Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

[mcpeepants]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.
ADVERTISEMENT

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by
President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.

___

On the Net:

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com

[Logan13]

Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.
ADVERTISEMENT

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by
President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.

___

On the Net:

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com

LOL, Marine Gen. Peter Pace is in danger of being suspended on AR's website.........

[Tock]

Yawn.
Nothing new. This guy has his own opinion, and he's entitled to it. Everyone in the military is entitled to their own opinion, too.
Question is, though, why does the military base policy upon mere opinion instead of fact?

It seems there's a rule against adultery as well:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/20/pentag...ery/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/do...ery/index.html

Anyone here seriously think that the military should kick out every adulterer in the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy?

[Dude-Man]

Morals and Ethics are all relative anyway..

[DTBusta]

Its really nobody's business what anyone is...I don't get it...If he can comment on gays being immoral for sexual immorality, than why not straight people, the porn industry, why not become fascists and put people in concentration camps...Its because the very act of going far with that and destroying peoples lives, which in the long run is the main goal of some of these conservatives, well that very act itself is immoral...Why isn't he speaking out on how 600,000 dead Iraqi's for either a "lie" or "mistake" is immoral, cause it is. And this is how we know there isn't a God...there is still a Bush and it keeps growing out of control, and if people dont take it seriously we could all end up in camps, if he says we are the "enemy combatants".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp9XkmWOsgQ

[spywizard]

He has a right to his opinion..

what about sex with animals or minors or with fruit.. it's just a choice..

and lets becareful and not allow these to become religious centered threads, they will be deleted..

[DTBusta]

He has a right to his opinion..

what about sex with animals or minors or with fruit.. it's just a choice..

and lets becareful and not allow these to become religious centered threads, they will be deleted..

the fruit...well I dont think people do that do they spywizard? but you have a point, minors and animals are wrong, thats harming children and is disgusting and sex with animals is just disgusting...I see your point. : )

[spywizard]

the fruit...well I dont think people do that do they spywizard? but you have a point, minors and animals are wrong, thats harming children and is disgusting and sex with animals is just disgusting...I see your point. : )

ahhh.. reasonability.. refreshing..

yep the point is if you (not you but anyone speaking up for others) stands up for one group, be prepared to stand up for everyone..

and yes, same sex laws are still on the books..

Everyone here knows what i think on this, i don't care, but if people are going to champion one group.. champion them all..

otherwise you are using a self directed moral code.. and we know we don't want that..

[Prada]

I like to quote the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, from a few decades ago.

“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

[Logan13]

I like to quote the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, from a few decades ago.

Your bedroom activities have no right to be put in front of the nation....

[Tock]

and yes, same sex laws are still on the books.. .

Ya, in the military, too. In fact, if you're caught in a homosexual act in the military, they could send you to prison.

[Logan13]

Ya, in the military, too. In fact, if you're caught in a homosexual act in the military, they could send you to prison.

and........

[Tock]

CNN article . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...tarygeneration

Old prejudice dishonors new military generation
Wed Mar 14, 6:46 AM ET

Prejudice should never be the basis for policy. But that is precisely how Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued the case for a continued ban on gays serving openly in the military.

In an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune, Pace said he believes that homosexuality is immoral, like adultery. He gave a half-apology Tuesday - regretting that he had focused too much on "my personal moral views."


In an unintentional way, Pace might have done the nation a favor by revealing the ingrained anti-gay attitudes that have kept the anachronistic "don't ask, don't tell" policy in effect long after it should have been replaced by a ban on discrimination.


Under the 14-year-old policy, recruits aren't questioned about their sexual orientation (don't ask) but are discharged from the military if they engage in homosexual conduct or admit to being gay (don't tell). Since 1994, nearly 11,000 troops - the equivalent of an Army division - have been dismissed, including several Arabic or Farsi-speaking translators who are badly needed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


That makes no sense. When the policy was implemented, it was an uncomfortable compromise - President Clinton wanted gays to be allowed to serve openly, but he faced a backlash from Congress and from military officials. Today, with the military stretched thin and changed public attitudes, it's time to dump the policy and put anti-discrimination standards into place.


The old arguments - that gays serving openly could cause a breakdown in discipline or unit cohesion - have proved as baseless as the ban the military once had against blacks and whites serving in the same units.


Gays serve openly in the military in 23 of 26 NATO countries (the United States, Turkey and Portugal are the exceptions). In Britain, senior officers predicted dire consequences when its gay ban was lifted in 2000. Several officers resigned in protest. So what happened? The experience has been so successful that the British military now recruits gays and offers partner benefits.


