Army suspends recruiter for anti-gay e-mail rants

[leekohler]

Oh it's just been too long- a week? Two weeks? Just another example of the foolishness of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Fun stuff.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704050845apr06,1,343731.story?coll=chi-news-hed

WASHINGTON -- The fraught e-mail exchange between the Army recruiter who went headhunting for soldiers on the Internet and a freelance copywriter searching for steady work started innocuously.

The recruiter, sitting at her desk in Brooklyn, N.Y., fired off a message to the Jersey City job seeker who had posted his resume on CareerBuilder.com and invited him to apply to join the service. She noted that the Army had plenty of openings in military intelligence, aviation, translation and other fields.

In an admittedly sarcastic tone, the job seeker wrote back that he was openly gay and asked whether that would disqualify him -- though he knew the answer quite well, as he acknowledged later -- and said he had no interest in being in the military.

The exchange escalated into a series of insults and counterinsults, culminating in anti-gay, racist and typo-filled rants by the recruiter, who has been reassigned and is under investigation by the military. The text of the e-mails was provided by the job seeker but has not been disputed by the Army.

"You are definitely unqualified, now take you gay self someplace else we do not tolerate gay people like you in any part of the military," wrote the recruiter, Sgt. Marcia Ramode, in angry capital letters in an early e-mail.

She later wrote: "You head off to gay land of people who have no morals, and get rid of yourself. Personally I think being gay is disgusting and immoral."

The heated exchange has been distributed far and wide over the Internet and has marked an embarrassing interlude for the military as it continues to grapple with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The 13-year-old policy states that gays and lesbians may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. Their commanders may not ask about their orientation.

The policy has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of recent comments by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexual acts are "immoral," while many high-ranking former military and government officials have called for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

The e-mails were fired off from Feb. 27 to March 1, about two weeks before Pace made his controversial comments in an interview with Chicago Tribune reporters and editors.

Advocates for gays and lesbians have called for Ramode to be discharged from the Army, while conservative bloggers have accused the job seeker, Corey Andrew Powell, of baiting the recruiter into making the incendiary remarks.


'It was outrageous'

Dixon Osburn, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that assists people affected by the military's policy on gays, said of Ramode's e-mail commentary: "It was outrageous." Osburn said officials from his organization notified Army officials and that the officials acted swiftly in opening an investigation.

Attempts to reach Ramode for comment were unsuccessful.

Powell said that at first he showed Ramode's five e-mails only to friends but decided to pass them on to the gay-rights group after hearing of Pace's comments.

Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruitment Command at Ft. Knox, Ky., said Ramode has been suspended from recruiting duties until the investigation is complete. Although he couldn't comment on Ramode's actions because of the investigation, Smith said recruiters are expected to behave professionally and that there is a protocol for handling situations when applicants reveal that they are gay.

"If an applicant makes a statement that he or she is homosexual, the recruiter must inform the applicant in a professional manner that they are not eligible for enlistment," Smith said in a statement.

Some government officials, including President Bush and Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, have shied from using government e-mail out of fear that their messages could be exposed and subject to subpoena. Most corporations and government agencies remind workers that inappropriate e-mails can reflect badly on the institutions.


E-mail restraint lacking

But in this case, Ramode appeared to show little restraint in expressing her views to Powell, who is African-American.

"You go back to Africa and do your gay voodoo limbo tango and wango dance and jump around and prance and run all over the place half naked there and practice your gay morals over there that's where you belong," she told Powell.

At certain points in the e-mail exchange, it appears that Powell is egging on Ramode. In an interview, he acknowledged he wrote something inappropriate after she wrote that she was of Native American heritage.

"They are less tolerant of fools than they are of homosexuals," Powell wrote of Native Americans in one of his four e-mails. "So take that to your next rain dance."

At another point, he wrote to her, "Clearly with your limited vocabulary and poor spelling, the Army may have been the only option YOU had in life."

Powell also has come under scrutiny since the flap first surfaced in The Jersey Journal newspaper last week. Conservative bloggers have described Powell as a provocateur, noting he was involved in a workplace discrimination case against the Saks Fifth Avenue department store in Manhattan.

His attorney, Lee Bantle, said that dispute revolved around the department store firing him in 2005 for wearing his hair in dreadlocks and braids. Powell complained that white workers were allowed to dye their hair in provocative colors but that he was not allowed to wear his hair the way he wished.

Bantle said that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could not make a determination in the case but issued Powell a "permission to sue" letter. Powell has not filed suit, but the statute of limitations has not run out.

Powell said he did not bait Ramode and has no interest in making money off the case. Instead, he said he wants to see her discharged from the military for acting unprofessionally.

"What bothers me most is that you and I are paying for this person to be writing this blatant filth," Powell said. "She should not be representing the military."

[Blue Velvet]

"You go back to Africa and do your gay voodoo limbo tango and wango dance and jump around and prance and run all over the place half naked there and practice your gay morals over there that's where you belong," she told Powell.

What a loving human being... next stop, Abu Ghraib.


"Attempts to reach Ramode for comment were unsuccessful."

I always love seeing this in a story.

[FreeState]

She just got reassigned? Wow - they must be really hard up if they are not canning her on the spot.

[leekohler]

She just got reassigned? Wow - they must be really hard up if they are not canning her on the spot.

I don't find that surprising at all.

[FreeState]

I don't find that surprising at all.

Yeah it just p*sses me off though. I don't want my hard earned tax money paying for someone to be a racist homophobic bigot.

[leekohler]

Yeah it just p*sses me off though. I don't want my hard earned tax money paying for someone to be a racist homophobic bigot.

I'm sure there are a lot more than just that bad apple. That was probably one of the nicer people.

[FreeState]

That was probably one of the nicer people.

I hate to say it but you are probably right. After all I have a brother that wont even acknowledge my partner exists, and a brother in-law that told my partner to his face that my family would rather never see him again (which is not true either, my parents adore my partner), so I can only imagine how bigoted people act when its with someone they do not even know.

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah it just p*sses me off though. I don't want my hard earned tax money paying for someone to be a racist homophobic bigot.If I could take a deduction for every one of those types in a position of power in this administration, I'd get a lot of money back. :D

[princealfie]

She just got reassigned? Wow - they must be really hard up if they are not canning her on the spot.

