Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:47 AM ET, 11/30/2010

'Don't ask, don't tell' report: Little risk to enlisting gays

By Ed O'Keefe and Craig Whitlock

(Read The Post's full account of the report here.)

Updated 2:06 p.m. ET
The Pentagon's long-awaited report on gays in the military concludes that repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law would present only a low risk to the armed forces' ability to carry out their missions and that 70 percent of service members believe it would have little or no effect on their units.

The conclusions published in Tuesday's report give a boost to President Obama and Congressional Democrats seeking to eliminate the ban before the end of the year and undercut the arguments of social conservatives and lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who believe ending the law would harm the military as it conducts two wars.

"The risk of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to overall military effectiveness is low," said the report's co-authors, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham. While ending the ban would likely bring about "limited and isolated disruption" to unit cohesion and retention, "we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting," they said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who requested the report, echoed their sentiments: "This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness."

"Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year," Gates said. "I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen this past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue."

According to the results of a survey sent to troops this summer and cited in the report, 69 percent of respondents said they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the report.

Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians.

At the same time, the survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed overall -- and between 40 and 60 percent of the Marine Corps -- either expressed concern or predicted a negative reaction if Congress were to repeal the law.

Those concerns are "driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were allowed to be 'open' about their sexual orientation," the report's authors concluded. "Repeatedly, we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and a small overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality."

Such concerns are "exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members," the report said.

About 115,000 of the 400,000 active duty and reserve troops who received copies of the survey responded to it, according to the report. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

The Washington Post first reported earlier this month on many of the report's details.

With Tuesday's findings in hand, advocates for ending the ban are planning intense lobbying efforts to ensure Congress passes a defense policy bill that includes language ending the ban before the lame-duck session concludes. The bill's fate remains uncertain despite assurances by Senate Democrats that they will reconsider the measure this month.

Passage rests largely on securing support from about 10 moderate senators of both parties who are waiting to read the report before deciding how to vote. Already Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have said they will vote to end the ban if Democrats permit a fair debate. Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John Ensign (R-Nev.), James Webb (D-Va.) and others could also join repeal efforts after reading the report, according to Congressional aides and other officials familiar with deliberations on the matter.

Undecided senators will have a chance to hear Thursday from Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, Johnson and Ham when they testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Separate hearings on Friday with other top military leaders could lay bare potential schisms among the top brass. The panel's ranking member, McCain, is a chief critic of the report and is expected to draw out the personal views of commanders.

Regardless of McCain's efforts, "This report is going to be perhaps the most effective lobbying tool that repeal advocates will have over the next two weeks in the Senate," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group pushing to end the ban. "We recognize that there will be some initial resistance from some of the chiefs, but at the end of the day, they have all said that if Congress acts, they will salute and implement this change."

If McCain successfully lifts language ending the ban from the defense bill, "we'll be looking for a backup vehicle that is moving in the lame-duck," Sarvis said.

But even if the bill clears the Senate, House lawmakers would have to vote again on a bill they passed in May.

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, called for his panel to hold similar hearings with top military leaders. His colleague, Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), called Democratic efforts to pass the bill this month "highly irresponsible."

Scheduling conflicts prohibit the committee from holding hearings, according to a spokeswoman for the committee's chairman, Ike Skelton (D-Mo.).

The report's release caps nine months of research by Johnson, Ham and a 66-member team that met with more than 40 groups representing gay and lesbian troops, gay veterans, military spouses and the same-sex partners of closeted gay troops. It includes responses to surveys sent this summer to troops and military spouses and the thoughts of troops and spouses who sent e-mails or participated in town hall meetings at military bases.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: 'Don't ask, don't tell' report authors speak out

LIVE CHAT: Talk about the report at 2:30 p.m. ET

READ: Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

READ: Support Plan for Implementation

YOUR TAKE: How will the Pentagon's report on 'DADT' affect you personally? How has this debate impacted your life? Tell us using #TalkDADT on Twitter.



By Ed O'Keefe and Craig Whitlock  | November 30, 2010; 11:47 AM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Don't ask, don't tell' report authors speak out
Next: Transcript: Interview with 'don't ask, don't tell' report co-authors

Comments

Females comprise 14 percent of the military and 50 percent of the DADT discharges. Everyone is talking about gays in the military, but the issue is really lesbians in the military.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Was the survey secret (for real)?

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 30, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The Marines try to keep up the Macho front. There are probably just as many gay marines as there are soldiers, sailors and airmen. Insofar as fighting, I think the Army is just as tough as the Marine Corps.

Posted by: vallas576 | November 30, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Duh.

Posted by: joshlct | November 30, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

It's really about time this happens. At least 10% of the military population is gay or lesbian. We work as hard, fight as hard, pay our taxes, go to church, love our country and do all the same things the breeders do including having and raising children. There is no reason to treat us like second class citizens based on our sexual preference. We want to serve our country and should be allowed to do so on the merit and quality of our work not our sexual proclivities.

Many years ago when I was in the navy there was many married straight men on the ship who went to the first hooker they could find while in a port of call. A couple of the guys even contracted VD from the same woman more than once because they liked it so much.

So just because a person is heterosexual does not make them morally, academically or technically superior to someone who is not. Excluding them/us from the military is really a pathetic waste of resources.

McCain is just an old man who like a great deal of conservatives is still living in the mid-20th century. It's time to retire the old man.

Posted by: davidbronx | November 30, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Go for it!

Posted by: getjiggly1 | November 30, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I wish we would worry more about how we are going to end the wars than the lifestyles of the military and other social issues.

Posted by: janecolby | November 30, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The soldier who gave all the classified info to WikiLeaks is gay.

1/5 gay men has HIV (source: cdc)

Gay men account for 53% of new HIV infections

These facts mean we should NOT repeal DADT.

The job of the military is to fight and win the nation's wars, not be an HIV ward.

Posted by: superman8472 | November 30, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Females comprise 14 percent of the military and 50 percent of the DADT discharges. Everyone is talking about gays in the military, but the issue is really lesbians in the military.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:02 PM
___________________________________________
Did you read the article? According tothemilitary themselves, there is not a problem. But then there are the homophobic misogynists who see "issues."

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody truly believe there was going to be any other outcome from this study? I don't know how much time and money was spent on this study, but it was all wasted. What is trly amazing is that we will place 30% of our soldiers and their mission at risk to satisfy 70% who say 'they don't care' or "OK by me', while we will spend billions and suffer untold indignities on millions of pasengers to guard against a would be terrorist boarding an airplane.
Mark my words - accepting polygamists will be the next social issue of the decade. Check your TV listings today.

Posted by: Omnius | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Don't know, don't care.

Posted by: Capn0ok | November 30, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

It's long past time. We can't continue to allow bigots like John McCain to prevent capable and patriotic Americans from serving their country.

Posted by: Itzajob | November 30, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Since when do the troops count? We can't have troops clamoring to transfer to the Texas Air National Guard and train with Cmdr. Jim Beam for the rest of his or her term.

Besides, the noted conservative moral philosopher Osama bin Laden has made it clear that true conservatives cannot serve with gays.

Posted by: Garak | November 30, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse


"homophobic misogynists"

Come, make up your mind.

Females are vastly over-represented in the DADT discharges. Women are 14% of the military but 50% of the DADT discharges.

I agree with liberal philosophy that gays and lesbians cannot choose who they fall in love with. That's why I would not want gays sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as me, if I were in the military.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

This is a fraud == the folks I deal with at the pentagon do not believe this is an accurate report (roughly 99 out of a 100).
JIB
LT Col USAF Retired

Posted by: jibergmann | November 30, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

We're overlooking one high percentage risk: that the Washington Post won't have anything to write about anymore.

Seriously, I prefer to eliminate DADT in order not to have to read about it anymore, because I really don't care.

Posted by: Benson | November 30, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

We're overlooking one high percentage risk: that the Washington Post won't have anything to write about anymore.

Seriously, I prefer to eliminate DADT in order not to have to read about it anymore, because I really don't care.

Posted by: Benson | November 30, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

well most gay people I know are liberals Democrats who are always anti-military and anti-defense. Why would gay people serve if they are anti-war??????? There are no ROTC units at the Ivy League, where most elite gays and lesbians go. so what's the point? Most troops are low-class and less-educated...

Posted by: Rockvillers | November 30, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what excuse our Christian jihadist Taliban will use next?

Will they go on citing verses from a Bronze Age archeological artifact -- or will they join the secular liberal West in modernity and do what all of our allies managed to do years ago?

Conservatives really spit on our military when they insist it's not as professional or capable as the armed forces of so many other western countries.

Posted by: B2O2 | November 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I wish we would worry more about how we are going to end the wars than the lifestyles of the military and other social issues.

Posted by: janecolby |

-----------

Jane, best post of the week.

Posted by: johng1 | November 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Just wait until the predator perverts start preying on military families in the military housing areas.
Then see how much it affects straight members.
This is disgusting political pandering. Nothing more.

