The American Spectator

Repeal Repeal DADT| 12.21.10 @ 4:23PM

Mr. Goldstein, you are a clueless, pompous twerp & are truly grating on the nerves at this point. End the war with Guardino now. You have lost. GOD bless!

Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:46PM

They secretly (I don't go by what people say, but rather what they think) want to scapegoat gays. And notice, when we bring up, quite correctly, how Goldwater thought gays ought to be permitted to enlist in the Services, he is called "senile", "in his dotage".
They detest homosexuality so much they would diss even Goldwater!

Derek Leaberry| 12.21.10 @ 4:33PM

George Washington considered homosexuality dishonorable. Mr. Goldstein apparently finds homosexuality honorable. So who am I to trust? The answer is easy.

What this whole episode displays is that certain Republicans, most of them of urban vintage, have no use for cultural conservatives. In fact, they hate cultural conservatives. So be it. Let the civil war in the Republican Party begin.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 12.21.10 @ 4:46PM

I couldn't agree with you more Derek. Merry Christmas & GOD bless you & yours.

DRed| 12.21.10 @ 4:56PM

George Washington also thought it was honorable to own human beings.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 12.21.10 @ 5:02PM

So did the Democrat Party, but you will still vote for them will you not?

DRed| 12.21.10 @ 5:16PM

Democratic party. And the Republican Party didn't think much of states rights. But times change.

Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:54PM

MacAlister,
The Repuglican Party of 2010 is NOT comparable to that of 1865. They manner in which a despisation of homosexuality is expressed here leads me to think gays have taken the place of blacks in being scapegoated.

1861: "n*****s".
2010: "fags".

Notice how you can write the latter but not the former.

Derek Leaberry| 12.22.10 @ 8:48AM

If you think that way about Washington, then have the guts to call for demolishing the monument that bares his name or rename it. Rename the nation's capital. Rename every university that bares his name. Change all currency that bares Washington's image. Burn every painting of Washington in federally owned property.

Curly Smith| 12.21.10 @ 4:35PM

Four questions:
Would you agree that homosexual men are sexually attracted to some men?
Would you agree that homosexual men are not sexually attracted to all men?
Would you agree that heterosexual men are sexually attracted to some women?
Would you agree that heterosexual men are not sexually attracted to all women?

Since you answered "yes" to all of the above, would you then agree that all public facilities should be unisex? Isn't it foolish and a waste of funds to have separate restrooms, showers, dorms and other facilities when individual men are not sexually attracted to the majority of women they come in contact with? Sure, there may be some minor tension if a woman doesn't appreciate the interest shown, or vice versa, but, because of the vast numbers of encounters involved between all men and all women, those instances of disagreement are nothing more than a trifle, a mere triviality, and are no cause for concern.

Let's start with Congress... why do they need a Women's Bathroom? Why can't they lead the way with unisex facilities?

James Duffy| 12.21.10 @ 4:46PM

Actually, at one establishment near where I live there IS a unisex bathroom. It consists of two stand-up urinals for the men (with privacy barriers on either side), a fully enclosed lockable toilet stall for women (or men, if they need to take a dump), and a couple of sinks. There is no indecent exposure, and the only thing one hears is the normal sound of human excretory functions (which really don't differ much between men and woman anyway). All the customers are comfortable with this arrangement, and there haven't been any problems.

Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:58PM

I'm no optimist on social progress, yet I want to protect the minority from the majority.
Blacks at one time were the minority who were fair game.
Now gays have replaced blacks as being scapegoats, and gays have to be vigorously defended from the tyranny of certain violent elements of the heterosexual minority.

Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 6:02PM

oops, majority. Freudian slip, eh?
However sexual-orientation is not the issue IMO.
The collateral issue is you consider gays to be fair game in your political sights. But you will LOSE, as you lose on START.
DREAM is a different matter.

