Comments on: Retired Senior Military Officers Call For End To DADT: Gays Serving Openly Pose No ‘Risk’

By: powerful

powerful — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:24:05 +0000

I love it…FOUR retired guys think it’s OK….gimme a break, I’m yawning….do you all know there are about 10,000 LIVING retired Generals and Admirals from our military services not to mention so many more thousands veterans. Four does not equate to a majority…ask the rest and I bet you get a different outcome…another media sham. Treat the military like a corporation and you’ll get a corporation…next up unions and votes about whether to follow orders…no veteran would stand for this.

By: Democrat Soldier

Democrat Soldier — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:45:32 +0000

http://www.beyondexgay.com/conference

Undoing the damage that ex-gay therapies cause.

http://www.washblade.com/2007/6-29/news/national/10835.cfm

Three former “ex-gay” leaders were scheduled to make public apologies Wednesday in Los Angeles for the harm their ministries caused gays and lesbians, and will call for those still involved in ex-gay therapy to acknowledge their part.

By: Art

Art — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:39:05 +0000

DADT should only refer to what political party you belong to.

By: bitblt

bitblt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:23:56 +0000

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000007777.cfm

Good News: Exodus National Conference Spreads Message of Hope

.
.
.
Hundreds are expected to attend Exodus International’s annual conference next week in Asheville, N.C.

For 33 years, Exodus has been spreading a message of hope and freedom to a world impacted by homosexuality.

Featured speakers include best-selling authors Anne Graham Lotz and Michelle McKinney Hammond, and Focus on the Family’s Melissa Fryrear.
.
.
.
Exodus President Alan Chambers said, “There is a biblical alternative, that we can find freedom from homosexuality.”
.
.
.

By: aurorasurferinak

aurorasurferinak — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:18:26 +0000

You would think the government / military would be overjoyed to have all them “gays” in the military. That would mean more men to send to their untimely deaths in Irag. I mean, they will recruit ex-cons, etc. …but kick out gays. Hmmm…

By: Democrat Soldier

Democrat Soldier — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:54:07 +0000

I’m sure we’re going to get a number of vituperate posts from anti-progress posters about how gay people shouldn’t have any rights, much less the right to fight for their country.

Then we’ll get some people who claim certain verses of the Bible as their reason for hating gay people. Of course, they’ll completely ignore other Biblical verses that are inconvenient to their arguments, and anyone questioning their inconsistent perspective will be somehow “anti-Christian”.

The truth of the matter is that allowing gay people to openly serve in the military will not negatively impact any heterosexuals who are comfortable with their own sexuality. It’s only the men and women who are “questioning” or “unsure” of themsleves, or who ar afraid of gay people, who will have problems.

This is exactly the same as the people who were afraid of blacks serving alongside whites. Guess what? They got over their misconceptions and fear. So will the minority of men & women scared of gay people who are currently serving.

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:17:44 +0000

#2 Ralph
…BRAVO!

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:15:49 +0000

But gays are so, SO, scary to big strong army men…

[/snark]

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:50:21 +0000

The last poll I read said that something like 57% of the people in the military say they are perfectly comfortable serving with gays and would like them to be able to serve openly. It’s time to change this policy. It’s been time to change it for quite some time now.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:33:40 +0000

It is such a stupid and ignorant rule to ban gays from the military simply because of their sexual orientation.

By: dasm

dasm — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:24:34 +0000

Amen. Finally, someone with real intelligence.

By: buckheaddad

buckheaddad — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:08:33 +0000

That’s exactly what we need . . . CONGRESS TO BE IN CHARGE OF GAYS IN THE MILITARY.

Maybe Senators Craig and that goofus from Louisiana can sponsor the legislation.

DANCE ON AMERICA. . . the Piper can wait

By: PatrioticLiberalChristian

PatrioticLiberalChristian — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:06:07 +0000

“We ain’t puttin’ up with no gay men in this man’s army. If we want gay men we’d have a variety of colors of uniforms to choose from. We’d have gourmet meals. We’d hang pretty pictures in the barracks. No sir, we aren’t after havin’ our men be happy. We want them miserable and ready to fight. You can’t fight when you’re happy, so we ain’t makin’ our men gay….What’s that? ‘Gay’ means what?…Oh, never mind, then.”

/snark off

By: 5th Estate

5th Estate — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:55:14 +0000

Let’s not forget that DADT was/is a political compromise that made sexual discrimination in the military illegal when it came to recruitment or voluntary induction, but still allowed for discrimination as a ‘valid’ reason for dismissal.
That ANY homosexuals still joined-up despite this ’stacked-deck’ is impressive to me–kind of stupid but admirable, gutsy.

Once the US military was forced to induct and deploy African Americans in WWII, I’m not aware of any problem with them being used in Vietnam, or any other conflict since for that matter, or in having them overly represented ( relative to the general population) in the standing peace-time force.

DADT has served its purpose–it was a policy bastardized by bigoted Republican opposition but it DID get gays a foot in the door which was necessary. Depeneding on the political lay of the land this is how progress has been made, a little or a lot depending on who has the leverage at the time.

Quite apart from the moral aspect, the US (or any other nation for that matter) simply can’t afford to maintain such bigotry.

By: jay_severin_has_a_small_pen1s

jay_severin_has_a_small_pen1s — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:46:37 +0000

New GOP slogan:

“Support our (non-gay) troops”

By: sc mom

sc mom — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:41:03 +0000

Gen Wes Clark said the same thing a long time ago– and was endorsed by The Washington Blade when he ran for president in 2004 and said as much to The Advocate

funny how the countries that have mandatory service don’t seem to worry about “the gays!”

By: Hussein McCain

Hussein McCain — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:32:40 +0000

They might make gays in the government who haven’t come out of the closet feel uncomfortable, that’s the risk.

By: Doc Rock

Doc Rock — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:31:08 +0000

Let’s not let anyone serve in the military, then we’ll be safe.

By: 5th Estate

5th Estate — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:13:06 +0000

ralph,

nicely done, lad!.

The Tuskegee Airmen and the US Army 447th for example are testament to the inherent bollocks of any bigoted “argument” use to justify a policy or position.

By: oldtree

oldtree — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:10:57 +0000

Do you really think the christian militia now working on the umpteenth crusade is going to put up with anything but their own form of homosexuality? May we have a psychologist weigh on on the psycho sexual world of the christian gay army officer corpse we have today? Or would that some how be offensive?