybe we will commit an entire “down day” to the problem.

  27. DisabledAmericanVeteran permalink
    August 12, 2010 7:23 am

    Amazed that the author of this article does not see her own prejudice under what she states in the title to be a discussion of the facts of DADT. The articles title is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) — To Repeal or Not to Repeal”. Where is the not to repeal view? I thank your husband that is serving honorably and to others that have served or serving honorably. But let me state the word once more “Honorably”. When a person takes an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America; they sign a contract and take an oath. They know the rules and regulations prior to making that commitment. Where all have failed to realized take any Gay or Homosexual that makes that commitment must realize that they made that decision. No one made them make that commitment. And have to abide to the rules and regulations set forth just as any member of the military. To make excuses that someone is homophobic is an affront to those that took that oath with honor and serve adhering to the rules and regulations set forth. When laws, rules or regulations are ignored for one group because it is their choice, then why do we have these in place at all?

  28. calvin permalink
    September 22, 2010 9:47 am

    Dear Brittany,
    Your logic on this situation seems to be slightly construed. I feel like you believe dadt was put into place to make straight cadet feel safe. That couldn’t be ferther from the truth. That is just one of the issues people have with openly gay people in the military. You touched on the subject of the main purpose of dadt. It is to keep gay people in the military safe from mental and physical abuse as well as to keep equality among all soldiers. You mentioned that your biggest fear was that these gay cadets would be harmed and treated unfairly. So it seems to me that you should be for dadt. The issue of having a gay person beside you during war is small. Of all the soldiers not many go overseas to war and if they do not many actually see action. I would suggest thinking a little more in depth about what your saying, move a little bit more toward the center, and choose your belief in a topic for its substance not form.

    ps love the use of the word “choice”

    • September 24, 2010 12:16 pm

      Calvin:

      I understand the initial point of DADT. When I wrote this post many, MANY months ago, the hype in the military community was NOT for the safety of the straight cadet, or the safety of the gay soldier. The debate from the voices I was hearing was that gay people do not have a place in the military, plain and simple. THAT is what I focused my piece on. While the original intention of DADT may have been safety, that is very obviously not the intention as it stands now. You think that the issue of having a gay person stand beside you during war time is small, as do I — if you’re doing your job, what you do at home should be nobody’s business — but as you can see from some of these comments, and from other posts around the blogosphere, many people do not feel this way. They FEAR gays serving openly in the military. Do the research and take a look, and I promise you that this is what you will see.

      THAT is what DADT represents today — not safety. Not well being. FEAR. And this fear has been proven time and time again by the thousands of QUALITY service members that have been kicked out because of who they are. NOT what they do, how they perform their job, or what qualifications they may or may not have — kicked out simply because of who they chose to love. And so yes, while I do worry about what may happen because some dumb ass redneck hick can’t be open minded to any other type of culture but his or her own, I still think this is a completely WRONG policy in this day and age. I will stand by that.

  29. David permalink
    September 29, 2010 11:57 pm

    Are you people really serious? Being a homosexual is a choice. Don’t even compare this to racial discrimination. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. If a person chooses that type of lifestyle, then it is the right of the individual and they will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I dont think it should be exploited in public nor do I think it belongs in the work place or in our schools. I dont want to hear anything about homophobia, that is just an ignorant term used by homosexuals and their supporters to gain national acceptance by reversing the negative spotlight onto anyone who does not believe in their cause. There is no room for homosexuals to openly serve in the Military. Keep your sexuality at home in the bedroom. If you are a homosexual and want to serve this country then do so without your sexuality controling everything in your life.
    David

    • TammyJ permalink
      September 30, 2010 8:52 am

      David, it seems as a heterosexual you expect special treatment. I bet you would expect to be allowed to mention your wife or girlfriend if you have one. I wish people like you would sto explointinf your heterosexuality for personal gain. Not sure why your heterosexuality has to control everything in your life.

      And there is plenty of room for homosexuals to serve openly in the military. I’ve met so many who take no issue serving next to them. Perhaps there should be no room for bigotry in the military. It is a unrealistic dream I know, but one can dream.

    • Jeff permalink
      September 30, 2010 1:08 pm

      Well said David.

      If DADT is repealed, they will call anyone who disagrees a bigot and a homophobe. Why not allow polygamy? I’m sure pedophiles were born that way too. Maybe someday we will come to accept them too. What a shift in our national morality! It has become morally reprehensible to disapprove of something morally reprehensible. We call evil good and good evil, put darkness for light and light for darkness, put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

      • libarmywife permalink
        October 1, 2010 6:39 pm

        if the shoe fits, Jeff…

      • October 31, 2010 1:57 pm

        Jeff, the second you start comparing homosexuality and pedophilia, you lose ALL credibility. Seriously. Homosexuality between 2 consenting adults harms NO ONE. Pedophilia is a disorder that victimizes children. Every gay/lesbian person that *I* personally know is disgusted and infuriated by pedophilia, just as every straight person that I know and associate with is.

