Anyone CAN serve but only the majority/accepted can be open and honest. Again, it doesn't change the fact that the soldiers already know that certain individuals are gay. There is no element of surprise upon the straight men and women.

 

Your view on Muslims serving is what?

 

I have zero problem with Muslims or people of any religion serving. I don't believe that religious beliefs should be publicly displayed in the military though, whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc....

In terms of the 1917 comment, I would venture that if the military allowed openly homosexual citizens to serve, the amount of harassment towards those citizens would increase drastically. That's simply a guess on my part, nothing more. It's sad, but IMO it's reality. One could argue that this policy could serve as protection for homosexual members of the military.

 

I would imagine harassment toward blacks in the military was pretty bad when African-Americans were first allowed to serve in desegregated units. But after a while it became more accepted and now blacks make up an important (and large) segment of the military and serve with distinction.

 

Why can't allowing homosexuals to serve follow a similar course?

I have zero problem with Muslims or people of any religion serving. I don't believe that religious beliefs should be publicly displayed in the military though, whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc....

 

So you don't believe there are Bibles being read out in public?

Since the conversation is switching more to Muslims, I will ask this...

 

Would they/are they allowed to pray during the specific five times throughout the day as their religion states that they should? I'm all about allowing those of other religions in the U.S. military, but I believe it would come with a, "talk to your god on your time...not on ours".

 

Am I right or wrong?

So you don't believe there are Bibles being read out in public?

 

Do I believe it's happening? Of course, I do, I'm not naive...Do I believe it should be happening? Absolutely not. Not on military time.

I would imagine harassment toward blacks in the military was pretty bad when African-Americans were first allowed to serve in desegregated units. But after a while it became more accepted and now blacks make up an important (and large) segment of the military and serve with distinction.

 

Why can't allowing homosexuals to serve follow a similar course?

 

To me the comparison is absolutely terrible. You can tell the color of a person's skin, you can't tell someone's sexual orientation just by looking at them. No one is saying homosexuals can't or shouldn't be allowed to serve, but I don't see the need for them to be open about their preferences, just as I don't see the need for hetrosexuals to be either.

To me the comparison is absolutely terrible. You can tell the color of a person's skin, you can't tell someone's sexual orientation just by looking at them. No one is saying homosexuals can't or shouldn't be allowed to serve, but I don't see the need for them to be open about their preferences, just as I don't see the need for hetrosexuals to be either.

 

Are you against military members marrying each other?

Since the conversation is switching more to Muslims, I will ask this...

 

Would they/are they allowed to pray during the specific five times throughout the day as their religion states that they should? I'm all about allowing those of other religions in the U.S. military, but I believe it would come with a, "talk to your god on your time...not on ours".

 

Am I right or wrong?

 

What do you think about that question Clyde? In all seriousness, I'm wondering what you think.

Are you against military members marrying each other?

 

If they're married before joining, not a lot you can do about it, aside from having them stationed at different bases.

 

If it's something where two active members from the same station meet and start a relationship while there, then yes, I'm against it.

 

If it happens after they have both served, meaning they are no longer in the military, then no I'm not against it.

I remembered this from our friends at Monty Python from over 30 years ago... no mean-spirited offense intended. The text at the top left is the actual title of the sketch as labeled by the Pythons. I was hoping we might all enjoy a light-hearted spoof of everyone's worst case stereotype. If this is over-the-top, I apologize in advance and ask a mod to delete it.

 

 

And now, for something completely different...

 

The funny thing was that the late Graham Chapman the Python that introduces this skit was gay .

I didn't say I'm OK with coed showers anywhere. My point about seeing a naked female was that just because I have a chance to SEE a naked woman doesn't mean that I'm automatically sexually aroused or that I will make an advance.

 

The few 18 - 25 year old soldiers I know wouldn't necessarily agree with this. :lol:

What do you think about that question Clyde? In all seriousness, I'm wondering what you think.

 

Its my understanding that a Muslim in the military is able to perform the salah.

Its my understanding that a Muslim in the military is able to perform the salah.

 

Even if its in the middle of a drill, or one of those 6 miles hikes?

 

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

 

I believe that you should practice your religion on your own time, not on the military's. From what I understand of the Muslim religion, that wouldn't really be possible.

The funny thing was that the late Graham Chapman the Python that introduces this skit was gay .

Right, stop that… silly… and a bit suspect I think.

 

I was a Python fan back in the mid-1970s when I had to sneak to stay up on school nights to watch them on a 13" black and white television with a coat hangar looped and screwed into the UHF connectors on the back so I could pick up the public television station out of Huntington, WV. Marshall students apparently loved the Flying Circus and broadcast them at 11 pm on weeknights. I learned of Chapman's leanings in the early 1980s... I was disappointed for reasons already expressed, but enjoyed his talents immensely. :thumb:

I just saw an article in today's paper regarding the issue. Seems that support for changing the DADT law is coming from The Secretary of Defense, The Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff and Colin Powell, among others.

 

As always, others can summarize much better than I (I once read that anyone can write a page, but it takes genius to come up with "Just Do It"). Punish for what a person does, not for what a person is.