DADT Repealed.

[DuckiesDarling]

The Senate voted 65-31 to repeal DADT, Obama expected to sign it into law next week.


I loved what one Senator said, "I don't care who you love as long you love this country enough to put your life on the line. You shouldn't have to hide who you are".

[justcurious4me]

Wow!!! So it's really gonna happen!!! I was reading an article on the DADT Survey in Air Force Times which was talking about how to accomodate LBGT members... Can you believe that the command was looking at the possibility of separate bathrooms and separate dormitories!!!! Thank God they said that it would be a logistical nightmare and shot it down... But can you believe the gawl of some people to suggest that!!! Talk about the 1950's all over again... Hey folks in the upper chain... Segregation went out the door around when you were born and not when you took command!!! Sorry, I just had to get that one out...

Anyway, I know I've been gone from the site, forums and e-mail for a while... I didn't mean to leave you all hanging... Just end of year crazies at work, a war-mongering dictatorship 40 miles away threatening to bomb the hell out of us and all the holiday parties in the past month have been keeping me tied up (and not in the way I would like either)... ALSO, looks like me and the family will be moving soon from South Korea... Places we want to go to include: Japan (because my wife loves Tokyo), Seattle (because my dear friends Cat, Kit, and Ki are there), and Virginia Beach (because that's just a last decent resort)... Reasons for the move... My son is too smart for the school that he's in... More to follow!!!

[artl68]

When my dad was in the air force(in the fifties) his best friend was gay,he didn't find out till some time in the (eighties)30 years later,point is they were still friends.

The this is that if you keep your eyes and your mind closed,you may miss some extrodenary like a lasting friendship.
Besides,when the bullets start fling dose it really matter if there bi,gay or straight.As long as they have my back I'll have theirs.

[Lonestar_Northstar]

I, the male half, was discharged four years ago from the United States Navy for being bisexual. Yes, I was a victim of DADT. I was a Senior Chief Petty Officer (E-8) with 18yrs 10mos of service, 14mos short of retirement. Yesterday was a great day in my life and paves the way for me to start the process to re-join our Navy and finish my time.

[12voltman59]

I have to admit that I had figured that the repeal of DADT was in all likelihood, not going to take place anytime soon--but I am very glad it finally happened. I am pleasantly surprised and very pleased.

I am happy to report that both of my US Senators from Ohio, Sherrod Brown (Democrat) and a retiring George Voinovich (Republican) voted for the repeal. Voinovich was one of a handful of Republicans to vote for the repeal.

On Friday--I had called the offices of both Senators to express my view that they should vote for the repeal--that was not too hard with Brown since I knew he was going to---but with Voinovich----it was a question mark if he would or not---but he did!!!

Now--as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101219/ts_yblog_theticket/in-a-historic-vote-the-senate-overturns-dont-ask-dont-tell points out---the repeal of DADT may, hopefully, lead to the knocking down in the coming years of the other restrictions of rights faced by gays in our country.

That is of course, exactly the thing that opponents of extending fundamental rights (not SPECIAL RIGHTS) to GLBT people don't want to happen.

It is a good day for democracy and extension of fundamental rights to a large block of American citizens that have been denied those rights.

[justcurious4me]

I have to admit that I had figured that the repeal of DADT was in all likelihood, not going to take place anytime soon--but I am very glad it finally happened. I am pleasantly surprised and very pleased.

I am happy to report that both of my US Senators from Ohio, Sherrod Brown (Democrat) and a retiring George Voinovich (Republican) voted for the repeal. Voinovich was one of a handful of Republicans to vote for the repeal.

On Friday--I had called the offices of both Senators to express my view that they should vote for the repeal--that was not too hard with Brown since I knew he was going to---but with Voinovich----it was a question mark if he would or not---but he did!!!