In the USA, though Pace and other top brass harbor intolerance, rank and file troops are far more accepting. In a recent Zogby poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 73% said they are comfortable in the presence of gays. U.S. public opinion is also solidly behind the idea of gays serving openly. A Harris poll this month found 55% in favor, up from 48% in 2000; a Pew Research Center survey last year found 60% in favor, up from 52% in 1994, with three-in-four support among those younger than 30.


In Congress, hearings are planned next month on a bill by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve without limits. (If they engaged in sexual harassment or misconduct, they would be punished just as heterosexual troops are.)


One of the scheduled witnesses is Eric Alva, the first U.S. Marine wounded in Iraq. Alva followed his father and grandfather into the military, losing a leg when he stepped on a land mine. He was honored with a Purple Heart and received a military discharge. But, like so many others, he could not fully savor his honor because was hiding his homosexuality. Last month, he decided to end the painful double life and begin a new fight.


Alva's service - not lingering prejudice - is a compelling guide for future policy.

[Prada]

Your bedroom activities have no right to be put in front of the nation....

Yup whether you are homosexual or heterosexual it should not be in the states business. Just do what you have to in the bedroom in your discretion

[Teabagger]

See I have a different take. Although I feel homosexuality is immoral...that is actually irrelevant in todays debate. It was not too many years ago the AMA due to political pressure, removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. The removal was not due to scientific data but rather to the need to be more in line with secular-progressives. Now a new study has been released that shows transgendered people are not helped by switching genders, or living their life as the opposite sex. It is maintained, or has been added to the list of mental disorders, I can't recall. My point is abberant behavior, is still abberant behavior, and does indicate a disorder, politically correct or not.

[Teabagger]

LOL, Marine Gen. Peter Pace is in danger of being suspended on AR's website.........

Now that's funny.... I don't care who you are.

[DTBusta]

Ever since homosexuality became an issue in the United States 30 years ago or so, there have been three competing positions on it.
Position 1: Homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle," like vegetarianism.
Position 2: Homosexuality is a disease, like schizophrenia.
Position 3: Homosexuality is a biological orientation, like left-handedness, and is neither chosen nor pathological.

"Secular conservatives tend to accept Position 1 and/or Position 2, which means that every new piece of lab research on the gay gene sets their teeth on edge. But say that science had concluded Position 3 was a matter of fact. There is no question that conservatives would suffer a short-term loss; it is always painful when you have committed yourself to a belief that is literally proved untrue, and enemies of conservatism would play "gotcha" for a while. "
"What makes this scenario possible is the discovery that sexual orientation is a biological trait, produced by a "gay gene." Conservatives who dislike homosexuality have always hated the concept of a gay gene and argued against it. But this is because conservatives do not understand what its existence really implies: The gay gene is a remarkable vindication of conservative ideas about human nature and may offer one of the most devastating refutations of liberalism we have yet seen. Right now, most conservatives are unaware of this, as they are also unaware of the clinical research--all but universally accepted among biologists--showing that homosexuality is a biological trait. Conservatives need both to face this research and to understand how it works for them. "

everyone should have learned this if you took a class in psychology..
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...there-gay-gene
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/standard.htm

[Logan13]

Ever since homosexuality became an issue in the United States 30 years ago or so, there have been three competing positions on it.
Position 1: Homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle," like vegetarianism.
Position 2: Homosexuality is a disease, like schizophrenia.
Position 3: Homosexuality is a biological orientation, like left-handedness, and is neither chosen nor pathological.

"Secular conservatives tend to accept Position 1 and/or Position 2, which means that every new piece of lab research on the gay gene sets their teeth on edge. But say that science had concluded Position 3 was a matter of fact. There is no question that conservatives would suffer a short-term loss; it is always painful when you have committed yourself to a belief that is literally proved untrue, and enemies of conservatism would play "gotcha" for a while. "
"What makes this scenario possible is the discovery that sexual orientation is a biological trait, produced by a "gay gene." Conservatives who dislike homosexuality have always hated the concept of a gay gene and argued against it. But this is because conservatives do not understand what its existence really implies: The gay gene is a remarkable vindication of conservative ideas about human nature and may offer one of the most devastating refutations of liberalism we have yet seen. Right now, most conservatives are unaware of this, as they are also unaware of the clinical research--all but universally accepted among biologists--showing that homosexuality is a biological trait. Conservatives need both to face this research and to understand how it works for them. "

everyone should have learned this if you took a class in psychology..
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...there-gay-gene
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/standard.htm

all sciences, including psychology, are constanting evolving because of new findings. (i.e in the 1970's, the scientists were warning the world that we were headed for another Ice Age.......) There is no "owner's manual" for the human mind.

