SPONSOR LINKS
spacer

PRINT ADS

spacer

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes



TOP WHEELS

WHEELS
FOR YOU




 Home > Opinion > Story

Published - Wednesday, August 20, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (46 comment(s))

Editorial: Critic of gays in the military undermines own cause

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
When the history of gays in the military is written, Elaine Donnelly might go down as a person who did more than any other to shatter the barrier that keeps homosexuals from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Not that Donnelly favors allowing gays in the military -- she believes just the opposite. However, her testimony before a Congressional committee in July did more to discredit the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy than any critic could have hoped.

The nation has changed considerably since 1993, when “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve as long they manage to keep their sexual orientation a secret -- was forged in the early years of the Clinton Administration. Back then, when only 44 percent of Americans believed gays should be allowed to serve, military leaders could plausibly argue that the presence of gays would undermine morale and cohesion in a fighting force that disapproved of homosexuality. Today, 75 percent of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly. Attitudes toward gays and lesbians have transformed just as quickly as racial attitudes transformed during the 1950s and 1960s.

Yet there was Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readines, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee and painting a lurid picture of gays as sexual predators and indiscriminate speaders of HIV. In her opening statement, she listed examples of sexual misconduct by gay and lesbian soldiers, one of which dated back to 1974. She somehow managed to drag disgraced Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s incident in a Minneapolis airport rest room into her testimony.

“We keep hearing that in the brave new ‘Will & Grace’ world, none of this matters. And yet, it was only a year ago when the nation reacted with universal disapproval of Sen. Larry Craig and 39 others who were arrested for inappropriate behavior in a public but transient place at the Minneapolis airport over a period of three months.”

By that logic, examples of misconduct by heterosexuals make all heterosexuals unfit for military service. Or perhaps examples of misconduct by Wisconsin residents -- there’s the sheriff’s deputy who killed six people in Crandon -- means nobody from Wisconsin can ever be recruited.

Donnelly also argued it’s impossible to admit gays without an extreme version of gay affirmative action. That’s absurd. The military already admits racial and religious minorities and holds everyone, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, to the same high standards of conduct. Gays and lesbians aren’t asking for special treatment; they are asking to be judged by the same standards as their heterosexual peers.

If Donnelly’s dark view of gays and lesbians is correct, not only should gays be excluded from the military, they should be excluded as teachers, custodians, assembly-line workers or from any workplace where people interact with each other. Most Americans disagree. They have moved past Donnelly’s ugly and cruel stereotypes and accepted gays and lesbians as legitimate human beings deserving of full participation in American society. That participation should include service in the United States military.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

To Brian wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:38 AM:

" No, try again. "Different bodies" is not a good reason for different showers for men and women. It is simply socially inappropriate for them to shower together, as it would be for a gay man to shower with straight men. "Different bodies" as a reason sounds like we should fear and/or remain separated from those who look different than us, which seems like a pretty irrational argument for you to be making, considering your position. "

Re prison wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Gays belong in prison!!! "

Ridiculous wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:52 AM:

" Most of these posts aren't worth the time to view or express an opinion. Brian and Fred, you're too smart for the average blogger here -- and you can't change ignorance, unfortunately. "

If your so concerned with Gay Sex wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:28 PM:

" what about prisons. Where gay sex, wanted or not, is commonplace. If your hell bent on fixing the morality of the country, why not start in the prison? "

REROOSTER wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:03 PM:

" What makes a gay man any different then a straight man in the military for job performance?????? If both can do the job whats the difference? I see no problem with gay's in the military. They are there to do their job just like a straight man!!! And as for the shower bit with your son, if you have a problem with your son being in the shower w/a gay man, maybe your son shouldnt be in the military if he cant handle it. What are you afraid that yur son will be gay then?? Get a life! I'd rather have a gay man who can do their job next to my husband in the front line then a man who cant handle taking a shower w/a gay man! WHATEVER! "

Brian wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Guess I used the wrong word. I meant they have different bodies, so men and women shower separately. Gay men and straight me do not have different bodies. They do not need different showers. "

It just never ends.... wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:49 PM:

" I'm not sure who is worse....Wakeup or Chris King. You both make my skin crawl every time I see either of you post. I've never heard so much self-serving, sanctimonius, high-handed BS in my entire life! "

To Brian wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Different physiology has nothing to do with why there are separate showers for men and women. Now you are just being irrational, grasping at straws. It is simply socially inappropriate. Suppose straight men were to argue there is no need to continue segregating men and women when it comes to showers and bathrooms as it would save on expense? Ridiculous, right? Your arguement is just as ridiculous. "

Wakeup wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Brian, Brian, Brian...hmmm, how do I explain this to you?

