Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: Military Ready To Accept Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: Military Ready To Accept Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’
For quite some time, U.S. troops have supported repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. A December 2006 poll of servicemembers who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found 73 percent of those polled were “comfortable with lesbians and gays.” A 2004 poll found that a majority of junior enlisted servicemembers believed gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16 percent in 1992.
The military’s leadership is finally catching up to its troops. On Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy that the military was ready to accept gay servicemembers if Congress repeals DADT:
With a national election looming, a cadet asked about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law and what would happen if someone took office who wants to change it. “It’s a law, and we follow it,” Mullen said. Should the law change, the military will carry that out too, he said.
“We are a military that is under the control of our civilian elected leaders,” he said. “It has served us well since we’ve been founded. That is a special characteristic of our country and I would never do anything to jeopardize that.”
Mullen’s statement is a refreshing change from the military leadership’s traditional approach under the Bush administration. In March 2007, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace publicly stated that homosexuality is “immoral.” He said that he supported DADT because “we should not condone immoral acts.” At the time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates refused to condemn Pace’s remarks, calling the general “one of the finest people I’ve ever worked with.”
Even public discussion of DADT has been considered taboo. Last year, Pentagon official David Chu claimed that a “national debate” on allowing gays into the military would bring “divisiveness and turbulence across our country” and “compound the burden of the war.” Servicemembers who have spoken out in favor of repealing the ban have been punished.
Unfortunately, the reversal of DADT likely won’t happen under a McCain presidency. In the past, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said repealing the ban would “elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units” and put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
what would springer do?
oh yeah, worry about who sticks what in who…..
May 7th, 2008 at 10:48 amLet’s hope President Obama issues an Executive Order to get rid of the stupid policy. Like Truman did with integrating the troops.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:52 amA majority of our servicemembers have discovered that A) you don’t catch cooties from gay people, and B) it’s far more important that the person next to you in the foxhole will cover you and save your butt if necessary than who he/she prefers to sleep with. And after they get out of the service, they will probably continue to believe that gay people represent no threat to their way of life.
This comes as a blow to the rightwing, whose only weapon in their anti-gay agenda fight is fear.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:53 amBy all means, our military needs more criminal thugs and less homosexual patriots.
What ever happened to “Be all you can be in the Army”?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:53 amWatch how many other rules that formerly limited enlistment get relaxed as our military gets overextended further and further…
May 7th, 2008 at 10:56 amAmanda, check you first sentence…”For quite some time, U.S. troops have supported repeating the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy.”
Shouldn’t repeating be repealing?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:57 amIn the past, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said repealing the ban would “elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units” and put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.”
_______________________________________
Would McInsane be willing to explain HOW treating homosexual servicemembers like all the rest of the servicemembers is “elevating their interests”?
This sounds so much like the wingnuts crying that treating gays like everybody else is somehow giving them “special privileges.”
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 amHow does being gay put our nation at grave risk?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 amI just realized — this is a “gay” thread, so Daryll’s beeper must be going off.
Who’s in the pool to predict when he’ll arrive? I pick 11:23 AM, Eastern time.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:00 amI’ll believe it when I see this congress act to make our military inclusive for gays and for more Americans who want to serve.
Right now, there’s this spineless protection of a common view of the military — true or not — of it being a “republican hot-bed.” Take, for example, the rampant sexism and I couldn’t be surprised.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:00 amthe military may be ready to repeal don’t ask/don’t tell, but is don’t ask/don’t tell ready for the military to repeal?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:01 amMiss Molly
O/T
From Thinkfast, Governor Purdue sounds reasonable to me, thank you for that great response (standard, of course). I do apologize if the term ‘dixiecrats’ sounded awkward as part of my question to you. I’m sure you didn’t take offense, but I just wanted to put that out there.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:04 amInoranceIsNotBliss says;
How does being gay put our nation at grave risk?