She probably got asked out on some dates however :rolleyes: ...

[leekohler]

She probably got asked out on some dates however :rolleyes: ...

I'm sure she did! For being a true 'mercan! :)

[princealfie]

So I guess no freedom of speech eh? Very strange.

[Abstract]

I agree with him as well, and I'm not homophobic.

It would be more trouble than it's worth, both for gay men and the military as a unit.

She just got reassigned? Wow - they must be really hard up if they are not canning her on the spot.

Well, she was only reassigned to other tasks because there are probably a lot of people in the Army who feel the same way as her. Maybe her boss feel the same way, and didn't fire her for that reason. :o

[halfprep455]

Gay Americans are citizens as much as everyother Straight American. They should most definitly have the right to serve their country. The argument being used against allowing gays in the military is the same one used 70 years ago to keep blacks and minorities out of the armed forces. I highly doubt that there would be many cases if any of a gay soldier sexually assulting another soldier. If there was a case like this, the gay soldier would most definitly be severly punished. Why should someone be denied the right to defend their homeland b/c of their sexuality? In fact, did you know that the 1st US marine to step foot in Iraq and the 1st US marine to get wounded and recive a metal admited that he was gay? Sounds like they really make ineffective soldiers. (sarcasm)

BTW, I find it really ironic that Conservatives are so hell bent on having a large and effective military but they will not allow gay people to join. I will never understand conservitives lack of logic.

[Father Jack]

The argument being used against allowing gays in the military is the same one used 70 years ago to keep blacks and minorities out of the armed forces.
What argument would that be?

[JNB]

Speaking only for myself, a Cold-war era, Reagan Republican, Navy retiree (scared anybody off yet?), I would've s**tcanned that recruiter in a New York minute.

That was the most appalling, unprofessional thing to come out of the mouth of someone who is supposed to represent a professional , all-volunteer armed force.

The one thing I learned and believe to this day is that the oath we swore is to the Constitution of the United States, and the principles that it defines and represents.

Maybe homosexuality wasn't in the game plan 231 years ago, but it is today. There are AMERICAN CITIZENS that happen to be gay, and they are just as deserving of my protection, and if willing, the privilege to serve alongside me, as anyone.

Just because I get creeped out by the thought of it, so what? Eggplant creeps me out, too. What of it? My personal beliefs or preferences have nothing to do with it. It's what I agreed to defend and uphold. I don't have to like it, or agree with it, I just have to keep my yap shut and do my job, or else let my contract expire and move along.

My opinions are my own, and represent nobody but me. Don't presume to apply any particular narrow-minded viewpoint (either leftist or reactionary) to me or or any others that wear the uniform. We're individuals with opinions no more or less valid than anyone else's. The only difference is that we decided to walk the line where no one else would.

We are you, like it or not.

[Abstract]

Well, I'm going to clarify on my earlier comment and say that yes, gay men should be allowed to serve in the army. They should have a chance to serve and protect their country, since gay men are protected by the very same country. Protection isn't selective based on sexuality.

However, I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is actually a smart one. You may argue that a gay man NOT in the army will run into trouble just by walking down the street, but that shouldn't stop him from doing so anyway. That's true, but it's a different environment.

[halfprep455]

Speaking only for myself, a Cold-war era, Reagan Republican, Navy retiree (scared anybody off yet?), I would've s**tcanned that recruiter in a New York minute.

That was the most appalling, unprofessional thing to come out of the mouth of someone who is supposed to represent a professional , all-volunteer armed force.

The one thing I learned and believe to this day is that the oath we swore is to the Constitution of the United States, and the principles that it defines and represents.

Maybe homosexuality wasn't in the game plan 231 years ago, but it is today. There are AMERICAN CITIZENS that happen to be gay, and they are just as deserving of my protection, and if willing, the privilege to serve alongside me, as anyone.

Just because I get creeped out by the thought of it, so what? Eggplant creeps me out, too. What of it? My personal beliefs or preferences have nothing to do with it. It's what I agreed to defend and uphold. I don't have to like it, or agree with it, I just have to keep my yap shut and do my job, or else let my contract expire and move along.

My opinions are my own, and represent nobody but me. Don't presume to apply any particular narrow-minded viewpoint (either leftist or reactionary) to me or or any others that wear the uniform. We're individuals with opinions no more or less valid than anyone else's. The only difference is that we decided to walk the line where no one else would.

We are you, like it or not.

I totaly agree. I plan on joining the national guard in a few months and I would not be the least bit offended or freaked out if there was a gay person serving alongside of me. I also know a bunch of Marines that say they wouldn't care if the person next to them in the foxhole is gay. The only thing I care about and most people in the military care about is if that person can guard back and if you can guard his. That is all that truly matters.

[angelneo]

I agree with him as well, and I'm not homophobic.

It would be more trouble than it's worth, both for gay men and the military as a unit.

Abstract, I have to disagreed with you this time round, I know for a fact that sometimes (though it is not often), gay men can perform much better than their heterosexual counterparts in the military setting. It's more of the mentality and attitude that matters. You may argue that some or most gay men will not do well in the military, I can give you that. (they would not even apply in the first place), but I think it would not be good to be influence by the stereotype.

EDIT: Just saw your post earlier, ignore what I say then

[DigitalAx]

Speaking only for myself, a Cold-war era, Reagan Republican, Navy retiree (scared anybody off yet?), I would've s**tcanned that recruiter in a New York minute....Just because I get creeped out by the thought of it, so what? Eggplant creeps me out, too. What of it?

You're a good man. ;)

I'll go out on a limb and assume you'll be a fellow supporter of the Mayor this next election cycle.

[JNB]

You're a good man. ;)

I'll go out on a limb and assume you'll be a fellow supporter of the Mayor this next election cycle.

Ooh, that depends. Senator (CAPT) McCain is a shipmate, his grandad and my father & uncle served together. Between him & the Mayor would be a toughie for me. I'd actually prefer them on the ticket together, either side up.

[leekohler]

Abstract, I couldn't be more disappointed. Hey- maybe I shouldn't be allowed to go to straight bars either because some hillbilly dumbf*** might try to kick my a**. Well guess what? They've tried before and lost miserably. I hate the assumption that we're all a bunch of "sissies" (hey, no offense, I like my effeminate guys) as some people like to put it. Don't be so quick to draw conclusions either of you. :mad:

[leekohler]

Speaking only for myself, a Cold-war era, Reagan Republican, Navy retiree (scared anybody off yet?), I would've s**tcanned that recruiter in a New York minute.

