Dr ThompsonI wonder if you 'get' the problem now.Do you understand the privacy and dignity concerns of soldiers?Do you understand why they shouldn't be forced to shower, share sleeping quarters and locker rooms with someone who would regard them as an object of sexual attraction?Whether or not they 'hit on' them is not the issue. Although it would obviously become it's own issue.It is much more basic than that. It is a matter of respect, dignity and privacy. Do those words mean anything to liberals these days?

Margaret wrote:"You have serious problems. It is not the same thing. Just read the Viking's post and shut up. You won't be serving so why do you care?"This post is unfortunately very illustrative of the attitude of liberals.When asked to logically defend their position, they become verbally abusive.

Margaret wrote:"Like I said it is men who seem to have problems. Maybe they need to get over it. ......Men need to get over themselves."So, if a woman didnt want to share a shower with a man, would you tell her to just get over it?

Fair warning and apology, this is a huge post. Sorry. My mom asked me to comment on this and I'm sorry for not doing it sooner. Other matters had my attention. I oppose the current ban for practical reasons, but in my research of the law for a class (we got to play congress, wahoo) I realize I "get" why its there. It defends itself pretty well. Here's a link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.htmlThe law doesn't just exist, it has reasons, and compelling ones. People want to scoff at them and say "its just bigotry" because they aren't so reasoned. Sherri Wolf may be an entertaining person but she isn't much of a role model for serious public debate. Its true that service in the military isn't a right, and that the military exists as a social order separate from the nation it protects. Its a congressional law so the president has no power over it. Clinton's DADT was rejected because it was incoherent. You can't tell a bar that they can only serve people of age and then bar them from checking ids at the door. Same with the armed forces. I think the bill that was meant to repeal this had good intentions but didn't take in the reality of the situation. Some polls, and polling statistics are always problematic, suggest that a majority of soldiers aren't bothered by the possibility of having gay comrades. Many I worked with would affirm this view, and others would rather see gay people "burned alive" or beaten to death by a truck full of buds. It isn't so black and white here, and the military is vital to the survival of the nation, so playing Social Experiment with it is a bad idea. The problem of rooming together is a real one, in part because gays are human and prone to human behavior, like getting drunk with friends and making a joke someone may not like. A guy I worked with did this, and ended up on his doorstep in the barracks hallway covered in his own blood. He wasn't gay, he was drunk and kidding around, but a gay person isn't magically immune to such things. Another incident I dealt with was at Fort Hood where a soldier I had served JRTC with at Fort Polk came into the latrine while I was showering and started talking. He was totally smashed, barefoot in that rotten place, and he asked me questions that had an obvious purpose. He declared in his haze that he was through with getting burned by women, and was now gay. Was he gay? No, just horribly drunk, but anyone other than myself and he might have gotten kicked out or beaten up. I didn't care what he told me, I cared when he started soliciting and at one point touching me. I told him to back off. Respect is respect no matter the gender circumstance, but he didn't get it all the way and so I had to dismiss him until he sulked back to his room. These situations are not uncommon, and that is the problem with the blind repeal of the law through anti discrimination (the purpose of the repealing bill). Gays are human, they do human things, and its important for a functioning cohesive unit to not bear the burden of the negative consequences of those things. This is why there is already infidelity and sexual assault codes and risk evaluations and things. When we sign our name, we are pieces of a whole, cogs in the machine, and defects have to be minimized somehow. So I see why there is the ban, and many support it, at least until more study can be done to see if negative effects are minimized. Steve Harris at amerika.org provided an interesting defense of it here http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-dont-ask-dont-tell-is-a-good-idea/His point is a strong one, about problem of discrimination complex. That's very real even today with various groups, and the politics of the military only worsen it. However, just because a group may claim persecution when not given a promotion does not mean that group cannot serve if they serve with merit. Perhaps this is a problem that can be dealt with easily, since failing a pt test isn't really a matter of people not liking you. Just because I understand the law's reasoning however doesn't mean I think its totally right. I understand why some people oppose gay marriage as well. My philosophy teacher, a roman catholic, opposes gay marriage but he is no bigot, homophobe or hate filled redneck. He's one of the most educated and interesting people you could ever meet, and he's forced me to reevaluate my position to make it more complete than just shouting slurs at people. You can't rely on insults or negative claims to win an argument. I don't oppose gay marriage, I don't support the law banning gays from the military. The last hard study I could find on this was from 2003, from the GAO, regarding the first ten years of the law. 70 percent of people kicked out for it were based on statements, meaning they said it. This I think is wrong for a) ending a career based on a statement that, made in private, harms no one and b) being a loophole for cowards who don't want to stick with their duty and obligation. Removing that loophole could (hypothetically I admit) upgrade the quality of individual joining and lessen the cohesive stress of training some schmuck who runs home to mommy. Its true that some local interpretation has made this a moot point (commanders demanding a soldier provide evidence, for example, if he senses the kid is trying to cut and run) but its still there. The other problem with the law in general is the problem of abuse. It doesn't require or outlaw such abuses, its just open to people doing it. The people doing it (searching emails or witch hunts) are going to try anyway but its a scandalous and easy way to ruin a career. Also I believe the law should be repealed for the complexity it adds to sexual assault charges. An Air Force officer Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was accused of rape ( http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/08/airforce_fehrenbach_081310/ ) and fought the charge, but because he admitted to being gay he is punished for it. Perhaps he shouldn't have had the relationship (there are plenty of my own chain of command that had straight affairs, wrong is wrong) but he shouldn't be punished for his orientation. Assault is assault, rape is rape, infidelity is infidelity, gay or not is just clouding the issue. As a male who served in the army, I'm not nor was I ever worried about being hit on, in fact even the most vicious people I worked with didn't care about that. The issue is that homosexuality is viewed as moral decision, and while its mostly biological, sometimes it is sexual, and that's the image that stays with people. It may only be one chaplain molesting male soldiers, but it creates the perception of all. That's the reality of the situation, one too many of the repealers don't want to face. I want the law repealed so that no gay serviceman has to worry about losing his career over a statement or non criminal act. Most people discharged are criminals or fat bodies anyway, so it won't be a huge number change, but its still significant, its still money lost, and its distracting from getting more of those criminals and fatties out of the service. Its very true we are not other nations, we must establish our own codes for our own people. This isn't a rights issue. It is entirely possible that people might abuse the opening to file retarded lawsuits and seek special treatment (except that's entirely against the repealing process in the first place!) but I think it can work and perhaps it already is. Its going to be case by case because some situations, as many veterans have testified, will not be suitable. Its the same with women, they have separate quarters and sometimes rules for a reason, and they also have abused those rules. That doesn't mean it can't work out, and modern barracks might be a fix to the issue of cohabitation. No soldiers I kenw, even the bad ones, cared about WORKING with gay soldiers, it was the details that mattered, and still matter. There are reasons for the law, but there are also reasons that its no longer practical.

