Regardless, this whole conversation makes me think of one of my favorite parts of Eddie Izzard's “Dress to Kill” DVD special, in which he talks about having wanted to be in the army as a kid. There's a bit of cursing, so it's probably not safe for work, but he's awesome, so here's the clip if anyone's interested: http://military.videosift.com/video/Eddie-Izzar…

Otherwise you wouldn't need to beg.

Have you visited any, Father Time? Or is your disgust so powerful that even stories of a once-a-year event you didn't attend leave you feeling unclean the rest of the year?

This sounds like your problem, not everyone else's.

You beat me to the punch but well said. Jefferson, sorry I think something got confused, I am not a colonial but I posted a statement by one that I noticed from another site, so I apologize on how my post looked. I was just an enlisted member in the Navy. Thanks for the correction on your statement I misunderstood, but do agree that the military is against those things as well.

I don't see being gay the same as smoking and drinking and gambling so we can agree to disagree on those and I can understand your point of view on that and again thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your comments about serving with homosexuals. “Homosexuals are just as human as I am. They possess the same capabilities and talents as any other person does.” that point is what we are trying to let everyone see and that we can do our job just like you do yours.

Everyone is thinking sex sex sex, it really is not about sex because we are not asking to have sex with people, we are asking to serve in the military and protect our country and loved ones. I will let you in on a little secret gay people are not attracted to every straight person we see, we are not attracted to every gay person we see.

As far as the showers and bunking is concerned, I showered with and bunked with guys for 10 years and not one time did a situation arise where there was a problem, how do we explain that? In addition, heterosexual service members are showering and sleeping with gay servicemembers now are there any problems? So if we say who we are in public it is now a problem? The logic here makes no sense. You do realize that everyone already know who is and is not gay in the military right? It really is not that big of a secret…

But in the end time will tell once repeal has happened and we join the rest of the world, I really don't think you will see that much difference – but that is just me.

Try to imagine going to work and not being allowed to mention your wife to your colleagues, or to mention that you're married. That's what it's like for many gay soldiers. While they're on duty, they have to pretend that their committed partners don't exist.

To answer your last questions: no, you don't give gays their own barracks, and no, you don't have them bunk with the opposite sex. You tell the straight soldiers to grow up already. Anyone who took gym class in high school has changed clothes in front of gay people before. Somehow they survived. Anyone currently serving in the military who has read a newspaper anytime in the past sixteen years knows that there are plenty of closeted gay people in the military. They already know that they are showering or bunking with gay soldiers. Often, they even know which of their fellow soldiers are gay. How would it be a problem to let gay soldiers talk about their partners back home?

The smoking and gambling remark was a suggestion concerning choices not encouraged by the military. And yes, smoking does cause damage to “military property”, but gambling does not cause (at least physical) harm. That was my only point.

I am honored to serve with homosexuals. I've met many in the field, who kept it to themselves and served with pride. I didn't hold it against them. However, I still believe that ALL sexual references should be kept to oneself – both homosexual and heterosexual. It provides for a more cohesive workplace. No one thinks (or should think) that the homosexual beside you in a foxhole is thinking about having sex with you – that's archaic and wrong. They are thinking about defending the team and defeating the enemy. But in the offtime, when it's time to shower and bed down, no one should expect to shower or bunk with someone (male or female) that may find them sexually attractive. I am not permitted to shower with women, am I?
Thankfully, no. My wife wouldn't like that much. Maybe as a younger man. LOL
Do you give homosexuals there own facilities and barracks? Do you let them shower and bunk with the opposite sex?

It is that time, when the cohesion of the team can break down. And that incohesion then ends up on the battlefield.

There are people out there that are “turned on” by just about everything under the sun. Some get turned on by feet, or by dressing up in certain clothes. Others get turned on by exhibitionism, and the list goes on for eternity. And some get turned on by the same sex. It is a condition that can be changed.

Just look at the bisexual community. It's all about sexual gratification. They are not born with a predispostion to both. It is a behavior choice.

Homosexuals are just as human as I am. They possess the same capabilities and talents as any other person does. The one difference that sets them apart is their sexual acts. We all can love one another, and we should. I love each and every one of you here, and I love each and every homosexual. But a homosexual is set apart by not whom he or she loves, but whom he or she has sex with.

Could you clarify what is disgusting? As I mentioned before one person or one small group of people don't define an entire community. I'd like you to know that brave men and women like Anthony Woods, Dan Choi, or Joan Darrah were not disgusting in serving this country. Pride parades do not define everyone. We both know that there are things that go in in the heterosexual community but you don't see me defining you by those activities do you? Then let's now try that with us okay?

You completely disrespect the very ones who kept you safe over the past 16 years and I think you owe us an apology if not then let's just make it known that you were not taught good manners.

I don't think it is necessary to go negative, there is an opportunity to get on the right side of history if you choose not then that is your choice; you are free to think what you like.

Thanks.

Rights won’t change anything? Are you nuts? Only an abject fool would believe such crap.

Thanks for your posting and I can do things that I normally would not be able to do if I put certain things into play. Take gravity for example, just because we fly does not mean that gravity does not exist, it just means we've circumvented it. I do not doubt that those men and women you mentioned are living differently than before. That is not the point of the repeal of DADT.

Here is the deal, regardless if there are gene's or not, at birth or not, we have men and women who sacrifice our lives for the country. As President Bill Clinton stated in this video and note what he said at about 3:27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uciy6G_1t0w

“And, you know, the thing that changed me forever on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War, and all their commanders knew they were gay; they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them, and then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know, that’s all anybody needs to know, to know that this policy should be changed.”

We have men and women who deserve equality and DADT is not that. Hiding who you are and living in fear is unacceptable in this great nation. We have the worlds best military according to Patrick Murphy and I believe it because I served in it. We have great leaders and some of them are gay. It's time we end this failed policy and begin to provide equality to our men and women in uniform. I will give you a great example of one of them: Anthony Woods.

“Tal Afar ended up being one of the first major success stories in the reconstruction effort in Iraq and, despite major violence in the region, Woods returned with all of the soldiers under his command alive. He earned a Bronze Star for his efforts.”

This is just one example of a great american hero who is gay and should have been able to remain in the military.

Thanks for continuing the dialogue.

This is probably pointless because for some strange reason people are crazy when it comes to homosexuality, but all the genetic studies proved is that there is no single gene. The estimate of inheritability is around 40%, which is less than intelligence (at 70%) but similar to most other complex traits.

That said there is increasing evidence that it is due to fetal development as much if not more than genes. This is because there are many physiological markers that homosexuals show that can be explained through prenatal hormonal environment including brain structure, how intelligence is distributed, smell, etc. So no, it's not just “liberal” science.

“For proof of that, I have known at least 10 formerly “gay” men and women that gave it up after having adopted Christianity.”

That's not “proof” of anything except what those people did. First of all, for every “success,” there are dozens of people that try to change and never can. Secondly, every single study on orientation has determined that there is a range. Around 10% of men identify as straight and actively have sex with other guys. That has been very consistent from study to study. The bulk of those men have emotional attachments almost exclusively with women but also physical attraction to men. But I'm sure that since they can't do it without flaunting it then you must know that. Then there is about 4-5% of men that form emotional attachment to other men, with about half of those physically attracted to women, leaving only 2% of men that are neither physically nor emotionally attracted to women.

So assuming that their behavioral and emotional actions do stay changed, that simply means that they weren't on the far end of the spectrum. Of course, considering that the vast bulk of male homosexual behavior doesn't occur on that end of the spectrum it's meaningless to say that proves anything.

Incidentally, the military is just barely statistically different than the normal population.

Here is the deal. You can not not talk about your personal life? When you want to get a message from your loved one? When you are going out to a movie and when asked what did last night and with whom? Those are not unusual questions. You and I both know the conversations and the things we see happening overseas with the heterosexual community, so I'd think we'd need to table that conversation because I can go on and on about the behavioral activities of my former shipmates that would be far in excess of what any gay member could ever say about a quite evening at home with their mate.

Ya kno? I mean isn't this stuff silly and just wasted conversation just because people have fears? As Patrick said, it's about orientation not disciplinary issues. Our men and women are professional enough to handle gays in the military, I think the Obama administration and the pentagon are on track to get on the right side of history.

Where DADT is concerned, the behavior at issue isn't sex, it's talking about your personal life.

I agree to disagree agreeably with you on the point that being gay is the same as smoking, or drinking, or gambling, or any other addictive behavior. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, and even if it was does it hurt you physically? No, no more than being straight. Now if someone was to force themselves on you maybe but just the fact that someone is gay should not cause you any loss of your personal freedoms.

People in the military do smoke, drink, and gamble so what is your point? Again I state that allowing men and women to serve their country should be allowed as long as they do their job, protect the country, and do not disrupt unit cohesion. Of the discharges that I have seen, none of them were for behavioral issues and in fact each of the cases the leaders of the people discharge would have retained them had it not been for DADT. Most of the discharged have skills and performance to match that were better than their heterosexual counterparts – where is the sense in that?

Please hear me out, I am not being adversarial here, just stating things that I have heard, known and experienced. If you have had a bad experience with gay people, my apology but all gays are not created the same.

Best,
Paul

It's the same as smoking, or drinking, or gambling, or any other addictive behavior that can get you thrown out of the military. Are you proposing that we allow our soldiers, sailors, and airmen the ability of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness on those fronts as well?

I didn't think so.

You cannot give special considerations for choices of lifestyle. And it, indeed, is a choice.