Deseret News | Utah Pride Center lauds gays who serve in military

Reader comments
Utah Pride Center lauds gays who serve in military

Abe Linocln | 4:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

so now it's the army they want. i remember a few years ago when they were asking for hate-crimes they said all they wanted was protection frome violence. now that they have that, we start to see true colors. no, they do not deserve to serve openly. why are we going to create special rights for gays? yes, special rights. gays already have evry equal right in the book. what you gays keep asking for is special rights. i suppose that we ought to allow lds missionaries into bases and camps to preach about their church huh? these gays that have been discharged due to the policy were rightly discharged. if you join the iltary, then you have different set of rules of conduct. if you do not adher to those rules, you get discharged. it is not illegal to drink alcohol, but i'm pretty sure anyone who drinks in the barracks would be discharged. now, you want to fight to change the policy, fine, that's your right. but any gay discharged for violating don't ask don't tell have no right to complain. you joined the miltary, and broke the rules. that requires punishment.

Response | 5:11 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Next, the gays are going to want "Abe Linocln" to learn how to spell and capitalize words at the beginning of his sentences when he shares his cooky opinions. When are the gays going to stop?

me | 5:29 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Dude. Seriously. First, who's Abe Licocln? We had a mighty fine president named Abe Lincoln... And do you understand the irony of using his name? The man who freed the slaves?

And, whaaat? Let the missionaries into bases? There's this fancy thing in the constitution called the separation of church and state... And of course you used alcohol as the example, which I'm sure you'd rather people not be able to use.

And finally Abe, spell check is a beautiful thing, dude. Use it. You won't sound quite as ignorant, at least in that arena.

Comments continue below

Munk | 5:44 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Times change and we can either adjust or we don't. However, until the regulations change, it is the way it. Any and all consequences due to violation of these regulations are as they are put forth under UCMJ. I honor their service, but until the rules change they must stay within the regulations.

AS for Abe's comment on allowing LDS missionaries on base.. I see no need for that. There are more than enough LDS members in the military. I will never forget the good and blessed Elder who was in basic with me back in the early 80s. I owe him a lot.

mom | 1:15 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If someone is willing to fight for our country they should be treated with dignity & respect regardless of their sexual orientation. The issue isn't "wanting more" it is to be treated like everyone else. Thank you to all Veterans who have served in our military and GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Marie | 1:56 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I find the rule,very discriminitory. I am not gay, I don't understand what makes one gay, but I do believe most gays are born with that inclination, and as long as they don't force it on others I find it appauling that any one, thinks they have the right to deny, any individual in this country their free agency.
Discrimination against them is as shameful as the discrimination leveled against our black brothers in past wars. How sad that we claim to fight for freedom in this country then oursellves discriminate against others for being different. All military personell need to serve in honorable ways and bring dignity to their Corp. I don't see that being gay, having consentual private relationships, compares at all to our military men or women being drunk, out of control in public, or raping women, or any other abussive behavior. The fact is if your life is being saved by one of those gays in combat, I bet you won't turn down their help because they have a different view of some kind in life than you do. If we can't love one another lets atleast respect others. rights.

Anonymous | 5:13 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Re: ". . . and as long as they don't force it on others I find it appauling [sic] that any one, thinks they have the right to deny, any individual in this country their free agency."

That's the whole point of "don't ask, don't tell." Keeping them from forcing their perversion on the rest of us.

LGBT have the same right as anyone else to serve their country in the military. All we, their comrades-in-arms, ask is that they don't gross us out by coming on to us or sharing the details of their latest tryst.

For those of you who haven't served in the military, it's probably hard to envision the need to be able to trust the guy/gal in the foxhole next to you. But removing that trust would destroy the military. And removing "don't ask, don't tell" would destroy that trust.

It's that simple.

If you want to engage in social engineering or experimentation, do it with some other, less important, segment of our society.

Missing the picture.... | 6:13 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Those folks who support gays in the military are missing the picture. Why is it they don't let servicemen and women shower and sleep together while they serve in the military? It's because of sexual attractions and uneasiness of having someone of the opposite sex see you in "all your splender and glory". That is NO different than gays and lesbians in your own barracks. They want to keep me as a male out of the ladies personal "space", and I want to keep gays out of MY personal "space" for the same reasons. The government has FORCED us to allow them in with us. Some of you would call me a "homophobe" because of my aversion to gays in the barracks with me. So what is the term you are using when they won't allow males and females to sleep/shower/live together? I can understand a gay individual wanting to serve his country and I commend him for that. But I don't want to KNOW he's gay, just like I don't run around letting everyone know I'm hetero.

Beware of Pride | 6:34 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Pride has brought nations down.

It has become its own religion.

It's time to separate that religion from the government.

miss g | 6:56 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Think it through, friends. Who wants a homosexual man in the barracks checking him out with an idea for a sexual encounter? It works about as well as housing men and women together. Straight soldiers, the majority, should be afforded this basic privacy as they sacrifice to stand tall for our country.

SSMD | 8:33 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To Missing the Picture 6:13
Your comments are right on and get to the gist of the issue.

truth | 8:36 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

It's true because gay men and women just can't seem to control their "urges", isn't that right? Heterosexual men and women, you better watch your back...the gays are after you! Could you imagine asking adults to act like adults?

Don't ask, don't tell is completely unreasonable. Militaries all over the world allow gay men and women to serve together. Countries like Great Britain and Israel are two fine examples. They have clearly stated that they have seen no harm in integration.

Anonymous | 10:59 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

"why are we going to create special rights for gays? yes, special rights. gays already have evry equal right in the book. what you gays keep asking for is special rights."

Heterosexual services members don't have to hide their families and pretend they don't exist, gay service members do. So it appears that it is the straight service members that have these demonized special rights you speak of.

no dissing intended | 11:26 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

This is a question totally unrelated to this particular story but the picture accompanying it (of Valerie Larabee, director of the Utah Pride Center), gives me a chance to ask it and maybe someone who knows will fill me in.

In the last several months (post Prop8), I've been trying to increase my education/understanding, and become more informed about gays/lesbians, their feelings and their issues.

This picture of Ms. Larabee (and other lesbians, such as Ellen DeGeneres) indicate there are some lesbians who adopt a look/haircut/manner of dress etc. that appears quite male/man-like. In lesbian couples I have seen, one of them does this and the other does not. In some instances, one seems quite dressy/long hair-curls/make-up etc.

Is this because those who adopt the male facade "feel" male? (and the ones who don't, don't??) Or is it to approximate a "straight" man/woman couple?

This has been a question of mine the last year or so and I ask this in all seriousness and hope for a legitimate answer. (I think it would come off as rude if I asked a lesbian directly.)

Thank you.

Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

some of you must have a pretty high opinion of yourselves if you think that just because someone is gay, they will necessarily be attracted to you. get over yourselves!

Anonymous | 2:54 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Why do they have to be "gay members" of the military? Why can't they just be Americans? The more they focus on their gayness the more problems they have. Don't ask don't tell is a very appropriate policy because everyone can just be soldiers and not have to worry about their sexual preferences.

LGBT are the only people | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

. . . in the world that describe, define, and confine themselves and their relationships to others by their favored perversion.

You don't hear adulterers proudly proclaiming themselves as such, and parading their pride in adultery. Or voyeurs. Or the lustful, the gluttons, the greedy, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, or even the merely prideful.

It's only LGBT that are "proud" of the perversion by which they define themselves.

Why inflict this "pride" on the military? What do we hope to accomplish by it?

If someone "comes out" as an adulterer, he runs the same risk of administrative discharge as the "outed" LGBT.

Thousands of honorably serving gluttons have been discharged for no better reason than their gluttony.

How would it be fair to place LGBT into a special category that immunizes them from the consequences of their perversion, but not adulterers or gluttons?

LGBT are currently welcome to serve in the military, so long as they keep their perversion to themselves. As do adulterers, gluttons, and practitioners of other perversions.

In other words, LGBT are already equal. They now demand INEQUALITY.

Iraq Vet | 4:18 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

For those of you who have posted your "words of wisdom" here, once against speaking out against gays, please, please keep it up. Every time you open your mouth or write a word you show the world what you're made of and move us ever forward toward true equality for LGBT citizens. You are the Bull Conners and the George Wallaces of the Gay Civil Rights movement. God Bless you!

Sad | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I can't believe that you people are so blind...I am gay and I don't want to be treated any differently, no special rights. I just want to be treated the same. I think that if a gay service member can't talk about their personal life then any straight service member should be held to the same conditions. I say don't ask don't tell across the board!

katie | 5:53 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

dear no dissing intended,

I appreciate your question. I don't think that any one person can answer for how other people choose to dress or wear their hair, and how they feel inside in terms of their gender aligning with their biology. there is diversity in our community, and not all lesbian couples have a butch/femme dynamic, which is what you are describing. for many they just present themselves in a way that makes them feel most comfortable. for some it changes day by day. if someone actually feels inside a different gender than what they were born as, they would actually be classified as transgender. it could just be that they are a person who likes short hair, or not conforming to stereotypical ways of dressing as a woman in our culture.

keep asking questions!

@Iraq Vet | 6:35 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Thanks for your comment, but most of all, thanks for your service. I have never served in the military, so I am very grateful for those who have and do——risking their lives for the sake of millions of fellow-citizens they will never even meet. Their sexual orientation, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the value of their sacrifices. Gay or straight, thank God for you!

Some of the commentators participating here ought to be ashamed of themselves. (I'm lookin' at YOU "LGBT @ 3:45!") Don't you understand that even the freedom you have to spew your disgusting hate only comes at the cost of the lives of American soldiers——gay and straight?!

Re: anonymous @ 12:03 | 6:27 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009

I can't believe you'd put a lame post like that and show your ignorance. Why do we have common decency laws at all? Why would they take the time to make a law against "Peeping Toms" or public lewdness? It IS true that even though I'm a male, I'm not physically attracted to every female on the planet, So why should I be kept out of the womens bathrooms or showers? They make and pass laws such as that to protect the women from the men. Women have no idea which guys are going to be attracted to them, but out of common sense, they make laws to segregate ladies and men, taking into account the most common attraction between the 2 genders. So if now we're going to cater to the LGBT community and allow them in the military with their uncommon attractions, the same protections should be afforded the straight people from them. I have NO idea which gays are attracted to me, but if they're protecting ALL the ladies from my wandering gaze for the sake of the few I'm attracted to, they should RIGHTLY protect me from the gays.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.