______________________________________________________________
They might burn a flag
snark
May 7th, 2008 at 11:07 amThis is another subject that gives republiscum the willies. They’re convinced that it will be either gays or terrorists that’ll get them and they shiver and cower.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:08 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
I just realized — this is a “gay” thread, so Daryll’s beeper must be going off.
Who’s in the pool to predict when he’ll arrive? I pick 11:23 AM, Eastern time.
Daryll is sleeping late today. He was up all night with his minister, Ted Haggard, doing crystal meth and other fun things.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:08 am#3
I beg to differ. It is possible to contract AIDS from a tiolet seat. You must wait until the last person leaves before you sit down.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:10 amI’m guessing JCC Mullen will soon be “stepping down” to spend more time with his family.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am“Unfortunately, the reversal of DADT likely won’t happen under a McCain presidency.”
I believe this should be: “The reversal of DADT likely won’t happen under an unfortunate and improbable McCain presidency.”
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 amIf Gen’l Pace’s objection is because of his belief that homosexuality is immoral, wouldn’t heterosexual acts between non-married individuals, consensual or not, also be immoral? Maybe the best solution is for the military to be 100% homosexual, or abolish the military entirely; thereby, eliminating all immorality.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:13 amWait! WAIT!! WAIT!!!!
Not until BushitCo is shitcanned in the dustbin of history.
They shouldn’t get credit in their last throes for making this injustice right…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 amYes, the military leadership is ready to embrace gays in the military…since they’ve exhausted the regular quotas, minorities, backdoor draft, immigrants, they’ve allowed an inordinate amount of felons, soldiers that in the past would’ve been rejected, inductees with criminal records or drug convictions, seniors, retired..etc.
They need more cannon fodder and they’re gambling that this sham display of magnanimity will work against a segment that, along with the rest of the country, has long wised up regarding president shortbus’s spectacular foreign policy faceplant.
Meanwhile, they’re desperately working on their fallback plan: Orcs! This plan was instituted straight from the top after George watched some DVDs Cheney left for him. (George tried to appoint “Gen. Sauron,” but was informed he was…er..’retired.’)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:16 amOr, Badmoodman, he’s picking up the democratic agenda to stay on board for an Obama admnistration. That’s not to sound cynical; either way I believe Mullen is a good bet to stay on board.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:16 amWho’s in the pool to predict when he’ll arrive? I pick 11:23 AM, Eastern time.
I’ll take 12:07 PM EDT…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amMcCain is a Crusty Old Bastard.
;)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:17 amIINB ~ You’re hired! Take that posting for a proof reader down from the TP bulletin board.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:18 amAre there any gay atheists in that foxhole?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:21 amIn other words, “We’re running out of cannon fodder! We don’t care if you’re gay – now get out there and die for our oil!!”
No thanks, fellas.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:23 amhanshiro got it… took longer than i figured… almost 1/2 hour:
Yes, the military leadership is ready to embrace gays in the military…since they’ve exhausted the regular quotas…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:27 amPersonally, I would like to see McCain fully grilled for an exhaustive explanation of how repealing DADT would put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.” Really. I need the logic explained to me in a way that makes sense, and isn’t based on ignorance. Remember when DADT was first being debated? Sen John Warner opposed letting gays serve because he thought they couldn’t remain celibate for a four-year enlistment. This is the kind of ignorance that led to the policy in the first place (although it was a distinct improvement over the Reagan-era policy that stated that “homosexuality was inconsistent with military standards.” Reagan’s dead now, so it’s time to move on.)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:27 amWell one thing is for sure: If the military first repeals DADT, and then Bush pulls off an invasion of Iran, Ahmadinejad will have to make a concession speech that now, indeed, there ARE homosexuals in Iran…
Sorry, I know it’s awful, but I had to go there or it would’ve rattled around in my brain all day.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:29 amWe understand, liberal traitor, we understand.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:34 amIs St. Daryll off cavorting, I mean “converting”, prostitutes again?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 ammaybe he’s off starting a homosexualwatch wordpress page like trajan75 where he’ll expose the islamofascist liberal gay axis!