That was the most appalling, unprofessional thing to come out of the mouth of someone who is supposed to represent a professional , all-volunteer armed force.

The one thing I learned and believe to this day is that the oath we swore is to the Constitution of the United States, and the principles that it defines and represents.

Maybe homosexuality wasn't in the game plan 231 years ago, but it is today. There are AMERICAN CITIZENS that happen to be gay, and they are just as deserving of my protection, and if willing, the privilege to serve alongside me, as anyone.

Just because I get creeped out by the thought of it, so what? Eggplant creeps me out, too. What of it? My personal beliefs or preferences have nothing to do with it. It's what I agreed to defend and uphold. I don't have to like it, or agree with it, I just have to keep my yap shut and do my job, or else let my contract expire and move along.

My opinions are my own, and represent nobody but me. Don't presume to apply any particular narrow-minded viewpoint (either leftist or reactionary) to me or or any others that wear the uniform. We're individuals with opinions no more or less valid than anyone else's. The only difference is that we decided to walk the line where no one else would.

We are you, like it or not.

Thank you sir and thanks for all you've done. It is appreciated, believe me.

[OldCorpse]

Gay people have worked in all professions and are present in all societies.

There were gay people in the military back in ancient times.

If the U.S. military were in charge of Greece back in the day, they'd not accept in their ranks an outspoken and practicing homosexual: Alexander the Great. Who was oh, only the greatest military genius who ever lived. And Persia would have dominated Greece, and history of the Western world would have been very different. You know what? I'm glad the U.S. military was not in charge of Greece back then :)

Yes, the U.S. military would reject - TODAY - Alexander the Great, the greatest military leader of all time, because he was a practicing homosexual. This is why people say that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. It's as if you had a basketball team, and made sure to reject Michael Jordan. You think that's purely theoretical? Think again. Just recently there was an amazing story of how the military intelligence is desperately short of translaters who specialize in Arabic. Guess what they did - that's right, they fired all their gay translators who knew Arabic... only because they were gay. Wise, huh?

History does not bear out the bigots. Ancient Greeks as well as Romans had plenty of openly practicing homosexuals - and they built empires based on military conquest. I guess having gays not only didn't weaken their military, it was often claimed that it made their military uniquely effective.

But we don't have to go so far back. We can stick to the present. Many militaries in the world have openly gay people in them. And they are not incompetent militaries... like for example Israel! Gays are allowed to openly serve in the Israeli forces, including elite special forces. Hmm. Doesn't seem to weaken the Israeli military.

But our military can't have openly gay people - no sir, the rednecks wouldn't stand for it! It didn't weaken any military in history past or present, but our military would be weakened. Funny, this is exactly the argument that was used against blacks in the military - their fellow soldiers would not stand for it. One presidential order later, and all of a sudden, they are serving just fine. Hmm.

Fact is, that there are no rational arguments for the bigotry and discrimination against gays in the military. Any opposition is based on ignorance and bigotry, pure and simple. And it is a disgrace.

One day, it will be as blindingly obvious that it is wrong to discriminate IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER against gays, as it is obvious that slavery was wrong. For now, the ignorant and bigoted, will continue to display their evil, and gay people will continue to suffer. For now.

Oh, and btw. I'm a straight white male, married. I just happen to believe that nobody is free until all are free. Fight bigotry wherever you see it.

[Doctor Q]

Note: A forum member with insufficient posts to use the "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" forum was somehow able to post here. This is a glitch in the forum system or settings and we will try to correct it.

It is not that member's fault that the forum software wasn't automatically enforcing the rule.

The posts by that member, and quotes and responses to those posts, have been removed from this thread.

[Abstract]

Abstract, I couldn't be more disappointed. Hey- maybe I shouldn't be allowed to go to straight bars either because some hillbilly dumbf*** might try to kick my a**. Well guess what? They've tried before and lost miserably. I hate the assumption that we're all a bunch of "sissies" (hey, no offense, I like my effeminate guys) as some people like to put it. Don't be so quick to draw conclusions either of you. :mad:

I didn't say that gay men shouldn't be in the army because they can't handle the job. I said that it's because of the type of environment the army is. Did you read my posts?

A testosterone filled place surrounded by aggressive men who all train to be tough. My friend was a Captain in the Canadian army, and he told me a lot of things these people talked about "for fun", and it's not pretty. :o Many people in the army aren't exactly "tolerant" of gay people. It's already tough being in the army as a straight guy, but being singled out for being a homo makes it infinitely tougher.

I'll say it again: I realize that by walking down the street, some homo-hating retard can try to do something stupid to you. There's always a chance of this happening, but of course you go about your day and do your business anyway, as do I. However, the intolerant environment that the army is makes it even less safe. According to my friend, it depending on the number of idiots you're surrounded by, which is actually related to the number of people who were born and raised in the sticks. :o Being at uni, I have a lot of Australian friends who were born in small towns and farm areas, and the number of people I've met who hate gay people would astonish you if you're from a big city.

If the army is partly about camaraderie, gay people will have a much harder time finding it in the army than a civilian would in the workplace or elsewhere. In the workplace, someone who works with you isn't going to start doing really horrid things to you and your stuff while you're sitting there. Why? Because doing that sort of thing is highly discouraged. There are serious repercussions regarding this sort of thing (for the idiot and the company you work for). There's also the fear of being fired. In the army, they'd just turn a blind eye on a few pranks, especially if they know you're gay. The things they do to people in their sleep is pretty crazy stuff (and rather harsh). If you're gay, and they find out, you'd have to sleep with one eye open, even in your own bed.

So yes, I think that a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is better, because it's better if nobody knew. By not knowing, everyone is going to be focused on their task and not the homo marching behind me.



EDIT: Just saw your post earlier, ignore what I say then

Thanks. :)

[biturbomunkie]

I didn't say that gay men shouldn't be in the army because they can't handle the job. I said that it's because of the type of homophobic environment it is. Did you read my posts?

the homophobic environment will not get any better with the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

A testosterone filled place surrounded by aggressive men who all train to be tough. My friend, who was a Captain in the Canadian army, told me a lot of things these people talked about "for fun", and it's not a pretty place to be for someone who's gay. It's already tough being in the army, but being singled out makes it even tougher. I'll say it again: I realize that by walking down the street, some homo-hating retard can try to do something stupid to you. There's always a chance of this happening, but of course you go about your day and do your business anyway, as do I.

