When I was deployed to Baghdad in 2003, There were MANY nights that men and
women shared quarters for various reasons. We seemed to control our urges,
treated each other with respect, and even protected each other's privacy. It is
time for people to grow up.
I have three deployments and 30 years in the military. I will probably deploy at
least once more before retiring. It is past time to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, Just Lie policy. The policy is counter to our guiding military principles
and the Constitution we are sworn to defend. It is wrong to deny equal
protection to a select group and to ask service members to lie. Anyone who has
served in the military has already served with gay service members. Repeal this
vile policy already.
@willary"Buy yourself a chasity belt and move on."Lets just break down all barriers and let females room with male soldiers.
Then when the females complain of sexual harassment we can respond with the
above quote. Not double standards right?
I don't think that most people (including soldiers) have a big problem with
working with gays/lesbians.What they do want; however, is for those
gays and lesbians to not be OPEN about it.That is the whole point of
DADT. If you are homosexual, fine, just shut up about it. Don't wear stuff like
they do in the gay parades. Don't make passes at your co-workers. Don't tell
everyone at the office about what you did at the gay bar last night.The whole effort by the GLBT crowd to get rid of DADT is not about allowing
gays into the military. It is all about giving those gays who are already there
the freedom to flaunt their sexuality. Then if you don't like that kind of
behavior, then you can be properly labeled a bigot and sued in court.
Re: "Gates and Mullen on Thursday asked Congress to act as soon as possible
to pre-empt further intervention from federal courts."So, the
real reason these weak sisters are rushing to destroy the military is so the
courts won't do it for them?That's political pandering, not military
logic.Gates and Mullen suggest they are cowering in terror at the
venal pronouncements of a couple politically motivated lower-level judges,
regarded in the legal community as intellectual lightweights.Doesn't
say much, either for their warrior ethos or for their leadership abilitiesThe last word has not been heard from the courts. This issue will be
decided in the military's favor by the Supreme Court, unless pandering
politicians take it out of their hands.If Gates and Mullen don't
have the stomach to honor their oaths and fight for the troops, they should step
aside and let McCain carry the day.
"How about we respect our brave straight soldiers and don't just say
"deal with it" and make them live with the gays."Psst....Guess what Chris. They already are! And the world has not come
crashing down on anyone! If you're so insecure that just knowing
another man is a homosexual that it completely turns your life inside out,
that's a you problem. Buy yourself a chasity belt and move on. I
find it amusing that DADT was initiated to better protect homosexuals from
persecusion/badgering from straight memebers of the military. Now people like
Chris B. want to turn a 180 and make this about the feelings of the straight
Any public support, sanction or endorsement of homoexuality is just plain sick
and wrong! It would be outrightly disruptive to our military. I wished
homosexuals would respect that many straights don't want them showering in their
barracks. If not, then all barracks need to be co-ed to make everyone
I am not a fan of John McCain. But so far as I recall, virtually every POW
captured during Vietnam was eventually broken and talked. Some lasted longer
than others, some had more useful or sensitive data than others. But all broke.
If military code of conduct will prevent sexual assault and
harassment sufficient to allow people to bunk and shower with those for whom
they may have sexual attraction, then why do we continue to segregate men and
women in terms of showers, bunks, toilets, mass medical exams, and other
intimate settings? We all know what the other has. And we've all seen it
firsthand. So what are we hiding?I am not sexually attracted to
every woman I see. I do not presume that most women are sexually attracted to
me. I appreciate those women willing to sacrifice to defend our nation. I'm
sure women appreciate the men who do likewise. But none of us think
it bigoted or strange that men and women generally do not want to bunk, shower,
or use the toilet together. If we understand the real reason for this, it is
directly applicable to DADT.
