Wait wait wait. Normal people? HAHA I don’t think so. I live in a little suburban town with a mom a dad a sister a dog and a 2 story house. I get descent grades in school and I hang out with friends. BUT because I like guys and I’m a guy I’m not normal? Riiiight. And why is that whenever a ignorant person sees someone gay they think “holy crap this guys going to ask me out or kiss me”, it doesn’t work like that. You wouldn’t go up and randomly kiss a chick, we don’t randomly kiss guys. We don’t ponce on you just because you sleep in the next bunk over. Hell, theres a good chance we’re not even attracted to you. Just because we’re gay doesn’t mean we lost our manners. Duh.

if these homos, who know the rules would obide by the law, then they would not join the military

Yes, how dare they want to serve this country.

What you’re overlooking is that in many cases the people ejected were not being openly homosexual… the military actively looked for evidence of homosexuality (that’d be in violation of the “don’t ask” part).

There’s all kinds of reasons that this policy is wrong. There’s this blog entry, which also talks about how unfair it all is, too. (Doesn’t talk about the pricetag, though.)

It’s a stupid argument, just like gay marriage. We set up “Civil Unions” to give them the “same rights,” but they’re not the same. Separate But Equal didn’t work for African Americans in the 60’s either. Now we have straight couples wanting to have Civil Unions because it’s a better alternative to divorce…. We set up this whole system, but then deny them basic rights such as spousal priviledge, legal rights to property or pensions after death, the right to see their significant other when they’re dying in the hospital, etc…. It would just be much easier to let them get married and/or serve in combat. We’ll have to wait until the current generation in power dies off before any of these changes are made.

To all those of you against gay marriage….. it used to be illegal for interracial marriages too…..

Spoken like someone who’s never been to combat or served.

More accurately, that was spoken like someone who has seem someone discharged for sexual orientation, and agreed with that decision.

Could go either way… no one can say for sure.

If a select group of soldiers have a problem with having a gay man or woman in their platoon, they are a bad representation of the freedoms are country was founded on and we’d be better off without them serving.

Well said. Our soliders are, in a way, representatives of our country. For people in Iraq and Afghanistan, this may be the only contact with real Americans that they’ve ever had. The soldiers who treated prisoners as hazing props in Iraq were poor representatives of our country. Likewise with the kind of person who would leave the military because it allowed blacks, women, gays, etc.

Soldiers wouldn’t be allowed to leave out of “disgust” – joining the military places you in a legally binding contract, and failing to adhere to the antidiscrimination rules presented in new legislation will result in punishment. If a soldier chooses to leave, it would be desertion and he would be imprisoned.

I meant “not re-up”, not just leave at random times.. my mistake.

And I was not arguing on behalf of those point, merely pointing out that one has to consider the fiscal downfalls of such points in order to lend creedence to this report Mark used in his post. You cannot only look at one side of the coin and say “Look! It’s costing us millions of dollars!” and neglect the otehr half of the equation…

The fact that this policy has cost such-and-such dollars is useless to contemplate unless you have an equal study of what it would cost the military WITHOUT this policy. If the military relaxed it’s rules and allowed open homosexuality, how much time would be lost dealing with all the implications? How many soliders would leave (at least in part) due to disguist with other soldiers?

Soldiers wouldn’t be allowed to leave out of “disgust” – joining the military places you in a legally binding contract, and failing to adhere to the antidiscrimination rules presented in new legislation will result in punishment. If a soldier chooses to leave, it would be desertion and he would be imprisoned.

The same argument was used before other countries authorized open homosexuality in their military ranks and after everything was said and done, virtually none of the fears came to pass. Furthermore, I know several men and women scattered throughout the military branches who are very open with their homosexuality, and their comrades have no problem with it.

Discrimination of many outweighs the fear of a few, and it is only right to allow gays to be themselves while serving in the military. If a select group of soldiers have a problem with having a gay man or woman in their platoon, they are a bad representation of the freedoms are country was founded on and we’d be better off without them serving.

This policy saves lives. How can you concentrate on battle when you are more concerned with the status of you significant other the next platoon over?

I support this policy the same way I support not having women in combat roles. It is not because of discrimination but because they are a distraction to the majority and people could die.

Spoken like someone who’s never been to combat or served.