Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/...y_recruiting_1


BMT

Now where is Lady Gaga!!

I have been silently following this story for a while now. IMO, the change to this is a good thing, but I am not neive or close-minded about its possible effects, positive and negative. I am curious and was wondering if anyone hear could explain this to me, why would the Obama administration and the Justice Department appeal the court ruling when this is a "change" they supposedly support? Maybe I have my facts wrong and they dont support this???

I've been following it as well; I think the "administration" remained quiet because they saw the political fallout from "openly" supporting the repeal. By allowing a judge to make the call they get to keep their hands relatively clean...then by making an "appeal" they can both appease the military and their fan base...all the while knowing that the ruling would remain intact.

Personally, I have no issues with gays serving...I thought DADT was an acceptable "compromise" since it was enacted during Clinton's administration.

That definitely makes sense to me. Politics annoy me....Would the appeal really be appeasing the military? According to most media sources the DOD followed the directive and has changed policy accordingly, but I also havent read of any statements directly from the DOD.

But if you'll notice.....
 

But you'll notice it has become a media event of some gays trying to sign back up.

Which proves it's not about serving which they could do under "DADT". It's about the agenda.

So is it next year or the year after when the promotion lists start getting scrubbed for the proper number of gays?

Guaranteed.

Also look for the complaints about assignments, discrimination, hate crimes, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, etc., etc.

I guess we will need to sleep on our backs, and start showering with our backs to the walls now. If I have to shower with gays, I want to shower with the women as well. If he can keep his lust in check, so can I.

Will gays in the barracks be allowed to share rooms and sodomize one another, or will they automatically be authorized off-post quarters and BAH at the with dependents rate?

Look for a surge of HIV positive soldiers and partners hitting the military medical system as well.

Welcome to the gay Army.:rolleyes:

TR

Federal Appeals Court Says Military's Gay Ban Should Stay in Place for Now
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601970,00.html

BMT

I'm just thank GOD I'm not having to serve under these conditions......I reference HIM because HE had something to say regarding this matter........Romans 1:26–27 is a reference in the Bible to homosexuality...........1:26, Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 1:27, In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.............:(:(

Big Teddy :munchin

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted the Obama administration's request for a temporary freeze of a California-based federal judge's order telling the military to stop enforcing the policy.

Yet another example of the POTUS not doing one of the many, MANY, things he said he was going to do. Starting to become a habit... Not trying to hijack the thread, I've no dog in this fight other than another politician directly saying something, then doing the opposite. I can handle controversy, just not liars. "How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" is becoming one of my favorite quotes.

Could always take the Sacred Band of Thebes approach and group everyone who chooses to serve openly. Cheapest approach and prevents other units from having to serve with openly gay people. Someone will cry discrimination and they didn't get the same opportunities xyz.

I agree to a point...it was a non-decision...but it also allowed Clinton to get his administration back on track after it was sidelined by the same questions. I don't think it had anything to do with people hiding who they were...it had to do with people wanting open acceptance versus tolerance.

Personally, I don't care who you sleep with...I don't think people I work with want to see me groping my wife or talking about our sex life. Conversely, I don't care to see or hear another Soldier doing it or talking about it with his/her "significant other."

I agree with other comments made...it's a media event. And if the rules are completely changed...expect to see issues with housing, medical, marriage, etc. Then watch as Joe Private argues that he should be given BAH with dependants to live with his girlfriend because someone else is getting it to live with his/her "life partner."

I have been watching this story unfold for years, and the only reason why I thought DADT was an acceptable compromise is that it kept us from wasting a lot of time, energy, and resources.

The Sacred Band
 

They could though that might backfire (no pun intended) as well, since claims of a return to segregation wouldn't help the military either.

FWIW regarding the Sacred Band of Thebes, USMC vet and author Stephen Pressfield had a distinctly un PC yet pragmatic opinion on the roots of their martial prowess in The Virtues of War

I guess the "right" to feel unharrassed isn't extended to heterosexual service members.