11 Openly gay soldiers fired from Army in January

Fucking right on. Exactly how I feel.

I fucking hate this argument because it's laden with disrespect, it implies that the U.S. military doesn't serve a Republic and that somehow our constitution doesn't apply to it.

What you have to remember is that the United States military is a branch of our REPUBLIC.

It serves our CONSTITUTION and must follow the same rules as the rest of us.

The national security thing is total bullshit, especially when military policymakers have already come out and admitted that DADT exists because they hate gays and for no other reason.

'The military just needs time to grow. In the past, black soldiers were segregated into their own units often non-combative ones but with the slow erosion of miltary prejudice thru intergration, it stopped becoming an issue. In fact many on both sides came to respect each other which they never would have been able to do in the civilian world. This too was a sign of the times as intergration of the forces began in the 50s.

The military just needs time and a society more behind the idea. Change society and the military with its practical thinking will follow.

But as it is, by allowing openly gay folks in the military, you'll be depriving us gutless cowards of a way out of a warzone. Years from now when draftees are called up to fight bloodthristy Klingons, they're going to be cursing socio-political activists of our time."

And look at this, you ALREADY UNDERSTAND why it's wrong and stupid. So why are you even making this argument?

We're losing talented, committed servicemen and women, plenty of them translators that speak Arabic, because of this stupid rule.

Why keep it? Especially when you just compared it to segregation?

yes, sam's argument is not really an argument at all, just a confused rambling that reveals little depth, even less understanding of historical and/or sociological factors, and a negative tone.

and I fucking hate your overthetop intolerant attitude to a difference in opinion, sally and uni. You two are no different than extremists of any socio-political idealogy. You're just all or nothing, with us or against us intolerant loonies.

And uni is a laugh about negative! Yeah, right! Look in a mirror. You're one of most aggressive and negative contributors here with your in your face intolerant stances.

Chill pills, folks! As it is, you two are too wound up and too wound tight to have a civil discourse.

lol dude, don't lump me in with uni because she posted after me. I haven't made in any way dismissed your the way arguments she has.

I don't think you're some intolerant bigot and I don't rail against your right to an opinion. Is my discourse not civil? What have I said that is disingenuous or antithetical to free speech?

The reason I'm so stubborn about this issue is because it's just something that's flatly wrong.

For what reason should we continue DADT? Its crafters have admitted that there was no military strategy involved and even if they hadn't it's unconstitutional and makes no sense.

I mean really, what is the other side to this argument?

Also, no need for a chill pill. Sally doesn't freak out over here. Really, I don't lose sleep at night because of current.

Well actually I do, because I spend so much damn time on it. XD

Seriously though, people tend to project their feelings and current attitude on the text that they're reading.

My response wasn't angry, sorry if it seemed that way. Really, I'm barely ever angry with other commentators.

Arguments can annoy the shit out of me when I don't think they make sense or especially when they're disingenuous. But don't ever think that a rebuttal from me, even a vehement one, is an attempt to silence you or rage you out of existence.

Separate isn't equal.

Segregation was overturned by the supreme court over 50 years ago now.

Get with the times.

Please just hit the "reply" button next time =).

Your friendly neighbor,
Tabula

ps, I didn't mean to incorporate you in the high horse, unless you're going around and putting others down with silly name calling.

this discussion is not about peace, it is about equality; and nobody is forcing you to participate.

It seems quite clear that you don't care or appreciate the plight of gay men and women in the US military.

But why don't you take a nap grandpa, maybe when you wake up you will remember where you left your empathy.

Apparently you have more or less the same amount of empathy as anyone else here. So tell me where you left yours and maybe we'll find it together.

I didn't say anyone has forced me to join this discussion, of course, I chose to impose myself.

Peace can never be achieved, it's the absence of peace that makes life worth living.

hey artemis-

yah in my psych 111 class, we read a study about this. It came down to about 80% of declared male homophobes were actually sexually attracted to other men.

If that relates to me in any way, hate doesn't even come close to my personal opinion. I have known and been friends with many gay, bi, whatever people and I have had many bosses who are gay. I just look at people as people and if you're doing your part then I'm fine with that.

But you need to stop accusing people of blatant hate. It's not that white and black
You are mirroring your own ignorance by calling everyone else stupid and homophobes... and some other things.

Chill my friend, relax.

