Since I can't get the link past the filter...

Anybody want to take bets on when this policy goes down?  Political climate is obviously against it now, but I'm guessing that "don't ask, don't tell" is gone in five years or less.  Any takers?

White House - AP Cabinet & State http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http://www.ap.org"> **edited** U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve Openly 43 minutes ago http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6410&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26u=/ap/20050407/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/**edited**_soldier">   http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6410&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26u=/ap/20050407/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/**edited**_soldier - White House - AP Cabinet & State By MALIA RULON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - An Army sergeant who was wounded in http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/**edited**_soldier/14810184/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Iraq%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw - Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly **edited** soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/**edited**_soldier/14810184/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Pentagon%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw - Pentagon 's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050407/480/wx10604071944"> AP Photo   Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits **edited** men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. "I know a ton of **edited** men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it." Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May. He is believed to be the first **edited** soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara. "We can't keep hiding the fact that there's **edited** people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly **edited** among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany. Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is **edited**, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31. "The old armchair thought that **edited** people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military." Before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, enacted in 1993 under the Clinton administration, the Pentagon had explicitly barred **edited**s from military service. At least 24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow **edited**s to serve openly. In an e-mail following the AP interview, Stout said he had been ordered not to speak to the media. "I guess they found out somehow that I was talking to the press and now they are having a fit. I will try to get everything straightened out," Stout wrote. Martha Rudd, a spokeswoman for the Army at the Pentagon, said soldiers who are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" typically receive honorable discharges, although the timing would be up to the individual's commanding officer. She declined to comment about Stout, saying the Army doesn't comment on specific cases. The issue of whether **edited**s should be allowed to openly serve in the military has received increased attention in recent months as the Army has struggled to meet its recruiting goals. Twelve **edited**s expelled from the military sued the government in December, citing a Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional state laws against homosexual sex. The Bush administration has asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has said he opposes changing the policy, although Pentagon figures show a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual, falling from 1,227 in 2001 to 653 last year. A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003. Gary Gates, a statistician at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates there are about 65,000 **edited**s and lesbians currently serving in the military, accounting for about 2.8 percent of all personnel. He estimates that at least 25 **edited** soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes **edited**s serving in the military, said a better way to avoid the cost of replacing soldiers who are discharged for being **edited** is to make it very clear to people who enlist in the military, including Stout, that they are ineligible to serve if they are **edited**. "I honor and respect his service to this country, but the fact that he's wounded really doesn't change the underlying fact. ... He is not eligible to serve," Donnelly said, adding that there are many reasons why people aren't eligible to serve. "This is just one of them." Stout said he suspected while in high school that he was **edited** but didn't acknowledge it until later. "Then I noticed that it wasn't a phase or anything. This is me," said Stout, who enlisted in the Army after graduating in 2000. "The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, when it first came out, was a good stepping stone, but it's outlived its usefulness," he said. "We've progressed past it both as a military and as a society." Recent media polls indicate some increased public acceptance for allowing **edited**s to serve openly in the military, with more than six in 10 Americans supporting the idea while about half supported it a decade ago. An Annenberg poll taken last fall among members of the military showed a majority opposed to such service, though half of junior enlisted personnel said **edited**s should be allowed to serve openly.

Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

Thems facts buddy.

Ohh Tae, I knew you'd say it first.

Anyways, the rule is ridiculous and the fact that being openly homosexual in the military can have a discriminating effect proves that our country is still not as 'free' as it claims to be.

My serious opinion. An openly homosexual man or woman can pull the trigger and end a life as good as a breeder can. Toss them a rifle.

Abomination.  When Jesus wrote the Bible he clearly said that.

There should not be a rule that bars them from joining the military openly.

Thor wrote: Well, whether we like to admit it or not....showering next to man of a different orientation would be rather uncomfortable....

Really?

I guess I don't see it...

Bugg wrote:   Kinda true, most major racist are stuck in the "deep" south too ignorant to join the army to defend their country.. Also thats why groups of people from diff states usually stay together, same mind set, so when blacks from the midwest join some whites from the midwest, the whites don't have any hard feelings. Granted there are always exceptions. But I do see your point

I honestly do not understand what this means...?

Clark Kent wrote: Thor wrote: Well, whether we like to admit it or not....showering next to man of a different orientation would be rather uncomfortable.... Really? I guess I don't see it...

Having some guy checking out your ass while you are tryng to shower doesn't bother you? Not even a little bit?...

TheUnknown. wrote: Having some guy checking out your ass while you are tryng to shower doesn't bother you? Not even a little bit?...

First - why would you assume that every homosexual man will be checking out every straight man's ass?  Maybe he just wants to shower, and maybe your/my ass isn't that nice anyway...

But, as to your question - been there, done that, survived without scarring.

Being concerned about sharing a public shower with homosexuals says a lot more about homophobia (literally, in this case) than it says about homosexuals. 

Kevin Z wrote: You need to understand there is no privacy. 80 men living together. Imagine 15 people living on a ship in a space no bigger than your bedroom. Showers in tents, lined up naked in the desert waiting your turn. 12 toilets lined up in a row, no walls. THE ONLY PRIVACY IS THE THINLY VEILED MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING THAT NO-ONE IS CHECKING YOU OUT. POP A WOODY IN THE SHOWER, YOU VIOLATE THAT PRIVACY, YOUR DONE. You can't put sexually attracted people in that environment and maintain sanity.

It's sorry to think that people are so worried about homosexuals being close to them...sort of like a diseased person. It makes me laugh to see people actually hold the same opinion as this...one that speaks highly of insecurity and immaturity.

Kevin Z wrote: THE ONLY PRIVACY IS THE THINLY VEILED MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING THAT NO-ONE IS CHECKING YOU OUT. POP A WOODY IN THE SHOWER, YOU VIOLATE THAT PRIVACY, YOUR DONE. You can't put sexually attracted people in that environment and maintain sanity.

All you have proven is that homophobia is rampant in the military.  Seems we would be better off doing something about the homophobes than doing something about the homosexuals.

Moreover, everybody here is very focused on the infantry squad.  Most of the military, of course, will never come anywhere near a foxhole.  How does this logic apply to staff personnel at the Pentagon?  The DIA cryptographer?  The cook at the base?

Much of the military could go years without sharing a shower with another serviceman/woman, let alone huddling naked in the surf.  How does this logic apply to them?

(And, of course, let us not ignore history - plenty of great armies in the past have featured loads of open homosexuality.  Apparently them homos make decent soldiers)

(And, of course, let us not ignore the present - plenty of successful armies today have openly homosexual service members.  Somehow they get by)

Every argument levied against homosexuals in the military has previously/still been levied against blacks and women in the military.  In most cases, those objections are more properly directed at the people making them:  "We shouldn't have them there negros in the service, cuz us white folks don't like sharing showers and bunks with them".

Bugg wrote: Dazed, I said that most of a squad/company/platoon is made from people around same geographical area, I didn't say 100% There are officers, there are people requesting to be reassigned and there are just tim when you are put somewhere else.

And Dazed challenged this, as do I.  We could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that your claim is true for active-duty military, or even close to true.

Reserve units and National Guard - sure, they are made up of locals.  But active duty personnel?  It has certainly been my experience that there is ZERO geographic relevance to group makeup.

Straight men have been showering with **edited** men for years in the military, just unbeknownst to them. So, if a straight man finds out that the man he has been showering with is **edited** and it now bothers him, what changed? The only thing that changed is his knowledge, which means that the problem is his own homophobic ideals.

Clark's right-Kick homophobes out!

P.S. Please always, always, always assume that badsmitty knows better and that he is being sarcastic before you correct him. Or don't, because it makes me laugh very, very hard.

goodsmitty wrote: Straight men have been showering with **edited** men for years in the military, just unbeknownst to them. So, if a straight man finds out that the man he has been showering with is **edited** and it now bothers him, what changed? The only thing that changed is his knowledge, which means that the problem is his own homophobic ideals. Clark's right-Kick homophobes out!   P.S. Please always, always, always assume that badsmitty knows better and that he is being sarcastic before you correct him. Or don't, because it makes me laugh very, very hard.

Moses wrote the Old Testament and Jesus wrote the New Testament.  Cletus and Lula Belle said so.  

