well said

Do you need a lisp and a limp wrist to speak arabic or farsi? Sorry, inappropriate comment. ;-)

I'm apposed to openly gay people in the military (but have no problem with most of the one's I know personally in both my business and social life) because of concern for some of the other soldiers. Whether justified or not, there's a lot of folks who wonder/think that gays might be closet horn dogs oggling them in the showers, barracks etc. Whether these are valid fears or not isn't the point. The point is it is a distraction for our fighting men and women and I for one don't want them to be distracted in the defense of my country. If they want to allow openly gay people in, then I think their services should be limited to situations where, if others are distracted by their sexual persuasion, it doesn't compromise their concentration. I've tried to choose my words carefully here because I am not anti-gay or anything like that. Just think that the military front lines is not place for them to be serving. Prosper, I'm curious, not trying to tear you down or anything. As a practicing Catholic, you said "well said" above. Do you agree with the policy? If so, how do you rectify that with the current teaching of the Catholic church that I ran away from so quickly once I was able to recognize it for it's hypocrisy.

If gay members want to serve in the military, whether they tell or not, they should be allowed to.

As far as the incoming Commissar saying he will work to change the edict Clinton handed down, think about this: Ronald Reagan liked to say, "Trust but verify." Then he was referring to the Russians. Today, with Obama, that Reagan adage should read, " "Do NOT trust, but be goddamn sure to verify."

Based on the policy all the Soldier has to do is state they are homosexual and will not abide by the policy and they are separated. There is no investigation, etc. The majority use this as a way to get out and if the messiah lifts the ban how many would be willing to return. Another problem with lifting the ban is in determining benefits, would the gay Soldiers automatically qualify for the housing allowance, the same as a married Soldier and would his/her partner qualify for medical benefits. If he lifts the ban, it will open the door for legally recognized gay marriages and not just civil unions

Tanzfleck said what I was going to! The democrats never do anything out of the goodness of their hearts or for fairness. They will use this issue to further gay marriage and cause even more problems and mess in doing so. I wonder which will come first this or slashing military funding?

I've no problem with gays in the military. If a young man or woman makes the decision to go and serve their country, god bless them.

I am not opposed to openly gay people serving in the military. They have been in the military since its inception and they will always be there. I completely disagree with Ray about other Soldiers being in danger. Homosexual sexual assault is not common in the military or anywhere else in the "free" world, and as ridiculous as it sounds, sexual assaults between men are generally perpetrated by men who declare themselves to be heterosexual. In anticipation of Ray's question, I am a practicing Catholic, but this deviation from Church policy is in a long list of things that I don't agree with about the Church I am a member of.

Believe me you....having gay people in the military is not a distraction because of "fear" of being ogled. It is because of the natural tendency for humans to concentrate and comment on things that are strange to us. The old adage stated that a guy shouldn't be more worried about his gay battle buddy in a foxhole than he is the enemy. The old saying about what a guy needs to worry about in a "foxhole" isn't true in Cold War Linear combat and it doesn't apply in what we are doing today which is asymmetric warfare. To put it in today's term, if I am crouched behind a burned out car on a narrow garbage-strewn street, and 7.62 rounds are turning the masonry above my head into powder; Halle Berry could be oiled down, wearing high heels and a thong smiling and saying, "Want to come to my place tonight?" I guarantee you sex is the LAST thing on my mind.

Lastly military policy can't trump civil law even though we diverge from its path in certain instances. If there is no allowance for civil unions in the civilian world, you couldn't make a loophole and get married on post to someone of the same sex either.

Watershed moment here. Generally I tend to agree with your take on issues; in fact, over the past coupla years our assessments have dovetailed well over 90% of the time. On this one, however, I gotta play Anthony Adverse. Just ain’t buyin it.

My reasons for opposing openly gay people in the military are numerous, diverse, and complex, so I won’t go into them in boring detail. But as said above, the PC and socialist trends in the country are disturbing, and I see this one as part of a larger agenda, almost conspiratorial in nature.

Having served in two large organizations (Navy, both enlisted and officer; and Florida State University System, faculty), for over 40 years total, I’ve naturally run across gays/lesbians frequently. I’ve worked for some and have had large numbers of them working for me. In fact, when I was EMO for NavCAMS Hawaii responsible for maintenance support of SubPac, CinCPac, CinCPacFlt, Com7th, and many others, I had 155 techs in my group, nearly half of which were women, of which at least half a dozen were pregnant at any given time and another dozen or so who were closet lesbians.

