THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR SAYING GAY MILITARY MEMBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE OPENLY. DADT goes against what our nation was founded on, freedom, courage, honor, sence of national pride and the defence of our liberties. Gay military members do the same job as non gay members with just as much pride while having the burden of being focred to live double lives in fear of being found out. We have lost too many good qualifed service members due to this unfair policy. It's time to do away with unfair laws, that serve nothing but to make the religious right happy. Military leaders agree that gays are not a theat to national security, would not distroy morale or weaken our military. We would be able to gain more military personal to defend our nation and her intrests. Thank you again.

Evidently opinions that don't agree with President Obama's plan to legitimatize sodomy in the armed forces are not acceptable on this venue.

Before President Obama removes restrictions on sodomists in the armed services, he should read the book THE NEW JOY OF GAY SEX. There used to be limited-access copies of the book in the St. Joseph Public Library. Their display in the library lobby caused a public outcry against them having been purchased, much less on display where children had access to them, bu it was quelled when an official from the Kansas City office of the ACLU appeared at a public meeting and threatened to sue the Library Board if the books were suppressed. Just reading the Table of Contents is enough to make the case against the book without seeing the illoustrations in it.Ah well, Obama is changing everything.

WAY TO GO MR. PRESIDENT...ANOTHER STEP CLOSER TOWARD EQUALITY...Everyone should have a chance to protect our country and if gays want to take a chance on going to war and dying for my freedom..let 'em..now we just need to pass the law letting them marry..

Great! Now they can hold hands and skip from fox hole to fox hole.

i must say i am gladdened to hear this final step toward equality . i hope that there will not be lengthy delay of this long overdue equal application of human rights. once we had segregated our troops by color, and soon i look for the day when the rainbow is complete.

It's sad that Obama is willing to put political correctness ahead of our nations defense. Those who serve in the military overwhelmingly support the current policy at a minimum if not taking an even harsher stance against homosexuality in the armed forces. The few "military leaders" who support the end of the current policy are overwhelmingly political creatures who owe their career advancement to those such as Obama. It is also silly to use the discredited race policies of the past as an excuse to endorse homosexual service as the issue at hand is clearly that of sexual attraction, not the color of one's skin, the creed one professes, ect....

Obviously the common soldier, and not some libertine either in the White House or sitting at their computer in St. Joe MO, best understands the impact of allowing open homosexual service. Considering the close quarters environment involved with military life it is absurd to force heterosexuals to be forced to "expose" themselves, quite literally, to homosexuals. For those who support Obama's stance, are you willing to endorse coed barracks for the military in which young women and men shower, use the bathroom, and sleep together in all stages of their military service beginning with basic training? The analogy is the same.

what next...women or people of color in the military?! they'll want to do their hair or listen to hip hop in the barracks...sorry Newman, this is not about political correctness

In the first place, there have been gay men and women in the military since there has been a military. If our presence among you makes you uncomfortable, that is just too bad. Get over it.

Do we as straight people lust after the opposite sex? Do we act on the lustful feelings? I don't and I'm guessing that most people don't either. Why do we as a society think gay men and women are all about the sex? As for the trotting fox hole to foxhole hand in hand...are you kidding me? How many people have been through basic training? Did they teach trotting? I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of the survival course. You have men and women out there who love this country, who are willing to subject themselves to the hardships & trials of military life, who are physically & mentally capable of defending this great nation. Who cares if they are gay or straight? The don't ask, don't tell policy should have applied to heterosexuals as well.
Sexual preference should have no bearing on ones ability to serve in the military.

