Obviously you are selective in who you think should serve, why? The other argument is of course if you are SO PATRIOTIC WHY DOES SOMEONE’S HOMESEXUALITY COME FIRST OVER SERVICE IN THE MILITARY?

I think it would be easy to just shut up and serve if that was the most important thing to you.

And by the way I am in the Gen. Patton school of partriotism to paraphrase “A patriot does not die for his country he make the other SOB die for his!”

Tough noogies.

If you had ever served, you would know why this will not work. The logistics alone are incredible.

The military DOES allow homosexuals to serve – and have officially since 1993. Before that, it was a required question to all recruits upon induction – “are you gay?” If they lied, and it was later found out that the member was gay, they were dumped for breach of contract (I know, not effectively different in practice than now). If we were to repeal DADT, it logically follows we would return to that old order. That is not what they want, they want to further remove restrictions. DADT was a compromise in the direction away from that. Gays can serve, they just have to keep it away from work, which is difficult to do if you are in the military – you’re a Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman/Coastie 24/7. The compromise had to do with concerns, within the military and outside, that openly gay servicemembers would pose an unreasonable risk to good order and discipline – a fundamental requirement for an effective fighting force. Is that true? Now THAT is debatable. Is is right to require them to officially “be in the closet?” That’s been the debate before and since 1993. Legally, is DADT a mutually agreed condition of employment and thus enforceable? Yes, it is.

in the military or not. but hey, if this stirs up any lib, then itwas worth it.

BTW, my opinion on this issue is that all opinions matter. However, the military is not place for social experimentation. Our military should decide what to do on the subject not some civilian trying to make a social point. Our military is there to kill people and break things, not promote social agendas. Also, if something is working and on the back burner, leave it alone and let our great troops fight and let’s stop screwing with them. out.

But being male and a veteran of two branches of the service I can tell you that it’s unreasonable in today’s reality. The bonding required, particularly in the combat squad, would rarely accept open homosexuality. Would you expect 6 women not too feel uncomfortable showering and changing with a guy present? How do you think 6 combat trained Marines will feel showering, changing and sleeping with a 7th who is known to be gay and attracted to men?
This would be inviting conflict. If you are going to allow gays to serve that DADT is probably the best way to deal with a huge majority of
soldiers NOT comfortable with the idea.

person CAN serve. It’s not so much a matter of a rule on sexual preference, it’s an order, the Military won’t ask, the service member won’t tell. And it’s not up to “most” finally, it’s up to the people in the tank, ship, aircraft and foxhole. Should we care that you think DADT is silly and outdated? Not really, as your thoughts on this have no impact on the operations of the military. It seems to be working just fine right now, see Iraq, today. Your argument that this adversely impacts those who can’t discuss their same-sex spouse is about the most specious I’ve yet seen on the issue.
The military and other successful places have an axiom, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Right now it ain’t, so don’t mess with it.

to restrict people by setting an arbitrary AGE limit. So even though someone is able to serve you are restricting their rights.

What you are saying without knowing it is that there ARE THINGS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST “WANTING” to serve. Things like combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, etc.

And like many other posters here have said they can serve now. If serving in the military was the most important thing to me in life because that is the commitment our soldiers make – than I would even say I VOTED FOR OBAMA to serve this nation.

What about the brownshirt activity that came about after the Prop 8 vote.

Also another thing I would like to point out is that the military restricts soldiers from displaying their religion while in uniform….this is far worse than DADT as it actually is an affront to the 1st Amendment.

But yeah…lets worry about DADT….sheesh!!

You equate being gay with someone else’s religious preference? Seriously? As far as gays/lesbians not being suicide bombers, maybe not, but they’ve surely engaged in their own forms of terrorism. How about all the things done and said to the Mormons after the Prop 8 vote last year? How about all the deranged screeching that goes on every single time gays/ lesbians don’t get what they want from governments ranging from school boards to the feds? How about the perfectly disgusting displays of perversion that take place regularly on the streets of San Francisco when they do their celebrating of the gay lifestyle?

You folks that comprise may 5% of the population are dead set on forcing the other 95% of us to not only accept you but hoist you up as examples of freedom. Not. On. My. Worst. Day.

… then there are times I wish he was the template upon which all Republican “moderates” were built, instead of personifications of uselessness like Ahnuld.

Steve, you may consider yourself a “moderate” and perhaps you are in the real sense – but you’re substantially different from the Specters, Snowes and Chafees. They have no principles to speak of and only stand strong on the battlefield if there’s a gun to their backs.

You’re not the same and I simply can’t see why you feel the need to defend them as if they and you have anything in common.