At the risk of being flamed (no, the pun wasn't really intended), just because you're in a shower/tent/submarine or other close quarters, clothed or otherwise, with a guy who's gay doesn't mean he wants in your pants. Hate to break it to ya, but he may not be interested in you. I know some gay servicemen who are as devoted to the uniform as many straight wervicemen and the uniform/job comes first. From what I know, they can be your best friends or your worst enemies depending on how much respect you give them.

 

Obama says he believes in the bible, the written word of GOD. From begining to end the bible speaks against homosexual acts and the destruction of those that don't change. I guess he's giving gays and lesbos the green light to carry on their filty acts and their blood is in Obama's hands!

 

How about love thy fellow man! Ah, forgotten again in that tangled web of bible thumping.

 

I'll throw in some quick comments. I'm sure I'll be back to reply in a little bit.
I'm active duty air force, been in baghdad for 7 months now, and have seen things here that only go to strengthen my disliking of gays openly serving. So, using this logic, a straight woman that refuses to shower with a straight man, for fear of being sexually assaulted, or just made to feel uncomfortable in general, is a heterophobe?? Your argument lacks logic.

Therein lies one (of many) problems. Every branch of the military has PT standards. While there are a few fatties that make it through to retirement, for the most part, we are a lean and fit fighting force. Rephrased: eye candy for the butt pirates.

It's not illegal to be morbidly obese. It's not illegal to be colorblind. It's not illegal to not be able to lift 30lbs over your head. It's not illegal to be born with an extra toe on your foot. Yet these are all things that will prevent you from being able to enlist in the greatest military the world has ever known. The military has every right to determine its own standards for admission.

DADT kinda does this for them, doncha think? That's what all of you civilians fail to understand. DADT wasn't created to prevent gays from serving. In fact, if was a progressive leap forward, allowing them to serve, under the radar. It also provided great protection for the gays. What do you really think is going to happen now that it's been repealed?? I saw an earlier comment about this being a great way to weed out the homophobes so we can be a more friendly military. Sorry, but that's about as wrong as two boys holding hands in the dark. Repealing DADT just removes this protection.

And by the way, to all the comments about "all the other countries allow gays"... umm... remind me again which country has the greatest military power in the world?

Spoken like someone that's never been to basic military training.

Next.

There are some really great and inspiring military members who are gay, too. Why do I need to know that they are gay? So that, when it's time for awards packages to be submitted and reviewed, my heart strings can be tugged on because an individual "overcame adversity"? ******* that. Like the "ninja" here has said, your sexual orientation should have nothing to do with your work ethic.

 

black bullit-

And just throwing this out here. Sexual Harrassment- Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.The legal definition of sexual harassment is “unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.”

So with this being the case, being forced to work alongside an openly gay man that i dont want to, is also sexual harrassment. And before someone chimes in and says that its sexual harrassment for not wanting to work with them, lets look at the majority here. More people against gays in the militray than people for it. We can make everyone happy and grant everyones wishes but, we can at least please the majority.

 

the majority no longer matters. it is the wish of the few, the special interest, the progressive liberals that count. the aclu pushes the fight for one to take away the rights of thousands.

 

this is true

 

Very well spoken there black bullit, but you realize you are arguing with a Canadian? I couldn't agree with you more.

And serrota...it's love the sinner and hate the sin, might want to dig a little deeper into that bible. But let's keep this thread on track and not spin off onto a religious debate.

 

One "r" two "t's" but then again we all make simple, inconsequential mistakes on occasion.

As you well know, no love involved. You aren't separating the "sin from the sinner" as you call it. If you didn't want to spin off why go there? Narrow minds, no flexibility, not able to adapt to change.

It's ALL gays shouldn't be in the service, period. Lump them all together. My guess is you'd not be willing to admit it, but you feel the same way about other groups as evident by your Canadian crack.

I was told by a very insightful forumite not to get involved in this quagmire, but I was foolhardy enough to think most on here would see the reasoning and believe that there was good and bad in all people or groups. I should have heeded that advice.

I'll retire quietly and reflect on what I've learned.


Thanks, peace to all!

 

As my dad always used to say: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil."

To piggyback on this, the results of the so called survey of the troops is severely flawed, if not utterly useless in and of itself.

3 key things stand out to me.

1. I took the survey. I know many, many people that also took the survey. I have yet to come across one person that would put themselves in the "support repealing DADT" category.

2. The reason you won't find any people in this category is because of the very nature of the survey. It did not ask the simple, straight forward question of "Do you support repealing DADT?" Instead, the questions were engineered as if the repeal was a garaunteed thing; they were farming for certain responses, and given the options, they got what they were looking for, which would lead the layman to believe the majority of troops supported the repealing of DADT, when in fact, all the survey does is show that the majority of troops would support certain REactions to the repeal.

3. Secretary Gates himself has said he acknowledges a high level of discomfort with the repeal among combat troops, yet he has also been quoted as saying that it's not the current practice, nor has it been in the past, nor will it be in the future, to create future policy based on a survey of the troops.

So what was the point in taking the damn thing in the first place.

And to the point that the majority of civilians supporting the repeal, no offense, but, what do civilians know about military life? Especially in a deployed environment. You've watched (Full Metal Jacket/Jarhead/Brothers/Blackhawk Down/Top Gun) so you think you know what being in the military is like? Sorry. No dice.

God love them for their service to our country, but both Gates and Mullen have become nothing more than a pair of worn out socks in Obama's puppet show, ignoring popular concensus in favor of helping this misguided administration fulfill one of the only campaign promises they are capable of.

 

off subject but oh man Hurt Locker makes me want to hurt people, what an underly stupid movie that disgraces troops everywhere

 

I was following your lead on that one. The subject was Gays serving in the military, not does God or anyone else love gays. Two very separate issues and I know how threads can get side tracked when religion is injected, but you brought it up.

Now if I am being narrow minded by not accepting a perversion as an acceptable life style---ya got me!

The "Canadian crack" was in reference to all the quotes in black bullit's post, which were in fact from one of our Canadian members. The last time I checked Canadians don't vote, pay taxes, or serve in the United States military, so not meant to be disparaging but the Canadian's comments are only an outside observer's viewpoint.

Spellin' never was my long suite! My bad!

 

Spelling has nothing to do with it, whether you accept it or not has nothing to do with it, the point is, they are American, just as American as you, and they have the right to hump whoever they want as long as it is consensual, and they have the same right to be in the military and carry out military duties as you. Just because you are so homophobic that you can't deal with it doesn't make them less of Americans, and whether or not you approve of what they do with their ding-dong doesn't matter, they're allowed to serve. You may not like it, I don't like some things, but in America, they have the right to, so I guess we'll all deal with it.
Outsiders can have a viewpoint the same as Americans can, however I have noticed that a few people don't want to admit anyone's opinion except straight men in the military who hate gays and hate the idea of letting them serve, but really, if you'd like a discussion with people who have the exact same idea and will never question what you "approve" of, don't ask on a public message board.

 

Wow! Here we go with the name calling again!

So what you are saying is that some one's opinion about how a country should run it's military, when they don't even live there, is what we should base our policies on?

You can go back and read my posts and see I haven't called anyone names, so where does the hater stuff come from? And how is this for a news flash------I also have a right to an opinion and the freedom to express it. That freedom comes from the very same military that Obama is trying to ruin for the sake of a very few, like 3% of the population.

As I stated before, about 3 more times of calling me a homophobe and I will have to be convinced to change my mind. You have managed to bring the insult count down to 2.

So if anything goes, tell me why we don't let fat one legged midgets into the military? How low should we lower the bar on military standards?

 

Who called who a name?
Saying you are "homophobic" is not name-calling, it's pointing out the obvious reason for you being anti-gay. There is some reason that you don't want them in the military, and it is because you are scared of some part of that idea, that would make you homophobic.
And no, I didn't say we should base our policies on anyone's opinion, but we're not exactly writing the policy here on f150online.com.
And yes, you have an opinion, nobody said you didn't, and you can express it, but that doesn't make you right and everyone who doesn't agree with you wrong.
And no, we shouldn't allow fat one-legged midgets into the military, they probably can't do the required work, but saying a guy who likes to plug the exhaust pipe is as incapable of doing a job as a fat one-legged midget is just ignorant. If they were that incapable, yeah, you'd have a point, but the guy likes other guys, he isn't physically disabled. He might even perform physical tasks better than you.