However, the type of environment that the army is like would be even less safe, depending on the number of idiots you're surrounded by, which is actually affected by how many of them were born and raised in the sticks. :o Being at uni, I have a lot of Australian friends who were born in small towns and farm areas, and the number of people I've met who hate gay people would astonish you if you're from a big city.

thus, gay bashings should not be tolerated. but "don't ask, don't tell" makes it virtually impossible to discipline any gay bashers.

If the army is partly about camaraderie, gay people will have a much harder time finding it in the army than a civilian would in the workplace or elsewhere. In the workplace, someone who works with you isn't going to start doing really horrid things to you and your stuff while you're sitting there. The things they do to people in their sleep is pretty crazy stuff (and rather harsh). If you're gay, and they find out, you'd have to sleep with one eye open, even in your own bed.

i doubt any gay person would volunteer to join the military without considering all the possible consequences. it is also unjust to have a policy to deny the existence of homosexuals in the armed forces.

So yes, I think that a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is better, because it's better if nobody knew. If people figure it out (sometimes it's easy to tell), you may be in for a bit of trouble from those people who you're supposed to learn to trust.

so no, "don't ask, don't tell" does not work.

[solvs]

I just happen to believe that nobody is free until all are free.
Bingo. I and several other members have mentioned this in this type of thread and others. Especially considering how many Arabic translators we let go because it turned out they were gay, which just seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

Most of the people I know in the military (mostly Air Force and Marines) wouldn't have a problem with it as long as they did their jobs. They'd still make the jokes, and most of them are incredibly homophobic, but a soldier is a soldier. This type of behavior would be completely unforgivable.

[OldCorpse]

This is silly. It's the same argument that was used against black people in the military: their fellow soldiers would not accept it. But there was a presidential order to integrate, and it happened lickety split.

Same here. Outlaw gaybashing in the military. Period. Those who can't accept it, are welcome to leave - as did those who couldn't accept blacks in the military back in the day. You gaybash - you are immediately arrested, serve a sentence and gone with a dishonorable discharge. Unit tolerates anti-gay behavior? Commanding officer is relieved of duty, and a new one brought in.

You could stamp out anti-gay prejudice within the military very, very fast. They did it with blacks. Would there still be quietly bigoted people in uniform? Sure, just as there are racists in uniform. But they are shunned, they are a small minority and they're hunted down when they put their prejudice into action.

This is not theoretical. Not only did it work with blacks. It worked with gays - in other countries. The Israeli army and elite special forces, where openly gay people serve, have no problems with fellow soldiers.

Problem solved - not that hard. All that's needed is some political will and the guts to do the right thing - as was done for black people.

[princealfie]

But it boils down to one question: In America is there a right to homophobia?

[yg17]

People have the right to be anything I suppose, but when what they say becomes offensive to others, they need to keep their damn mouth shut

[princealfie]

People have the right to be anything I suppose, but when what they say becomes offensive to others, they need to keep their damn mouth shut

No free speech, eh? I do have my opinions but I still believe in some sort of America where anyone has the right to say anything they want. No censorship.

[Abstract]

This is silly. It's the same argument that was used against black people in the military: their fellow soldiers would not accept it.

Same here. Outlaw gaybashing in the military. Period.

Yeah, that's a better solution.

I do believe that making society a bit less homophobic is easier than doing so in the military. If the situation is going to improve in the future, it has to start now. I'd just hate to be the first gay fish to dive into the waters and test out the new homo-friendly Army. It's not fair that a group will need be the first to say, "Yes, I'm gay, and I'm in the Army," and then see what happens. But long term, this is better than "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I said this was better than just having all gays admit that they're gay under the assumption that the environment they do it in is as hostile towards gays as it is now.

I guess that's what you get when you're trying to train these people to be tough, macho guys and that they're not "girly-men." Homosexual men are always linked to guys who aren't macho. I've never met a gay man who wasn't a bit more effeminate than the general population of straight men, but I guess the army is going to need to start training their soldiers to be tough macho men who aren't too macho to accept homosexuals.

[leekohler]

I've never met a gay man who wasn't a bit more effeminate than the general population of straight men, but I guess the army is going to need to start training their soldiers to be tough macho men who aren't too macho to accept homosexuals.

You need to meet more gay men then. And thanks for the somewhat amended position.

[toothpaste]

To bring some levity to this, can anyone else see that there is a positive here?

I always wondered what to say or do if there was ever a draft. Now I know, just say that you are gay, no more military commitments.

[leekohler]

To bring some levity to this, can anyone else see that there is a positive here?

I always wondered what to say or do if there was ever a draft. Now I know, just say that you are gay, no more military commitments.

In the event of a draft I believe that exclusion no longer applies due to the fact that everyone would say it just to get out of serving. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works.

[DigitalAx]

No free speech, eh? I do have my opinions but I still believe in some sort of America where anyone has the right to say anything they want. No censorship.

There's two different ideals going on here: The US Constitution and the inherent social contract we all enter into by living in this society.

Generally, these two align pretty well, but there are some basic principles covered in the unspoken social contract that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution.

For example, I have the right to stand here and swing my fist around all day long, until it interferes with your right to not get hit in the face.

We all have rights, until they interfere with other people's rights. At that time it has to be weighed which right is paramount.

Is the right to free speech paramount to someone's right to not live in fear or be persecuted? No. That person's right is protected by "pursuit of happiness."

[princealfie]

There's two different ideals going on here: The US Constitution and the inherent social contract we all enter into by living in this society.

Generally, these two align pretty well, but there are some basic principles covered in the unspoken social contract that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution.

For example, I have the right to stand here and swing my fist around all day long, until it interferes with your right to not get hit in the face.

We all have rights, until they interfere with other people's rights. At that time it has to be weighed which right is paramount.

Is the right to free speech paramount to someone's right to not live in fear or be persecuted? No. That person's right is protected by "pursuit of happiness."

Yes, but the social contract applies only to actual human behavioral patterns exempting speech which are merely linguistical words which are created from a verbal construct.

[OldCorpse]

I've never met a gay man who wasn't a bit more effeminate than the general population of straight men, but I guess the army is going to need to start training their soldiers to be tough macho men who aren't too macho to accept homosexuals.

Well, you don't know many gay men. Gay men, just like straight men, can behave in a "tough" macho way. Some of the toughest warriors in history were gay - Greek armies and Roman armies. However we don't need to go that far back. For example, did you know how Hitler came to power? In no small measure, thanks to GAY TOUGH GUYS. Yes, yes, sounds absurd, particularly how it ultimately turned out for the gays under Nazis. Google for the SA - the street stormtroopers, brownshirts, Hitler's henchmen, who beat up and intimidatd ordinary people in the streets. The SA leadership and many rank and file were gay - tough guys, brawlers, nasty characters. They were evil - not your "nice liberal effeminate" gays. Just even by sheer physical looks - take a glance at a photo of Ernst Rohm (founder and leader of the SA, the precursor to the SS):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Röhm

Now take a look at that straight chicken farmer (yes, really) leader of the SS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler

Himmler looks like a little wimp, while Rohm looks like the tough guy he was.

That much for "gay looks".

And really, google for "bear" and "Daddy" types and what that means in gay subculture. It's muscular, tough looking guys, often in leather. Hardly the "effeminate" kind.

Even in the "arts" - did you know that the heart-throb Rock Hudscon was gay? Did he look effeminate? His image certainly wasn't, and he wasn't sold as such (really, "Rock", lol!).

You'd be surprised how many "macho" guys out there, both in public and private are gay.

Finally, somehow I doubt it is the effeminate gay guys who would sign up voluntarily for military careers. I rather suspect that it's the other kind - who historically and in the present (Israeli, Dutch and other armies), can more than hold their own in the toughest environments, including elite special forces.

[DigitalAx]

Yes, but the social contract applies only to actual human behavioral patterns exempting speech which are merely linguistical words which are created from a verbal construct.

Your statement here is confusing to me in a number of ways:

"Linguistical words created from a verbal construct," as opposed to what other kind of words? A Literary construct? So then a public forum like this does fall into the social contract? Does the social contract then not protect from yelling "bomb" on an airplane?
I'm completely unfamiliar with that facet of the social contract. I have never seen such an exclusion and would be interested in who authored that concept.
Finally, it is not so much the actual words as the nonverbal communication and body language that would be offensive. In other words, even if the social contract does indeed indeed exclude verbal communication, the verbal persecution of a minority would still be prohibited.

[biturbomunkie]

Homosexual men are always linked to guys who aren't macho. I've never met a gay man who wasn't a bit more effeminate than the general population of straight men, but I guess the army is going to need to start training their soldiers to be tough macho men who aren't too macho to accept homosexuals.

that's because that macho ghey dude that you saw made you believe that he was straight!

i know quite a few ghey dudes out there that act straight and won't be caught dead with a shade of pink. and a bunch of tight-jean wearing pseudohomos that religiously attend fake-bake shops, use more facial products than my mom, and bang their heads to trance/dance "happy" music when driving!

personally i think it's quite fun to see a girl keep on hitting on the ghey dude but skipping the metro boy. :D

[princealfie]

Your statement here is confusing to me in a number of ways:

"Linguistical words created from a verbal construct," as opposed to what other kind of words? A Literary construct? So then a public forum like this does fall into the social contract? Does the social contract then not protect from yelling "bomb" on an airplane?
I'm completely unfamiliar with that facet of the social contract. I have never seen such an exclusion and would be interested in who authored that concept.
Finally, it is not so much the actual words as the nonverbal communication and body language that would be offensive. In other words, even if the social contract does indeed indeed exclude verbal communication, the verbal persecution of a minority would still be prohibited.

However, there is no objective meaning in any type of linguistical construct whatsoever. There are multiple constructs for any type of linguistical creation:

Hermeneutic code
Semic code
Proairetic code
Symbolic code
Cultural code

The point is that yes there is a cultural subcontext but people can choose to be offended if they want to. Since there is no real value in any type of language then it's a farce that the social contract would be extended to any type of language construction to begin with.

The particular REF of the recruiter's verbal gesture was perceived as being threatening but however, since her words didn't have any actual objective or scientifically provable meaning, then I find it a complete riot of laughter that people are so worked up about it. One can see many different double entendres/various possible crux of interpretation in the playfulness of what she had said within her words.

[FreeState]

Reading through these comments.. wow... stereotypes not based or reality being used to deny a whole class of people their constitutional rights.

I live in San Diego - we have a LOT of military here. Guess what - go to any gay bar and a good deal of them are in the military. I have a friend that is a recruiter for the Navy here - he is gay. You would never guess it if you tried to use typical BS stereotypes. I have another friend who is in charge of the Army's reservists - he's gay and is more macho than Sylvester Stalone. My gay roommate is buying a house with a friend who happens to be a high ranking officer - also gay and I'd bet money no one could tell by talking to him or looking at him that he is gay.

But the most fascinating part of this all is that Don't Ask Don't Tell does not work. You know why? People in the military all know who is gay and who is not already. They work closely in jobs that have high risk, they bond with each other, they know about each others lives. Almost all the heterosexual men and women I know in the military know GLB co-workers and have absolutely no problem with them.

PS ever hear the song "In The Navy"? Wonder why its a gay anthem :)

[princealfie]

Reading through these comments.. wow... stereotypes not based or reality being used to deny a whole class of people their constitutional rights.

I live in San Diego - we have a LOT of military here. Guess what - go to any gay bar and a good deal of them are in the military. I have a friend that is a recruiter for the Navy here - he is gay. You would never guess it if you tried to use typical BS stereotypes. I have another friend who is in charge of the Army's reservists - he's gay and is more macho than Sylvester Stalone. My gay roommate is buying a house with a friend who happens to be a high ranking officer - also gay and I'd bet money no one could tell by talking to him or looking at him that he is gay.

But the most fascinating part of this all is that Don't Ask Don't Tell does not work. You know why? People in the military all know who is gay and who is not already. They work closely in jobs that have high risk, they bond with each other, they know about each others lives. Almost all the heterosexual men and women I know in the military know GLB co-workers and have absolutely no problem with them.