Now--as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101219/ts_yblog_theticket/in-a-historic-vote-the-senate-overturns-dont-ask-dont-tell points out---the repeal of DADT may, hopefully, lead to the knocking down in the coming years of the other restrictions of rights faced by gays in our country.

That is of course, exactly the thing that opponents of extending fundamental rights (not SPECIAL RIGHTS) to GLBT people don't want to happen.

It is a good day for democracy and extension of fundamental rights to a large block of American citizens that have been denied those rights.



While I fall on the curious side of Bi... I would like to thank you and everyone else for all the hard work and blood, sweat and tears that went in to making this happen!!! As a proud member of our great nation's Air Force, I feel better knowing that my career will not suffer if I were to make known what I feel and who I am... Merry Christmas!!!! :)

[Lonestar_Northstar]

...I feel better knowing that my career will not suffer if I were to make known what I feel and who I am

That's just it....some of us, me included, did not have to make it known who we are. I've been bi since I was 23, served my country honorably, and was outed by a subordinate when he found some pictures of me on a CD in my desk. But yes, it is a great feeling knowing you are safe.

[12voltman59]

It did get me in the whole discussion of DADT----that what really does matter when it comes to service--is that people within a unit or command--especially when its a case of a superior non-com or commissioned officer should not have a relationship with someone lower them in the chain-of-command.

In my time in the service--I had seen so many cases where you had a first or second class petty officer (usually a guy) having a hot thing going with a younger and lower ranking female--usually she is a "boot" that hasn't hardly been in the service anytime at all, having just gotten out of bootcamp.

In such cases--the PO will let her slack off with lighter duty, make sure that she gets optimum liberty time while the rest of the guys have to bust their asses and get screwed out of liberty and such---now--talk about causing dissension in the ranks and fucking up morale!!!!

I can only speak to this happening in the Coast Guard---and as such cases became more common--the higher ups began to take seriously the rules against "fraternization" that they had been ignoring as more and more females were entering the service which was the case when I served.

Of course---there were always the very strong prohibitions regarding commissioned officers and enlisted personnel from having any romantic or sexual relationships. An officer could kill his or her career if they did that!!
The CG brass did crack down on close relationships between enlisted personnel (hetero of course) from within the same unit and/or command.

So--with DADT going to come to an end---the thing to do is simply enforce those rules for personnel---you cannot become involved romantically and or sexually with someone in the same unit--or at least that one person is a superior to the other.

Now--I was not married so I always lived in quarters set up for single people--but at nearly every base that I served, the married enlisted housing--they called it "Peyton Place" since everyone was fucking around with everyone else--there were all kinds of adulterous relationships.

I wondered if this was the still the case today---not long ago I was in some military chatroom and a few guys who were in the Air Force were talking about the enlisted married housing area on their base that they lived was one big "Peyton Place" with all kinds of couples fooling around on each other.

So--for all those people who think that gays are so bad---there is, by the same basic standards that holds that homosexuality is "evil"---a great deal of immoral behavior being done by our "troops" in their off time.

No talk about that sort of behavior though on places like FOX News or the other right wing media outlets!!!!

[TaylorMade]

Or the fact that this was a political football, used by Harry Reid . . . initially he attached it to the DREAM act (an unliked and barely examined piece of legislation), and shut down debate, a move that alienated many of the liberal Republicans. Not all people on the right are one one way, 12volt, remember that. <_<

The LBGT people are the liberals pro-lifers. A constituency that must be kept angry and in fear and occasionally tossed a sop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sop) to keep in the fold.

This was a sop, no question, and to ignore that is partisan folly. Remember, Clinton signed DADT as a 'compromise' after promising open service quite loudly.

