Recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants.

[Daniel]

I've not served , but IMO all these post are way off point. The morality issue aside, open gays in the military is the same issue as women in combat. Turinging hard edge, task focused, on the limit, soldiers into enlisted men/women making sure they are culturaly relevant and politically correct to something that does not further the goal and aim of the military is the problem. This is why we will struggle to win wars from now on. We try to fight without offending anyone. Hasn't worked in Vietnam, Afgahnistan, Balkans, Iraq, ............. and it won't work within our own military.

and yes Homosexuality is in fact is a perversion. You can't logically argue it any otherway. Choosing to go against the very nature of your being to be something that is the opposite of what you are is a perversion. This hold true for anything that fits in that category.

and before we start with the "hate", "narrow minded", "ignorant" name stuff argue logic and facts in regards to the military not San Franciso emotionalism.

Are you saying it is a choice to be gay?

If so, could you choose to be gay? Personally I could not choose to enjoy having sex with a man. If it is not a choice then what you said and I bolded is my point exactly.

[Daniel]

Again while my position is obviously influenced by my moral positions (as are everyone elses) my argument is not a religious one. Yes soldiers receive orders from other soldiers. My point is the military should be allowed to decide the issue not civilian political powers. i personally think the top military brass should consider the opinions of their subordinates but again the military brass should choose not you, me, or a civilian judge.

One of the corner stones of our military is that it is controlled by the civilian leadership.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

One of the corner stones of our military is that it is controlled by the civilian leadership.

So you disagree with the past deference that has been granted to the military. YES the civilian government has legal authority but that doesnt mean it is always the best course of action. Again homosexuals are not being banned from military service ad I am not advocating for that.

[Daniel]

What deference are you refrencing?

[Guest Jamie]

So you disagree with the past deference that has been granted to the military. YES the civilian government has legal authority but that doesnt mean it is always the best course of action. Again homosexuals are not being banned from military service ad I am not advocating for that.

Are you saying that if banning gays from the military is unconstitutional, that the military should be given a pass on following the constitution?

If so, what other parts of it are okay for 'em to ignore? Following presidential orders, if they don't like or agree with 'em?

I'm kind'a curious to see how you answer this, and how you rationalize your answers...

[Kegger]

As someone who has served alongside soldiers that I know are gay, suspect are gay, or merely call gay, I see no issue with this ruling.

There's more flamboyant homo-eroticism in a highschool football locker room, most of the gays who serve just want to do they're job and go home at the end of the day. I've never had nor seen any issues, personally, that have arisen because someone is gay. They're joes, plain and simple. Everyone's green, and last I checked the Army doesn't allow sex other than missionary, so technically, every last damn one of us is looking at NJP. Regardless of orientation.

And for the guys who have never served, but like to write policy, I bet you all have at least one friend who is gay, and you will never know it. Yet you let them in your home, watch games, and drink beer with them, and have for years. Would you stop being their friend if you found out? Those of you that would, would have no place serving amongst the brave few who are willing to lay down their lives. The others, thanks for being a decent human being.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

What deference are you refrencing?

Limitations of areas of service in which women can participate for example. While these restrictions would almost certainly fail in the civilian context the armed services are granted deference to make that call. I am sure this is not the only one currently in existence but I am studying and typing at the same time lol.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

And for the guys who have never served, but like to write policy, I bet you all have at least one friend who is gay, and you will never know it. Yet you let them in your home, watch games, and drink beer with them, and have for years. Would you stop being their friend if you found out? Those of you that would, would have no place serving amongst the brave few who are willing to lay down their lives. The others, thanks for being a decent human being.

Stop being friends? No. Shower or change in front of them anymore? No.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Are you saying that if banning gays from the military is unconstitutional, that the military should be given a pass on following the constitution?

If so, what other parts of it are okay for 'em to ignore? Following presidential orders, if they don't like or agree with 'em?

I'm kind'a curious to see how you answer this, and how you rationalize your answers...

