Obama Opposes Gay Military Ban, but Repealing It Could Take a Year or Two
Reader Comments
DEMOCRATIC?
You so called 'experts' do not even know what it is like to be in the military so why dont you stop and think what it would be like to have gays in the military.Ok, you would shower and bunk with them.Yes that would be very nice to have a homosexual watching you naked.Like the men and women in the military dont already have enough on their plates.
Gay Rights and the Military
I have retired from the military this is my two cents on gays in the military. There are three sides to every coin. On one side a people whom see gaiety as acceptable, they are entitled to feel that way. Then on the another side, which is where I stand homosexuality and any likeness is terribly unacceptable, however on the edge of the coin is this; That all people are with emphasis on all have the right to choose, whether they are right or wrong does not make them any less a person. It should not effect there job and if it does we need to ask why. Is it because we hold it against them for what they believe is acceptable? or,Is it because what we believe is unacceptable is being flaunted in our faces. That is why we have no peace in this world. Whether you are right people or wrong people the only world peace will come when we can live together. When the time comes right and wrong will be properly addressed and distributed accordingly. It is one thing to be wrong and the same thing to force what you think is right on someone else.
OK! so maybe it was my three cents worth. Ban or no ban is not the question. The Ban may provide quality of life on one side of the coin but it will remove it from the other. Don't ask don't tell works as well as laws established to protect people. If it works don't fix it. Taking away don't ask don't tell will only cause greater conflict.
Gay's in the Military
As a former Army Officer let me first state that there IS NOT a ban on Gays in the military. Simply stated there are certain sexual acts of the gay lifestyle that are in direct violation of the uniformed code of military justice.
The "Don't ask Don't Tell Act" was designed to PROTECT gays in the military from both witch hunts by homophobics and physical protection from most heterosexual men in the military who do not want to share a shower or bunk space with someone of the same sex that may be looking at them in a sexual manner.
The moment this ban is lifted it opens even those who would like to remain "under the radar" for their own protection to a potential line of questioning from superiors that places them in harms way. It will also potentially cause a sharp decline in recruiting.
Wake up America! The vocal few do not represent the majority.
I agree
As a sailor who just got out i reflect on the times with my buddies. There were many occasions when i was harassed when led to my early honorable discharge, but there were also those who took me in and were some of my best friends. After some time, i moved on from my first command and realized that many people are understanding and dont care about my orientation, they care about their jobs.
I dont feel that people would leave, but feel that more would join knowing that there would be no minorities whatsoever. I feel the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is very destructable to ones self. Knowing that at any moment you can be turned in and kicked out, feeling ashamed of who you are. So i fell that lifting the ban would be greatly benefitial
gays in the military
Im currently serving in the military and disagree with lifting the dont ask dont tell policy i have no hatred towards the gay population but there are certain jobs in the military that should not be filled by gay people such as the infantry we spend alot of time with just men in the field and in combat the gay population obviously has feelings for the opposite race and theres nothing wrong with that but when emotions affect the mission it becomes a hazard to everyone and obviously if you are attracted to the opposite race your going to eventually have feelings for some individual
Really?
The lift on the ban is going to be a definite bonus to helping the military. I am in the Army and live in the barracks and there are a couple of known gays who live in these same barracks and no one cares. Sure, occasionally they toss jokes around, but its no different than the same sort of jokes that get thrown around to Joe about his girlfriend.
Someone said a great many soldiers would leave the Military because of this. The relationships you create with your fellow soldiers is beyond such simple junk. I see people who's religions are complete opposites, even to the point of being condecending of the others yet they become best of friends. Two of my buddies are such two. One is a practicing Wiccan, the other is a practicing Mormon. Their practically inseperable now. The Military is bigger than such things.
Thing about those 12,500 (appx) soldiers who have been kicked out...Think of the cost to retrain new soldiers, and the lives of another 12,500 soldiers who were supposed to go home at the end of their contract, but got stop-lossed and sent back to war because there are not enough soldiers.
Living with/around hundreds of other soldiers daily, and being a soldier, witnessing some of the activities and conversations, even those of the "moral, righteous, good doers", the morality of homosexuality is the last thing on their minds...When those bullets are flying at your head you dont think "I wonder if Jack has ever checked me out in the shower.." Noo...you think "Jack better keep a **** eye out and watch my back"...or "I dont got anything to worry about, Jack has my back...I trust him".
Simple Bigotry
Gay people have been serving openly in the UK armed forces for several years now. As a serving airman in the Royal Air Force, I know of no one who has left the UK armed forces in objection to the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. The lifting of the ban in the UK has had no effect whatsoever, except to prevent the repression of a minority within the armed forces, who simply wish to get on with their job. I doubt anyone would question the professionalism and efficiency of the UK armed forces, which has in no way been diminished by the lifting of the ban.
