The American Spectator

Darin| 10.15.09 @ 6:55AM

Sounds like Cash has a firm, authentic grounding in the Christian faith. Obama claims to be a Christian, so he should have no problem with Cash's viewpoints. However, since Obama has a 20 year history of having no problem with Jeremiah Wright's non-Christian viewpoints, I can see where Cash would prove to be a problem.

Obama needs to do some serious introspection about his faith. Is he REALLY a Christian, or does he just play one on TV. I don't know his heart, but believers can usually be identified by their actions (you shall know them by their fruits).

victor| 10.15.09 @ 9:23PM

Obama is not by any standard a Christian.
He believes the God sanctions homosexual marriage, aborting the unborn and that adultery and theft are not sin.
Some believe that he will have a starring role in the Revelation to John and Daniel 11:36-37
"And the king shall do according to his will and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished for that that is determined shall be done"
"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers nor the desire of women nor regard any god for he shall magnify himself above all"

Appleby| 10.15.09 @ 7:16AM

At least Obama is making some effort to speak to someone who has a strong faith and cannot be intimidated by lavish exposure to Mammon. Let us pray that this impulse is strengthened and the Satanic minions who surround him will be silenced.

As for his Sixties obsession with Peoples Wee-Wees and what they do with them, perhaps he needs psychiatric help, or to hang around with younger people with healthier ideas. This infinite fascination with Sex has become boring.

Bydand76| 10.15.09 @ 7:30AM

And this is supposed to be a suprise? Of course he isnt listening to his Generals.

What makes you think he is going to listen to his soldiers?

Mauna loa| 10.17.09 @ 9:49PM

America voted for a two-year jr sycopant senator with no voting record, no real birth certificate,no college transcripts, no passport records. WE are going to get what we deserve. A pathetic lib-tard. He carried 96% of the black vote, and 99% of the gay vote, but yet they call the tea party people racist. That is page ONE from the pink-triangle play book. America you won't even know this place in 2025. It's coming.

KyMouse| 10.15.09 @ 7:54AM

Given how litigious our society has become, I envision a gay soldier (or airman, etc.) phoning a lawyer, and then a reporter, if anyone makes a comment that could be considered derogatory. My time in the military was much shorter than many other people's, but I remember how "frank" barracks conversations can be. The resulting turmoil, even if legal action were not allowed, would be devastating for troop morale and efficiency.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 9:12AM

Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a recipe for tragedy. To expect young, naturally aggressive, males (and most are naturally aggresive, regardless of the repression modern public schools try to instill) to not violently reject an openly non-conforming soldier is ignorance on the part of command (as in Commander-In-Chief).

To demand of the young soldier the aceptance of sexual objectification, by forcing him to cohabit intimately with those who may regard him as an object of sexual desire while demanding, with the penalty of career-ending criminal prosecution, that he not objectify or harass the objects of his sexual desires (females) is contemptuous torture of those whom we expect the most of.

There will be violence, as there has been already. Those who advocate for the openly-homosexual serving in the miltary must willfully be ignoring the duty of the NCO to weed out the non-conformist. The bien-pensant who demand this change will blame the perpetrators of the coming violence rather than look in the mirror; they should sit in the military prison with the perpetrator.

Hell, they should sit there now.

Big J| 10.15.09 @ 3:17PM

Good to hear from you, Doorgunner. It's been a while.

Been across the pond, or just busy locally?

Michael Tomlinson| 10.15.09 @ 10:18AM

Not since the failed Robert McNamara and Jimmy Carter has the US military had such incompetent civilian leadership. But is this really a surprise when one considers the Vaginal President has cut funding for human rights in Iran, because the tyrants complained. Moral leadership is something Barack Obama knows nothing about.

Obama and his administration are a disgrace and nothing they do is reasonable, sensible or moral. What is needed is needed are massive Republicans majorities in Congress who can repeal and reverse as much of the damage as they can.

America hit a historic low in November of 2008 hopefully starting with next years elections that trend can be reversed so that by 2012 Barack "Insane" Obama is just a bad memory.

Son Of Sam| 10.15.09 @ 11:36AM

Of course the TelePrompter In Chief is not listening to his soldiers on this or any issue: they are the people who protect the country he himself so clearly despises. He has bowed to our enemies, stiff armed our friends and done everything possible to destroy our economy, trample our laws and piss on our history.