[Tock]

Ever since homosexuality became an issue in the United States 30 years ago or so, there have been three competing positions on it.
Position 1: Homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle," like vegetarianism.
Position 2: Homosexuality is a disease, like schizophrenia.
Position 3: Homosexuality is a biological orientation, like left-handedness, and is neither chosen nor pathological.

I'd have to add two more:

Position 4: Sexual orientation is a natural consequence of physical conditions in one's environment
Position 5: Sexual orientation is a combination of any of the above, in any combination

Whatever the origin of a person's orientation, it only seems to matter to the people who should mind their own business.

[Tock]

It was not too many years ago the AMA due to political pressure, removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

Got proof for that?

It seems to me that homosexuality was added to the list of mental disorders mostly because of religious thought, not scientific. The early mental health practitioners formed their opinions about homosexuality after dealing with crazy gays and lesbians. They didn't stop to think that gays and straights might be bonkers in about the same proportion, that there might actually be mentally healthy gay people, until Dr. Evelyn Hooker came along and provided the research that demonstrated that point. Meanwhile, fundamenalists preached hateful anti-gay sermons and ranted against gays, stirred up lots of people who had absolutely no technical information on the topic, and filled their heads with misinformation about the nature of gay people.

Sure, some orthodox medical people still think people who are gay are mentally ill. But most scientists conclude that gay people are as crazy as straights.

Live with it.

My point is abberant behavior, is still abberant behavior, and does indicate a disorder, politically correct or not.

Abberant behaviour, better known as "marching to your own drum," certainly does not indicate a disorder. Perhaps some people get upset when someone does not conform to the popular norms. Some people decide to never get married. That's abberant behaviour. Inter-racial marriage is abberant behaviour, too. Advanced bodybuilders are abberant. So are people who devote their lives to collecting antique radios.
The people who freak out over aberrant behaviour need to get a grip and let other folks live their lives; they need to mind their own damm business . . .

Sheesh . . .

[Logan13]

Got proof for that?

It seems to me that homosexuality was added to the list of mental disorders mostly because of religious thought, not scientific. The early mental health practitioners formed their opinions about homosexuality after dealing with crazy gays and lesbians. They didn't stop to think that gays and straights might be bonkers in about the same proportion, that there might actually be mentally healthy gay people, until Dr. Evelyn Hooker came along and provided the research that demonstrated that point. Meanwhile, fundamenalists preached hateful anti-gay sermons and ranted against gays, stirred up lots of people who had absolutely no technical information on the topic, and filled their heads with misinformation about the nature of gay people.

Sure, some orthodox medical people still think people who are gay are mentally ill. But most scientists conclude that gay people are as crazy as straights.

Live with it.







Abberant behaviour, better known as "marching to your own drum," certainly does not indicate a disorder. Perhaps some people get upset when someone does not conform to the popular norms. Some people decide to never get married. That's abberant behaviour. Inter-racial marriage is abberant behaviour, too. Advanced bodybuilders are abberant. So are people who devote their lives to collecting antique radios.
The people who freak out over aberrant behaviour need to get a grip and let other folks live their lives; they need to mind their own damm business . . .

Sheesh . . .

Somehow, I just do not find the label "marching to their own drums" to be a thorough enough definition for those who screw goats or other animals....... Let's not sugar coat everything, some actions are simply "fuked up".

[Tock]

Somehow, I just do not find the label "marching to their own drums" to be a thorough enough definition for those who screw goats or other animals....... Let's not sugar coat everything, some actions are simply "fuked up".

Nevertheless, screwing goats, leading celibate lives (I'm thinking of catholic clergy here), bodybuilding, beekeeping, riding motorcycles, and programming in C++ are all abberant behaviours, in that few people actually do such things. Same is true of homosexuality.

My point is that just because a behavior is abberant, that does not mean that it is unhealthy.

The average American is just that -- average. Pretty dull, uninteresting, insipid, boring, conventional, "normal." Not the sort of thing to aspire to, IMHO. But if that's your cup of tea, you're certainly welcome to it.

[Logan13]

Nevertheless, screwing goats, leading celibate lives (I'm thinking of catholic clergy here), bodybuilding, beekeeping, riding motorcycles, and programming in C++ are all abberant behaviours, in that few people actually do such things. Same is true of homosexuality.

My point is that just because a behavior is abberant, that does not mean that it is unhealthy.

The average American is just that -- average. Pretty dull, uninteresting, insipid, boring, conventional, "normal." Not the sort of thing to aspire to, IMHO. But if that's your cup of tea, you're certainly welcome to it.