Joe's comment about separate locker rooms reminded me of something I have wondered about in the past. Why do some straight people think so much about gay sex, I mean every imagined detail of gay sex. I mean, I'm gay and these anti gays think about my sex life WAY more than I do. What is that about? Kind of perverted, dontcha think? I swear I have never thought for one second about the sex lives of my co-workers, straight soldiers, or Maggie Gallagher... Although Bishop Eddie Long has me kind of intrigued, I'd rather not think about the details, even though the media is insisting on broadcasting them.Also, Joe, do you have it in your mind that straight and gay soldiers aren't sharing locker rooms already?

hmm, ok I'm beginning to see why some Democrats don't understand when I talk about dignityhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/reid-calls-gillibrand-the-hottest-member/Democratic Majority Leader Reid calls Rep Gillibrand 'hot' and seems to have no clue that he has broken the law.Creating a hostile working environment for ALL the women (not just for Gillibrand) working in the Senate (either as Senators, aides, or what-have-you) is illegal.Reid should resign effective immediately.

Last I heard, they don't provide separate accomodations for homosexual men apart from the heterosexual men.So anyone who says "I just dont get why heterosexuals 'have a problem' with homosexuals in the military" is either very dense or lying.

I read an opinion piece online this morning that says it is all political theatre, i.e. Now the republicans can tell their bigoted base that they stopped the repeal, and the democrats can whine to their base "we triieed...". I'm sick of all of them. Agnes is right, the president can issue an executive order, just as Harry Truman did to integrate the armed forces.

Why doesnt the President just change the policy, he is the Commander in Chief. All he has to do is sign an Executive Order...stop blaming the Republicrats for our President's inaction.

I don't get it either. They serve openly in ally forces that we work with. Should we tell them they can't be our allies because we are afraid of them? I find I've gotten more angry with GOP opposition. Their anti-gay attack is only one of the factors. To focus on it I have to include their bashing of gay marraige as well. I'll state I'm not gay, I don't understand it and I find it kind of repulsive. But as an American it is not my business. Here is the hypocracy - the GOP, especially the right, demands smaller government. OK - doesn't sound so bad. I'd like a smaller more efficient government for sure. So why do they fight for more laws to tell other people how to live? That sounds to me like bigger government. Lets open up a whole new agency to ensure gays are not getting married, not adopting children, and not telling anyone they are gay in the military. All horrors deserving of more regulation. I suspect the GOP would support that.