If the only thing holding someone back is their sexual orientation then I believe it is unconstitutional. If he can’t run, he’s out. If he can’t follow orders, he’s out. If he can’t shoot a gun, he’s out. If he can do everything but just so happens to fancy dudes, who cares?
I think the men and women in our military are mature and strong enough to handle many things. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in the military.
Flame away.
But if he hangs around looking for quickie dates outside the latrine or aft head, it’s ok? Honest chief, I’m just a toe-tapping wide stance kinda guy.
Exactly where does the Constitution address homosexuality?
Wow, take a hard situation and make it WORSE for them. Such a hero you are.
I think if you have never served in the military you should keep quiet.
“I think the men and women in our military are mature and strong enough to handle many things. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in the military.”
I’ve been in the military and there were ‘gay’ people in my unit. If known they were discharged.
It was better for morale and discipline this way.
I served during Vietnam with a number of homosexuals who were discrete. I'm not even sure if DADT was in effect back then. If it was then it was successful and nobody complained.
Removal of DADT WILL have dire effects on personnel morale and will most likely require a whole new set of rules for the UCMJ..............
I will thank you to take your defense of the evil leftist homosexual agenda somewhere else. We do not want or appreciate it on FR.
Don be rippin' on me 'cos 'o mah reeleejon, mon!
But, do they "play with each other" when they should be on watch? Why should an officer be worried about who he puts together in the holes?
Inane proposition...to suggest those who do not support fags in the military are immature. It's not a question of maturity, but whether it adds to unit cohesiveness and readiness..."maturity" argues against it.
Run your social experiments somewhere else.
It’s not a matter of maturity, or ability. It’s a matter of propriety.
There is no privacy in the military, and quite often, women are put into situations where they must dress in front of other women, room with other women, or even shower with other women. What’s the difference between putting a lesbian into that situation, or putting a man there? (Same applies to men and gays.)
Every member of the military must undergo a urinalysis test for drug abuse at least once a year. The sample must be given in the presence of a witness, usually some E5 (who is NOT a medical personnel). It’s bad enough giving the sample with a heterosexual of your own gender watching—I think, if a known gay were assigned to watch people pee in the cup, a lot of people would choose to disobey a direct order (to submit to the test) rather than have a known gay watch them pee in a cup.
Bottom line: in a situation where the sexes are normally segregated, and mixing men and women would be unthinkable—for instance, in a gym locker room—there is no room for an open homosexual. It causes too much emotional distress for everyone concerned.