Since I served in the Army and had plenty of conversations with people in the military about this issue, I know it will not work. Most guys in the military come from the streets, in big cites like LA, NY and Chicago, or from the deep south and they are mostly anti-gay. This would be a very bad Idea if it really happens. I would like to know what the top military generals have to say about this.

Personally, I do not think this is a big deal, and here is why.

 

Unlike the past, the military is now full of professionals who care about their careers. If we still had conscripts, it would be a different matter.

 

Brutality to other soldiers can and does result in getting kicked out. 

 

Fraternization can and does result in getting kicked out.

 

It will go surprising smoothly.  I do not even think the situation will require special protections for gays.

 

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8301120.stm

[quote]
Page last updated at 03:27 GMT, Sunday, 11 October 2009 04:27 UK.

Obama to end military gay policy

US President Barack Obama has said he will end the ban on gay people serving openly in the military.

He said he would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gay people to serve in the military if they do not reveal their sexual orientation.
Mr Obama was speaking to America's largest gay group - the Human Rights Campaign - in Washington.
He had been criticised by some in the gay community for the lack of action on gay marriage and the military issue.
A big gay rights protest march is planned in Washington for Sunday.
[unquote]

As long as you have an almost men-only organization with average education, gays are going to have very hard time. Thus, the abolition of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is a guarantee of numerous discrimination law suits.

The whole gay pride thing starts to look like part of the plot to destroy Western civilization. Maybe Sharia law isn't that bad after all, since, if you are reading this, you are a man.

Yes.

It's got to all be about power and money rather than about someone's concept of justice.

 

The lawsuits will essentially result in an unequal and priviledged status for gays in the military that will probably translate into power.

 

It might also be about benefits. We might expect domestic partner dependent benefits to follow. The military is, to the Dems, a source of largesse to be dispensed those who are in their favor.

 

There already is a massive problem of benefits being paid out to phony spouses of military members. There should be a rule that family benefits will not be given for anyone under 21. Gays are part of American society whether we agree with the lifestyle or not, we have a volunteer military, if they don't want to be around a gay person they can find another line of work where there are no gays, good luck though.

It does, otherwise there will no law suits. No law suits, no need for lawyers, and no money will be paid to them. Political Correctness is good for litigation industry.

Litigation has much less effect on the government than you evidently think.

 

Litigation can and does change the rules directly by judicial decree.

Litigation has little effect for financial reasons, for 3 reasons.  1)  The government generally has to agree to be sued if it is to be sued, since it is the taxpayer who ultimately pays and is punished, and 2) It is the taxpayer who ultimately pays and is punished, so any big payouts have little effect on decision making government officials, and 3) Government officials themselves have blanket immunity from lawsuits unless they did something that is way outside the scope of duties.

 

 

President Clinton tried to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military in the first month of his administration. The net effect was to turn an administrative rule banning gays and lesbians in the US military into a federal law with the same prohibition. If President Obama wants to overturn the ban, he will have to get the US Congress to do it. He'll have to move pretty quickly because the 2010 elections are coming up. He just might lose one or both houses, and this is one of those emotional, hot-button issues that inflames the passions of "values voters." 

 

On the other hand, it just might be another one of Mister Obama's empty promises to a constituent group of his ruling coalition. You never can tell with this president.

 

   

Now you see it's the beginning of homosexual racket that will get all of us killed.

I do not see it.

I don't think homosexuals will necessarily become a protected class, and that is not what Obama is talking about.

Wait until you start to see some lawsuits. Don't worry, I'll be feeding the news here so you won't miss it. Then you'll hear about certain kind of diversity training awarded to certain sexual-oriented rights group by DOD. You can start call it "political correctness industry." Beware of the political-correct industrial complex.

 

 

All the fuss about this is misplaced. Homosexuals have been allowed to serve in the Australian military since 1992 and it is still an effective fighting force. All that is needed is for all members to know their responsibilities towards each other and for that to be backed up with effective military discipline.

 The US military does not implement rules barring homosexual personnel from service. Most high ranking people couldn't careless about servicemen's sexual orientation. However, the reality is the reality. Some knowledge is best left unknown. The current rule is designed to minimize bureaucratic burden instead of being against homosexual. As long as you have the rule like that, some 8-year Major in the Army can't just come out of the closet and sue the Army for discrimination by denying his promotion. Apparently you need to take Conservatism 101. In the third week we will talk about what is "work the system" and rules designed to further the interests of litigation industry.

the whole argument of gay rights is completely facile. sexual identity and racial/ethnic identities are two seperate categories within the human identity...and yet is conveniently and slovenly lumped together. If a heterosexual community is forced to tolerate homosexuality within the community, then why not multiple partners, or say incest or whatever hoowy alternative lifestyle you can concoct....I am one that says whatever you do in your house is your freedom lovin choice, but on the street, i believe the heterosexual community has a right to define the sexual norms and more of its society for its children and its children's children. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers weren't discussing sexually defined communities when the concept of "equality" was being discussed in building a framework of a democratic republic.

 

as for the military now becoming a political correct organization on paper, it will engender disharmony and discomfort, when this is one organization that needs to have its eye on the ball, a complete unit working together...questions of homosexuality only serve to demoralize/distract/politicize a vital nation-defense structure.

 

'Liberty cannot exist without morality, and morality cannot exist without faith.'

E. Burke

 

 

As I said on the individual level to each his own, I have multiple homosexual friends....its when a homosexual identifies as a community, and demands recognition as a community, that I see a problem, especially given a judeo-christian morality that is the backbone of this republic.