AS far as legitimatizing sodomy in the military, where did you read that? The president did not say go have sex in a fox hole, ship, or airplane hanger. He said that we have many qualified talented individuals who also happen to be gay that can server our nation just as well as any heterosexual individual. I served for 4 years in our Navy; I served with honor, courage and commitment. I did what I felt was right with my sense of pride for my country. I am a gay veteran and did my job better than some heterosexuals. My personal space onboard the ship which controlled hazardous materials was as the shore based inspection crew put it "the most squared away space on any ship they had ever seen". As far as living in close quarters and sexual attraction goes, I scoff at the nay sayers. While I may have been attracted to some of my shipmates I never once acted upon my feelings. Just like heterosexuals I have self control. My job was priority number one. What I have never understood is when gay men and women are made out to be some type of sex crazed rapist. Just because we like to have relations with men does not mean we are going to sleep with someone just because they are the same sex or we are attracted to them in. I don't want to sleep with heterosexuals, I don't want to sleep with every man I see, and I will never force myself upon someone who does not want to have sex with me. While there were men I was attracted to I became their friend, their shipmate and their protector if needed. I did not due this to get in their good graces because they attractive or because I wanted in their pants I did so because it was my job, my duty, my honor to do so, for they were my shipmate, my family, my protector if needed.

However I can tell you that some of my shipmates did not follow the same decorum as me and sex with one another did become a problem a time or two. Individuals were caught having sex onboard the ship and they were slightly reprimanded for it. They were not tried under any of the UMCJ laws nor were they kicked out of the military for their lack of concern for the rules. This seemed strange to me as I lived in fear of being found out. What may surprise you is the fact that these individuals were heterosexuals having heterosexual sex, many in other relationships off the ship and a few married also. Yes the heterosexuals on our ship causing the problems not our closeted service members. Allowing gay service members to serve openly will make our jobs easier for us and safer for us. We live in constant fear of being found out and we live with the fear that if something were to happen to us to for being gay at the hands of another member of the military member that we can't even say anything in our own defense and try to bring our attackers to justice. I don't care whose fighting beside me in battle I care about getting the job done and getting home safely. We have lost gay service members who are translators whose job it is to listen and read to find out what the enemy is going to do and give this information to our troops to help them in their missions. I am sure they don't care who someone is sleeping with but are concerned about returning home to their families I have fought for you, I didn't turn my back on you, I risked my life for this country for your family for you. I gave up some of myself for this nation. I think with what I have done it is not too much of me to ask of you to support me and allow me to serve our nation as an openly gay male.

Let's return to reality. singlemomof3 have you taken time to look at the incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct among men and women in the military as the co-mingling of sexes has increased? From illegitimacy to broken marriages we have been left with a pathetic legacy that only serves to indicate the failure of politically correct agendas in our nation's military. Furthermore, ask almost anyone in the military how these increasing incidents impact the morale of our combat forces. Do you honestly believe things will be better if you throw homosexuals into the mix? (Of course, I have to admit at least illegitimate births shouldn't be an issue. ;-)

chefxh, your comment actually indicates the wisdom of "don't ask, don't tell". the reality is that there will always be homosexuals among us and I'm sure they have served quite well in many cases. the issue, tying into incindiary's point, is that typically, unlike someone's gender or race, one's homosexuality is largely unknown unless they choose to flaunt it. The problem arises when one chooses to act upon homosexual urges and destroys the morale of the unit as a whole. It is simply impossible to serve effectively as a fighting unit when you or the spouse left at home cannot trust the person next to you in the foxhole to be totally focused upon your well being as part of a celibate relationship. Those who argue otherwise clearly have not served our country in this capacity.

Furthermore, there is no better example of where these social engineering games leave the military than with the Israeli armed forces. Once arguably the best fighting force per man in the world they have became mediocre at best as political correctness has eroded their morale and resulting fighting ability. Just look how poorly they have done in their last few military engagements.

The US Armed Forces exist to protect our nation, not as a laboratory experiment for those who wish to ignore human nature and place us all at peril.

tydej, I read your comments after my last post and salute your service to our country.