@tabras

I am relaxed and feeling good

If you are homophobic than I am talking about you; if you are homophobic you are ignorant, and guilty of hate. It is that simple, that black and white.

I don't know if your homophobic, and the fact that you would ask someone else about where you stand is curious to say the least.

really? Where? Just coming in swinging with the word homophobe does not make everyone you disagree with a homophobe. did you even bother reading most people's reply above you before you tossed that cliche out?

The only one I see above your comment remotely homophobic of the nature you rant about (which has nothing to do with the topic BTW) is clownpuncher but no one takes them seriously. That's one out of many. Try not to be the Boy who cried Homophobic Wolf simply for the sake of Drama.

hi sam,

we have missed your negative, contrarian, and vacuous replies.

when did you get all bitchy, uni? Face it, you're wrong and you're melodramatic - nothing new.

dave

no accounting for taste, sorry you fail to appreciate my keen rhetoric.

As for right and wrong, the only thing wrong here is opposing fair and equal treatment of gays in the military.

He's right uni.

Not everyone that supports DADT is a raging bigot.

Some of them are just morons who don't get it.

Who do you convince by calling someone a homophobe? Plus you're killing that term, it's a psychological illness that only applies to certain kinds of people.

You shouldn't just throw it out at people who aren't rational enough to overcome societal norms.

YES! You just said what I had in mind!

I have no problem with your argument. It's pretty good, but there is one little detail.

The government isn't telling you you have to stop being gay, you just need to have some self control.

If you were a girl(which, if I'm judging your picture correctly, you are one) and I just came up to you and started saying or doing things that you wouldn't like, wouldn't you feel like I had no self control and that your uncomfortable?

That's all the government and everyone else is saying. If you are attracted to someone, whether male or female, control your feelings and let it go.

I'm pretty sure that the army teaches you to have self control, if you didn't already know from your parents.

@Air1306,

I actually have a big problem with this argument. Your argument is an implication, which I did address, that homosexuals are these uncontrollable people that cannot control their emotions and actions who will butt rape you on the drop of a hat. In the military, it is policy that no one (heterosexual or homosexual) is allowed to have any sexual relationships with any other cadets, privates, officers, and soldiers. But, why restrict it to homosexuals? Heterosexuals have to "have some self control" as well. This idea that homosexuals cannot control themselves is a stereotype used by opponents to scare others into believing that all homosexuals act this way. Remember, heterosexuals should be told the same. Why are homosexuals targeted? The video that I presented is a documentary about the negative effects of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. It even documented a congressional debate that had all the higher officials in the Pentagon that claimed that homosexuals are not adequate or fit to serve in the military. Most of these policies against homosexuals in the military is stemmed from stereotypes and assumptions.

anglcazn - First rule of rhetoric, you never say anything with absolute certainty, it makes you seem headstrong and stubborn.

I have a huge problem with your statements, in fact your argument seems to contradict itself right from the start, quoted statement follows:

"Gays are not going to butt rape heterosexual soldiers on a random basis. In fact, heterosexual male soldiers are consistently raping women in military. One incident involved three soldiers raping an entire base of women, except for a small handfull. So, the idea that homosexuals will "hit on" or "rape" the heterosexual male soldiers is incorrect."

You admit freely that rape occurs in the military, a fact that should not surprise anyone. What makes you think rape is restricted to heterosexuals? You present another fallacy in assuming that, because heterosexuals commit rape, homosexuals will not rape or assault heterosexuals. You're missing a HUGE connection between those two conclusions. Who's to say that gay men won't be raping other gay men? Or that straight men won't be raping gay women? You cannot say for certain, so please don't speak as though you are the ultimate authority.

Interesting points though.

"anglcazn - First rule of rhetoric, you never say anything with absolute certainty, it makes you seem headstrong and stubborn."

"No, you will not change my mind, ever."

Remember that comment? Sounds pretty absolute to me.

And no, philosophically speaking, you can't ever say anything factually related with absolute certainty.

But I'm not going to sit here and doubt that my arm is attached to my body. We can definitely agree that we are all experiencing the same reality and that not all of it is ambiguous or beyond comprehension.

So what fact is it that you feel had been said with too much certainty? What has she said that was questionable?

Just saying that as a general dismissal is not an argument, it's an excuse for not providing a refutation.

"Who's to say that gay men won't be raping other gay men? Or that straight men won't be raping gay women? You cannot say for certain, so please don't speak as though you are the ultimate authority."