My policy for them was that barring disclosure on their part or stupidity which resulted in videotape evidence, proving their sexual preferences would be virtually impossible. My reasons weren’t PC or humanitarian or any of that -- it was just that at least 10 of them were among my very best and most reliable people (E-5 and E-6 elex techs working on secure voice and other crypto devices and systems). Had I fired all the people I knew were gay or lesbian, I wouldn’t have been able to do my job. I had several CPOs there, one of whom was a bisexual female with whom I had to work closely on a daily basis until she retired.

Fortunately for me and a whole bunch of admirals, my approach to the manning situation was effective, and we did what we were paid to do with no slipups, complaints, or regrets. I recommended all 12 of the lesbians (actually there were 13, but I fired one for being a drunk -- can’t have alcoholics with TS clearances) for advancement and advanced training. Ditto for 4 or 5 guys who never caused trouble, although I did get rid of at least 2 gay guys, but only because they failed piss tests twice. They also were good techs, and I hated to lose them. Fortunately, having all those stars on my side, I got qualified replacements immediately. In sum, I lucked out all the way around.

In the university system, the story was a little different. For at least two years, I worked for an openly, almost militantly gay department head whom nearly everyone despised and worked to scuttle. We also had two lesbian women professors who pushed agendas which had nothing whatever to do with the job they were hired to do or the goals of the department. Their combined presence was a distraction, a great waste of time in meetings, and an obstacle to cooperation and progress. Makes no difference who was in the wrong; the problem wouldn’t have existed in an atmosphere uncontaminated with their strident demands.

Ultimately I see this creeping agenda resulting in not only recognition of gay marriages (to which I am strongly opposed) as well as removal of the bans and dilution of the taboos on incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other distasteful and destructive behaviors. I see it as a slippery slope, and the only solution is maintenance of the status quo for the foreseeable future.

Generally I lurk and read, having almost abandoned posting here a year or so ago. This one oughta rattle some cages, right, Prosper?

I guess Bawney "Pillow Biter" Fwank will finally be able to serve without worry. That warms the cockles of my heart.

GOC,

While I agree that DODT is an ummitagated disaster (basically allows an option to desert before deployment without prosecution), allowing gays to openly serve is a bad idea. It is easy for those of us who no longer serve (like those 100 retired liberal admirals) to say it's no biggie. We're not on the ships anymore. We're not in the 140 man berthing compartments. What are you going to do? Have separate berthings. Normal male, Confused male, Normal women, bi-women, gay women, etc.

Separately, good luck with recruiting if JHE proceeds with your plan for using the military for social engineering.

"Separately, good luck with recruiting if JHE proceeds with your plan for using the military for social engineering"

I don't think you will see a measurable increase or decrease in recruiting numbers, and though we can't get an accurate percentage of homosexuals serving in the military, I don't think we will see a large increase if they were to lift the ban. If there were any increase I think it would be negligible. Additionally, you may be surprised that if the ban were lifted, you may not see a large number of individuals willing to disclose the their sexuality. In this instance the unwritten regulations of the military would still be lingering.

If you want to share a shower with gaggle of fags then more power to you.Speaking as a former soldier, I don't!
And then there's the subject of women who can't tote their load.No bigotry her ...simply fact.
I've dug their latrines, changed their tires and pulled their KP.
Soldiering requires a certain amount of physical strength...pull your own weight or get the hell out.

The military won't let females and males live together and shower together in the same open dorms. What in hell is the difference between that and some fags showering with other males.

This is a tough one. I don't have a problem with gays. I don't particularly care for them but there's nothing you can do about it. If they allow openly gay people to serve it will create a huge problem for them especially in combat arms MOS's (Infantry, Cavalry, Armor, and Field Artillery). I would worry about their safety. The macho alpha-male warrior culture is not ready for this yet. I know for a fact in my 15 years there is no doubt that there have been gay Soldiers in units I've been in. I personally have never known anyone who outed themselves. It will take time for this to be accepted. If you're a fruit, Congratulations! I just don't want to know about it. Lesbians, no problem! As long as they're lipstick lesbians and not battle trolls.

Dkelsmith:
if I am crouched behind a burned out car on a narrow garbage-strewn street, and 7.62 rounds are turning the masonry above my head into powder; Halle Berry could be oiled down, wearing high heels and a thong smiling and saying, "Want to come to my place tonight?" I guarantee you sex is the LAST thing on my mind.