Do you realize that your argument that the Bible prescribes stoning and other uncivilized acts in the OLD TESTAMENT is a typical liberal argument,and it demonstrates a great deal of ignorance of the Old and New Covenants and the reason that Christ died on the cross for us!

You see, homosexual activity while condemned in the Old Testament, remains condemned in the New Testament! Furthermore, Christ did not come to change the law. The law is in effect to show us what sin is, and our need for Christ! However, those that are believers are no longer a slave to the law, and are not condemned by the law. Yet, those that refuse to believe are still under the law, and are therefore condemned under the law! Now, you may be thinking, "o.k. then I'll be a believer, and then I'll be free from condemnation and I'll be free to live my life in disobedience to the father." Unfortunately, you cannot be disobedient to the Father's word and be a true convert. You are not saved by your adherence to the law; you are saved through God's grace. However, the ability to follow God's will is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If you are a truly converted soul for Christ, you will no longer wish to disobey Him, and you will fight your sins with all your might, and gradually you will sin less and less.

So, you assertions are ignorant of the true relationships between the Old and New Covenants and Christ's role in taking the believer's place on the cross. It's a rather difficult concept to explain fully in this format. My suggestion would be that you visit a true, Bible believing, non-denominational church and ask the Pastor to explain it more thoroughly to you. Bottom line though is that I can state that homosexuality is immoral based on Biblical condemnation of the acts as immoral and an abomination to the Father. In addition, it is immoral because it is damaging to those that practice it and society as a whole!

Finally, back to the greater point of this editorial. The military is no place to be playing patty cake. Keep it in the closet, or get out of the military! Several of your arguments have shown that you agree with don't ask, don't tell. Yet, out of your need to be the rebel, you continue to argue against it. Seriously, read over your comments thoroughly and you will see that you are arguing against yourself. "

Rooster wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:23 PM:

" If gays want to serve put them on the front lines! Send them to the mine fields, like the earlier post stated, but don't let them shower with my boy. That would be like putting a rooster in the hen house. You don't see many gay roosters. "

Brian wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Gay or straight, they are both guys. They can use the same shower. Men and women have different physiology, they need separate showers. There is no need for expensive new programs to segregate gays and straights in the shower room. "

To My Two cents and Fred wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Since Brian chose to move on and just ignore the point since he doesn't have an answer, I will ask the same question to you two: If straight men showering with women(just showering-not leering or harrasing)is still socially inappropriate, why wouldn't it be just as socially inappropriate for gay men to shower with other men? "

rewake up wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:31 PM:

" It is people like you who make me embarassed to live in Tomah.You represent a much larger threat to my country then any gay person ever did. "

to Wakeup wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Who are you to declare a gay person's life is unhealthy, immoral and irrational? Did you read the part where 75% of Americans believe gays should be able to serve openly? Your views are out of date. And don't go giving Bible passages to justify your prejudice. The Bible condones stoning and slavery and calls all kinds of normal behavior (eating shrimp, for example) as an "abomination." "

Brian wrote on Aug 24, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Wake up Mr. Wakeup. Did you bother to read the editorial? It says, "75 percent of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly. Attitudes toward gays and lesbians have transformed just as quickly as racial attitudes transformed during the 1950s and 1960s."