This argument is legitimate, but that was very obviously a mistake in her post and not a part of some larger point that homosexuals never rape or would never rape if they were in the military. And I think that's self-evident.

Her point was that the idea that homosexuals are dangerous is absurd considering the insane amount of heterosexual rape that goes on.

Although statistically speaking, homosexual rape is significantly less prevalent than heterosexual rape. It barely exists. And in most cases, the rapist is a heterosexual homophobe (or at least self-identifies as one) and rapes homosexuals out of his fear or hatred of them.

Also, don't you have anything else to say besides "interesting points?"

If her points are "interesting," you obviously are seeing the logic and fact in them. If that's the case, maybe you should go back to your other post and remove the "No, you will not change my mind, ever" comment.

loftyer~

Of all the countless wars this country has fought, I'm 100% positive that a gay man or lesbian woman has fallen for your freedoms.

"yea for str8 people"?

how about "yea for homphobic bigots"? how about "yea for ignorant red necks"? how about "yea for hate"?

How does chocolate chip cookies have any relevance to this?

And dude, it's not that they need to keep their sexuality hidden, I mean, I don't really care if your gay or not.

But when people go around and "examine" you and are OPENLY expressing their sexuality, THAT's when it gets uncomfortable.

I've said it before:

"I wouldn't care if I knew you were gay, but seriously, if you have no self control, I don't think you should be serving.

Personally, if I'm in the shower naked with other men, I wouldn't want to see a guy examining me. It's just uncomfortable.

Besides, knowing the minds of men, I doubt when you are naked with people your attracted to, you wouldn't think of indecent thoughts."

Air-

Yes, A gay man may think "indecent thoughts" but that does not mean he is going to uncontrollably act on them... If you see a hot woman do you have indecent thoughts? can you control yourself? Yes.

they do get chaptered out, mit is called Overweight.

Seriously guys, are you not LOOKING at what I said? I said if they CAN'T control themselves then they shouldn't be serving! If they can control themselves, then its fine!

(Ex. If a hetro man sees a good looking female, the guy will have bad thoughts, but if he can control himself, then no one would care, and no one would feel uncomfortable right?)

The army is kicking people out because they CAN'T CONTROL THEMSELVES.

I doubt they care if your homo or hetro, if your willing to serve and you can control your feelings towards another individual, then I'm pretty sure they won't kick you out.

You're wrong air, and every post in this thread demonstrates why.

They are kicked out BECAUSE they are homosexual, not because of an act they committed it.

If someone ousts you, you are kicked out. You don't have to act on your feelings.

Plus your argument is absurd, because heterosexual people are NOT kicked out for acting on their feelings.

See some of the other posts I've made in this thread.

Exactly!

The military can search web profiles if they suspect a service member is gay. It is not simply a matter of not telling, you may need to actively hide huge portions of your life just to keep your job.

Yeah, meanig they are actively persecuting them, like it's a fucking crime. Plus, Air. what the fuck? cuz someone is gay it automaticly means that they have to check you out? Grow up.

no doubt you would feel differently if you were gay and in the military.

While you pose as an idealist you reveal a profound lack of empathy, which makes your remarks sound callous and naive.

You clearly have never served, nor apparently knew anyone who served. No, you are not an individual in the military. Regardless of orientation, race, sex, et al.

That is not completely true. Yes, you are part of a team and have a higher level of responsibility than many civilians but I have yet to meet a soldier who lacks an outside life.

And you Ares have obviously never experienced freedom.

ares is up front about his homophobia, but his service does nothing to recommend an opinion which endorses hate and ignorance.

fascist? You have to be a Pelosi follower.

Unimatrix, you are to yet use the term homophobia correctly. No one on this forum that I have read has demonstrated any irrational fear of gays.

And speaking of experiencing freedom, people have a right to voice their legitimate concerns about gays and not be falsely labeled a fascist or homophobe.

That's an innacurate gay stereotype.

You are right Fallen, probably could have used something else there.

You have a point there...because for one thing, how many soldiers make it brutally obvious that they're straight?

Your argument is why the bill still exists, but it's demonstrably untrue.

The truth is that DADT has fired 12,000 honest, committed, talented servicemen since its enactment. And the only reason it exists is because military policymakers hate gays and have admitted that publicly.

DADT allows people to place leverage on gays because a gay can be OUTED by others, he doesn't have to admit it himself. So it becomes a tool for gay haters to weed out gays because they can ask all kinds of questions to make gay people feel uncomfortable because if they admit that they're gay, they get kicked out.

Of course, they also use these questions to find and beat the shit out of gays. So it's not like gaybashing is stopped by DADT.

Plus, by this same logic, we should racially segregate the army as well. Because there are still racial conflicts.

Meanwhile, the army curbs restrictions for former felons and gang members, total hypocrisy.

The bottom line is that DADT is dishonest, discriminatory, based on hate, does not work and is unconstitutional.

It should be repealed.

honest?

lol

wow you do not know the military saladin. Most people use it as a way to get out of the army. If you are in the army for good reasons and you were gay i doubt you would not say you are just to put it out there.

I appreciate your opinion and will not attempt to discredit it, but I have to tell you that I've heard that point of view a hundred times, and nobody ever addresses legitimate issues.

Where will gays bunk? Will they have separate barracks? That implies that they are, in fact, different, and need separate living quarters. Then, however, there are gay men all in one building. Should we put gay men and straight women all in one building, then gay women with the straight men? The logistics are an infinite paradox.

I mean honestly, all this fuss for approximately 10% of our population. I just don't have the patience for it. You're different, gays, deal with it.

OK. First of all, I am straight. I am just open minded and do not believe in nor tolerate second class citizenship. I have plenty of lesbian friends. Do they come on to me? No. There is this common misconception that in the case of homosexuality, those who orient towards same-sex relations will somehow not be able to control themselves or act professionally. That is absurd logic. Also, someone's orientation doesn't make them any more/less masculine or feminine. These gender roles are constructs. It's not like every gay man runs around in pink polo shirts screaming "fabulous!"

Why would they need separate bunks? I can say that I don't want to be sexually intimate with every man that I see, so why should we assume that homosexuals do want to be?

You cannot quarantine immutable characteristics. There are plenty of racist people in this country, but in 2009, an all-black or all-latino barrack would NEVER FLY. Why should homosexuals be treated differently?

You're trying to tell me that you wouldn't have a problem with, say, sharing a locker room with about 20 gay men. No problem whatsoever with being around naked men that much?

I don't think so, Ms. G. If you can honestly say you wouldn't have a problem with it, then there are fewer of you than there are gays in the country.

I am not predicting, I am TELLING you, if don't ask don't tell is repealed, gays WILL have separate barracks. You can be assured of that.

First of all, we do not tolerate second class citizenship in this country, equality is something people fight for, its a freedom. If we do away with it then theres no point in fighting for our country.

Your acting as if gays are going to come on to every straight man and the straight men are going to engage in sexual relationships. If we take this approach we should keep gays in seperate dorms in college, seperate schools even, seperate offices, heck lets put em in little camps.

Gay men are not going to turn the straight guys into homosexuals, so they can bunk together. Nothing is going to happen. If your afraid of two guys getting into a relationship, theres a seperate set of rules for that and has nothing to do with being gay or not.

You Ares hold the same point of view when blacks werent in the military, hispanics, women, etc....

So, there are no gays sharing barracks with heteros now? That is a surprise.

thank you nicker. good points.

There should maybe just be a general rule that while in service no two people in the service can date regardless of the two genders

Nicker - it is not my intention to uphold bigotry or hatred toward ANY minority group, but if you'll recall, when the armed forces were integrated based on race, plenty of blacks WERE physically harmed, or worse. There are pages upon pages of bullshit in the armed forces codes regarding females in service, are we to enact the same regulations on gays?

MichaelX - That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. Are you suggesting that a married couple in the service shouldn't be permitted to continue their relationship? Or simply that they could not engage in intimate acts while on duty? Congratulations, you're supporting restrictions on sexuality.

"Nicker - it is not my intention to uphold bigotry or hatred toward ANY minority group, but if you'll recall, when the armed forces were integrated based on race, plenty of blacks WERE physically harmed, or worse. There are pages upon pages of bullshit in the armed forces codes regarding females in service, are we to enact the same regulations on gays?"

Yes, that's the point.

Separate is not equal, we don't approve of segregation even when it works because it's fucking evil, wrong and against our constitution.

Plus gays are going into the military knowing and expecting this, that is NOT the purpose of the gay ban.

Just like racial segregation, DADT was NOT enacted to protect gays, it was enacted because the military is socially conservative and it hates gays.

"MichaelX - That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. Are you suggesting that a married couple in the service shouldn't be permitted to continue their relationship? Or simply that they could not engage in intimate acts while on duty? Congratulations, you're supporting restrictions on sexuality"

Those restrictions already exist. Under most circumstances, sexual contact is not allowed in the service. Only off-base and off-duty are people allowed to do that from what I understand.

Plus, isn't that what YOU are advocating for? That heterosexuals can engage in sex but homosexuals can't? So I don't understand the outrage here.

"Separate is not equal, we don't approve of segregation even when it works because it's fucking evil, wrong and against our constitution."

SO then we should integrate male and female barracks? After all, not every female is attracted to every male and vise versa. We can just make up some rules about no sexual contact, and ta da, no problems, I'm sure.

"Just like racial segregation, DADT was NOT enacted to protect gays, it was enacted because the military is socially conservative and it hates gays."

This comment is just ignorant and and pure liberalism rhetoric, nothing else. The military does not hate gays, if it did, it would just ban them outright. They are worried about unit cohesion and morale, and rightfully so. Most guys, especially those already in and joining the military, would NOT be comfortable showering and in such close situations with gays for 24/7. It has nothing to do with hating or fearing gays, but it would break down unit cohesion.

Also, the whole argument that gays will not accept being 2nd class citizens because they are not allowed into the military is stupid. Tons of people are seen as not fit or not allowed into the military. For christ's sake, anyone who had an asthma breakout after the age of 13 is not allowed to serve. There are tons more medical, psychological, physical, and personality restrictions, all of which does not make anyone a second class citizen.

Um... yeah. People with asthma, flat feet, and congenital heart problems can still get married, share insurance benefits and watch their loved ones die in a hospital bed. You clearly don't understand what a second class citizen is.

And you obviously don't realize this is a topic on DADT, not gay marriage or other rights, which I am for.

I am just saying that not allowed being in the military does not make you a second class citizen, so quit trying to tie DADT to gay marriage.

"SO then we should integrate male and female barracks? After all, not every female is attracted to every male and vise versa. We can just make up some rules about no sexual contact, and ta da, no problems, I'm sure."

From a constitutional standpoint, yes, that is my point.

We don't use segregation even when it works.

"The military does not hate gays, if it did, it would just ban them outright."

The jokes on you, they already came out and fucking admitted it on record.

And what the fuck is this shit about unit cohesion? What a joke. Allowing gay people to admit their existence is going to irreversibly fuck over the military? Give me a break.

And there IS a ban on gays, that's the fucking point of DADT.

You get BANNED if someone finds out.

How much did you have to twist your fucking brain to think that DADT is somehow inclusive?

"Also, the whole argument that gays will not accept being 2nd class citizens because they are not allowed into the military is stupid. Tons of people are seen as not fit or not allowed into the military. For christ's sake, anyone who had an asthma breakout after the age of 13 is not allowed to serve. There are tons more medical, psychological, physical, and personality restrictions, all of which does not make anyone a second class citizen."

Something which affects your performance is very obviously not the same as discrimination based on sexual preference.

If you can't fucking recognize that, you're a tool.

a_mo, please note that you are replying to my original post, where if you take the time to read carefully, you will see that I am not creating a thread on gay marriage, rather pointing out that heteronormative standards in society and policy have the effect of creating second class citizens. This is all relevant in the context of a greater conversation on rights.

You may believe that DADT was created to protect, but that it was politicians said about prohibition, too. People could not be trusted to drink because, gasp, alcohol could lead to the downfall of capitalist production and consumption. American history (and most history for that matter) is patterned by marginalized groups that are the targets of differentiated rights to push a social agenda. This is not OK.

I understand that there are health conditions that may impact one's ability to fight and serve. Homosexuality is not a health condition. The same way that race and gender are not health conditions. Each marginal group has faced an immense battle when trying to break through the barriers of the military. These unbalanced policies DO make second class citizens. Think back to recent history of women, latinos and african americans in the armed forces.

And as for morale? I will tell you what breaks morale: stop losses, high death tolls and lying, deceitful politicians that don't make good on their promises to find solutions or at least provide ample bodies on the ground in the mean time. Why on earth would you actively seek to cut ranks given these circumstances???

thats stupid they shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable and the only way to fix those kinds of stigmas in our society is to do away with arbitrary/unfair rules like this 1

Right, nothing says "let's all get along" like some poor man being murdered or physically brutalized while serving, because some serviceman didn't want to bunk with a gay.

