1Lt forced to leave service after outing himself

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/30/us.military.gays/index.html



CNN -- A panel of New York National Guard officers has recommended that an Iraq war veteran who acknowledged his homosexuality must leave the service, his supporters said Tuesday.

First Lt. Dan Choi disclosed in March that he is gay, challenging the 1994 "don't ask, don't tell" law that requires the military to discharge troops who disclose their sexual orientation. Tuesday's ruling, made after a daylong hearing, is a step toward stripping Choi of his officer's commission and ending his career.

Fulton said the Guard's Federal Recognition Board heard from members of Choi's unit, his commanding officer and fellow soldiers who served in Iraq, and reviewed more than 150 letters of support for Choi, a 2003 West Point graduate and an Arab linguist.
"At the end of the day, they did not consider any of that material [to] whether he was a good soldier," she said. "It was solely about whether he said he was gay."


I think this is the perfect example of why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed. Here we have a useful officer, an Arab linguist who seemed to be well-received by his fellow soldiers. And he's kicked out because he was gay. Does that really make sense?

I know the arguments go that it would ruin a soldier's morale to know there might be a gay person in thier company... but honestly, I think our soldiers are more professional than that. I've known some gay people in the military, and though it was pretty well-known they were gay, they didn't 'admit' it, so they weren't thrown out.

I think it's time that we didn't discriminate against gays in the military. If they can do the job, then let them! Our soldiers are professional enough to handle a year to a year and a half away from their job, working every day with a minimum of sleep, in a hostile fire zone, but they aren't able to handle working next to a gay man or woman?

Anyways, that's my two cents. Spending money to train a linguist, or any soldier, isn't cheap, and it is a disservice to them and our nation that they can't serve openly as who they are.

[sam1617]

I would tend to agree with you. However this is a case where the military can't really do much about it. Its the law, and until that changes...

[Wild Cobra]

My opinion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it this guy wanted out. He used this as the means to do so.

[jman3000]

My opinion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it this guy wanted out. He used this as the means to do so.

You'd be wrong.

This guy outed himself on the Rachel Maddow show a couple months ago I believe. He was doing it to bring awareness to the situation and try to force Obama's hand in repealing it. He knew his credentials were special in that he was an Arab linguist and it'd attract attention.

He didn't want out, but he felt he had to be a martyr of sorts.

[SonOfAGun]

Spartans boinked one another to improve comradary.

U mad milt. loving homophobic america?

[jman3000]

Same thing happened to an Air Force pilot who had like 2000 hours of combat air time and was a veteran of both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.

They're trying to make a statement and Obama is leaving them hanging in the wind. He's definitely wrong for this.

[Wild Cobra]

You'd be wrong.

This guy outed himself on the Rachel Maddow show a couple months ago I believe. He was doing it to bring awareness to the situation and try to force Obama's hand in repealing it. He knew his credentials were special in that he was an Arab linguist and it'd attract attention.

He didn't want out, but he felt he had to be a martyr of sorts.

Then he was too stupid to remain in the military if he didn't think it would happen.

[jman3000]

Then he was too stupid to remain in the military if he didn't think it would happen.

Um, no. He misjudged Obama's intentions and he's getting fucked for it. It has nothing to do with him being dumb. It has every thing to do with Obama being a bitch about DADT.

It's pretty sad when they can ram Cap n Trade through in a week and yet it's gonna take months and months and months to get rid of DADT.

[Bender]

never mind, jman beat me...

[Wild Cobra]

Um, no. He misjudged Obama's intentions and he's getting fucked for it. It has nothing to do with him being dumb. It has every thing to do with Obama being a bitch about DADT.

It's pretty sad when they can ram Cap n Trade through in a week and yet it's gonna take months and months and months to get rid of DADT.

Don't expect for DADT to go away anytime soon. It's just not going to happen. It will happen about the same time men and women use common showers and multiple solders rooms.

