Regards,
Peter H.

If it sounds like segregation, so what? Women are still not allowed on the front lines, but nobody crows about that point very often.

Plus, I have a modest proposal – have an all-female platoon called The Fighting Amazons. As the ladies on this board will attest, anytime you put women together in the same living quarters – in college, homes etc. – they start their cycles together. Have 12 platoons so that when it is around their time of the month, we can let them loose on some Muslim terrorists. They won’t know what hit them!

Regards,
Peter H.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have friends, acquaintances and relatives who prefer partners of the same sex. Fine people all. I am convinced that it is biological and am appalled at the arguments that it is somehow perverse.

The military’s objection is based upon worst case – the blatant homosexual. Men, in combat, don’t fight for flag or country – they fight for their brothers. Unit cohesion is an overriding concern. Much of the morale problem in Vietnam has been attributed to the piece-meal replacement system. Units entering the theater were broken up and used to fill TOE slots in other units.

I believe that DADT allows patriotic people to serve their country whilst giving the military the option of easily and quickly removing disruptive people when necessary.

Regards,
Roy

For the record, I am a straight acting man who likes men and who happens to appreciate the company of other men of the same mindset. I would no more try to make a pass at a heterosexual man than you would.

That being said, you have to recognize the fact that those of us who are patriotic conservatives sometimes get peeved at how the MSM and the general public perceive us. Not all of us are limp-wristed swishy types who scream “homophobe!” at every opportunity (hello, Bawney Fwank).

I know several wonderful officers and non-coms back from Iraq and Afghanistan who happen to like other men. At first glance you would swear they were straight. But they are not. They are Americans first.

Does that affect their sense of duty, honor and country? No. Do they wish they could serve openly? Of those whom I know, almost all of them. A couple have even admitted their platoons “knew” about their private lives but nothing was ever done to them as a sort of retaliatory action. (Then again, these are leathernecks we’re talking about. You don’t mess with these guys.)

However, they know that the world is the way it is, and that you can’t change minds overnight. Their best way of handling the situation (according to them) is to do their job, destroy the enemy and make America safe. Which by all accounts I endorse.

As one general put it, “as long as they can shoot straight, I don’t care what they do behind closed doors.” And for those of us who work in the real world, around real heterosexuals, we keep that part of our lives to ourselves. It’s the radical left-wing zealots who throw it in everyone’s faces.

Hate comes from fear. If you fear something, you will try to destroy it. However, if you don’t find it intimidating, you can accept it. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Regards,
Peter H.

I really don’t care how many “studies” there are. The men who are charged with our defense, the men who order other men into mortal danger, the men who have been shot at, say it is a bad idea. It’s a bad idea.

Regards,
Roy

Frankly, for me, it would be no big deal. Your life can be an open book, but certain chapters should be off-limits.

Again, I present Peter’s Principle of Politics #69 – the radical gay rights movement was created in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of American society.

Regards,
Peter H.

Gay people aren’t banned from serving.

the president should announced a blue-ribbon commission, say, headed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, committed to studying the issue to study whether we can repeal of the ban and strengthen our armed forces. Yes, I realize their study would repeat studies already carried out.

So we pay a arse load of money to provide jobs to some has-beens so they can spend two years finding out what we already know (the short definition of “blue-ribbon” commissions)?

And for what? To make it look like Chairman Obama actually gives a damn?

Not a good idea.

…or inclination to do so.