Many of the same arguments opposing repeal of DADT are the same arguments used to oppose racial integration in 1948. Unit cohesion, yada yada. President Truman said, in effect, "You bigots will just have to get over it." And they did. Today the armed forces are arguably the most color-blind institutions in the country.

Too bad President Obama doesn't have the political courage President Truman did. Truman did it in an election year, too.

I love how you conflate skin color to sexual choice BH, as clueless as ever.

We've just witnessed the largest intelligence failure in the history of the US, quite possibly of any country, and it was committed by a homosexual soldier in a combat zone.

Yeah, got your six was fairly accurate there, he had it buried to the hilt as he enjoyed his plot to steal and divulge military, state and intelligence secret information to the world because of his feelings of inadequacy. You could even say he was all butt hurt about it and decided to share his trauma.

That is the prime reason why DADT needs to remain a policy.

So if this guy was serving openly what he did would have been worse? Or DADT, which didn't prevent this guy doing what he did, should be preserved because...why, exactly?

One issue has nothing to do with the other, Mr Gmac.

Let's play BH game. Many of the same arguments opposing repeal of DADT are the same arguments used to oppose allowing child molesters murderers and felons to serve.

Or you could go this way also. Many of the same arguments opposing allowing child molesters, murderers and felons to serve are the same arguments used to oppose racial integration in 1948.

So, in Wayne's mind, being gay is equivalent to being a murderer, child molester or felon.

But liberals are the real bigots. Got it.

No shit, Sherlock.

But let's make the military THE place for social engineering. It would be nice if the proponents of gays serving would actually look at the structure of the military, instead of attempting to impose their idea of "social justice " on it. Doesn't work that way--when you enlist, you voluntarily cede many rights normally enjoyed in civilian life.

The very LAST thing we need at this juncture is a program that will inevitably be mis-applied.

At the least, listen to the leaders--they may just have a better grasp of their jobs than Congress.

Again, Gramps, you sound just like the opponents of racial integration in 1948.

What concerns me if DADT is repealed is then you will have one more thing for someone to claim they are being persecuted for. One more thing to give "Special Accomodations" for.

I understand it's frustrating for homosexual members of the military to feel like they are living a lie, but to be completely honest, NO ONES SEXUALITY OR SEX LIFE SHOULD BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION ANYWAY straight or gay.

I know it won't happen, but I could care less who is porking who.

Sick of hearing about this already. Just like a Womans right to choose. If your going to do it, do it. Just dont flaunt it in our face, cause I dont want to see it. And do not want to pay for it.

You are not recognized as something special.

Bruce Henry never dissapoints. He draws insane analogies and thinks he made a point. What a dunderhead.

I think we should first and foremost listen only to the front line troops. They are the ones in harms way. They are the ones that need to feel comfortable with their brothers in arms. They are the ones risking it all for us. Not the pinheaded officers that are going for fastrack promotions because they "played the game" with the political side of the citizenry.

As a veteran and not an officer, I day leave the military alone. The front lines soldiers do all the heavy lifting. If they allow openly gay soldiers in, you can bet you will see a great reduction in enlistments. Most of our fine troops do not hail from large, urban, "enlightened" areas. ww

"Bruce Henry never dissapoints."

More like, Bruce Henry never makes a point. Although he is good at hyperbole and nuance.

Well, in 1948, Willie, racial integration was opposed by over 60% of military personnel. I'm sure that white soldiers didn't "feel comfortable" serving with soldiers they considered their inferiors at first.

But they were told by their commanders, and their Commander-in-Chief, to simply get past their prejudices and do their jobs. And guess what? They did. And they will again.

Gay people aren't going away. They are not going to quit demanding equality. Anti-gay bigots can either adjust, or be swept aside by history as anti-black bigots were.

I hate to address you directly Bruce, because it would be futile. But if you cannot see the difference between 400 years of slavery and all of a sudden white soldiers have to allow them to serve, which was the right decision and a sexual "orientation" and the "orientation" is basically the desire of a male to place his penis into the rectum of men, then you are an idiot. I am not saying you don't have the right to think that is fine, but their are many who find that act a sexual deviancy. How can front line troops, who have so much to worry about, need another stressor. Like I stated. I served. The military grunt troops do not want this. Period. This is simply a social engineering project to curry favor of a voting block, which is very small. The military shouldn't be used for politics and/or sex acceptance. ww

As a retired AF MSgt I have to agree with the CoS's assessments. Probably not the best time to be working this. No matter how much I've been against DADT since the beginning, changing social policy in the middle of ongoing combat ops is a bad idea.

However, no matter what gets said in the next few weeks, one way or the other DADT is going away. Either through the legislative process where it can be done in a staged and controlled manner over time and lessen the impact on our troops, or by a Judge who says, "Look, it's unconstitutional, get over it, it's done, TODAY."

Arguing with the weather has always seemed to me to be a large and exhausting waste of time.