*Taylor*

[DuckiesDarling]

I don't think it was a sop, Taylor, I think it was simply the righting of a wrong that shouldn't have been thrown out there to begin with. What I do worry about is the effect it will have with our troops in homophobic nations. Personally, as I said, I loved the Senator's remark "I don't care who you love as long as you love this nation enough to fight for her" For me that's the end of the story, there should be no limitations on those that want to fight and yet there are many. The sexuality was removed, maybe soon other issues that would not interfere with any fighting will be removed as we rely more and more on computer intel and controlled machines rather than actual combat men and women in some situations. So in this case turning down someone with say asthma or flat feet would serve no purpose. They can sit at a terminal and do the same work as a perfectly healthy man or woman. Or even the restrictions on women in combat. They are slowly breaking down that barrier as well as they realize that in most cases that aren't requiring pure physical action the women are just as good as the men. There are many issues that still need to be corrected but as long as we have men and women wanting to serve we should let them. :2cents:

[TaylorMade]

I don't think it was a sop, Taylor, I think it was simply the righting of a wrong that shouldn't have been thrown out there to begin with. What I do worry about is the effect it will have with our troops in homophobic nations. Personally, as I said, I loved the Senator's remark "I don't care who you love as long as you love this nation enough to fight for her" For me that's the end of the story, there should be no limitations on those that want to fight and yet there are many. The sexuality was removed, maybe soon other issues that would not interfere with any fighting will be removed as we rely more and more on computer intel and controlled machines rather than actual combat men and women in some situations. So in this case turning down someone with say asthma or flat feet would serve no purpose. They can sit at a terminal and do the same work as a perfectly healthy man or woman. Or even the restrictions on women in combat. They are slowly breaking down that barrier as well as they realize that in most cases that aren't requiring pure physical action the women are just as good as the men. There are many issues that still need to be corrected but as long as we have men and women wanting to serve we should let them. :2cents:

Eh... I can see both sides of the equation where it had to be done, but it works as a political favor.

I want people who not just WANT to serve but are ABLE to serve. Serving's a privilege. I hope they won't go the other way and make openly gay soldiers untouchable and hard for them to be discharged even in cases of outright malfeasance.

But... I'm quite sure if a gay or bisexual soldier truly loves country more than self, and wants to show that they aren't just as good, but better (just as black soldiers did 40 years ago) it will work.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

It doesnt matter why it has been done.. what is important is that it is to be done... and yet another step toward total acceptance of people like us is taken in the USA... probems with it there will be, but none insurmountable..

[darkeyes]

What I do worry about is the effect it will have with our troops in homophobic nations.

Don't Darling, darling.. homosexuals serve and have served with the British and several other militaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan without any problems in that regard. Sure, since the US is by far the largest military in both conflicts there are likely to be far more of them, but I have no doubt most will have sufficient nouse not to make arses of their sexuality while serving in such countries.. worrying about them because of their sexuality is the last thing I will do... there are far greater issues at stake than having gay men and women serving in those countries. :)

[Long Duck Dong]

Don't Darling, darling.. homosexuals serve and have served with the British and several other militaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan without any problems in that regard. Sure, since the US is by far the largest military in both conflicts there are likely to be far more of them, but I have no doubt most will have sufficient nouse not to make arses of their sexuality while serving in such countries.. worrying about them because of their sexuality is the last thing I will do... there are far greater issues at stake than having gay men and women serving in those countries. :)

lol..... really fran ???? those that have served, will tell you different... there is a hidden side to the military that outsiders will never know about or understand....

there are some areas and roles in iraq and afghanistan where gay males are not allowed to go, as it places everybody at risk...... and there is also the fact that a number of people will not deal with gay males..... now wikileaks apologises for the fact that it has not been leaked yet... but its a unspoken aspect of things, .... and besides, the last thing that is needed, is another reason for activists and pro rights people to scream about and cry * discrimination *... specially when it can really fuck things right up..... so DADT comes in play right there as a unofficial and off the record, practice.... and its not to cause trouble... its to save lives......

having served in the armed forces and with friends actively still serving, I understand things far better than non combatants with opinions and no experience......