I didnt say they should be allowed to ban gays did I? I think there are certain protected rights that the civilian government should enforce regardless of civilian or uniformed. However I dont find the right to be "openly homosexual" one of those rights. Maybe you do and thats fine. Again this is MY opinion. Take it or leave it

[Kegger]

And another thing, has anyone ever heard the little line "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

[Guest Jamie]

I didnt say they should be allowed to ban gays did I? I think there are certain protected rights that the civilian government should enforce regardless of civilian or uniformed. However I dont find the right to be "openly homosexual" one of those rights. Maybe you do and thats fine. Again this is MY opinion. Take it or leave it

The question wasn't so much concerning gays as it was letting the military ignore the constitution.

As far as openly-gay people... I'm not afraid of them, since they pose no threat to me, my lifestyle, or anything else that pertains to me, what so ever. Therefore I have no irrational dislike of them, and no reason to interfere with them doing whatever it is they think they need to do... like joining the Army, Navy, etc.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

The question wasn't so much concerning gays as it was letting the military ignore the constitution.

As far as openly-gay people... I'm not afraid of them, since they pose no threat to me, my lifestyle, or anything else that pertains to me, what so ever. Therefore I have no irrational dislike of them, and no reason to interfere with them doing whatever it is they think they need to do... like joining the Army, Navy, etc.

If the constitution said "you have the right to be openly homsexual" then yes I think you would have a strong argument for the miltary deference to be overrode. But considering the fact that women's rights in the military are still limited despite the constitutional protections afforded to women I am still not sure it is an open and shut case.

[Guest HHB]

As someone who is an serving active duty right now, it is no secret that there are gay men and women serving in the military. Since some of them will use this opportunity to now flaunt thier homosexuality I do believe that some things are better left unsaid. Also, I do not feel that is should have been the decision of congress to change the ruling. It should have been put to a vote by every Military member that is currently serving. It is us that will be directly affected so we should have decided. Thats my .02 cents.

[Guest Jamie]

If the constitution said "you have the right to be openly homsexual" then yes I think you would have a strong argument for the miltary deference to be overrode. But considering the fact that women's rights in the military are still limited despite the constitutional protections afforded to women I am still not sure it is an open and shut case.

But that's exactly it: The courts decide the case, not the military. If the courts rule that women have to be allowed any position in the military that a man can hold, then that's how it is. It's not up to the military to do otherwise.

[Guest Jamie]

As someone who is an serving active duty right now, it is no secret that there are gay men and women serving in the military. Since some of them will use this opportunity to now flaunt thier homosexuality I do believe that some things are better left unsaid. Also, I do not feel that is should have been the decision of congress to change the ruling. It should have been put to a vote by every Military member that is currently serving. It is us that will be directly affected so we should have decided. Thats my .02 cents.

But you don't serve the military, you serve the U.S. government and the U.S. people. All of 'em. Gay, straight, religious, non-religious.

[Daniel]

Limitations of areas of service in which women can participate for example. While these restrictions would almost certainly fail in the civilian context the armed services are granted deference to make that call. I am sure this is not the only one currently in existence but I am studying and typing at the same time lol.

In 1974, the first six women aviators earned their wings as Navy pilots. The Congressionally-mandated prohibition on women in combat places limitations on the pilots' advancement,[3] but at least two retired as captains. source - Women in the military by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive Search

Federal Law not the militaries decision.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

But that's exactly it: The courts decide the case, not the military. If the courts rule that women have to be allowed any position in the military that a man can hold, then that's how it is. It's not up to the military to do otherwise.

And I am saying the court should have granted deference in this case. There is often a difference between what can be done and what should be done. That again is MY opinion.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Federal Law not the militaries decision.

I will have to research this further when I am out of class. I was never under the impression Congress was the one seeking to limit women's roles in the military.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

What about the prevention of women serving on submarines in the U.S. Navy that was just recently changed? Was that also Congressional mandate?

[Guest Jamie]

And I am saying the court should have granted deference in this case. There is often a difference between what can be done and what should be done. That again is MY opinion.