I predict that a great many people who were going to be career military are going to give it pass with this fool in office.

stands strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

Tim| 10.15.09 @ 11:44AM

"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. "

C,S, Lewis "The Abolition of Man" (1943)

victor| 10.15.09 @ 9:14PM

I don't think you meant it, but this is what happens when you homosexualize and geld the military.

Oldefarte| 10.15.09 @ 12:41PM

This, nor anything else SHOULD surprise most Americans possessing common sense. The sad fact of the matter is that the American voters elected Obama [stupidly, of course], and now the only question should be, what do we do about it. The answer is for those same American voters to go to the polls beginning with next year's congressional/governatorial elections and VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO VOWS TO UNDUE TO DAMAGE THAT OBAMA HAS DONE!!!!!

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 1:33PM

The homophobes commenting on this article do our young men and young women in the military no favors by imagining they cannot work along side other highly patriot, and skilled, young people who just happen to be gay.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 2:11PM

I am no homophobe, and I am in the military. I do not care if gays serve in the military. I do serve along "skilled, young people who just happen to be gay." However, I do care if they 'openly' serve.

Why?

Because the military is not the place for individualistic advocacy. The entire concept of military sevice is predicated upon selfless-ness. As well, fraternization is not only forbidden between ranks, it is strongly discouraged between peers -a coomon course of action for a commander is to remove one party from the unit.
Further, it is simply a question of parity. No female should be expected to shower or be unnecessarily quarterd with men; why should heterosexuals of one gender be quartered, and expected disrobe and shower with homosexuals of the same gender? To satisfy your politically correct whims?

And you're not going to bring the average, young male enlistee around to your point of view regarding tolerance. Pack mentality is, by necessity, encouraged in the military. A result is that anyone who not 'of' is regarded as 'against' and is a target. Sorry, that's unchangeable reality.

And finally, your accusations of homophobia carry about the same weight as the charge of racism does these days.

Tim| 10.15.09 @ 2:31PM

It's time to ban straight people from the military.

alyeska| 10.15.09 @ 2:46PM

and what of the young men and women who are serving honorably and bravely in the military today who are gay? we all know that we have gays in the military who preform their duties superbly. the same cannot be said of the republican gays serving in congress, i.e. larry craig.

you people are deranged!

jd| 10.15.09 @ 3:30PM

And you probably think Barney Frank is a shining example of how gay people should act.

I am forever amazed at how people like you can be so ignorant about human nature and think you know how the military should be run. YOU are deranged. Ask any soldier in a trench during a war who he would rather have backing him up - a straight male soldier or an openly gay one. Keep your politically correct, feel good views OUT OF OUR MILITARY.

Margie| 10.15.09 @ 5:20PM

Hello Liberal Reader, you've had another name change but the personality remains the same.
~I suggest we call out (no pun consciously intended), all of the "gay" Democrats in Congress to see which of these have performed their duties superbly, (a laundry list I'm sure), since you have no problem bringing it up. Or since I brought it up does that now make me "homophobic?"

alyeska| 10.16.09 @ 2:52AM

it's my military too and no, i won't keep my "feelgood views" out of our military. they could use it more than most.

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 2:34PM

@Doorgunner: A person should not have to pretend he is something he is not; on the other hand, your arguments are not fundamentally different from arguments against integrating the military racially.

No one is saying that gays should be allowed to have sex parties in the bowels of a submarine.

What is being argued is whether you can have a military that is capable of ignoring the unessential for the essential. It shouldn't matter what the sexual preference of your buddy happens to be in the military.

If you have a problem with gays, then that is your problem and you should address it to overcome your hostility. You write as if young people are so fragile psychologically that discipline would break down just imagining that their bodies in the communal shower might be objects of lust. That's life. Why should it be any different in the military?

Professionals find ways to deal with these sorts of challenges, and, quite frankly, the sooner they do the better for all of us. A gay enlisted man or officer should not be cashiered just because some snoopers and trouble-makers can find evidence he once looked at gay porn. It is fundamentally wrong to reject talent merely because you object to something personal and non-essential about him (non-essential, I should say, to the mission).

When you do reject an otherwise qualified person for non-essential reasons of sexual preference you can be fairly criticized for homophobia. You can spin this any way you wish, but the fact remains you've found reasons to reject someone because he is gay. That's the real reason, the whole reason, and nothing but the reason. That sort of discrimination has no place in an American military unit.