Greta| 12.21.10 @ 7:14PM

The use of civil rights by gays trying to link to blacks was a good political move. It makes no sense of course because one is based on skin color and one is a choice to do a certain act. The black person can not stop being black, while the homosexual can stop commiting homosexual acts. Mankind up until a few decades ago saw these acts as depraved and the person in need of help. Then a few decided that it was kind of cool to be pro gay (vast majority of the same people who think it is OK to murder infants in the womb) and they used the leftist justices to find the use of civil rights as a good way to go since no state voted to allow gays to have special rights. Many of these same people also see any limits put on pornography as evil, but find no issue with trying to stop any mention of God in schools or any other location where our countries business is conducted. By going to the courts to legislate their agenda, they have to trash the constitution by finding it to be a living document and even though the document includes clear ways to amend it, they know they have no chance in America to do so. Thus they find in thin air new rights to perversions they have fallen in love with. The vast majority of people had no issue with gays and supported punishing those who would do things like beat them up. After all we love the sinner and hate the sin. But that was not good enough. No, we are being forced to give these people not equal, but special rights never given before to any other weakness or temptation. We are being forced to say that the act itself is not gravely disordered but somehow a new normal just like killing the infant human being can be killed because of its location in the womb. The divide is growing between Americans because the left wants to make their perversions normal and rather than debate the issue and try to get the law of the land amended, they want to force everyone through extralegal means to accept their valueless lifestyles. Then they wonder why their is so much anger and angst in the country. We are one nation under God and some are trying to change it to one nation under Satan.

9th ID| 12.21.10 @ 9:01PM

Greta,
Well stated and irrefutable. This will give Alan Colmes a migraine...

Purpleguy| 12.22.10 @ 9:26AM

I stopped reading at 'It makes no sense of course because one is based on skin color and one is a choice to do a certain act. ' ... since you obviously are ignorant of what it means to be gay, no further reading of your opinion is necessary.

Btw - just when did you choose to be straight? Can you choose not to be? Just because it is outwardly obvious that you are black doesn't mean being gay is any more a choice than being black or having blue eyes or being 5'10' tall is a choice. Discrimination on ones inherited genetics is discrimination, period.

The fact you don't understand that being gay is inherited - if you did your research you would note that being gay is an inherited trait - makes your opinion immaterial to the discussion

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 9:59AM

sorry, I guess I missed the gay gene discovery. As I said, when one is born with black skin, it is not a choice, but reality. We are all born sinners with various weaknesses. some are born with the desire to lust after many women or to steal. Some are born with a desire for violence. Some become alchoholics if they choose to drink while others can drink away and not be addicted. Some seem to be born with a desire to have sex with the same sex. Any of these weaknesses can be acted on or not. For some strange reason, many have started to believe that if they have a weakness, that their peace and joy only comes with acting on that weakness at every temptation and many in society now want to make that normal. We accept some who lust after multiple partners at lot easier than we once did and we give them a pass. We make excuses for some who steal if it is only little things like office supplies from the workplace. some now see killing a baby in the womb as not murder of human life even when they know that if left to live it is and only ever will be a human being. And yes, some not want to make sex with the same sex partner OK . In all cases where we change the rules to allow people to act on their weakness, we do them no favor and it shows that rather than loving them, we are condemning them to a life lacking any real peace and joy. I note the anger in gay people toward the world and in many cases toward themselves. They think it is because everyone does not accept their sin as normal and now are trying to use courts and pressure groups to force this on others. They resort to calling those who will not agree names like little children. We are called to love them and hate the sin and this is not acceptable to those who refuse to control their weakness as we are all called to do for our soul and for a society of one nation UNDER GOD. You win nothing by forcing others to accept your sin as normal, only the lose of your soul and the danger to theirs. Sorry, but that is fact.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 12.22.10 @ 10:07AM

Greta says, "We are one nation under God and some are trying to change it to one nation under Satan."

Actually I suspect Greta won't be happy until we rename this country The United States of Christ.

darcy| 12.22.10 @ 12:50PM

Yes, Chuck, just like our Founders wanted -- and so named it: the United States of Christ.

Greta rightly asserts an opinion about human nature, an opinion that mirrors the attitudes of our Founders who fought and died to bring into being this once-free nation, and you would leap to the irrational conclusion that her views -- and theirs -- are theocratic. Nothing could be further from the truth, as our history and the documents of our Founding attest.

But I suppose it serves your purpose to demonize, dismiss, and marginalize people who are our modern-day bearers of the Founding -- which you obviously find so repugnant.

It serves also to short-circuit your thinking about these things; you are blinded and enslaved to your sin; your reason is corrupt. The more I know of mankind, the more the Bible is proved true and God is right when he says that "[t]he heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; indeed, who can know it?" and then there's this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." Romans 1:18-23.

Merry Christmas to you, Chuck.

