Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[junyto12]

gay soldiers will try to rape straith soldiers.and this will cause a massive killing of gay soldiers in the army.but they wont listen.

[TheAnonHorde]

You obviously know very little about life and especially military. Gays would have just as much trouble as women do. Gays would have terrible things done to them for being gay. And with women you get sexual and abusive conduct towards them. Liberalistic views of "openness" Is completely meaningless and holds no value what so ever when you try and apply it practically.

[Valstein0]

@TheAnonHorde

Prove that gay people will have horrible things done to them after they are allowed to serve openly. In what situation would this happen? And are you suggesting that women should have to hide their gender with wigs, or plastic surgery, and should be kicked out of the military if they are discovered to be female? What are you getting on about?

[TheAnonHorde]

@Valstein0 It takes only minor observation of people to realize they will be treated horribly. I guess you don't realize that many women are treated horribly as well? Now add gays into a group of people where there will be homophobic soldiers. You know that rape and harrassing happen to women but think wont be worse for gays when its painfully obvious that it will? Human nature in that situation is why rape is more likely to happen, and you honestly think a faggot hater wont do something worse?

[Valstein0]

@TheAnonHorde

So maybe black people shouldn't be allowed to serve because there are racists in the military. Maybe they should have to wear face paint to hide their skin color, and if anyone finds out who they really are, they should be kicked out. Your logic is terrible. Maybe the racists, rapists and homophobes are the problem. Did you ever think of that? And did you ever stop to realize: THE GAYS ARE ALREADY SERVING! They're already in the foxholes, being shot at with their comrades.

[darrekw]

After desert storm the Kuwait government offered to give each of our service members several thousand dollars each for freeing their country from Iraq. George Bush seniors answer was that we are not mercenaries and turned them down. Under don't ask don't tell the American military is taking money from gay taxpayers and training service members who state that they want to kill gay Americans. Where does that place the moral standing of the US military?

[Skizzlator]

I do not think that gay people are checking me out. But on the same token I typically do not shower in the woman's locker room even though they too probably are not check me out.. I guess we need lots of bathrooms and locker rooms to create a sense of privacy in the military (one for gay men, one for gay women, the usual ones, and I don't know about the bisexuals. (totally impractical) You don't know, they may be checking you out. I checked out girls in my squadron, whats the difference?

[Paulwhoisvegan]

@Skizzlator When I was in High School, no one in gym class wanted to shower after exercises because there was one openly gay guy! I didn’t give a shit if he saw me. I just took my shower and that was that.

[wlindenlaub]

If gays are so worried about getting caught, then just STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THE U.S. MILITARY!!!!! Or join the military in France where faggotry is perfectly welcomed. It will be funny to see how many gays get beat within an inch of their life as soon as they are allowed to admit it.

FUCK YOU OBAMA!!! STOP TRYING TO PUSSIFY OUR COUNTRY!!!

[thelousyllama]

@wlindenlaub goodness, the idiots we have around..

[zxcvbnmjhgfdsa1]

@wlindenlaub Military isin't a normal job there is no part of your life without coworkers not being open means not talking to anyone about your feelings for years. I don't think the military will allow you to transfer to the french military.

[GodCreatesGays2]

Poor Wlindenlaub is trying so hard to suppress and deny those raging homsosexual fantasies of his. It might help if he stopped playing "drop the soap" down at the YMCA, or if he would quit begging college football teams to play "ookie cookie" with him, LOL>

[wlindenlaub]

@GodCreatesGays2 Wow, thats not a predictable response. I figured it wouldn't take much time before one of you faggots would say some shit like that. Fortunately you are wrong. I have NORMAL sexual preferences. And I have a beautiful 2 year old daughter to prove that. And just so you know, God didn't create gays... your mom did doing every drug know to man and trying to abort your sorry ass. Its too bad she didn't swallow.

[GodCreatesGays2]

Wlindenlaub, try to be rational, if only for a moment. I knew my acknowledging the truth about you would send you into meltdown mode & provoke a hissy fit & feeble denials, but the truth must be told, even if you are too spineless to admit it to yourself. How else are you going to get well if you don't grow a pair, man up, & deal with your inner homo? God will love you regardless of your being gay, but He rejects the vile, deviant lifestyle of hate you have chosen. Get psychiatric help ASAP.

[darrekw]

@GodCreatesGays2 Hateful much, I don't find his video at all suggestive that he might be homosexual. Might hope he is but that's a different kettle of fish.

[GodCreatesGays2]

Um, Darrekw, I never said that the host of the video was gay. Just so you know.

[darrekw]

@GodCreatesGays2 I stand Corrected that was @windenlaub.. I still don't think that his comments deserve the claim that he is gay (least I hope not). By the way, I ask anyone who holds that being gay is a sin to honestly answer if it better to lie about homosexual feelings or to be honest if you have them. I present to you the moral argument for being gay that it is better to be honest about a sin then to lie and cover it up.

[darrekw]

@darrekw Coming out and being openly gay isn't just about being homosexual it's an attempt to live honestly.

[nov284]

@darrekw If I'm hot for my neighbor's wife, and fantasize about her, I've already defacto committed adultry. Should I go over and try to bring my fantasies to life, or not? And which decision carries the higher risk of being shot by her husband and my wife?

[darrekw]

@nov284 Yes, but being honest about your attraction is better then acting on it and getting caught. The morality of her husband and your wife shooting you for it is a separate matter. Being honest about it in this case is admitting to the sin without acting on the attraction. It's the only fair why to deal with your wife. If she married you without understanding that you have your faults that's her bad.

[GodCreatesGays2]

Well, darrekw, your question is irrelevant in relation to being gay, because homosexuality is not a sin to begin with. Innate qualities like skin color, the hand you use to write with, sexual orientation, height, etc., cannot be "sinful"; they are components of your being and not actions you choose. However, for sinful behavior, like prejudice against some of the Lord's other children, yes, I believe a person should be honest that he is afflicted with such sin. How else can he ask for help?

[darrekw]

@GodCreatesGays2 Good points, but I'm actually asking if it really matters if it is a choice or if it is a defining characteristic. I find that it doesn't matter. Even the ex-gay ministries who hold that being gay is a choice admit that changing it is a long hard process. I don't think it is a choice, but I hold that disagreeing and fighting THAT battle is pointless and delays coming to an agreement

[darrekw]

@GodCreatesGays2 By the way, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. How we deal with that fact is. being gay is a choice, it's the choice between being basically a lying deceitful *** who destroys others lives so you don't have to deal with your own and doing the best you can to accept who you are. It's for you to guess which is which and what side I think is more moral. Think about this when it comes to gay pride, hint it's not homosexual pride.

[GodCreatesGays2]

Darrekw, no, of course being gay is not a choice. Allowing yourself the freedom to be who and what you are, regardless of societal norms and pressures, however, is something that can be chosen, or at least worked on. What is more sad and immoral than denying, suppressing, and rejecting your innate self, just to mollify the ignorant masses?

[darrekw]

@GodCreatesGays2 We have a fundamental disagreement on what being gay means. I always thought of being gay as a choice not because homosexuality is a choice but because how you deal with that is. Hence gay pride is to me a different concept then homosexual pride, gay pride isn't really about being proud of being homosexual so much as it's about being proud of how you deal with that. That's how it was explained to me.

[darrekw]

This distinction is important because the people who oppose gay rights don't get it. we can't allow them the luxury of equating the gay rights movement with the immoral behaviors of so many closeted homosexuals who deny what the are. The actions of someone repressing themselves shouldn't reflect on the ones who aren't as an excuse to encourage people to repress them selves. This is the fundamental moral inconsistency that we need to expose the masses to.