Ugh, why are people so stupid as to be afraid of a group of people whose stereotypes include lisping, fashion sense, and limp wrists? Honestly.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:40 amUnfortunately, the reversal of DADT likely won’t happen under a McCain presidency. In the past, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said repealing the ban would “elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units” and put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.”
Why is it that giving minority groups equal status and equal protection is always portrayed as putting these groups interests above all others?
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amFritz says:This is another subject that gives republiscum the willies. They’re convinced that it will be either gays or terrorists that’ll get them and they shiver and cower.
It seems that most rethugs ARE gay. see: Log Cabin Republics,Craig, Foley, et al.
if you REALLY want to scare the bejeebers out the Republic party, trot out a gay flag-burning terrorist.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amPaul,
Why is it that something called the Clear Skies Initiative does anything but make clear skies?
Why is it that something called the Global War on Terror actually creates more and then fosters existing terrorism?
The same reason that giving equal rights and protections is called “special rights”
May 7th, 2008 at 11:44 amMcIIIrd is once again, seeing if he can pander to the XianFundies, while leaving himself some wiggle room to later say, Whaaa??? That’s offensive!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:47 amOnly twenty minutes or so until my Daryll watch prediction expires…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amRUCerious Says: @ #37
May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 amYou’d think Xtian fundies would want gays in the military. With the Iraq war/occupation going on and all, there’s a good chance they’d be killed in action. And we all know how much Jesus loves killing.
Daryll has lost his groove since he has moved away from the truly idiotic stuff like damning people to hell, having Huckabee hunger strikes, converting gays, and rehabing whores. I really miss his original brand what with the talking to God and all. I suppose all hilarious things have to come to an end…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 amMcWars,
McCain is acrusty OLD bastard.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amRUCerious Says:
IINB ~ You’re hired! Take that posting for a proof reader down from the TP bulletin board.
Heh. I found a half dozen or so just in the Think Fast thread.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:52 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Is St. Daryll off cavorting, I mean “converting”, prostitutes again?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
He’s “liberating” them. ;)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:53 amMaybe last time God talked to Daryll, He told him to shut the fu(k up.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:53 amZooey Says:
Oh, so Daryll has his own “occupation” to fund. I wonder if HE got flowers and chocolates?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amshoeless Says:
Maybe last time God talked to Daryll, He told him to shut the fu(k up.
ROTFLMAO!! Well done, well done!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:58 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Oh, so Daryll has his own “occupation” to fund. I wonder if HE got flowers and chocolates?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Everyone has their price…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pmGramps McSame says – When I was in the service we all had cardboard helmets covered with puppy skin, it was hard getting to school when we walked backwards, I like icecream in a dog dish, I sat in a apple pie once…where am I, oh, ok, my friends.
Take a nap gramps.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pmDaryll Says:
Ah, like a moth to a gay flame, Daryll comes rushing in, tripping over his own ignorance as usual!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pmWhen I first joined the military, a million years ago back in the 1970’s, I learned that being gay in the military was strictly forbidden, and any gays who managed to slip through the cracks and get in would be kicked out with a dishonorable discharge if discovered.
Naturally, the logical question was — “why?”
The official explanation was that gays undermine our security by being blackmail risks. I could understand that you wouldn’t want somebody who could be blackmailed to be serving in the armed forces (or for that matter, in a diplomatic capacity or anything else requiring a security clearance).
However, it seems to me that what makes gays subject to blackmail is if they need to keep their sexual orientation secret. If one is openly gay, they are no more subject to blackmail than an openly straight person would be.