HAha... A sentence like that would make anyone think you are gay!

(I kid! I kid!)

I never served so I can only comment ideologically which is basically a bowl of warm air. I am inclined to give the gay his civil rights and am inclined to find a way for the gay to serve in a way that would not be disruptive. I too however am Catholic and Ray no one is consistent with their Catholicism and their beliefs on how a country should be governed. Homosexuality is a sin per the church, but so is adultery, missing mass, and taking the lords name in vain. We will have danged few soldiers if sins were the criteria.

That's a bad article.

Clinton may have come up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but it's a congressionally-passed law.

Obama can't change that without Congress changing the law. The article only hints at that, which demonstrates that the writer knows it, but chooses to obfuscate the facts.

So Unix-Jedi, If I understand your post correctly you are saying that a reporter is making a statement that paints the magical negro in a positive light, but in reality, it's probably not accurate. Say it ain't so. When did this sort of thing start? /sarc off

Let's see here. The author of that article wrote:

"The law however still has seen a large number of dismissals of gay service members. Since its enactment, some 12,500 soldiers have been sent packing for acknowledging their homosexuality or after being outed as gay."

I'd perhaps advise a different turn of phrase than "sent packing" in that particular discussion, but, nevermind that.

Although I'm in general agreement here Denny, I'm also a bit on the "anti" side, in that history is rife with books, passages, poems and paens to the bonds of men welded together as brothers for life from the crucible of combat.

Such passions are normally not sexual, but are nonetheless powerful, intense, and as intimate as a honeymoon's passion, but formed from blood, sweat, screams, fears and furies largely unknown away from the battlefield.

Though sex might be the last thing on a combat soldier's mind while the bullets are flying, the fact that troops always find the nearest babe, brothel or bride has been a part of soldierery from time immemorial.

I have no judgement here to declare, other than to sound a cautionary note.

Road to Hell, intentions, paving. Some assembly required.

Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Awesome post Jim!

HAha... A sentence like that would make anyone think you are gay!

(I kid! I kid!)

LOL!

I'm a Special Forces officer retired from the army for a whole lot of years. I've had experience with gay guys in my unit in the 3d Armored Division in the early 70's. It was not nice.

Once when we went to Hohenfels (a training area), I had one of my gay soldiers (thanks to Project 100,000), watching my other troops in the showers in the evening. The straight guys didn't appreciate it.

Another time, back in garrison I had a team leader after becoming drunk on a Friday night offer his ass to three of his team subordinates. Of course, the three horny subordinates took him up on his offer. Under the UCMJ rules at the time I should have dumped four soldiers; I cheated and only discharged the team leader.

I don't know how the army now copes with the larger increase of females in the ranks, but I do know that gays cause problems in the combat arms.

Sorry, Denny. I normally agree with you 99% of the time, but on this issue we differ.

Google/Yahoo George Dooley for more information.

300 Spartans and their allies held off masses of invading Persians in 480 BC. at Thermopylae.

Most of those warriors had "toy-boys" but didn't let them get in the way of a battle.

I guess they had sense enough to seperate work from play.

By the way:

How do you seperate the men from the boys in the Greek army?

With a crowbar!

My problem with gays in the military is that most of them are agenda driven in that they want to force their view on others.
With DADT, the only ones who got out were ones who wanted out. Many of those discharged for being gay used DADT as a vehicle to get out of the military. All the ones I know who were discharged under DADT were in fact not gay. They were only looking for a way out of the Army.
Form an infantry BCT for gay soldiers, a volentary unit where they could serve with out fear, that would only be for gays and lesbians. GSH who wanted to remain in the closet can be in any unit, but the ones who wish to be open about it would be assigned to a strictly gay unit.

Another time, back in garrison I had a team leader after becoming drunk on a Friday night offer his ass to three of his team subordinates. Of course, the three horny subordinates took him up on his offer.

STOP a sec. What in the hell do you mean by "Of course". Drunk or sober there is not a man's ass on the planet I have any interest in.

I think maybe the three horny subordinates you speak of swung that way in the first place. At least I hope so. I would hate to think that what is keeping most guys straight is simply lack of opportunity.

As far as the post goes, Denny is right. No one is saying that having openly gay service members is not going to be without problems. Just as having women in the military has had it's own set of problems, so will this, but it is the right thing to do. Discrimination is wrong, period.