[darrekw]

@wlindenlaub I've said it before I'll say it again Hateful much, GodCreatesGays2 didn't deserve the dignity of a response (at all). By the way, why do you think normal and sexual go together? I hope you don't find your wife to be normal, but rather a special and unique person that deserves to be treated that way.

[jusitke07]

You're Straight?!!! Damn.

[oyskijew]

amen yum

[mandy26lez]

i dont see what the big deal is and im gay who cares you arent in the army to get a freaking date! dont ask dont tell isnt a big deal leave it be!

[darrekw]

@mandy26lez Exactly, the military isn't a dating service. The fact of the matter is though that it does require service members to be able to 'lean' on each other. It's not possible to spend months dealing with stressful situations separated from your family and friends and not need some one who you can depend on. This policy makes a stressful situation worse for everyone.

[godlyfighter]

Since the vast majority of military men are uber conservative, it's a bit distracting to see another guy in the shower that you know may be looking at your "service weapon."

[wetterdew]

@godlyfighter Stereotypical characterizations aside, that's really not gay people's problem. If you're uncomfortable around gay people, that's your problem.  I can't imagine it being very distracting at all.

It's the exact same argument people used when blacks started joining the army: most military men are uber conservative, so it'd be distracting to see a black guy there.

That's not how it works.

[chukmaty]

Basically, are we naive enough to think that gay men are going to magically have less sex drive than straight men? Of coarse not, we are all human, and human being have strong sexual natures.

[orkoni1]

Yes and that's why there is situational homosexuality in prisons between straight men, b/c they have been away from women for long periods of time that at least some have sex with other men to get off, this completely debunks your argument for an all straight male army.

[chukmaty]

It does not debunk my argument at all, for rather obvious reasons, see other comment.

[MemoryofBlake]

most if not all people have fear of the unknown especially when being faced with it. people need to look beyond the media and stereotypes to gain perspective and the truth.

[chukmaty]

And some people attribute the opinions of others to being reactionary instead of truly taking them on good faith and seeking to understand different viewpoints.

[orkoni1]

I bet Chukmanty spammed your argument here b/c he knows you pwned him with the argument of situational homosexuality like similar to what goes on in prisons where men are secluded from women for years and decades and have to get off some how. So even if the U.S. Armed Forces only allowed straight men, there would still be sexual "misconduct" regardless.Good Point!

[chukmaty]

Of coarse there will always be misconduct in any situation one finds oneself in. But if you put me, or any other straight male in with a group of women, I promise you the chances skyrocket. Is it because I am a bad person? No, but frankly this is just common sense that so many of us seemingly are willing to ignore in the name of fairness.

[HerrBismarck]

Good points dude. I mean, is a gay guy really going to try to hit on you while bullets are flying over his head?

My only question is, what are they going to do with dispatching soldiers to countries where homosexuality is full out illegal? Will they have a small version of "Don't ask"? Or will they just not send them there?

Or will they just ignore the laws of the country and say "Fuck you, we are America!" like they always do?

[DJK1726]

That's interesting to think about, but authorities would not intervene unless it were publicly displayed. No sane, gay soldier would do that in a Middle Eastern pseudo-theocracy.

[HerrBismarck]

Well, the thing is that by being in the country, they are violating the law (which says, no gays). So even though authorities don't always mess with the US army, they can and might.

For example, did you hear about the US army using scopes that had scripture in them? No one knew about this until now. They had to stop it because the scopes would be given to Muslim-allies and they complained. Also, they would be in places where spread of non-Islam is illegal.

Those kinds of problems.

[DJK1726]

I'll have to read more about the scopes. Very interesting.

I haven't read the laws in question word-for-word, but I'm fairly sure they ban homosexual acts, not people if we're talking about predominantly Muslim states. Many Islamic sects struggle with acknowledging homosexuality as an innate personality trait rather than purely a choice, so I doubt they would codify their laws any differently.

Also, how would they know unless...you know, like Kotecki said. Foxholes and such? lol

[chukmaty]

The scope were made by a company, from what I understand the codes were not ordered by the military.

A bit silly obviously, as a religious person, I wonder why any person of faith would put a verse on a scope made from someone else when I had no knowledge of how they would use it.

[chukmaty]

I am sure if we sent soldiers to Iran, were listening to "Satanic" rock music is illegal, we would send men who listened to the devil's tunes.

Also, a soldier is not going to hit on someone of the opposite sex when bullets are flying over their head either. But still, any potential sexual component in a unit is negative, period.

This is not about being gay, people who have sex drives are not on trial. But sexuality in a unit is a no-no in theory.

[puppydogbreath]

Guilty of flirting with before over Youtube comments

[roojohnson]

James, if I were a gay man...........i'd totally flirt with you ;p

[MisterStewieGriffin]

Great video. Can you do the next one without a shirt? Thx.

[MooseOfReason]

James, I love the puns, man.

[rowflowers]

I think that the issue is a little more complicated than you are making it out to be. I, for one, still keep an open mind about this. Some important problems are not addressed by your oversimplification. For example, one of the largest arguments against women serving on the front lines is that men will put the life of the woman above the mission and safety of the entire team. I am not saying that this is a very good argument or even grounded in facts. I am just asking the question

[rowflowers]

"would a man in a homosexual relationship be more likely to put the object of his affections above the achievement of a mission or the safety of the entire team?" And I am not answering this question because I can't answer it. I am just posing the question as a complication to the dogmatic opinion "who cares? no big deal. I am not in the military anyway and I didn't even bother asking current military before posting my ideas on youtube." sorry about being harsh.

[chukmaty]

I can, no. But the major difference is that gays would potentially be serving on a front line with the object of their affection while heterosexuals would not, as women are not on the front line in the US military.

I also would like to affirm that I think the military should be mono gender as an extension of this principle.

[l0gically]

@chuckmaty said "I can, no. But the major difference is that gays would potentially be serving on a front line with the object of their affection while heterosexuals would not, as women are not on the front line in the US military."

Ridiculous. Gays aren't serving so that they can hook up. That aside, I think there are a lot of straight guys who need to get the hell over themselves - they all seem to think that *they're* the one that any gay guy would be after.

[rowflowers]

Look, I hate to be on the same side as chucky - kindof a weirdo (saw his vids) - but do you think women join the military to hook up? No. Women join to serve their country. Why can't they serve on the front lines? Because heterosexual men have a problem with it. It is a problem that I don't understand at all, but the guys who I talk to say "any female presence on the front lines is automatically distracting from the mission." Basically, he would do anything to get with her instead of fight.

[chukmaty]

Yea, your video should win a Oscar.

[rowflowers]

@chukmaty hey, I know I am working with crap. you are working with something and still produce crap. That deserves an oscar.  Its Youtube. If they gave oscars for crap, everyone would have one.

[notthehulk442]

Great video, I can't wait till you cover the next election daily.

[MoralityVirtue2]

Rear Admiral hehe ... Funny, but you do make a good point indeed.

[cmcphee]

rear admiral...hehe

[DJK1726]

How so? What you're saying engenders a lot of ambiguity in the political realm, and I cannot see its practical application in the personal realm.

[DJK1726]

First, to return the immature jokes: Don't Ask, Don't Tell keeps America great and if ever stationed together, keeps me from showing Kotecki real service in the line of duty. *obligatory cat calls*

I'll drop the academia today and risk accusations of being flip and abstract. If serving this country and happening to be gay is simply too much to fathom and, to quote the illustrious Lewis Black, makes you go poopy, I do NOT want you trained to kill.

[ilikebeingsmart]

Amen, James.

[GuardianStealth]

If the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law is repealed, they'll have to repeal a secondary law from the military lawbooks as well: the one that says a sexually active couple cannot perfoms any sexual acts other than intercourse in the missionary position.

[gdrewpowers]

I'm surprised you passed on a "foxhole" joke after the rear admiral line...

Anyway, I've always seen people who join the service as soldier first and a person second (Maybe not the most popular stance, but if I was military thats the way I would be) and that don't ask don't tell should of applied to everyone, not just gay people. However it's never been used that way and needs to be gotten rid of. War applies to everybody, not just straight people.

[PeaceProfit]

Don't Ask, don't Tell:

Those who send others, to kill and die for the rights and equality they enjoy, while holding some of those rights as privilege unto themselves, have No*Moral ground upon which to deny any individual the freedoms they have sacrificed to defend.

[chukmaty]

You need to watch Crimson Tide.

The military defends democracy, it is not a democracy.

[PeaceProfit]

i*said nothing of democracy... and what any military defends is simply a matter of opinion... and ...

the military are NOT the hypocrites who "send others to kill and die for the rights and equality they enjoy"... they simply do the dirty work for those living the moral lie.

[chukmaty]

Nothing you said made any sense whatsoever. What are you even talking about?

[PeaceProfit]

if "Nothing i*said made any sense whatsoever" then why reply with a recommendation of what i*need to do, perhaps your reading your own opinion into my comments

i*am speaking to the hypocrisy of a system that holds privilege & rights to the few & are willing to send others especially those who are not afforded the same privilege & rights to kill & die to maintain that system

If you agree with such action there is no reason to try and understand my*truth & no reason to further this discussion.

[chukmaty]

Okay, lets break this shit down.

The few and the powerful can be gay all day long but they are sending soldiers who aren't allowed to be gay off to fight wars so the powerful few can continue to be gay? Is that what you are saying? Are you even on topic?

What the hell are you even talking about?

And what are with all the fucking asterisks? Are there footnotes to your post that I can't see?

[PeaceProfit]

talk about being off topic... and breaking shit down into one's own personal rant... i*am not here to feed you agenda... nor respond to it...

[chukmaty]

Dude, I honestly have no clue how your earlier comments related to the topic at hand. If you want to be all butthurt about it (; then go right on ahead. Your comment made no sense nor did it address DADT.

[kalozakos]

wohoo! I am the 1st view.

Restricting recruitment seems odd when military enlistment is low. Who cares about the sexuality of soldiers. Maybe a better policy would be to return to Betty Ford's "Just say No" . . . thanks, I'm not interested.

[chukmaty]

Lame gay jokes without addressing any of the serious issues involved, I expected a little better.

I respect the opinion that a person "does not need to be straight but just needs to shoot straight" however there are reasons why repealing don't ask don't tell is a bad idea.

For the record, I think it should be ask and tell... and gays cannot serve. Why do I hold such a clearly neanderthal viewpoint? Because I hate teh gayz? No... cont.

[chukmaty]

It raises some real conflict. Such as, like all red bloodded human beings, gays have a sex drive. On a long tour you want to have a real relationship with someone you are attracted to. While heterosexual do not serve directly on a battlefield with such opportunities, gays naturally would. Also, if we have learned anything about sexuality in the military, given the set of circumstances, sexual abuse is a real problem. It is one reason I think the military should be mono gender.

[DJK1726]

You're presenting a truism at best with the "long tour/real relationship." I have not encountered one soldier who holds that expectation.

I take profound exception to your placing the onus on the abused rather than abusers in rape and molestation cases. Does immunizing soldiers from criticism know no boundaries? If we're talking about rape and molestation, a line must be drawn in the sand.

[DJK1726]

As somewhat of a pre-emptive strike:

The "men will be men" canard doesn't hold up. In the general public, there has been found no significant correlation between going long stretches without sex and rape. Why should we believe soldiers are less capable of sexual restraint than the guys who just can't get any in regular society? Yes, soldiers' sacrifices are more noble and under hellish conditions. But does that render them hornier and less culpable were they to commit abuse? No.

[chukmaty]

Military abuse is higher than the general population, the statistics speak for themselves so I don't have to.

[chukmaty]

Frankly DJ, your an idiot. You are an idiot because I never justified sexual abuse, there is no good reason for you to say I did.

[DJK1726]

I did not say you were justifying. I said you were placing the onus, or burden, on the abused rather than the abusers themselves.

"Sexual abuse is a real problem. It is one reason I think the military should be mono gender."

Anyway you want to dice it, you are supporting punishing the victim, not the victimizer. You're saying the solution is to keep the abusers or would-be abusers and force out the abused.

[chukmaty]

No my friend, serving in the military is not a right, so not being able to serve is not punishment.

Sexual issues in the military are very real. On one hand, we want justice for the victim, on the other we have to think practically about what system provides the best atmosphere for a fighting force. Gender integration is not the best thing for the military, abuse is just one of the many reasons it is not practical.

[DJK1726]

Non-sequitur. Differentiating between inherent rights and earned privileges is irrelevant to punishment.

30% of female soldiers suffer sexual assault (Pentagon) compared with 20% of all American women (CDC). Under-reporting aside, should a 10% risk difference bar all women from service? Isn't that using a shotgun to swat a fly? Implementing military policies to better allow the reporting of abuse without repercussion seems more reasonable to close this gap.

[DJK1726]

I realize some people might answer me with the "reporting abuse weeds out too many men" nonsense, but that plays into some insulting assumptions about our male soldiers. Does anyone seriously believe that better reporting of sexual assault would lead to crucial shortages of male soldiers?

[chukmaty]

We do not need to feel like we are insulting male soldiers, we just need to recognize if you put people in specific situations, you are going to get specific results. The military is no different. If we are getting certain results and those results are negative, time to change the game plan.

[chukmaty]

Good point bro, on its own it should not. But this was an example of one issue, not the sole issue.

Also, this was never based on fairness, the abuse issue outlines how having individuals who would be sexually attracted to each other interfere with the goals and mission of the military. At the end of the day, that is really all that matters in this discussion. Will the presence of an individual add or subtract from the whole, not whether or not they are patriotic, brave, and good individuals.

[l0gically]

@chukmaty said "While heterosexual do not serve directly on a battlefield with such opportunities, gays naturally would"

Naturally? How so? How is it different than any other career choice?

[chukmaty]

Yu don't think the military doesn't have unique issues which set it a part from other professions? It obviously does, it is far different from other career choices.

Hetrosexual men are not on front line duty with women in the US military, homosexuals would be on the front line with men.  Sorry dude, I think you grossly misunderstood my comment because your question answers itself.

[l0gically]

@chukmaty "Yu don't think the military doesn't have unique issues which set it a part from other professions? It obviously does, it is far different from other career choices."

Such as?

[chukmaty]

Is this a serious question? Do you really think being a soldier on a foreign battlefield is comparable to being a grocer?

For one, as a soldier you surrender many of your liberties. You serve for the purpose of being in a part of an effective fighting force.

If you are in a private sector, civilian job, you do not have the same requirements and duties as someone in the military

[chukmaty]

In the military, you have to be in a certain weight bracket, cut your hair a specific way, abide by a dress code... heck, I have a friend who is an Officers candidate in the Marine Corps. He has to answer his cell phone in a very specific fashion.

This is not for kicks and giggles. Each branch of the military has its members carry themselves in a specific way so as to meet a certain goal and to be war ready. This extends to sexual matters.

[Themixedtwits]

So porn should be banned from the US military? Its not at the moment. Plus, your accusation that all gays are like jack from will + grace is unbridled homophobia.

[chukmaty]

What are you talking about? Never said anything of the sort, most of the illustrations I have used were of heterosexuals. You obviously did not read any of my posts, you fail royally.

Porn stars in a magazine or on a computer are not participating in a military unit.

[SabraMagdalena]

I can hardly see the correlation between being war-ready and one's sexuality.

[chukmaty]

There is non. However, men and women are not in front line combat units together, are they? Rhetorical question.

[chukmaty]

As much as we might not like it, certain areas of society a problem points if you are gay. The Boy Scouts is another institution that has to deal with this issue. Is it fair to gays who want to have a legitimate impact on the moral development of young men? Absolutely not. However, socially we are comfortable with creating barriers between adult men and young women in similar circumstances. We will not see male girl scout leaders.

Is this because heterosexual men are dangerous, no.

[DJK1726]

The Scouts' ban on gays has only seen hundreds of scout masters be convicted of child molestation. The policy only reinforces bigotry without weeding out the negative elements.

Of the convicted, many were married to women. Many had no adult relationships. Admittedly, many had same-sex relationships with adult men.

But it doesn't matter how it breaks down. It's all academic because determined child molesters, whatever their sexual orientation, will say whatever they need say to get access.

[DJK1726]

I just assume Boy Scouts do away with overnight camping. May seem cold, but hey, Michael Jackson's sleepovers? To take the eccentricity out of the equation, let's say Ron Howard or Denzel Washington did the same. Would you feel any differently? After all, it's a grown man sharing sleeping quarters with unrelated children. That's Scouts. Is it not? Keep the other scouting rituals, but If kids want to camp overnight with an adult, have it be a relative or someone the guardian knows intimately.

[chukmaty]

That would be a terrible idea, that is a major part of scouting. I did camping trips with various groups on a very regular basis, if you establish ground rules and have the leadership under some form of oversight it is really not something that is likely to happen. When I got older and became a leader for these kinds of activities, not scouting per se, groups put rules in place to protect the safety of the kids.  And we avoid clearly dumb scenarios like putting men in charge of girls... etc.

[chukmaty]

Yea, you missed the point entirely as you have made a regular habit of doing. You are right, people who want to harm kids will do whatever it takes. However, I NEVER FUCKING SAID G

GAYS WANT TO HURT KIDS! I said that we do not allow even good men to be girl scout leaders, because eventually if we follow such a policy, we are certain to get burned. And the same goes for gay men with boy scouts, it is terribly unfortunate, but we do it anyways.

[DJK1726]

A regular habit would be strawmen and putting words in my mouth. I said the policy fails to achieve its intended goals and has the effect of demonizing. I did not say its intentions are purposefully demonizing, as you claim.

How are we "certain to get burned" with gay scout leaders if we both agree molesters cannot be screened out? Are you expressing concern over consensual relationships between scout masters and older scouts (Note my asking instead of accusing.)? If so, reductio ad absurdum.

[chukmaty]

It is not that a straight or gay man is uniquely "dangerous" it is that we create boundaries between straight men and straight women in certain institutions for specific reasons. And while it is not fair, we have to leave those barriers up for gays for the same reason. It is not fair because gays have to struggle then to fit in outside the standard social rules that work much more easily with being straight.

As much as I sympathize and regret that this is the way it is, it is the way it is.

[chukmaty]

Do I think this is fair? Not even remotely, it simply isn't, it makes me very sad. Gays and women are clearly just as capable of loving their country as a straight male. But this is not about being fair, the criteria for being in the military should be whatever allows for absolute best results. Sexual relationships, hetro or homo, are as of now considered something that should not be a part of the equation. The rules for civilian life, and the opportunity to do what we want don't apply.

[chukmaty]

That said, as someone who is not in the military, I respect all that you service men and women are dong for our country day in day out... straight, gay, male, female... I really do, we all owe you such a big dept.

[BlackJavaBean]

I would be interested to see how "open" the gay soldiers would actually be. Even if their branch of the military allows them to be open, there are still limits to what each branch will allow.

Also, for their own safety, I'm sure of lot would stay closeted (at least at first) - I mean, no body wants a "training accident".