Following this logic, it seems that we should allow gays to serve openly for national security reasons, if nothing else.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pmRUCerious Says
May 7th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’ll take 12:07 PM EDT…
Daryll Says
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
___________________________________
I think you win, RUC! You only missed by 2 minutes!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pmCongratulations RUCerious! Not only do you win the home version of “Whack-a-Troll” but as a special bonus we’ll throw in Daryll’s newly pressed CD of Village People songs tweeked to be a bit more “hetero” for today’s closeted bible-thumping neo-con on the go! Thanks for playing, we’ll see you next time!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pmDaryll Says
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“…but I believe they should not be able to serve our country through a branch that is consisted of a male majority. This could cause tension.”
_____________________________________________
And what does a “male majority” have to do with anything? Didn’t you know that gays come in both sexes? Or are you suggesting that only male gays should be kept out, but lesbians are OK?
Or perhaps you are just saying that women are more likely to think more on common sense and less on fear. Maybe it’s women we need more of.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pmLet’s follow God’s word…
OK, howza bout Thou shalt not kill? Or create pointless wars, or condemn, judge not, lest ye be judged? eh?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pmI doubt that Daryll has a problem with lesbians, that’s some hot action. How much did you pay for that last S!ut-o-Rama magazine under your bed St D?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pmWhen DADT was first introduced back in the 90’s, I thought it was a good idea, but ONLY if it applied to the straights as well. If EVERYBODY kept their sex lives behind closed doors, we might have not had the Tailhook incident and other sexual scandals that some of our military people have embarrassed us with.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pmDaryll Says
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“Jesus damned those that practiced this perverted behavior…”
____________________________________________
Could you please cite chapter and verse where Jesus “damned those”? My bible doesn’t give any instances of Jesus saying anything on the matter at all. If you’re going to put words in Jesus’ mouth, you should back it up.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Didn’t you know that gays come in both sexes?
Daryll didn’t know that. After all, his only gay experiences have been with males.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pmIf being gay keeps my daughter out of the neocons’ wars of aggression I’m all for it. Maybe I can get my son to pretend he’s gay until there are no more neocons pulling the strings.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pmI’ll point this out once again:
Yo, Daryll, since every homosexual is the product of heterosexual parents, does that mean there’s a heterosexual conspiracy? And what is “God’s punishment,” for raising a happy, healthy (but *gasp* gay) child?
The mind boggles…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm“Jesus damned those that practiced this perverted behavior…”
You mean that guy who changed my oil last weekend?
Good for him!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pmDaryll, “damning” is eternal separation from God. If a person is a non-believer, then they are already separated from God. Why does separation from secular society need to be added to this eternal punishment, if you are correct in your interpretation of homosexuality? Jesus clearly stated that you are to love your enemies, which includes those who do not believe as you do, and to seek secular justice for the oppressed. He said that he’d take care of the judging/damning. It’s not your job or any politician’s job to do so.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pmYes, one more sign of desperation in the military to meet and retain individuals. I was in the Air Force and have represented Air Force and Army personnel boarded out for being gay. The prejudice runs deep. A statement like this not only bodes well for equal treatment but also indicates how stretched the military has become.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pmRetention and recruitment – that’s what they need. If people with criminal records can serve – why not gays. It’s only a matter of time.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pmJohn, then they’ll start letting gay criminals into the military! Oh, that’s KBR’s purview, sorry.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm/snark in previous post forgot to turn itself off…
May 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm#48 – Daryll Says:
————————————————————–
“Let’s follow God’s word.”
Until you begin up-holding the words directly out of the mouth of Jesus, and actively fight against divorce (except in cases of infidelity) then YOU, sir, are ignoring God’s words to satisfy your own prejudice.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pmDADT has always been a cynical policy brought to us by cynical Bill Clinton and supported by fundie Christians who’ve fought now for decades that our government in no way be seen as giving its imprimatur to homosexuality, whether in regard to military service or anything else. It was an obvious invitation to witch hunts from the start and witch hunts in the end are never good for morale, no matter who the witches are. It also does a grave disservice to the countless gay people who have fought for our country over the centuries and were just as capable of keeping their pants zipped as heterosexuals. But then conservatives and their party of the Swift Boat adds hardly care about that. Time to join the rest of NATO and every other Western country on the planet and end this mindless and counterproductive discrimination.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm#65 – JohnR Says:
————————————————————–
“If people with criminal records can serve – why not gays. It’s only a matter of time.”