        The whole argument about just keeping your sexuality in the bedroom is bullshit too. I dare you–seriously, try it!–to go an entire week hiding your sexual orientation. No talk about your wife or girlfriend. No talking about girls you think are cute, no pictures of your wife in your wallet. When you’re deployed, no sweet, loving phone calls to your other half when you’re able, no IMs, no long “I miss you” letters. No talking to your buddy about missing your family. We give away our sexuality a million times a day in a million ways. What we are asking with DADT is that these people who are also risking their lives for our country have to live a constantly guarded life and hide every aspect of themselves. They have no downtime, no vent time, no chance to just… relax and de-stress because they have to worry about what they say at all times, simply for the privilege of serving their country.

        Being gay is not a “choice”, because if it was, most of the gay people I know would be straight–not because they hate being gay, but because they hate how the rest of the world, and often even their families, treat them. Would you choose to be treated like garbage, made fun of, kicked out by your parents, told by various churches and so-called Christian groups that who you are is “incompatible with Christian teachings”? Yeah, they–or I should say WE, as I’m bisexual though in a straight marriage–really are going to CHOOSE all that. Perhaps it is a “choice” to act on your feelings, rather than live your life miserable and alone–or live a lie and try to force yourself to be straight. Not much of one though. And even if a gay person never ACTS on those feelings, they are still gay, in the same way that I can dye my hair blonde for 20 years but I’m still a brunette.

        It seems to me that we’re happy to treat the gay service members in our military as if they are less than the straight members, and I’m not quite sure how people think that makes any kind of sense in a country that prides itself on its equality and on being the land of the free. I’d really love someone to give me a reason why that is okay, reason NOT couched in religious beliefs since y’know, we do have separation of church and state and multiple religions in our country. I realize there will be logistical issues to handle with the ending of DADT–it needs to be a change, not just a repeal, because otherwise gay service members would have even less protection than they do now. Regardless of the work involved, it needs to be done, because it’s the right thing to do, if we pride ourselves on freedom and equality.

  30. Former Navy Sea Bee permalink
    October 1, 2010 8:56 pm

    It’s like the mayor of San Francisco said when the California appellate judge recently put aside Proposition 8, “it’s coming whether you like it or not”. The question is what will be the unintended consequences? What is special about the gay life style that’s different than any other alternative life style? If DADT is repealed how can any and all other living arrangements be denied?

  31. radlad permalink
    October 19, 2010 9:20 pm

    haha

  32. Mufasa permalink
    October 20, 2010 6:29 pm

    hey I like your article!! I was hoping for a bit more to the pros and cons bit though. I did think it was a bit week. This is a serious issue. We are not Britain nor Australia we have a different culture. I’m writing a paper on this issue, and I have yet to find any well thought out comments on the issue.

    • Mufasa permalink
      October 20, 2010 6:39 pm

      another thing you said was “With that, I believe that all people are equal, regardless of their choices. I may not agree with somebody, but that doesn’t make me right and them wrong.” That’s morally bankrupt. What about the pedo or polygamist or the person that likes to have sex with animals? I’m all for people pursuing happiness, but it seems that for the LGBT moment someone is going to sacrifice something for the minority to get their way. This issue is nothing like the civil rights movement. I wonder what MLK would have to say about this?

      • Tammy permalink
        October 21, 2010 2:12 pm

        Comparing homosexuality to pedophiles or beastiality really is not valid. In those cases, there is no consenting adult. Also, saying others have to sacrifice for the minority is a bit confusing. I’m not sure what others have to sacrifice in order for homosexuals to get their way.
        I do however agree with you that saying all opinions are equally valid is not correct. Some things truly are a matter of opinion, “I think red is prettier than blue.” But sometimes one opinion is just wrong, “Blacks are not as smart as whites.”
        And if you are writing a paper on this topic and cannot find any well thought out comments, I would suggest you try harder. I have read numerous thorough and thoughtful pieces about this topic…from the factual numbers games to personal experiences.

  33. Poetiq permalink
    October 27, 2010 6:00 am

    I would like to start off by saying this articles is nicely written and I like your view points.

    Now the DADT policy, being twenty years old and raise in the newer generation, I do feel it has made me tolerate of things outside the norm. So I do feel strongly about discrimination.

    St. Augustine said “An unjust law is no law at all.” There for how can we take a policy that is clearly discrimination against a group of people? I can not speak for people but I can say when it comes down to a job and a matter of life or death nobody cares who is gay or straight all you care about is coming home to your love ones and if that means you have to watch your partners back to get out of combat safely, I bet any soldier would do that regardless of some one’s sexual orientation.

