The military's ban on gays openingly serving in the armed forces will end Wednesday, when President Obama signs a bill ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' On Saturday, the US Senate passed the bill that will end the 18-year-old policy. Do you agree with the decision?
I dont care what anyone does behind close doors. I can't wait to see to soldiers kissing in the mall. How discusting. We change everything in this country now for the few not the masses. We know who's vote Obama is catering to. I just hope when in uniform soldiers gay,straight or what ever act respectful in public. No one want to see a public display of affection by anyone and you can bet that's what will happen.
Posted by: kyle | December 21, 2010 at 05:21 AM
I think that the majority of people are looking at this like it is a slap in the face if an individual is banned because of sexual preference.
If everyone would stop thinking about individuals and ask about how it will effect the betterment of the services, perhaps they would understand why so many of our troops oppose the idea.
Make no mistake about it, this is going to cause big distractions. Distractions lead to loss of focus, and losing focus will get you killed.
Posted by: Gump | December 21, 2010 at 06:06 AM
I served in Desert Storm/Desert Shield.
This is stupid! Once again The Obama administration tries to "fix things that aren't broke" while our country goes broke and he's off "campaigning " for something new.
2012 can't get here fast enough,
LC resident
Posted by: mike | December 21, 2010 at 06:53 AM
I'm african-american while Prez Obama has made some unusal descisions, he is still comander in chief.So I think it's good and we should support a african-american president!
t
Posted by: Tyrone | December 21, 2010 at 06:59 AM
T. It is thinking like yours that keeps the American people down, why does race ave to be a factor EVER???? why do you not support him simple because he is the president period.
Now as for the question, NO GAYS. I would not want to bend over to get the soap and wonder if sarge is looking at my butt because he likes ivory soap or because he likes my butt.
Heck it would be like being in prison.
And i support obama not because he is a great president, but because he lets me ride the gravy train, and I do not have to work because he never had to work.
Posted by: Da Gardner | December 21, 2010 at 07:49 AM
It is wrong in every way and is an unnecessary law. It is his(Obama) policies that are driving me to the polls to vote no in 2012, not the color of the skin
Posted by: jock martin | December 21, 2010 at 07:59 AM
People like Tyrone are the reason we are stuck with this socialist!!!
Posted by: bill | December 21, 2010 at 08:38 AM
We have an armed force composed of volunteers ...evryone knows what to expect...defeat the enemy...follow orders...the rest doesnt matter!!!
Civis butt out of military affairs!!
Posted by: Swamp Charly | December 21, 2010 at 09:31 AM
It’s about time, it was put in place so that anyone could serve in the military. Now anyone can but they can have their freedom of speech. funny that a Straight guy or girl can talk about how he had sex with his girlfriend but a gay guy or girl can talk about how they did the same. If anything the Law should have just been don’t ask.
Posted by: curly | December 21, 2010 at 09:51 AM
CURLY YOUR SCARING ME.
Posted by: Da Gardner | December 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM
As a veteran (USAF), I'm not scared of gays, who want to serve our nation. To honorably serve America is one of the most noble acts that a person can give.
Check out this website for the real facts.
http://www.sldn.org
Posted by: Lonnie | December 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Sorry Gardner,
Posted by: curly | December 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Lonnie, I would be scared of any man who want's to be my tent mate for sexual reasons.
Or if you went camping Lonnie and found out that you were violated in your sleep, would you tell anyone?? If the answer is NO then would you like to go camping.
Thanks Curly.
Posted by: Da Gardner | December 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM
homosexuals will pollute the military blood supply with all kinds of Disease's. How would you like being the soldier on the battlefield that gets a transfusion in a combat situation. Next these perverts will cause the Chaplin Corps to be removed because they can not preach the Word of GOD, because it is an abomination. They are destroying morality, these politicins that accept this kind of perversion are just as perverted as these people that just keep trying to make others accept their imoral perverted SIN. It is wrong and un-natural lusts of a perverted mind.
Posted by: gtmoj | December 21, 2010 at 10:47 AM
But homosexuals have been in the military for years.Im also sure that is has been polluted by Straight people with every disease known to man. And most homosexuals I know do believe in God and pray for people like you gtmo. Just as you pray they(the gays) go away they pray that you would be more Christian and love everyone. Why is it a SIN to love someone? Because a 2010 year old book says so?
Posted by: curly | December 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Prior to this DADT law, gays could (and did) serve in the military. They just kept their sexual preferences to themselves. I spent six years in the military I have no problem with that. However, I'd like to put a slightly different spin on this. Homosexuality is not natural. Nature designed the attraction of opposite sexes so that the species could reproduce. Homosexuality defeats this purpose so no reproduction takes place and the character trait is not continued (the line dies out). Heterosexual attraction is normal so we have no problem in expressing it. Homosexuality is not normal so observing it makes us uncomfortable. Military cohesiveness is all about moral and abnormal behavior is destructive to moral. So...repeal of DADT is going to be detrimental to military moral and could result in unnecessary death and injury. This is not an emotional response, it's a natural reaction by normal people to an unnatural situation.
Posted by: Mike | December 21, 2010 at 01:20 PM
OK... Wow... this whole blog thing is so funny.
First, Mike, "Homosexuality is not natural" Please Find me a study that says that. Though i can find studies that say it happens in the animal kingdom and it happens allot. And no, saying "God said..." is not a study nor a response
Second, Yes, race is not a factor nor is gender but...
Third, the Word of God (right)
And last... I am willing to beat most of you have not been in the military so why the hell would you say who can join and who cant
you did not join (why) college, medical, other
really this whole thing is just really funny
please keep debating over something you can't stop
Say how wrong I am
Say how bad I write this out
Go ahead
I cant change your opinion neither you mine
Posted by: mark | December 21, 2010 at 04:49 PM
Mike. Is it natural to use bullets and bombs to kill people?
Is it natural to distill mold extracts to fight infectious disease processes?
We do a lot of things that aren't natural.
Some things that are natural are cancer, death, even those "diseases" that people upthread are so worried about.
Just because something IS natural doesn't mean that it's good.
Will openly serving gays in the military be a distraction? Of course. So were women serving. So were blacks in integrated units (officers even!!!). And Jews, Muslims, atheists, immigrants and virtually every other bit of demographic minutia that tweaks bigots of whatever stripe.
That just leaves the question of whether the service members in question are soliders first or bigots first. If the former, then they will shut up and obey orders. If the latter, the service will function better without them.
Posted by: Jake LeBrun (Spec. 91P10/91B10 501st FSB 1st AD) | December 21, 2010 at 05:09 PM
A few militaries through the centuries that somehow managed to fumble through and survive.
The Samurai serving under Daimyo's (lasted several hundred years).
The Roman Legions, the greatest army in the world at the time. They turned war from a competitive sport or ritual to a deadly efficient business because of their discipline and order.
The great armies of the Peloponesus, including:
The Sacred Ring of Thebes
The 300(more like 1400) who held the pass at Thermopylae against 150,000+ Persians.
Alexander of Macedon (aka Alexander the Great), who conquored Afghanistan. Took him less than ten years. AND he did it with little more than pointy sticks.
As a member of any of these armies, you would be expected to be loyal, disciplined, astute, strong, indefatiguable, courageous and respectful. Who you decided to bed was your own business, though every one of these forces openly acknowledged a homosexual element that was not disparaged.
If this is what you regard as a downgrade in the quality of the average U.S. soldier, you must think everyone wearing BDUs is Audie Murphy.
Posted by: Jake LeBrun (Spec. 91P10/91B10 501st FSB 1st AD) | December 21, 2010 at 05:22 PM
But, go ahead and call me an idiot. Call our president a socialist. Call the gays an abomination.
Just don't forget to thank the troops for protecting the Constitution that recognizes your right to say those things. Because that's what they are there for. Even the gay ones.
Posted by: Jake LeBrun (Spec. 91P10/91B10 501st FSB 1st AD) | December 21, 2010 at 05:24 PM
The sad thing Jake, is you are right, the troops are protecting the Constitution while the Commander in Chief is doing his best to tear it down. I mean, to force the American citizens to purchase a product or face a penalty is really Constitutional right? After all, health insurance is a product, not a Constitutional right. What is next, force us to buy GM vehicles?
Posted by: bill | December 21, 2010 at 05:42 PM
A word of warning to the wise. "If you drop your soap in the showers....do not bend down to pick it up."
Posted by: Moi | December 21, 2010 at 08:22 PM
Because U.S. troops behave like prison rapists. Amazing how some people who are so concerned with military policy apparently think so little of our military personnel.
Posted by: Jake LeBrun (Spec. 91P10/91B10 501st FSB 1st AD) | December 21, 2010 at 09:57 PM
The problem, Jake, is that when you have a homosexual man, who is attracted to heterosexual men, and they are in a foxhole with each other on the front line, it is equivalent of having a heterosexual man and woman in that foxhole. That is not the place for these types of relationships...
Posted by: Moi | December 22, 2010 at 01:01 AM
Moi sounds very knowledgeable on "foxholes" and homosexual relationships.
Posted by: anon | December 22, 2010 at 02:21 AM