« Republican Leaders Join FRC Protest of 'Hate Group' Designation | Main | Obama's Church Appearance Highlights Public Trend »

December 18, 2010

Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Moves Forward

The Senate blocks the DREAM Act.

The Senate voted today to proceed to debate on a bill ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which clears the way to repeal the law.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama vowed to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military. Last week, Senate Republicans blocked the repeal while delaying a vote on the DREAM Act. Today the Senate blocked the DREAM Act, which carves out a path to legal status for foreign-born children brought to the United States illegally.

Some chaplains had voiced concerns over the repeal, saying that they could be accused of discrimination if they addressed homosexuality. Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention said that a large percentage of currently serving military personnel said they would not reenlist or would end their careers early should the policy be repealed. The National Association of Evangelicals would not encourage chaplains to resign if the law was repealed.

The Washington Post provides the breakdown of votes for DADT.

Senators voted 63 to 33 go proceed to debate on the bill. Fifty-seven members of the Senate Democratic caucus and six Republicans -- Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio) -- voted yes. Four senators -- Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) -- did not vote.

A final vote on the bill is expected Sunday; a simple majority is required for final passage.

The vote came amid an unusually busy Saturday for the Senate, with consideration of gays in the military, the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty and a bill providing a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants.

The New York Times reports on how it came back to the Senate floor.

Only a week ago, the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seemed to be dead and in danger of fading for at least two years with Republicans about to take control of the House. The provision eliminating the ban was initially included in a broader Pentagon policy bill, and Republican backers of repeal had refused to join in cutting off a filibuster against the underlying bill because of objections over the ability to debate the measure.

In a last-ditch effort, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, encouraged Democratic Congressional leaders to instead pursue a vote on simply repealing the ban. The House passed the measure earlier in the week.

Politico has more details on its final passage.

The repeal, however, wouldn’t take effect immediately. Obama, Gates Mullen would have to certify to Congress that they have reviewed the Pentagon report on the impacts of repeal, that the Defense Department is prepared to implement repeal and that doing so would not harm military readiness, troop morale, and recruiting and retention.

The policy would be repealed 60 days after the president submits the document.

Comments

The repeal of DADT isn't about civil rights, it's about forcing civil acceptance of homosexual behavior upon the armed forces of America. What does the repeal have to do with improving our country's military readiness and mission?

I'll admit, I'm thrilled with todays vote and grateful to the Senate for repealing this discrimina­tory law. However, we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back too much and claim this is a referendum on the greatness of America.

Twenty-fiv­e countries already allowed military service by openly gay people: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg­, Netherland­s, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerlan­d, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Those who care about the human and civil rights of each and every American cannot rest. We have to continue to the hard work of making real the words of our founders: all men are created equal. Spend some time celebrating this weekend, then its back to work pressuring our leaders to do the right thing.

@Bob

And what does forcing men and women into the closet have to do with a country where all men are created equal? The men and women of the armed forces don't have to accept homosexual behavior--just like they don't have to accept the beliefs of Muslims, Buddhists, or Satanists in the armed forces. They don't have to accept anything they don't want to. They do, however, have to be civil and work along side of them regardless. The men and women of our armed forces deserve to be able to freely express who they are with the people whose lives they are fighting to save.

While they are at it , they should have repealed the law of natural consequences that spreads disease amongst promiscous homosexuals

@Adam, it is not "who they are," it's who they choose to be. Therefore, the civil rights argument does not apply. Using this argument belittles REAL civil rights struggles by women and different races. This entire argument is based on pseudoscience and has no REAL supporting scientific evidence. I challenge you to find solid evidence that they are born this way.

Liberals such as yourself have no idea what damage this will do to our armed forces. When things go wrong, all of you will probably try to blame the Republicans or former president Bush. Anything to avoid taking responsibility. Liberal politicians don't think about potential consequences of their actions, only perceived benefits, no matter how minute they may be.

As for your statement, "They don't have to accept anything they don't want to.", blatant homosexuality isn't something that people in the armed forces can just peacefully coexist with. You're talking about people living in close quarters with individuals of the same gender who may feel sexually attracted to them. That is enough to make anyone uncomfortable and therefore reduce the trust level that is vital to forming cohesiveness within a unit.

There's another thing no one has thought about: when homosexuals were allowed to serve as long as they kept their problem quiet, no problems occurred. However, what do you think is going to happen when gays start prancing around in military camps full of large, normal soldiers who probably don't like them? I have no doubt there will be many cases of gay soldiers being beaten up, and some potentially "disappearing" without a trace. (If anyone accuses me of condoning behavior that I'm merely saying will likely happen, you will not receive a response from me). Contrary to what many misinformed liberals believe, DADT actually PROTECTS homosexuals.

(Note to the moderator: please don't delete this post. Most likely, I'll be flamed left and right, so you probably won't have to worry about stepping in. Thank you.)

The only change this will make is that it will allow gay activists who want to flaunt their behavior to do so without fear of punishment and to force people to accept their behavior as normal. The sad thing is that rights of gay soldiers are increasing, while rights of Christian soldiers are dcreasing (I would elaborate, but this would take us off topic).

Further, there is still the matter of my other arguments, including effect on trust level (and therefore cohesiveness) within most units, interpretation of civil rights used as the basis for this bill, and the related lack of scientific evidence that homosexuality is a human biological trait and not a conscious choice.

BTW, I wanted to also mention that I wasn't stereotyping soldiers. However, they're only human and there's always a chance that something bad could happen.

You have to understand, Warner - the MSM have their own, specialized math.
And even if more Repubs than Dems had voted in favor of this monstrosity, and it still failed, their math would show that it was the Repubs who denied the poor Mexican children their God-given right to overwhelm this country's resources.

@cybereagle, one argument against the repeal that I don't understand is that we should not repeal it because then it might lead to problems where gay soldiers are beaten up or go "disappearing" without a trace. In that scenario, why is it that the problem is with the gay soldiers. Seems to me that if that is a possible scenario, as you say it is, then the problem is with the "straight" soldiers who are the assaulting their fellow soldiers. I must have more faith in our military than you do as I trust that our soliders will respect and serve with people they may disagree with, as they have done for years, but if that scenario happens, then the assualting officers should be discharged, not the gay officers who are only trying to serve their country. If members of the military have a problem serving with openly gay soldiers, then maybe they are not the "best and brightest." Also, since we are trying to have a civil discussion on this controversial topic, it might help if you didn't use terms like "prancing about" as that just shows a lack of respect for those who are serving.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20

DADT was a stupid law and it's good that it was repealed. You're basically telling people that they must value honor and integrity, but just lie about this one thing. It's incongruent and frankly not something that a Christian should support. The only options are - homosexuals should be screened out and not allowed to serve at all or they should be allowed to serve without concern of being kicked out for it. Pick one - don't idealize a bad law.

It's interesting that everybody is only trying to address one part of my argument against DADT. Anyone care to try their hand at the other parts of it?

@Cybereagle, perhaps the reason that people are addressing only one part of your argument against DADT repeal is that you dedicated the majority of your post to the one argument. When I read your post, I came away with the idea that while you have a few arguments, one argument for you stands out as the main one, just by virtue of the time you spent addressing your main point. But, since you asked...I can't prove that homosexuality is biological any more than you can prove it's a choice. Let's be honst, either of us could look atany number of the scientific studies that support our respective views. It's like arguing who's better, Kobe or Lebron. There is evidence for either player being better, bottom line is it comes down to which evidence supports your view. You have seemingly already discounted any opposing scientific view by saying that the argument that homosexuality is a biological choice "has no REAL supporting evidence" so any study I brought up I have to assume you would dismiss as not being "real." As for another of your arguments, that there will be a lack of cohesion and trust within most units, all I can say to that I trust our men and women in the military that they can continue to serve alongside people even when they disagree with them on certain things. People thought that allowing women and african-americans into the military would lead to a lack of trust and cohesion, and our military only got stronger. (and I know you'll go to the civil rights issue but please note I am only using this example to address your argument that there is a fear that units would not trust each other). I would like to think that you and I could sit down and have a meal and talk despite our differences. I would also like to think that you and I could serve alongside each other on the front lines despite our differences. If people decide they cannot trust or serve with others whom they disagree with, then they shouldn't be there.
I think that covers some of your other arguments that were not your main argument in your post.

DADT needed to be repealed. Put the shoe on the other foot: How would you, Jim Hetero, like to be told you can join the military but on the condition you have to say you're homosexual and that if your hetrosexuality is ever discovered, you run the risk of being kicked out? Sound unfair? It is.

Ironic how we eagerly send our youth to die in Kandahar so that some Afghani goatherd keeps the right to vote, but the soldiers winning freedom for others are daily told they cannot enjoy the same rights (being open about your sexuality) as others they are serving with.

The senate and Obama have done the right thing in this case.

@josh, while I still disagree, I have to admit you made some good points. I'll admit, for example, that if we got into the biology argument I referenced, we'd be arguing in circles. I will remind you, however, that African-Americans and women were not allowed to serve in the armed forces at all, while gays could serve, just without acknowledging they were gay. Therefore, the strength of our armed forces would not be increased, as this will likely not result in a major increase in enlistment numbers.

And as for the last part of your post: believe it or not, I have good friends who are as liberal as I am conservative, and we get along very well.

As a Chaplain, I am highly disappointed in the repeal. It is once again a step down for America and her historic Christian values. I believe that God is once again saddened and angered that many who CALL themselves Christians support this abomination. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation. It is a deviant sexual choice. It is abnormal and the Bible in its totality denounces it as so. There is already severe moral corruption within the military ranks and now we want to allow it to go on with our stamp of approval. I have not and will not and if asked to do so will make my decision by my conscience. I wish some of you here would get a conscience.

Can anyone tell me why this can't be reversed when the new people take office. If these cheap politicians of today can reverse the law than why can't future politicians reverse the law. Wasn't this the reason why the new ones were voted in, not just on economic reasons but because of the legislatures and judges reversing and making laws that the majority don't want. We really need to make this a democracy rather than a republic than majority instead of policians would rule.
Any way, homosexuals don't think or act like normals. It's all about sex with them so there will be confrontations, lawsuits for stalking, harrasment, ruining of reputation, etc. Soldiers will need to go through civilian courts though because the military is controlled by Congress legislature. I'm against abortion anyway and really don't care for people being killed to protect a congress that kills 5 million of its unborn. If the military falls apart, so what, no body will have to die for this congress anymore. 5 million dead babies, attributed to our congress legislatures and our laws, please, soldiers didn't die and fight in WWII for this country to act like the enemy who both practiced infanticide of which we now do.

So how does this work, guys. Say I'm gay and I wish to enlist. Which Box do I tick: Male ( ) Female ( )? Will there be one for 'Gay'?

This shows the strong legacy of USA as a leader of the world is falling apart. The strong biblical tradition you had is undermined.America is in danger

The repeal of "don't ask don't tell" has cheapened the value that I developed for our Military. I joined the service because the service enforces positive values upon its members. We do not accept adultery, drug use, obesity, and homosexuality because we hold ourselves to higher values. These higher values create a disciplined ready force. As a commander I now have a myriad of serious issues I have to now diffuse which distracts from the mission I am doing here in Iraq. How do I quarter these homosexual soldiers? Where do they shower? What if some of my straight Soldiers refuse to work alongside them. Its easy for some of you to dictate policy to me because most of you will not have to deal with these issues. I'm in a combat arms unit that is all male and very "alpha" aggressive. I do have Soldiers who have serious issues with this repeal. Some of my best Soldiers have stated that they will leave the Army if forced to live amoungst homosexuals. Tell me how any of this has improved our Military?

Thank you, ArmyGuy. You've covered everything I've been trying to tell the people here. A repeal of DADT will cause great difficulties for our armed forces. The problems you discussed are very real and will put a great strain on our soldiers who are already putting their lives on the line fighting for our country. This is the last thing that anyone needs, but the politicians in Washington don't seem to understand that.

"Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.
Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it?
No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual-rights lobby. This is a political payoff, at the expense of our military, to a militant minority inside the Democratic Party that is demanding this as the price of that special interest's financial and political support." Pat Buchanan

always fun to read a note from a chaplain telling me (and others) to get a conscience and implying that I am not a real Christian because I disagree with him on this issue. That's a great way to engage someone. I fear for those who you are counseling.
As for Buchanan's quote, he conveniently leaves out all the polls showing a majority of Americans supporting DADT repeal. If the only people he talks to are white evangelical Christians, then that explains why he's unaware of those polls. Not sure Buchanan is the best person to quote. He has famously sympathized with David Duke, asked aloud why we were looking into sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa, and criticized people for associating the Confederacy with slavery. Clearly, he has been on the wrong sides of those issues.
To the officer who now has to deal with the repeal in his unit, I can only say what I've said before, that I have more faith in our men and women serving in the military that they will serve proudly alongside their fellow soldiers as they have done before. People wondered whether or not white soldiers would be able to serve with black soldiers, and our military actually grew stronger as a result of integration. I trust the same will happen now.
Safe to say that this is one of those issues where no one commenting on this message board will be swayed either way (as is often the case on message boards, as anyone who feels strongly enough to comment usually is set in their ways). Some people believe one thing. Others believe another. But using language like "homosexuals don't think or act like normals" and "it's all about sex for them" or "prancing about" or telling people to get a conscience is disrespectful, profoundly ignorant and as a Christian who was hoping to engage in a civil discussion on this controversial topic, it is disappointing to say the least that such rhetoric is used. (I won't even comment on the offensive and ignorant "which box do i tick? Male, Female, will there be one for gay" comment as that hopefully was just a bad attempt at a joke). To those of you on both sides of the topic who have contributed to the civil discussion, thank you. To the rest, please think about your comments prior to posting and ask yourself if you would proudly show your post to Jesus.
(okay, getting off my soapbox now...you may resume)

@josh, I would go into the countless holes in the majority of your post, but I've been carrying on this same discussion on two different sites, with both discussions growing very heated and resulting in arguments, and I'm getting a bit tired. So, I think I'll just wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I am not sure what difference this repeal will make. It will probably cause some logistic problems, but as far as morality, from what I've been told by returning service personnel, the armed services are already rampant with heterosexual deviance and really need to clean up their act.

Josh you summed it all up so beautifully! Personally as a Christian, I feel everything that is happening right now is to REVEAL our LOVE walk! You really nailed it! Can you imagine Jesus' (God's) response reading these blogs and listening to these CHRISTIAN radio and tv stations! It is us who is in sin due to our LOVE walk or rather LACK OF! What a great opportunity these last 2 years to PRAY and WITNESS about the GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST. But instead, we are FEARFUL and in CONSTANT CONTENTION, MURMURING AND COMPLAINING as if we have NO FAITH in the very nature of the GOD we serve!! Trusting POLITICIANS regardless of which party instead of walking in the ASSURANCE of SALVATION, GOOD NEWS and ETERNAL LIFE!! May God forgive all of us for our hypocrises, especially Christian leaders (whom many are in the closet) and Christian media that perpetuate division instead of encouraging our LOVE walk towards one another and FAITH IN GOD!! I'm in amazement as to why ALL OF A SUDDEN in just 2 years God has decided to judge this nation according to some, when we have been short of our LOVE walk for a very long time, regardless of the Political administration in place! All of a sudden NOW, everything is a an emergency of moral values, four fathers, etc, BEING AT STAKE as if there was this huge INNOCENCE upon this nation before 2 years ago! Again, may God forgive us and may we forgive one another for our HYPOCRISY in always choosing what sins are acceptable past and present !! By no means has he judged us at this time according to the measure of our inquities, transgressions and sin!! All I can say is THANK YOU JESUS Heavenly Father for your CONTINUAL GRACE!!!

"...everything that is happening right now is to REVEAL our LOVE walk!" You have got to be kidding! What is your biblical evidence for this belief? Maybe, just maybe it is a consequence of our sin?
Proverbs 29:18 (English Standard Version)18Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint,but blessed is he who keeps the law."

Oh, and here is what Jesus would say to the issue of homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Or He might quote Paul: Rom. 1:24-27 24Therefore(AR) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(AS) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(AT) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(AU) who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason(AV) God gave them up to(AW) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Or I Cor. 6:9-10 Do not be deceived:(G) neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I concur with Josh and Ann,the ability to vote your conscience and engage in public debates about policy and moral issues of the day (granted by the Constitution, rooted in Jude o-Christian values)is a right and a privilege by which I thank God and I'm willing to fight for. However, our christian mandate is to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth, not legislate for the Kingdom. The Apostle Paul charged Timothy to preach the Gospel in and out of season.(When the current culture is accepting of the Gospel and when it is hostile to it.)I feel that in America, there has been an over-emphasis on legislation righteousness and not enough emphasis on personal holiness before our Heavenly Father and an watching unbelieving world. Am I showing the love of Christ when I'm shouting down and name-calling someone who practices the homosexual lifestyle or for that matter, someone who holds fast to a opposite view? Or am I showing the love of Christ when I tell the practicing homosexual that according to the totality of the Bible, that homosexuality is a sexual sin and not God's will for your life and I can still bless and pray for them, even though they may curse me in the face? Remember, we are the living Epistles.

"Or am I showing the love of Christ when I tell the practicing homosexual that according to the totality of the Bible, that homosexuality is a sexual sin and not God's will for your life..."

Consider what their sin is doing to them - Rom. 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..." and II Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY (caps mine), 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

So of course you are showing them the love of Christ if you tell them in love and share God's word with them.

Isaiah 55:10, 11 says "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth,making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."

The fact is that many who are dying in their sin do not want to follow Christ and they will call us names and scorn us and blame us for being unloving. [II Cor. 2:15 For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life.]

It is not wrong to speak the truth in love to people who are perishing. It is in fact an act of love.
(Eph. 4:15 ...but speaking the truth in love..." and Eph. 5:11 "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.")

Evangelicals are far more likely to be timid and not say anything than to tell homosexuals the truth about their sin. In fact the homosexual activists find in Evangelicals an easy and convenient target to attack in order to promote their agenda and gain the public's sympathy.

...not to mention the practical problems in billeting homosexuals with heterosexuals. Ask any "good" American mom or dad if they would like their son or daughter to shower with an "open" homosexual who may find them sexually attractive. Nope. That won't work at all. Most heterosexual soldiers will hold a blanket party for the offender and convince him he may want to transfer somewhere else. Now I hope this is much ado about nothing, but I suspect there will be some turmoil at the barracks level.

I sincerely doubt there will be any problems, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the supporters of the ban on Gay Americans in the military. All of our allies have successfully and uneventfully integrated Lesbians and Gay men into their militaries without problems. And most American military personnel already say they serve or have served with Gay soldiers without any problems.

I think it's also important to note that when young men age 18-25 register for Selective Service, they are not asked about their sexual orientation. And I suspect that if the United States ever finds itself in a major military conflict that requires reinstatement of the draft, the issue of Gays in the military is going to be the LEAST of our worries.

For what it's worth, I really don't care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty.

