It was on the news yesterday, I guess this is good but my problem with this is that it should have been done from the beginning and now that they want more troops in all, their trying to look at the gay community because they want more ppl out there.They're looking at the other governments in other countries and seeing that they have gay ppl in their military and it's not a problem for them. Actually the only problem ppl out there, are the homophopes thinking that all of us gay ppl are going to jump in their pants. If they do this then they need to legalize civil unions in every state and count homosexuals as equals in our screwed up society for a change. It seems Big Brother wants to be so picky and choosey when it comes to homosexuals in the US , yet this is the "land of the free" OK They only let us have certain freedoms and this is not right. It is time for some overdue changes!!
2007-01-03 03:58:20 · 19 answers · asked by Noclue 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
this is to Pat:I have served in the US military also and lets face it straight ppl are screwing each other where ever and when ever they find a place or cubby hole (including berthings). In other words ppl whether straight or gay are going to do what they want to do.Also when I state that homophobes are scared that we will jump in their pants I'm talking about ignorant ppl in general just trying to make another excuse to why we shouldn't be in the military. Also when I say we can't or are judged of other things (example) We have to jump through hoops to adopt children, civil unions, jobs,etc,etc,etc
2007-01-03 05:05:02 · update #1
What I dont understand is since women can be in the army (and fight side by side with men, which means they can have sex also)why is everyone afraid that gay people can cause trouble? I am not being sexist here, but since women can fight why cant gay people fight too? I really dont understand what the problem is, because if someone claims that gay people are cowards or sissies he instantly claims the same for women, isnt this right? Also, I agree with you, the government is trying to be "accepting" now, after they lost 3000 troops which is typical of them hypocrites. Well what I think is to give them the middle finger if they ask you to join the army now. You have my sympathies for living in such an advanced nation with many people thinking/acting worse than the Taliban.
2007-01-03 04:06:49 · answer #1 · answered by Nostromo 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I have heard some discussion about being openly gay in the military, but I wanted to share a different viewpoint from yours. You state that the only problem is that the homophobes thinking that gay people are going to jump in their pants is the problem. I disagree with that statement. I served five years in the military and i served with both openly gay people and some who were afraid of being judged and kept it to themself. Nobody was afraid that they would be abused, molested, or hit on by the homosexual members i served with. Part of the concern as i understood it was the berthing issue. Males and females must be in separate berthings, so it would seem that was based on the generalization of separating people from their sexual preference. How would that work with homosexuals? Point taken that there are homophobes in the military who could be offended by the homosexual way of life, and that anyone regardless of their views on this issue, has at one point in time said hurtful tihngs to someone else or acted in an offensive manner. I do know that the openly gay people I served with suffered no repurcussions as long as they acted like everyone else should act and kept their sexual preference out of the workplace, because that sort of behavior whether gay or straight should not be tolerated. I do agree with you that civil unions should be legalized, and to be honest i am fairly ignorant as to what else you feel homosexuals are restricted to. However, if you are interested in serving in the military then I do not see any reason you should not do so.
2007-01-03 04:08:55 · answer #2 · answered by Pat 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I have been hearing stories like that for years, they said the same thing when Clinton (he ended up with "don't ask, Don't tell," What A CF that became...) was in office, and Bush 1 and Regan.
it's a rumor nothing more.
Personally I Hope it comes to pass, I have no opposition to seeing openly gay men and women serving. but coming from a military family, I can tell you there are still to many people out there opposed to the idea, so I doubt we will see that happen any time in the near future.
Additional for Milkbone, there were All gay forces in the past, Look up "The Sacred Band" 50 pairs of male lovers. Brutal and legendary fighters.
2007-01-03 04:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by Stone K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm tired of Bengals fans that STOLE the phrase to make up "who dey" which was just stupid. The Saints fans had the phrase first, you didn't HEAR it before this year because you didn't pay attention. Heck most didn't hear of it before the Saints got Brees because no one paid attention to them. It's not that the Bengals came up with that stupid phrase first, it's that they got popular for a year and wouldn't shut up with it first. To the goof above me the actual issue ISN'T the phrase. A guy made a shirt that said Who Dat saying we can't say Who Dat. The NFL said oh there was a misunderstanding, we aren't talking about the phrase. We only have a problem with UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE LOGO. Oh like they have with ALL teams. Make a Who Dey shirt with a Bengals logo and the NFL will come down on you, guess the Bengals ain't dey "lol".
2016-05-22 23:00:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually if you look at what is going on the reason that they are now looking at the DADT policy is because of the numbers of men and women in the Military have dropped extremely low. The people looking to do away with the DADT are actually looking for a way to close loopholes and reinstate the Draft. I don't remember the exact date, but a short time back another Agreement was signed with Canada that would force them to return all who would go there to avoid the draft(like in the 60's)......
On the surface, getting rid of the DADT sounds good but look a little deeper.
2007-01-03 04:06:16 · answer #5 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I served 10 years - openly gay for the last 4 - my husband retired after 30 years. We both had amazing careers and are well decorated!
2007-01-03 05:42:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well if they do allow gays to openly serve it will be a good thing. we all know they are already serving and I am not the only retired military veteran around ;)
as for the draft, if they do not allow gays to openly serve and try to restart the draft, I am guessing you will see alot more young men and women claiming to be bisexual or gay.
2007-01-03 04:29:52 · answer #7 · answered by Tegarst 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I read in Yahoo news just yesterday that the Military is considering rescinding the "don't ask don't tell" rule.
2007-01-03 04:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by gugenheim84 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both Nostromo and Pat make a very good point.
2007-01-03 04:14:13 · answer #9 · answered by Dark Knight 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a retired general saying he approves
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_go_ot/gays_in_military
How ironic that Bush is so "christian" and yet may be the 1st pres to allow gays !! I love it.
And Morgy, what is "wrong" with the gay lifestyle? Please xplain to me who is hurt? Where is the immorality?
2007-01-03 04:01:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