Good thing attitudes like yours are an anachronism, Willie. Hold on as tight as you like, you'll be swept aside by history sooner or later.

It's no surprise that soldiers in frontline combat units would oppose the repeal of DADT. They've grown up with a macho, I-hate-fags mindset. But they'll do as they're told by their commanders, if they are the soldiers we think they are, and they'll be fine in a few years, just as white soldiers in 1949-50 were.

I'm still waiting for the integrated bunks, bathrooms, etc. If it's the straight man's problem for not wanting his privates viewed by a homosexual, it's the woman's bigotry for not wanting her's viewed by a straight male....right?

I really get a kick out of that bit about "macho, I hate fags mindset", Bruce. That alone tells me you have little or no idea about military service. And if you DID serve, you must have been asleep during your tour.

On a different post, I mentioned unit cohesion, and the importance of maintaining same. It's of primary importance in a front-line unit--doesn't take a genius to figure why. Not a good idea to imperil cohesion during a war-time situation.

Not even a good idea to damage it during peacetime. DADT--a workable solution that shouldn't be tampered with.

Unless you are bringing "social justice" to all. *spit*

Funny, Gramps, because conservatives were crying doomsday when Bill Clinton proposed DADT in the first place. Now it's a workable solution. In 1993, it was gonna be the deathknell of the US military.

Again, stand aside or be swept away.

Bruce, you are a disgusting person slamming our troops like that. They are not "fag haters" as you to liberally state. They simply do not agree with the lifestyle. Look at the top of the post of the Austrian man addressing muslim intolerence. It seems you also think intolerence is a one way street. No one is talking about bashing, hurting, teasing homsexuals. It is just that a majority of citizens and especially combat troops do not view that "lifestyle" an anything but a diviancy. Are you saying we are not allowed to think that? Adolph Henry? ww

No, Willie, you're allowed to think whatever you want, just as white soldiers in 1948 were allowed to think that black soldiers were inferior. What I object to is your allowing your personal prejudices to interfere with the right of other American citizens to serve in the military without dishonesty as to who they are.

And you are hilarious, sir, on the one hand saying these guys aren't "fag-haters" and on the other that they think gays are practicing "nothing but a diviancy."(sic) You, in your advanced years, have no more claim to know what young people think than anyone else your age (or mine).

The point is, time marches on. Women can vote. Blacks are equal. And gays will serve in the military, whether surreptitiously or openly. Soldiers will do as they're told, so let's tell them to do the right thing.

"Gay people aren't going away. They are not going to quit demanding equality. Anti-gay bigots can either adjust, or be swept aside by history as anti-black bigots were."

This might be true Bruce, but still the anlogy is false. Nice try, but remember one thing, no matter how hard you try to create the image that gay behavior is normal and wholesome, you never will. It's never been construed as normal and it will always be seen as outside the mainstream as immoral and perverted. Just visit the Folsom Street Fair in San Fran or click below.

WARNING - NSFW GRAPHIC GAY STUFF

http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

This has nothing to do with color Bruce you f...... idiot. Get over yourself and stick to the topic at hand.

The only true arguement for NOT repealing DADT is living conditions. Work environment (including combat) is a non factor.

Don't be scared, Mr Texbob. Evil Gay Molesters aren't gonna sneak up and squeeze your junk. Without your permission, that is, despite your wishful thinking. How much gay porn HAVE you collected over the years?

Whenever you feel afraid, Mr Texbob, just remind yourself how brave you are by ripping a couple of pages from the Koran, burning them, and peeing on the ashes. Just be sure to do it privately and brag about it on Wizbang later. No sense taking chances.

There are 195 "recognized" independent countries in the world.

23 nations allow gays to serve openly in their armed forces.

At least I have God on my side.

I will further state, look at all the mammals or animals in the world, it seems the norm is for the guy to hook up with the girl. That is beyond a doubt the norm. So, why would people who are the norm want to be with abnormal people. Bruce, you may be gay, but I don't reject the sinner but the sin. Again, God's word. ww

23 nations allow gays to serve openly in their armed forces.

According to one source, 38:

* 1.1 Albania
* 1.2 Argentina
* 1.3 Australia
* 1.4 Austria
* 1.5 Belgium
* 1.6 Canada
* 1.7 Colombia
* 1.8 Czech Republic
* 1.9 Denmark
* 1.10 Estonia
* 1.11 Finland
* 1.12 France
* 1.13 Germany
* 1.14 Ireland
* 1.15 Israel
* 1.16 Italy
* 1.17 Japan
* 1.18 Lithuania
* 1.19 Luxembourg
* 1.20 Malta
* 1.21 The Netherlands
* 1.22 New Zealand
* 1.23 Norway
* 1.24 Peru
* 1.25 Philippines
* 1.26 Poland
* 1.27 Romania
* 1.28 Russia
* 1.29 Serbia
* 1.30 Slovenia
* 1.31 South Africa
* 1.32 Spain
* 1.33 Sweden
* 1.34 Switzerland
* 1.35 Taiwan
* 1.36 United Kingdom
* 1.37 Bermuda
* 1.38 Uruguay

Countries that disallow homosexuals from serving in the military

* Antigua and Barbuda[46]
* Bangladesh[46]
* Barbados[46]
* Belarus[46]
* Belize[46]
* Botswana[46]
* Brunei[46]
* Cameroon[46]
* Cuba
* Cyprus[46]
* People's Republic of China
* Dominica[46]
* Egypt
* Fiji[46]
* Ghana[46]
* Greece[46] -- The Greek ban on homosexuals is the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[47][48]
* Grenada[46]
* Guyana[46]
* Iran
* Kenya[46]
* Kiribati[46]
* Jamaica[46]
* Lesotho[46]
* Malawi[46]
* Malaysia[46]
* Maldives[46]
* Mozambique[46]
* Namibia[46]
* Nauru[46]
* Nigeria[46]
* North Korea
* Pakistan[46]
* Papua New Guinea[46]
* Saudi Arabia

So the question is, is the US more like France, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, and Sweden (i.e., our allies in the Western world)? Or do you think we should be more like Cuba, China, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

Oh, and...

"In just about all of these countries there is research and anecdotal evidence that illustrates there is no problem, no decrease in cohesion among units, nor a diminishing effectiveness of the troops," said Belkin, an expert in the area of civil-military relations whose research has been published in the military publications "International Security" and "Armed Forces and Society."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/countries-where-gays-do-s_n_448317.html

re:28

LOL, try comparing the US Armed forces to any of the listed!

But be that as it may, the change will have to happen, and the questions are how and how fast, and will it be legislated, administrated, or judiciated?

LOL, try comparing the US Armed forces to any of the listed!

Why aren't you making that LOL about "re:26", which was the first post to compare the US forces with other nations, and the post to which I was responding? Guess it's not so much a "LOL" when it's your political brethren making the comparison, eh? Move along.

Here the USA should be like everyone else.
So like the UK let hold people for 30 days without charges.

Let be like South Korea and make every traffic violation committed by non citizen their fault because if they were not in the country the accident would not have happen.

We can also not have mandatory 4 to 8 years of service for everyone who is 18 years of age.

Hey while were at it like give everyone one a test at 16 and then we can tell them that what jobs they can have and where they will go to school.

England did not had an easy time of it either and the transition taken them a few years and they started in 2000.

let us look at some of theses countries.

Scholars describe France and Belgium as countries that have adopted laissez-faire approaches to homosexual personnel. That is, they do not officially exclude them, but they also do not explicitly guarantee their right to serve.

In France, indifference characterizes the official attitude towards homosexuals in the military. Although homosexuals are not banned from French military service, it is recognized that they may face greater challenges than their heterosexual counterparts. Thus, they are allowed to opt out of military service if they wish by declaring themselves unfit because of their sexual orientation.

Commanders and psychiatrists can also discharge gay and lesbian personnel if they feel they are disrupting their units and cannot fit in.

So let let the US citizen work with the US military.

Brucie and Johnny seem to have some problems with the military. Brucie having never served nor wishing to serve doesn't give a flip about what unit cohesion is about. Gee he's an authority whose arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance.

But Johnny seems to think that those military giants like the Albanians and Argentine's have military's whose effectiveness and fearsomeness is enhanced by having gay brigades! Yeah the Russian allow gays to serve according to whom? NAMBLA?

I'd like to see all the denizens of Obama's Man's Country tell us how the military's effectiveness is enhanced by having opennly gay members? In fact how is any organization served by having flaming queers prance about?

I'm not scared of homos like you Brucie. I have gay family members, but that does not mean I have to tolerate their forcing my children to grow up faster than they have to. I also do not have to tolerate the homo agenda of trying mainstream their behavior. I really don't care what folks do behind closed doors.

Force feeding that gay behavior is normal and good will always get push back. It's people like you and your stupid analogies that make people speak out against the agenda.

Go ahead and attack all you want, the bottom line is that gay behavior ain't normal. It never has been, nor it ever will be. Go sleep with that Brucie boy.

Im in the military and I want to know what they will do to protect my rights from having to shower next to a woman who is looking at me like a sex toy? Will they allow me to sleep away from the gays? I will demand it, as I do not want to be uncomfortable changing in front of a fag. If you do not understand this situation, then chances are you have NOT served in the military. We know there are gays in the military, but they keep it to themselves. Now, were going to recruit them and put ourselves at risk for more sexual harassment than ever. Also, sex is prohibited over seas, who is going to ensure that gays are not alone with oth3r gays to engage in sex when we shoud be focused on the mission? All I know is that Jesus is comming it is so clear when the devil has taken over our president.