[darkeyes]

Is that so Duckie?? For one thing such an action is contrary to the laws of all constituent parts of the UK and contrary to military codes... there can be no discrimination allowed in any of the British armed forces and that includes in combat zones.. and our law and military codes are not the the most liberal that NATO has to offer..

DADT was not there to save lives at all.. it was a half way house because the president and the government of the day thought it too risky and were too scared to go farther..

Nope, I do know nothing really of combat rules and regulations I admit that... but it does tick me off when I hear bull by those who claim to know better by right of "having served".. not in the military of the United Kingdom, but in a little country far away whose operational rules may well be and probably are very different from those of my own!!!

[darkeyes]

Sorry, Fran, DADT has absolutely nothing to do with Britain. It's purely an American thing.

Haven sed it wos for 1 minute.. that wosn the pointa me post...:)

[DuckiesDarling]

Dang it, meant to edit not delete.

Fran, DADT and the repealing of DADT is based strictly on the American military. This is an American thing and the things you do or don't do in the British military service have no effect on the armed services of the United States. I stand by my words, I do worry about what this will do when you have our troops in areas where homosexual activity is punishable by death. No one is suggesting that gay or bisexual men and women will demand the right to wear pink fatigues or any other stereotype that some opponents tried to come out with, but there may be increased aggression to the troops because they will not just see an American, they will see a possibly gay American. That is my worry.

As for anything else, this is not a debate about the validity of the war or the validity of any military action in any hostile country. It was simply me sharing something that finally happened that has been hotly debated on this site.

[Long Duck Dong]

gee fran...... I guess all the british, american and australia serving troops, know nothing either....

while you may be versed in laws on discrimination and anti biased laws.... there is a lil thing called extremist beliefs... and the people that have extremist beliefs are the same people that are targeting civilians, kids, females, even their own people..... and believe me, they do not give a rats ass about the UK laws on discrimination etc etc.... and when their *holy laws * tell them that gays are *evil * and should be put to death... do you honestly think that they are gonna stop cos the UK law says its wrong to discriminate ???????
and we are talking about soldiers and militants in iraq and afghanisation, in the midsts of all the fighting.... not in the UK where you are seeing SFA of the fighting yet trying to tell ex servicemen that you know more than the people serving in the forces......

now the DADT aspect I was refering to... is the * for the sake of the serving soldiers, we are not going put gay males in sensitive areas and risk a suicide bomber blowing the place to hell and back *..... IE, let the gay people serve, just don't put them in liaison areas with * sensitive * people, it can blow operations, cost information and lead to a fire fight

it has nothing to do with the US DADT policy of * lets either shut the LGBT up, or get rid of them*

its something that serving and ex service people understand and know about...... and people that have never served, know nothing about....

there is a time and a place for laws and rules... and the middle of a bloody war zone is not one of them..... unless you want to stand in the middle of the street and argue with militants, bullets and bombs......

[Long Duck Dong]

now I am gonna to make this very clear...

I have served along side some of the best LGBT people I have ever met in the army..... and I would do so again, at the drop of a hat.... but I would not endanger any of my platoon any more than possible, by creating a higher risk situation....and if that meant removing any openly gay service personnel from a sensitive area, I would do it.....

its got nothing to do with discrimination and biased, and everything to do with the fact I would want to bring everyone of my platoon, home alive and in one piece.....

I would be realistic in the fact that we would be dealing with a very volatile situation with the enemy that far out weights the issues of any soldiers with wounded pride...... and of course if any soldier wants to express their sexuality in the face of adversity, they are most welcome.... 100 meters down the road, leaving us out of range of frags from a IED.....

its not anti LGBT sentiment.... its simple common sense, preservation and a desire to not end up in a body bag....... and if any person thinks thats the wrong attitude...... feel free to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and hold a LGBT pride parade cos your home countries laws allow for it.....but bear in mind... you will be in Iraq and Afghanisation... not your home country, and those countries have anti homosexual laws, not the anti discrimination laws of your own country

anti discrimination laws are not as good as staying home or anti frag jackets.... and there is two things that are the leading causes of death in a war zone, ... ignorance and inexperience

[darkeyes]

Look Duckie Darlin'.. I don't have any axe to grind here.. if it was up to me it would all be moot anyway, cos there would be no military for them to join!

