Why even enlist if you're gay? It's going to be found out sooner or later and it's going to cause problems. Sure, if you want to fight for your country, that's great, but not in a combat unit where testosterone flows freely and in huge amounts.

Why even enlist if you're gay? It's going to be found out sooner or later and it's going to cause problems. Sure, if you want to fight for your country, that's great, but not in a combat unit where testosterone flows freely and in huge amounts.

i never had a big problem with gays in the military, i just question their motives when they say they need to be "open" about it. the military is not a "love connection" by any means and should never be.
anyone that can follow the rules and pass the qualifications should be allowed to fight and die if necessary. The don't ask don't policy is fair and just for everyone, because they do not ask if you are hetero sexual either...

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

this is not uncommon in politics,,, alot of times we hear about politicians voting against bills when in reality it was that one or more PORTIONS of the bill were disagereable to them

I can understand them not , in essence, being forced to include this provision in order to pass the bill


Its like saying Im not willing to date a man who is able to be a great provider IF I have to sacrifice the stability in my home to do it

its an issue that should be seperate so the significant parts of the bill can pass for now and they can revisit it later

but you dont get booted out of the service if your found out to be in a heterosexual relationship...thus the need to repeal the "dont ask dont tell", why force one segment of the population to hide who and what they are just so they can serve their country?

There is so many other issues that open up with repealing the ban...yes their are gays serving in the military(and yes the service members know) the problem with making it 'open' it will bring about a lot of other questions...for example if a service member is openly gay and has commented to a fellow co-worker about a guy he likes in a unit and that co-worker gets wind of it...will he still be comfortable if he has to share a tent with that guy on the battlefield?

there is also the fact that a lot of service member make 'gay' jokes all the time, if it is allowed to be open how many whiny people are we going to have saying 'i'm gay, and that offend me' there is also a million other issues that come up.

And I know two people personally he have been "kicked" out because they were gay...in both instances they admitted that they were gay so they WOULD get kicked out...it was a way out of their contract.

I've also known one straight guy that got kicked out because he convinced his chain of command that he was gay...again IN ORDER to get kicked out.

but you dont get booted out of the service if your found out to be in a heterosexual relationship...thus the need to repeal the "dont ask dont tell", why force one segment of the population to hide who and what they are just so they can serve their country?

yeah, I see it as the same as a heterosexual woman presenting herself amongst other men to get in and then later revealing she is
actually a female


sexual preference is as legitimate an issue when making housing arrangements as sexual gender is

Yes you can and many do.Officers are forbidden to have sexual relationships with Enlisted members.Many have been stripped of their rank and discharged for this reason.You can also get discharged if you are a supervisor having sex with someone on your command who you supervise.This is a serious issues especially in War time because that supervisor may give the person he or she is having sex with a cushy easy job or more than the usual time off from the command.


Other than those reasons you can get discharged for Adultery which is a crime in the military.You can also get discharged for having sex with someone on the command you are stationed(if you are caught in the act).You can get discharged for having sex with someone in their barracks where men or women are not allowed in the rooms.Etc,etc,etc.

this is where one of the major issues arises for example on a ship(i'm navy as most know) there is not much space for separate quarters or berthings one of the solutions that has come up is if gays are allowed to share quarters with the other men why aren't the woman? is it really that different? the other solution(not really practical is another berthing but the ships have no space as is)

I cant think of a solution either. It may save money to make everyone bunk together and shower together regardless of GENDER. After all, IF a homosexual can be bunking with those they are attracted to why cant a heterosexual?

But I think , as long as gender differences are going to be aknowledged and accomodated,, so too should differences in sexual preferences

or you could just say "don't ask, don't tell"

the problem that brings is that it allows heterosexuals a privilege it doesnt allow homosexuals ( to be open in their preferences)

thats why I say, it would be most fair to aknowledge sexual preference and gender and not force those who would be uncomfortable as potential eye candy to bunk with potential admirers

it would take a pretty big overhaul,, but let men and women who dont mind bunking together do so, let heteros and homosexuals who dont mind bunking together to do so,, but dont force those arrangements on anyone who isnt comfortable with it