I also must point out, however, how your comments both buttress my point concerning illegitimate heterosexual relationships while also illustrating the wisdom of "don't ask - don't tell". You served your country well and your homosexuality was not an issue as it was unknown. Had you chosen to publicize it, however, you would have lost the trust of many of your fellow servicemen that you were truly only interested in their best interest. In the end this knowledge, particularly if it involved an intimate relationship with a fellow sailor, would have been just as damaging to morale as were the heterosexual relationships you rightly condemn.

newman, being closeted and not out can be on many levels, many in my command knew I was gay, as my friends on the ship were friends off the ship. I was out to some and did not discuss with others; I'm sure many or thought they knew. My sexuality was never a concern they knew I was there for my job and nothing else. My boyfriend and I went to many get togethers at my shipmates homes. We as a nation have made others fear homosexuals. In my experience I have seen that once a homophoic person gets to know someone gay many of the fears they have subside. They they only diffrence is the people we fall in love with. Our love for this country is the same. Our military is changing and many high ranking officals understand many of the fears and reasons for not allowing openly gay men and women are unfounded. Next months Armed Forces magizine has a great article in support of allowing open service insted of conducting witchhunts as is current policis. The faulsehoods of gay service members are being shown what they are. People need not fear us celebrate us protectors of the rights and freedoms most of us enjoy today.

well, i was in the USMC, we didn't have gay soldiers that i knew of. it don't think i would have wanted to serve with a gay soldier. if i did it was keep silent to me. i was in viet nam and i can tell you the guy's i was with were not. we didn't have women and didn't have to deal with heterosexual sex on the sly. if i knew someone in my unit was gay i would definitely stay clear and have nothing to do with them. I'm not a gay bas her, just don't think the action of gayness and cant understand the sickness involved in it.it is not for me and not for my eye's. it bothers me to witness it on t.v. and will leave if it presents itself to me in public. we all deserve to live and be happy, i think the different skin color and the gay thing in the military is all together different and Obama should know that. so should we all.i don't have to deal with it and don't think another soldier should either. just my thoughts , you don't have to agree, if you don't that's fine. neither one of us will loose sleep either way.

As a member the American Legion, I personaly know individuals who served in Vietnam who were and are still gay. I am not saying that we need to parade our sexuality about but we should be allowed to be honest. Ones fighting ability has nothing to do with sexuality. I ask you if you don't want to fight with a homosexual would you also turn away the gay waiter, gay emt personal, gay Dr.? You may not know how many gay individuals you encounter within the course of your day but we are everywhere. Our nation is so hung up on sexuality that some people can't look at the person and seperate the two. Religion and lies is what has been used to deney rights and privlidges to gay individuals, the same is true for the 60's civil rights, the expantion of this country to the west and the first settlements in North America against the native peoples. While we may not share the same political and religious views at times, I wonder how one use such things to not allow others the same right granted to them. Are we not all created equal? Why should my sexuality and not my conduct outside the bedroom be of concern when defending my country? We should truly focus on ones abilty not of who I go to bed with at the end of the day.

The DADT practice was a dodge around the fact that being gay is against the law inside the military. It is merely a law that is ignored, provided the gay soldier doesn't tell (or get caught) and is willing to live a lie. Obama COULD make a decree dismissing the DADT but he cannot change the law. That will require Congress (who passed it in the first place) so the lack of action isn't exactly Obama's intent. Since he was a Senator, I suspect he is especially sensitive to the balance of power that was so frequently tilted by Bush and by Rove and Cheney into excessive Presidential Power plays, flagrant violations of our Founding Fathers' intentions.
I would have to add that I think it is a strategic error for the gay and lesbian people to throw their lot in with the issues of bisexuality and transexualism/transvestitism. It is not the general public view to see these variations as a part of the DADT issue and merely clouds the issue in the minds of the opposition.

"Homophobic", huh? Oh well, call it what you want but the reality is that homosexual acts are, setting aside any religious qualms, physically and psychologically damaging to the involved parties. Without getting any too many specifics I think it's safe to say that knowing the human anatomy as I believe we all do it just ain't made for acts of sodomy. This is the ultimate difference between one's race or religion, in that whether one is black or white, Baptist or Hindu, it not only does not have a negative impact upon them personally but also does not inhibit their ability to live in close quarters with their peers as military service often dictates.

Ultimately, regarding homosexuals serving in the armed forces the issue is not what is good for you, tydej, but for the good of the military as a whole. There is again no question that individuals openly homosexual serving in the military are not compatible with the morale of a strong military.