If gay and bi people are allowed to be openly gay and bisexual, then it defeats the object of the exercise to keep them in a safe place out of the way. The argument that it may endanger non gay personnel is in my opinion false.. you can't have it both ways.. time and experience in the US military will prove in time just how so, as it has in the militaries of other countries.

The new state will have to bed in of course and there will be teething troubles, but it is a bit of an insult to gay and bi personnel to tell them they cant do what they consider their duty because of their sexuality.. whether or not they are serving in an openly gay hostile country. Many are openly anti alcohol but no one seriously suggests the military sends only tee totallers to serve in those places. Many do not allow women to serve in their militaries yet accept it quite readily from western countries. There are many philandering, cant keep their pants on, shag anything that moves men irrespective of their religion and where they are based. No one seriously suggests they are excused service from such countries which would hardly be friendly toward them. And does it matter anyway? The US and NATO are the enemy to the so called "insurgents" and anyone of them is fair game irrespective of who and whaat they are.

Or, as you have said on occasion in the past, or at least inferred, is it the straight bigot of our own militaries you do not trust most of all? I don't want an argument on this qith you Duckie.. it is, for all my pacifism, abolition of DADT is a good day for gay and bisexual people. It is yet another step to full acceptance of our kind in American society. Many gay and bi people do not share my views on war, and wish to contribute in their own way, quite openly to their country. They will now be allowed so to do. And that is good.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok.... orders by any other name, are still orders...... and that is the key component of the military..... orders are given, recieved and obeyed...

using your reckoning that military strategy is wrong in the face of common sense and equal rights... then basically we should put openly gay people in direct contact with people that have a belief in a religion that is anti homosexuality......

now when you are dealing with extremists that are looking for any reason at all to preach their anti us holy war propaganda... the last thing you want to do is give them more targets.... as they already are fine with taking out women, children and their own country folk.......

the logic of non serving civilians never fails to amuse me.... as it reminds me of the logic of the british commanders during world war one that were very happy to stop for afternoon tea and scone, and if that meant that a platoon was not given the order to retreat in the face of overwhelming opposition, then so be it, as afternoon tea and scones was not allowed to be interrupted with things as trivial as people dying.....

so on the surface of it, your argument is simply a case of gay males should be allowed to be in sensitive areas that can jeopardise operations, fuck up civilian military relations, possibly cost the lives of innocent people.... and thats ok cos its all about the right to serve in the military forces......

my simple answer is there is nothing wrong with gay males in sensitive areas, as long as nobody knows they are there...... cos the enemy do not give a shit about equal rights and anti discrimination laws, they only care about creating a big body count and one fucking great mess..... and they will use any reason to encourage more bloodshed...... and even simple lil things like some iraqi muslims conversing with gay males can become a death sentence for the iraqi

maybe you missed the memo about how the us has overturned the law in iraq and afghanistan ... the one about all gay males get put to death...... and now there are rogue death squads enforcing that ( overturned ) law...... something the military are very well aware of... and most civilians have no clue about.......

now... there is more to military service than being in the marines or the navy etc and waving a big gun.... but once again, your lack of understanding or knowledge about sensitive matters in war zones, is a major issue..... cos you have not served......
but it is on the same level as a anti homosexual minded police officer during a lgbt pride march..... most police CO's would not put the cop in a front line role there or if they are put there, watched so closely, cos the risk of it all turning to shit fast, is very possible
and activists and opinionated lil tarts would jump on any wrong move by that cop as proof of homophobia in the police force.....

