hey Jon - I was in Florida last week so I got to hear NBC roll it around in the evenings - boy, their evening debaters are decidedly Democrat, eh?

They interviewed a soldier who has been awarded medals and promoted for excellent service, but is facing 'dishonourable discharge' next month. He seemed at least to be grateful that the law will be repealed, but was unsure whether this new situation would mean that his 'sentence' was going to be stalled for the time being.  He  has chosen to be outspoken and upfront about his situation to help the political debate.  He also encouraged people to look into the story of a particular woman (maybe the same one you mention).

He also pointed out that the Military was worried about the hurdles faced in repealing the rule, ie: sharing bunks, showering, etc; and stated he thought that was a bit ridiculous since all the other western countries had already provided solutions to those problems.  He figured a month or 3 at most was all that was needed to switch over.

It's funny how military has taken such a 360 degree turn in the last 1000 years.  In ancient Rome and Greece, warriors were encouraged to develope homosexual feelings for their compatriots, to make their units more tight knit, and willing to fight harder for each other.  These same soldiers would then go home to their wives after battle and live quite the heterosexual life.

Is our obsession with linear sexuality a modern creation?

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

just baffling (as are many things in conservative US politics) how the homophobic stalwarts feel justified in their thinking.  Just throw in the towel folks - its a non-issue.  In fact, I'd worry more about blustery rednecks nervous about gay comrades, than nearly anyone else.  Such displaced panic is childish and unprofessional.

that article is plain dumb.  it baffles me - good example of ridiculous thinking.

the money issue is a matter of rights, not a matter of nickel and diming.   should we support the spouses of our servicemen & women?  yes - otherwise we add insult to injury. 

"gay" is not weakness, so that is a stupid point.  its only related to weakness when it has been the flashpoint for bullying and harassment and has left the person broken.  That isn't their fault - its the bully's fault.  We're better off rooting out and removing the bullies because obviously their morals and compassion levels are lacking so how can they be trustworthy and focused?

sexuality is already a part of barracks, whever there are people, there is sexuality.  Straightness is about sexuality too.    and frankly, gay people are probably less likely than straight ones to inject sexuality into inappropriate relationships because, frankly, they'd be scared of the bullies.  Hazing and stories of sexual exploits, bullying of women in uniform, bad jokes- these are all bigger issues for straight people than gays. 

and that stuff is just off the top of my head....  That Paul Benedict guy is full of crap.

"Don't ask, don't tell" has been a joke. My friend was an US Air Force commisioned SF (Security Forces) officer, who mostly trained others (security forces).  She served her country well stateside, in a few locations overseas including S. Korea (Osan and Kunsan) and in two conflicts (not declared wars, but wars nonetheless) and she did so while gay. Everyone knew. She did not flaunt it. Then when she blew her knee they started the witch-hunt. Don't ask don't tell simply means they will not ask. All it takes is testimony that says you are gay or did somethign gay and you "told"... "Don't tell", means basically "have nothing we can prove you are gay with, because if we can, you have told".

BTW, my friend was "outed" early in her career in Korea. At that time, it fell under "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" and stayed that way until she was close to retirement. Once her knee was shot, well... the best interests of the armed forces changed.

well, from what i've heard, the top brass in the american military has all come out and said that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military...

How about:  The Canadian Military trades all the American Gay soldiers for Colonel Russell Williams.

Let's worry about criminals.  Not sexual orientation.

Or that being openly gay is a form of sexual harrassment? I'm not really sure what he's saying. His claim that "Hilter would love you" also baffles me; acceptance of gays is not one of the notable features of the third reich.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I think that if you just look at language in the policy that excluded it has always let GLBTQ people stay IF it is "in the best interest of the armed forces".

The lifting of the DADT policy is partially about a changing attitude and mostly about  what is "in the best interest of the armed forces".

It is likely not a coincidence that my ex brother-in-law (US Navy on a minesweeper), a best friend who is Army (82nd  Airborne) and numerous others I know who are active military have said they have been "talked to" about it and it has always been in the context of needing people and what is "in the best interest of the armed forces".

They need warm bodies "in the best interest of the armed forces".

If lifting DADT will increase enlistment, then that is "in the best interest of the armed forces".

There are those who would welcome us having no military.

Yeah, but think about how big a cod it must be!  Truly scary.

lol - I thought of that too, airclean.  I'm quite happy that my sweetheart offered his time in the reserves and is past his 'expiry date'.  I'd be petrified if my kids offered themselves.  And we're in Canada, with less exposure historically.

There are those for whom this is meaningful service and an honour.  Their families are honoured.  I'm sure I'd be proud of my kids for doing amazing work for others, as long as they were sure they were making a good difference.  (And I'm proud of them anyway)

How does sexual preference have anything to do with this?  I guess that is where my opinion stems from.  Of all the reasons to consider whether to serve in the military or not, sexuality is far far from important.

the canadian base in kandahar has a 'no sex' rule... even if a husband and wife are posted there at the same time, they are not allowed to share sleeping quarters. 

i would imagine that is probably the same thing on the american side of the base as well... which is why i'm not sure why this whole thing is such a big deal for the US.

There is no greater love than someone giving their life for a just cause (and I'm not talking necessarily about on the battlefield).

No one should have to die on the battlefield.

 I served in our military at a time when homosexuality was grounds for discharge. At the time, all women on the women's hockey or baseball team were widely considered to be lesbians. I am very glad to know that things have changed on the official side. How much attitudes have changed is another issue.

I am a pacifist and would categorically not want my sons or daughters to join the military, especially given our current kinds of missions and deployments. Having said that, I would not want them to be barred from service on the basis of sexual orientation. There are many issues that would make a person unsuitable for military service such as health status, lack of suitable education, etc, but not being heterosexual has nothing to do with how someone can serve in this capacity.