Serge from Wellington| 10.15.09 @ 5:40PM

TA writes: That's life. Why should it be any different in the military?

Because it's different in real life outside the military. Out of the barracks, no one requires from a normal males to have communal showers with perversed ones. It can happen incidentally though - say, at a sports club - then both parties have a chice to allow or not that to happen again. Very different from military, isn't it?

xii| 10.15.09 @ 3:14PM

The article fails to mention the national poll showing that 63% of the military either supports or has no preference for gays serving in the military. And of those in the military who had gays or lesbians serving in their units, 72% said they did not have a negative impact on morale. Nor does the article mention the nearly 13,000 people the military has lost, nor the hundreds of millions of dollars of time and training wasted on those people.

alyeska| 10.15.09 @ 3:18PM

who are you and why are you here? we don't cotton to that kind of common sense round these parts. so, you best be gettin along!

Big J| 10.15.09 @ 3:26PM

It is painfully obvious that Tom Anderson, alyeska and xii (age maybe?) have never served in the armed forces.

Too busy citing slanted polls and spouting gibberish of which they know nothing about to be bothered with risking their lives for this country.

We have a name for folks like that down here in Texas: Potlicker.

A potlicker is a person who will smoke your last cigarette, drink your last beer, eat the last cookie on the plate. Then they badmouth you at every opportunity.

Shoe fit, guys?

xii| 10.15.09 @ 3:53PM

Ironic that you refer to my 2006 Zogby poll as gibberish, and then follow up by spouting genuinely pointless, fact-free Texas gibberish. Well done!

For what it's worth, I don't want your cigarettes, your beer, or your cookies. Lt. Dan Choi, however, would like to not have been kicked out of the Army National Guard. And he's probably the sort of person you'd want to keep in there: West Point graduate, Arab linguist, infantry officer, Iraq war combat veteran. Discharged from the Army for saying "I am gay." For refusing to violate the Cadet Honor Code he learned on his first day: "I will not lie."

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:01PM

You're correct. Choi was the sort needed in the military- until he decided to place self (or cause other than defense of nation) before mission.

xii| 10.15.09 @ 4:09PM

That's circular logic.

He placed his cause before the mission.
How?
By saying he's gay.
How is that placing his cause before the mission?
Because of DADT.
How did he violate DADT?
By saying he's gay?
But how did he put his cause before the mission?
Because of DADT.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:15PM

"How did he violate DADT?
By saying he's gay?"

Yes, but it's not the DADT violation I was underscoring. It was the decision to engage in activism for a cause other than execution of commanders intent. Execution of Commander's Intent is the only allowable 'cause' in the military.

And that is not circular logic.

xii| 10.15.09 @ 4:33PM

He formed a support organization for gay West Point grads. That undermines the execution of his mission how?
Also, in order to be in violation of DADT, one need only make passing reference to their same-sex partner. Or answer "yes" to the question "are you gay?" to anyone other than their superior. In fact, one need only "engage in a homosexual act" to be in violation. These offenses critically undermine the military's morale how?

victor| 10.15.09 @ 9:09PM

Why is that you homosexuals want to join the military anyway?
Is it to uphold the Constititution and the Honor of all those who have fallen in battle defending this great land? Or is the uniforms and being close to other men?
You can get that in any bathhouse or rest stop.
The military is for the protection of our borders and our language and our culture. It is not for the protection of those who find pride in their perversion.

victor| 10.15.09 @ 9:11PM

If he didn't want to lie, then he shouldn't have joined in the first place.
The military is there to mold men for the defense of our nation, not to mold the military for the benefit of one man.

alyeska| 10.15.09 @ 3:29PM

and we have a name for rube texans :)

Big J| 10.15.09 @ 3:50PM

O.K., alyeska. You've been dying for someone to respond to your nonsense all day, so I'll feed the troll.

I can assure you that you would not utter that were we to meet in person.

You see, that's the difference between what "your kind cotton to", and what people with honor "cotton to".

Easy to hide behind a keyboard and fling mud at people who can't see you. Heck, you don't even understand why you hate conservatives - you just do.

A quick language lesson for you, though:

Rube is a noun, not an adjective. To be correct, you should have said the following:

"And we have a name for Texans - rubes".