Posted by: LarryG62 | November 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM
___________________________________________
Last time we talked, God told me he was OK with homosexuality. It's the narrow minded Bible thumpers that piss him off.

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Was in the military. Gay/Straight, don't care.

Posted by: BKCT | November 30, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Gee, if 30% of my workforce was against a particular policy, I wouldn't consider that policy a "low risk" to my business - especially if my business was trying to survive a firefight or defend the USA. Open homosexuality in the US armed forces will destroy the forces' cohesion and combat effectiveness. Many, including me, will advise their families from joining the volunteer forces, and if the the draft is re-instated, will oppose forced service with homosexuals. No need exists for this horrendous idea, and it is being driven by the socialist-minded people in the country. Remember: silence equals death in this matter.

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | November 30, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"homophobic misogynists"

Come, make up your mind.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:22 PM
___________________________________________
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Definition of MISOGYNIST
: a person who hates women

There is no conflict between the terms nor in their combined usage. Try a dictionary or Google before you make such erroneous statements.

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God."

Posted by: Smarg

Right... "God" said that in the same part of that Bronze Age artifact where "He" commanded idiots like you to stone your children to death if they were stubborn (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

How can America survive an advanced century like the 21st if we still have people like Smarg dominating one of our two major political parties? Do we WANT to be a footnote to history? Does being primitive and undereducated INCREASE our odds, or hurt them?

Please think about it, America. Right now the GOP has a guy named John Shimkus vying to be chairman of the committee in the House that deals with climate change. Shimkus recognizes that climate change is a problem, but doesn't think we need to do anything about our actions because "God promised us in Genesis that we would never be destroyed by a flood".

Bronze Age religious superstition will be the death of this country if we let it.

Posted by: B2O2 | November 30, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

It seems clear that the Marine Corps, compared to other branches of the military, includes a particularly large number of repressed homosexuals who are in denial about their own condition, and therefore project a kind of macho homophobia developed to disguise their real feelings from from themselves.

Posted by: twm1 | November 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

If the Israeli military can function with gay service members being able to serve openly, don't you think we can survive? This law is discriminatory and its way past the time it should be unconstitutional to deny any person a ob because of their sexual preference much less a federal job.

Posted by: cats2 | November 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

That small group of Marines are the very ones that SHOULD be required to work with gay/lesbians.

They have to learn to get over their tired old redneck, retarded ideas that they inherited from their family or the inbred neighborhood they came from.

The people that dislike, hate, are fearful of gay/lesbians most likely haven't had any interaction (that they are aware of) with g/l fellow citizens.

The VERY SAME arguments about letting black men/women serve side by side with white servicemen/women should show just how retarded these few Marines are.

These knuckle dragging retards need to be dragged into the 21st century.

Posted by: donbsea1 | November 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

This is an example of another so-called "poll" that verify's what the "deviant" community wants the poll to say. The old argument that they are no different than normal people is a total fabrication. Their minds are confused and in combat,you don't need some one that can't think properly.
This is just another instance of a small minority of "different thinking" people trying to regulate societies thinking through legislative action. It won't happen!

Posted by: viper1 | November 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Equal rights are the bottom line and nothing else matters if anyone meets the physical requirements.

Sexuality is physiological and does not affect anyone’s ability to serve or defend their country.

The apostle Paul was a classic study in homophobia and most probably a homosexual if you ever studied psychology.

Ham was never punished by God for having a homosexual experience with his father Noah and it’s about time we enforced the constitution and acted like brave American citizens and eliminated this travesty of justice.

This is all political BS brought about by the Christian Right and weak minded homophobes who are no more Christian or American than Osama Bin Laden.

And as for McCain, the man-boy responsible for WET STARTING his aircraft and killing 134 on the Forrestal in 1967 and any Republican blocking the rights of gays or women or blacks from serving should have their US citizenship revoked and sent to any country that will accept them for promoting lies, fear and hate.

This is insanity in Congress and the Military and an embarrassment to humanity, the constitution and to common sense, but, then again, that is what conservatives do when they are killing or pillaging or segregating or complaining about the ills they themselves created for profit or hate.

Posted by: nacirema | November 30, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If someone is brave enough to fight to protect America it is more than good enough for me!I have no idea why this was ever an issue. Those "Americans" out there that think the recent "leaks" are a good thing are what concerns me.The last time this was done it was OK according to the media. We the Americans had a right to know and if it endangered the troops in Bush's war well to bad. Now that is is endangering American Troops in Obama's war it is a crime that should be treated as treason! When will Dems and the news "organisations" that are in their pocket MSNBC is the most evil of the bunch they spent much of their programing last night saying that American right too know was much more important than the deaths of a "few more" troops! Putting American troops in danger is treason those folks should die. Using treasonous acts as the mean to further ones political party is almost as evil. Those people will unfortunately have to wait for a normal death before they can rot in hell. You anti-Americans make me sick, and you wonder why Obama has been a lame duck for well over a year? I can be contacted at work http://www.bestmichiganbusinesses.com and yes please keep those jokes coming and no I don't mean more of the lefts hate of America and her brave women and men that serve her!

Posted by: Loxinabox | November 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

So if there is a risk, why do it at all? We are talking life and death here.

Posted by: OneWhoSpeaksTruth | November 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

This is an example of another so-called "poll" that verify's what the "deviant" community wants the poll to say. The old argument that they are no different than normal people is a total fabrication. Their minds are confused and in combat,you don't need some one that can't think properly.
This is just another instance of a small minority of "different thinking" people trying to regulate societies thinking through legislative action. It won't happen!

Posted by: viper1 | November 30, 2010 12:32 PM
___________________________________________
You are refering to the Pentagon as a "deviant community?" Perhaps it is yourself and other homophobes that are not "normal."

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"This is just another instance of a small minority of "different thinking" people trying to regulate societies thinking through legislative action. It won't happen!"

How incredibly rude. You need to get a social education and FAST. DADT is horrifically discriminatory and must be repealed.

Posted by: narida | November 30, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Whoa...DoTheRightThing says "Silence equals death in this matter."

Does DTRT know that "Silence Equals Death" was the ActUp AIDS activists' battle cry? That it mobilized and energized millions of queers and PWAs to demand our equal rights, including the right to serve our country in the armed forces?

What ignorant gall to turn that slogan around and use it to keep us as second-class citizens. You are not doing the right thing, my friend. I'm sure that 30% also wanted to keep slavery, laws against inter-racial marriage, and voting rights only for white men with property. Attitudes change, but some sad people are always behind the times.

Posted by: stephenlouis | November 30, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I wish we would worry more about how we are going to end the wars than the lifestyles of the military and other social issues.
Posted by: janecolby | November 30, 2010 12:11 PM
________________________________________
What an excellent post! Right on the mark!!!

Posted by: seaduck2001 | November 30, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

For everything to be equal does this mean male/female/gays will all shower together and if not why not?

Posted by: nanonano1 | November 30, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Our troops already serve alongside of openly gay people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every other allied country allows open service, as does Israel.

Posted by: winks_lbj | November 30, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The only problem I see is there are rules of conduct and gays might think that once this is over that fudgepacking and muffdiving is accceptable behavior on base and on duty but just like normal sexual behavior it is not and they will be mustered out or court martialed.

Posted by: Pilot1 | November 30, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The report that the CDC knows how many gays there are is nonsensical on its face. Does the CDC have any idea how many gays there are in the military? In the Congress? In the CDC? What do you have to do in order to be called "gay," according to the CDC? Do you have to engage in a certain type of sex? What type would that be, specifically? Just oral sex (which is by most accounts the commonest form), or taking a shower together? Just as an example, a report out of Cornell says that the fastest growing group in sexual orientation studies is the group self-identifying as "mainly straight." This fast growth does not indicate a wholesale switch in sexual orientation. It merely means that a growing number of people consider it socially acceptable, even admirable, to identify themselves that way. Back in the 1980s, the CDC calculated that a certain percentage of "never-married" men were gay, but there was no good reason provided for choosing that percentage. In any event, the number of "never-married" men has grown considerably in the meantime, and varies from society to society and time to time for reasons having little to do with sexual orientation (economic factors, normally accepted age for marriage, etc.). In conversations at the time with CDC and NYC public health workers, I was astounded at the shallowness of their methodology.

Posted by: landsend | November 30, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"If the Israeli military can function with gay service members being able to serve openly, don't you think we can survive? "

Cats2, it is the fervent opinion of conservatives in this country that our military is not as professional or brave as the Israeli military. Our brave fighting men and women just aren't up to this, and can't hack what the militaries of so many other countries were able to years ago. So the right wing keeps saying.

Posted by: B2O2 | November 30, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Females comprise 14 percent of the military and 50 percent of the DADT discharges. Everyone is talking about gays in the military, but the issue is really lesbians in the military.
Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:02 PM
__________________________________________
blasmaic seems to have an unflagging interest in this topic. Makes one wonder -- I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | November 30, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"The only problem I see is there are rules of conduct and gays might think that once this is over that fudgepacking and muffdiving is accceptable behavior on base and on duty but just like normal sexual behavior it is not and they will be mustered out or court martialed."

Really, knuckle dragger? REALLY? You bigots blow my mind.

Posted by: narida | November 30, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The report that the CDC knows how many gays there are is nonsensical on its face. Does the CDC have any idea how many gays there are in the military? In the Congress? In the CDC? What do you have to do in order to be called "gay," according to the CDC? Do you have to engage in a certain type of sex? What type would that be, specifically? Just oral sex (which is by most accounts the commonest form), or taking a shower together? Just as an example, a report out of Cornell says that the fastest growing group in sexual orientation studies is the group self-identifying as "mainly straight." This fast growth does not indicate a wholesale switch in sexual orientation. It merely means that a growing number of people consider it socially acceptable, even admirable, to identify themselves that way. Back in the 1980s, the CDC calculated that a certain percentage of "never-married" men were gay, but there was no good reason provided for choosing that percentage. In any event, the number of "never-married" men has grown considerably in the meantime, and varies from society to society and time to time for reasons having little to do with sexual orientation (economic factors, normally accepted age for marriage, etc.). In conversations at the time with CDC and NYC public health workers, I was astounded at the shallowness of their methodology.

Posted by: landsend | November 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

They have always been in the military. What's the problem stupids!?!

Posted by: lorenzoepps | November 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Please, everyone knows the Marines are full of submissive bottoms. No wonder they are the most worried about repealing it. All those gay Marines will freak out all the straight ones...and they're A LOT of gay marines.

Posted by: B-rod | November 30, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The real problem now is the thug offspring of Palin's theocons who will continue to harass gays as if it were a gift from their small and shallow god to entertain themselves.

Posted by: areyousaying | November 30, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Just wait until the predator perverts start preying on military families in the military housing areas.
Then see how much it affects straight members.
This is disgusting political pandering. Nothing more.
---------------------------------

Didn't bother you when it was Catholic priests.

Posted by: areyousaying | November 30, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse


Every other allied country allows open service, as does Israel.

Posted by: winks_lbj | November 30, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

---------------

Most European countries permit girls as young as 13 to have intercourse legally with men of all ages.

Are you suggesting that America change these laws to harmonize our standards with Europe's as well? You seem to believe Europe is the more civilized and sophisticated continent.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

LarryG62 said: "Just wait until the predator perverts start preying on military families in the military housing areas.
Then see how much it affects straight members.

I have known a lot of gay/lesbian people. Only once has a lesbian made a pass at me - she backed off when I said no. However, I can't even count the number of times straight men have made passes, crude remarks, grabbed me, and even far worse things and they didn't take no for an answer.
There are far more predators and perverts in the straight community than in the gay/lesbian community.

Posted by: SuzeVA | November 30, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse


It’s not the President, Generals or government behind disallowing gay rights – it’s the religious lunatics! Voodoooooooooooooooooooooo politics!
There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Our early human ancestors; on this earth … go back more than 6 million years … 5,996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews. Christianity is basically a 2010 year old fictional cult. Moses was one of history's biggest hatemongers who supposedly wrote that Leviticus filth in 1445 BC! Bibles and the torah which includes leviticus -- should be immediately banned … for promoting hatred against minorities … namely the gay community and the crosses removed from all schools and churches. If the black community or women had it written that they should be put to death; how would they think about that? Churches are committing hate crimes and more succinctly a violent criminal offence against a federally protected minority. Kids committing suicide … people being bullied into suicide …! Bring in the exterminators and get rid of this religious fictional filth.

In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate & market Christianity - a fantasy - which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world.

I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross! One should appreciate each day of life and not expect another and if there is it might be given by a God of Love.

The Vatican basically supported Hitler and religion is responsible for more corruption and violence in the world. Pope Ratzinger was involved in the Nazi youth. The Pope with his blatant witchcraft related to the bible and its hateful beliefs; tries to rule with extreme prejudice against a world … that may fall victim to religions' absolute evil. Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! The pope is running a bigger fraud than Madoff’s $50 billion ripoff. Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists - who practice their bogus hocus pocus - and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society. Bring back the period when they threw the christians to the lions.

Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was a collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person and are not chosen by God. Do you want to be lambs at the slaughter or be wise and reject religious cultist manipulation?

Posted by: MacDonald1 | November 30, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

How would you like it … if hate speech was directed to your son or daughter as you sat in the pew; spewed by some better than thou religious lunatic with a hateful black book about Leviticus -- under his arm? This holier than thou – written so there it shall be -- fallacy; must be stopped! It is a criminal offence to cause harm onto others physically or with written items … the bible and torah have been getting away with this for ages. Churches and synagogues with Leviticus based hate-speech should be told forthwith; heretofore to cease any further action -- which may cause criminal violence upon a sector of society -- namely the gay community! All bibles and torahs should be removed and the establishments closed! Hate speech from the pulpit must be stopped! Churches should now be classified as HATE GROUPS!


Bibles and the torah which includes leviticus -- should be immediately banned … for promoting hatred against minorities … namely the gay community and the crosses removed from all schools and churches. If the black community or women had it written that they should be put to death; how would they think about that? Churches are committing hate crimes and more succinctly a violent criminal offence against a federally protected minority. Kids committing suicide … people being bullied into suicide …!

Posted by: MacDonald1 | November 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I served in the military when homosexuals were not permitted to. Yet there were problems with same sex activity and blackmail at that time. It was very sad and discipline was severe. there are enough problems in a military by itself. Why make it worse to satisfy some pouting PC ego.

Polls taken in the service are not always honest, because they are invariably taken under intimidating circumstances and no soldier wants to put himself at risk just for "principal". DTDA is a very liberal position. That means if a gay does his job and doesn't go in drag or practice in the barracks nothing will happen. That should satisfy one that wants to serve for legitimate reasons and not for a plethora of opportunities.

Before this inept government makes an adverse decision they should look more closely at countries that permit that type of mingling, especially the British [but screwing up is in their culture].

Posted by: izzyis1 | November 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I love the poster who referenced the CDC data of 20% HIV positive.

100% of homophobes are idiots and just don't have sex with a man.

It is that simple. Homophobes are 100% ignorant and HIV men are most likely 20% HIV positive.

So TEST FOR IT and for the homophobe poster, stop kissing other men.

Side Bar: These posts make Americans look totally stupid, afraid and ignorant of basic scientific facts and we give them guns????

911 we were attacked because we support Israel.

We attack Americans because they are black or have a natural to them sexuality or because they are immigrants?

We are such a dumbed down nation, but then too, we are young, we freed slaves just over 130 years ago and women have been voting for (white women that is) for less than 80 years and blacks were allowed to vote in 1964 and we had segregation in the 70's, white flight and the South switche parties to the party of NO. Not to mention that blacks were segregated in the military until 1948.

We are afraid of nudity, placing cloths on statues, and it wasn't that long ago that we had white and colored rest rooms.

We are a fragrantly dumb and racist nation, sprinkled with homophobes and people who claim a gun toting Jesus who allows you to enter heaven with a few words, as long as you contribute to their cathedral of profit, fear and hate.

No wonder Americans are scammed every second of everyday. We are dumb, greedy and fat and easily taken in with lies, fear and hate....at least anyone that vote conservative is....conservative, not any particular party affiliation,

We are a liberal nation based on a liberal constitution of equality of opportunity, life(hard to have without health), liberty and the pursuit of happiness, future thinking and innovative people mired in the muck of conservative greed, ignorance, fear, and hate.

Well, then too, if everyone was intelligent, we wouldn't have all these problems to solve.

Posted by: nacirema | November 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I sure would hate to have to share a foxhole with a Bible thumping redneck who was constantly trying to bring me around to his way of life. But then, I'm already damned for eating shrimp. - Leviticus 11:9-12
According to these people. It's their Hell. They can burn in it.

Posted by: Capn0ok | November 30, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Rockvillers, you sound like one of those mama's boys I had the joy of sending home because they could not let go of home.
I served 21 years, I have an AA,& BA. I speak three languages. I guess that makes me one of the low class, less educated troops. I served with many Gay people, they made better Soldiers than bums from the so call Ivy League schools. To bad your Daddy let you down. It's people like us, who make it possible for you to live in style. SFC/E-7/United States Army.

Posted by: turnerb1 | November 30, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"The soldier who gave all the classified info to WikiLeaks is gay.
....
These facts mean we should NOT repeal DADT."

By your reasoning, all men are rapists because one man was convicted of rape. All men are murderers because one man was convicted of murder.

Posted by: SuzeVA | November 30, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Most troops are low-class and less-educated...

Posted by: Rockvillers |
-------------------------------------------
I resent this statement, my son and nephew are both career service members, both have college educations. Most of my son's friends have at least some college education. My son and nephew are both married with children and see no problem with the repel of DADT. Apparently you do not know or have any family members that are currently serving in the military or you would know your statement is defamatory to the hard working men and women in our service.

Posted by: daburge | November 30, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

How do I get my money back on this? What a farce. Since when does the military get a say in what they do? They should take the cost of this out of the paychecks of those homophobic bible thumping republicans then toss them out of office for willfully trying to weaken our armed forces.

Posted by: booerns14 | November 30, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

If the military doesn't want gays, they should stop recruiting them.

Test all enlistees in Provo, Utah, where the Mormons invented a penile sensor to detect sinful arousal while they showed their suspects heterosexual and homosexual pornography (sometimes to minors in clear violation of State and Federal law)

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/605095…

Posted by: areyousaying | November 30, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

John McCain used to claim he'd follow the advice of the military leaders. They said it was no problem and he said they were wrong. Now a survey backs them up, we know John will find another excuse.

It is far past time for gays to be accepted openly in the military. It's their country as much as ours and their patriotic choice to serve shouldn't be limited. The American reactionary religious fundamentalists didn't like black in the military, woman serving and now have a problem with homosexuals. It's time they shut up.

We have a Constitution that provides equal opportunity. It's time our military lived up to the Constitution they are sworn to protect.

Posted by: groucho42 | November 30, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I am starting to agree with all the homophobes and Christianists!

We should stone all homosexuals, just like the Bible tells us!

Okay!

Now, just like the bible tells us, we must stone all people with tattoos, pierced ears, and those wearing wool/polyester (mixed cloths).

Now we have to kill all witches(scientists and researchers ) and all those that do not follow Eloheim or have pictures, symbols or statues.
Okay…..is there anyone alive out there?????

Okay! Everyone who attends a church with a cross or picture of god or Jesus for those who think Jesus is God(making the resurrection a cheap parlor trick) or wear s cross, possess a Bible with pictures in DEAD!

Okay! ……HELLO…….

Now we, since the rich do not go to heaven, we have the god given right to put them to death (for all whom cannot enter heaven shall be dead).

Okay! This is a recorded message.

Side bar: God did not kill Ham; Jesus protected all the effeminate people, healed the sick for FREE and clothed the naked as well as proving free food and water.

And Paul was a homosexual!

Posted by: nacirema | November 30, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"The soldier who gave all the classified info to WikiLeaks is gay.
------------------------------

The priest in Texas who groomed, sexually abused a teenager and then tried to hire someone to kill his victim is Catholic.

What's the point from your little Fox News addicted pea brain?

Posted by: areyousaying | November 30, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

If gays in the military poses ANY RISK AT ALL, don't implement it. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our sons and daughters on the altar of homosexuality.

Posted by: cbtole2 | November 30, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"Mark my words - accepting polygamists will be the next social issue of the decade. Check your TV listings today."
_____________________________________

And if we did? What are you worried would happen? I'm geniunely interested...

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

What political faction in the Pentagon wrote this bit of propoganda?

The "gay lifestyle" is sexual license. It is about sex on demand, wherever, often anonymous, and without consequences. That is the sum of the homosexual lifestyle. Even a smattering of that brought into the armed forces will be extremely destructive - but I suppose that is exactly why the Left is pushing it.

Posted by: pgr88 | November 30, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM
___________________________________________

What if I don't believe in your god?

I'm probably condemned for that.

What if I'm a gay heathen? Isn't that a double-negative?

Last time I checked, math says two negatives make a positive.

I'm Saved!

Posted by: ey22314 | November 30, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM
___________________________________________

What if I don't believe in your god?

I'm probably condemned for that.

What if I'm a gay heathen? Isn't that a double-negative?

Last time I checked, math says two negatives make a positive.

I'm Saved!

Posted by: ey22314 | November 30, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Most European countries permit girls as young as 13 to have intercourse legally with men of all ages.

Are you suggesting that America change these laws to harmonize our standards with Europe's as well? You seem to believe Europe is the more civilized and sophisticated continent.
-------
Um, you do know that most European countries aka EU countries age of consent is 16 right not 13. Get your facts straight.

Also, many of these countries have sexuality as a part of their anti-discrimination laws. Something that USA took FOREVER TO DO.

Also, those two arguments aren't related at all! Nice derailing, though.

Posted by: civilstudent | November 30, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how these reactions replicate what was heard when the army was desegregated...and yet somehow the nation survived. My guess is that the nation will somehow manage to survive the repeal of DADT as well.

Posted by: JusluvtheUSA | November 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

it's a done deal, no reason not to, but old man Mccain will beat the dog just to hear himself talk... Give it Up, move on...

Posted by: elad2 | November 30, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"There are no ROTC units at the Ivy League, where most elite gays and lesbians go. so what's the point? Most troops are low-class and less-educated..."
Posted by: Rockvillers | November 30, 2010 12:23 PM
______________________________________

When my brother graduated Cornell in the 1990s, he graduated as an ROTC Lieutenant in the Army...

Have things changed since then? (he's not gay, despite his Ivy League eduacation, he's engaged to be married to a woman)

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Served for honorably. No issues at all with gays serving. Marines, get over yourselves.

Posted by: thatfutureone | November 30, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Our enemies can only be laughing at the pandering to homosexuals.

Posted by: garrafa10 | November 30, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

For everything to be equal does this mean male/female/gays will all shower together and if not why not?

Posted by: nanonano1 | November 30, 2010 12:43 PM

I'm so sick of people assuming that just because people are gay, they are out to be with every person of the same sex. News flash people...being in a locker room, shower, etc makes it even more awkward for gay people! We're not staring at you or checking you out or trying to touch you. We're simply trying to get through the experience and get out of there. When I'm in one of these places, I usually keep my eyes firmly on the floor to make it less awkward for everyone, including myself. Every straight person doesn't try to be with every person of the opposite sex, so why would you assume a gay person would?

Posted by: ruchica2004 | November 30, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Open homosexuality in the US armed forces will destroy the forces' cohesion and combat effectiveness"
Posted by: DoTheRightThing | November 30, 2010 12:26 PM
____________________________________

[citation needed]

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, the real problems with DADT are based on projection. Some straight men, when they have to serve in a co-ed situations, are unable to control themselves, and objectify and hit on women inappropriately in the workplace. Remember the Tailhook scandal? Then there were the number of other occasions where former Military, now contractors harassed and raped their fellow female co-workers?

I am of the opinion that it is those same man-children, sexually immature and brutish, projecting their inability to control themselves onto gays and lesbians. I would venture to guess that most folks in the military are quite aware of the rules regarding fraternization with fellow members of their units and for the most part, refrain from doing so. Why would the rules be any different if gays & lesbians were to serve openly?

And as for the biblical reasons against serving, Sodom and Gomorrah was about roving bands of men committing acts of rape and violence against strangers visiting their towns and the wrath of God befalling the perpetrators. There are other places in the bible about men not laying down with men, but they aren't far from those parts about not eating shellfish, and I haven't seen a lot of these so-called Christians forgoing shrimp cocktail, or Maryland crab-cakes?

It might be time that we think about why we try so hard to find reasons not to let people serve their country who are qualified, willing and able to do so.

Posted by: johnego1 | November 30, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So bizarre that the military thinks its fierce hetero soldiers will be--what? Attacked by their gay counterparts? Or must be protected from gay influence?--when they do not care how many female military are assaulted, harassed, abused or murdered. Interesting double standard.
But clearly now, there is only a group of bigoted old men (and Obama) who oppose this.
They have run out of excuses.

Posted by: Beckola | November 30, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Gays have no right to protect our country from terrorists.
That job is reserved for straight heterosexual males or females.

Posted by: naksuthin | November 30, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

This is a lot to do but little. Allowing Gays in the military is long overdue. McCain quit embarrassing yourself.

The one thing I do hope, however, is that there is no compromise regarding "getting out." There were several people while I was in (many years ago) who were court martialed for claiming they were gay during basic in order to get out. The Don't Ask Part (there was a question on the enlistment papers asking if you were homosexual, and if you said yes, you were denied enlistment), is gone, and the don't tell part is too. So now if anyone enlists they should not have a way out because it's too difficult.

Posted by: chipgiii | November 30, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Every straight person doesn't try to be with every person of the opposite sex, so why would you assume a gay person would?

Posted by: ruchica2004 | November 30, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

----------------

Whatever you say gives you no right to cast your eyes on a man when he's naked. Heterosexual women aren't permitted to sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas as men. Heterosexual men are not permitted to sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas as women. Gay and lesbians should not be permitted to sleep, bathe, or dress in the same areas as heterosexual recruits or soldiers.

Gays cannot control who they fall in love with, so a gay man saying he has no interest in men who he showers with is no assurance that he won't develop an all-consuming love for some beautiful fellow in the shower room.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic .. R U saying the Military needs more Lesbians? Probably a good idea since many of them are stronger and generally tougher than most men! Good suggestion.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | November 30, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I've always thought it odd that these putatively tough men and women, who must somehow steel themselves to brave bullets and bombs, are somehow scared of gays and lesbians who, in my experience, are among the least scary people on Earth.

Homophobia is such a pathetic sort of cowardice.

Posted by: brickerd | November 30, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"What political faction in the Pentagon wrote this bit of propoganda?

The "gay lifestyle" is sexual license. It is about sex on demand, wherever, often anonymous, and without consequences. That is the sum of the homosexual lifestyle. Even a smattering of that brought into the armed forces will be extremely destructive -"
_________________________________

Where did you learn so much about what it's like to be gay?

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

It's about time people were treated like humans and honesty was valued more by the military. Make this lamebrained policy go by the wayside ASAP

Posted by: Justafan | November 30, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

bury this BS issue and get on with withdrawing our people from usless actions in craphole countries. all we need are competent,dedicated,loyal people that will perform their duties honorably, and abide by the oath they take,and the UCMJ. homos/straight,black/white or whatever.

Posted by: pofinpa | November 30, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

When gays serve openly then everybody connected with the military will be able to speak openly about homosexuality in the service. Attitudes may change with freedom to express thoughts openly.

More than 2,500 sexual assaults reported in armed services last year. Will that statistic rise with repeal of DADT?

Will openly gay service members tend to settle at bottom of pay scales over time?

Posted by: unbasedDADT | November 30, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I am a nam vet who today could even get in the army. WHY NOT BECAUSE OF DADT, BUT BECAUSE I DROPPED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. everyone talks about DADT!! however I would like to point out, THAT THEY ALSO DON'T LET YOU IN IF YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT. DON'T THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE?? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE. IF YOU CAN BE GAY AND SERVE THEN PUT WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS AND LET IN HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUTS. A HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE ALSO. LETS HEAR ABOUT THIS PEOPLE.

Posted by: geneinvegas | November 30, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I heard a famous older female writer, who is gay, say in a recent interviw that she thought two big advantages of being gay were: (1) not having to get married, and (2) not having to serve in the military.
She finds it hard to understand why gays are fighting to lose both advantages.

Posted by: Jihm | November 30, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

What McCain is really afraid of is the expenditures required by the Pentagon for new uniforms.

ACUs will all have to be turned in, and all soldiers will have to be issued pink tinted ACUs.

It's worse for the Marines, because their MARPATs tinted pink will clash badly, much more so than the ACUs. That's the real reason they are resistant.

Granted, fewer Marine uniforms wll have to be issued, but those colors just won't work together.

Posted by: ey22314 | November 30, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Their timing came at the wrong time, because of Bradley Manning who leaked all the classified information to the world. Manning is gay. Those who haven't served with gays don't know what their talking about. Gays can go through basic training, military school, and permanent duty, but in the battlefield their mix emotions goes haywire. They scream and yell about this is not what I signed up for and demand that they be brought back to where it is safe for them because it's not their war. This has happen many times. When the going gets tough, they separate themselves from everyone using using their gay status as a tool to run out on everyone else.

Posted by: houstonian | November 30, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the survey shows most folks in the Armed Forces don't care, but so what? The Armed Forces did a survey before blacks and whites were allowed to fight or bunk together and the large majority of whites thought it was a terrible idea. Too bad.
This is America. Until you are ready to give gays a secondary legal status they need to have the same rights as all other citizens, including defending the country they clearly love. If you are ready for one group of the population to get to decide that another group of the population gets a secondary legal status get the hell out of our country.

Posted by: SETinVA | November 30, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Repeal it. Although parents in many parts of the country will no longer encourage their children to go into the military, the loss will be more than made up for by the increased number of gay recruits.

Posted by: kcooper35 | November 30, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Not going to happen butt pirates!

Posted by: EagleHornet1969 | November 30, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Only a low risk? Being a soldier, especially in a combat zone, is risky enough. Why increase that risk?

The Marines try to keep up the Macho front. There are probably just as many gay marines as there are soldiers, sailors and airmen. Insofar as fighting, I think the Army is just as tough as the Marine Corps.

Posted by: vallas576 | November 30, 2010 12:03 PM
=======================================
I don't doubt that Army combat units can be and indeed, are as touch as Marines. Every ground force has trained infantrymen, adept with small arms and imbued with aggressive spirit. But the Marines take this a step further - training EVERY Marine FIRST as a rifleman, before the specialty training as cooks, bakers or candlestick makers. In decades of Pacific combat, first the Japanese, then the North Koreans, Chinese and North Vietnamese were always amazed to have executed a surprise raid on some Marine logistics center, only to find the service troops battling back with disciplined, well aimed fire, deftly lobbed grenades and, if need be, fixed bayonets. During the breakout from Hagaru-ri, motor transport mechanics and artillery ammo humpers teamed up to throw back concerted Chinese attacks on what in other armed services would be the "soft underbelly" of a convoy. Similarly when the Chinese struck the division headquarters group, the Marine bandsmen swung into action with gusto, manning machine guns and automatic rifles instead of trumpets and trombones. Other services may boast of better mechanics or trumpet players; the Marines know all hands can fight and kill on demand

Posted by: lure1 | November 30, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

And I'll just leave this little item right here:
http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/national/index.html

For the person above who said "There is no ROTC in the Ivy League."

Happy reading!

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

So we have survey report,...neat.

What I REALLY want to know is what is the committee's recommendation for repealing this and the timeline for that.

- Who is qualified to receive spousal benefits?

- Somebody should define what serving "openly" means...Will individuals have to be identified as GLBT in order to gain their "civil rights"

- Will the military have to go through hours of GLBT sensitivity training? Will military members have to attend GLBT pride events like we do for other minority events?

Why don't we all just agree to serve professionally.

If President Obama had a spine, he'd go after DOMA first, then he would have the right to impose this on DOD.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

We haven't scored better than a tie(Korea)since the military was integrated in 1948. Nothing improved with women going forward in tanks or going down on submarines. Adding gays to the mix isn't likely to improve the situation either.

Posted by: slim21 | November 30, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"Will military members have to attend GLBT pride events like we do for other minority events?"
__________________________________

What "minority events" are you talking about, exactly?

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Most European countries permit girls as young as 13 to have intercourse legally with men of all ages.
Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 12:53 PM
___________________________________________
Incorrect. One European country, Spain, has a legal age of consent of 13. Most are 14 or 15, with some at 16, 17 and 18. Several states in the US are at 14 and go up to 18 with 16 as the most prevalent.

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Finally we will get the report, instead of your "sources briefed on the report's findings". We don't know their agenda, don't know who was asked, how they were asked, was there a distinction made between soldiers in combat, branch of military, office personnel, spouses, etc? Yet your Post article of a month ago has taken on the character of objective reality in the media.

Are you suggesting in the article above that "the team that met with more than 40 groups representing gay and lesbian troops, gay veterans, military spouses and the same-sex partners of closeted gay troops" is a comprehensive survey? Something must have been left out of that paragraph by mistake.

Finally, in every article you have written you've referred to Mullen and Gates, but have conveniently neglected to mention the opposition from the other members of the Joint Chiefs.


Posted by: CraiginJersey | November 30, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

We only have 56 LGBT-supportive votes in the US Senate. These hearings are a charade.
Gay Inc. will be telling us (soon) that "they were so close" and "please send money." This time, wait until they have a strategy to get 60 votes in the US Senate.
As a community we waste hundreds of millions on non-profit equality-pimps each year and they are more interested in their jobs, than our equality. They have no incentive to win, just to continue the charade. Make them produce a strategy to WIN, if they want more money.

Posted by: AndrewW1 | November 30, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

lol Why should a servicemember's spouse get to decide on who can and cannot serve their country? I could care less about what someone's wife or husband thinks about who is allowed to serve in the armed forces. As for the Marine Corps, I, as a former Marine, am not surprised by some of the polling from Marines. First, they pretend to be way tougher than they really are. The Army is just as tough. Second, they said the same thing about black people and everyone else who isn't a white male. The Marine Corps is filled with bigots. And yes, I'm speaking from personal experience.

Posted by: nsu1203 | November 30, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Try a dictionary or Google before you make such erroneous statements.

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

----------------

No, I'm not going to do that. I work very hard to not develop a hatred for gays and lesbians, but I don't mind saying how difficult people like yourself are making it.

Gays and lesbians are easily the most immature politial constituency in the entire political spectrum --- left, right or center.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I don't care if you're gay, straight or have no preference. My thing is how will another nation take us serious when we have men walking around in tight army pants, snaping their fingers and expressing themselves as women. If people weren't going to do this then the DADT rule wouldn't even be up for debate. It's about people being able to express their individuality and I'm sorry but in this case, I think the first amendment should be restricted. It's all about respect and if we want another nation to take us serious, we can't have our men misrepresenting the American people like this. Granite, this world may be ruled and run by Satan but if we don't draw the line somewhere, there's no telling what the furture looks like for the American people.

Posted by: shereyh18 | November 30, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Served honorably. No issues at all with gays serving. Marines, get over yourselves.

Posted by: thatfutureone | November 30, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

So the liberals want to ignore the majority who are against the Dream act or any type of Amnesty for illegals but they want us to agree with the majority on this?


What's up with that?


I am for this but the hypocrisy of the left is astonishing.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | November 30, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Patzer111:

Let's see, we have:
- Asian/Pacific Islander month
- Women's History month
- Black History month
- Hispanic Heritage month

the whole list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_observances#Months

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Granite, this world may be ruled and run by Satan but if we don't draw the line somewhere"
____________________________________

Thanks for the lulz

FYI, if you're not a troll, the expression is "Granted," not "Granite."

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Patzer111:

Let's see, we have:
- Asian/Pacific Islander month
- Women's History month
- Black History month
- Hispanic Heritage month

the whole list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_observances#Months

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:00 PM "
__________________________________

None of these are things you "attend," hence my confusion...

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"they said the same thing about black people and everyone else who isn't a white male"

Blacks are successfully integrated into the military, they sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as whites. Women are not fully integrated. They do not sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as men. Shouldn't we fully integrate women before we integrate gays and lesbians?

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Our enemies can only be laughing at the pandering to homosexuals.

Posted by: garrafa10

-----------------

Best argument I've heard yet. Let's poll Al Qaeda to see how they feel about this issue. We shouldn't be doing anything that might anger them.

Posted by: jake14 | November 30, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

And as for McCain, the man-boy responsible for WET STARTING his aircraft and killing 134 on the Forrestal in 1967

Posted by: nacirema | November 30, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Nacirema should get his facts straight. The A4 next to McCain's A4 was struck by an errant missile from an F4 on the flight deck of the Forrestal. Go to Fact Check.

There is no way that our excellent military can maintain efficiency, cohesion, and preparedness with openly homosexuals in their midst.

Will be now need four sets of barracks? Or I guess three would work by putting the male and female homosexuals together.

Posted by: MendonPatriot | November 30, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Granite, this world may be ruled and run by Satan but if we don't draw the line somewhere"
____________________________________

What's a Satan?

Why the hell do you morons keep injecting YOUR religion into my world?

Oh, and granite is a rock.

Posted by: ey22314 | November 30, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

on the one hand, i've always thought that gay marriage and DADT are pseudo-issues. one of the best things about the gay lifestyle has always been teh lack of the institution of marriage and all they really need is the right to grant benefits. gays in the military? why look a gift horse in the mouth when you have something which keeps you out of the military... er, murder, incorporated.

but, on the other hand... alexander the great was largely homosexual and conquered the known world by age 30. julius caesar likewise. indeed the roman empire was founded by the caesar family of whom not a one (julius, augustus, tiberius, caligula, claudius, nero), was entirely straight. and look what they did.

julius ordered his troops on long campaigns to fill the duties of a wife for each other. julius wife said of him that "when afield, he's a wife for every soldier; when back in rome, a husband for every wife.'

and any soldier who's afraid of gays in their midst is not up to the front lines. but then, if we were all to reject the existence of 'front lines' we'd all be much better off.

Posted by: tazdelaney | November 30, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Yet again the Daily Show got it right. There will be a time, long after DADT is long gone and people see it did not affect morale, that the military still worked perfectly fine and in fact help to lead to greater rights and acceptance of gay Americans (kind of like what happened after Truman made his executive order back in 1946), there will be a documentary showing people like John McCain as the person who wanted to block "the school house door." John McCain has become a bitter old man and a very sore loser. At one time he thought critically about issues and was a voice of reason. That John McCain is long gone and probably was lost for good when he choose Palin for V.P.

And by the way, For the homophobes out there, I truly feel sorry that you hate so much... it must be exhausting.

Posted by: smith6 | November 30, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

To many have quickly discounted the 30% of the military who think gays openly serving in the military could pose problems. If the military conducted a survey and 30% reported sexual harassment was a problem in their service, would you say sexual harassment isn't a problem in the military because 70% said it was little or no problem. 1/3 of the military is a significant number of servicemen and women. There may be a time to conduct this social experiment in the military, but while our military is engaged in combat operations in two countries is not the time. Our young platoon leaders and company commanders have enough to worry about (like bringing everyone home alive) to worry about implementing a controversial social program.

Posted by: 23930 | November 30, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Just end it and defund it.

It's a farce. Tell the old whiny people to stop being racist and whiny.

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 30, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

None of these are things you "attend," hence my confusion...

Posted by: Patzer111

Yes I do, I attend them with my soldiers, I enjoy the diversity of the military. I've enjoyed many different cultures and people from different backgrounds I've met in my life (I also grew up as a military brat besides the 23 continous years I'm serving). That includes at least 3 GLBT soldiers I've served with, 2 of whom have retired successfully (one is still in).

This whole repeal of DADT is a political act and has nothing to do with civil rights.


Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

So where is our apology, for making millions of people FEAR us? For dragging our names and reputations and dignity through the mud? Huh?! Where? When? *expletive goes here ___*

Posted by: LawsLuvr | November 30, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

""Patzer111:

Let's see, we have:
- Asian/Pacific Islander month
- Women's History month
- Black History month
- Hispanic Heritage month

the whole list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_observances#Months

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:00 PM "
__________________________________

None of these are things you "attend," hence my confusion...

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 2:04 PM "

___________________________________

Were you referring to things like the Puerto Rican Day Parade? St. Patrick's Day? Greek Festivals? Stuff like that? Cuz I see no reason it wouldn't be good to go to something like that to learn about "minority" cultures... do you?

And, while were at it, are members of the military having problems getting along with "minorities" like Puerto Ricans, Irish, and Greeks? Cuz maybe then they ought to attend some of these "minority events" to learn a little bit about their fellow soldier's backgrounds, doncha think?

Or is it at all relevant? Like someone's sexuality? Like this report is telling you is not relevant?

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Don't Ask Don't Tell Too Much

Someone saying they are gay, or being seen walking into a gay bar off duty, probably won't cause a breakdown in military disciple and group cohesion. The problems are likely to start, if gay men discuss their sex lives freely with straight guys in group living conditions.

Write the law to give the military complete discretion to establish rules about gays talking too much to straights in group living situations and we might have a workable solution.

That probably won't be popular with militant gays who want to score political/social points, but it would probably be a workable solution for many gay people who want to serve their country without creating trouble.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Too Much could work.

Posted by: jfv123 | November 30, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The biggest risk to the Pentagon is that younger men and women, who overwhelmingly support gay rights, start to see the military as a discriminatory institution that they do not wish to affiliate themselves with.

The military loses 80% of its staff over the course of 4 years and must therefore replace 20% of its enlisted men and officers every year. These come from recent high school and college graduates, not from the ranks of teabaggers. If the military becomes an outdated institution that embarrasses young people with its discriminatory policy, the military will have a difficult time attracting competent soldiers and officers to its ranks.

Imagine how difficult it would be today for the military to maintain a strong force if it kept its ancient restrictions against women and minorities. No self-respecting young man would want to join an institution with the same policies as the KKK. Since young people are strong supporters of gay rights, the military risks alienating its target audience to please an older, irrelevant faction.

Posted by: AxelDC | November 30, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: blasmaic -- I agree with liberal philosophy that gays and lesbians cannot choose who they fall in love with. That's why I would not want gays sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as me, if I were in the military.
=============================================
But you're not. And even if you were hit on by someone gay, a stern but polite "No, I am not interested" is normally all that is needed to end such a come-on without stooping to violence or childish behavior. And if it is not, there will certainly be some disciplinary action that could be taken by your superiors. Plus, something called the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be amended to handle such cases.

Posted by: luv2bikva | November 30, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: blasmaic -- I agree with liberal philosophy that gays and lesbians cannot choose who they fall in love with. That's why I would not want gays sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as me, if I were in the military.
=============================================
But you're not. And even if you were hit on by someone gay, a stern but polite "No, I am not interested" is normally all that is needed to end such a come-on without stooping to violence or childish behavior. And if it is not, there will certainly be some disciplinary action that could be taken by your superiors. Plus, something called the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be amended to handle such cases.

Posted by: luv2bikva | November 30, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day; the Congress won't repeal...

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 30, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

NO / THIS IS YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA SPEAKING / NOT THE REAL VOICE OF THE MILITARY ! MORE DESTRUCTION FROM WITHIN ! YOU ALL BETTER BETTER WAKE UP TO THIS PURE FACT ! DO I TRUST MY GOVERNMENT ( HELL NO ) / 22 YEARS MILITARY EXPERIENCE / TALKING .

Posted by: 533500 | November 30, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Or is it at all relevant? Like someone's sexuality? Like this report is telling you is not relevant?

Posted by: Patzer111

I totally agree that somebody's sexuality is irrelevant. That's why I don't have to know about it; and that person is not forced to tell me about it.

This report is irrelevant since it is a straw poll - tell me how you will integrate GLBT into the military "openly" and that would be worthwhile.


Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

agree with liberal philosophy that gays and lesbians cannot choose who they fall in love with. That's why I would not want gays sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas as me, if I were in the military.

Posted by: blasmaic |
---------
Don't flatter yourself, honey.

Posted by: bucinka8 | November 30, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Well, the Pentagon survey disclosed what was already known: homosexuality does not negatively affect unit cohesion etc. Folks in other countries, say UK, Israel, etc. have known this for years.

My concern is that the homophobes in Congress will devise another method of delaying the repeal of Do Not Ask, Do Not Tell.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | November 30, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

@superman8472: Benedict Arnold was straight. So is Jonathan Pollard. And Aldrich Ames.

Go back to fantasizing about Sarah Pallin.

Posted by: Garak | November 30, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

How much longer will we be forced to know by name each and every man who likes to take it in the a.s.s.?

I imagine that eventually our military will become known as "The REAL Boys Club".

Can you imagine the staff sargent walking into the barracks only to 2 guys sleeping together?

Get out the female dress uniforms.
The gays will be buying them in force.

If it's ok to openly gay, then cross-dressing will be allowed.

I can't wait to see the first picture of our gay Marine Corps all suited up in their brand new skirts and dresses. (Not)


Posted by: lindalovejones | November 30, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@533500: Sure 22 isn't your IQ? Or the number of times a Catholic priest molested you?

Posted by: Garak | November 30, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The report is completely flawed.... 92% of battle front personnel DO NOT WANT GAYS IN ACTION, and since 94% of all personnel are support, in the "rears", the desk jockeys are the ones who fear losing theirs jobs! We have had the greatest increase in AIDS on those working on the front, than at any other time, or conflict, in history... WASH THEM OUT!

Posted by: freedomseal | November 30, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Gee, if 30% of my workforce was against a particular policy, I wouldn't consider that policy a "low risk" to my business - especially if my business was trying to survive a firefight or defend the USA. Open homosexuality in the US armed forces will destroy the forces' cohesion and combat effectiveness. Many, including me, will advise their families from joining the volunteer forces, and if the the draft is re-instated, will oppose forced service with homosexuals. No need exists for this horrendous idea, and it is being driven by the socialist-minded people in the country. Remember: silence equals death in this matter.

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | November 30, 2010 12:26 PM
______________________________
Guess you're not familiar with the Israeli military, where allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly has not harmed unit cohesion or combat effectiveness at all.

Posted by: luridone | November 30, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Grampy McCain is going to go down in history as the George Wallace of DADT. His homophobia and bigotry is going to out weigh his "war hero" status in the history books.

Posted by: DrainYou | November 30, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Get out the female dress uniforms.
The gays will be buying them in force.

If it's ok to openly gay, then cross-dressing will be allowed.

I can't wait to see the first picture of our gay Marine Corps all suited up in their brand new skirts and dresses. (Not)

Posted by: lindalovejones
_________________________________

Proudly ignorant American.
By the way, stop insulting our soldiers, linda.

Posted by: jake14 | November 30, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to see how the bigoted people seem to be able to pull "facts" out of their butts. There are a lot of gay republicans out there, they are called Log cabin republicans. Gay republicans of note: Cheney's daughter. Larry Craig's foot tapping bathroom tryst pretty much outed him, Edward L. Schrock who was against gay marriage is actually gay, I could go on. People who say that homosexuality is a sin, first off, where do you get that? The Bible? You know who wrote the Bible, people did.

Posted by: ChicoPorter | November 30, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If the report authors are simply dismissing the views held by 30% overall and 60% of Marines as stereotypical, why did they even bother doing the survey to begin with. The survey was obviously a sham.

Posted by: doug7772 | November 30, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

The detractors will dismiss study after study after study. It doesn't matter what any study says- it will be considered flawed as long as it doesn't give them the answer they want.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

Studies, reports, testimonials, the will of the people (cough, hypocrites, cough), etc. won't matter. Just repeal it already and lets move on.

Posted by: trident420 | November 30, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The service has changed drastically if this survey is to be beleived. More likely it is another "Progressive" lie perpetrated on the american public.

Posted by: popichak | November 30, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It's about my junk:

So we have protesters at airline security who do not want shadows of intimate parts revealed. We have a guy yelling "Don't touch my junk!" And you want me to get naked in front of another guy who might become aroused by that very "junk" of which I am so proud, privately, in the presence of ladies. Dear God, what planet am I on?

Posted by: qoph | November 30, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't know where you are getting your information but the highest numbers of new HIV infections is in the heterosexual female ranks people. Gay men have long learned to protect themselves. As far as McCain...hmmm....I wonder who "did" him in that POW camp? I think thee doest protest too much. So lets take it out on brave gay Americans, Americans who have already died for a country who makes them second class citizens for the sake of a fairy tale book written by a bunch of self-interested old farts with a power agenda 2000 years ago.

Posted by: jacquie1 | November 30, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't know where you are getting your information but the highest numbers of new HIV infections is in the heterosexual female ranks people. Gay men have long learned to protect themselves. As far as McCain...hmmm....I wonder who "did" him in that POW camp? I think thee doest protest too much. So lets take it out on brave gay Americans, Americans who have already died for a country who makes them second class citizens for the sake of a fairy tale book written by a bunch of self-interested old farts with a power agenda 2000 years ago.

Posted by: jacquie1 | November 30, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

A man in my adult Sunday School class told that he was in the Army in WWII. He was selected to sleep in the tent with his commanding officer. He was sodomized by the homosexual.
Homosexuals have been a disaster for the Roman Catholic Church.
While teaching high school I had a student who just couldn't stop talking in class. He lived with his grandmother because his mother was a drugged out mess. The grandmother told that her grandson had been sodomized by a homosexual and that his mind was all but destroyed. At age 16 the boy committed suicide.
Seeing two men become intimate would be enough to make any real man puke.

Posted by: hurleyvision | November 30, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Or is it at all relevant? Like someone's sexuality? Like this report is telling you is not relevant?

Posted by: Patzer111

I totally agree that somebody's sexuality is irrelevant. That's why I don't have to know about it; and that person is not forced to tell me about it.

This report is irrelevant since it is a straw poll - tell me how you will integrate GLBT into the military "openly" and that would be worthwhile.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 2:36 PM "
______________________________________

So... Puerto Ricans should hide their Puerto Ricanness? Irish people should hide their Irishness? Greeks should hide their Greekiness? Or when I said "it isn't relevant" did I mean something different?

Posted by: Patzer111 | November 30, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I bet those who determined that there would be only a slight elevation of risk wear clean uniforms and spit polished shoes every day while stationed stateside and living with whom they choose. Do we, in war time, want to create more risk to those in the war zone? If 70% of the marines say they are not ready for this disruption, limit LGBTs to the other services until a more appropriate time.

Posted by: coffic | November 30, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Patzer111:

Give me an interesting and interested Greek, Irish or Puerto Rican damsel, and I'll be glad to get naked with her. I don't want queers of any nationality staring at my junk. See?

Posted by: qoph | November 30, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The report is completely flawed.... 92% of battle front personnel DO NOT WANT GAYS IN ACTION, and since 94% of all personnel are support, in the "rears", the desk jockeys are the ones who fear losing theirs jobs! We have had the greatest increase in AIDS on those working on the front, than at any other time, or conflict, in history... WASH THEM OUT!

Posted by: freedomseal | November 30, 2010 2:44 PM
_____________________________
Your fantasies do NOT equal facts.

Posted by: luridone | November 30, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of reading about this same old crap. Lets let the Republicans take the lead on this issue. If America wishes to rubber stamp homosexuality and lesbianism as the norm, then let the Republicans decide the issue. Frankly, I am much more concerned with the DEFICIT including the TAX BREAK FOR THE BUSH WEALTHY.

Posted by: Rlupodimare | November 30, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how these reactions replicate what was heard when the army was desegregated...and yet somehow the nation survived. My guess is that the nation will somehow manage to survive the repeal of DADT as well.
Posted by: JusluvtheUSA
___________________________________

What a wonderfully simple yet totally rational post. Well done.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | November 30, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Before any of you comment please note that my qualifications to comment aren't any better than the rest of you but I did want to qualify myself as competent to speak on the matter before making just one statement. However I'll use the "bottom line up front" approach anyway so here goes:

Please stop comparing the plight of Blacks in the military to anything relating to gay. Mutually exclusive doesn't even fit the order.

Lifestyle (albeit or perhaps "may" be it) has nothing to do with the nature of things. I do respect the fact that I strongly believe that some GLB's (list does not include "T's"P) can't help who they are but that has nothing to do with skin color.

So please leave race out of the comparisons as you ponder this case.

Qualifications:
Senior Military Officer (28 yrs active duty - still serving)
Black (Nope I didn't say African American, I'm just an AMERICAN)
Straight
Former Combat Arms Officer
Baptist/Protestant

Now does this qualify me in any way? Nope, this is just an opinion from a serving soldier.

Leave race out of this discussion.

Posted by: twin3xe82 | November 30, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Only the uneducated and ignorant homophobes would oppose DADT. In a foxhole who cares who saves who's life. Get over it!

Posted by: rusty530 | November 30, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"For these reasons, we recommend, for the time being, that the Department of Defense and
the Services not revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to
the definition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of benefits
eligibility."

SEC XIII (P-146)

So DOD recommends that we want your service, but please leave your committed partner at home. I predicted this.

We are putting the Cart in front of the Ox and using our military to "half way" try this out.

Posted by: DonnyKerabatsos | November 30, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Gates said nothing about repealing DADT until Obama became his boss. Then he had to get some justification to do what Obama wants, so he said let's do a survey.

Of course, the survey came out the way Obama wanted it, because Gates is an obedient soul. Wonder of wonders, says Dorothy, the wizard Gates is a phony, a big bag of hot air.

If you have never served in the military and been forced to live in very close proximity to a lot of men, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. It's bad enough without having to worry about all the diseases that homosexuals contract with their anal and other sexual practices. Look at the record of HIV: the problem is with homosexual men, not heterosexuals.

I say that Gates needs to be forced to live with his decision -- in reality, in a crowded bathroom with homosexuals carrying all types of diseases, sexual and otherwise. Then I wonder what his decision would be. I know that being an officer in the Air Force or any other branch of service is very, very different. Officers get private and much nicer quarters, without having to share their private bathrooms with anyone.

I was a volunteer enlisted man in the Army, became a staff sergeant and I can tell you that I would not join any armed force entity and live with homosexuals. Most enlisted soldiers I know do not want to live in close quarters with homosexuals, so I strongly question the validity of the "survey" that Gates ordered.

DADT seems to be working pretty well so why are we talking about changing it now? Because one of Obama's campaign promises to the homosexual community was the repeal of DADT.

So,it isn't at all about what soldiers want. It's what politicians want. Stop the madness. Keep DADT and keep the number of honosexuals in the military at a minimum, keeping their sexual practices to themselves. Otherwise, you'll face a dwindling armed forces. Then, will you fight?

By the way, the Marines are not only better fighting men, their training is so hard, it tends to cull out the "namby pambies."

Posted by: RonKH | November 30, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I got it! I know why McCain is such a homophobe! Perhaps something happened to him in a POW camp, some guard found him really cute.

Posted by: ChicoPorter | November 30, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I prefer homosexuality to homophobia. Times change. These are not the days of Adolf Hitler, in which homosexuality could mean concentration camp and gas chamber. I am Argentine and my country's Congress legalized gay marriage a few months ago. Homosexuals might also want to become military officers. Sexuality has nothing to do with that desire.

Posted by: esvazquez | November 30, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

So, thirty percent of the military believe that openly gay acceptance in the military compromises their mission. The Obama and socialist LGBT supporters think that it is alright to ignore the beliefs of 30% of the military to impose the lifestyles of less than 5% of the population in their bedrooms.

If 70% of the military believed it was okay to force sexual relations on a person of the opposite sex, I suppose that this would be proof that there would be no problem with carrying out this "enlightened" practice.

There is no other issue where this would be acceptable.

Posted by: gopphil | November 30, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Political correctness and homosexuality - They go together like peas in a pod. First, a federal judge overrules millions of voters in California, a judge that swore that he would serve the people in an impartial way. Now our CinC and Generals under his command say our military won't be affected if DADT is overturned. They claim that the majority of military men and women will accept the life styles of the homosexual community. They apparently have not delved deeply into what the life styles of homosexuals have caused. There are numererous professional studies and researce into the subject. I would be more than glad to point them to where the research and studies can be found.

Posted by: MRGRG-USA | November 30, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse


I got it! I know why McCain is such a homophobe! Perhaps something happened to him in a POW camp, some guard found him really cute.

Posted by: ChicoPorter | November 30, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

--------------

Yes, and if that had happened, then the U.S. military of the future would not be able to accommodate McCain's inability to sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as gays.

It's an excellent topic to discuss in the debate to repeal DADT, not just because it is a real fear to males who have been victims of sexual assault by gays, but because you feel it's a funny smear to hang on McCain.

What's funny about homophobia in a man who has been raped by gays?

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse


But you're not. And even if you were hit on by someone gay, a stern but polite "No, I am not interested" is normally all that is needed to end such a come-on without stooping to violence or childish behavior. And if it is not, there will certainly be some disciplinary action that could be taken by your superiors. Plus, something called the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be amended to handle such cases.

Posted by: luv2bikva | November 30, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

----------------------------------

I believe that heterosexual men should not have to make such stern but polite refusals when they should be sleeping, or bathing, or dressing.

Now we all know that gays cannot control who they fall in love with. That's just how they are. There's no choice to it.

Since gays cannot control who they fall in love with, let's at least assure that other men will not have to respond to their romantic overtures when they should be sleeping, bathing, and dressing. Restrict gays from areas where heterosexual men are billeted.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 30, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

John McCain should protest the repeal of DADT with the one weapon that he has left: his job.
http://bif­ocalpoint.­blogspot.c­om/2010/11­/as-goes-d­adt-so-too­-should-go­-senator.h­tml

Posted by: bifocalpoint | November 30, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

It's very sad that some people are more worried about whatever sex they are into being accepted and accommodated instead of winning a war against the sick anti-semetic and anti-american element out to kill us. Somehow backside buddy buddy is a greater priority than the true mission of the military.
There is a history of this sort of thing. it usually occurs before the fall of a great civilization or empire. Moral decay and self indulgence leads to massive death in many ways. The ranks of Rome and earlier Athens became filled with this sexual entity (and others). Each fell into mediocrity on the battlefield and their homelands became ruins. You may not like what I say....but it is true.

Posted by: write2makeadifference | November 30, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: Smarg | November 30, 2010 12:19 PM
___________________________________________
Last time we talked, God told me he was OK with homosexuality. It's the narrow minded Bible thumpers that piss him off.

Posted by: Lefty_ | November 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse
=====================================
Lefty, I couldn't agree more with your statement. The American christian Taliban have a powerful, potent weapon of mass destruction in that there Word of God! Makes you wonder which farm animal raised these wunderkinds?!
Dakotahgeo, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain

Posted by: dakotahgeo | December 1, 2010 3:43 AM | Report abuse

When I was in the army everyone knew who was gay and there were a lot, it made no difference except for a bigoted few...

Posted by: edmundsingleton1 | December 1, 2010 4:03 AM | Report abuse

Homosex is all about feeding the flesh
It is an excellent enviroment to breed
diseases- any departure from health- illness in general
a particular destructive process in an organism specific illness
an evil or destructive tendency or state of affairs to cause disease in: infect; corrupt- dis-eased' adj.

Posted by: boski66 | December 1, 2010 5:04 AM | Report abuse

Defending homosexuals is like the teenager defending drinking or drugs, that is why kid's have parents, to discipline the angry, spoiled child. Older homosexuals have been assaulting children with their sick veiw of love and sex, wake up and do the difficult and most important job- PARENTING- Teach Your Children Well the downfall of destructive practices that will ultimately destroy their healthy veiws that lead to growth in mind, body, spirit and soul. Listen to the Older and Wiser Ones that know what Life, Love and Marriage is about- growth of the Human Species. Teach them about planting the Human Garden, The Human Heart and Spirit, don't fall into the sick and destructive practices that lead to diseases, destruction and death!

Posted by: boski66 | December 1, 2010 5:33 AM | Report abuse

As the sun of the earth must rise
To give sustaining warmth, light and life
The son of man
Must rise
For he has a purpose too
To rise up and bring forth life
With all that God has given him
To honor and protect
To defend the blood of his offspring
To give and recieve this love
It takes a heterosexual
The blueprint of the Creator
You are heterosexual

Posted by: boski66 | December 1, 2010 5:41 AM | Report abuse

God's Children

God's Children have lost their way
Jesus has very much to say
Will they listen
Those restless souls
Or will they go their own way
Loneliness, trouble and despair
They will meet at their will
But Jesus' Will shall never fail
To come and heal them
And bring them home

Posted by: boski66 | December 1, 2010 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Progressive Liberals Creating a Diabolical Society and Humanity

http://www.massresistance.org
http://www.drjudithreisman.org
http://www.silentscream.org
Also google Boston Children's Hospital Sex Change Clinic
Also Obama's Bi-Sexuality
Also Dawn Stefanowicz Out from Under
Also Planned Parenthood as this organization goes into the public schools and gives young girls low dose birth control pills so they will become pregnant, then they take them for an abortion, many times without the parents permission- What a surpise?

Progressives and R.I.N.O.'s Using children as pawns in their dangerous and deadly game of Greed and Hate!

Posted by: boski66 | December 1, 2010 6:00 AM | Report abuse

Don't be so hard on the Marine Corps, folks. It is a very conservative, tradition-bound organization, so its resistant to changes like this, but the once the mission is assigned, the Corps will get it done.

There were homosexuals serving back in the Stone Age, when I was a Marine (during a period the authorities, rather than kicking people out willie-nillie, made it VERY hard to get out by claiming to be gay). There are now. There will be tomorrow. Time for everyone to grow up and recognize that things aren't always exactly as we were told they should be by religious "authorities". And don't worry about the Marine Corps... it will manage.

Semper fi

Posted by: Iconoblaster | December 1, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The risk for our soldiers at war increase every time a qualified soldier is expelled from service because of DADT.

Posted by: jbowen431 | December 1, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse


Hello,Christmas is coming soon, give family, friends, love, his own gift ready?
If not, let me go! welcome to: http://www.bizboysell.com
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
===== http://www.bizboysell.com ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou407 | December 1, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company