Curly Smith| 12.21.10 @ 7:48PM

But your policy may not provide the protection that you think it does. In fact, it may cause great harm to the minority. Of course, you wouldn't know that since I'm privy to secret, previously unknown studies which reveal that young people, and young males in particular, have poor impulse control. From those secret studies I've determined that it's unwise to put homosexual males in a potentially sexually stimulating environment where they may freely flaunt their sexuality. Your desired policy goal sets the homosexuals up for failure. I am, of course, not impugning your motives as you're not privy to the secret, previously unknown studies on the lack of impulse control associated with young males.

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 10:02AM

Sorry, those secret things are well known and have been since the beginning of man. Seem to have read somewhere about Adam and Eve. And yes, we do no favor for any of us to place us in locations where we are tempted. We pray "to lead us not into temptation." I met recently with a man addicted to porn who could not go near a computer hooked to the internet for he lost control. He was sent over the edge by watching regular TV and what is shown to exit our sexual desires. There is only one hope for all of us and that is Jesus Christ. That is a well known fact and we are all in need.

jbowler| 12.23.10 @ 1:36AM

I was in the US Navy for 10 years, so presumably I took more or less 3650 showers (well maybe a few less because sometimes the ship was on "water hours" which meant we were running low on fresh water and no-one got to shower until the fresh water tanks were full again). Somehow in all those showers I never had any trouble at all not ogling (much less attacking) any of my straight shipmates - however attractive they may have been.

But perhaps it really wasn't all that difficult. When I stepped into a shower, somewhere between 90 -99% (depending on whose numbers you believe) of the people potentially showering with me (if any) were heterosexual - usually loudly, aggressively and outspokenly so. Somehow under these circumstances, keeping my preferences under control was not much of a challenge - especially as nearby every base I was ever stationed, there were any number of gay bars, dance clubs, etc. - usually well frequented by other service-members - at which I could find a date, were I so inclined.

Actually I think Curly should be allowed to shower with women, just like I did with other guys- in fact EXACTLY like I had to do with other guys. I think he should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to try sharing a shower with several dozen loudly, aggressively outspoken lesbians preferably larger, heavier and uglier than he is (well scratch that last I wouldn't wish that on anyone) any of whom would rip his head (either one) off if he so much as looked at them funny.

Jeff| 12.21.10 @ 5:07PM

on board a Navy ship and in Army, Marine and Air Force enlisted barracks there are NO private changing or showering rooms currently for men.
I challenge any hetero pundit to claim he or she would be fine with that sort of personal living arrangement.
If they can set up seperate quarters then unit morale should be fine during peacetime ... during wartime, in the field it may be very, very difficult to manage such arrangements ...

there is a reason women still are not in many front line units ... Its not because they can't fight (they certainly can) its about living conditions and privacy ...

If the services do not make seperate living arrangements for openly gay service members I predict a large exodus of hetero men and women out of the service in the near future ...

Greta| 12.21.10 @ 7:19PM

Jeff, your are absolutely correct and I go further. Since the congress has deemed to say that openly homosexual soldiers can serve and if they are placed in barracks, bathrooms, and showers with those they are sexually attracted to, then unless they allow all soldiers the same and equal access to the barracks, bathrooms, and showers of those they are sexually attracted to, they are violating their civil rights. And since this is now the law of the land for the military, it seems to me that all private facilities should be outlawed just like we outlawed any form of segregation. After all, we should not expect the hetrosexual soldier to have to sit in the back of the bus or to wash in a different shower. And we should not see the women congressman expect to have seperate facilities provided to them because sexual attraction must not be denied.

darcy| 12.22.10 @ 1:21PM

To Greta,
You can go here :

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000417.html

. . . if you'd like to read a discussion on this topic: Why homosexual liberation is incompatible with out political order.

Excerpts:

"Liberty also requires that people obey the law not out of coercion but out of a voluntary sense that one belongs to an actually existing community with a shared sense of moral truth as reflected in its laws. In other words, liberty and self-government require a cohesive culture, which in turn requires strong family ties, which in turn require traditional sexual morality." And this: "I agree that the homosexual agenda is incompatible with the traditions of western civilization. It occurs to me though that the destruction of western civilization is precisely the goal of the cultural marxism driving the political left, and that the gay agenda is currently its number one weapon against it."Posted by: brianv on May 29, 2003 9:30 AM. (This is the position to which I ascribe, as well -- the erasing of every vestige of shared community values, including national allegiance, is the goal of the George Soros types; Open Society means exactly that, open to everything, everywhere, no boundaries, and utlimately no meaning to anything -- just individual selves: the ultimate -- one world --Marxist utopia.)

An ongoing discussion about this issue can be found here: http://amnation.com/vfr

Sam| 12.21.10 @ 8:39PM

Jeff,
I fail to see why everyone is so afraid of gays, especially gay men in an all-male locker room. If any gay man tried to grab my package or tried to sexually assault me (which is what I think you're worried about), I'd handle it the same way I'd handle a straight guy who tried that: I'd break his jaw.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of tough-as-nails marines are afraid of men who wear booty shorts, skirts, and makeup. It's almost laughable.

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 10:06AM

Sam, the issue is not being afraid of the gay male advances. In the military, should you break his jaw, you will be brought up on charges and with the politically correct pressure to not harm poor gay men, you will probably be given a dishonorable discharge. They will be a protected class and it is the normal soldier who will be in harms way. However, like the gay persons weakness, giving into violence against others is a weakness. However, those in the military are there because they can turn to violence quickly to protect innocent lives and serve our country. That is what also makes this very hard to accept that it will not have negative impact on morale and unit cohesion.

Tim Williams| 12.21.10 @ 9:01PM

Where is the "hard, empirical evidence" that repealing DADT will improve military readiness and national security? If there isn't any (and there isn't) then why do it? The military remains irrationally bigoted against the overweight, doesn't it?

Steve| 12.21.10 @ 11:20PM

The argument against allowing gay men to serve, at all, was lost centuries ago. Gay men have served in every army since Roman times. They presently serve in our military forces, in almost every unit.

The argument isn't about whether they serve. The argument is about whether they should be under orders to lie to the other soldiers in their units.

Lying affects unit performance. People have a way of sensing when one of their coworkers is lying. They might not know what their coworker is hiding -- but they do sense that he/she is hiding something. That affects trust. It introduces a pause in operation to evaluate each statement before acting on it. And that, affects performance.

Repealing DADT will eliminate those lies. Soldier will not be under orders to lie about who they are. And that will improve trust and performance.

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 10:10AM

No steve, they are expected to control themselves and overcome their weakness. Come on now, a big strong guy in the military should be able to control himself and show some discipline. If you are unable to control your weaknesses, it seems like the military that demands discipline is the wrong place for the gay man who has lost all control. The other guys have their weaknesses as well and if they act on them such as rape or theft or killing, they are brought up on charges just like you and sent packing.

Brian| 12.22.10 @ 5:28AM

There is a reason straight men don't hang out at gay bars. No amount of brow beating by elitist brown shirts will make them want to sleep and shower with them either!

Tim Williams| 12.22.10 @ 8:39AM

Steve, even if all that were true, it's not "hard, empirical evidence" that repealing DADT will improve military readiness and effectiveness. Rather, it's a set of feelings and personal opinions. Choosing that set of feelings and opinions over the feelings and opinions of those opposed to the change is not a rational choice, it's an emotional one - and it is certainly not a decision that has anything to do with improving the military, which should be the only standard being debating.

Bruce Berger| 12.22.10 @ 2:05PM

Tim,

I agree with you 100%. In an all-volunteer service the military command should pay particularly close attention to the concerns of those who disagree with the change in military rules and customs. If those who disagree decide that they no longer want to be part of the military it is a big deal.

2Anglico| 12.22.10 @ 9:26AM

PLEASE refrain from using the term "hard ... evidence" about this subject. Alas, many great military terms will be lost to political correctness. No more: REMF, bringing up the rear, in the rear with the gear, rear guard, cannon cocker, scuttlebutt, poop deck, what's the poop, head (think latrine, Army guys), drop and give me 10, on your knees private, get down below, bunkmate, Ohhh... the list is long...oops... and my fingers are tired, can't say that either!
Non-hackers telling the military how to run their business, how pathetic. Admit it, you people HATE the military. Go ahead, get it off your chests, you'll feel better about yourselves!
Lastly, a recent SCIENTIFIC study (unlike the so-called study the Bambi admin released) of enlisted personnel found that Blacks in the military were more in favor of DADT than whites, how ironic!

JP| 12.22.10 @ 9:43AM

There is no hard evidence that females improve our ability to win battles. Niether for gays. Gays in and of themselves have a life style and set of beliefs that go against the good order and discipline of a fighting force. Combat leaders for eons understood this.

But hey, the Progressives won. They will now transform the military in thier own image. And at some point our nation will reap what we've sown. Many will die so the gays and Progressives can feel good about themsevles.

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 10:16AM

JP, progressives and gays never feel good about themselves because they are lost when they try to change what is set down by God which seems to be their lifelong mission. It never brings peace or joy to ones life and any time spent with a liberal progessive leftleaning socialist nutjob will prove this point. The poor person who is actively and openly gay is also one whose joy is only skin deep, never truly at peace with themselves or life because deep down they know they have given into temptation and like all of us to give into temptation with our weakness, it never gives us peace or joy. Jesus is the only source of that which all of us seek every day of our lives. I note that Islam denies that Christ is God and the last time I looked, I also have not met a lot of Islamic folks with a lot of peace and joy in their life. Over the years, as the koran developed, it became ever increasingly more violent and hateful demanding others to accept it and not allowing anyone under their domain to be even exposed to anything else for the fear of exposing something for better and more grand that gave true peace. Sad for the millions trapped in those states.

PattyMor| 12.22.10 @ 10:03AM

I can't wait to see the gay guys parade around in front of the Muslim soldiers. How long do you think they will last? I put my money on the Muslims. You can push the Christians around, but the Muslim don't take it too well.

Greta is fuckin' stoopid| 12.22.10 @ 12:21PM

Holy SHIT!!! You ALL are ridiculous! (and no i'm not a fag, gay, queer or whatever you bigots call them in private). Shut your bible thumping mouths for a second and listen to a disabled veteran....Yeah, I AM a disabled veteran of the US Army. I was an infantryman in an airborne unit. We are supposed to defend YOUR bullshit HATE speech.
Let me set one thing straight (haha pun...)! In any combat scenario NO ONE gives a shit if the guy (or gal) next to them is gay or straight. We dont think about politics, or our cars, or anything except the immediate action on hand, to not get shot or blown-up or killed. (anyone that isnt focused on the task at hand is liable to get us killed.) I can tell ya that here were definitely gay dudes in my unit. The ones I suspected did a way better job of staying focused than the young shitheads that thought war was gonna be like a video game.

HAVE ANY OF YOU SERVED IN A COMBAT UNIT IN A WAR?!?!?!

I DIDN'T THINK SO.

I was injured and tried to stay in the Army, by educating myself about computers and taking classes. The guys that "piss-hot" (failed a urinalysis test for drugs), the criminals and the screw-ups got to stay.
All I can say is that if there are good translators of Arabic, Pashtu, Dari, Russian, Chinese or other critical language that ARE GAY, sign those fuckers up. They are needed and would be welcomed.
As for you morons, please take yer heads outta you fifth point of contact. Anyone that can and will do the job that the military requires is more than welcomed. You are all what we would call shitbags.
Merry Christmas bigots.

Nolann Ryann| 12.22.10 @ 12:50PM

It's actually the fourth point of contact and you've proved that is exactly where your grey matter is on this one. 85% of the so called persecuted that got "run" out of the military on DADT were VOLUNTARY referals, i.e. they turned themselves in to get out of their contract. And yes I've served in several lovely GWOT approved locations and they weren't stateside. Spare me the piffle about translators. I've had to work with them on every deployment and most of the folks that claimed they were "run" out actually self referred to get out of another deployment. See it isn't real fun when your preferred language; pashtu, urdu, dari or arabic don't get you a seat in an embassy. You have to actually go to a combat zone to ply your trade. But hey don't let any facts get in the way of really stupid screed. Keep up the bad work.

Nolann Ryann = BS| 12.22.10 @ 2:10PM

1. US embassies that have farsi, urdu, pastu speakers are basically in war zones anyway...duh
2. if you worked with translators on deployment they they were a. in country, out working, with you or b. you were in the rear on base... Which then begs the question, why would one "self refer" out of military to then go work back in a combat/danger zone?
I thinks you are full of BS...
I don't know what crap website you looked up 4th point of contact dude. Let me help ya, ya ever played football? how does EVERY lineman start? 4 points of contact, duh. You ever climb? 4 points of contact. You ever have to do push-ups? 4 points of contact. So.... th is the butt. Aaaahh duh. I'm guessin' you probably googled some dumb definition of 5th or 4th point of contact. I'm not talkin' bout military shit man, it's a reference to your butt. So get your head out of it.

----One example of needs the military has (since all resources are finite) is translators. Yalla (that arabic for "come on" or lets go. and no i cant spell it, only say it) man, think about it. Why does gay or not, mean jack shit in terms of resources? It doesnt! All resources are needed when the US military are at war. --As for the women in combat, they were used by russians as snipers and have an average natural higher pain tolerance than guys anyway. On average they aren't as physiologically strong as men but some are and can run faster and some dudes are fat and weak. If some chick popped someone that was shooting at my guys I be just as glad as if a guys did, or a gay dude or chick.
Once people start eliminated resources based on some stupid idea you start limiting advantages for achieving a goal. (you all should talk to someone in the SOF area about limited resources and see what they say about getting able-bodied, competent people. You just cant get or have enough, gay or not.)
The GOAL of the US military is to defend the US and if needed its foreign interests and allies.

Here is a very good question for all you mental patients. Who gives birth to gay babies? ITS THE STRAIGHT PARENTS!!!! hahahaha
Blame the christian heteros, that just keep on crankin' out kids, for all the gay babies!!!

Plus gay dudes wont ever have affairs with wives or girlfriends while you are deployed. (nope, hasnt happened to me.) They'd probably look after them and shit. Man, if you brought up that point to the guys if was with they probably want more gays in the Army. Deployments suck and lots of guys were wondering what the hell was going on at home. So instead of thinkin' their girl was f*#king Jody (Army name for generic dude that would hook up with deployed soldiers gals) maybe some gay soldier is friends with her and their goin out shopping or some shit.
you goons need to open you minds, cuz like a parachute, closed minds kill.
Stop by a VA hospital and ask a vet if they would care if someone was gay with them in combat. I did the other day and all the guys ('cept for one who was fucked on meds) that were combat arms (like me) basically said they would give a shit.
de opprsso liber
Sorry im gettin so bitter time for more meds...

You are garbage| 12.22.10 @ 4:14PM

You are the worst kind of liar. You never served, and you've had little to no contact with members of the Armed Services. You are an anti-Christian, progressive, useful idiot bigot who needs to go back to Daily Kos.
Merry CHRISTmas

Greta| 12.22.10 @ 11:23PM

Notice the wonderful content in the responses. I could care less if these are soldiers or not. I have never said that if someone is gay in the current military and doing their job that there is an issue and do not suspect if one was going to be shot they would care who saved them. It is obvious that these people who say they are soldiers and have not problem are not talking about the change to allow open gays to serve with them. It will no longer be suspected that the guy is gay for what they seem to be pushing is to be able to get in your face with it. By the way, we go to the local VA hospital to help out once a week and have been doing it for about 15 years (yep, before 9/11 as my son was killed in gulf war one). We can tell from our visits that this is a major issue to many of the soldiers we have talked with and they have voiced those concerns up the line. I guess the marines who have strongly objected to this change are just homophobic wimps. I know better and suggest that the comments are not from real soldiers, and if so not worth keeping as their garbage comments would attest. I know that thousands of soldiers and their families are very depressed by the fact that their leadership has thought so little of them that they want this political win over them. Remember, the democrats never get the military or Christian vote and know it but need all those gay votes.

feetxxxl| 12.24.10 @ 5:07AM

interesting this denigating attitude about homosexuality. how is it that it is destructive to society? homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a father, friend, attorney, counselor, teacher, administrator, soldier, pastor, brother, neighbor,etc.

homosexuals bond in the same ways as heterosexuals out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, respect for a shared committed life together.
the legal gay marriages of massachussetts have not descended into the 50% heterosexual divorce rate of those heterosexual marriages that were performed at the same time.

homosexual marriages provide loving nurturing homes for raising children as do heterosexuals which has been made evident by their offering their homes for foster care or adoption to rejected and abandoned children of heterosexual unions.

feetxxxl| 12.24.10 @ 5:19AM

its time for the military to grow up and represent main stream america, which has progressively become more accepting of gays, in spite of the legacy of anglo saxon culture making it illegal for 600 years and a hanging offense for 300.

i find it interesting that although the worldwide black ethnic suffered severely from the persecution of slavery because of an extreme view of a passage in leviticus they have had no trouble in standing on an extreme view of another passage of the same book to persecute gays.