I am currently affiliated with the military (never been deployed, not Active Duty), and I'm just going to clear some things up with those of you who are curious as to why there is opposition to this. The issue brought up as to the harm the DADT repeal would cause our military is that of making soldiers uncomfortable, which could cause dissociation and lack of morale. It's been shown that over half of the combat arms troops (infantry, armor, artillery, etc.) were against a repeal, as were the majority of flag grade officers (colonels, generals) polled. I feel that looking into these officers perspectives more thouroughly would have been beneficial, as for the most part, this debate took place between civillian lawmakers. On a personal level I don't care if someone is gay, as long as they don't start coming onto people in the shower, hooch, etc. I believe it is at least reasonable to be uncomfortable sharing a shower or foxhole with a gay person (I have been called a bigot for this, although I don't see how being uncomfortable makes me a bigot).

Long story short, people worry about it making soldiers uncomfortable, and therefore distracting them from the job at hand.

Yes you definitely cleared things up. We certainly didn't already know everything that you typed. ;)

Newsflash: You all were always sharing showers and foxholes with homosexual men. They won't suddenly find you attractive now that DADT is repealed. If you didn't see an erect penis then, you won't see an erect penis now. If he didn't try to hump your ass in the shower then, he won't try to hump your ass in the show now just because DADT is repealed. Homosexuality isn't just about sex and physical attraction, just like heterosexuality isn't just about sex and physical attraction. You don't want every woman that you see and gay men don't want every man that they see.**

Many gay, lesbian, bisexual military people will still feel uncomfortable expressing their sexual orientation unless it is absolutely necessary. It takes a lot more than a repeal of DADT for GLB to feel comfortable and "normal" in the same way that heterosexuals in heterocentric nations have been allowed to feel comfortable and "normal."

**The interesting part of this is that it is the heterosexual men (those who claim to be heterosexual or are really heterosexual) who have beaten and raped men in prison and in the military as a sign of force and power. Or were they just horny and wanted sex? Nah....

Preach.

This always confused me. If (general) you acknowledge that there are homosexuals serving in the military, why wouldn't you think that they are already showering/sleeping/whatever with you? The repeal isn't going to "turn" someone gay.

I said it earlier in this thread, but it's about damn time this happened.

I'm really looking forward to the increase in qualified people, particularly linguists, who can now serve openly. Perhaps people who had to hide who they are as well as those keeping a secret for people can now work better because they won't be scared and morale may go up for many, as well as increased productivity. Having people serve who are capable, well trained, and want to be there who don't have to have a second or secret life is going to make our military better.

I'm so tired of straight people, mainly straight men, thinking all of the gay men are out to butt hump them. Guess what, just like how not all women want you, not all men want you either. Stop flattering yourself and realize you probably aren't his type because a) you aren't a man who likes men b) he's professional and not going to combine work and romance c) you aren't all that.

If we're quoting statistics, how about the one that says 92 percent of troops who believed they had served with a gay person said they never saw an impact on their units' morale or effectiveness.

What does that say to you, The Tradition? Could be why people call you a bigot.

And you don't think it's uncomfortable for homosexual soldiers to always have to be on guard about what they say and do?

That's funny- that was going to be my exact comment!

As for Mc Cain...WTH? We are sending them to wars over and over again, screwing up their benefits, making them wait in line for medical care...but serving alongside gays and lesbians would be traumatizing?

As for this person who is "affiliated" with the military...um, thanks for your $0.02 but...what does affiliated with even mean, in this context? "Civilian lawmakers?" YOU are a civilian. I've been IN the military- 12 years- (you know, where it's YOUR hand being raised and taking the oath? Yeah- like that) and I don't see any problem with gay or lesbian soldiers- and neither do the majority of the soldiers I've served with. Every soldier probably knows other soldiers who are LBG, whom they serve with every day. They become part of the fabric of the unit and part of the family, they do their job, no one cares.

It's offensive that someone would make such a fuss over someone's sexuality when that person (and many faces come to mind as I type this) served with HONOR in COMBAT...did their jobs...excelled...saved lives...lead squads, mentored young soldiers...Served their country no different than anyone else who was in the same situation. Why should they have to lie about their personal life? Do you realize how hard that is when you live with these poeple 24/7? They are already making enough sacrafices! It's sad to see someone who is having a difficult time at home, and they have to alter their words, or not talk about it at all, because "home" involves a spouse or partner of the same gender.

Out or in, gays and lesbians have served in every war we've had...they deserve the rights they fought to achieve.

A- freaking- MEN! One of my best friends quit ROTC in college because she didn't want to be in the closet. She was so dedicated and just a great cadet- everyone loved her, too- she would have had a great career as an officer.

I also have two friends who have gotten out of the military in the past 2 years because they couldn't take the hiding anymore. One was a decorated medic who served multiple tours in Iraq. The military is losing some amazing people by being so backward.

Thank you. I think you just pointed out one of the most objective reasons for getting rid of DADT (and the ban that preceeded it): The loss of some brilliant and talented service members.

As a reserve officer (who is married to an active duty officer) I can attest that the U.S. military has lost some excellent folks either directly (thrown out) or indirectly (decided to get out) because of that ignorant policy. I can also attest that most officers I know wanted to see this policy gone. Yes, there are a couple of bigots out there still, but there are with every group.

Going back to what was said earlier by "Tradition": Yes, some people will be "uncomfortable." Guess what? Some people are still "uncomfortable" around blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, and members of the opposite sex. But guess what, you-as a soldier, sailor, marine, airman-are going to work and live around those people and treat them with respect.

I realize I am not saying anything that probably hasn't already been said in this post, but I wanted to put in my two cents.

Lol there's all kinds of truth to this post.

On NPR yesterday morning, there was a Marine who was like, is being in the military with openly gay people going to destroy a 200+ year old armed forces? If so, we have many more problems to deal with.

Also--an interview with a man who was dishonorably discharged during WWII for being gay. Now he can have his discharge reinstated as "honorable."

So I live on the other side of the planet. Has the US imploded yet? Fire and brimstone have begun careening down major roadways? I'm assuming this brought about the end of the US, if not the end of the entire world.

;)

Great article in the Advocate about Trans members of the military.

http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Mil...itary_Stories/

I never said it would turn anyone gay, it's more of a "what you don't know won't hurt you (or in this case make you uncomfortable)" kind of thing.

Never said I was all that, but nice ad homenim. Also, I know a gay guy who I train with all the time, and I have no problem with him. This decision simply adds a whole new realm of open sexuality to the military that wasn't there before, and it may take a while to smooth things out.

Glad to see people are so catty in here right now. Did I go about my post in a derogatory way? No, I didn't. I was simply educating some members who didn't understand the issue fully, and provided my personal insight and opinion. And your statistic is fine, but it doesn't make mine less true. I understand that we have civillians control the military for a reason, but I think that in cases like this, Congress should've listened a bit more to the people who have been in that line of work for their whole lives. It's like trusting a mechanic over a doctor for medical advice, you should be listening to the people who specialize in the field.

I agree with you, there were plenty of good people lost, and I know individuals who have had to keep their sexuality under wraps due to DADT. I'm simply saying that I will be a bit uncomfortable about it at first, but it will not effect my performance. Being uncomfortable and spouting hate speech are two different things, and I think since humans are naturally uncomfortable with change that it's ok to be a bit uncomfortable with the decision as long as it doesn't personally hurt your dedication to duty (not saying the same for others of course).

No, you were simply stating the obvious and offering your opinion.

Right, so the bottom line is that many heterosexual soldiers hold bigoted ideas until they serve with homosexual soldiers at which point they overwhelmingly realize their mistaken beliefs.

Sounds like the repeal of DADT truly is for the best.

Ok, so what was the point of your post?