President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.
He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
[…]
Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.He expressed strong support for the Human Rights Campaign agenda – ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people – but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.
“My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination … whether in the office or the battlefield,” Obama said.
#94 The point is, simply being gay is not a valid reason to deny someone the privilege to serve in the military. As long as they don’t engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, a rule that covers everyone, they should be able to server.
Just because homosexuality makes people like you feel all icky inside, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to serve.
Heck, being around right-wing nutcases makes me feel all icky inside, but I don’t deny them the right to serve their country. 😉
#95-Phydeau-simply being gay is not a valid reason to deny someone the privilege to serve in the military.
Yes, it is.
The military is not the place for liberal social experimentation.
#96 liberal social experimentation
Just so you know, you’re making the same arguments that racial bigots made against letting blacks serve in the in the same units as whites.
But please elaborate. Why exactly is this “liberal social experimentation”? We know there are gay people in the military already. Do you deny that? Do you think soldiers don’t know who’s homosexual in their unit?
Please explain what horrible things would happen if openly homosexual soldiers were allowed to serve. Keep in mind that other countries allow homosexuals to serve openly and they have no problems. So are you saying that Americans are uniquely bigoted and couldn’t handle it? I’m all ears.
#97-Phydeau-Keep in mind that other countries allow homosexuals to serve openly and they have no problems.
No problems – How can you possibly say that?
Of course they have problems, but also have the luxury of the US military coming to the rescue when their token-social-military fails.
At least for now.
#97 Just so you know, you’re making the same arguments that racial bigots made against letting blacks serve in the in the same units as whites.
Hate to quote myself, but that gave me an idea. What do you think, Dodd — how about separate units for homosexuals? They could have their own quarters, their own officers, their own missions. You know, separate but equal, so straight soldiers who aren’t comfortable around homosexuals don’t need to have their delicate feelings hurt by thinking that some other soldier is (gasp!) looking at them with lust. Oh, those poor, poor soldiers and their oh so delicate feelings!
Yes, yes, separate but equal units is definitely the way to go. 😉
#98 Do tell. Give us some hard evidence, pal. Evidence that shows military readiness has been affected in those countries by allowing blacks, whoops, gays I mean, in their military.
Otherwise you’re just showing your bigotry. You’re so bigoted that you just assume that they have problems.
#100-Phydeau-You’re so bigoted
And there it is… checkmate.
#101 I’ve given you ample opportunity to give us a rational reason for your beliefs, but you haven’t taken me up on it. To me that says you don’t have a rational reason for this belief. And given the widespread antipathy toward homosexuals in right-wing circles, it’s not a stretch to conclude you just have an emotional, instinctive antipathy toward homosexuals. Which is fine; to each his own. But don’t expect America to conduct its business based on your emotional, instinctive beliefs.
Or prove me wrong… give us hard evidence.
#94
>> #92-Thomas-It is
>> already the case that
>> homosexuals can fight
>> for their country.
>> That is a right.
> Not exactly correct.
> Serving in the military
> is not a right. Many
> people that show up
> at the recruiting office
> are turned away.
You did not understand me. A right is something the government can neither grant nor take away. Fighting for your country is a right. Fighting for your country in the military is a privilege.
#96
> The military is not
> the place for liberal
> social experimentation.
You mean like allowing women, blacks, Asians, Catholics…
If they are allowed to vote and are physically capable, they should be allowed to enter the military. Simple as that.
#103-Thomas-You mean like allowing women, blacks, Asians, Catholics…
You are comparing separate groups of humanity with immoral behavior.
It’s like saying a noun is the same as a verb… A distinct difference.
We must have some level of morality and standards or is living like animals in the gutter what you have in mind?
#104
The only way in which homosexuality could be considered immoral is if it were soley a conscious choice which it is not. It is genetic disposition just like skin color. So, my comparison is quite apt. We do have some level of morality but it should not involve someone’s sexual preference.
#105-Thomas-It is genetic disposition just like skin color.
If what you say were true then the matter of homosexuality would have gone away many centuries ago. The issue is still here and it is still considered aberrant behavior.
Race and skin color fall into the area of tribal where like kinds of people band together for the purpose of survival.
> If what you say were
> true then the matter
> of homosexuality would
> have gone away many
> centuries ago.
And you conclude based on what evidence? 10K even 100K years is insufficient for dramatic genetic alteration.
However, I’ll state it differently. Homosexuality is an innate predisposition rather than a lifestyle choice. Because of that, it should not a factor on which people are excluded from the military.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy means they cannot ask about your sexual preference. If you can’t ask, why discriminate against it? The elephant in the room is that there are already many homosexuals in the military serving their country proudly. If you are not going to ask when they apply, why kick them out when you find out?
As I said, if they are allowed to help choose who is Commander-in-Chief and are physically capable, then they should be afforded the privilege of serving in the armed forces just like women, blacks, Asians, Catholics (a choice btw)…
i have read most of these replies.i hafe to say i am not for homosexuality
it seems weird to me.guys in love with guys
i don,t get it.there is nothing like a woman
the way she can tame the heart of a man
and the,way she can because she is differant
built,inside and out.that makes a interesting mixture.obama isn,t being honest with the american people,because someone else is telling what to say.the rich will soon destroy this country with their power of ignoreing the will of the people we need the basic again.
god rules of love for one another.