Actually, gay people already DO serve in the military! I’ve got a number of friends who are still in the military and they’ve never had any problems with their straight counterparts. The only thing is they’re not supposed to openly acknowledge their sexuality.
I told all my room-mates when I was in, because they had a right to know. Not one had a problem with it, and this was in the late 80’s, well before the DADT policy!
Evenutally, the United States will wake up to reality, and allow gay people to serve openly, and the world will not end. Just as Great Brittan and Canada have NOT been punished by God, neither will the Unites States be punished for expanding human rights where they are currently desperately lacking.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI have always believed that honor in service has called all walks of life. This is the right thing to do.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pm“Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said repealing the ban would “elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units” and put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.””
I wonder if Sen. McCain thought the same thing about allowing blacks to serve as officers in the military? Considering that the exact same arguments were used against gays as was used against blacks, I’m sure he feels the exact same way. . . .
May 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pmmisshusseinmolly – You hit on the sick perversion of the homophobes’ argument – we can’t let gay people live open and honest lives because then they wouldn’t be vulnerable to blackmail in which case we couldn’t discriminate against them.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pmhanshiro Says:
And what is “God’s punishment,” for raising a happy, healthy (but *gasp* gay) child?
You haven’t heard? According to John McCain’s favorite minister, God likes to punish gays by drowning black people in New Orleans.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pmDaryll – Do you have any inkling of the transgression you commit by stating Jesus, the Son of God, said something he never did? Incredible and probably an indication that American Christianity, maybe Christianity in general, has really become politics by other means and is ever more devoid of true spirituality. I’m a Buddhist and recognize that only those, unlike myself, who’ve passed through the most severe spiritual and intellectual rigors are worthy of passing down the Buddha’s word. Christianity seems to have become an all-purpose plaything.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pmshoeless; don’t forget, God’s punishment is also planes slamming into tall buildings(per jerry Satanist Falwell), and killing American troops in foreign lands.
all courtesy of the card-carrying members of the ACLU, abortionists, gay people, the Democrat party, liberals, and everyone else who is not a Bible-thumping Bushbot.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pmFrom the following link…
http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000007343.cfm
citizenlink.org is a Focus on the Family Website
May 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The real reason that conservatives oppose allowing gays in the military is the same reason they oppose gay marriage: Doing so would amount to an official declaration that, “The Bible is wrong”.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pmObviously then God messed up. Biologists have been documenting life-long same-sex relationships among mammals and birds for years now. The Bible also teaches that disobedient children, people who wear cloth woven of more than one fabric and people who eat crustaceans are to be ” Cast Out”. And while you’re so wound up about other people’s sex lives read what St. Paul has to say about divorce.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pmUnless God is a hermaphrodite, then “created in God’s image” does not refer to a physical manifestation but rather a spiritual one. God didn’t seem too hung up on sex – he created Adam from dirt (not sexual reproduction), he created Eve from a bone (not sexual reproduction), he didn’t clothe Adam and Eve until after they wanted it, and Jesus was born by immaculate conception (not sexual reproduction). It is MAN who has been so preoccupied with sex – getting it or trying to make sure that others don’t get it.
Unless you can come up with a SECULAR reason for a SECULAR law, rather than using a religious argument, then that law has no basis to exist. You, personally, can choose to be more restrictive in your life style than the more permissive secular law if you want to on the basis of your moral and religious code. Others should have the right to live by their own moral and religious code as well.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pmUnless God is a hermaphrodite, then “created in God’s image” does not refer to a physical manifestation but rather a spiritual one. God didn’t seem too hung up on sex –
Don’t believe suggesting that God is a hermaphrodite is appropriate.
Nonetheless, this term is still a gender classification, in which case PLC is ascribing a non-distinct, confused gender to the Creator. Believe you’ll need more than your opinion to make this point with some of us. Though God is describe a “male” in the scripture, He is also said to be a protective as a mother hen. bit doesn’t think He’s a chicken, either.
Does using this non-distinct, confused gender mean that PLC is working from an agenda?
Even if it is the case that God is as you suggest, bit doesn’t believe it supports the conclusion: “…does not refer to a physical manifestation but rather a spiritual one.” While bit doesn’t argue this conclusion – he doesn’t believe that the “…image of God…” is exclusively a physical image, he doesn’t rule out a reflection of the “physical” characteristics of God.
God is complete. bit believes the man and woman relationship reflects this completeness in being one flesh in marriage.
bit doesn’t understand that God has physical characteristics. On the other hand, bit believes that if one could “see” God, one would also “see” the image of God in every person – like seeing a parent in the face of a child. bit understands that he ascribed “physical” characteristics to a spiritual being, but this is the best he can do.
One of the more popular ways to describe what this “…created in God’s image…” means is to refer to the creativity found in mankind. God created, and gave man the ability to create. Therefore, man creates. This would also seem to be a major distinction between man and the other animals.
Don’t agree that, “God didn’t seem to hung up on sex -…”
Genesis 1:28 – the prime directive “…be fruitful and multiply…” is termed by many Conservative Christians as an invitation to participate in Creation. In addition, Christ says that the Creator intended that a man and a woman be one flesh in Matthew 19.
The Savior of Mankind saying a man and a woman are “one flesh” in a marriage and the Creator saying, “… be fruitful and multiply…” seems rather focused on sex.
Could it be that accepting the obvious is just too difficult?
BTW, bit believes that without the belief that man was created in the image of God, there’s no justification for human rights.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:05 amSadly, many people have not actually STUDIED the bible who read it. When I say studied, I mean from an unbiased and historical perspective.
The ORIGINAL Bible, written in many languages, used neutral gender when referring to God. The use of “His,” “Him,” and “He” was added only in translation from the original scripture.
The most references to homosexuality are in Leviticus. Let’s keep in mind references to homosexuality are surrounded by how to properly burn a bull for sacrifice to god, when to put your daughter into slavery, and a number of other VERY out-dated practices.
The coming of Jesus was supposed to nullify all of the old Jewish laws (ie the old testament… which is why we don’t put daughters into slavery, sacrifice bulls, etc.) and that his word was the new law. If this is the case, we need to look to the New Testament to see if Jesus considered homosexuality immoral. I’ll save you the time, there’s no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament.
Though, I must say it is rather silly to think that allowing gays in the military will increase their numbers. Gay people that want in the military are already there. Changing the law/rule will not encourage others to join.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am“Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said repealing the ban would “elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units” and put the “national security of the United States” at “grave risk.” ”
Since when does equality elevate one’s interests above another’s? McCain has said that he would wait for the military to come to him in deciding whether Don’t Ask, Don’t
May 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pmTell should be reversed or not. Well, the military is ready and this so-called great ‘leader’ McCain is the only one who’s not ready. Leaders, real leaders, don’t wait for change to happen when others come to them to ask for it but take the lead and convince those opposed to any particular policy to change their minds. Old man McCain is such a waste of anyone’s vote.
There have been gays and lesbians serving in the armed forces of every country on the planet since the first armies were assembled. For centuries, there have been jokes made about the navy being gay, but they are not the only ones; never were.
It is important that we allow every patriotic citizen serve their country, should they so choose. To deny them access to that is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It prevents otherwise fit persons from serving their country. Fact is that gays in the military are no more likely to sexually harass other members of their respective units than straights are.
I am a veteran and we had members, of the units in which I served, who were gay. They were closeted, but everyone in the unit pretty much knew and said nothing about it. To us, they were fellow soldiers and we trusted in their ability to do their jobs just as they trusted in our abilities to do our jobs.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm