Nah. Shame on you instead.
In your first paragraph, you said that what they did was vital to national security. And in your last paragraph, you said that what they did was wrong. Is it wrong to do what’s vital for national security?
It’s a good thing that Harry Truman looked at the morale issue differently, else we’d still have colored regiments.
**
Yes. That would be a good thing. It would serve many ends. The Cold War is over. Done. Kaput. Our military should be smaller. Not pre-WWII smaller, but drastically downsized. If a blow for equality also forces out the filthy, bigotted vermin who are supporting the ban on gays, that could lead to better pay for our soldiers who have the decency to be on the right side of this issue (the only side any moral person can be on with regards to this issue), and a smaller military. Everyone wins.
Kirk
Eh, where were you when I was catching hell for calling out an apparent gay basher? 
Anyone whose morale would be lessened because the guy sitting next to him in a jeep or in a tank is gay is a backwards, ignorant, worthless fuck, and that the military would gladly welcome such a bigotted troll while throwing out anyone whose even remotely gay says a lot about the quality of character of our armed forces.
It is vital to our national security that we have a military composed of the most qualified persons available. If a gay person is qualified, and can help the military in its objective, then it is, in my opinion, tantamount to treason for the brass to reject him.
“Blacks are the minority group here, and if the morale of the majority is dramatically affected by blacks then they have to go.” – I bet a lot of racist filth said that in the 1940s. And here you are, continuing their proud tradition. Join the Army, be a Bigot of One.
Except do the only thing any honorable person should do in this situation, which is fight this rule, to the point of resignation, if required.
Kirk
Maybe they’ll say they were just joking.
Then maybe Saddam Hussein was just joking about all that evil-dictator stuff too, and we can call off this bullshit war… 
Unfortunately, there is very little that politicians won’t do to expedite their hegemony.
Then maybe the United States should just pretend that we were joking when we gave Iraq all that money, all those weapons, and the training on how to use them, and thus convince them to give it all back without a fight?
**
Why does it seem that those who fight hardest for freedom are the first ones to throw “all men are created equal” away when it becomes an annoyance?
Perhaps the forces fighting for truth, justice, and the American way need to step back and look at what it is they’re supposed to be struggling for.
Look, people. The ban on gays was enacted by Executive Order, and can only be removed by Executive Order. All the laws passed by Congress isn’t going to change that. The President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for this, and would do so under the advice and counsel of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And with the Religious Right leading Bush around by the dick, I don’t think the ban is going to be rescinded anytime soon. If you want to see this change, vote for someone who is in favor of gay rights.
Right now, there are still a lot of people who don’t think gays should enjoy the same civil rights as hets. One of these rights is military service. Not so long ago, the services were fairly misogynist. It took a few generations of new people coming up through the ranks, but women are now accepted and even allowed to serve with combat units. Even with forced integration of gays, it’ll take a few more generations before they’re accepted as well. I’m not saying it can never happen. It’ll just take a more open-minded President and some time, as well as a command structure who refuses to turn a blind eye toward violence and harassment.
Robin
You off-topicking fucks have turned this thread into an argument about gays in the military, but I’ll post something closer to the OP.
I’m a Navy veteran, I went to Defense Language Institute, and from my experience there, I highly doubt that all the linguists (well, more precisely, they were probably linguists-in-training) who requested discharge as homosexuals are actually gay. While the majority of military linguists work in nice air-conditioned offices in the US (or Japan), there is always the possibility for an Arabic linguist that he or she will get sent to the Middle East. Ever since Sept. 11, that’s happened quite a bit. An ex-girlfriend I still know from my time in the service, a Farsi linguist, has spent pretty much all of the past year in the Middle East. That’s obviously no way to live, and therefore I suspect that the service members requested discharge just to avoid that.
What is a pity is that discharge for homosexuality has become a dishonest tool of people with honest reasons to get out. I received honorable discharge from the Navy as a conscientious objector, a result of my increasing participation in Christian pacifist circles and the fact that military linguists spend a lot of time listening to conversations they aren’t supposed to. Because it is so hard to find resources on receiving discharge - the military sure isn’t going to tell you and organizations like the GI Rights Hotline can only do what they can with their manpower - many servicemembers with legitimate reasons to get out are forced to resort to saying they’re gay.
UnuMondo
Yes, absolutely. Modesty, especially if a person is looking in a sexual way.
Now, to deal with Kirkland.
**Did you miss the ten times I said they should not be banned, but I believe this is a legitimate complaint and should be dealt with by abolishing communal showers rather than keeping gay people out?
**Please tell me where I said I’d be uncomfortable specifically standing next to a gay person. I said I’d be uncomfortable being naked next to someone who might be attracted to me, using the example of men. I assure you, I’d be uncomfortable standing next to ANYONE in the shower (well, except my boyfriend) and I am quite comfortable doing more than “standing next to” gay people, I’m capable of hugging them and flirting with them as even some dopers can tell you.
Now, this thread has really gotten a reaction from me, mostly because I’m arguing a point which I believe, but that I knew would be misinterpreted. And the not-so-subtle allegations of Kirkland and MrVisible really bother me.
Then what is the below supposed to mean, heck I’ll highlight the part that stood out.
Here lets try something.
“I’m not a homphobe. Heck, I’ve know lots of gay people, but the thought of a gay guy checking out my package or ass makes be feel a bit oogy.”
Hm… It has no basis in rational fact (even though the statement is factual), it can’t be supported by statistics, though I don’t imagine many studies where done asking a large sample of men if they would feel oogy if they thought a man was checking them out in a sexual way, and boiled down it comes from a feeling of, “Ew, it’s icky.” So it meets all of the criteria
So yes, you did say that.
Libertarian said:
I still don’t get it.
Their thoughts are dangerous?
LaurAnge wrote
Not dangerous, but capable of making one uncomfortable.
Sorry, this is the point I’m railing against, people think that when a gay man looks at another man, he’s automatically thinking sexual thoughts.
Sorry for the mis-quote and personal discomfort.
**MsRobyn wrote:
If you want to see this change, vote for someone who is in favor of gay rights.**
I did, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided their opinion counted more than mine in the last presidential election.
Okay, then, if you want me to say it that badly, you’re a homophobe.
If you’re afraid of what I’m thinking, you’re either psychic, or you’re hung up on something.
Personally, I enjoy it when women flirt with me. I have no interest in having sex with them, but it’s a compliment that they find me attractive.
If having someone of the same sex check you out gives you the willies, then, yeah, you’ve got some issues to work out. Please try and not base national policy on these personal problems of yours while you attempt to deal with them.
Okay. I can grasp the idea that somebody might find discomforting a situation where they were compelled to be nude in the presence of a person who might be sexually attracted to them and to whom they did not respond with sexual interest. That makes sense, regardless of what flavor of -sexual you are.
However, as noted, there are a wide variety of possible solutions to such a situation. (Including simple honesty, as in the high school quarterback a few years ago who came out to his teammates and made explicit that he was not sexually interested in them, but rather in his boyfriend, and that he was the same guy that had joked with them, showered with them, and so on prior to that without causing them any problems.)
That, in my mind, is putting the responsibility for what someone is thinking directly on the head of the person thinking it. I suspect that under the right circumstances I might find LaurAnge quite attractive (I have not seen her picture) but if we were to find ourselves in the sort of situation (say a tornado shelter, for example) where privacy from each other was not possible, I would treat her with the utmost respect and honesty, giving her as much privacy as was possible.
Airman Doors, perhaps more than any other non-veteran, I’m aware of what your commitment is. I was present and listening during that discussion you had with Bluesman at Chez Chance about the training you were leaving for. I’m acutely aware of what you give and what you risk for inadequate and late pay, out of sheer patriotism, and I respect that, and you, more than I can express. And I can easily respect the point you’re making that we’re dealing with the law as it exists and the attitudes of trained and skilled leaders as they exist now.
But nonetheless, I need to address this:
I contemplated 1947-48, when we were in the hottest throes of the Cold War, and Truman’s move in integrating the services. And I reread that with “blacks” substituted for “homosexuals” and found it repellent. As you may remember, the South, which was strongly anti-integration, provided a disproportionate share of the military then, as it seems to now.
Bottom line: Yes, under the present political regime and with the current leadership, we are forced to deal with things as they are, regardless of how they should be. But, to erect a hypothesis for you, if Rich Tafel somehow convinced GWB to revoke the no-gays-in-the-military rule and a Presidential order went out to that effect, then any service person, from the Chief of Staff to a buck private, who considers himself incapable of obeying that order has no business in the military and should be courtmartialed. Like the Commandant of the Marine Corps back in 1995 who said that his troops did not have to salute President Clinton, due to his own political distaste for Clinton and Clinton’s lack of veteran status. I’m sorry; every military man can despise WJC or GWB, but they are honorbound to show respect and proper obedience to their Commander in Chief.
And there, in the civilian political leadership above the top brass, is where the problem lies.
One final point, to the gay community: some education might be in order on the subject of what gay sexuality actually is – I cannot blame someone for feeling afraid of what a gay person might do to him against his will when all he’s gotten as background on the subject is the rants of homophobic preachers about how promiscuous gay men are out to anally rape him, his baby son, and his pet dog Fido. How about a campaign devoted to exactly what it is that gay people really want to be allowed to be and do, rather than just a “they’re taking away our rights” effort? What I’m getting at is that the unreasoning fear can be eliminated by knowing exactly what they can reasonably expect – and that’s something it ought to be easy to do.
And that’s why gays shouldn’t be allowed into psi-corps.
Not as easy as it may appear at first.
First of all, we’re individuals, with one thing in common; our sexuality. What I may want most in my life may be someone else’s anathema, whether we have our sexuality in common or not. We want the same freedoms that heterosexuals have. And ask yourself… when you meet a straight person, do you really have any way to figure out what you can reasonably expect? People are pretty unpredictable, in my experience.
Secondly, we’re up against some serious propaganda, and we’ve got very little to counter it with. Tell somebody that Joe Schmoe down the street is a child molester, and they’ll remember it, and possibly repeat it, for weeks, even if you have no facts to support those allegations. Tell them that Joe Schmoe is a normal guy, who works in an office and pays his taxes on time, and they don’t care enough to remember it, let alone repeat it. Tell them that Joe Schmoe isn’t a child molester, and they’ll wonder why you told them that, and whether he is a child molester after all.
The best thing we can do, in my opinion, is live our lives, openly and honestly, as gay people. It’s been my experience that when people have been around homosexuals for a while, at work or in school or whatever, that the propaganda is trumped by personal experience. You can’t go on believing that all gay people are ravenously intent on buggering the populace in general when you spent an hour talking with Larry at the office potluck about how much work sucks, and how bad this schedule is for life with your girlfriend, and his boyfriend.
A campaign of “No, we’re normal, really!” isn’t likely to succeed; it’s a much weaker message than the traditional, and highly effective “Hate the outsider!” battle cry that’s rung out since humans began banding into groups. We’re going to have to keep proving, with actions and facts and statistics, that they’re lying about us. And then, they may be surprised (much as the Klan was before them) to find themselves the outsiders.
Here’s my question–just how gay does one have to be to get out of the service? Is a casual one-nighter enought for a dismissal? What about a lifelong hetero who suddenly finds himself admiring his bunkmate’s ass in the shower one day? If we buy the Kinsey notion that most people fall somewhere in the middle on the John Wayne to Christopher Lowell scale, where would they draw the line?
Dr. J