Hey if you Christian assholes really cared about defending America you would enlist regardless of whether their are homosexuals or not. Why should everybody bend over backwards fort hese religious assholes the whole time. Get over the fact that not everybody believes in imaginary friends.

No2rednecks, here is a simple question even you should be able to answer:

How do you know someone is a homosexual?

Hey, Mensa — a few things for your little reading comprehension-challenged brain:

1) I’m not a Christian. I’m an agnostic. Go ahead, I’ll wait while you look it up in the dictionary.

2) I’ve pulled my watch, pal. Enlisted during the first Gulf War. Proudest thing I’ve ever done in my life was wore the uniform of the US Army.

3) In case you didn’t catch it in the post above, Christians ARE already enlisting to defend this country. An overwhelming majority of those serving are Christians. Which is why open homosexuality in the military is opposed by those who serve…because it goes against their Christian beliefs.

What part of any of that do you not understand?

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why have you never served in your country’s military (New Zealand in your case, which does allow homosexuals to serve, so that shouldn’t have stopped you)? Apathy, cowardice, unfit? Content to let better men than yourself keep you free? All the above?

Hi Robbie, I just have a question, because it is unclear to me in your post. Are you saying that homosexuals should not serve in the military at all, or are you saying that requiring them (or allowing them) to serve “openly” is the problem.

[Editor --- I'm not opposed at all to gays serving in the military. Again, I don't have a religious (or any other) opposition to homosexuality. But I understand and acknowledge that most in the military do. I think openly serving is detrimental to the morale and mission of the military.]

I am not taking issue with you either way. I just can’t tell where you stand on that.

And I guess I find it odd that Obama would rescind this policy. Whoever the so-called gay advocates are that are pushing for rescinding this policy are apparently not people who want to be in the military themselves. No intelligent gay person is going to want to be loud and proud in the military. It just defies logic. It is like a death wish, really. So it almost seems like this would be an anti-gay policy, to rescind it. Maybe I am missing something. I think all the gay people that voted for Obama are starting to get peeved, now that they know he is not really going to do squat for them. But again, thanks for coming out (heh) to vote!

Thanks, Robbie, for keeping us all up to date on things.

Rational and Right; here is your answer (although I do not assume to speak for Robbie):

A person cannot demand that the government stay out of their personal life and then demand special consideration based on what they do in their personal life. That is the “gay” movement’s ultimate goal; remove all personal responsibility for what they do, making it mainstream, forcing acceptance, not just being content with tolerance. The goal is actually to acheive “preferred” status, which simply means that if you are turned down for a job because you are not qualified, you can scream discrimination by letting the world know you are gay.

If what you do in your personal life is no one else’s business, then why should you make that business public? That is why I asked No2rednecks how you tell someone is gay. You will notice, he did not answer.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule allows those who are gay to serve in the military. Is that too much to ask, that you keep your private life, private and not allow it to taint your job or the workplace?

I was in the military when Clinton first took office, and I remember well the heated debate of the times.

You could hardly turn on the TV or radio, or pick up a newspaper (the Internet not being ubiquitous in those days) without hearing about it. Everyone had an opinion, but no one was asking the important question.

The question that was being asked was, “Is it fair to exclude homosexuals from military service?” And the answer, of course, is , “No, it is not fair.”

But the more important question is, “Would allowing homosexuals to serve openly make the military more, or less, effective in its basic mission?” Keeping in mind that “being fair” is not the military’s basic mission.

Prior to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, when there was an outright ban on homosexuals, we had homosexuals serving. In most cases, no legal action was taken, but we still knew who was gay and who was not.

With one notable exception, I never saw an incident of anti-gay violence, but homosexuals were definitely not accepted as members of the community. Gay military members were completely ostracized by their co-workers. No one wanted to work with them, no one wanted to be around them at all. Essentially, the person became a liability to their command, rather than an asset.

So the answer to the question is, “Allowing openly homosexual men and women in the military would make the military less effective, weakening America’s defense posture, and endangering American lives.”

Totally unfair, especially when you consider that the real problem is not the gays themselves, but rather the reactions of the non-gay military members. Totally unfair, but totally true none the less.

So the Commander-in-Chief has to make a decision: be fair, or protect the country. Bill Clinton chose the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise because he thought that lifting the ban entirely would have weakened the military to an unacceptable degree (or he felt that it would have weakened him politically to an unacceptable degree). Obama may feel differently, or he may not. We will find out soon enough.

Colin, one thing you can count on; the opinion Obama has today will not be the same one he has tomorrow.

Remember, change is the bi-word. And change we will get. One opinion on Wednesday, changing to another opinion on the same issue on Friday when his staff is up to their necks in damage control.

I totally agree as to not making homosexuality an issue. It just isn’t good for our military to have gay people serving “openly.” I also completely understand avoiding the double-standard.

I guess I just couldn’t tell if we are also saying gay people shouldn’t serve at all. I guess I am also saying that I would be surprised if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” really changed the way that homosexuals had acted while they were in the military, or if it only increased the number of homosexuals that signed up because they felt more comfortable doing so. In other words, previously, were homosexuals really all that loud and proud when they served?