    Now to the housing to say your going to separate gays from straights is ridiculous it is another form of segrations. You’re basically saying your going to separate whites from blacks, Jews from catholic and so on.

    As a country I feel America has lost its way, we are founded on freedom and equality yet there are some groups in America still fighting for theirs. We send our troops over to third-world countries to fight for their freedom and equality but cannot establish our countrymen’s freedom and equality.

    My dad serve in the army twenty years ago and he tells me stories all the time about his life in the army, but the one thing that stuck out the most was story of how he could be deploy to another country and in that country he is Mr. Thomas or G.I. but in America he was called Nigger. This was a man who put his life on the line for this country so we may enjoy the things we take for granted.

    So for the Military removing the DADT policy, I feel it should go in effect because the military is all about discipline, morals and values. The military is this nation’s role model weather we like it or see it. So if the military can show this nation that it stands for nothing but equality and justice it will lead this nation into a better future. I future where we are not concern about race, class, religion, sexual orientation or anything other notation that allows us prejudged people. We are only concern about the better of each other.

  34. Former Navy Sea Bee permalink
    October 28, 2010 9:30 pm

    Poetig,

    Segregation by race or religion is vastly different than segregation by sexual orientation. Now that DADT surely will be repealed you can mark on your calendar how long it will be before transsexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, you name, will demand recognition and equals status with that of gays, lesbians and heterosexuals.

    Discipline, morals and values just took a step backward. Sexual attitudes and habits are a big part of the morals you speak about. If sexual orientation is no longer part to the valuation, a decline in discipline will follow.

    Housing segregation by gender has just become a thing of the past or so complicated it will take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The age old adage “be careful what you wish for, it may come true” still holds true.

    • Navy girl permalink
      October 31, 2010 2:51 pm

      I agree with you former sea bee….I feel like the author of this article is very undereducated by only what her husband says. Her husband is one man and not the majority of the military and she does not have the right to being saying these things because she does not have any way of knowing, by herself, about how it affects us who really are directly involved.

    • Poetiq permalink
      November 17, 2010 1:08 am

      Dear Former Navy Sea Bee,

      How does some one sexual orientation lower some one’s morals, values, and discipline? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with those things because if it did why are heterosexual’s moral, values, and discipline not lowered as well. Oh because being gay is wrong and being straight is correct? Who are you and who are we as a country to say this statement is correct. Why shouldn’t transsexuals, bisexuals, and polygamists receive the same recognition as well? We might not agree on what these people do but it is their given right to do these things. The problem with society today is we do not take the time to understand what is different for us and our culture and mind set. We are too quick to judge some one because they are different. What makes people different is what makes them unique and shouldn’t make them less of a person.

      • 14 YRS permalink
        November 27, 2010 9:15 pm

        So then by your standard of uniqueness making us different and given rights I am guessing that you have no problem with someone who hates something/someone stating that openly and loudly? Is this true do you think they have the ‘given right’ to free speech. As long as that speech does not lead to actions is it okay to say hateful and mean things if that is what you truly think? You believe that a person can say i am homosexual or I am transgender and openly live that. What about the person that is anti this can they openly say how they feel about transgenders? I am going to go not very far out on a limb and say you do not think they can. However this makes you a hypocrite.

        Simply having the ‘given right’ to do something does not make that something okay. For instance I have the ‘given right to spit where I please, that does not make it okay to spit on your bed or in your car.

        • Poetiq permalink
          November 30, 2010 3:01 pm

          14 yrs—

          I am not a hypocrite because if you want to say those things go ahead and say them. I cannot stop but my opinion of you might change. ‘Given Rights’ are exactly what they are state, given therefore we cannot take them away from a person the only thing that we can do is allow our minds to have a different view point of that person.
          Like I said in previous post you might not agree (have a different mindset) with the person choice of sexual orientation but you cannot and should not allow their rights to be taken from them. It is not up to us a people to judge or pass judgment onto someone else. That person or people will face their own judgment in the afterlife (trying to stay away from religion). Don’t you think America has done enough judgment/hatred through its lifetime? Can we or will we ever grow from our mistakes and judgment nature as country? I hope so because I pray my children and grandchildren will never face the wrath of judgment and hatred America shows so brutally to those they do not agree with or see fit to hold there ‘given right’ as an American . Will we ever agree to disagree?

        • 14 YRS permalink
          December 13, 2010 9:07 am

          Poetiq say ‘Can we or will we ever grow from our mistakes and judgment nature as country?”

          I would like to point out that you are making a judgement in both of you posts above and that you are making them and then saying that they are better than the judgements you condemn. Your judgement is that making a judgement is wrong unless you agree with that judgement. I.E. its okay to be homosexual and/or that if you disagree that it is you should let it go and agree to disagree. You say when will America stop passing judgement, no person will even stop passing judgement and since all nations are governed and run by persons then no Nation will ever stop passing judgement. France passes judgment by saying it is wrong to go to Iraq, Netherlands passes judgement by saying it is ok to sell pot. So please stop passing judgement if that is what you believe is right, however passing judgement is something you continue to do.