[jacobdrj]

Battlestar Galactica universe did have an 'interesting' military in their complete disregard for gender politics, and sporting events.

[Wild Cobra]

Battlestar Galactica universe did have an 'interesting' military in their complete disregard for gender politics, and sporting events.
I was thinking of BSG myself when I posted that.

[LnGrrrR]

My opinion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it this guy wanted out. He used this as the means to do so.

Why out himself now?

Even if he WANTED to out himself, that doesn't detract from my argument that it is stupid to lose people like this, that the government has spent alot of money to train, simply because we're afraid soldiers might not be professional enough to handle it.

[Crookshanks]

There's nothing to be gained politically by vocally opposing DADT - that's why the vast majority of politicians could care less. That - and the gay population is a VERY SMALL minority. And there just isn't much public outcry to repeal it - in fact, I would guess there's far more support for keeping things just the way they are.

[LnGrrrR]

My opinion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it this guy wanted out. He used this as the means to do so.

You know WC, that when you say things like this, given your admitted skepticality, I think it would be impossible to 'prove' this to you.

For instance, if I said, "I think WC is actually a female who lives in New England and voted straight Democrat", could you prove me wrong? Of course you couldn't. I'd just say all the evidence you provided is suspect for one reason or another.

Being skeptical is only useful when the situation warrants it, IMHO.

[LnGrrrR]

There's nothing to be gained politically by vocally opposing DADT - that's why the vast majority of politicians could care less. That - and the gay population is a VERY SMALL minority. And there just isn't much public outcry to repeal it - in fact, I would guess there's far more support for keeping things just the way they are.

Not surprisingly, you'd be wrong.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/19/2008-07-19_new_poll_shows_majority_favor_end_of_don.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/27/time-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-most-americans-favor-gays-in-the-military.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/02/new-poll-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx

[Crookshanks]

Yes - these polls show people's attitudes have changed - when asked about it in a poll. But I still haven't seen much of a PUBLIC outcry or protests about this issue. It's one thing to support something in an anonymous poll, and quite another to publicly support it.

But - considering the moral breakdown in America, I'm not surprised by these polls. And the policy will probably be changed sooner rather than later. Just one last point - I think the only people they should poll are the military members - after all, they're the ones most affected by the policy!

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how when you take people who support such ideas, how many of them change their views when they learn all the relevant facts.

A good leader does not endorse legislation based on polling data.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes - these polls show people's attitudes have changed - when asked about it in a poll. But I still haven't seen much of a PUBLIC outcry or protests about this issue. It's one thing to support something in an anonymous poll, and quite another to publicly support it.

But - considering the moral breakdown in America, I'm not surprised by these polls. And the policy will probably be changed sooner rather than later. Just one last point - I think the only people they should poll are the military members - after all, they're the ones most affected by the policy!

You could say that a 1Lt outing himself would be a 'public protest', as it were. I think you'll see more. Already, many in the LBGT community have been taking Obama to task for putting their agenda on the backburner, as it were.

[sam1617]

You could say that a 1Lt outing himself would be a 'public protest', as it were. I think you'll see more. Already, many in the LBGT community have been taking Obama to task for putting their agenda on the backburner, as it were.

Hes a politician, I would put it on the backburner too. He wants to spend his political capital elsewhere, and repealing DADT would be too expensive right now.

[LnGrrrR]

Hes a politician, I would put it on the backburner too. He wants to spend his political capital elsewhere, and repealing DADT would be too expensive right now.

Too expensive? Maybe... if he thinks he can afford to lose the LBGT vote. Decisions, decisions...

[jman3000]

Too expensive? Maybe... if he thinks he can afford to lose the LBGT vote. Decisions, decisions...

He has them right where he wants them. They're not going to vote for Republicans obviously and theyre not going to vote for any pro-gay 3rd party candidates in cities other than San Fran maybe where that kinda person can actually get elected. So it's either vote Dem or don't vote at all.

