silly boy.
Ping
Ugh.
What a toughy. But although he served and was injured with honor, allowing him to serve openly is just a door to that teflon coated slope.
Oh boy.
This kid is a warrior... As long as he does his job, and keeps the mouse in the house, I have no problems.
Time to drop "Don't ask, don't tell" and resume the "We don't want you homos!" policy.
Ok great, we create an all gay regiment with the caveat that they will always be the first to go in and the last to come out.
He already is serving openly. It's the being gay openly that's the rub. Thanks BJ Klinton.
Color me closeminded but I just don't think there's any need to add 'openness regarding sexual likes & dislikes' in the definition of 'soldiering'.
"The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military."
Note to Stout - Blacks and women are not identified solely by a voluntary sexual act. If you want to be perverted, that's your business. If you want to tell people you are perverted, don't complain when the discriminate.
Only if "homophobic" soldiers may also serve openly.
An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I didn't know "openly gay" was a specialty code in today's Army.
Live and learn.
Shalom.
With that said...
"They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military."
...there's that old flawed comparison again!
A person's skin color/ancestry doesn't present a threat to the operation. On the other hand, men and women are put in separate facilities. Why? Because there could be a conflict of interest if two people became intimate, which could happen when they're sharing the same barracks, showers, etc.
As gay people are attracted to each other, separating "gay servicemen" from "straight" doesn't solve the problem.
I think they should all be allowed to serve openly , On The Front Lines.
Discrimination against blacks was based on flawed premises, so there was no problem with integration of the military in the long run. The naysayers were proved wrong. The jury is still out how women affect unit cohesion, so this really isn't a good example.
The point is he knows the rules and it's not pick and choose. It's not like they changed the rules on him in the middle of the game.
The "We don't want you homos!" policy is a blunt way to put it, but an accurate description of what the policy was in my father's and my time in the service.
How many more character defects/personal problems/bad behavior are we going to overlook just because the guy's served his country?
I've known a few NCOs that were DX'd because they couldn't stop drinking, stealing, or screwing around. And I've personally signed a lot of separation paperwork on soldiers who couldn't stay off the evil weed.
Wrong is wrong, and using one thing to justify another is worse. I do believe that homosexuality is "incompatible with military service", especially when it decides that "the love that dare not speaketh" can't seem to shut the hell up.
So the rules need to change for him?
Just because he is a pervert, ah homo.
Maybe he shouldn't have signed up if he can't mind the rules.
"director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara."
They actually have a position by this name? I hope no taxpayer money funds this position.