  35. Victoria permalink
    November 1, 2010 3:26 pm

    I would just like to say that I really enjoyed this article. Your outl0ok about this topic is understandable and is the same as mine. I am currently writing my college paper on this topic and believe that we should just accept who people really are and not to treat them differently. They are there to serve for their country and we should support them. Your blog has helped me gain a better understanding on this topic and is helping me a lot with my paper.

    • Poetiq permalink
      November 17, 2010 1:09 am

      I’m doing the same with my paper because this topic is so interesting and so controversial it makes a good paper to right. Good Luck on your paper

  36. anna permalink
    November 3, 2010 9:41 pm

    Something that most people don’t really take into consideration is this: It’s not just the fact that people are uncomfortable, the military try to keep a level of morality. this is not always what is true but it’s part of the code, yes they have let women into the military but they don’t let men and women shower, sleep, or use the bathroom in the same area. I think a compromise can be reached in the future, I don’t agree with homosexuality however I don’t press my beliefs on other people and i don’t treat them any less as a person for it; however, it would be like letting a girl in to shower with the other men (they take showers together during basic) or vice versa, and obviously no matter how gay a guy or girl can be, the girls would feel uncomfortable showering with a male and guys…well MOST probably wouldn’t be uncomfortable lesbian or not but you get the point. They would have to make separate bathroom facilities for gays and lesbians because basically they can be considered a new gender. haha this probably makes no sense to anyone but I get it in my head…..but I have gay friends and most seem to understand and agree with me.

  37. Melanie permalink
    November 8, 2010 5:36 pm

    I am quoting you for a speech class and giving you credit. Just thought you should know! Great job.

  38. November 12, 2010 6:25 pm

    um…….i support the gays. so would that mean that i want DADT policy to go or stay? because i just found out about this policy, and im still not clear on it and i wan to understand it.

    • TammyJ permalink
      November 13, 2010 5:13 pm

      Sally, DADT stand for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It was a “compromise” worked out in the Clinton era. It “allows” gays and lesbians to serve in the military, as long as no one knows they are gay or lesbian. Many people take it for what it says “don’t ask, don’t tell” and think gays and lesbians are free to serve as long as they don’t announce their sexuality and no one is supposed to ask them their sexuality. But in truth, if a servicemember is “accused” of being a homosexual, an investigation may begin and if the investigator believes the member to be a homosexual the report moves up the chain and results in the member being kicked out of the service. The service member’s record is not taken into consideration, 20 years of honorable sevice can be wiped out just for being discovered to be gay. So the short answer is, those that support equality for gays and lesbians in the military want DADT overturned.

  39. Cody Johnson permalink
    November 15, 2010 11:48 pm

    Er, well written, but not well spoken. Its really not the matter of looking down upon the gays and lesbians that promotes a problem for me but mainly on the level of morality that our military needs to demonstrate. Face it America, our morals have definetly dropped throughout our history. We are the world’s LEADER in porn distribution, the fattest country, the dumbest country, and this needs to stop. Ever since our nation turned its eyes from God and began to get numbed to sin have we begun to fall into darkness. And this, my friends, is just one more step into getting darker. Our morals on how marriage was meant to be between MAN AND WOMEN is slowly getting turned into WHAT THE HECK GO AHEAD AND SLEEP WITH ANOTHER GUY OR ANOTHER WOMAN. I mean c’mon America, wake up. Stand for morals: what this country was founded upon: men of God and men who wanted to serve him. We arent doing our founding fathers justice by taking another step closer into moral downfall. DADT helps preserve these morals. And dont get me wrong guys, I dont hate people who are gay. I got some neighbors who are gay and I treat them the same way I would treat any other neighbor. But the main thing that I absolutely HATE about our country is not the gays, but the way their beliefs along with other sinful lifestyles (lust, sex, lies, sin, hate, greed, etc) have ruined God’s country and its moral standards.. A country founded upon God and in His name. I hope I dont offend anyone but these are just my views. I only speak on behalf of the Bible and the Lord’s true will for my county. God bless.

    • Tammy permalink
      November 16, 2010 10:16 pm

      While certainly the majority (but not all) of our founding fathers were Christian and while that certainly helped to form many of their ideals, this country was not founded in “God’s name.” The founding fathers had numerous opportunities to force religion upon our country but other than a nod to a “creator,” they saw the wisdom in leaving religious tests out of governance.