PS ever hear the song "In The Navy"? Wonder why its a gay anthem :)

Perhaps you OD'ed on the Village People? :p :p :p :p

[leekohler]

Reading through these comments.. wow... stereotypes not based or reality being used to deny a whole class of people their constitutional rights.

I live in San Diego - we have a LOT of military here. Guess what - go to any gay bar and a good deal of them are in the military. I have a friend that is a recruiter for the Navy here - he is gay. You would never guess it if you tried to use typical BS stereotypes. I have another friend who is in charge of the Army's reservists - he's gay and is more macho than Sylvester Stalone. My gay roommate is buying a house with a friend who happens to be a high ranking officer - also gay and I'd bet money no one could tell by talking to him or looking at him that he is gay.

But the most fascinating part of this all is that Don't Ask Don't Tell does not work. You know why? People in the military all know who is gay and who is not already. They work closely in jobs that have high risk, they bond with each other, they know about each others lives. Almost all the heterosexual men and women I know in the military know GLB co-workers and have absolutely no problem with them.

PS ever hear the song "In The Navy"? Wonder why its a gay anthem :)

I always liked that "YMCA" is played at the vast majority of straight weddings I've been to. I'm always thinking, "Am I the only one who gets it?" :)

[DigitalAx]

However, there is no objective meaning in any type of linguistical construct whatsoever. There are multiple constructs for any type of linguistical creation:

Hermeneutic code
Semic code
Proairetic code
Symbolic code
Cultural code

The point is that yes there is a cultural subcontext but people can choose to be offended if they want to. Since there is no real value in any type of language then it's a farce that the social contract would be extended to any type of language construction to begin with.

The particular REF of the recruiter's verbal gesture was perceived as being threatening but however, since her words didn't have any actual objective or scientifically provable meaning, then I find it a complete riot of laughter that people are so worked up about it. One can see many different double entendres/various possible crux of interpretation in the playfulness of what she had said within her words.

You sir, are a master at presenting incredible arguments that do not directly answer the questions posed while simultaneously steering the debate off-track. I applaud your ability to do this and am confident you wrote some damn fine papers in college.

I am not debating whether or not the recruiter's language, tone, etc. were offensive - subjective or otherwise. The only point I am arguing is opposition to your statement that the freedom of speech is absolute and paramount to other values, and subsequently that it was somehow excluded from a voluntary social contract.

I tend to believe that it is not the government's role in society to mandate what we can and can not say, but that being said I believe it is justified that one can not yell "bomb" on an airplane or yell "fire" in a theatre.

The freedom of speech has no more value than any other right in our society and must then surrender to same rules as all other rights and freedoms. Should the freedom of speech be denied because someone is offended? No, absolutely not. There are still limitations though.

[FreeState]

I always wondered what to say or do if there was ever a draft. Now I know, just say that you are gay, no more military commitments.

If only it were that easy. Read Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts to see what happened in Vietnam.

(paraphrasing)

Many men put "homosexual" on their draft papers in an effort to get out of Vietnam. After a while the military made them prove it with testimony from a shrink and 2 people you had had homosexual sex with.

Some people checked "gay" on the form but when told of the above requirements told the military they were not gay.

At the end of the war the military went through the veterans applications and if they put "gay" they were dishonorably discharged and ineligible for any GI benefits including medical benefits.

They gave their all for the Country but when they got home they were not given any care at all because they checked gay on the form.

Sometimes Im just so proud to be an American... /sarcasm

[OldCorpse]

At the end of the war the military went through the veterans applications and if they put "gay" they were dishonorably discharged and ineligible for any GI benefits including medical benefits.

They gave their all for the Country but when they got home they were not given any care at all because they checked gay on the form.

Sometimes Im just so proud to be an American... /sarcasm

You know, I'm as much for equal rights for gays as anybody. However, equality means just that - equality. It means taking the good with the bad. If you want to enlist in the military as a gay man - I think you should have 100% the right to do so. Any discrimination should be totally wiped out.

But there is the other side of the coin. Gay people are no better (and no worse) than straights. Straights have no monopoly on evil. Look at the link I gave in a post above in this thread showing how in some ways you could say a gay man and his gay buddies (Ernst Rohm) helped put Hitler in power through brutal beatings and vicious paramilitary activities of the brownshirt SA. Point being, gay people are just as capable of evil (SA) as straight people (SS).

If a gay person wants to enlist - it should be his right. However, if he enlists and serves evil willingly - whether Hitler's army or any other army currently involved in war crimes, they are war criminals gay, straight, or in-between.

Bill Hicks:

"Anyone . . . DUMB enough . . . to want to be in the military, should be
allowed in. End of ****ing story. That should be the only requirement."

Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone who wants to enlist honorably in an honorable army, but when you enlist specifically to go to Iraq (as happens a lot), you got zero sympathy from me, no matter what happens to you. You are a war criminal. Nobody should enlist while GWB is in power. Nobody. And then you complain that the criminals in charge mistreat you because you are gay! You know what happened to Ernst Rohm? He was murdered on Hitler's orders when he was no longer needed. His last words were "Mein Fuhrer, mein Fuhrer!" and the man killing him answered "You should have thought of that before". Same here, don't bitch about mistreatment from your fellow criminal buddies when they, surprise, surprise, turn around and betray you. Haven't you heard "there is no honor among thieves"? My sympathy level for Rohm is zero, gay or not. So that particular complaint about discrimination, while committing war crimes, leaves me cold.

As the old saying goes: what would happen if they called for a war, and nobody came? That's right. Time to take responsibility. "I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable with the Nazis. It's even less acceptable today, when we are not dragooned into the army, but go of our own free will.

Politicians would be a heck of a lot more responsible, if they knew they won't have willing cannon fodder ready to die for the lies and greed of old men. Wars would stop.

The only honorable service is in defense of your country. Remember: "I was following orders" does not exempt you from war crimes charges. That goes for gay, straight or anyone else.

[solvs]

Gay people are no better (and no worse) than straights. Straights have no monopoly on evil.

Yeah.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Ted_Haggard_(ROAE).jpg

:eek:

[princealfie]

You sir, are a master at presenting incredible arguments that do not directly answer the questions posed while simultaneously steering the debate off-track. I applaud your ability to do this and am confident you wrote some damn fine papers in college.