the same applies to the military, they would not want a risky situation to turn into a shit storm as all it would take is somebody to play the homophobia card by saying that the military were putting gay males in direct contact with extremists, in order to provoke the extremists into creating a shitstorm and that the US would use that as a reason for more heavy handed action against iraqi and afghanistan muslim groups......

but what would I know.... I am only a lesser mortal that served in the forces, has inside knowledge and experience etc etc.... so i should sit in the corner and be silent when a non com civilian speaks about things she has no idea about

[Realist]

I was bisexual before, during, and after, I served 7 years in the military. While serving, during the late '50s and early '60s, I had 3 male lovers. But, I have to say it was scary as hell! Advanced planning, and secrecy, were done with military precision, prior to imbibing in those pleasures.

Any who were impulsive, or blatant, were often caught and the punishment was swift and severe. One case I know of resulted in confinement to Leavenworth for 9 years!

I knew an NCO, who had a silver star for bravery and a Purple Heart for being wounded, but he was gay. If it had been known, he would have been in dire straights, regardless of his record. What an asinine law!

A lot of things have changed, since then, and I hope service members are now going to be appreciated for their skills and bravery, not their sexual orientation.

[darkeyes]

so on the surface of it, your argument is simply a case of gay males should be allowed to be in sensitive areas that can jeopardise operations, fuck up civilian military relations, possibly cost the lives of innocent people.... and thats ok cos its all about the right to serve in the military forces......



My argument is nothing of the sort.. my argument quite simply is that gay and bisexual people should be treated like any other serving serviceperson.. I would also argue till I am blue in the face that they should not join the military in the first place for reasons I have outlined on many occasions in these forums. But if they are insistent, then their should be no barrier to whichever area of the services they do serve.. your arguments are fallacious and wrong as time will prove I think..as they have already proved in the militaries of many other countries.. those who serve should be placed in the area of expertise to which they are most fitted based on their capabilities.. no other reason should be a debarment from doing any job.

It is interesting though Duckie.. you keep arguing reasons why gay and bi people should not be allowed to serve.. reasons which have been dismissed by militaries around the world.. if I may ask, when you served, what did they stop you doing? I may have no experience or knowledge of the realities of service life.. but at least I have greater faith in the capacity of gay and bisexual people to do the job for which they enlist, and of most straight servicepeople giving them the respect and trust to which they are entitled.. what an enemy does is irrelevant. how an enemy feels is irrelevant.. how an ally which has a different attitude to homosexuality, alcohol or women feels is irrelevant... as best I know all military personnel are meant to act with respect and decorum while serving abroad wherever they serve, and respect the laws of the country in which they serve.. but while on duty in the field or in camp adhere to the rules of their service.. so just where is the problem? Of course we all know there are arseholes who break just about every rule in the book in every walk of life... no matter their sexuality.. and in that case.. on their own head be it... straight people endanger the lives of their comrades every day in the field.. I suggest you reconsider your argument and let it go.

.. Naive I may be... but not stupid...

[Diva667]

Interesting argument.

As a former service person I see where LDD is going with his argument. However, I think it doesnt hold enough water.

A service person should act professionally. That includes taking your personal life out of the equation. Now, as long as you aren't acting the fool, US military rules prohibit public displays of affection for both straight and gay couples.

The service is very egalitarian that way.

Yes there are always assholes, but that would be true anyways.

I suspect that there will have to be rules about couples serving with each other, and in combat zones, since currently the US military doesn't allow for females to serve in designated combat roles, it hasn't come up until now.

I do recall a certain Maintenance Commander and her husband that served on the same USAF base, he was the Operations Commander, in related roles, I'm not sure how it would be any different for other folks.

Also, on a parting note, you serve at the whim of the service, not the other way around.

[bboy121]

This is seriously great news. Very happy about this development.

[Long Duck Dong]

Interesting argument.

As a former service person I see where LDD is going with his argument. However, I think it doesnt hold enough water.