Rube meaning, of course an awkward, unsophisticated person.

Rube also means a naive and inexperienced person.

I am not awkward, but I am guilty as charged of being unsophisticated.

My experience is limited to my reality, and judging by your posts, you are the naive one. That reality tells me (and your comments are an excellent endorsement) that liberals are miserable, have a twisted view of the world, and are just plain wrong.

Just a little common sense from one rube to another.

;)

alyeska| 10.15.09 @ 9:48PM

first of all, i don't care if or who responds to my posts. second, i'm shaking in my boots over your not-so-veiled threat of physical violence. i expect as much from rube texans (see irish americans et al). it is equally easy to utter threats from behind a keyboard, mr macho. four, rube = not very intelligent or interested in culture, both of which i suspect apply to you, and five, it appears that all the lip-spittle, violent hate speech comes from your side. not-rubes have vocabularies.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 3:40PM

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 2:34PM
"If you have a problem with gays, then that is your problem and you should address it to overcome your hostility. You write as if young people are so fragile psychologically that discipline would break down just imagining that their bodies in the communal shower might be objects of lust. That's life. Why should it be any different in the military? "

1) Please, show me where I displayed hostility.
2) Young people aren't necessarily fragile psychologically, but they are frequently immature, and insecure (young- get it?).
3) It should be different in the miltary because were not making widgets, we're operating in lethal environments -in war and peactime- and we rely on our buddies. If the openly gay person serving doesn't have those buddies, he is well and truly f**ked.

You clearly didn't read my reply. And you, xii, and alyeska have never served a day and you don't know anyone who has (at least not very well). Doesn't mean you're not entitled to an opinion, just means you opinion is uninformed.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 3:48PM

Tom Anderson,

Another thing "...their bodies in the communal shower might be objects of lust. That's life. "

Who's spinning now? Are you showering communally at the sandwich shop?

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 3:56PM

@Big J & jd: The two of you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about human beings who happen to a different sexual preference than you do.

But even more fundamental than these mistakes is your assumption that the military "belongs" only to you.

That is precisely the problem here. The military "belongs" to *all* Americans, not just straight Americans. There was a time, not too many decades ago, when black people were regarded as "second-class" citizens and were allowed to participate in defense of the United States only under conditions of racial segregation.

President Truman changed that and caused the "Dixiecrats" to bolt the Democratic Party, but I don't see the "damage" done to the military that these "Dixiecrats" merely assumed would occur through integration.

There were the same arguments about destroying unit morale, but eventually the white racists learned to overcome their hostility to black people and to black officers.

This same evolution of attitudes must take place in today's military for the simple reason that no Americans should be excluded from defense of their country merely because of an accident of birth, i.e. one's sexual preference.

I have seen in my own life how people can overcome their deep prejudices for the greater good of us all. This is just something the military, a highly traditional organization, will have to learn to adjust to.

We are all Americans here. It's high time we all recognized this fact.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:08PM

Hoo-boy, here we go. Another gay rights activist trying to equate his cause with the struggle of blacks in this country.

Spare. Me. The. Drama.

That argument will fly after gays have been enslaved for a few hundred years.

xii| 10.15.09 @ 4:15PM

You've done some quality drama-queening here yourself: ZOMG, TEH GHEYS WILL KILL THE MILITARY!11! EVERYBODY PANIC!111!!1

Your argument would fly if gays weren't already serving right now, semi-openly, throughout the military, in wartime. And the world has not ended.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:19PM

I've already acknowledged that gays are serving; indeed, I have stated that I currently serve with some gay soldiers. No big deal. But you choose to ignore what I've stated and my arguments and whip out the 'ALL CAPS' tirade and bluster about like overwrought teenager.

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 4:16PM

@Doorgunner: If you oppose gays in the military, then you are hostile to gays, for there is no legitimate argument to exclude gays.

It seems you place a great store, in order to express an opinion on matters military that one must have first been a member of that military.

I notice that you qualify your references to gay men with the adverb, "openly".

Perhaps you are under the impression I argue for the right of gay men to act unprofessionally in the ranks. I do no such thing. A man's sexual preference simply is not a requirement to perform well. But there have been many instances under the current policy where highly qualified officers and enlisted men were "outed" by homophobes for the purpose of doing injury to them, despite the benefit received by the military in having such highly qualified people serve. The current policy encourages this sort of behavior that is unworthy of the military, is small-minded, and unprofessional.