Obama will probably give them another pittance in the Summer of 2010 to get them out to vote for the mid terms. He might be saving up DADT for 2012 though.

What a shit.

[jman3000]

Scratch that. DADT would be too controversial for 2012. I'll change that to either Fall of 2010 or Spring of 2011.

[urunobili]

Lame... another policy that puts the US behind advanced first world nations in social rights...

[IceColdBrewski]

I'm with WC on this one. I think dude just wanted out of the Military.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm with WC on this one. I think dude just wanted out of the Military.

Mayhaps, but it still doesn't speak to the need/effectiveness of the policy.

[mookie2001]

Lame... another policy that puts the US behind advanced first world nations in social rights... which ones would those be?




i agree DADT is stupid but i dont know much about argentinas rules for military sexuality, do tell

[Jacob1983]

It's a stupid rule/law but the guy broke it. He's not going to get a free pass just because he wants to be martyr or something. I do think this incident makes Obama look bad because he parades around like he's a champion for gay rights but he's a total hypocrite and liar. If he truely was a champion for gay rights, he would undo the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and let gays and lesbians be flaming and open in the military. He would also make gay marriage legal or at least say that he supports gay marriage and not say that gay marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. How do gays and lesbians support Obama when he hasn't done shit for them as president? He has publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Why don't gay people call him out on that?

[jman3000]

Ummm... they have called him out.

And who are they going to support? Republicans? (lol)

[Marcus Bryant]

which ones would those be?




i agree DADT is stupid but i dont know much about argentinas rules for military sexuality, do tell

Um, Denmark? Luxembourg? I don't know.

[Marcus Bryant]

Lame... another policy that puts the US behind advanced first world nations in social rights...

Perhaps it puts the US behind 3rd world nations which like to pretend they are "first world", like, um, I don't know....

[SonOfAGun]

The gays in the military should be awarded imo. They should get a special medal. Think of your stereotypical gay. Now think of him completing boot camp. I rest my case.

In this day and age a 5 year old can pick up a gun and kill a 6'2 250 lb man in seconds. If a gay man wants to cover my ass on the battlefield, I say cover it and thank you.


p.s. plz don't take that out of context and make it a sig.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Perhaps it puts the US behind 3rd world nations which like to pretend they are "first world", like, um, I don't know....

like what?

[LnGrrrR]

The gays in the military should be awarded imo. They should get a special medal. Think of your stereotypical gay. Now think of him completing boot camp. I rest my case.

In this day and age a 5 year old can pick up a gun and kill a 6'2 250 lb man in seconds. If a gay man wants to cover my ass on the battlefield, I say cover it and thank you.


p.s. plz don't take that out of context and make it a sig.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[exstatic]

300 translators lost to DADT is what Keith Olbermann reported tonight in his "Bushed" segment. He noted that given the $150,000 retention/recruiting bonus that this loss equaled a kewl $45 Million loss.

He named the 'program' "Don't ask, Don't Translate". Taking it to the KO limit he suggested that the Neo-cons were more afraid of a Patriotic gay linguist than an Arab terrorist.

:lmao @ Don't ask, don't translate.

It does seem that pretty much every gay who joins the military goes for Arabic linguist, then gets kicked out. :lol Those numbers are also incomplete, as this was an entry from when Bush was still in the WH.

[Jacob1983]

Who has called Obama out on his hypocrisy on gay rights? I know that hardcore Republicans don't give a fuck about gay rights but that's normal. Liberals and Democrats are suppose to be champions for gay rights. Obama is a liberal Democrat yet he doesn't give a shit about gay rights. He hasn't done anything about "don't ask, don't tell" or civil unions/gay marriage. I just wish people would call him out on it. Why does he get a free pass?

[ChumpDumper]

Who has called Obama out on his hypocrisy on gay rights?Gays.