A service person should act professionally. That includes taking your personal life out of the equation. Now, as long as you aren't acting the fool, US military rules prohibit public displays of affection for both straight and gay couples.

The service is very egalitarian that way.

Yes there are always assholes, but that would be true anyways.

I suspect that there will have to be rules about couples serving with each other, and in combat zones, since currently the US military doesn't allow for females to serve in designated combat roles, it hasn't come up until now.

I do recall a certain Maintenance Commander and her husband that served on the same USAF base, he was the Operations Commander, in related roles, I'm not sure how it would be any different for other folks.

Also, on a parting note, you serve at the whim of the service, not the other way around.

thank you for understanding.......

when I was serving in NZ in the 90s.... the rule was simple, absolutely no identifying personal info or conduct beyond the uniform and dog tags.....

things like a personal pic of a partner was a dent in our * armour * a weakness that could be used against us so there was a very very strict policy of zero identifying material on a person......
even a tattoo with a personal name, was a issue.....

I think that info there will tell you more about what I am posting the way I am and what my thoughts are based around..... our survival depended on it

[Long Duck Dong]

My argument is nothing of the sort.. my argument quite simply is that gay and bisexual people should be treated like any other serving serviceperson.. I would also argue till I am blue in the face that they should not join the military in the first place for reasons I have outlined on many occasions in these forums. But if they are insistent, then their should be no barrier to whichever area of the services they do serve.. your arguments are fallacious and wrong as time will prove I think..as they have already proved in the militaries of many other countries.. those who serve should be placed in the area of expertise to which they are most fitted based on their capabilities.. no other reason should be a debarment from doing any job.

It is interesting though Duckie.. you keep arguing reasons why gay and bi people should not be allowed to serve.. reasons which have been dismissed by militaries around the world.. if I may ask, when you served, what did they stop you doing? I may have no experience or knowledge of the realities of service life.. but at least I have greater faith in the capacity of gay and bisexual people to do the job for which they enlist, and of most straight servicepeople giving them the respect and trust to which they are entitled.. what an enemy does is irrelevant. how an enemy feels is irrelevant.. how an ally which has a different attitude to homosexuality, alcohol or women feels is irrelevant... as best I know all military personnel are meant to act with respect and decorum while serving abroad wherever they serve, and respect the laws of the country in which they serve.. but while on duty in the field or in camp adhere to the rules of their service.. so just where is the problem? Of course we all know there are arseholes who break just about every rule in the book in every walk of life... no matter their sexuality.. and in that case.. on their own head be it... straight people endanger the lives of their comrades every day in the field.. I suggest you reconsider your argument and let it go.

.. Naive I may be... but not stupid...

I would suggest you read my many posts where I have served with lgbt in the nz army and I fully support them in the forces...before you tell me that I am opposed to them in the armed forces......

my argument is that they should serve and be treated like every body else... including isolation from sensitive areas that will place them and others as higher than normal risk and I apply the same rule to every person.....

there are people like me that have a mental illness and so having no conscience or emotions means that putting a bullet in people will not affect us in the way that a pacifist and anti violence person would be affected...... so its better and safer to put us in the firing line than somebody that is gonna have a mental breakdown and place the whole platoon at risk......


so again fran you really show that you lack understanding of military conduct... and now have revealed that you do not even read or understand my support of lgbt in the military over numerous posts, during my time of service......

before you try to tell me I am wrong... make sure you are right in the first place, cos a lesser mortal made a fool out of you

[darkeyes]

I havent said you are opposed to gays and bi's in the military, and would never accuse you of it.. I am saying you keep throwing in doubts and difficulties and stating objections and obstructions where there need be and even are none. So many are the argument of the right wing anti gay lobby which is why it has taken so long to get the policy abolished and in fact was one of the prinicpal reasons DADT was installed in the first instance. These attempts at trying to look at things from every angle have plainly failed and are a principle reason why some do think you are in fact not particularly pro gay or bisexual.