I am not debating whether or not the recruiter's language, tone, etc. were offensive - subjective or otherwise. The only point I am arguing is opposition to your statement that the freedom of speech is absolute and paramount to other values, and subsequently that it was somehow excluded from a voluntary social contract.

I tend to believe that it is not the government's role in society to mandate what we can and can not say, but that being said I believe it is justified that one can not yell "bomb" on an airplane or yell "fire" in a theatre.

The freedom of speech has no more value than any other right in our society and must then surrender to same rules as all other rights and freedoms. Should the freedom of speech be denied because someone is offended? No, absolutely not. There are still limitations though.

All I need to say is that the failure to analyze and unwillingness to probe underneath the surface of a person's speech shows that there isn't any interest in the actual subject itself. In fact, the question isn't the freedom of speech at all when words have completely subjective meaning. In fact, there doesn't exist any mandate when speaking something offers so many contradictory meanings inherently that everyone is going to look at it from a different perspective.

Honestly something we need to take people less seriously. Words are meaningless and we get worked up too much emotionally over them.

[DigitalAx]

This is how our discussion began:
No free speech, eh? ...but I still believe in some sort of America where anyone has the right to say anything they want. No censorship.

This is where it is now:
...the question isn't the freedom of speech at all...


:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

This is how our discussion began:


This is where it is now:



:rolleyes:

Are you guys going to argue semantics all day?

[princealfie]

Are you guys going to argue semantics all day?

Of course, it's crucial to the crux of the discussion and our intellectual compass.

[DigitalAx]

Are you guys going to argue semantics all day?

Yes. ;)

[princealfie]

Yes. ;)

BTW, that would be semiotics not semantics that we are discussion in prolix state over.

[DigitalAx]

BTW, that would be semiotics not semantics that we are discussion in prolix state over.

Actually we were discussing both.

[leekohler]

Oh dear God. :)

[Lord Blackadder]

The recruiter behaved in a totally unprofessional way. She should be discharged from the military for what she said, no question.

I have no time for that BS, and I don't want people like her representing my country in any capacity.

[leekohler]

The recruiter behaved in a totally unprofessional way. She should be discharged from the military for what she said, no question.

I have no time for that BS, and I don't want perople like her representing my country in any capacity.

Damn! Remind me never to ******* with you. :)

[aquajet]

You need to meet more gay men then. And thanks for the somewhat amended position.

It wasn't until I came out and began frequenting gay bars and gay events and meeting more gay men that I realized how many "straight" men were actually gay. :rolleyes: I really hate wording it like that...

In the event of a draft I believe that exclusion no longer applies due to the fact that everyone would say it just to get out of serving. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works.

We've heard a lot of this, but of course it's never been tested. Should the draft ever be reinstated, it'll be interesting to see what happens. DADT would suddenly become very inconvenient for the govt.

The recruiter behaved in a totally unprofessional way. She should be discharged from the military for what she said, no question.

I have no time for that BS, and I don't want people like her representing my country in any capacity.

Agreed. It's one thing to be a bigot. It's another to be grossly unprofessional.

[FreeState]

You know, I'm as much for equal rights for gays as anybody. However, equality means just that - equality. It means taking the good with the bad. If you want to enlist in the military as a gay man - I think you should have 100% the right to do so. Any discrimination should be totally wiped out.

Im not sure what your reply has to do with my post... ???

I was not calling for un-equal treatment of anyone, nor was I talking about the legality of any war - I was pointing out that if you marked gay on your enlistment forms in order to get out of the war it did not work and then when you got back from serving the US government took away all the benefits every one else is entitled too that did not mark gay got.

[OldCorpse]

Im not sure what your reply has to do with my post... ???

I was not calling for un-equal treatment of anyone, nor was I talking about the legality of any war - I was pointing out that if you marked gay on your enlistment forms in order to get out of the war it did not work and then when you got back from serving the US government took away all the benefits every one else is entitled too that did not mark gay got.

Oops, I misread you - you were talking about the Vietnam war. I thought it was about the current Iraqi war. My remarks were regarding the latter, my position being, that:

1)No gay person should wish to serve with DADT - that's like a black person asking to serve as a slave, or anybody asking to be discriminated against. You want gay people to serve? Treat them equally!

2)No person, gay sor straight should wish to serve in this current criminal war - that would be participating in war crimes. If nobody enlists while GWB is in power, he'll have no military to commit war crimes with.

3)If you as a gay person insist on serving as an inferior under DADT, and you insist on going to Iraq to participate in war crimes, then when your fellow war criminals betray you and mistreat you and deny you benefits on account of your being gay, well, you got only yourself to blame. Don't hang out with criminals and don't participate in crimes, for criminals will not be honorable with you - there is no honor among theives.

Remember, service is voluntary - there is no draft and nobody is forcing you to serve. That puts the entire burden and responsibility for signing up on you - make sure you are serving in a just cause in a worthy organization. If you sign up for a criminal organization like the SS, or participate in a war that's illegal, the burden is on you. Even the Nazis had it harder - they were drafted, and yet, we didn't excuse them and did not accept "I was only following orders". Do the right thing - gay, straight or whatever.

[biturbomunkie]

The recruiter behaved in a totally unprofessional way. She should be discharged from the military for what she said, no question.

I have no time for that BS, and I don't want people like her representing my country in any capacity.

discharged... isn't that a little harsh? i'd want to see her suspended, demoted and retrained. i'd probably reeducate (i.e. brainwash) her too if i was a dictator.

It wasn't until I came out and began frequenting gay bars and gay events and meeting more gay men that I realized how many "straight" men were actually gay.

the straight-ghey men thing kinda concerns me. when i used to volunteer at a health clinic, we did a study and found that married bisexual males were more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activities with multiple random partners (a la brokeback mountain). while i understand that greater tolerance and complete equality for glbt will not directly solve the unsafe sex issue, i believe/hope that at least less folks would be pressured to get married and then commit some high risk activities.

[OldCorpse]

when i used to volunteer at a health clinic, we did a study and found that married bisexual males were more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activities with multiple random partners (a la brokeback mountain).

Re: unsafe sexual activities - I think you mean "bareback", not "brokeback mountain"?