Aberrant behavior is behavior which is not within the normal limits.
I assure you that motorcycle riding and bodybuilding is done by a much, much larger percentage than those who practice beastiality and homosexuality. I would say that homosexuality is becoming viewed as less abberant than it once was, but beastiality...............Maybe beastiality is not abberant in your world, but in the minds of the other 99% of us, it goes without saying.
aberrant - one whose behavior departs substantially from the norm of a group, unusual person, anomaly - a person who is unusual
Adj. 1. aberrant - markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas", not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm.

[Tock]

Aberrant behavior is behavior which is not within the normal limits.

I'm sure you will recall the many references made to zoologists who have documented how many species exhibit a small % of homosexual behaviour. From that, it is reasonable to assume that if it happens in animals from penguins to primates, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it in humans. A normal representation of homosexual behaviour in other species is about 3% to 5%. It's about that in humans. Aberrant behaviour? Nope. Alarming? Sure, to people wedded to antiquated notions about sexuality.

I assure you that motorcycle riding and bodybuilding is done by a much, much larger percentage than those who practice beastiality and homosexuality.

Worldwide? I think not.

I would say that homosexuality is becoming viewed as less abberant than it once was, but beastiality...............Maybe beastiality is not abberant in your world, but in the minds of the other 99% of us, it goes without saying.

So . . . what does bestiality have to do with this? I hope you're not trying to make some sort of reference that gays are akin to animal abusers, because they are not . . .

aberrant - one whose behavior departs substantially from the norm of a group, unusual person, anomaly - a person who is unusual
Adj. 1. aberrant - markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas", not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm.

Sure, that's an apt description of Mr. Olympia. Or of many dedicated bodybuilders, which make up perhaps .0001% of the world's population. Yes?


By the way, were you homeschooled?

[Logan13]

I'm sure you will recall the many references made to zoologists who have documented how many species exhibit a small % of homosexual behaviour. From that, it is reasonable to assume that if it happens in animals from penguins to primates, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it in humans. A normal representation of homosexual behaviour in other species is about 3% to 5%. It's about that in humans. Aberrant behaviour? Nope. Alarming? Sure, to people wedded to antiquated notions about sexuality.
The definition abberant behavior is relative, and is constantly evolving. As I said, homosexuality is becoming viewed as less abberant. But let's not pretend that 3% of the population is not abberant........Abberant or not, this behavior is becoming more widely accepted, to an extent.


. . . what does bestiality have to do with this? I hope you're not trying to make some sort of reference that gays are akin to animal abusers, because they are not . . .
I started my example with beastiality, your the one that added homosexuality to the mix.
Sure, that's an apt description of Mr. Olympia. Or of many dedicated bodybuilders, which make up perhaps .0001% of the world's population. Yes?

Mr olympia? How did we go from bodybuilding to Mr olympia?

By the way, were you homeschooled?

B.S Biology, Minor in Chemistry.........

[Hoggage_54]

If gay guys can use their guns and equipment provided to them properly (no pun intended), and they pass all the training courses, let them join the army.

[Carlos_E]

If gay guys can use their guns and equipment provided to them properly (no pun intended), and they pass all the training courses, let them join the army.

I don't get the pun but anyway... My bf has been in the military for over 10 years.

[Tock]

The USAF thought I was a pretty good cop and dog trainer, made me part of an experimental project, then kicked me out half-way through because I'm gay. Screwed the project up, cost taxpayers plenty, I'll bet.

Bizarre thing is, all the guys in my barracks thought the no-gays policy was stupid, as did all the guys I worked with. Of course, the dogs didn't know what was going on, other than they sent the terrier I was working with back to Lackland AFB because they didn't have anyone who could work with him. I found out later that they later euthanized (killed) him.

What a big f'in waste . . .

[Snrf]

Why does the "land of the free" care so much?

where they put their willies?

for a supposedly modern nation you guys sure seem backwards sometimes

[biglouie250]

Why does the "land of the free" care so much?

where they put their willies?

for a supposedly modern nation you guys sure seem backwards sometimes

+1 i agree

[brewerpi]

Please remember that it was a supposedly "gay friendly'' President and a congress controlled by the Democrats they gave you "don't ask don't tell".
I predict that a generation from now it won't matter because younger people seem to be more tolerant of homosexuals.
I wonder what would happen if a draft were reinstated-would all the gay groups fighting for the "right" to serve suddenly take up the cause of homosexuals who don't want to go to Fallujah?

[Carlos_E]

Please remember that it was a supposedly "gay friendly'' President and a congress controlled by the Democrats they gave you "don't ask don't tell".
I predict that a generation from now it won't matter because younger people seem to be more tolerant of homosexuals.
I wonder what would happen if a draft were reinstated-would all the gay groups fighting for the "right" to serve suddenly take up the cause of homosexuals who don't want to go to Fallujah?

Huh? You have it backwards. Homosexuals are fighting FOR the right to serve. Not trying to get out of it.

[DNoMac]

The USAF thought I was a pretty good cop and dog trainer, made me part of an experimental project, then kicked me out half-way through because I'm gay. Screwed the project up, cost taxpayers plenty, I'll bet.

Bizarre thing is, all the guys in my barracks thought the no-gays policy was stupid, as did all the guys I worked with. Of course, the dogs didn't know what was going on, other than they sent the terrier I was working with back to Lackland AFB because they didn't have anyone who could work with him. I found out later that they later euthanized (killed) him.

What a big f'in waste . . .

Thats stupid. What kind of discharge is that? I've never heard of anybody personaly (though the military is rather large) getting discharged for being gay. I remember in basic when guys used to claim they were gay. The TI's would just bring in another trainee, tell him to drop his pants, and tell the guy who claimed he was gay to suck their dick. That was usually the end of it.

[Coop77]

ahhh.. reasonability.. refreshing..

yep the point is if you (not you but anyone speaking up for others) stands up for one group, be prepared to stand up for everyone..

and yes, same sex laws are still on the books..

Everyone here knows what i think on this, i don't care, but if people are going to champion one group.. champion them all..

otherwise you are using a self directed moral code.. and we know we don't want that..

To everyone here that keeps grouping homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, ****ing fruit, etc.. There is a major, major difference. Children and dogs (and fruit) are not able to give consent to a sexual relationship. Two tax-paying adults of the same sex in a loving healthy relationship are. Big difference. The argument that if you stand up for gays, you must stand up for pedophiles too is absurd.

[Coop77]

Aberrant behavior is behavior which is not within the normal limits.
I assure you that motorcycle riding and bodybuilding is done by a much, much larger percentage than those who practice beastiality and homosexuality. I would say that homosexuality is becoming viewed as less abberant than it once was, but beastiality...............Maybe beastiality is not abberant in your world, but in the minds of the other 99% of us, it goes without saying.
aberrant - one whose behavior departs substantially from the norm of a group, unusual person, anomaly - a person who is unusual
Adj. 1. aberrant - markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas", not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm.

Again with the equating homosexuality and bestiality. sigh.
The statement that homosexuality is aberrant and way outside of the norm is pretty debatable. I live in a major city. I can tell you that gays are everywhere. *everywhere*. And where ever you live, I can assure you they are everywhere too, just not as obvious to you.

[Tock]

Thats stupid. What kind of discharge is that? I've never heard of anybody personaly (though the military is rather large) getting discharged for being gay.

The military's been kicking out lots of gay people -- 8,116 between 1994 and 2005. Despite the great need for Arabic-speaking people, they kicked out 66 interpreters because they were gay. I guess that's what happens when you let the government run a war . . .



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

-----------------------------------------------
Statistics on the number of persons discharged from the military in the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993):

Year Coast Guard Marines Navy Army Air Force Total
1994 0 36 258 136 187 617
1995 15 69 269 184 235 772
1996 12 60 315 199 284 870
1997 10 78 413 197 309 1,007
1998 14 77 345 312 415 1,163
1999 12 97 314 271 352 1,046
2000 19 104 358 573 177 1,231
2001 * — — — — — 1,273
2002 * — — — — — 906
2003 * — — — — — 787
2004 15 59 177 325 92 668
2005 16 75 177 386 88 742
Total 113 655 2,626 2,583 2,139 8,116

[T3/T4 GSR]

Thats stupid. What kind of discharge is that? I've never heard of anybody personaly (though the military is rather large) getting discharged for being gay. I remember in basic when guys used to claim they were gay. The TI's would just bring in another trainee, tell him to drop his pants, and tell the guy who claimed he was gay to suck their dick. That was usually the end of it.

LMAO....talk about an awkward position to be in for both parties

[Tock]

I wonder what would happen if a draft were reinstated-would all the gay groups fighting for the "right" to serve suddenly take up the cause of homosexuals who don't want to go to Fallujah?

Probably not.
That would most likely be seen as an issue of the appropriateness of the war, and not as an issue where a gay group would work for special treatment of gay people.

[brewerpi]

Huh? You have it backwards. Homosexuals are fighting FOR the right to serve. Not trying to get out of it.

I'm fully aware of this-my question is what if military service became mandatory, would it still be viewed the same way.

[Mus505]

i dont think homosexuality should be allowed in military....