I have always appreciated your ability to try and look at things fairly, but sometimes you take it to the enth degree.. if progress is to be made in this world to making us just another fully accepted sector of society, then sometimes we have to just go with the flow.. and to grab with both hands that which is offered, or fight tooth and nail to even get that offer in the first place..

You may think you have made a fool out of me, and others may agree, and who knows maybe you have, though I very much doubt that.. it is of no consequence in the greater scheme of things.. what is of import is that progress is made, and the abolition of DADT in the US military is progress made... any teething troubles will in time be ironed out, and in time gay and bi militray personnel will prove themselves as valuable as any, and there will be no restrictions on what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot go.. they will earn the trust and respect of those who are not gay and bisexual, just as since time immemorial gay and bi soldiers have among their peers.. and have in other walks of life.

Now that DADT is shortly to disappear, I can get on with my infinitely more important focus in carrying on with my opposition to military activity and war in general, and the wars in Afghansistan and Iraq in particular without this distraction...

[Long Duck Dong]

I havent said you are opposed to gays and bi's in the military, and would never accuse you of it.. I am saying you keep throwing in doubts and difficulties and stating objections and obstructions where there need be and even are none. So many are the argument of the right wing anti gay lobby which is why it has taken so long to get the policy abolished and in fact was one of the prinicpal reasons DADT was installed in the first instance. These attempts at trying to look at things from every angle have plainly failed and are a principle reason why some do think you are in fact not particularly pro gay or bisexual.

I have always appreciated your ability to try and look at things fairly, but sometimes you take it to the enth degree.. if progress is to be made in this world to making us just another fully accepted sector of society, then sometimes we have to just go with the flow.. and to grab with both hands that which is offered, or fight tooth and nail to even get that offer in the first place..

You may think you have made a fool out of me, and others may agree, and who knows maybe you have, though I very much doubt that.. it is of no consequence in the greater scheme of things.. what is of import is that progress is made, and the abolition of DADT in the US military is progress made... any teething troubles will in time be ironed out, and in time gay and bi militray personnel will prove themselves as valuable as any, and there will be no restrictions on what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot go.. they will earn the trust and respect of those who are not gay and bisexual, just as since time immemorial gay and bi soldiers have among their peers.. and have in other walks of life.

Now that DADT is shortly to disappear, I can get on with my infinitely more important focus in carrying on with my opposition to military activity and war in general, and the wars in Afghansistan and Iraq in particular without this distraction...

for crying out loud.... you can not seriously be that blind.....

I am against mannerisms and actions in the military forces that place people at risk....... and that includes ANYBODY in a front line sensitive area.....
but I am the type of person that would act as I ask others too.....

I do not care who people are fucking and sucking in their own time, I do not care if they are monogamous, polygamous, asexual or fucking barney the dinosaur....... but don't place yourself or your fellow soldier in danger cos of ignorance or personal agenda......

there is a time and a place for your sexuality and your personal life.... and during active mission status and live firing, neither of them should even registrar on a single braincell in your head......

now let me spell this out for you.... that rule applies to everybody, LGBT, straight, dog fuckers, necrophilacs etc..... cos you do not see heteros, dog fuckers or necrophilacs doing banner waving, symbol wearing and holding parades..... its the lgbt that do that..... and that makes them a visible target..... and in a war zone, visible targets are the first ones taken out

that is why in the nam war, soldiers were told never salute a officer.... he would be shot by snipers.....

for the most part, there is no reason for anybody to reveal their sexuality in the armed services unless they want to fuck others in the forces or they have a partner that is the same gender..... and if you do not have a partner of the same gender, nobody needs to know as it serves no purpose...... as heteros well know....

[darkeyes]

..and where Duckie have I said anything different? Thank you for making my case for me.. saves me the trouble of saying anything more...:)

.. now.. about ending these stupid wars...;)