Patrick answered clearly about the Catholic church. Only sheeps follow a lead without asking questions.

Why would Ray behave like a sheep on a gay topic?

that's so wrong...

I served my country in the military. The first two months, during combat training, are the only time in my adult life where I didn't have any sexual thoughts. Believe me : don't sleep more than 4 hours in a row, run 10 miles with a rifle, and be constantly yelled at, and you wouldn't care if your comrade is gay or not...

"Why would Ray behave like a sheep on a gay topic?"

Not really sure I understand that question as you can see by my comment (only two or three in) that I disagreed with Denny.

"Only sheeps follow a lead without asking questions"

Well then you are not practicing the basic tenants of the Catholic church. Technically you are a bad catholic (you can insert any belief system for the word catholic assuming you don't follow it's rules to a tee). And that my friends, is the major flaw in organized religion.

Homophobia is not a basic tenant of the catholic church. It's a temporary mistake.

Homophobia=fear of homosexuals. Rarely the cause. Not agreeing with or understanding them is the more likely emotion that most religions and people associate with them. When I was being raised a Catholic in the 70's and 80's, divorce wasn't allowed in parishioners and you were pretty much shunned/banned from the church if you got divorced. How's that going for them now. They change to suit their needs. As long as they keep the revenue coming in, they'll accept any societal change after a long enough period of time.

Jeremy is joking, right? A separate unit specifically for out-of-the closet gays, where they can serve without fear? Fear of what? They are soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines, for goodness sake! Are you suggesting that other service members wouldn't interact with them? To protect whom? Do they get their own barracks and DFAC?

That could give a whole new meaning to "O Club", but I digress.

The point is to stop singling out people because of their sexual orientation, AS LONG AS THEY DO THEIR JOB EFFECTIVELY.

"Only sheeps follow a lead without asking questions"

Join the Irish army (defense Forces).

That's where men are men and the sheep are nervous!

I am a Navy vet who served on a Fast Attack submarine between 75-81. I know of at least two hetero enlisted guys who used the gay-and-out policy of the time to get out of the Navy early.

My take? There are gays in the military already, so you may be getting ogled in the shower now, so nothing is going to change if gays can be 'out'.

Jackie D is right, as long as the person does their job it shouldn't matter which way they swing....

I'm no fan of Obama but he is doing the right thing here.

Once again I stand out as a bigot. Like many who have commented thus far I am usually 90% in agreement to what you say. On this one I am way opposed. Big surprise right?

First, Jim has a great point, "My problem with gays in the military is that most of them are agenda driven..." Even though the two aren't the same you can still these this evident in blacks in the military. However the issus between them differ. A black person can't help being black and even if he could it's not a bad thing that he is. Homosexuality on the other hand is a choice and I can list a slew of reasons why it is and why it is bad. I have seen soldiers play the race card and it really complicates things as the one playing the card is always given the benefit of the doubt. I know soldiers with negative marks on their permanent record because of false accusations from some piece of shit asshole. Can anyone say gay card? As much as gay people try, their "struggle" has nothing in common with the historical struggle of blacks and civil rights.

Many keep repeating the notion of gays in combat and the idea that sexuality is not in play in a foxhole. Jim states well ...the fact that troops always find the nearest babe, brothel or bride has been a part of soldierery from time immemorial. I have seen units damaged by women getting preganant on the battlefield so sex does find its way into combat. I know that is nothing new but the Army has rules against sex in combat and it still happens. It is against the good order and discipline of soldiers to do so, and I think this is particularly the case for homosexuals. Keep in mind also we have longer periods of peace than we do war so more often than not you will be in garrison. Does anyone recall the incident of the openly gay individual in the 502nd that got his ass beat to death with baseball bats when he revealed his sexuality? As SSG Wallasch says, "The macho alpha-male warrior culture is not ready for this yet."

Consider also the problem of rape that exists for females. It even happens from time to time with same sex individuals. Allowing gays in the military will exacerbate this problem as more gays will then be serving if allowed. It is not unreasonable to assume that more homosexuals would mean more homosexual rape and it is a proven fact that a person having been raped by a homosexual is even less likely to report it than a woman being raped by a man. One reason I am leary of females in the military. Don't get me wrong, I love the ladies but I will address this point more later.

On the shower issue. Seriously, this should be a no brainer. If a gay man is alowed to shower ith me then so should I also be able to shower wth females. Would that not be fair? Human beings have natural sexual inclinations so the ogle factor is of concern. Think I am wrong? Lets revisit the idea of men and women showering together and whether or not one could keep from ogling them. It would make them uncomfortable would it not? Is it sexist to not let us shower together? No, there are solid foundational reasons for barring such interraction.

Let us also drop the word homophobia from the conversation. First of all the word literally translated means fear of sameness. Homo meaning same and phobia of course being fear. It's just not an accurate term. Even if it was the concept is stupid. Just because one disagrees with homosexuality it does not mean one is afraid of homosexuals. I don't flaunt my heterosexuality so I sure as shit don't care to see another's homosexuality. On the level of sin I equate homosexuality with the unmarried or the unfaithul having sex and I consider both equally wrong. As a leader I have discouraged both amongst my straight soldiers.

We can not even behave as a society on either side of the topic when it comes to homsexuality. Look at the events transpiring over Prop 8 in California. Even in coutries where homosexuality is openly accepted they have serious societal issues as a result of homosexuality.

I have known gay soldiers and I have had gay friends in life. I don't view them as any less of a person for being gay. I just don't think the military lfe is condusive to homosexuality. As previously stated, I'm not particularly keen on females in the military either. Many complications result from that that often makes our jobs difficult or frustrating. Once again, think a team short in combat when a girl gets pregnant either by accident or, from my experience, on purpose to get out of combat. It's not a civil rights issue, it's just the appropriate thing to do.

I left something out of the rape issue. It is also a statistical fact that men that have been raped by other men are more prone to suicide.

So, yeah, you may lose a few personnel here and their by removing openy gay individuals from service. You also lose valuable soldiers to pregnancy and suicide.

With proper application of the fraternization rules there should be no problem

12 years Army, and I was in a small MI community, I know of two definite Lesbians, and one Gay guy. Best soldiers I worked with. The ladies were discrete, and did their jobs. One of the Ladies was the best maint tech, her shorter stature, strength and attitude allowed her to out perform the guys. The gay guy "R" was even my roommate for a while overseas, and I didn't know he was gay until years later when he came out after he left the military.
Yeah I had the "Ewww" feeling when I realized he probably saw me nekkid but that was tempered when I thought that there are a bunch of women who I would never look at no matter how much they they showed. Think Rosie O in a towel...

My only issue would be a reworking of the regs to either prohibit two gay/lebs from sharing a baracks room or permitting straight cohabitation of the barracks. That is the only morale problem I can see. why should Bob & Steve or Betty & Sally be able to sleep together when Bill and Mary are not, and have to get a room to get it on?

If there is a fair solution to that dilemma then everything else will work out.

My opposition is the same as I have against women in combat units. Does it make us better at our ultimate mission as the blunt instrument of foreign policy? No. It may sound good to those who need things to always sound good, but it doesn't help me take 40 grunts up a hill to kill the enemy as quickly and as brutally as I can. If one thinks that combat efficiency is improved when the first shirt now has to deal with close inter personal relationships between 18-22 year olds...oh please. The reason the retired generals are for it is because they don't have to deal with it, it's the junior officers and senior enlisted that will. The comment about rewriting the regs, uhhh how do you think that is working between the opposite sex on ships around the world right now! There is no right to serve in the military, join the peace corps instead.

Gays in the military....

First off lets be real.......We have gay`s in civilian life, the Senate & Congress, entertainment, sports, all avenues of life. Why would we think it to be any different in our military?

I am not a proponent for the gay life style, but for whatever reason there is a significant percentage of people who are gay & nothing is going to change that.We need to accept that fact & deal with it`s reality. No rule or regulation is ever going to change that.

Where I do draw the line is defining those relationships between same sex partners as marriages or promotion of this life style in our educational institutions as normal to our youth.

There are many reasons psychological, cultural or genetic as to how or why some people fall outside normal sexual orientation. We do need to understand this & to accept those who are sexually different then we the majority happen to be.

I am sure all of us have had occasion to wonder as to the sexual orientation of some people down thru the years. Some of us have had family members, friends who came out at some point.......I do not think when this reality hit close to home it really changed one`s feelings towards that individual ....just those who we did not know.

Gay or Lesbian .......They are still human being`s & need to work & survive in society, let them , tolerate them , put aside hatred or persecution. Hell, they might even be your next Senator or Congress critter.

As Dklesmith full well knows ....in battle I do not think the sexual orientation of those who have your back covered is not really very important.

I was just wondering how a radical Muslim would react to an openly gay Arabic or Farsi translator. Can't imagine it would go well.

Jackie, I have worked with many out of the closet homosexuals, and served in the military with some who were but kept it quiet. I have seen several incidents where homosexuals were discovered and assaulted for their orientation, one by fellow soldiers, and one where it was off base and near campus, and the assailants were most likely civilian.
Several have pointed out the notion of men and women showering together as in the movie "Starship Troopers". Our culture is not able to accept that. We guys can only dream of that day, and as long as we dream of it, we aint ready for it to be reality.
I would advocate for those Service members who are gay to remain in the closet. Most people would rather not know about your orientation, and its not homophobia.
I would expect that there are certain problems that would arise with homosexuals serving in certain theaters of operation particularly among camel bangers. Interesting that their culture, or lack of culture allows for the molestation of prepubescent boys, but not contact by two adults.
If it were up to me, I would take all the homosexuals that we are presently kicking out and send them to Gitmo to work as guards and interogaters. I would have them conduct body cavity searches on the scum there and be the ones observing them as they shower etc. But then, I'm the guy who wants to put them all on pork diets and switch from sniffer dogs to sniffer pigs in the cellblocks.

If a straight guy were in the shower with women would he "oggel" them? Stare with lusty thoughts? YOU DAMNED SURE CAN BET ON IT. So why is it that we're told that gay men won't do that when showering with the sex they are attracted to. GMAFB. Only a moron or a moron with an agenda would think that.

I love men. Top to bottom.

And that there "Karl Smith" is one good reason to exclude homosexuals from the military. The military is also a social organization. Openly gay military personnel means openly gay activity in barracks. They'll just be doing what civilian homosexuals are doing in the men's room at Macy's. Do you want soldiers in uniform "making the scene" at homosexual bathhouses? How would you prevent that, if you don't discriminate against homosexuals? The social life of the military would be damaged severely by elevation of homosexual behavior to an accepted practice.

If homosexuals are legally permitted to serve, you'll have significant increases in homosexual abuse, as gays "pulled rank." You'll also see substantially more trouble (the military already has this problem, like every other large organization) with sexual grounds for discrimination in assignments, performance reviews, and promotions. Gays will (more or less openly) favor and promote their sexual partners. Not all gays. Just the ones I want to see kept out of the military.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is too soft a policy. It's better to criminalize the act of taking the oath of service when you are homosexual.

I'm not biased against homosexuals. I simply recognize that homosexual behavior is evidence of a severe character flaw. Unlike many other character flaws, this one is confined to a relatively small group within our population. It makes sense to me to make military life easier for those willing to serve by excluding homosexuals. Sure, homosexuals were serving, some with distinction, before the former policy was relaxed. That would continue. But military personnel whose behavior establishes their homosexuality should receive dishonorable discharges.

Homosexual behavior is dishonorable.

@ Peggy U,

"I was just wondering how a radical Muslim would react to an openly gay Arabic or Farsi translator. Can't imagine it would go well."

Peggy, talk to any GWOT vet who went outside the wire on a daily basis. I saw homosexuality (which didn't surprise me), alcohol (which did surprise me)and drugs. We would do "house assessments" quite often and you would be amazed at some of the things we would find.

@ GeorgeD,

GeorgeD said"
"Another time, back in garrison I had a team leader after becoming drunk on a Friday night offer his ass to three of his team subordinates. Of course, the three horny subordinates took him up on his offer. Under the UCMJ rules at the time I should have dumped four soldiers; I cheated and only discharged the team leader."

Not trying to be disrespectful, Sir. But what the hell do you mean, "Of course, the three horny subordinates took him up on his offer."?

The only thing that I agree with you on is the fact that the culture of the armed forces is not approving of homosexuality. I am reading your post and it seems that you are trying to imply that a homosexual "corrupted" three guys into having homosexual sex with him. If this story is true, you basically had a gay fire team. No amount of drugs, alcohol, hypnosis, or deprivation wouls make a truly heterosexual man have sex with another man.

I don't buy your story, Sir.

One last thought.....

I would much more be in favor of a battalion of openly gay soldiers armed with M-16`s protecting my country then two million leftwing socialist heterosexual dudes walking around with No more war protest signs anywhere at anytime.