The current US Government policy, which amounts to the official harrassment of gays serving in the US military, is a national disgrace. It cannot be seriously justified on moral, financial or practical grounds.
President Obama will lift the ban and, as happened in the UK, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Having Moral Values Agains Immora Acts is not Being Prejudice
Where has the morals of this country gone to? First, we should not be condoning immoral sexual acts or behavior in society and certainly not the Army. For the person who stated that those who believe homosexuality is wrong and do not what to serve with someone who engages in it can leave the military serves; well that will certainly fix the problem- not!!
If the Army thought replacing the gay soldiers was costly, wait until they have to pay and recruit more to replace all the straight soldiers that will leave on the matter of principles and not prejudice. The U.S. Army and the other Armed Services cannot expect admiration from others to be discipline and morally grounded in character and actions to join their services when they cannot set the example on being a moral and unique institution.
For the Army and other Armed Forces, the problems and costs the repeal of DADT will cause is simple not cost effective. To repeal DADT, you diminish morality as a whole in the ranks and in society. And to what end, you make a gain to save a bunch of sexual deviants throughout the Armed Forces but U lose a number of personnel who joined the services for prestige and principles. Is that cost effective?
If the Army cannot show that it is a moral institution, then it cannot speak out as a role model for all things that are decent in this United States and the world.
So, it would behoove any person in charge to weigh and consider the repeal of DADT carefully, because the Army or the Military will probably lose more than they gain.
The social parameters, living conditions, and administrative issues that have to be changed will be enormous. Many soldiers don't want to know or shower with a gay male soldier or a gay female soldier that they know is having intercourse with the same sex as they are. No soldier wants an openly gay female or gay male Commander in charge of them.
And many will leave, if they find themselves in that situations.
Believe it or not, this is not the same as the enlistment of black soldiers and women into the military; it is and will be about the military asking people and soldiers to change their moral principles and belief systems and to accept a deviated sexual practice that they think is wrong. That would not be fair and many will not accept it if they are punished for feeling or showing their disapproval for the immoral behavior. Why isn't the Medical department of the Army speaking out about what this really mean about soldiers who are gay and the social problems within the military that it will cause.
Right now, I don't think our military need these kind of problems; just because they can't recruit straight people into the Army. What does that say about them?
So, does the PE want this kind of legacy? An implementer of immoral acts into the military? I should hope not. Our country is not like other countries; so our religious beliefs and moral belief systems is not to be traded for lack of recruitment efforts.
Speaking Out about Immoral Acts is not Prejudice- It's a Moral Stance
Where has the morals of this country gone to? First, we should not be condoning immoral sexual acts or behavior in society and certainly not the Army. For the person who stated that those who believe homosexuality is wrong and do not what to serve with someone who engages in it can leave the military serves; well that will certainly fix the problem- not!!
If the Army thought replacing the gay soldiers was costly, wait until they have to pay and recruit more to replace all the straight soldiers that will leave on the matter of principles and not prejudice. The U.S. Army and the other Armed Services cannot expect admiration from others to be discipline and morally grounded in character and actions to join their services when they cannot set the example on being a moral and unique institution.
For the Army and other Armed Forces, the problems and costs the repeal of DADT will cause is simple not cost effective. To repeal DADT, you diminish morality as a whole in the ranks and in society. And to what end, you make a gain to save a bunch of sexual deviants throughout the Armed Forces but U lose a number of personnel who joined the services for prestige and principles. Is that cost effective?
If the Army cannot show that it is a moral institution, then it cannot speak out as a role model for all things that are decent in this United States and the world.
So, it would behoove any person in charge to weigh and consider the repeal of DADT carefully, because the Army or the Military will probably lose more than they gain.
The social parameters, living conditions, and administrative issues that have to be changed will be enormous. Many soldiers don't want to know or shower with a gay male soldier or a gay female soldier that they know is having intercourse with the same sex as they are. No soldier wants an openly gay female or gay male Commander in charge of them.
And many will leave, if they find themselves in that situations.
Believe it or not, this is not the same as the enlistment of black soldiers and women into the military; it is and will be about the military asking people and soldiers to change their moral principles and belief systems and to accept a deviated sexual practice that they think is wrong. That would not be fair and many will not accept it if they are punished for feeling or showing their disapproval for the immoral behavior. Why isn't the Medical department of the Army speaking out about what this really mean about soldiers who are gay and the social problems within the military that it will cause.
Right now, I don't think our military need these kind of problems; just because they can't recruit straight people into the Army. What does that say about them?
So, does the PE want this kind of legacy? An implementer of immoral acts into the military? I should hope not. Our country is not like other countries; so our religious beliefs and moral belief systems is not to be traded for lack of recruitment efforts.
