1. Most people don't object to gays serving in the military;

2. We have females in the military, which constitute an enormously greater problem with “cohesion”;

3. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is probably going to be ended eventually, and in the meantime, the policy is starting to be gutted. Isn't Gates starting to specify some exceptions to the policy? Such incrementalism is real progress and seeking more exceptions to the policy seems to me to be what should be sought at this time.

What kind of patriot are you when you decide something as small as gay men openly serving in the military can change your desire to defend your country…obviously, their heart really isn't there.

The military is in the business of killing. Don't be naive. There were many problems with race integration in the military. Espeacially during the Vietnam era. However today, I am more concerned with retention rates than with murders.

Race has nothing to do with gay rights issues. Race does not have the Choice not be a member of a Race. A gay person can simply choose not to be openly gay such as with DADT until leaving the military.
The military leadership wants DADT to remain and I agree.

When we are talking about service in Moslem countries, is the entire story told by how rank and file US soldiers feel about homosexuality pro or con? With our vaunted cultural sensitivity, we should consider whether the 'unenlightened' sources or assets that we desire information from would be offended by having to talk to an openly gay translator.

Could this color the information we are given? Should we conclude that this will not occur simply because political correctness informs us that it should not?

If there is a place where the concept of 'human terrain' is useful, it is in this conversation. And we would do well to employ a doctrine that found credit in the 70s: look at our own terrain (the terrain problem presented to our enemies) as well as the enemy's terrain. In the 70s, I flew the border trace along the Fulda Gap many, many times – but the generals were not interested in photographs looking across the border – they had 25 years of looking at those pictures. They wanted pictures of the terrain we occupied looking back at our own positions so they could see what the enemy generals were seeing and use this as a minor way to 'get inside the enemy's head' and anticipate solutions the enemy would apply to the terrain problems they were able to observe.

Some of this type of thinking is probably in order here, no?

So our professional military are really a bunch of would-be murderers? Funny how few race-based murders we had after integrating the military.

Don't project your illness on good men fighting for their country.

Let me put it to you this way. In Vietnam we had no problem blowing away those we hated. Accidental weapons discharge, send out on patrol or in an OP under manned, or simply by Fragging. You've heard of Fragging haven’t you? The military in general, and, in combat specifically is no place to be hated.

I can't, and, overall we can't do anything about the hate except talk about it. There is a BIG difference with being a civilian living where ever you wish and with whom ever you wish than there is being in the military living where ever you are told and with whom ever you are told to live with. “Ewwww” can turn into “bang” real easy.

We have just seen a young gay sailor in the news murdered in California. It could have been a hate crime committed against him because he was gay. It didn't even occur during combat. How many are you going to hear about that occurred in combat? DADT is undoubtedly protecting lives right now.

We now have DADT. So no one knows who the gay people are. So there is no preferences and no special treatment.

Yes people are disgusted and yes that is the problem. Forcing it upon people is certainly NOT going to help.

It's very simple and I don't understand why gays advocate to be in the military. After all, we don't have gay priests, or gay doctors, or gay firefighters, or gay policemen. There are gay scientists, but all that science stuff is kind of gay anyway. But I agree, gays cannot function in any stressful situation around other men or be in any position of authority. They're simply too busy having mansex, and they're actively seeking to recruit!!

That's the problem? That's what you're defending as the solution. DADT keeps gays safe from the hazards of combat, while their hetero cousins are getting their bits blown off.

“[Heterosexuals in the military] are disgusted by gay culture and practice”

In some cases, yes. *That's* the problem.

Michael Goldfarb's suggestion is a moot point. Women live, sleep, shower, in separate quarters rooms, and, barracks. Michael Goldfarb's suggestion does nothing to preserve “unit cohesion” because non-combat units need the same cohesion as combat units and does not address living quarters.

It also causes another problem. Male gay personnel getting special treatment by not having to serve in combat units, while non-gay males have too.

Besides there are women in combat units. There are also women pilots and crewmen that fly into combat.
Women crewmembers of ships that fight other ships. There are women combat communicators and equipment maintenance crews that may see combat….etc..

To be frank, heterosexuals in the military simply don’t want gay people around because they are disgusted by gay culture and practice. This goes far beyond the military. However I’m sure you know this. So why damage or possibly destroy our military retention rates just to allow an extreme minority sub-culture to openly practice their behavior? Its just stupid.