Respect our straight troops!We don't make the women live/shower with
the men.The exact same concepts apply to the gays and straight
men.We don't tell the women "just deal with it" and make
them live with the men.How about we respect our brave straight
soldiers and don't just say "deal with it" and make them live with the
Pagan,You don't have a clue. I was in the military. Believe me, most
soldiers would not want to share a room with someone that was gay unless himself
was gay. I am aware how so called 'studies' can twist reality to fit an agenda.
Your numbers are meaningless to me. I'll trust my own personal experience in
the military over your alternate reality.
Furry,I was in a Navy reconnaissance crew that also flew missions along
the periphery of the Soviet Union, with the same requirements that your husband
faced. Presumably he was never shot down and tortured. No one, your husband
included, really knows how one would endure and behave during torture when the
time comes. All of our Vietnam POWs, perhaps with a few exceptions pointed out
in books on the subject, deserve the benefit of the doubt. We've never walked in
Nancy L.V.A few questions for you, if I may.Is it better
that a portion of service men and women hide and lie about an aspect of their
lives rather than be honset with those whom they are to be risking their lives
for?Does this hiding and lying go along with what you understand the
code of conduct should be for anyone serving our country in the military?Are gays citizens with all the same rights and privileges as other
citizens or are they a sub-class that does not deserve full citizenship? Are our soldiers fighting for gays as well has heterosexuals when they
defend our freedoms?Thanks for your reply.
If an American citizen has voluteered to risk his/her life to protect this
country and it's citizens, I could care less what their sexual orientation is.
I simply thank them for their service.I'm very confused how sharing
a barracks with a gay man/woman changes whether they decide to tell you they are
a homosexual. It was not a big deal sharing that barracks when they hid the
fact they were gay? Did you feel their eye wandering to you when you didn't
know they were gay? No. It's simply a mental paranoia that exists in so many
people these days. And as for John McCain, he has lost all
credibility on this matter. He's for repeal, until the Tea Party comes to life.
Then he's against it, unless the military officials and service men/women are
for it. Then when military officials and servicepeople are fine with it, he
continues to back track. When did John McCain turn into John Kerry?
I love the but they will shower/sleep together" argument... As if it is an
unfixable problem, so we just gotta wash our hands of it and let the status quo
stay because this problem is a real thinker. *roll-eyes*Number one,
they are already showering together, this makes me feel that this issue is a
last desperate argument by people who know they are losing...Number
two, I really don't think Gays and Lesbians are going to pitch-a-fit if they get
their own barracks.My concern is that Gays and lesbians getting
their own barracks will just be another way to, "Hate". We have seen
this before; the straight barracks will get marble floors and Greek fountains,
while the Gay Barracks will be the proverbial trash heap... I don't want to see
this happen, and it is a concern of mine.Another concern is money...
this will not come cheap and the in this political climate of conservatives
freaking out over the slightest perceived tax increase, and government waste, I
find it hypocritical that they are ok with this... after all Gays and Straights
already are together and what could be cheaper than this?
I guess when anyone has anything in mind that the right could call an
"agenda", that's the signal to run for the hills. Pagan
keeps pointing out that the military ITSELF has changed its thinking on this,
but he's ignored by people who usually can be found far to the RIGHT, even of
McCain.And let's see an actual example of a combat unit hurt by
including gay soldiers. That shouldn't be hard since most of the world's nations
at most times simply make no distinction. Wouldn't there be evidence for all to
see by now if including gays on the battlefield just didn't work? Just tell us
which army, where and when, please.
Pagan.... no doubt you're biased, but you're dismissing 60% of the combat
soldiers out there. This is ridiculous. For those of you who don't
have an opinion, ask yourself how comfortable you'd feel showering with folks of
the opposite sex. Guess what? That's no different than the majority of straight
soldiers do now. Gays say they 'just want the right to serve their
country like the straight soldiers'. This is only a half-truth. If they TRULY
wanted to be treated like the straight soldiers, they'd be put in separate
quarters to respect the rights of the straight soldiers that would rather not
know which guys are gay. I don't have a personal problem with gays in the
military. Glad that you want to serve this country. However, have some respect
for those you will be serving with. Say, "Yes. I've got an unnatural
attraction to soldiers of my same gender. Out of respect for them, I'd like to
bunk/shower separately from those with attractions different than mine"
because, guess what? You ARE different than the other soldiers. Show
consideration for everyone.... then you'll earn my respect.
The hard push by the Dems, Gays and Lesbians to push their own agendas and the
military leaderships effort to appease these personal and political agendas at
the expense of the fighting units and defense of the country says about all that
needs to be said about all of them. What nonsense anyone that reads the poll
(whether flawed or not) can clearly see that it indicates the fighting units
would be harmed by the change in policy. @Pagan DADT was not a policy of the
Military in 1993.
"I think it can be real simple, Try asking the soldiers that are already
enlisted. I have talked to dozens of soldiers all with the same response. They
don't want openly gay soldiers in the military. Why not let active duty soldiers
vote on it. They are the ones that have to deal with it day in and day
out."Serving in the military isn't a democracy. Soldiers do
not get to decide policy, nor which policies they will or will not obey. That's
just the way it is. Generals don't walk around asking the soldier what they
think and then form policy based on popularity. As a 20-year Air
Force/Army veteran I can honestly say I wouldn't have cared if openly gay people
were serving or not. The only thing that mattered is whether the other soldiers
were qualified to do their job. The troops have adapted to many changes over
the years, and will adapt if DADT is repealed. If it bothers some of them, they
can get out at the end of their enlistments. I will provide promotion
opportunities for others.
'And I can't think of a single fellow soldier that wouldn't have felt the same
way.' - Belching Cow | 10:46 a.m. Dec. 2, 2010 Cow, You
don't have to think anymore. 115,000 service members questioned. Of them, 74%,
or 80,000 have no issue serving with a gay service member. The
Uniform Code of Military Justice (or UCMJ) will treat any harrasment the same.
However, when I have asked others, there have been zero reports of any rise in
sexual assault or harrasment since DADT was implimented.... 17yrs
ago. So, 1) Your entire scenerio was hypothetical. Nothing 'bad'
happened to you. 2) Those hypothetical people you quote? They contradict the
80,000 service members who take no issue with gays in the military. 3) I am glad
the military no longer has to deal with people who persecute others... based on ideas. Not facts.
I served in the military in my younger days. I can't even imagine sharing a
barracks room with some guy that might have romantic feelings for me. It would
without a doubt be a traumatic experience. No one should have to be subjected
to that. And I can't think of a single fellow soldier that wouldn't have felt
the same way. Having openly gay people in the military would be a huge
To SSMD | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 2, 2010 My husband was a Russian lingust,
military analyst and vocal intercept operator in the Air Force in the 1960s. He
flew up and down the Russian coast gathering military intelligence, and often
flew with a MiG just off the wingtip of his plane. There was always a chance
that his plane could be shot down and that he could be captured. If he were to
be captured, he knew that his job was to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT regardless what
happened to him, including enduring torture or dying, so that others would not
be put in enhanced danger. He further read in McCain's book what McCain
divulged, and knew what he would have done with that type of information --
specifically, what McCain told could have unlocked the entire Naval Order of
Battle for the Vietnam theater, and put every service person in the theater in
peril. Compared to my husband's comments concerning McCain, mine were temperate
and restrained (my husband called him an "explative-deleted" traitor
and said he should have been courtmartialed). My husband understood, better
than probably anyone here, just exactly what McCain did. My comments stand.
'Try asking the soldiers that are already enlisted. I have talked to dozens of
soldiers all with the same response. They don't want openly gay soldiers in the
military.' - slgs5aggie | 10:00 a.m. Dec. 2, 2010 The Pentagon
report questioned 115,000 service members. 115,000 vs. 'dozens' Please read the report from the Pentagon before dragging out the
same false claims, year after year.
'There is no way you can just throw gays into close quarters with normal
soliders without HUGE morral and operational problems....' - patriot | 9:49 a.m.
Dec. 2, 2010 Patriot, As I have mentioned, DADT took
effect in 1993. 17yrs later, the only 'problem' I see is the 14k
discharged under DADT (3 combat bataliions) (Source? Service Members Legal
Defense fund) And the $1.3 billion tax dollars spent supporting
DADT. Source? Congressmen Patrick J. Murphy, PA. To CONTINUE to
claim there will be 'problems' when the pentagon study says there will not... is a contradiction. The pentagon questioned 115,000
service members & 44,000 spouses. Where did you get your
I think it can be real simple, Try asking the soldiers that are already
enlisted. I have talked to dozens of soldiers all with the same response. They
don't want openly gay soldiers in the military. Why not let active duty soldiers
vote on it. They are the ones that have to deal with it day in and day out.
'WASHINGTON Directly challenging the Pentagon's top leadership, Arizona
Republican Sen. John McCain on Thursday snubbed a military study on gays...' -
Article Houston, we have lost cabin pressure. After
1993, during a relative 'peace time' the argument was that we can't repeal DADT
during peace time. Now, after 9/11 in 2001, in 2010 we can't repeal
DADT because of war time. (Iraq, Afghanistan) Previously, McCain
deffered to military leadership. Now, with Gates and Mullen, the
militaries leadership wanting to get rid of DADT McCain suddenly feels their
opinions are not worth consideration. Then it was 'wait for the
report.' Well, the report shows 70% of the military is fine with
openly gay service members. The 60% of one branch is moot. As,
following this logic, if one chaplin was against black members in the military,
we still wouldn't have any. The report is clear. The majoirty,
almost 2/3rds supports gays in the military and it will not affect the military
as a whole in a long-term, negative way. Those who simply are trying
to see differently make up their reality. There is no defense
for blind bigotry. This is evidence.
Furry,Since you were never a guest at the Hanoi Hilton, how are you
qualified to judge McCain's performance there? As a long serving member of the
military he has more perspective on the DADT issue than most of the Congress and
citizenry commenting on the issue. As a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee he has a duty to ask the hard questions.
I don't think anyone has a problem with gays serving in the military - they have
every right to do so HOWEVER how do you allow that without causing HUGE problems
with individual military units? There is no way you can just throw gays into
close quarters with normal soliders without HUGE morral and operational
problems.... this is reality. We are fighting two wars and can't aford this sort
of disruption and problems within the ranks and you can't just tell soliders who
are laying their lives on the line to just buck up and accept it. The ONLY way I
could see gays being allowed to serve is if they are kept out of combat
operations. Gays would have to serve in some clerical or other type roles where
they don't have to bunk in close quarters with other soldiers.
He is absolutely right. Allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the
military would be dangerous, to say the least. "Don't ask, don't tell"
is the right thing to do. Enough said.
Thank you Senator McCain for having the courage to stand up for not repealing
DADT policy. I'm a veteran, and one that has worked in a Mental Health
Clinician capacity in the military. I have heard many stories from service men
and women that demonstated the problems associated with gays serving in the
military. I believe that many men and women will leave the military if DADT is
repealed. I also agree the study is flawed.
Because I'm not in the military and this doesn't effect me at all, I don't
really have any strong opinions about it. But if the study shows overwhelmingly
that gays serving openly in non-combat units isn't a problem, but serving openly
in combat units IS a problem, then it seems pretty simple to me. Let the gays
serve openly in non-combat units until after the war is over, and revisit the
issue for combat duties during peacetime. Take the time until then to commission
a separate study focusing solely on combat units, and revisit the issue as soon
as the war is finally over.
Given the quality of McCain's behavior while a POW in Vietnam (specifically,
according to his admission in his own words in his autobiography FAITH OF MY
FATHERS that he offered and then divulged valid military information in return
for medical treatment), I don't see that he's qualified to speak on this issue.