There are some good examples of gay war hero's about.

That SAS man who used to wear a dress, he killed them by the dozen.

He was a flaming drama queen and a macho man.

It takes all sorts.

But key to the military is being able to fit in. So if you can be gay and still fit in, Excellent.

But if you can't. Sod off. You need to leave, and if you won't volunteer to leave you need to be kicked out.

And if the reason you won't or are unable fit in is because of your gay behaviour the military needs to be able to kick you out because you are gay.

And in my military, currently, they can't. It'a against EU law.

Result? So far.... rapes murders and suicides. 

Bah it's a pity the first example of a gay war hero I could find turned out to be a murderer. (I'm still lookng for the one who wore the dresses).

Ex-SAS man kills gay lover.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2653117/Ex-SAS-man-kills-gay-lover.html

Here we go, this is the fellow I was thinking of...

I THOUGHT MY OLD SAS PALS WERE OUT TO KILL ME; Transvestite is cleared.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+THOUGHT+MY+OLD+SAS+PALS+WERE+OUT+TO+KILL+ME%3B+Transvestite+is...-a060884997

---

Originally posted by baff

 I don't use the same measure for men and women any more than I do for gay men and straight men.
I recognise that each of these are different and require different approachs and nuances to deal with.
 

---

And that is what sexism, racism and discrimination is. Taking different approach just because of your sex, color of your skin or your sexual orientation.

People need to realize that are are no minorities, no communities, no w/e. All are citizens, in this case soldiers, and as such same rules apply to everyone.

Same with your post before. You do not mind supplying men soldiers with condoms because they can't behave. You do even supply them even though it is clear they break 'no sex' rule just to diminish the effect of their rule breaking.
You close both of your eyes and put a paper bag over your head about it.

But then once you have to supply 700 tampons instead of 700 condoms and it all suddenly requires 'different approach'.

Sorry, I am not buying that one.

No mate. People need to treat each other with respect personally.

They need to take account of not just their skin colour and sexual orientation, but also their religions, their nationalities their cultures their financial status. Gender. Their sensetivites, maybe they are fat or thin or short or disfigured or disabled. Any of a million discriminantions we all make every time we meet someone.

There are an enormous amount of things about other people that one needs to factor in when dealing with them.

I can ignore that my mate is black if you like, but i still can't take him to a KKK meet, because he is black and he will always be black. He isn't white. Racism exists. You can't just wish it away because you don't like it any more than I can.

I do not mind supplying troops with condoms, because I understand they will misbehave.

Not becuase I approve of them shagging whores outside of their bases, but because I understand the nature of the beast I am dealing with.

It's all very well you wanting our troops to behave like saints, but they aren't saints. Plan for it.

So they won't ever be gay friendly. They won't ever not shag all the women they work with. They won't ever avoid brothels.

And that's just the minor stuff. They will also commit atrociities and massacres and tortures and everything else they do.

There is no point pretending it's never going to happen because you "made a rule". It happens everytime. 

Instead of making stupid rules, I prefer thoughtful ones. Ones that recognise the realities of the situation and not just wishful fantasies.

---

Originally posted by baff
No mate. People need to treat each other with respect personally.
They need to take account of not just their skin colour and sexual orientation, but also their religions, their nationalities their cultures their financial status. Gender. Their sensetivites, maybe they are fat or thin or short or disfigured or disabled. Any of a million discriminantions we all make every time we meet someone.
There are an enormous amount of things about other people that one needs to factor in when dealing with them.
I can ignore that my mate is black if you like, but i still can't take him to a KKK meet, because he is black and he will always be black. He isn't white. Racism exists. You can't just wish it away because you don't like it any more than I can.
 
 
 
 
I do not mind supplying troops with condoms, because I understand they will misbehave.
Not becuase I approve of them shagging whores outside of their bases, but because I understand the nature of the beast I am dealing with.
 
It's all very well you wanting our troops to behave like saints, but they aren't saints. Plan for it.
So they won't ever be gay friendly. They won't ever not shag all the women they work with. They won't ever avoid brothels.
And that's just the minor stuff. They will also commit atrociities and massacres and tortures and everything else they do.
 
There is no point pretending it's never going to happen because you "made a rule". It happens everytime. 
 
Instead of making stupid rules, try and make thoughtful ones. Ones that recognise the realities of the situation and not just wishful fantasies.

---

1)
You sort of lost the track here...treat your fellows as you want, that is your business, no one is arguing that.

The rules though, need to measure all the same - no discrimination.

2)
It is astonishing how you make no difference between excusing rule breaking and enforcing their obeying.

Then again, you have no problem with planning for your soldiers committing atrocities but can't plan for birth-control...

I guess that's what biased mind does...not seeing things clearly and in right perception. But as I already said, it is the mindset that needs to be changed here. I assume it will take some more time for such manly and misogynous entity as army is to change and actually catch up.

It's simple mate.

If I make rule that no one is going to obey, I just made a stupid rule that undermines all the other rules for no benefit.

So if you make a rule telling a group of squaddies to respect gay people, you didn't just waste your breathe you also undermined all of the perfectly good rules taht you might have been able to enforce.

What possible difference does it matter if I plan for birth control. Accidents happen. All our troops in Afghanistan planned for birh control and yet all those women are still up the duff.

Not everything in life goes according to plan. You have to plan for the eventualities too. 

Just because you think people should behave in a certain way doesn't mean you have the power to make them,

Especially not when we are discussing the most heavily armed men in the world. You can tell him he has to treat gays equally, but what if he and his whole army refuse?

Ooo but but but I made a rule, I'm going to call my dad on you if you don't respect teh gays!!

It strikes me that men with guns make their own rules.

Democracy is about consentual rule. You can make a rule and as long as it is a rule the people consent to it can be upheld. If you make a rule that the army won't abide by, it's not a rule it's a joke.

And you can't force them. No matter how hard you try, no matter who you vote for. In the end it is their choice.

So now that we realise that being in a Democracy does not give us the moral mandate to force our views and morality on others and it doesn't give us the power to either, where does that leave us?

Do we let gay people join the army knowing we can't protect them if they do, or do we prevent them from joining so that they won't be the victims of discrimination if they do?

Personally I think Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a reasonable compromise. We all know there are gay people tough enough and commited enough to join and fight. No need to make things any harder on them.

Here's what's going to happen...

Gays are going to get in the military and be able to be open about it.  There's going to be a period of there being problems, just like there are with every civil rights change that has come to this country, and then the problems will die down.

Then everyone will look back and wonder what the hell the big problem was.

Go back and look at civil rights for blacks historically.  Everyone who was against blacks having equal rights, being able to serve in the military alongside whites, and being able to marry who they wanted to said it would bring chaos and downfall to the country.  Did it?  Nope.

Neither will this.

Just a brief period of people adjusting.

Originally posted by outfctrl

I guess you didn't read the article.

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

This doesn't make sense to you?  You have got to be kidding

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women.  

 

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women. 

 

 

EXCUSE ME????  You need to take your damn homophobic BULLSHIT....and.....I can't complete what I want to SAY here, because I'd probably get BANNED for saying what SHOULD be said to you.

 

I'm female. I am an Army veteran. I am a lesbian. I have been with the same woman for longer that most heterosexual marriages last, and have KNOWN her since high school.  I am 47 years old. I have NEVER had a "disease, " probably because I don't fuck around with straight promiscuous MEN (yes...that is MEANT to sound as stereotypical as your bullshit rant does).  I am completely monogamous.  I don't do ANY drugs or even drink alcohol, for fuckssake!  AND.....I hang around with a lot of other gay people JUST LIKE ME.

 

Your above paragraph is FILLED with the most stereotypical crap I have ever seen. 

 

Why should homosexual soldiers be required to not talk about their spouses and their families? Why should they, of course, have the right to DIE for their country, but not to be who they ARE?

 

The only thing that needs to happen is that homophobic people need to grow the fuck up and learn to live and let live.  Maybe the straight men and women that can't handle that someone is perhaps DIFFERENT from them, are not the kind of people our fine military needs ANYWAY. Most of our military is far more intelligent and progressive than SOME PEOPLE would like to think.

 

And don't go giving us some bullshit about General So and So says such and such, because for every anti-gay comment you come up with....I will come back at you with TWO others that are NOT hate-filled propaganda like what YOU are trying to pull off here.

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women. 

 

AND TO THE SITE MODS:  Go ahead and ban me for this response if you must.  THIS needed to be said and is WELL WORTH a ban, warning, suspension....WHATEVER.

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women. 

I had a girlfriend who worked at the aids clinic in the 90's.

All her clients were men. All of them. Gay men.

Bottom sex = diseases.

While I very much agree that people who prepared willing and placing themselves at risk of dieing for their country should be afforded the maximum respect possible, gay people aren't the only ones doing so.

What happens when we have a conflict of intrest? What happens when you tell your bunk mate that you are gay and she refuses to sleep with you? Doesn't she get to be treated with the maximum respect to, it's ok for her to die for her country but it isn't ok for her to feel she can sleep safe from sexual predation?

There was an example of a lesbian predator in the forces the other day. She raped someone at Buckingham palace. Is that OK? Wouldn't it have been better if the lesbian woman had not felt it was OK to be openly gay with her? Wouldn;t it have been better if the army had been able to kick her out at the first sign of trouble?

Who's civil rights take priority?

It's alright with me that you are gay. I want you to be happy. But I need you to be able to respect that it isn't alright with everyone that you are gay and know when it's Ok for you to come out with it and when it's best you don't. If you are gay and cool, then you are cool. But if you are not, then you are not.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

 You're misrepresenting my post. I said that homosexuals were to be censored, not rejected.

 The purpose of the "Don't ask don't tell" rule was not to censor homosexuals.

They already had a perfect rule in place to censor homosexuals. it was "no gays in military".

The purpose of the gay rights movement is not to censor homo-sexuals, you bleeding idiot, it is to liberate them.

 

 

Society isn't evolving. You are.

This is just what young people say to justify why their opinions are of as much value as people with experience of the subject matter. I've got news for, they aren't.

When you have evolved your way out of school, evolved your way through the military and evolved your way into a few more gay relationships your opinion will evolve. You will become older and wiser, and the next generation of school children will say all the same things about you as you say about your elders now.

 

 

Society hasn't evolved. Gay is still the opposite of macho.

 Rejecting means no gays in the military. The current law we're discussing is not liberating homosexuals, it just replaced a discriminating law with a slightly less discriminating law.

Society isn't evolving? Please. Over the past years, rights for homosexuals have improved. Gay marriage is now legalized in multiple countries and adoption for gay couples is now possible. Tolerance for homosexuals continues to increase.

Society is evolving, Its you who continues to stick with outdated, ignorant and bigoted ways of thinking.

If gays aren't allowed in the military, then you can't talk about being gay and remain in the military.It doesn't get more censored than that.  Further to this if someone finds out your gay you must leave.

They changed it so that people weren't allowed to ask.

This was an improvement made to the rights of gay people in the military, not an act of homophobia with the sole purpose of shutting gays up in the military. You blithering hate filled idiot.

And on the otherhand, repression for religious people has increased. You may call that evolution, I don't. It's just more of the same where one group of bigots has taken over from another. Todays fashion, yesterdays human nature in a different outfit.

I agree that attitudes towards gay people are changing in some countries. They have come some way in mine. But we haven't evolved, the older generation who you so despise still feel the way they do. Plenty of people still feel the same way.  Groups of men still openly discuss their disgust of all things gay. Men of all ages. Children too.

Gay marriage? Who cares? Where is the evolution of society in that. I'm sure gay couples have been living together openly for time. It's just more of the same old same old. Gay people enjoying the rebellion of sticking their gayness up the old bigots noses.

I do not for one minute think that you being gay or a gay rights supporter makes you more evolved than say me or RoflCTRl.

That you take me for some kind of anti gay bigot pretty much sums you up in my mind. You are just looking for people to sneer at.

I was promoting gay culture before you were born. Nationally and internationally on the gay music scene. I know more gay people than you. I have more gay friends than you. I've worked for more gay people than you and I've lived with more gay people than you. You arrogant little snot.

All of us oldies, we were all your age once too.

There is nothing progressive about you mate, you're just some student looking for people to look down on. You've done nothing in your life. That's why you know so very little about anything and your conversation is so insubstantially argumentative and empty of personal experience.

I guess if countries like the UK and Spain can do it, America can too. All these countries can allow gays in the military, but somehow Americans are just to homophobic to adjust? I don't think so. 

2 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military

• 2.1 Argentina
• 2.2 Australia
• 2.3 Austria
• 2.4 Belgium
• 2.5 Bermuda
• 2.6 Brazil
• 2.7 Canada
• 2.8 Colombia
• 2.9 Czech Republic
• 2.10 Denmark
• 2.11 Estonia
• 2.12 Finland
• 2.13 France
• 2.14 Germany
• 2.15 Ireland
• 2.16 Israel
• 2.17 Italy
• 2.18 Lithuania
• 2.19 Luxembourg
• 2.20 Malta
• 2.21 The Netherlands
• 2.22 New Zealand
• 2.23 Norway
• 2.24 Peru
• 2.25 Philippines
• 2.26 Romania
• 2.27 Russia
• 2.28 Slovenia
• 2.29 South Africa
• 2.30 Spain
• 2.31 Sweden
• 2.32 Switzerland
• 2.33 United Kingdom
• 2.34 Uruguay

Originally posted by baff

If gays aren't allowed in the military, then you can't talk about being gay and remain in the military.It doesn't get more censored than that.  Further to this if someone finds out your gay you must leave.

They changed it so that people weren't allowed to ask.

This was an improvement made to the rights of gay people in the military, not an act of homophobia with the sole purpose of shutting gays up in the military. You blithering hate filled idiot.

 

And on the otherhand, repression for religious people has increased. You may call that evolution, I don't. It's just more of the same where one group of bigots has taken over from another. Todays fashion, yesterdays human nature in a different outfit.

I agree that attitudes towards gay people are changing in some countries. They have come some way in mine. But we haven't evolved, the older generation who you so despise still feel the way they do. Plenty of people still feel the same way.  Groups of men still openly discuss their disgust of all things gay. Men of all ages. Children too.

Gay marriage? Who cares? Where is the evolution of society in that. I'm sure gay couples have been living together openly for time. It's just more of the same old same old. Gay people enjoying the rebellion of sticking their gayness up the old bigots noses.

 

I do not for one minute think that you being gay or a gay rights supporter makes you more evolved than say me or RoflCTRl.

That you take me for some kind of anti gay bigot pretty much sums you up in my mind. You are just looking for people to sneer at.

I was promoting gay culture before you were born. Nationally and internationally on the gay music scene. I know more gay people than you. I have more gay friends than you. I've worked for more gay people than you and I've lived with more gay people than you. You arrogant little snot.

All of us oldies, we were all your age once too.

There is nothing progressive about you mate, you're just some student looking for people to look down on. You've done nothing in your life. That's why you know so very little about anything and your conversation is so insubstantially argumentative and empty of personal experience.

 Forbidding homosexuals to talk about their sexuality and having it only changed so nobody is allowed to ask can hardly be considered an improvement on the rights of gay people. It is censorship, no matter how much you try to spin it.

Its not surprising that religious people experience repression because if there is one group that has discriminated and bullied minorities using invalid and poor arguments in their defense, its the religious group. You are no different. You continue to discriminate and make false claims about homosexuals, yet you cry foul the moment somebody calls you out on your bullshit.

The older generation have not changed their mind and most probably won't. Progress in society happens through every new generation. Only people with an open minded are able to keep up with progress even at an older age, something which you clearly are not.

about gay marriage, a lot of people care. Its a law that recognizes homosexual couples as equals to hetereosexual couples.

The reason I consider you a gay bigot is because you continue to use poor arguments to discriminate against homosexuals. I have caught you multiple times on posting lies about homosexuality. I do not care one bit what you did in your life. I look at the opinions you express here, and those opinions are filled with hate and lies.

With that said, I do find it quite funny you're calling me arrogant after you posted a whole bunch of assumptions about me.

RRRRAAAAAGGGEEEEEEE

=P

Originally posted by girlgeek

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women. 

As a hetrosexual male I was as equally offended by that article and his post (he had cut and paste from an article he had linked in an earlier post),... though outfctrl is as homophobic as they come.  I too had thought to make a comment to his post - but was too disgusted to give it any attention - thankfully they are a dying breed.  

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

I guess if countries like the UK and Spain can do it, America can too. All these countries can allow gays in the military, but somehow Americans are just to homophobic to adjust? I don't think so. 

      ... 

2.16 Israel

• ...

 Nuff said!

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by girlgeek

The military quarters male and female  soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines separately for obvious reasons. While there are a number of reasons for this, many of which might be considered nuanced from an intellectual perspective, they can probably be boiled down to one statement: men and women view and evaluate one another as potential objects of romantic and sexual opportunity, or to put it more commonly, everybody’s looking for love.  For moral and human as well as practical reasons, the military doesn’t quarter male and female soldiers together.

 

Now, if we start allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, in addition to the moral and health & safety issues (extreme rates of promiscuity, high disease rates, high substance abuse rates, and more), we are presented with the forced-necessity of splitting up quarters for our military forces even further.  We don’t quarter male and female military members together, and we shouldn’t quarter homosexual men with heterosexual men, nor homosexual women with heterosexual women. 

As a hetrosexual male I was as equally offended by that article and his post (he had cut and paste from an article he had linked in an earlier post),... though outfctrl is as homophobic as they come.  I too had thought to make a comment to his post - but was too disgusted to give it any attention - thankfully they are a dying breed.  

Unbelievable.

I am not homophobic!  LOL  The guy that cuts my hair is Gay and we have a blast talking.  He always talks about his "partner" and I about my harem.  It is just I do not believe that the DADT should be repealed, thats all.  The military is no place for that stuff.

Imagine that the Army started assigning women to live in the same areas as men, to share the same shower facilities and commodes.

Would you be surprised that substantial numbers of women would complain, or at least feel uncomfortable with being forced to share shower space with men?

Would we accuse the women of being heterophobic? 

Well, there's really no substantial difference in asking a man to share shower space with a homosexual.

Sure, the homosexual is probablly well capable of controlling themselves, but then again, the same could be said for the men showering with the women, would it not. But the simple knowledge that the men assigned to their quarters will not make passes at them isn't exactly a comfort when stepping into the shower, now is it.

In the military, especially the Navy and certain other elements of the land arms ( armor, etc...) require very close quarters with little privacy. Since we would not expect mixed genders to share things like bunks and showers, why expect it introduce the same with homosexuals?

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

Well, there's really no substantial difference in asking a man to share shower space with a homosexual.

---

Why only homosexuals? Make separate showers for white and black also, because someone might feel uncomfortable sharing the shower with someone of other but his skin color.

Substantial difference is a convention and human rights. You do not segregate homosexuals from other males or average population outside of army thus it is discriminating unless there is a reasoned obstacle.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

Well, there's really no substantial difference in asking a man to share shower space with a homosexual.

 

 

---

 

Why only homosexuals? Make separate showers for white and black also, because someone might feel uncomfortable sharing the shower with someone of other but his skin color.

Substantial difference is a convention and human rights. You do not segregate homosexuals from other males or average population outside of army thus it is discriminating unless there is a reasoned obstacle.

Why stop there?  Why not have co-ed showers?  It is discriminating pertaining to gender, right?  Women have the same right as men.  They should be able to sleep in the same barracks, take showers with them and use the same restrooms.

There is a reason why they cant.  What is that reason?  

Originally posted by Gameloading

With that said, I do find it quite funny you're calling me arrogant after you posted a whole bunch of assumptions about me.

 Any of them wrong?

Just because you don't have the balls not to hide behind the anonymity of the internet doesn't mean we don't know who you are.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

Why stop there?  Why not have co-ed showers?  It is discriminating pertaining to gender, right?  Women have the same right as men.  They should be able to sleep in the same barracks, take showers with them and use the same restrooms.
There is a reason why they cant.  What is that reason?  

---

Yep, why stop there? We should have separate showers, restrooms and quarters, etc. for every single soldier using them.

But do not forget that that is your own logic following that path while your only reasoning is that someone might feel uncomfortable.

In case you missed the point, I will stress it again and mark it in bold:

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

Substantial difference is a convention and human rights. You do not segregate homosexuals from other males or average population outside of army thus it is discriminating unless there is a reasoned obstacle.

---

It is up to society and law to decide their stance towards homosexuals and the society clearly says 'No!' to homosexual discrimination. US army will have to follow sooner or later, until then, they do discriminate people for their sexual orientation.