"NOW the problem is - what to do with gays in the US military?" Media BS link:

NYT article on "Problems" of having openly gay people in military service - link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29gays.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

You could always ask ANY country in Europe - it is not like we are leading the pack in inovation in this. OH, yeah and there have been gays in the military ALL ALONG, jerks.

Is everyone in the media this fuckibg stupid now?
I'm not even gay and this is offensive...

mark

but then I'm UK so wouldn't.

some bigots think they have a Constitutional right to have their bigotry!

As I understand it in the UK, you folks all just treat bigots like kooks, over here, they are elected to Congress or have radio and TV shows, or wear tea bags on their hats.

Yup - that sums it up quite nicely. Kooks aka those suffering from daft in the head syndrome.

We just have too too many bigots who themselves enable the craftiest and most disingenuous to rise to the top, like cream in a bottle, and get radio shows where they make $400 million a year and marry a fourth wife half his age. I'm sure the UK wouldn't allow a Rush Limbaugh to make such outrageous sums of money berating the Prime Minister. I think you have stricter libel and slander laws over there, and Rush Limbaugh would be in prison somewhere if he paraded around your radio waves insulting your nation's legitimate leadership as he does here.

Too right - satire and parody cannot be use as a defence under UK law. And - BTW I shudder at some of remarks your side about BP who if they chose to do so could pursue libel through our courts given that your constitution don't mean diddly squat here.

Whenever I've quoted our laws , which cover what we'll describe as bigotry over here , I get a load of flack about an apparent absense of freedom of expression. :shrug:

to serve their country as they have always done. They just won't have to hide who they are or risk being discharged for being who they are. I would think that they would be able to perform their duties even better than before when they don't have that threat hanging over their heads all the time.

...the fake journalists

and

...the fact that someone might be gay.

in the military it's with the idiot right wingers that could cause problems but they would never say that.

A coming out party http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9KXkDMEPag
I'm visualizing the Joint Chiefs dressed up like Gene Hackman in 'The Birdcage'

Mind you, I think we must allow gays to serve openly because it is the right thing to do morally and is important to our national security. I think it's ridiculous that these outdated prejudices exist. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand either.

Let's face it - in many ways America is more socially conservative than other industrialized nations. Also, some surveys show that the military is more conservative and traditional than the American population at large. If you want to be harsh, you could say the people in the military are more chauvinistic, macho and bigoted.

Desegregation of the armed forces didn't instantly wipe out racism in those serving - and while some realized that following orders and accepting those African American was their duty, others did not. However, I'm glad President Truman didn't think that because some in the military would cling to their Jim Crow ways that integration shouldn't be done. We should praise him for not worrying about how he would win re-election with a good part of the South (and maybe a lot of the North, too) pissed at him about it. Nope, he didn't let the racists stand in his way - but I'm not going to assume those first blacks serving in integrated units were really treated equally.

The next "big" thing was the integration of women into more roles. Well, a lot of men may have at first thought it was a bad idea, but now that they see these women make good soldiers (or airmen, sailors, etc) and most of them accept these women as brothers. Yes, brothers - not to be sexist, but because gender is irrelevant. On the other hand, you have some men who don't respect these women, and even go so far as to assault them. What makes it worse, is that sometimes the women reporting these assaults are ostracized because they are seen as betraying their unit. Well, the homophobes claim that allowing gays to serve openly will result in increased rape and sodomy. I think gays are more likely to be victims of such assaults because rape isn't about sex, it's about power. And I think the gays who report those assaults will be treated much as women who are attacked. There's going to be this snide attitude that they some how asked for it, or wanted it. The thought makes me a little nauseous. But I can't help thinking there are too many homophobes who believe being gay is only about sex.

So, we can't assume repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is going to wipe out homophobia overnight. But I don't think that's a reason to prevent gays serving openly. Rarely is the correct thing to do the easiest. We should be glad for pioneers willing to brave the hatred and confront it because they make it easier for the next generation.

been doing this for nearly 40 years and I think is is time we stopped acting like this is a big deal. It is REALITY, nothing more.
Maybe that is why many people have such a hard time with it...

mark

I mean, we are kind of socially backward here. The fact that we are even having the debate shows that. I'm just saying that because we are socially backward, allowing gays to serve openly will probably be challenging at first.