The court CANNOT grant deference to the military in regard to following the constitution. That's the part your opinion keeps ignoring. The case was not about anything other than whether or not what was being done is constitutional or not, plain and simple.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

So then how do you explain the limitations on the positions servicewomen can serve in? Are women not constitutionally protected? Also when you enter the military certain rights such as freedom of speech are limited to some extent. Yet the right to be openly homosexual which is subject to debate must be protected?

Also food for also is whether the experience people have had with the reserved homosexuals service men they have experienced was actually the result of the DADT policy being in place?

Off to class TTYL.

[McAllyn]

As someone who is an serving active duty right now, it is no secret that there are gay men and women serving in the military. Since some of them will use this opportunity to now flaunt thier homosexuality I do believe that some things are better left unsaid. Also, I do not feel that is should have been the decision of congress to change the ruling. It should have been put to a vote by every Military member that is currently serving. It is us that will be directly affected so we should have decided. Thats my .02 cents.

Ever flaunt your heterosexuality? Whistle at an attractive person, check out a hot pic, nudge your buddy when someone walks by? How would you like to be summarily dismissed for it and have your career destroyed?

Also, the constitution does give the right to be openly homosexual. Just like it gives you the right to be who you are, what you are, like who you like, say what you say. Gay or straight, citizens of the US are allowed to "openly" act however they choose as long as it is within the constraits of the law. I'm a bald-fat guy who openly acts like a 14 year old retard most of the time, and I'm damn proud that I'm fully protected by the Constitution, because it's fun as hell.

Mac

[mikegideon]

So then how do you explain the limitations on the positions servicewomen can serve in? Are women not constitutionally protected? Also when you enter the military certain rights such as freedom of speech are limited to some extent. Yet the right to be openly homosexual which is subject to debate must be protected?

Also food for also is whether the experience people have had with the reserved homosexuals service men they have experienced was actually the result of the DADT policy being in place?

Off to class TTYL.

Geez. If they care about their career, they'll act like a pro. You make it sound like there are going to be gay pride parades on army posts. The military will still have complete control over behavior. Flamers are gonna have a real problem, even out of the gay pros.

[Guest Jamie]

So then how do you explain the limitations on the positions servicewomen can serve in? Are women not constitutionally protected?

I'm not going to explain it, only point out that the constitutionality probably hasn't been ruled on yet... and that it may very well be now, and soon, in light of what we're currently discussing.

Remember, everything has to start somewhere, and several things have been examined and ruled on that hadn't been touched by the courts in a very long time.

Also when you enter the military certain rights such as freedom of speech are limited to some extent. Yet the right to be openly homosexual which is subject to debate must be protected?

"Limited" is one thing... Misconduct, for instance, wouldn't be tolerated from any soldier, "straight" or otherwise. However, there's a big difference in having rules of conduct that cover certain situations, and simply banning an act - or even admitting to it, ever - altogether. Not letting soldiers talk about certain things isn't the same as not letting them talk at all, ever, for as long as they're in the military, or letting someone know that they ever have spoken.

( This sort of gets back to the whole "no yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" argument, also. )

Also food for also is whether the experience people have had with the reserved homosexuals service men they have experienced was actually the result of the DADT policy being in place?

I seriously doubt anything but time without the rule can answer that. I suspect though that all of the claims that having openly-homosexual people in the military will prove to be it's undoing will turn out to be like the claims that if people are allowed to carry guns anywhere they want, that the streets will run with rivers of blood.

Off to class TTYL.

Yes, go, get smarter.

[G27]

It's always strange that those who otherwise appear to be conservative, libertarian types show themselves to only be that way wrt things that go their way.

True freedom, individual liberty as it should be here, is ugly and annoying at times. When others can do basically whatever they wish as long as they don't impinge on YOUR rights, you have to tolerate a lot more, even things you think are 'sinful' or 'wrong'. I'm a devout Christian that has certain religious beliefs regarding things, but my country is supposed to be about individual liberty. Those that wish to impose your religious-based morals on others, be careful - one day the majority of folks may have a different religious viewpoint than you and shove THEIR morals down your throat...