So what if you have young people with prejudices? Prejudices can be overcome.

Look, everyone understands there are feelings of exclusivity that are useful in maintaining esprit d'corps, but I am here to tell you there is no reason why, over time, you can't have unit cohesion even with men who happen to be gay.

This is all part of a general social change where we've come to recognize the values and contributions of everyone, no matter how much they may be despised or rejected by some segments of society. That is a good thing.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:32PM

Thank you for your well-reasoned argument... /no sarc. I think you and I are closer in viewpoint than we originally thought.

I have no problem with gays in the military, but I do worry about two things: first, based on anecdotal experience and knowledge of violent reaction on other posts I frankly fear for the safety of a young openly gay soldier. I also lament the loss of focus on task-at-hand on the part of the immature soldiers obsessing on sexual preferences of someone 'different' than they within their unit. It's only a question of efficiency, not morality or ethics. Secondly, and I am resolute in this, the military is not the place for advocacy of any external cause. Period. If one's conscience dictates such advocacy or activism, honor dictates that one remove himself from service first; because miltary service is for the benefit all Americans, not a sub-set thereof.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:40PM

Perhaps I should say this is why I think Don't Ask/Don't Tell is about as good as it's going to get.
Frankly, I wish everyone in uniform, when inside the wire, would just keep it in their pants and STFU about it.

xii| 10.15.09 @ 4:47PM

If a soldier is obsessing on the sexual preference of someone in his unit, conscience should dictate that he remove himself from service immediately.

And I would argue that the "advocacy" of Lt. Choi is not an external cause. It is a cause that seeks the betterment of the military itself. Groups within the military that organize and advocate against the repeal of DADT also believe they are seeking the betterment of the military. Do you believe they, too, should be kicked out?

Serge from Wellington| 10.15.09 @ 5:58PM

xii: If a soldier is obsessing on the sexual preference of someone in his unit, conscience should dictate that he remove himself from service immediately.

Reversed logic... no, this is something even more elementary - reversed arithmetics. Last time are checked, the US military wasn't a Homo Army with some normal soldiers dispersed among the ranks. Nor the general human society is.

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 4:42PM

@Doorgunner: You say, ". . . here we go. Another gay rights activist trying to equate his cause with the struggle of blacks in this country."

First off, you make unwarranted assumptions. I am not a "gay activist." I support the Constitution, and I like the Declaration of Independence, especially the part about why government is instituted among men.

I support a strong military and I see that in the case of Truman's action to desegregate the military the country has itself become stronger.

In comparing the black struggle against institutionalized white racism with the struggle against homophobia I am not saying gays have suffered in anything like the same way or to the same degree blacks have suffered. But why should anyone have to suffer?

I thought we were speaking of unit cohesion and how anti-gay prejudice needs to be indulged. I may not have been a member of the military, but I am an American who has probably had more experience dealing with people than you have. Unit cohesion does not have to be built on the backs either of blacks or of gays or of any other despised minority.

Another point: I am told, in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, a woman who is raped (against her will, but that's redundant, isn't it?) should be stoned for she has brought "dishonor" to the male members of her family. In other words, the men in such societies can't control their sexual urges, yet women are the ones held to account, as if they were the perpetrators rather than the victim.

If there were any young men who couldn't function in a unit because they wish to blame the gay in their midst for distracting them sexually, then the problem lay with them and not the gay. You simply must learn to control your sexual urges. But I don't for a minute believe that our young men and woman can't get along with gays in the military or that they are so unprofessional that "unit cohesion" would suffer.

Doorgunner| 10.15.09 @ 4:46PM

See my post above at 4:32. Nice talking to you, have a good rest of the day.

Tom Anderson| 10.15.09 @ 5:04PM

@Doorgunner: You've said, "first, based on anecdotal experience and knowledge of violent reaction on other posts I frankly fear for the safety of a young openly gay soldier. I also lament the loss of focus on task-at-hand on the part of the immature soldiers obsessing on sexual preferences of someone 'different' than they within their unit."

These are legitimate concerns, but I think you don't give young people enough credit if they are intelligently guided by their superiors with firm expectations and appropriate penalties.

Unprofessional conduct must be recognized and dealt with whatever the source or motivation. If a gay man acts unprofessionally, then he should bear the consequences, but if one of those results in his murder, then this tormentors must also pay the piper and not be excused because homophobia is tolerated by the brass.

In short, the problems you cite can be dealt with by looking *at the behavior* of the men in question. Whether the individual can't focus on his work because he's obsessing about the gay guy next to him or across the room, why is it the gay who's held liable? That's the functional equivalent of holding the rape victim a perpetrator in Islamic societies. The scale is not the same, but the thinking is quite similar. Also I know most people will attempt to blame others for their own faults. That is just human nature. I just don't think we need to condescend to such prejudice. The solution is to state the bold policy and then enforce it appropriately, using all the tools the military has at its command to mold soldiers to the purpose at hand.

victor| 10.15.09 @ 8:56PM

"using all the tools the military has at its command to mold soldiers to the purpose at hand. "
And what exactly is the purpose of the military?
To mold soldiers into what? Reflections of social engineers? Or reflections of the Military Men that founded our Armed Forces?
If you want to be a pervert, be on on your own and shut up about it. You want to be out. Go outside, of the military. There's plenty of Gay Pride Parades you can march in. Marching in formation is not one of them.
Oh, and by the way, one's race or ethnic group is hereditary, which means you are born that way.
Sexual mis-orientation is a Choice, or to put it another way, a case of mistaken identity.
God made you a man to marry a woman and not another man. It is you who choose to disregard God's plan and make your own choice.
Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Mike| 10.15.09 @ 11:48PM

The ignorance is staggering. DoorGunner I am with you.

In order to dispell the kneejerk reaction I will reveal that my daught is a lesbian. She lives with me along with her significant other.

Trying to descibe to someone, who has never had one, what an orange tastes like is near impossible. Similarly, trying to make someone who has never experienced serving in the military, understand the dynamics of a combat unit is impossible.

I served in the Presidential Escort Platoon in the late seventies and early eighties. Rosilyn Carter asked, after a Whitehouse ceremony, why there were no women present. We were an Infantry unit. But poof we got a female detatchment. Morale, performance, and cohesion left the building.

The same happens when we allow openly gay people to serve. You have no idea.

I am not sure the DADT is the right answer but it is a compromise that allows gays to serve. In the same unit there was a NCO that was a swinger. WHen he kept it to himself and kept it out of the unit all was well. As soon as he started swinging within the unit he became ineffective as a leader and needed to be transferred out.

The military has a job. It is to kill people and break things in defense of our country. Do your social engineering on your time and dime.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

victor| 10.17.09 @ 12:33AM

Thank you for your service! Well said!

Marc Jeric| 10.16.09 @ 12:06AM

Why don't we have females in the NFL? Or in the boxing? Well, they are trying but not against males. Imagine a corps of female nurses with a male soldier in the same shower (non-gay soldier, of course). I think this should put a stop to this ridiculous debate. No "don't ask-don't tell" but "ask and tell" and if gay don't take him/her.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.16.09 @ 12:27AM

Apparently the infanticide champion in the white house is 'sympathetic' only to peculiar
wails - those from military reproached homosexuals.

Limp-wristed would-be Spartans?

LOL.

Nick| 10.16.09 @ 12:47AM

When I was in the Army ('88-'92) there was no "don't ask, don't tell", and I still had to put up with homos. I didn't turn them in, and as long as they stayed in the closet, all was fine.

There shouldn't be women in combat either.

edgard| 10.16.09 @ 5:51AM

So the gays want to serve openly in the Military?
Well I have a sugestion.
Gen Mc Crystal need 40,000 more troops yes?
Let us start an all volunteer gay Corps of say 3 divisions and send them to Afghanistan. That should make the TALLIBAN and ALCAIDA "TURN TAIL" before you know it.

As for the problem of suicides in the Military I like to suggest to put the base Chaplains offices next to or near the Commanders office instead of way down in the basement or in a hidden corner as far away from the command section as possible. ed

John| 10.16.09 @ 9:22AM

This might be the single, most backward, upside-down, illogical writing I've read in a long time. Talking about serious human rights issues, not to mention important steps for our military as though its a debate on political correctness. What is wrong with you?

victor| 10.17.09 @ 12:32AM

Human rights Issue? The right to be a pervert?
Go start your own homosexual army if you want to, but leave the military out of it.
The most important step for the Armed Forces is Military Preparedness, not social engineering.