[goodieD]

I"m as fiercely conservative as ever, I still believe that homosexuality is morally reprehensible and socially irresponsible. I still have no love in my heart for the activists who put their own selfish interests before those of the general populace, especially our children. Having said that, however, let me now say that there are obviously some of them that deserve a chance to fight for our country if thats what they are serious about doing, those whose patriotism rises above selfish motives. Words cannot express my gratitude to the only homosexual to earn my respect, Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on UA FLight 93 who attempted to overpower the hijackers, thereby saving another terrorist's target from destruction. If they are willing to fight and die with us, then I say, let em in.

[LarryLied]

Yeah..but here we go with identity politics. Who cares? He was a person. Do you really want to keep score of how many lesbians, homosexuals, transgendered, straight, straight but somewhat kinky, kinky but kinda straight, straight but childless, Oriential, Eurasian, Hutu, Caucasian, African, Tutsi, Arab, Eskimo or none of the above did this or that?

[Rokke]

I disagree. The key here is "openly" homosexual. I'm sure there have been some homosexuals who have served their country well. I am also sure that if they make their sexual choices public knowledge, they are not serving their country well. There are many ways to serve your country. Being an open homosexual in the military is not one of them. Frankly, I don't want to know about your sexual habits if you are heterosexual. I certainly don't want to know about them if you are gay. (I am not using "you" in the literal sense)

[FITZ]

I agree, if they want to fight for this country, I think I would let them but maybe in their own wing of the service. I don't think straight men should have to live in close quarters with them, it can be too disruptive unless the gay didn't reveal they were gay.