[MannyIsGod]

Who has called Obama out on his hypocrisy on gay rights? I know that hardcore Republicans don't give a fuck about gay rights but that's normal. Liberals and Democrats are suppose to be champions for gay rights. Obama is a liberal Democrat yet he doesn't give a shit about gay rights. He hasn't done anything about "don't ask, don't tell" or civil unions/gay marriage. I just wish people would call him out on it. Why does he get a free pass?

You're right and its pissing me off. Its one of the biggest reasons I voted for him because I feel its a huge injustice. Its early, but I'll be quite frank and say to this point I am extremely dissapointed and he needs to step the fuck up.

[Wild Cobra]

Who has called Obama out on his hypocrisy on gay rights? I know that hardcore Republicans don't give a fuck about gay rights but that's normal. Liberals and Democrats are suppose to be champions for gay rights. Obama is a liberal Democrat yet he doesn't give a shit about gay rights. He hasn't done anything about "don't ask, don't tell" or civil unions/gay marriage. I just wish people would call him out on it. Why does he get a free pass?
When you throw around the term "gay rights" it means they are recognized by law in a manner others aren't. That is nothing but trouble. We are all equal under the law, under equal circumstances. There are acceptable differences. Some people agree, and some don't.

Did you know that giving extra protection to a group of people in the workplace over others actually makes it harder for them to get a job? Contemplate that for a bit before disagreeing with me.

[jman3000]

When you throw around the term "gay rights" it means they are recognized by law in a manner others aren't. That is nothing but trouble. We are all equal under the law, under equal circumstances. There are acceptable differences. Some people agree, and some don't.

Did you know that giving extra protection to a group of people in the workplace over others actually makes it harder for them to get a job? Contemplate that for a bit before disagreeing with me.

So you're basically saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary.

The difference between de facto and de jure is obvious. Just goes to prove how little (understatement?) you know.

[jman3000]

"Them darkies have equal drinking fountains and restaurants as us whities do. Once you start throwing around terms like 'black rights' it means nothing but trouble. We are all equal under the law, under equal circumstances."

[Wild Cobra]

So you're basically saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary.

The difference between de facto and de jure is obvious. Just goes to prove how little (understatement?) you know.
How do you figure that? It doesn't specifically grant blacks legal recourse over whites, in fact the white firefighters recently won the supreme court decistion using the Civil Rights Act.

I am talking about rights that target one or more groups over one or more other groups.

[ChumpDumper]

When you throw around the term "gay rights" it means they are recognized by law in a manner others aren't. That is nothing but trouble. We are all equal under the law, under equal circumstances. There are acceptable differences. Some people agree, and some don't.So you are against Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Wild Cobra]

So you are against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
No, and eliminating it doesn't solve anything. You have to change the UCMJ. Sodomy is illegal in the military, even a man doing it to a woman.

It has not changed that you will be discharged for being gay. It just doesn't allow that question to be expected to be answered. I think it doesn't even allow that question.

[ChumpDumper]

No, and eliminating it doesn't solve anything. You have to change the UCMJ. Sodomy is illegal in the military, even a man doing it to a woman.No admission or commission of sodomy is required, one only need say he or she is gay.


It has not changed that you will be discharged for being gay. It just doesn't allow that question to be expected to be answered. I think it doesn't even allow that question.So you are for gays' being treated differently under the law.

[Jacob1983]

I want the name of least one prominent figure such as a politician/celebrity/powerful person that has called out Obama on being a hypocrite when it comes to gay rights. It makes me laugh that so many gays and lesbians voted for him back in November yet he hasn't done shit for them and he is against gay marriage. And yes, he is against it. Well, he has publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. How does the gay community feel about that? I just think it's funny how he bragged about being a champion for gay rights when he was running for president and he has also bragged about being one as president yet he has done nothing for the gay cause/agenda/movement/whatever the correct term is.

[Winehole23]

I want the name of least one prominent figure such as a politician/celebrity/powerful person that has called out Obama on being a hypocrite when it comes to gay rights...How does the gay community feel about that? You know the answer to this is probably no more than three clicks away, don't you?