Prior to DADT, gay military members were not “all that loud and proud”.

But take 400 men, put them in a metal box 500 feet long and 50 feet wide, and leave them there for six months straight (or longer), and by the time you let them out, they will know each other really well.

So yeah, no one ever got on the 1MC and said, “I’m here and I’m queer,” but we still knew.

I see the weird little green fruit from NZ stopped by for his infrequent troll dropping.
That tired liberal mantra of “why don’t you enlist” is so passe. Here, we now have the first bi-racial PEOTUS in our history, who won’t even show his selective service registration, and liberals still chanting the same tired song.

Some good discussions, troll poop aside.
My question is, if he intends to rescind DADT, what will be the new policy?
Do we go to the default setting, of no homosexuals in the military?
Doesn’t seem reasonable or likely.
Requiring service members to accept a lifestyle that they are opposed to, will most certainly result in fewer enlistments, re-enlistments, and the worst kind of ostracism, silent bigotry. It could even result in more training or combat related “casualties.”

I, like many, would prefer that people conduct themselves professionally at work. On their personal time, I have little or no interest if it’s an activity that doesn’t appeal to me.

In addition to what Robbie has stated about morals and values, being one of the primary reasons most in the military aren’t comfortable with open homosexuality. There is the long considered factor of the “fox hole.” Most men would not feel comfortable serving with a homosexual in a combat setting. If they rebuked an advance, would the homosexual soldier do everything in their power to protect his comrade in arms? Would the soldier do everything in his power to protect the homosexual soldier? What of the shower room? I don’t know of many heterosexuals that would care to be ogled or have sexual advances made toward them by another man. The entire proximity issue is a valid one, when discussing this matter in the military.
Also, the potential for lawsuit abuse would exist, by some unscrupulous recruits, for heteros and homos, alike.

I’m reluctant to say the current policy is the best that can be constructed, but the world is a dangerous place, and not getting any safer. Creating a problem, when one doesn’t necessarily exist(or isn’t critical), may be the best argument for staying with the current policy.

I, like Colin, spent years on a steel box 522 feet long and yip, we had a couple of homosexual’s on the ship (I will not give a friendly tag to their orientation, it is not gay, it is more like “drama’s all the time”). They worked in Officer Country and seemed to get along just fine, the rest of us just did not associate with them. Why would we? To learn about period furniture and fabrics? Do I have a compelling argument to say why they should be excluded? Nope. Nothing beyond that it was a creepy distraction from the mission we were charged with.
I wonder if they would enlist at the same rate as in the general population or if they would be drawn to Military in larger numbers? One in a hundred, so what. More than that and the interior decorating on Navy ships may become very interesting…….

If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military, I suggest removal of any and all sex segregated housing, bathrooms, showers, or anything else where privacy is currently given because of sex.

[...] military man and Austin blogger Robbie Cooper has some thoughts: Rescinding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will adversely affect [...]

It really should be a matter of fairness to our military personnel. And I don’t mean being fair to people who are bigoted I mean being fair to gay people already serving. Those people who are risking their lives for their country are not allowed to “Tell” if they are being discriminated against because they are gay, in the military. If they are worried about their gay identity, they are not allowed to Tell a military counselor or chaplain. If they are worried about their same-sex partner they cannot talk about it to their CO. They cannot get any aid for their family, no health benefits for their partner, no PX bens, no death benefits if they are killed. They are not allowed to get Civil Unions or get married in states that allow it (CT and MASS) so they cannot protect their families in the same way. They pay more taxes and are treated as second class citizens. But they do the same job and they do it well.

The main risk is that because they cannot “tell” and are not allowed to act on their sexuality by even posting on a gay web site they are at risk for blackmail, which creates a security risk by the very policy.

Before the integration of the military in 1948 most white soldiers didn’t want to serve with Black soldiers. Well, that was wrong, and so is Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Just end it and get back to work. Fearing gay people is not the problem of gay people, it’s the problem of those with the irrational fear. Get over it and be a soldier.

Interesting concept, Liz.
The rights of the few, over the rights of the many.

Hi, I am service member of the states, I sworn my life to protect my county. I am a Combat Medic, i caring for those who need my assistance in the battlefield, so does it make any deference between any other Combat Medic, that serve along side with me, just because I sleep with man, I need to hide most of secret away from other!

Sometimes, I think the Don’t ask Don’t tell policy, is just another, stupid thing that weaken our soldiers moral and all so and insult. So in order to support the troops, this policy has to go!

And last not all Queers are sissy Fags! As some of you guys think they are!

Here’s my mail Chisholm_GloryLights@hotmail.com
I will reply your mails soon as possible!
Thanks you, please support our Troops!

[Editor --- I'm calling bullshit. You are NOT a member of the US Military. First of all, your IP address resolves to Canada. Second, your command of the English language is somewhere between that of a retarded 5th grader and a Frenchman.]

They’ve shorten it to Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell. But the actual policy had a longer catch line. I just tried to look it up and found Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell; Don’t Pursue; Don’t Harass. But I swear they changed it from Don’t Flaunt; Don’t Recruit. It sort of pisses me off that they rewrote history.