Bugg wrote: Challenge it all youw ant but until we have someone high up in the army/military come in, I'm right because I have many buddies that were in the same squad together all fromt he same area...

Bugg, I am not sure that you fully understand the relationship between "fact" and "knowledge" and "right"...

Bugg wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Bugg wrote: Dazed, I said that most of a squad/company/platoon is made from people around same geographical area, I didn't say 100% There are officers, there are people requesting to be reassigned and there are just tim when you are put somewhere else. And Dazed challenged this, as do I.  We could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that your claim is true for active-duty military, or even close to true. Reserve units and National Guard - sure, they are made up of locals.  But active duty personnel?  It has certainly been my experience that there is ZERO geographic relevance to group makeup. Challenge it all youw ant but until we have someone high up in the army/military come in, I'm right because I have many buddies that were in the same squad together all fromt he same area...

You are right in your own mind due to someone else's observations. In my own experience I ran into one person that I know prior to the military in all of my days in the army, and I interacted with other units 150 days out of the year. It is highly unlikely that a group of homeys from the block end up in the same squad in the army. The army replacement system would do a good job of prohibiting it from happening.

Thor wrote: also, situation changes for those mornings after PT where you got 50 guys in a tiny locker room with gang rape style showers....you want the knowledge that the naked dude you were pushed up against isn't getting the slightest idea, i want it to disgust him, and for him to make a lude comment.....

Again, this is only an issue of your homophobia.  As a smitty correctly pointed out, there already ARE homosexuals in those showers - the only issue is whether we need to protect your ignorance.

I LOBBY FOR COED SHOWERS IF HOMOSEXUALS GET TO OPENLY BE NAKED NEXT TO ME.

First - the situations aren't quite the same.  Homosexuals ARE naked next to you.  We are already there.  Again - the only issue is whether you have a legal right to be in denial of that fact.  Gender separation is quite different, and goes beyond sexual attraction.  By your theory, homosexuals would always have to shower alone - they certainly shouldn't be forced to shower with other homosexuals who might be "checking them out".

Second - I agree with coed showers in many cases.  Providing separate quarters for men and women in the military is very expensive and not really necessary in all cases, IMO.

And you know what?  Coed showers won't kill anybody either.  I have showered with women and with **edited** men (gasp), and lived to talk about it.

We all just need to get our collective sticks out of our asses, so to speak.

I think that some of you are just upset that most women and some men find you thoroughly unappealing.  Probably some of you rant about homosexuals because you struggle with your own sexuality.  Methinks thou doest protest too much.

impulse wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Abomination.  When Jesus wrote the Bible he clearly said that. Jesus wrote the bible? Thougt it was 2 other dudes.

Nope.  There is about 35 days that are unaccounted for in Jesus' history.  He wrote it then. 

Badsmitty wrote: impulse wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Abomination.  When Jesus wrote the Bible he clearly said that. Jesus wrote the bible? Thougt it was 2 other dudes. Nope.  There is about 35 days that are unaccounted for in Jesus' history.  He wrote it then.

You have uncovered more ignorance than is humanly tolerable, brother mine. Please, please stop before I lose all hope in our future.

Harlan.County.Kentucky

Thor wrote: I assure you my good sir that i am by no means homophobic. i have had(sadly i don't live back home anymore) **edited** friend....both of male and female varieties. What i do not agree with , is someone who is sexually attracted in a primal way to people they are showering with....that's like me showering with the women.

It just ain't that simple. 

How would you feel about Steven Hawking showering with Bea Arthur?  Do honestly think there is any sexual attraction going on in either direction?  Male/Female shower separation has less to do with sexual attraction than simple anatomical differences.

And let's get back to the central point here:  YOU ALREADY ARE SHOWERING WITH THE HOMOSEXUALS.  MANY HOMOSEXUALS HAVE SEEN YOUR PEE-PEE ALREADY.

We can't change the co-showering of homos and heteros.  That boat has sailed.  The ONLY thing we are talking about changing is whether you should be allowed to metaphorically hold your hands over your ears and yell "NANANANANANANANANANANA I'M NOT LISTENING NANANANANANANANA".

I cannot emphasize this enough.  When the "problem" is caused not by the activity, but by your knowledge and understanding of the activity, then, by definition, YOU are the problem.

Quick analogy:  Your cousin is allergic to chicken.  Whenever she eats chicken she gets violently ill.  One day you are visiting friends, and they serve a wonderful meal that everybody enjoys, including your cousin.  After dinner, she asks the host what exactly was being served.  The host tells her it was chicken, and your cousin immediately goes to the bathroom and throws up.

Turns out that perhaps your sister's "allergy" was all in her head...?

Same thing.  All we are suggesting is that we stop pretending that the chicken we have been serving you all these years is actually pork.

Clark Kent wrote: I cannot emphasize this enough.  When the "problem" is caused not by the activity, but by your knowledge and understanding of the activity, then, by definition, YOU are the problem.

Absolutely one of the best statements ever made on the forum.

I came across this in the NYT today, and thought it might be relevant:

April 9, 2005

Democrats Seek to Limit Christians in Military

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

You are digging yourself deeper into a hole, Thor.

So you can deal with a guy who declares "I'm homosexual!!" so long as he does it in a manly voice without a lisp?

Perhaps your problem is less with homosexuality than with lispers.  And moreover, this just reinforces that this problem has a lot more to do with YOU than with the homosexuals.

Hades wrote: I just dont like anyone that is different than me....

Bingo.

If can serve with an openly **edited** man in my squad, with us having to share a bathroom (especially the older barracks with two communal bathrooms per floor), change clothes inside the same track, and being roomates with him, why can I do the same with a female?

Just something I heard another soldier ask.  Makes sense though doesn't it?

Other than that I don't really care.  Can he or she do their job?  If a medic, can they bandage my wounds? If an Infantry soldier can they "use fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy" or "shoot, move, and communicate," without me having to help carry teir load, if on mortars, can they drop rounds with the accuracy and speed needed (again carrying their own rounds, and not making me carry them for them, and I mean the ones thaty they are supposed to carry, at times, everybody in the company will carry two rounds, that different), if a radiotelephone operator, can they carry use it efectively, and again without me having to carry their gear for them?  If a truck driver, can they get their load where it needs to be on time? That's what I really care about.

Thor wrote: But in a country where you will not let females be the sharp edge, why would homosexuals be allowed in the combat arms. ... So if homosexuals think like women, should they be allowed into the combat arms?Main focus on unit cohesion?

1.  It is nothing short of bizarre to suggest some relationship between the thoughts/actions of women and homosexual men.  (Although that does make me wonder about your theories of lesbians)

2.  I personally see no reason why women should not be allowed in combat (seeing as how they ARE in combat).  We are behind the times in this matter.

3.  To the extent that there is a rational reason for keeping women out of combat (which I do not believe), such a rational reason would be based in the real-world physical differences between men and women.  No such physical difference exists between men and homosexual men, so the argument does not apply.

4.  As has been said before:  THERE ALREADY ARE HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY, INCLUDING COMBAT UNITS.  Any argument based on a theory that homosexuals are somehow less capable soldiers flies directly in the face of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

Hades wrote: So if part of the bible is misinterpreted what make people think the whole thing isnt?

its called faith and im sorry you've lost yours but just because you are gonna burn in hell why do you have to advertise it i dont think its funny.there are too many young and impressionable people on this forum for you to be acting like this,its immature and irresponsible. maybe there is no God,maybe we're all living a lie except you,but i believe in God,i dont attack your religion or lack of same,why cant you return the favor.hasnt anyone ever said anything to him until now?this isnt even a religion-oriented topic.

Curlyman666 wrote: Hades wrote: So if part of the bible is misinterpreted what make people think the whole thing isnt? its called faith and im sorry you've lost yours but just because you are gonna burn in hell why do you have to advertise it i dont think its funny.there are too many young and impressionable people on this forum for you to be acting like this,its immature and irresponsible. maybe there is no God,maybe we're all living a lie except you,but i believe in God,i dont attack your religion or lack of same,why cant you return the favor.hasnt anyone ever said anything to him until now?this isnt even a religion-oriented topic.

I think you just did...