[ChumpDumper]

It makes me laugh that so many gays and lesbians voted for him back in November yet he hasn't done shit for them and he is against gay marriage. And yes, he is against it. Well, he has publicly stated that he believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. How does the gay community feel about that?So he wasn't a hypocrite when it came to gay marriage.

Ok.

[Spurminator]

When you throw around the term "gay rights" it means they are recognized by law in a manner others aren't.

No it doesn't.

[Winehole23]

Howard Dean (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/16/743093/-Dear-President-Obama:-This-is-what-a-fierce-advocate-looks-like).

[ChumpDumper]

There may be steps that Obama can take to blunt the current effects of DADT, but the complete ending of it requires the Congress to get involved. I get the feeling it would pass pretty easily once it got started, it's just that no one wants to take the heat for starting it.

[Wild Cobra]

No it doesn't.
Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.
Are you kidding? The democrats don't want to fix the issue. If they did, they would have one less thing to rally voters over. They only want to pretend they care. All they care about is buying votes.

[Winehole23]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3526288#post3526288)
Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.









Are you kidding? The democrats don't want to fix the issue. If they did, they would have one less thing to rally voters over. They only want to pretend they care. All they care about is buying votes.WC takes issue with his own post.

[DarkReign]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

I agree with the gist of what youre saying in this particular post, but status quo isnt/wasnt acceptable during the Separate but Equal era. You have to take the good with the bad. A lot of people lost their lives in the civil rights struggle during the 60s. Contrary to popular opinion amongst rednecks, they werent protesting for "extra" rights...or willing to die themselves as many did.

I dont see gay people doing the same thing, but thats understandable as this country will not repeat the same mistakes it made during the 60s. If anything, gay people owe a debt to Martin Luther King, Jr and his ilk for breaking the tolerance barrier in this country. Its only so long that the rest of the country can see human beings being hosed in public streets by police officers or watching teenage black girls get spit on on their way to school. At some point, you find your faith or your humanity (or both).

Maybe its time for the same kind of law to protect homosexuals, maybe it isnt.

I for one think it is.

[sam1617]

I agree with the gist of what youre saying in this particular post, but status quo isnt/wasnt acceptable during the Separate but Equal era. Maybe its time for the same kind of law to protect homos, maybe it isnt.

I for one think it is.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong morally. However, last I checked, they are still people, and I agree, the government should treat them no differently than any other person. Don't ask don't tell should be repealed, and homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military. As for right now, its the law, and you are supposed to obey the law, if you don't, you will have to accept the punishment.

Now, my position on gay marriage is inline with the federal government, since the power of marriage is vested in the state and/or in the religious body doing the marrying, it should be up to the state and/or religious body.

[exstatic]

Special rights? I think gays in the military just want the special discrimination written into the law removed. Then, everyone's the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.Males, whites and potentially heterosexuals could indeed sue using those laws you just whined about. That it doesn't happen, if ever, shows that things are going ok for them in those areas of discrimination.

[Wild Cobra]

WC takes issue with his own post.
No, you're wrong. Apparently I look deeper into situations and want to fix the root cause. Not the symptoms.

[Wild Cobra]

Special rights? I think gays in the military just want the special discrimination written into the law removed. Then, everyone's the same.
Don't ask don't tell is a better policy than what they did before that!

[Wild Cobra]

Males, whites and potentially heterosexuals could indeed sue using those laws you just whined about. That it doesn't happen, if ever, shows that things are going ok for them in those areas of discrimination.
Well, reading the legislation that comes through on the Oregon Ballots, I have to disagree. I'm sure some laws work both ways, but not most the ones I have seen.

[Spurminator]

:lol You think civil rights/gay rights are all about the right to SUE?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol You think civil rights/gay rights are all about the right to SUE?
No, but often the accompanying legislation for new laws make it too easy to sue without a proper case. They try to go too far instead of just setting things equal.