So who are you to call me immoral and irrational? Your views belong to the history books. I guess you find your support in the book of Leviticus. It says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
The same book however also says, "everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)Or how about this verse,"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves...They will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)Or how about "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)Or "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)You have a selective view of the Bible, choosing the parts that reinforce your own prejudice.Or do you believe in stoning? Or putting a tenager to death if he curses his parents? You call them beliefs; I call historical superstitions. It is a travesty for you to arrogantly pass judgment on gay people. "

Wakeup wrote on Aug 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

" The fight for civil rights for racial minorities is a right and noble cause. The attempt to legitimize unhealthy, immoral and irrational behavior is not noble or right!

Comparing the push to legitimize the abomination of homosexuality to the civil rights movement is entirely inaccurate, and it only demonstrates the lengths that people will go to in an attempt to justify their behavior to themselves and others.

Deceptive indeed! "

To two cents wrote on Aug 24, 2008 1:12 AM:

" So straight guys were checking out other guys in the shower? Sounds, sort of gay to me. But that's beside the point. Just as the guy who reported about the well endowed guy, he got "chaptered out," the same would happen if a gay guy was there and acted poorly. He would get disciplined, kicked out. The army teaches discipline very well and can keep guys in line if anybody can. Probably wasn't easy when they first integrated the army either. Some white southerners probably felt "uncomfortable." But they got over it and looking back, it was the right thing to do. The fair thing. Our country is a better place because of it. It is the same with gays serveing in the military. It is the right and the fair thing to do. "

Fred wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:47 AM:

" The arguments that straight guys are "uncomfortable" with gays in the military and worry about being seen in the shower are echoes of the bigotry that had separated blacks and whites in the military just a generation or two ago. America is always slow on human rights. We were one of the last nations to outlaw slavery. Couldn't offend the slave owners, don't you know. Someday, America will look back at their anti-gay narrowness with the same sense of embarassment. "

Old Vet wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:13 AM:

" The shower question. Anyone can tell the difference between men and women. The difference between gay and straight is less obvious. All of us who served, especially years ago when there were more group showers, undoubtedly showered with some of the opposite orientation -- without knowing it.

Any superior, gay or straight, can try to take advantage of one in their command. The big problem is males abusing females. This should be focused on rather than the gay-straight issue. Parents of daughters in the military have one additional reason to worry. "

Another point of view wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:02 PM:

" Why all the worry about gays in the military?

An often-quoted statistic is that one of four women in the military are sexually assaulted (not leered at in the shower, but assaulted - i.e., RAPED) while in the military. That's 25%, people.

Sexual trauma is a HUGE issue for women veterans.

Check out this CNN website: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/

I guess I fail to see the worry of having patriotic, LAW-ABIDING gays in the military when straight men take it upon themselves to violate one of four women in the military... "

My two cents wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:49 PM:

" I have no problem with gays in the military, as long as I don't know about it. While I don't agree with their lifestyle choice, it is not my place to judge them. However, when I was in basic we had an incident with a person checking out the guys in the shower and then telling the females who was more "blessed". It made a very uncomfortable situation for all males to take a shower while he was in there and after it was leaked that he was doing this, he was subsequently chaptered out which solved the problem. The fact is that most hetero males are uncomfortable around gay males and then it becomes a morale issue. And what happens when someone makes a pass at someone else during a barracks party and people retaliate against him. This would be a needless consequence of gays serving openly. "

To To Chris King wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:02 AM:

" See post "to Brian". Given that it would be as socially inappropriate to have gay men shower with men as it would be for straight men to shower with women, what is your suggestion? "

reshower wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:09 AM:

" So you think they should be killed? "

Passing Judgement wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:11 PM:

" If we're passing judgement on people, what about the incumbent president?

And what about those who in the military that are less than stellar in thier lives and careers but are still allowed to serve.

I recall a couple elections ago when an Army officer stood in uniform at a partisan political fund raiser for Bush. A clear violation of military standards of conduct.

I understand he got a better assignment. "

shower wrote on Aug 21, 2008 5:52 PM:

" We might as well let men and women shower together they are just cleaning themselves anyway. Give me a break. Gays have no place in the military, unless you are going to use them for mine fields. Tell me a gay guy isn't going to be checking out the other guys in the community shower. I know if they would have let me shower with the women when I was enlisted I would have sneeking a few peeks. "

To Brian wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:52 PM:

" That is a nice try, but it just doesn't cut it. Here's why: No one is saying the gay man would make sexual advances on other men in the shower. Likewise, straight men could certainly refrain from making sexual advances on women in the shower, if they were put in that situation. That is all well and good. But, the point is, it is not an appropriate situation to be in-for either party. "

to Chris King wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:40 PM:

" You believe that "it is a reasonable argument to state that homosexual individuals would have to be segregated when it came to sleeping, bathing and restroom facilities." It may seem reasonable to you, but it is called separate but equal and the Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago that such arrangements are not equal and are thereby illegal. "

Scratchy wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I'm a retired Army Officer with 26 years of total service 22 of which were on active duty. The author of this article rightly states the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve openly in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation a secret. And, therein lies the problem. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)prohibits much of the conduct homosexuals are likely to engage in. That's right, homosexual conduct violates the UCMJ (ie.. it's against the law). But in accordance with this policy, as long as you don't tell anyone you're "doing it" and you don't get caught "doing it" it's okay. That's kind of the way Bill Clinton conducted both his personal and professional life, remember!?! As long as you don't get caught breaking the law or admit to breaking the law, it's alright. How would it be if armed robbery or any other crime were deemed okay as long as you didn't tell anyone you did it or didn't get caught doing it. Of course, this cannot, should not, and will not be how military professionals conduct their lives. They're held to a much higher standard than your "run of the mill" politician. Perhaps the homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, I don't know. Certainly, many known and unknown homosexuals have served admirably in the past. Its worked for other countries Britain and Israel included. But don't allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military without changing the aspects of the UCMJ which prohibit homosexual behavior. You see, the UCMJ is the "bible" to professional soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. The good ones conduct all aspects of their personal and professional lives in accordance with that very high set of moral and ethical standards. We can't afford as a country to compromise that standard as Bill Clinton did by overseeing the passage of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Professional service members can now live a lie and it's okay. The homosexuals serving on active duty at the moment should not have to live this lie. It's the core of what makes service members different. I'm certain homosexuals serving in the military right now don't like it and other service members should have the right to know who amongst them are homosexual. "It's okay to be gay," should be the new policy, or not. But don't go half way. Change the law and let 'em serve or keep the military straight and acting inaccordance with the UCMJ. "

Brian wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:38 PM:

" The dynamics at play in the showers has to do with what is going on in the person's head. A gay guy in the bigger world, knows that it is not appropriate to make sexual advances to men in the shower room. The other men are not interested. And the reason for the shower is to be clean, not to solicit for sex. Straight men and women who go to nudist colonies have the same thing in their head. They enjoy the freedom of being without clothes; the situation is not sexual. Men who get erections in nudist camps (so I have read) are shunned and soon asked to leave. The same would happen if a gay guy made a sexual advance to a straight guy in the military. Kick him out if he cannot control his urges.

But flaunting their sexualty? What gay soldiers want to flaunt is their patriotism by serving their country. It is called equal opportunity and we shouod applaud gay soldiers for wanting to serve. "

who cares wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:38 PM:

" I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or anything. If you are willing to give your life for your country that should stand well above anything else you belive in. "

To Brian wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:40 PM:

" You are avoiding the issue. See 4:42pm post and address the points made. Gays being taught from an early age not to express their sexuality in a straight environment is akin to "dont ask, dont tell". If you have no problem with this, fine. But, you still haven't addressed why a gay man showering with other men is any different than a straight man showering with women. "

Chris King wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Brian...

Nobody has accused anybody of being "sex crazed." However, I think it is a reasonable argument to state that homosexual individuals would have to be segregated when it came to sleeping, bathing and restroom facilities.

It is only reasonable and considerate of the other individual's rights to privacy. You wouldn't have men and women showering in the same room because it could be harmful to the womens' right to not be ogled or have the men looking at them and thinking about them in a sexual manner. It would be a violation of the woman's conscience for a man to look at them in such a manner, while they are in such a vulnerable state! In the same vain, homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex,and it would be inappropriate to subject anyone to being looked upon in such a manner, in such a vulnerable state!

Yet again, Brian, since you are a homosexual, I guess you believe the world should cater to you and create yet another separate set of rights, above and beyond the rights of everyone else! For liberals, who usually speak of equal protection under the law, why are they always talking about creating new rights for certain groups of people? "

rewake up wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:48 AM:

" The upstanding character need to kill others? "

Brian wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Let's look at other countries in the world that have gay soldiers. There is no problem with separate showers needed in Germany, Israel, Spain, or the Netherlands. What are the straight guys in Monroe County so afraid of? Gays have learned from an early age not to express their sexuality in a straight environment. Smokers have learned not to smoke in a non-smoking area. Dieters have learned to avoid fast food. We are not sex craved people without self control as the bigots want you to believe. Homphobia is a disease based on ignorance. Barry Goldwater was correct when he was asked about gays in the military. He said that it didn't matter if they were straight, what mattered was if they coud shoot straight. "

Wakeup wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Members of the US military are to be of upstanding moral character. The very idea that an individual classifies themselves as "gay," indicates that they are lacking in moral character!

Keep it in the closet. The military segregates opposite sexes in regards to sleeping, showering and restrooms for a reason. The military, particularly during a time of war, is no place for people to be playing patty cake!

Furthermore, what is so bad about don't ask don't tell? It doesn't bar gays from serving in any way, shape, or form! It only bars them from flaunting their sexuality! Before anyone brings it up, I will admit that there are probably plenty of straight soldiers that brag about their sexual excursions, but it still is not right to do so!

The military is not the place to be in people's faces about your sexuality! Contrary to popular conclusions, there simply are times when sexual orientation should be a non-issue, and within the military it is properly a no-go zone for discussion of an individual's "sexual identity." "

To To the point wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Then by the same token , the one thing any parent should worry about when their daughter joins the military is that someone of the opposite sex might see them in the shower. The way I see it, if gays join the military, everyone should either have their own private shower, or there should be co-ed community showers. That way, everyone is treated with the same respect. "

To the Point wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:56 AM:

" g0d knows that the one thing eveery parent should worry about when thier child joins the military is that someone of the same sex might 'see' them in the shower! "

To Brian wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:42 PM:

" No, its the sex. He wasn't charged with the crime of being a hypocrite. No one is saying he shouldn't be ridiculed for his hypocrisy. He was charged with a crime for doing nothing more than soliciting sex with a consenting adult. If the argument is that it is no ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, this is very hypocritical. Also, I tap regularly. It is a nervous habit, but I assure you I don't want man on man action. As far as showering, you have more self control than anyone I know, as if I was showering with a group of women, I would most definitely be checking them out as well as wiping my sweat off. This society believes that straight men showering with women in a public shower like a dorm or gym is socially inappropriate. The reason for this would be the same reason it should be considered socially inappropriate for a gay man to share a public shower with other men. Separate locker rooms exist for a reason. "

Re Couple Points wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:06 AM:

" I agree with "couple points" on the whole shower thing. People might argue, "showers? so what? what are you (straight men) threatened by?" Well, the question is answered right there. Gays can't have both ways. If they are so different by their nature than showering with straight men should be looked at as socially inappropriate and perceived by straight men as unusual and threatening, just as if it were men showering with women. Of course, if a gay kept it quiet, as it happens all the time when they enter gym showers or even the military for that matter, than they're really getting away with lude behavior. Straight men don't have it that easy. We would have to be in pretty good disguise to get away with entering a women's shower and not get arrested. Bottom line, if a gay man were to enter a shower area with a bunch of straight men they should have every right to report it, same goes if a gay women were to enter a shower area with straight women. "

Brian wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:24 PM:

" It's not the sex, guys, it's the hypocrisy. Larry Craig was one of the biggest anti-gay politicians in the Senate and it turns out he's gayer than Spongebob. And that toe tapping action is not exactly innocent. It has been a very common signal for when guys want man on man action. As for the showers, I am gay and I shower at the gym. You know what? I am washing the sweat off, I'm not checking you out. Get over yourself and your worries about gay guys coming on to you. "

lazarus wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Well, I see the Journal editorial staff is still busy promoting far-left ideology. Why am I not surprised. There, once again, is the same old liberal trick of the comparison between black people's struggle for civil rights, and homosexuals struggle for... what, wanting to express to everyone and their mother that they have sex with a member of their own gender?! And wanting to be glorified for it as well. Wow, we all know how much of a contribution that is making to society. I personally don't care what two people do in their bed. Or in the case of the polyamorous mindset that resides in the homosexual lifestyle, multiple people. Of the supposed 75% of people who favor homosexuals serving openly, I'd like to see that poll; who gave it, and who took it, as well as the actual poll question itself. The truth probably runs somewhere south of the spin left-wingers like to put on these things. If it was an unbiased survey at all. But no, left-wingers never deceive. Just ask the group "fair-Wisconsin", who used deceit and trickery in their phone calls to voters as well as to people in nursing homes, to try and get them to believe that a vote NO would protect marriage when the amendment came up for a vote. Which is why I believe the amendment would have passed with an even larger margin were it not for the despicable practices of these pro-homosexual groups and individuals.
Quote[Gays and lesbians arent asking for special treatment;] Homosexuals are ALWAYS asking... nay, demanding, special treatment for one thing or the other. Why do you think our schools and businesses are inundated with "diversity" and "tolerance" behaviour training. What kind of groups do you think press for that?!
Quote[they should be excluded as teachers] Well, there's one point I would agree with you on, for the reason in the previous paragraph. No, to be fair, I really wouldn't care if my child's teacher was homosexual, as long as they kept their sexual behaviour(and that would go for a heterosexual as well) where it belongs, in the bedroom. "

Walt wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:48 PM:

" Another fine piece about homosexuals in the military written by someone who most likely has no clue to what the real deal is.

At a time when the DoD is getting blasted by Congress because they can't get a handle on all of the sexual assaults & rapes of both women & men serving our country the Libs want to add another layer of social experimentation to the mix.

Lets ask the mothers of America if they have any problems with their young son or daughter placed under the direct control (& I do mean "control") of homosexual superiors. About about asking how they would feel with their child being forced to cohabitate & being intimately exposed to the homosexual culture. Anyone think that none the homosexuals discharged over the years weren't actually caught in the act? Anyone think that homosexuals will not engage in their trysts in the barracks or aboard ship?

Does the military really need to engage in this social experiment to appease a minute portion of society whose underlying goals has progressed from tolerance to forced acceptance? "

Ronnie Gosset wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:20 PM:

" Good point about Craig-he was soliciting sex from a consenting adult. Whats wrong with that? It happens all the time in the bars. "

To Stephen wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:26 AM:

" Okay, I am tapping my foot as I sit at my computer. I suppose that means I am soliciting sex. Okay... Anyway, the absurdity of the charges aside, lets assume they are valid. Isn't the arguement that sex between two consenting adults is no one elses business? I mean, that is supposedly the arguement, right? The person Craig was soliciting wasn't under age, were they? He wasn't forcing them to do anything against their will, was he? "

Stephen wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:05 PM:

" The answer to your first question is that gays shower in showers. When unavailable, we can use water stored in our canteens or use wet wipes -- just like any other soldier, marine or sailor. Group showers are a rarity nowadays with most soldiers living in barracks with private bathrooms. In the field, you're really more interested in not getting shot at than looking at someone in a sexual way.

Second, Larry Craig committed a crime -- soliciting for sex in a public place, it was an added bonus that he's staunchly anti-gay and he was caught soliciting gay sex. "

Couple Points wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:19 PM:

" First, where would the gays shower? Sounds ridiculous, right? But, how is a gay man showering with a bunch of people of the sex he is attracted to any different than a straight man showering with a bunch of women? Second, what are people asserting Larry Craig did wrong? If the allegation is that he was seeking a sexual encounter with a consenting person of the same sex, how is that different than what gays(or straights for that matter) do on a regular basis? In other words, how was the incident with Craig news? Where was the deviance? Answer: that he was peopositioning someone of the same sex. Right or wrong, that is how America perceived it. "


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Tomah Journal.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The Tomah Journal, please sign in now!
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The Tomah Journal requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 

About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2010 The Tomah Journal. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.