GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Panel challenges GAO 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' report

• 15552
  

  There are many lifestyles I don't approve of but was forced to serve with, including adulterers, those that frequent houses of prostitution, and particularly in overseas assignments where it's easier to get away with, child sexual predators. For you religious extremists who are using your personal religious beliefs to discriminate against honorable Americans who want to serve their countries, why should the rest of us be forced to adhere to your selective beliefs? I don't see extremists trying to force adulterers out of the military. Geez, who would be left? Get over yourselves. Gays have always and will always serve in the military and in the highest positions of the government. The same argument was used to prevent blacks and then women from serving. The military is only stronger today because we've allowed minorities and women to honorably serve. The same is true of homosexuals. The fact is, almost every major sexual scandal in recent military history has involved the sexual misconduct of heterosexuals. Who commits 99 percent of the rapes and sexual assaults in the military? Heterosexuals. Who commits 99 percent of the adultery in the military? Heterosexuals. Who frequents prostitutes 99 percent of the time? Heterosexuals. Who's not compatible with military service?

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 20, 2006 3:00 PM
• 15358
  

  What, exactly, were the original justifications for prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military? I'm honestly curious. Was it ever anything more than blind homophobia?

  Consider the case of Robert Stout (which name I got from an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune on 3-8-2006). He returned from Iraq with a Purple Heart. But he's not allowed in the Army anymore, because he's gay. This is a man who willingly risked his life for his country, and has the medal to prove it, but now he's out on his ass, for reasons that have nothing to do with his qualifications. And he's not the only one.

  How does the military, or the nation, benefit from the exclusion of people who are qualified and dedicated, but just happen to be gay? Can those of you who don't want to serve with "them" explain why? Do you have a rational reason? Do you care more if the guy watching your back in a firefight shoots straight, or if he is straight? And if the latter, why? If you had a run-in with an IED, would you care about the sex life of the medic who patched you up? If you were taking heavy fire, would you refuse air support because you thought one of the pilots was homosexual? Be honest with yourself, if you know how. Try to look beyond your prejudices.

  Searching for a voice of reason Posted March 9, 2006 3:40 PM
• 15270
  

  Want proof that "homosexuality is not incompatible with military service?" Just look at some of our allies who allow openly gay soldiers. I'm pretty sure Israel falls in this category, and I seem to recall Great Britain, but it may have been some other country. The point is, some of our troops are already fighting alongside foreign units with openly gay troops, and I haven't heard of any problems with it. Does the Israeli army have problems with unit cohesion or morale?

  Ask yourself, who would you rather have on your side in a fight? A determined, educated soldier with good aim who just happens to be gay? Or a drug-addicted high school dropout with a criminal record who is straight, but can't shoot straight? And yes, recruiters are now accepting more dropouts, allowing more enlistees with criminal records, and there's been at least one reported instance of recruiters trying to make quota offering to help cover up a drug habit. At a time when the Army needs all the help it can get, throwing out skilled people who want to serve their country for reasons that have no bearing on their qualifications is simply idiotic.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 6, 2006 10:35 AM
• 15227
  

  Nearly every one who has served in the military has served alongside homosexuals. It is done openly in other countries that aren't full of sheet-sniffing bigots like this one is. Now I see that our Army has lowered its standards to accept people with criminal records because it is so desperate to meet its quotas; guess the bigots would prefer to serve with criminals rather than homosexuals. The same bigoted arguments were used in the past to explain why black and white Americans couldn't serve together.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 2, 2006 7:16 PM
• 15222
  

  "A report released earlier this month by the 12-member UC-Santa Barbara blue-ribbon commission "

  I would like to see a Pink-ribbon commission out of San Francisco do a study and see what it shows.

  Taxpayer Posted March 2, 2006 1:23 PM
• 15198
  

  Hate to burst your bubble, but nearly everyone in combat probably has served alongside a homosexual. Since they aren't fulfilling your fear of jumping you in the foxhole any more than you would jump a female soldier or sailor, you just didn't realize it.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2006 4:25 PM
• 15160
  

  Did the panel calculate the costs (in terms of unit cohesion, combat effectiveness, and esprit de corps) of including homosexuals in all military units, to include combat arms? Or do they consider it just a money issue? Was any attempt made to enlighten the panel about the deleterious effects on morale that such a change would cause? This is a blatant twisting of logic (by framing the argument in monetary terms) to achieve the panel's political goals. If they want to let homosexuals into the military, it needs to be based on more than just money. They need to prove that the original justifications for the rule prohibiting homosexuality among service members are wrong, and that homosexuality is not incompatible with military service. That will be very difficult to do, because nearly everyone who has served in combat will tell you that they don't want to serve alongside homosexuals.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 28, 2006 3:58 PM
• 15159
  

  Dan-- So get out.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 28, 2006 3:54 PM
• 15153
  

  I don't care how much it costs. I don't want to serve with them. To mention a dollar amount is ludicrous. How many billions does the Pentagon squander?

  Dan Lovell Posted February 28, 2006 11:49 AM