Lastly, this discussion as any involving homosexual "rights" begs the question of just what do gay right supporters want? On one hand we once again have individuals claiming that they should have the right to live their private sexual lives as they see fit, and yet they are paradoxically proclaiming their sexuality publically for all to acknowledge and ultimately to condone. It would seem that the best solution for all concerned would be for those insisting in engaging in homosexual acts to not only retain DADT in the military but also have the good sense, and good taste, to practice it in their personal life as well and quit cramming it down everyone's throat,

I don't force any one to condone my sexuality only to respect me as a person and not hold things back from me. I know that close quarters cohabitation can happen given proper education and respect from both sides. Racial equality took the same steps within the ranks and thoes who could not or will not accept those changes or as is the norm now are delt with and either with the change or discharged. I don't make my sexuality an issues, it's others who make it an issue. In our nation we are that we are created equal yet many times due the fear of the unknow we as a country try to limit freedoms. As far as homosexuality being a causing mental health concerns, much of that goes back to how we are treated. As far as heath risks, we all place ourselfs at some risk and not everyone has negitive heath problems due to sexual intercourse. I know many women who ingage in many of same sexual pratices as gay men yet they are not attacked as gay men are. Newman I truly hope you do not take our conversations as attacks I do not intend for them to be taken that way nor do I take your words as such. I enjoy other perspectives than mine but speak with passion on subjects that directly affect me or others I know. Too many times on here there is nothing but hatetred said on here.

i too am tired of this subject. it is not one of my favorites by far. i agree with Newman in the fact that if you don't agree with the gay way of thinking you are homophobic. i have been waited on by gay waiters and show them respect. i dote have a problem with talking to gay people, it is just that i never will agree with the act of it . to me it is sic. at the same time i don't think anyone should take rights away from you. nor should you forced me to feel about what you do behind closed doors is OK. i really don't know how to explain it other than to say i don't understand why you would be so screwed up with your life.i understand attraction, and love , but this is just perverted.

"ANOTHER STEP TOWARD EQUALITY?"

"THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA?"

He did NOTHING!!! He made another speech, emphasized by the fact that he's done nothing else!!! This speech was no different than the campaing - more words no action!

Were you guys on the Nobel committe? Jeez this is just absurd. Will you sheep deny it all the way to the slaughterhouse?

Heritage did you really just buy this crap? Seriously? I'm disappointed.

liberty I do not see my life as screwd up as you put it just diffrent than yours. I am not forcing life upon you nor would I do that to anyone. I am not a pervert just because I have sex with another man. I am glad you are for treating me as an equal in our society, I would expect nothing else. I never said that if you disagree with my views or gay culture that it makes you wrong or homophobic. I was refering to the fear many have towards the gay community due to lack of knowledge or misconceptions for a number of diffrent reasons. The gay community often falls victim to falsehoods which lead to fear, panic an often results in ones inability to see fairly and just. I understand my life is diffrent in some ways than yours but moreover others and myself within the gay community are more alike to you than most comprehend. Understanding each other can only enlighten us all and build relationships rather than burning bridges.

sorry liberty my last should have been addressed to donaldo

lord. i am completely in accord with the decision to rescind DADT.

i believe that hate crimes take place against homosexuals.

i believe that no one should make assumptions about any human being with the simple basis of sexuality.

i have beloved family and friends who should never have intellectually and emotionally stunted jerks feel that it is just fine to see a homosexual before they see a PERSON.

having lived in many municipalities, i can say that i find st joseph to be a very tolerant community.

Ty, Ty, Ty. You don't know that I am who I am, but I know you and you know me.

Let's hava a little experiment, shall we?