[AFBlue]

Don't ask don't tell is a better policy than what they did before that!

That's like saying "seperate but equal" was better than slavery...still doesn't make it right.

But, like one of the first responders said, it's up to the politicians to make the change. The fact that they haven't says to me they haven't come up with an acceptable comprimise or just don't give a damn.

It's really not a hard decision and the military is uniquely qualified to handle change...because in the end you're told to "shut up and color", despite any objection.

The politicians definitely need to step up and deal with the issue.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

You're not giving gay people 'special rights'.

As it is, aren't gays under a unique set of circumstances. If all things were equal, then gays should be allowed to be open with their sexuality, just as straight people are allowed to, correct?

And you know as well as I do that not only is sodomy technically illegal, but oral sex would be given the definition in the UCMJ. However, no one gets kicked out just for those things: they are always thrown on to a more serious crime to make the punishment longer.

[Wild Cobra]

That's like saying "seperate but equal" was better than slavery...still doesn't make it right.
In the case of the military and the way it's structured, it infringes on the freedom to associate in ways that are absolutely unacceptable.

But, like one of the first responders said, it's up to the politicians to make the change. The fact that they haven't says to me they haven't come up with an acceptable comprimise or just don't give a damn.
I think they see that in this case, to remedy one problem, you create larger problems. I agree also they don't care. There's not enough voters they can buy with it. In fact, the pussy politicians would lose voters. When's the last time they actually made legislation that was right, rather than being bought off by an activist group, or looking at how people vote?

It's really not a hard decision and the military is uniquely qualified to handle change...because in the end you're told to "shut up and color", despite any objection.
Again, the problems it creates. How many different shower facilities are you going to have, or are you going to make men and women bunk and shower together too?

The politicians definitely need to step up and deal with the issue.
How can they deal with it any better? Give us a solution that doesn;t create more problems than it solves.

You're not giving gay people 'special rights'.
In the case of DADT, I agree. I was talking about legislation in general that activist groups pen. It always has some tool in it that they can use to stick it to business.

As it is, aren't gays under a unique set of circumstances. If all things were equal, then gays should be allowed to be open with their sexuality, just as straight people are allowed to, correct?
I might agree with that is legislation that trys to get passed didn't include terms like "feels threatened," etc. when dealing with various discrimination. It has been an acceptable term, and you have people who choose not to be around gays. That is their right. I guess you believe the rights of one group supersede the rights of another.

And you know as well as I do that not only is sodomy technically illegal, but oral sex would be given the definition in the UCMJ. However, no one gets kicked out just for those things: they are always thrown on to a more serious crime to make the punishment longer.I agree. However, the military does not get into the bedrooms of the soldiers. Even adultery and sex while not married is punishable under the UCMJ. I have seen soldiers thrown out for adultery, but not fornification.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree. However, the military does not get into the bedrooms of the soldiers. Even adultery and sex while not married is punishable under the UCMJ. I have seen soldiers thrown out for adultery, but not fornification.

Yes, that's what I meant, WC.

In regards to your logistic issues with showering...

It can be assumed that there are gay people already serving in the military, correct?

Given such, it can also be assumed that these gay men are ALREADY showering with straight men.

Given the two above, I don't see why it's a huge problem. Unless you think that people in the military couldn't 'deal' with gay men showering near them.

Soldiers are able to withstand months away from their families, in a hostile environment, with limited resources. I think they can handle gay men showering next to them.

Will it be awkward? Sure. I'm sure that integrating black people into the services was awkward as well, and brought up many of the same questions you're asking. (Will we have to have the same showers/living quarters/etc for black and white people?)

Which do you think is of more concern? That some soldiers will not enjoy knowing their comrade-in-arms is gay and possibly threatening them, or that we are kicking out many capable, qualified soldiers, in effect wasting time, money and manpower in the middle of a war? The former can always be fixed by a visit from the First Shirt, the latter can not.