Mullen says gay ban in U.S. military should be lifted
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 5 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
34 Comments
Login to comment
0
TheQuestion
People are people and those in the armed forces are among the best. I can think of no reason they should have to hide who they are to serve their country.
0
adaydream
Thank you Adm Mike Mullen.
Thank you Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
This ban should have been lifted years ago. It's about time. < :-)
0
bdiego
It's about time. Anyone having doubts only has to look at the Israeli military which has integrated this fairly well.
As one general put it, the people giving reasons against this have ulterior reasons - they simply hate gays.
0
kinniku
I agree with all four of you (Mullen included).
0
Straightguy
Gays should be allowed to serve in the military as long as their conduct and gayness do not cause problems, and that is the rub. As soon as its known they are gay it causes problems. This is why the don't ask don't tell policy is so good. But allowing people to be openly gay will cause problems for straight guys. It should not be that way, but it is. And the front line of this battle can be anywhere but the military. Once society totally accepts gays, then change the military rules. Any other way is risky.
0
adaydream
I served with gays in the Corps. They did their jobs as well as anybody else and never accosted anybody. I judged them as a Marine, not whether they were gay. < :-)
0
goddog
Congrats
0
guest
Gays are completely open, about being gay, in the military. In fact, they openly flaunt it, knowing that if discriminated against, they literary win the lotto. They need to end dont ask dont tell, it will save the government money from the lawsuits. Couldn't care less if someone is gay as long as they keep it in their pants.
0
ilcub76
Straightguy said,
Maybe it should be the other way around. If gays can be accepted in the military, they will almost certainly be accepted in general society.
Many people on this site say that the Japanese are just now entering the 20th century on human and civil rights, but policies like this in the US don't make America look much better. Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and join the 21st century.
0
Junnama
There's always been gays in the military...
0
Straightguy
If you one day find yourself in a foxhole being at shot at and you find you are sharing that fox hole with a gay guy and a guy who hates gays, maybe you will realize why you don't start with the military as those guys risk your life doing stupid things.
0
WilliB
Whatever the outcome, the military should be the last place for social engineering.
0
moonbeams
Yeah, I completely agree. If I were in a foxhole with a blue-skin and a green-skin guy who hates blue-skin guys, I would not feel safe. I think blue-skinned people should be banned from the military.
0
ilcub76
I think most people being shot at during combat wouldn't give a rat's A$$ about who's beside them. Most would be trying to save themselves and the others with them.
0
neverknow2
No way! More tlike the 17th century.
0
Madverts
"I think most people being shot at during combat wouldn't give a rat's A$$ about who's beside them"
Some people are so scared of being secretly gay themselves they find the need to lash out at homosexuals. These are always the people trying to deny homosexuals equal standing in society. Sad, bitter, lonely people in Denial.
I applaud the courage of the general.
0
dolphingirl
'Once society totally accepts gays, then change the military rules.'--I think this is backwards logic. It's like saying: Let's continue to ignore discrimination in our society and magically the discrimination will disappear and then we will create rules against discrimination.
It's the same invalid argument that people use when they say gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt kids because the the kids will suffer from teasing and discrimination. It just doesn't make sense.
0
bushlover
I don't care whether a guy is gay or not. It's not something that should be open for discussion in the military. When it's learned that someone is gay it should be a complete shocker. No flamers should be allowed. I'm afraid that the flamers will be allowed and that will effect the whole moral of the military dividing it rather than uniting it.
0
michaelqtodd
If people are prejudiced against others` sexual orientation they are very likely to be prejudiced about race,religion and more as well. I cannot understand why US would want prejudiced people in their armed forces.
0
skipthesong
A ban? With all the gays I met while in the Army, I couldn't image a ban being in ever being in place.
As a person who was in the med field, I would say that any STD's, for those of you that care so much, found on soldiers was about 9 straight to 1 gay.
However, I can understand someone being concerned, just like if a woman was forced to be in a sub with a man in close quarters. That's not prejudice! Doesn't mean gays shouldn't serve though.
0
bushlover
If you have to come out of the closet I can respect that person. It's the flaunt it in your face with a parade type of flamers that I don't like. They deserve no special treatment or considerations for their being gay so why do they slap us in the face with it. I respect the humble not the boasters. It's these boasters that will bring out this exact sentiment in the military having a detrimental effect. So don't ask don't tell is perfect. Leave it as it is.
0
Madverts
Sorry mate but your post was childish. Nobody in their right mind would have construed his post as anything other than support for Mullen's psoition on gay's in the US military.
"They deserve no special treatment or considerations for their being gay so why do they slap us in the face with it."
Nobody is asking for special treatment - just equal treatment. Can you really see the pain in the arse, campy queen in silly sunglasses, irresponsibly tight jeans and floral shirt signing up to join the fighting lads in the army?
I rest my case.
0
RomeoRamenII
There it is, folks. Obama calling for repeal of DADT in his State of the Union speech; it is now an Obama administration priority.
Of course, he made the same pledge during his campaign. Anyone who watched the address noticed Obama did not get any applause for this statement as he did for other things he said.
This issue is far from being a done deal. Just because the homosexuals' "messiah" says something, it's been proven for a year now Obama doesn't make good on his promises.
0
adaydream
This will change from DADT to none of your business to I'm a US Fighting Man and that's all that matters. < :-)
0
USAFdude
RomeoRamenII -
Wow, you've been wrong frequently in the past, but you've never been this wrong! President Obama received thunderous applause at this statement as well as a standing ovation. Are you being sarcastic or are you just deaf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv1Gh7pSilc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv1Gh7pSilc
0
adaydream
USAFdude the Joint Chiefs didn't applaud, as I recall. Everybody else did. But then the Supreme Court didn't applaud much either during the speech. < :-)
0
USAFdude
adaydream - The Joint Chiefs were not part of RomeoRamenII's statement.
0
adaydream
I know. < :-)
Back to top