Would you care to share how Obama's latest speech is any different than his campaign speeches? In other words, has he done anything other than say things? Given that he has done nothing but speak, why does he deserve even more praise? Even you can't deny he's done nothing and I know for a fact you're disappointed in his performance - so why stand up for the guy? If he doesn't reflect your views, ALL OF THEM, why endorse him? That's a big problem with America - voting for the lesser of two evils as if thos are the only other options. We need to DEMAND that proper media coverage occurs with our tea, independent and libertarian parties - and any others that take root. Stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

In case you were wondering, we are friends. Haven't seen you in a bit but I'd like to think you'd still buy me a drink if we saw each other out and about.

tydej,
Your posts are some of the first I've seen from a gay individual, or at the very least, a gay-positive individual, that were respectful and thoughtful.
I'm in the military, and I have no doubt that there are gay individuals serving with me right now. I understand that. I don't even have a problem with those who are currently serving being honest about their sexuality. However, to be "in your face" about it will only cause more problems. Respect goes both ways. Much of the time, I see the gay community demanding respect, but apparently seem to be very unwilling to give any.
I don't fear having a gay individual in my work area, or even in my living quarters, were I to be deployed. There are already regulations regarding behavior between servicemembers. I have no doubt that those regulations will take care of any situations that might possibly arise.

Heritage, I was refering to the undeserved praise you were bestowing on the Idiot In Charge for his, "effort."

Not refering to your approval of DADT, but please Heritage, you're starting to sound like a politician with your "approval list."

Easy killer, you're fast becoming one of them.

Heritage, I would like to open you up to the notion that using the word, "person" implies something non-human. As an apparent staunch defender of human rights, I would submit that you can get the ball rolling by refering to humans as just that in the future.

The very idea that humans use such a word speaks volumes to the programming we've received. Just as calling a dork friend a, "retard" downplays the seriousness of such a condition, so does the word "person" downplay the basic human element.

I am not an actor nor do I project a facade, therefore I am not a person, I am a human.

Perhaps LibertyOrDeath should consult the dictionary prior to unleashing further rants:

Person: - noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: exp. The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology: an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: exp. You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: exp. He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: exp. an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.

Personally, I'd venture that heritage had it right....and LibertyOrDeath is merely a literary "loose cannon"......

i must say i am gladdened to hear this final step toward equality . i hope that there will not be lengthy delay of this long overdue equal application of human rights. once we had segregated our troops by color, and soon i look for the day when the rainbow is complete.

________________________________________________________________

no mention is made here of the President. you imputed that praise. i am not partisan in my comments. my gratitude at this next step towards understanding and equality is not diminished by which political party or occupant of the office of the presidency is making the progress. i choose not to decry everything that emanates from this President simply because i disagree with many of his other policies.

i am not able to support either party and their individual compulsions to move further to the left or right to gain power. rather, i consider myself to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

I think the ultimate issue that we must keep in mind is that people with homosexual tendencies are deserving of respect and kindness just as are all human beings. That said, as part of that respect we have the obligation to point out behaviors by homosexuals or others that are not only harmful to themselves, but to society as a whole. Hate the sin; love the sinner if you will.

Keep in mind that even in Scandinavian countries and other nations where homosexuality has long been accepted the incidence of psychological issues with homosexuals far exceeds that of the normal population. The myriad of physical and psychological issues that homosexuals suffer from is not just a function of our societies "intolerance" as some would claim. It is simply wrong to encourage or condone homosexual behavior not only due to the harm it causes homosexuals but because in our society if something is legal it is viewed as being an acceptable or "good" choice. Consequently it is not right to encourage in any way anyone afflicted with homosexual attractions to act upon these urges and set themselves up for a lifetime of suffering.

We must get away from this mindset that individual liberties must take precedent over the common good, particularly concerning matters of sexuality. The reality is that ones sex life does affect all, whether it be addressing the impact of the rising rates of illegitimacy or funding the ongoing health crisis caused by STDs and AIDs. It is simply absurd to add to our nation's problems by indoctrinating homosexual behavior in our society, whether it be through open practice in the military or gay "marriage".

zounds. glad i don't run into many folks who espouse that particular mindset, newman.

what two men or women do in their private lives is none of my business. i served in the military untill i retired. knew several gays who served along side of me. i never paid any attention to it. do your job was all i ever ask of men in my division. so let them serve,they bleed just like me.

on the other hand,if this passes i wouldn't want it shoved in my face. i respect his or her rights,just respect my christian value that teach me its a sin. not my rule,jesus,s.

Whether you are against it or not, here is another example of Obama's actions not matching his rhetoric. Obama was once again pandering to his audience. The only thing consistent about this President is the inability to make a decision or take any action to back up his words.

go newman, you keep hitting it on the nailhead.i agree with you 100%. if i could only explain it as good as you do. you go man, keep up the good work explainning the subject of sin and what we dont want pushed in our lives.

The appropriate headline should have been.........

OBAMA PAYS OFF POLITICAL DEBT.....!

Or, perhaps

OBAMA IGNORES THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE MAJORITY

Or, equally correct,

OBAMA MAINTAINS POLITICALLY CORRECT POSTURE

Or, maybe.......

I'M A CHRISTIAN.....BUT IGNORE IT'S FUNDAMENTAL VALUES
WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO DO SO....

The one thing you can count on with good old, Barack, is that he will do what is expedient, at the moment.

liberity seeing you know me (can't figure out who you are) and we are friends of course I would still sit down n have a drink with you. That said this not going to be something is changed over night and will take time. I voted for the stronger person who was closer to my views. For me voiting against McKain was not done so without thought due to his background. I know also voted for who I felt my best intrests in mind.
As far as gay individals being and health concers I ask this individual if they understand what communities are seeing the fastest new infection rates. I ask if you how HIV is passed from one to another and why gay men have a high risk of infection. What group has the greater risk of contracting a STD. I have found many who toss about such information can not in fact answer these questions. It amazes me in this day and age the lack of knowledge the majority of our population has towards STD's.
As far the in your face attitudes about gays serving openly I don't see where this would be a concern as our militay would uphold it's members to the same set of cor values that are in place now. I woyldn't a pink uniform or to skip about base. I do however wish I could speak open and not have to replace the she for he or her for him. When I have to replace these words it makes a person lie and does not allow others to truly know us. What would have given when I returned from my Gulf tour to have my boyfriend waiting for me on the peir to welcome me home safely, to throw my arms around him yes maybe a quick kiss after being being seperated for so long. It would have been wonderful, yet I didn't the same homecomming as my shipmates, I had to wait till I was off base and back at our home before I could do this because we willed in fear of either of our commands finding out about us. It's the simplest things I am seeking that many str8 people take for granted each day. I want to bring him to Family Day, the command pinic in the summer and command Holiday Balls. I want to be able to be honest and really allow others know who I am not who I pretend to be.

it's not so much ignoring "christian values" when it's convenient to do so, as much as it is ignoring them when they're wrong.

GLBT have JUST as much of a right to be open with themselves as anyone else. There ARE gay people in the military right now and it is still a good military. It is so sad to see people thinking that everyone will just be having sex and blah blah blah. I know several men in the military and they are some of the crudest, NOT closed-about-their-heterosexuality that I've ever met. How is this right?

tydej is right. How would you feel if every time you wanted to say "my boyfriend" you had to say "my girlfriend" instead? That's not fair to anyone, and it is discrimination. Thank goodness Obama REALIZES that, even if it will take him a while to implement it.

christian values have been used for many years to opress those who do not see things their way. most of the wars this country have used used christian values to justify the cruel unfair and unjust actions. many have lost land, their freedom and their lives because good christians feel they are a lesser person. why is it that you when you look at the facts you can continue to stand behind a religion that has brought so much pain hate and death to the world. hate is hate no matter what you wrap that package up in

Sorry, but it's a cop-out to say that Christian views have been used to oppress those who don't see their way. I agree that some "christians" use their religion in an unholy way, and aren't respectful of those people they disagree with. However, it's not fair to blame all Christians for the failures of a few. I'd point out that Christianity is far less judgemental toward gays compared to, say, Islam.
All that said, I'd still maintain that the largest problem is that militant gays have been "in your face" with their viewpoints so much, and have actively attempted to make dissent illegal, it's no wonder people refuse to accept them. It's partially in fear of losing our right to free speech!!
I'd also like to point out that I can't understand how gays can be so militant about wanting to be open, and express their sexuality freely in the military, while I am not allowed to express my Christian beliefs openly and freely. Perhaps I'd be less inclined to oppose the gay community's desire for open sexual expression in the military if they were equally involved in seeing to it I can say "God Bless You" at a military funeral without fear of retribution or disciplinary action.

Amen, pops.

Returning to the DADT issue I think it's interesting to note the basis of the arguments for and against homosexuals serving openly in the military. Most of those in favor continually cite their "feelings" while those opposed generally approach it from a viewpoint of the common good. At the end of the day the issue is not what's best for ME or YOU but US. Personal rights, even involving those sexual in nature, contrary to what the libertines will argue, must have limits in some cases in deference to the common good.

As an example, the right of one to smoke has been forbidden for years on airlines because it is acknowledged that an individual's smoking would be harmful to other passengers. Furthermore, one reason smoking is forbidden is no matter how strong the urge to smoke is, it is ultimately a choice that one makes when the smoke.

Such is the case with openly homosexuals serving in the military. You can argue all day about your personal rights but these cannot supersede the common good, in this case the morale of our armed forces. Sure one can argue justly that most homosexuals will not act upon a sexual attraction they may have toward a fellow soldier and the same is true with heterosexuals serving with members of the opposite sex. The problem, as tydej and others have pointed out, is many do act upon these urges, however, with grave consequences for the morale of the troops. And even if they do not act, the mere suspicion of improper behavior can be devastating to morale.

Again factor in the reality that homosexuality, just as with smoking returning to that analogy, is harmful to those practicing such a lifestyle and there is just another argument as to why such practices should not be encouraged in the military, which would be the case if we were to allow homosexuals to openly serve. Ultimately by accepting homosexuality you would in the eyes of most condone it.

Lastly, let's put to rest the issue of race verses homosexuality. One cannot choose what race they are while the homosexual lifestyle is a choice that one chooses to act upon. Sure you can even argue that one may even be genetically programmed to have homosexual tendencies but that is still not a license to act upon them any more than it would be acceptable for those who are predisposed to violence or alcoholism to succumb to their urges.

Again, this is not what YOU feel is best for YOU, but what human nature tells US is best for US.

Thorn, please tell me where you get off saying "it's OK to gang rape women in the military"? Please provide ANY evidence in which the military have indicated it's OK to rape ANYONE!!
Your ignorance and intolerance is astounding!!

Newman, I don't agree that gays are detrimental to the military. As it's already been pointed out, there are, undoubtedly, gays already serving, and serving with distinction, I might add, in today's military. The difference is, they don't act on their sexuality. I might also say that in today's military, it's also not OK for a guy to act on HIS attraction to a female. If she turns down his advance, and he doesn't stop, the repercussions are extremely severe. I'd say that the same regulations that govern inappropriate heterosexual contact would equally cover inappropriate homosexual contact as well. I'm really not worried about the President's call to end DADT. For the most part, those military members who ARE gay will, more than likely, continue to serve with professionalism and respect. I'm rather certain they would rather not pay the consequences if they don't.

I think we agree on gays in the military, pops. My issue is again with homosexuals OPENLY serving in the military. I have no doubt that there are many fine servicemen and women with homosexual tendencies such as tydej that have served our country with distinction.

Note the previous comment actually describes two seperate incidents of one Dawn Leamon(age 42/medic under contract with KBR who was allegedly raped by US soldiers in 2008) and Jamie Leigh Jones (who was 20 in 2005 when she was allegedly drugged and gang raped by KBR employees while in Iraq).

pops: Before you go an accuse me of being 'ignorant and intolerant', you might want to look up these two cases and realize my original comment was that the US military, while not endorsing this violence against women directly, have KBR subcontract the acts under contract language prohibiting their female employees who have suffered these acts no access to bring charges against their attackers.
While you're at it, look up Jamie Leigh and see this beautiful young woman who was the alleged victim. Look into those eyes. Those once innocent eyes.
There's a whole lot I could say in retaliation to your assessment of me, but i'm not going to do that today. Just know that i'm not the one here who is being 'ignorant and intolerant'.

To the 'Obama has done nothing but give speeches' crowd. You start with the idea of a proposal that will be the ultimate goal of those ideas when they are made concrete through action. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to convince any of us who have heard his speeches and give him the benefit of the doubt because if he fails to follow through on what he has promised, it's not like any of you are going to vote for him in a second term because we are the ones who will be holding him accountable.
Now go back to pushing Sarah Palin in 2012, please. That's the candidate we're hoping the republicans will nominate because even if Obama were to fail completely, he would still win a second term over that bloated-psychotic-religious-nutcase-quitter-bimbo.

Thorn said:
"It's ok to gang rape women in the military, or subcontract it out subsidiaries of Haliburton"

Again, oh ignorant imbicilic one....please show me where ANYONE in the US military says it's "OK to rape women".

It's amazing how I have tried twice to post some information on here and each time the words I write don't appear after. I did not use hateful words of that words that a be considered wrong in a public forum, only if medical terms would be considered such.

Seems like this whole world has become: Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.

What a waste of time Wake Up there is ALOT more important issues.Look around yet look back on life where are we?We are discussing a issue that should not be decided by anyone using my taxes.What is wrong with everyone?We as Humans Beings should lead and help by a set of morals.I could care less who the guy next to me is with.He can keep his personal preference to himself.Not my place. He has to answer to a higher power and i'm not it.So now look around How many kids are beatn to death by uneducated parent's,how many are going hungry, how many jobs are being lost or already lost,we are going further and further in debt with no money coming in.Don't everyone no matter who you are think that there is ALOT more important things to fix?

tydej, I have had a similar problem with posts occasionally in the past. Presuming you're not just going over the limit of the size of the posts allowed you, I would suggest you contact the site monitor if you haven't already. He should be able to fix the issue or he might confirm that some words you're attempting to use aren't allowed for whatever reason.

Mr. Joe, I agree our society has become schizophrenic. That's why we have to get off the fence and fight the good fight. The most valuable weapon for those destroying our culture is the ambivalence of the majority, who know what is right and wrong but don't want to be viewed as "intolerant". The resulting moral relativism has left us in the mess our society is in today.

Personally, I don't care if I'm labeled "intolerant". What concerns me is the militant side of SEVERAL organizations that want to have my "intolerant" speech considered a "hate crime". It's entirely possible, were some gay organizations to have their way, for me to actually be arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin.

I'll try this again in a few parts. When I was speaking of christian values and the ones who use words and actions to push others away I was talking to the leaders who influence the their followers. We have had individuals leading mainstream religious that have blamed gays for the 9-11 attacks and for the destruction caused by hurricanes in the gulf states. The same leaders have said that a children's television character was gay because he was purple and carried a purse. These same leaders have called for boycotts of Disney, Pepsi and other major companies because they have extended health benefits to same sex partners. This is the misuse of christian values that I speak of.
I also wonder why people call being open about my sexuality being "in-your-face". Is it in your face if I desire to walk down the street hand in hand with my boyfriend when heterosexuals do this every day, is it in your face when I want to kiss to my boyfriend in public when heterosexuals couples do the same. I have been out to dinner when men stand up and announce to the rest of the building that the girl they are with has said yes to taking his hand in marriage. I have been to ball games where a man will use the big screen to ask for their girlfriends hand in marriage. Would you consider that in your face. Have they left their sexuality in the bedroom at that point, I think not.

Christian values also would also include Methodist minister John Chivington of Denver who in 1864 used his christian values to murder at as records state over 150 Indian men women and elderly men at Sand Creek, Colorado; while the fighting warriors were out hunting. WHat makes this even more appalling is the fact that after the attack Preacher John as he was called displayed a pile of of hacked of Indian penises to a cheering crowed while others in his attacking group wore the stretched put vaginal skinks of the women over their hats. No one in the crowd or Denver at the time say anything wrong or disturbing about these acts. In fact they were so happy with the actions that they later made Preacher John a deputy sheriff of town. This was a man of god who was killing people because the United States was expanding west and the "Red Devils" did not fit into the plan as they did not believe in the same religion as the white European's.

tydej,
You had me on board until you started bringing up 1864. Please don't bring the tired old arguement of the Indian oppression by "christians" or the Spanish Inquisition....
That, sir, is out of line for today....let's keep it in the present, shall we??