That's not what's at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he's dating on his own time. Under DADT, if Sgt. Mike is dating another man off-base, and his commanding officer is informed of this and asks him about it, Sgt. Mike can either lie or tell the truth. Either way he is jeopardizing his military career.

Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine. We don't need DADT to accomplish that goal.

@Chuck, it astounds me at how so many think that DADT is a ban on all gays serving in the military, when it only says that they can't serve openly. People objecting to this policy and saying that nothing will go wrong (looking at Chuck, Josh, Ann, and others on this) have no idea whatsoever about how things work in the military. I'll bet you probably learned everything you know about military from movies and TV shows. An (I assume) active-duty soldier tries to tell you what will really happen and you dismiss him completely, pretending to know more than someone actually SERVING HIS COUNTRY.

Then, while I acknowledge that we need to witness to gays, many of you pretending to be good Christians don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, totally ignoring the many condemnations of this behavior found throughout the Bible. No one is listening to Dan, who is trying to tell you this. You're stuck in your "I'm okay, you're okay" and "I don't want to offend anyone" mindset.

After taking some time off, I thought it would be possible to have rational discussions on this site, but a majority of the liberals here act like anyone who disagrees with them (even if they know the topic better) is stupid and that only they are right about everything. I see now that an intelligent discussion is impossible here, so cybereagle777 is flying the coop for good this time.

Dan, good luck in carrying on the battle. You always do a great job relating the discussion to God's Word and reminding everyone of what He says on the subject.

ChristianLawyer, you seem to be the only intelligent liberal on this site and I actually have enjoyed my discussions with you.

I'm following two Bible verses in deciding to leave:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -Matthew 7:6

And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.
-Matthew 10:14

Cybereagle. Just wondered which of these contributions you believe come from liberals and how you can tell. I'm way to liberal for a lot of people and way to conservative for a lot of people and I'm never sure how I come across. Thanks.

Thanks for your complement, Cybereagle777. I've always enjoyed your well-thought-out comments. But I do hope you reconsider and rejoin the discussions. [Remember Jeremiah - he preached for 70 years and saw no converts. But he kept posting...er...preaching.;-)] But if not - God bless you and see you "here, there or in the air."

An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213

George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject (homosexuality) and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier...
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

Jefferson proposed a law requiring:
“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration…” – Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments 1778 Papers 2:492–504
http://thegraph.com/2010/12/what-would-our-founding-fathers-think-of-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Pretty sad when perversion is legitimized and we lose outstanding soldiers in the process.


There is a severe disconnect here between the following groups:

A. People who think homosexuality is chosen, and sinful.

B. People who think homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals (themselves), whether it is sinful or not.

Even if homosexuality is a chosen "orientation", can someone articulate to me why, in America (Land of the Free, Brave, etc) we should discriminate against them? Bear in mind that many of these people are not Christians and do not accept the dictates of the Bible.

I am all for the repeal of DADT. It was a horrible law that should never have been passed in the first place.

Homosexuals have the same rights under the law as heterosexuals. They are not discriminated against under current law any more than polygamists are or polyamorists or those who practice beastiality or those who engage in incest. Practicing adulterers (if they tell) cannot serve in the military; practicing polygamists (if they tell) cannot serve in the military etc. Your premise is flawed.

Very good, Joe. You can believe something is sinful and still believe the person committing that sin is worthy of kindness and fair treatment.

I think repealing of this law was just as silly as enacting it in the first place.

I am just frankly amazed why homosexuals would want to join the military. Why place yourself in a position to have to go to war and get killed? Leave the fighting to all the heterosexuals. Let them be killed off. Give them the pleasure of being the ones to die if they want to have it so badly.... come on now.

I'm just frankly amazed why heterosexuals would not want to allow homosexuals to join the army. Let them join. Give them the pleasure of being the ones to die if they want to have it so badly.... come on now

All this is so bizarre really...reminds me of children in the playground.... it's my ball and you can't have it....