[aquajet]

the straight-ghey men thing kinda concerns me. when i used to volunteer at a health clinic, we did a study and found that married bisexual males were more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activities with multiple random partners (a la brokeback mountain). while i understand that greater tolerance and complete equality for glbt will not directly solve the unsafe sex issue, i believe/hope that at least less folks would be pressured to get married and then commit some high risk activities.

I should have been more clear, but by "straight" men I meant gay men who aren't the least bit effeminate. :rolleyes: ;)

But your observations are disturbing nonetheless. Naturally, I don't have a problem with homosexual behavior. But a married man who has sex with other men without his wife's knowledge is troubling.

[princealfie]

Re: unsafe sexual activities - I think you mean "bareback", not "brokeback mountain"?

yawn, that movie was way overrated :confused:

[Lord Blackadder]

discharged... isn't that a little harsh? i'd want to see her suspended, demoted and retrained. i'd probably reeducate (i.e. brainwash) her too if i was a dictator.

I'll bet what she has done could be deemed a form of assualt, which could merit a discharge. At the least she should be demoted. Back in the day she'd be peeling potatoes and mucking out latrines.

Not to mention that the guy she was emailing was a cilvilian. Recruiters are supposed to be the public face of the military, so I would expect them to be held to a higher standard of behavior if anything.

[leekohler]

yawn, that movie was way overrated :confused:

I hated that movie, but let's not get on that subject. :)

[princealfie]

I'll bet what she has done could be deemed a form of assualt, which could merit a discharge. At the least she should be demoted. Back in the day she'd be peeling potatoes and mucking out latrines.

Not to mention that the guy she was emailing was a cilvilian. Recruiters are supposed to be the public face of the military, so I would expect them to be held to a higher standard of behavior if anything.

Yummy, I can visualize her in the Gitmo prison right now... wow, that's scary! :eek:

[Lord Blackadder]

Re: unsafe sexual activities - I think you mean "bareback", not "brokeback mountain"?

Well, were they bareback in brokeback? :rolleyes:

Yummy, I can visualize her in the Gitmo prison right now... wow, that's scary!

Hey, what you think about in your own time is your business... ;)

[princealfie]

Well, were they bareback in brokeback? :rolleyes:



Hey, what you think about in your own time is your business... ;)

Of course, wasn't that first major scene involving bareback over bum? :p :D

[Swarmlord]

I should have been more clear, but by "straight" men I meant gay men who aren't the least bit effeminate. :rolleyes: ;)

But your observations are disturbing nonetheless. Naturally, I don't have a problem with homosexual behavior. But a married man who has sex with other men without his wife's knowledge is troubling.

I should say so! :eek:

[aquajet]

I should say so! :eek:

Hey! It's been a long week, so cut me some slack. :rolleyes:

;)

[solvs]

But a married man who has sex with other men without his wife's knowledge is troubling.
It's bad if a woman does it too, even with other women, especially if the man doesn't know. Maybe not as bad, but still pretty bad. Trust me. :(

[princealfie]

It's bad if a woman does it too, even with other women, especially if the man doesn't know. Maybe not as bad, but still pretty bad. Trust me. :(

That's why I run a background check on any female I date. I don't need to get involved in any menage a trois. :eek:

[Lord Blackadder]

That's why I run a background check on any female I date. I don't need to get involved in any menage a trois. :eek:

Reminds me of a Sienfeld episode...

[solvs]

I don't need to get involved in any menage a trois.

Why not? They're pretty fun. Until the guy's part is over that is. Then it's kinda boring actually.

[FreeState]

Why not? They're pretty fun. Until the guy's part is over that is. Then it's kinda boring actually.

Never thought of that... thank God Im gay - they never get boring LOL (not that I have ever had one :) )

[leekohler]

Why not? They're pretty fun. Until the guy's part is over that is. Then it's kinda boring actually.

I agree- they are fun. Not what I expected- it actually exceeded my expectations. And it actually brought me and the person I was seeing at the time a lot closer.

[DigitalAx]

I agree- they are fun. Not what I expected- it actually exceeded my expectations. And it actually brought me and the person I was seeing at the time a lot closer.

To bring in a stoner reference - Harold & Kumar's Jewish friend: "You know the Holocaust? Yeah, the opposite of that."

[FreeState]

To bring in a stoner reference - Harold & Kumar's Jewish friend: "You know the Holocaust? Yeah, the opposite of that."

Where is this reference from? (Im assuming a stoner movie, but I must have missed it!)

[DigitalAx]

Where is this reference from? (Im assuming a stoner movie, but I must have missed it!)

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (U.S.)
Harold & Kumar Get the Munchies (U.K.)

;)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366551/

[solvs]

I agree- they are fun. Not what I expected- it actually exceeded my expectations. And it actually brought me and the person I was seeing at the time a lot closer.

It's different if it's 3 people of the same sex.

Not that I would know, but I guess I can imagine.

[Queso]

Missed this one. Amazing that anyone can get away with this in the USA, the supposed beacon of freedom for the world :rolleyes:

One question that needs to be asked:- Considering virtually all the USA's NATO partners allow openly gay servicemen and women in their armed forces, does this mean the US military and the rest of NATO won't fight side by side in the event of a war that threatens a NATO member state? If so, can someone tell me what the point of the alliance is in the first place?

[Lord Blackadder]

One question that needs to be asked:- Considering virtually all the USA's NATO partners allow openly gay servicemen and women in their armed forces, does this mean the US military and the rest of NATO won't fight side by side in the event of a war that threatens a NATO member state? If so, can someone tell me what the point of the alliance is in the first place?

I honestly know little about the percentage of openly gay-tolerant militaries in NATO, but...

NATO is about more than troops fighting side by side, so I can't see such an issue dissolving the alliance. Nuclear missiles, after all, are asexual.

I think its inevitable that openy gay individuals will be allowed to serve, but it will be some years yet. Gay servicemen and women will probably be the primary movers and shakers towards reform in this area, along with special interest grtoups/lobbyists. But don't expect any radical change while we are fighting a war.

[Queso]

But don't expect any radical change while we are fighting a war.
Aha!! The REAL reason behind the never-ending War on Terror!! George is cleverer than I thought :p

[princealfie]

Aha!! The REAL reason behind the never-ending War on Terror!! George is cleverer than I thought :p

Perhaps I need to stick to brownies rather than eat too many cookies. :apple: