Lol @Conservative Values. You really think that until yesterday, there were NO gay/lesbian/bi/trans/queer soldiers protecting YOU and your hateful speech? Jeez, you're blind.

@Oprah Noodlemantra: My first response was "...yeah, until you learned to type."

@Conservative Values - 56 years old? dude, if you want everything to be like it was "back in the day", go find a cave and a fire and have yourself a jolly little life. And if you ARE 56 years old, you certainly act pretty immature for your age.

sugar-i am defending my self from personal attacks. why is my OPINION immature? you are all the ones being immature about it.

typical liberal debate tactic. insult, insult, insult until they back down.

Ugh, once again CV has managed to take the focus off of the subject this forum was made for and pulling it to himself. I'm starting to think the poor man didn't get enough attention from mommy and daddy as a child.

Now on to the actual topic:

Quite frankly I don't care what their sexual orientation is because it has nothing to do with what they do. They are men & women who are soldiers and have sacrificed their time with family to go over seas, or where ever they are sent, to keep me and my family safe. To keep people like CV and my homophobic biological father free to say what ever dunderheaded things they come up with. You have free speech because of the men and women that came before them & because of those still fighting to keep you safe today. Do you really think that there weren't any gay service members during the Civil War, World Wars, and every other war that has been fought? If you do, then you seriously are delusional. Sexual orientation does not change a person. If you found out that your best friend was gay, would you stop being their friend? I know I wouldn't, because it doesn't change who they are as my friend. It just means that they felt safe and comfortable enough to share more of them self with me by telling me something as important as that.

And just because the law as been taken away doesn't mean every single gay/bi/transgender service member is going to come bursting out of their bunk with rainbows everywhere or go up to one of their service bothers/sisters and start hitting on them. So I fail to see how this is going to change anything with their interactions towards every member of the military.

Just to clarify, you still can't be transgender and be in the military. DADT only applies to the GLB. Not the T.

Thank you. I had a feeling it was wrong but for the life of me could not think of the word I was looking for.

LOL, also, the comment above (or below, or however it lists) isn't meant for you, but for American. Apologies! haha

Gotcha, no problem ^_^ I agree with what you said though. It isn't any ones business but your own & your partners.

That absolutely saddens me.
=(

I'm Republican & conservative. I don't care who serves in the military as long as we have brave men & women willing to do it. I don't think it should have ever been an issue. On the other hand, I see no reason to change the way it's been. Gays have been serving w/out contention. Keep private things private. I don't think there needs to be any sexual activity while on duty, by anyone.

Are you simple? When I joined the Marine Corps, I had to sign a piece of paper saying that I've never had intercourse with anyone of the same sex. Pretty sure heterosexual enlistees never had to sign such a contract, and millions of dollars were wasted discharging perfectly good, battle-ready soldiers. This isn't about parading our sex lives around, don't reduce me to what I do in the bedroom. This is about me being able to date someone of the same sex while serving in the military without fear of discharge.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand...

But you still served, did you not? How do you know it wasn't asked to heterosexuals? Maybe someone should ask one. My point: they could and had been serving. If it was the question that bothered you, just ask heteros, too. Simple fix.

I'd like to point out that the first thing you did was call me "simple," as if it were a bad thing. Why resort to such unnecessary behavior? Can't you just argue on the merit of your argument? Starting off your point w/ name calling is ridiculous.

Also, I had to sign a similar piece of paper just to give plasma and I'm hetero. I doubt they wouldn't make a heterosexual sign it to join the military since it was a question of sexual activity, not sexual orientation. could be wrong, would like to know.

Tech American is half right though. How many women get shipped back from deployments due to getting pregnant while deployed (yet somehow the man is rarely if ever sent home - at most a counseling statement is given which for those not familiar with the military is equal to a parent lecturing their teen on staying out past curfew). Gone are the days where of forced depo shots on both sexes during deployments cause lets face it - sex happens no matter where people are or who they want to have it with. Its been happening since the dawn of time no matter what the laws or social "norms" are. The only thing the repeal of DADT has done is brought it out into the light where a person can no longer be discharged for conduct unbecoming for being who they are.

But - tech in article 124 of the UCMJ - adultery is defined as sex not always with involving a married person, but sex involving two people of unequal rank, pay grade, branches of service, during deployments, in barracks or other government buildings and a whole host of other (sadly) insane criteria - so tech outside of a marriage that the military has "sanctioned" - yes any sexual activity that a soldier engages in could be prosecuted if the chain of command and JAG were truly bored but thank the Gods they tend not to be that bored unless you are already on their radar for something