Still sounds cynical and downright contemptuous to me, and the fact that it (supposedly) comes from “actual service members” doesn’t change that impression in the slightest. Again, if a prominent liberal had characterized the military with those words, he’d be figuratively tarred and feathered by the usual suspects (talk radio, the Investors Business Daily, Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Boston Herald, the Fox “News” Channel, conservative blogs) as being hostile to the military.

Wow. They really have lowered their standards.

I can introduce you to one or two if you like, then you can tell your liberal friends you actually KNOW someone in the military. It will give you a lot of street cred…..

Wow, imagine the “he hates the military!” cries from conservatives if a liberal (even one who had been in the military him/herself) had characterized the armed forces with such a “saying.” I guess the IOKIYAAC (It’s Okay If You Are A Conservative) syndrome is alive and well.

Only 63% of democrats voted for the 1964 act. 80% of republicans did. Is that being on “the side of history”?

Duh by name, duh by nature.

Unless he’s banging his superior’s wife, probably not.

Stupid and false argument, no matter which context (homosexual or heterosexual) one looks at it. A virginal but openly gay soldier-who, by definition, doesn’t have a “sex life”-will get automatically drummed out of the military, not just one who is sexually active. Also, a heterosexual soldier who talks about his sex life isn’t going to be drummed out of the military, at least not for this reason.

Wrong.

Biggest? Yes. Best? No.

“Why follow the lead of second rate armies?”

You’ve lost to Canada in training exercises. In fact, the sniper with the longest confirmed kill was a Canadian. Don’t think you can’t learn anything from other countries’ armed forces.

“We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet.”

If this was true, there would be no need for stop-loss. Or relaxing standards for new recruits.

You are wrong here.

“When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work. And remember, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….”

You can’t possibly believe this. In fact, you could be celibate and gay and still get kicked out of the military.

That’s right. We know that no one in the military talks about their sex lives. Ever.

duh, let’s not pretend that the “we don’t want to know about your sex life” restriction applies equally to everyone.

But we’ll only throw you out for it if it’s the wrong sort of sex life.

Why follow the lead of second rate armies?

The IDF is a second rate army? Say what?

Dangerous line of thinking, if you ask me. We may spend almost half the world’s total funding on military expenditures, but that doesn’t mean we can’t pick and choose from the good personnel decisions of other countries to maximize how good our military could be.

We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet. When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work.

Weren’t the marines relaxing their standards on taking felons a few months back?

Why follow the lead of second rate armies?

We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet. When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work. And remember, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….

Even if you were correct in the problems gays in the military would create (something of which I am not convinced), why would we not follow the lead of those other countries who have obviously found acceptable ways to handle any friction? After all why would any employer cut themselves off from an available talent pool for something unrelated? Being gay doesn’t mean one can’t fire a gun, or watch a radar screen, or fly a helicopter.

No, it’s because a lot of women get sexually harassed in the military, or worse.

citybeat.com/2002-08-22/news2.shtml

This has nothing to do with coed living arrangement, it has to do with dehumanizing soldiers to the point where they will kill anyone they are ordered to.

Sexual tension. Good god.

If you think gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military because they might try and have sex with the straight soldiers, then you are clearly delusional.

None of the three things that you mentioned constitute “bending over backwards” to accommodate Mormons, Muslims, or Jews in my book. We’ll just have to disagree on that matter, bigoted pig.

So each member of the military has a different religion? You really remembered to to drink your “stupid argument” juice, didn’t you (oh, and if your “typos” comment was directed at me, I acknowledged that they might be typos and criticized your comment in that context).

Zero. Zip. Zilch.

False. H.R. 1246, the Democratic bill to repeal DADT, has 143 cosponsors this year, up from 122 in the last Congress (when it was introduced as H.R. 1059).

2. I disagree with your first point, so I also think that the premise of this question is incorrect.

3. It does “harm” people. It costs money, it means that in the rigid world of the military you must have a different set of standards for each member based upon their religions. Again, the military serves a purpose, it is not some sort of employment project. If and when we get to a point that in order to maintain our end strength we NEED to accommodate these sort of preferences, then perhaps the cost/benefit works out.

I would also argue that the military was well ahead of the rest of society in terms of setting equality standards. The military became very race neutral much more quickly than the rest of the country.

Finally, this country is a great country because of the “melting pot”. A melting pot infers a homogeneity that in fact is what keeps this country vibrant. This idea that we all get to break up into our various “tribes” and just keep doing things our own way is part of what is threatening to destroy what made this country great. And I speak as a first generation american.

The fact is that Northern Republicans were less likely to support the Civil Rights Act than their Northern Democractic counterparts, and Southern Republicans were less likely to support the Civil Rights Act than their Southern Democratic counterparts. Southern Republicans couldn’t even muster one damn vote for the bill.