Tick tock, mate, if we do away with this, you're going to be looking at some more disturbing headlines.

That doesn't make too much sense. I slightly understand what your getting at talking about being unconfortable living in barracks, but i dont understand why it makes a differenceif a man in a mens barrack is secretive about being gay opposed to being open about it. It's not like every gay man or every lesbian women makes a straight member of the same sec feel uncomfortable. Its not like everyone super forthcoming about the way they act. Mainly i do not believe willing individuals who want to fight for our country should be kicked out. Someone said earlier why not have a gay men group. if there are squadrants of straight why not have it for gay men or women too.
We should not deny someone the right to fight for their country because of their sexuality. It's not right.

@ares

you are upfront and honest about your homophobia, and you are wrong. You make excuses for bigotry and hatred.

woh woh, bigotry and hate are strong words, he was simply just saying it how it is whether you believe it or not.

tab ras

homophobia is bigotry and hate; and that is what ares is selling.

Ares, you do know how many other countries allow Gays openly in their Military,right, with no major problems? Even friggin Israel and Russia.

Unimatrix -

I hate that it has become trendy to throw around words like "homophobia" and "bigotry" when anybody speaks the slightest bit of skepticism regarding homosexual rights or news. I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. I am taking as objective a standpoint as I possibly can, and I am telling you (and you too occono) that if we integrate open homosexuals into the military, there will be problems. Count on it. Fuck you for wrongfully judging me based on a single statement with little to no subjective context, you self-righteous jackass.

Ares, on the basis of your argument we should racially segregate the military.

There are plenty of racial conflicts in the military as well, often times they're gang related but it isn't uncommon for white supremacists or other racists to join up as well.

And people are fragged on that basis.

So should we segregate the army?

And it's not even that argument that's the worst.

Throw away for a minute this idea of "safety" (which isn't even true and I can prove it if you watch the video I posted below) it is literally unconstitutional and wrong to do this.

You're turning DADT into something it's not. It's propaganda to say that this is about gays being quiet.

DADT is literally a ban on gays. If the military FINDS OUT that you are gay, you are kicked out. You don't have to reveal yourself, that's not how this works. So people can use leverage against you or ask you questions about your sexuality to try and out you on the spot and then beat you up later etc. etc. etc.

The bottom line is that our military serves THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, and gays should be able to serve without scrutiny regarding their identity as they are taxpaying citizens like everyone else.

Plus, why not apply DADT to other things? Why not apply it to atheists? They shouldn't be allowed to reveal themselves right? It makes people uncomfortable and angry and it's not safe. Plus why would they need to?

You see where this is going? What's the purpose?

Plus DADT only exists because military policy makers are generally socially conservative and they hate gays. This isn't an exaggeration, they openly admit that this was the reason. Again, watch the video I posted below.

There is no fucking reason to keep DADT. It makes no sense and it's unconstitutional.

"How hard can it be to keep it to yourself?"

Miss your spouse? "Keep it to yourself"
Miss your kids? "Keep it to yourself"
Miss your life at home? "Keep it to yourself"

What happens when all around you homosexual jokes are made? What happens when your buddies are talking about their ideal woman?

More importantly, what happens when your spouse or partner or child is sick or dying at home without you? What happens when you can't go home on emergency leave for that? Keep it to yourself?

You think that's easy?!

Fuck, you beat me to it. I couldn't say better. "keep it to yourself"? Bullshit!

Meh, rules are rules and if you want to be in the army you better keep it to yourself. The boys in the south that predominately make up the armed services are the ones who you should be shooting your flame to.

But as far as your reply, I could care less as long as they do their job and I could care less about your negative comment *shrug*.

"To every position, there is going to be opposition"

Alex, this would mean that the simple act of hanging a picture of your partner on your wall near your bunk would mean that you were inviting the "tell" part into your life... but the guy next to you with the wife tacked up on the wall that he looks at every night before sleep is ok and good to go. SICK.

think about it, those little tiny things you take for grantid... like just getting close to your friends and talking about your life back home- can't do it!! it's against the rules!!!

Some of us get discharged because random people call in and say they spotted us with a same-sex partner at Wal-Mart once. We didn't tell, nobody asked but we get discharged. You misunderstand the policy, Gay Soldiers essentially have to kill any person ever who may know they are gay in order to ensure full security.