      Few things are scarier than a random American who knows the “true will of God.” There are really so many reasons that scares me but put quite simply, we do not live (yet) in a theocracy and the day we do will be the end of our country as the founding father’s intended it. And as for the countries in the world that do function as theocracies… well, I can’t think of one I would want to live in. Perhaps you can inform me of one that has thrived that you would want to emulate?

  40. Shannon permalink
    November 16, 2010 12:20 pm

    Love your article!!!!!! It’s so freakin funny while getting the point across at the same time =)

  41. spec 4 permalink
    November 22, 2010 10:40 am

    well well well. some of these responses are pretty crazy. now let me start off by saying that i have no problem with gays of gays serving in the military. no problem whatsoever, i do not believe it is a choice to be gays as i dont believe its a choice to be straight. you are born how you are. my standings are that i believe in and will stick to the dont ask dont tell policy. i believe it is the smartest thing to keep. with this, i am not saying you cant do your own thing between the sheets but what should it be anyone elses business. its not. gays in the military have to realize that if you join, you obviously know there are the ones that youll be close with that could care less but no matter where you go there is going to be someone that absolutely hates that you are the way you are. by coming out and saying im gay, you have just opened yourself up to a series of problems and for what?! so that you are treated like shit everyday? so you can be ignored, mistreated, maybe beaten? whose business was it anyway? this is where the problem starts. DONT FUCKING TELL! and guess what, NOONE WILL ASK! we dont wanna know if your gay. then what, what if your over seas and for some apparent reason there is a big homophobe. oh shit. now your base got ambushed and he can save your life but since his respect went down for you he chose to save anothers. bet ya wished you would have never said nothin.

    • ExBLSA permalink
      November 30, 2010 8:58 am

      Your response is very well-reasoned, Spec 4. Opponents of DADT complain that the policy as enforced prevents gays from “telling”, but permits investigators to “ask” when suspicion arises. As such, the problem should be solvable by simply enforcing the “don’t ask” portion more faithfully – ideally, to perfection.

      Further, there’s no inherent value of gays serving “openly.” That is, the benefits accruing to society from gays serving openly do not outweigh the benefits of having a ready, uniform, volunteer, faithful and efficient military. The same goes for heterosexual sexual expression; nobody should be asking or telling about what any person does with his or her sexual organs. The military’s mission is national defense, not expressions of viewpoint, religion, or sexuality. Thus, any open expression of sexuality – heterosexual, gay, or otherwise – should be discouraged and perhaps considered a violation of DADT; and any discrimination directed at suspected homosexuality, e.g., vandalizing the door of a campy soldier, should be treated as a violation DADT as well. This approach would provide equal protection of the law to gays without the prerequisite of determining whether every person suspected of being gay is actually gay in fact.

      In sum, the mission of the military can be reconciled with the freedom and privacy of all service members by simply ignoring sexual orientation. DADT, if faithfully and smartly enforced, is the most obvious policy for achieving that balance.

      • Tammy permalink
        November 30, 2010 2:55 pm

        This argument about “not telling” always makes my head swim. Have you ever tried to live your life without someone figuring out you are a heterosexual? That means you cannot get married. You cannot openly have a boyfriend or girlfriend even if they are of the opposite sex. Short of a military comprised of eunuchs, this is impossible.

  42. Naheed permalink
    November 27, 2010 7:21 pm

    I’m a sophomore in High School in Washington State. For my Adv. English class, we are going to start our unit of debate. I was thinking about having mine on Gay Rights or DADT. I stumbled across this blog when trying to find some basic information about those topics, and saw that there were many people with really good points. Because WA is primarily an area where people are accepting of these choices, I haven’t really found any credible people to discuss this with who are AGAINST Gay Rights and repealing DADT since I need both pros and cons. My views: I am totally and completely accepting of the gay/lesbian lifestyle and see nothing wrong with it. For DADT, I am a little undecided to be honest. From what I gathered, the point is to keep gay/lesbian soldiers safe, but on the other hand, it doesn’t seem right for so many to hide who they are in order to be safe. I would appreciate anyone who has any insight or information on this. Thank you!

  43. 14 YRS permalink
    November 27, 2010 8:09 pm

    Okay. I see here many post in favor of lifting this rule. I see passion and heart felt sympathy and I see a smidgen of logic. However, I do not see complete logically thoughts only halves.

    What i am saying is this…Homosexuals (gay and gays are generally a slur) have served for a long while in the military and like many others they have served honorably. Their ability to serve is not the issue. The main issue is going to be safety and accommodations. If a soldier is serving openly homosexual then there will be a increased chance of an assault on that person. That is a serious issue that not only will affect them but many others around them. The MPs the judges the officers involved in any military courts the other soldiers in the unit etc. etc. These kinds of things can seriously destroy a units morale and that is extremely important in combat and training. The issue of accommodations get even more complicated. Most single soldier barracks are male or female only. in other words no male can have a female over and vis a versa. So no girlfriends and boyfriends staying over. However, this would be something that a homosexual could get away with since the rule is no one of the opposite sex may stay. Now the partners can stay and no rules are broke. This is not only fair but is also demoralizing to the ‘straights’. How would this be addressed? Females are afforded separate accommodations due to their sexual orientation does this then mean that homosexuals (a third sexual orientation) would demand/warrant separate accommodations?

    These are just a couple issues that immediately come to mind. There are others.

    This is not simply a matter of saying okay they can serve openly. It is a matter of how they would openly be fit into the military structure.

    • 14 YRS permalink
      November 28, 2010 7:00 am

      Also take this into consideration. People in the military often live in very close quarters with little or no privacy. Sharing open multiple showers and toilets. Now imagine the man or women you are forced to shower with daily is sexually attracted to you. You hardly know this person let alone do you like this person and now he/she can watch you naked showering or can watch you go to the bathroom. Would you be comfortable with anyone that is attracted to you but you hardly know showering with you?

    • Tammy permalink
      November 30, 2010 2:50 pm

      Just a point about the terms “gay” and “homosexual.” Many “homosexuals” prefer the term gay these days and view the term “homosexual” negatively. One of the complaints that those in the gay and lesbian community had was the repetive use of the word homosexual in the recent surveys. I don’t think there is somekind of “official” stance on the termonolgy as with any group, gays and lesbians are not a homgenous group.

    • George Worley permalink
      December 13, 2010 7:35 am

      14 yrs,

      I am a gay male with partner of 30 years and most of my friends prefer and use Gay to refer to us and one another. Homosexual is a derogatory term. The GLBT is even better term.

      • 14 YRS permalink
        December 13, 2010 9:14 am

        I find gay offensive and so do all the homosexuals that I have met and currently know. I also have found that most people have always got something to complain about. These surveys they are complaining about came out in their favor yet they are still not happy. As a overall organization I do not think that GLBT is all that good or well run and make many “knee jerk” reactionary choices. I will also not being calling some by an acronym.

  44. Robert permalink
    November 30, 2010 5:36 pm

    You have no clue.

    I have known some gay’s; some flamboyant, some not, some “aggressive”, some “quiet”. They don’t bother me but…………………
    Granted, 2/3rds a recent survey by the military rank and file say “no problem”. How many of those 2/3rd’s have to actually put their lives on the line with the enemy if it comes down to it? It comes down to “trust”. Many know nothing of this word, you only think you do as in “I trust Joe to return the dollar I loaned him.” Do you really want to “trust” someone with your life in a foxhole with bullets flying over your head that is gay? Take a survey of those that have been there. Not those that sit back in a chair at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania Ave.

    Get a life people!

    • MARIE permalink
      December 15, 2010 11:41 pm

      But with all this said……..IN LIFE itself is a battle! There are people all around you that dnt like the way some dress ~ talk or even the COLOR of their skin for that matter the thing this GRAND WORLD is going to have to do is MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS! Am I going to trust a MUSLIM HATING person to stand next to my husband or do I simply IGNORE the fact that those people are PLAIN IGNORANT and thats what should be addressed……..We as a NATION have several things backwards and need to improve on these very important issues. Nevertheless ~ Have faith in yourself and WHO you are. Never ALLOW someone to take that from you period end of story;) I AM PROUD of you and all that you have managed to get through……..YOUR FRIEND MARIE ACOSTA KHALIL PEARLAND,TX

  45. Poetiq permalink
    December 1, 2010 12:57 am

    When you sit back and read everyone comments some people have points. You can see both sides to DADT. Wouldn’t this be the easiest solution and both parties could be happy. You can keep DADT, but let’s change some of the roles. Don’t announce to your fellow service member that you are gay but what you do between your sheets behind close doors is your business. If you did not violate the policy by telling you were gay you shouldn’t be put out the service.

    What it all boils down to is no one should be put out the military for who they choose to sleep with. You don’t have to announce to the world your gay but the military should not punish you because you are. We need to stop fighting with each and find a common ground.

  46. Fern permalink
    December 11, 2010 6:13 pm

    I served in the military for 5 years and as much as I understand the liberal point of view in the end those serving in the military should have the last say, NOT civilians. I’m not opposed to gays and lesbians serving in the armed forces; however, things are not as black and white as people make them out to be. First off, the surveys distributed by Department of Defense DO NOT properly assess service members’ attitude toward DADT. Less than 10% of the men and women serving in the military actually responded to the studies; nonetheless, these studies have shown that 60% of the Combat MOSs is in FAVOR of the current policy. With that being said a solution has to be reached and everyone must put ideology aside and do what is best for ALL. Another point that I should make is the financial burden of repealing the legislation. While deployed living conditions differ from being in the States. There WOULD have to be separate living quarters and showers; thus, more money would have to be spent on a pointless war. Finally, I would like to bring something up that often goes unsaid. When people join the military they voluntarily give up many of their rights, particularly Freedom of Speech. Why has no one come out against this? This has led me to believe that the Left has put ideology before what is best for our men and women serving overseas.
    I do not agree with discharging people simply because of sexual orientation, but by no means am I in favor of forcing the majority into a situation that they are uncomfortable with. Therefore, I think the best solution would be to revamp DADT. Perhaps, a ban on ALL members of the military would be best; a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy across the board. There is need to discuss sexual preference in the work place anyway.

    • Jesse permalink
      December 24, 2010 9:51 am

      Excellent point! You join the military to serve your country, not to talk about who you had sex with the night before, or what orientation you are!

    • snarkynavywife permalink*
      January 5, 2011 12:34 am

      Two things I think need to be pointed out.

      First, the military should decide, but they should do so with civil rights in mind. What would the response be if I’d replaced every reference to sexuality with a reference to race (black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, etc.)? Would that be fair? Would that be okay? Would you be down for supporting sanctioned racism in the military?

      Second, the discussion of sex aspect is a very secondary issue to bigger problems. What about civil unions or (when done in states where it’s legal) gay marriages? Under DADT, you can’t put your significant other of ten years on your Page 2 (and can’t get any benefits or have their shit moved when you PCS, etc.). You can’t bring them to social functions. Hell, you can’t even be seen showing physical affection (holding hands, kissing, hugging) in public without fear of being seen by someone who recognizes you from the base/ship/whatever. It’s more than the loss of freedom to talk about what you like to do in bed (and don’t think for a second that conversations during watch don’t end with someone admitting to violating Article 125 with their hetero spouse). It’s the freedom to have a perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable life outside of the military that won’t at some point affect your career and land you with a court martial, a general discharge at best, maybe even a Big Chicken Dinner. No bueno. Who you choose to snog should have NO bearing on your career choices. The military might have special circumstances to consider, but that doesn’t mean the homosexuals *already fucking serving their fucking country next to the homophobes who are so askeert* should have to suffer more than others in order to serve their country.

  47. George Worley permalink
    December 13, 2010 7:40 am

    I am a gay male who served in the US Armed Forces 31 years ago. I am honorable discharged. I was also “kicked out” because of being gay but that isn’t what the discharge states — unable to adapt to military life which I usually given in the first 6 months but I had been in for about 2 years. I am proud of the time that I spent in the military. I am also proud of the 30 years that my partner and I have been together — if I had never been let go from the military I would have never meet him.

    Since I have been through discrimination in the military, I would like to with repealing of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, what safeguards are in place that all current gay and lesbians serving in the military would not be immediately discharged? I remember 31 years ago like it was yesterday when all it took was an accusation that you were homosexual and they tossed you out like a hot potato.

    President Bill Clinton put DADT in place to try to end discrimination in the military — i.e. kick someone out because they are homosexual.

    By repealing DADT, there will be no safe guards for the GLBT community in the military. Some Generals will have a hay day kicking out all they perceive to be homosexual. There has to be safeguards in place for those who currently serve when you are trying to repeal the only safeguard that is available.

    IMHO repealing DADT will lead to more discrimination then that already exists. There has to be a change of mindset in the upper echelon of the military before discrimination ends and GLBT’s will be allowed to serve openly. Until then I will support “Don’t Ask, Don’t” as I believe that it is the least discriminatory from my experiences in the military.

    Thank you,
    George

    • snarkynavywife permalink*
      January 4, 2011 9:59 pm

      George, I just saw this comment and wanted to say I’ve been making the same point. All the DADT-is-EEEEVIL doesn’t take into consideration that it was put in place to make things *better*. I am glad that other actions have been taken to cushion this transition, and I’m hopeful they’ll do it the right way. I’m also hopeful Article 125 of the UCMJ will be heavily revised.

      Thank you for your service!

  48. mis miss permalink
    December 15, 2010 12:03 pm

    I don’t think that this article is very fair. I think it is very one sided and its more on personal belief then fact. I dont have problem with people wanting a repeal but i do feel if your going to talk about something it should be fact driven not emotionally driven. because if you look at this it looks like all pro repeal and not a very con. now don’t misunderstand me when i say very little con like im leaning to that side mostly because that is not the case. I just saying if you are going to put it out there show both sides equally.

    • libarmywife permalink
      December 16, 2010 8:43 am

      This is a blog written by military spouses. We aren’t writing articles, we are writing our opinions, feelings and discussing them. Yeah, it’s personal! If you are looking for dispassionate articles – I’d suggest the New York Times or BBC.

  49. MARIE permalink
    December 15, 2010 11:33 pm

    URAH ~ YOU should be PROUD of yourself period! No one should EVER make you feel that you should hide anything because THEY are uncomfortable with it;) YOU pay your taxes just like the next individual! I BELIEVE that the military has gone overboard with this entire subject cause COME HELL or HIGHWATER we as AMERICANs would saddle up in 2 shakes if anything had happend….that I KNOW! Stay STRONG and keep the faith for you my friend are not alone……….Always and FOREVER your EAR and FRIEND ~ MARIE ACOSTA KHALIL
    PEARLAND,TX

  50. Former Sea Bee permalink
    December 16, 2010 4:20 am

    14 YRS,

    You make the same point I have made in previous posts regarding separate accommodations based on sexual preference and gender. I would go a step further and add bisexuals and transsexuals to the mix. If sexual preference is the litmus test, nothing is off the table. I dare anyone to figure how to separate housing based on those classifications. There will either be no housing segregation or some combination no one will accept. In either case it’s not workable. Think about how it was when you went through basic training. Everyone is forced to live and work, as the saying goes, “behind to belly button.” Personal space and privacy are non-existent.

  51. December 18, 2010 12:40 pm

    When the founding fathers gave us the By-Laws and Constitution of the United States they first would look close at the articles and ask: Now is this bill Moral or Immoral before they examined the bill, if it was a good or bad bill. Now there are many things that got through the courts that are Immoral like Abortion etc. The Military of any Nation is not Immoral or Moral it is Admoral. Has anyone looked at Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If DADT is repealed how will that conflict with Article 125 of the (UCMJ)?

  52. Rachel H permalink
    December 22, 2010 3:46 pm

    Just stumbled across this wonderful blog post and glanced at the comments. I’d love to add my 2 cents, if I may.

    My father served 25 years in the Army. He was a Ranger and he was also in the 82nd Airborne. He has been retired since 1994. He has always been a clean cut, ‘American’ man… Oddly, he reminds me A LOT of Kurt Russell. He isn’t homophobic, he isn’t racist… but throw a stereotypical homosexual in a room full of quite, angry looking soldiers and you probably won’t like what you see. My point is, just because we the people (those who are liberal or those who want to say ‘everyone is equal’) feel ‘it’s SO wrong to opress homosexuals and not allow them to express their inner diva in the military’, doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do.
    I completely understand WHY homosexuals and their followers want to be free to say ‘hey major, I’m gay… just thought I’d tell you since I can now’, but I’d say there are more people against this current DADT nonsense, therefore why stir up a bunch of horseshoot.

    Also, homosexuals, it seems, are everywhere… trying to stir up nonsense. Just a blunt fact, not any anger toward anyone.. please know that.

    A) Gay Marriage… on going problem…
    b) Gay Bullying… as if straight children aren’t bullied as well, it ONLY became an “issue” when gay kids started killing themselves, because of their lack of confidence, no one can “make” you kill yourself
    c) DADT… this was put into place for a reason, to prevent gay bullying. So why start this “ooooh gays are being bullied at school” crap, just to now make it possible for gays to be totally bullied in the military.

    Final point… what’s this all about ‘equal rights’ for the gays… I find it 100% hypocritcal that people say that gays need equal rights when in all accuality they are demanding soo much when we (the nons, I like to say) are perfectly fine with the way things have been, nothing equal about that.

    WHY change it? So gays can frolic around and talk about their sexcipades? WHY? Literally, I’d love to hear an actual good reason?…. Because, if gays are currently allowed in the military with the DADT in place, then what’s the problem??>????

  53. Unbiased permalink
    January 7, 2011 9:47 am

    SCARED ABOUT THIS REPEAL. I am and have been in the military for four years now. Im currently in afghanistan; I have to say I’m more scared of homosexuals coming out then the daily rocket attacks against us. I’ve had gay females as roomates, co-workers, but most importantly friends. They aren’t any different then anyone else. However, we have to much on our plate right now. We havent even got over females being in the military let alone accepting gays. I am also religious. I dont approve of homosexuality but christianity doesnt teach you to hate either. So im at peace with whatever decisions other people make in life. Like them I explain my religion and beliefs if they choose to follow their own then its fine by me. Im just happy they gave me the opportunity to speak. I fearful for the gey males; especially in occupations in which only males are aloowwed to work in i.e. infantry. The military has plenty of radicals who will take matters into their own hands. Overall I think this shouldve been a decision that we make at home, not during a time where you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers far from home. In other words lets not air our dirty laundry in public.

  54. January 12, 2011 5:31 pm

    People need to realize that being gay is not a choice or life style, but a facet of their very being.

  55. kulio permalink
    January 19, 2011 8:37 pm

    i love this

Trackbacks

  1. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — To Repeal or Not to Repeal
  2. DADT And The Kutteles Family
  3. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” « Military Substance
  4. The Right to Stay Quiet « butoolafi
  5. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell « thelifeicomefrom

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers

%d bloggers like this: