Army Homosexuals: Let Them Serve

(SALEM Ore.) - CBS Sixty Minutes recently carried a story about homosexuality in the Army. The Army system of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is and was, a failure from the start.

In WWII, my war, we had some, and if they wanted to get out all they had to do was to go to their commanding officer and tell him, "Sir, I am queer".

This didn't always work. A guy in my infantry company tried to get out and avoid possible overseas battle service. The Captain told him, "We'll discuss it when we get to France". I saw many eight balls in the Army. How many actually got out, who knows?

In an infantry division, less than one quarter were front line fighters. Many were reluctant fighters. They would goof-off any way they could - even disclosing their homosexuality. However, who wants to get killed?

About 70% of total killed or wounded were front line infantrymen. Some rifle company men were replaced 200 to 300 percent.

I'm stating this to indicate that an infantry division is a very dangerous place to be and it was the front line 'dogface' infantryman who suffered the most.

Every rifle company was short on front line soldiers forever after the first day of combat. When we heard that self-proclaimed "homosexuals" were getting out, I heard one guy say "I wouldn't care if the homo was syphlitic and half blind, as long as he could shoot at the form of an attacking kraut."

This brings me to a personal relative matter. Two of my six section mates on an observation post were captured and held for six weeks. They got to go home on the first boat.

I visited them after the war and one former combat buddy named Ed H. said to me, "Leveque, would you have a cigarette with us before we go home?"

He went on to question me, saying my war buddies always thought I was a homosexual. I got a laugh when he said, "We thought you were queer because you didn't smoke!"

I don't think my guys thought any less of me when they believed that I was queer.

As far as I'm concerned, I knew people that were before I went into the Army, during my time, and in my medical practice.

The Armed Services has forcibly discharged 12 thousand homosexuals in the past ten years. How many were faking it, who knows?

About 10% of men and women are homosexual. If they want to join the service, let them. There are probably thousands of them still in the service, "in the closet" or not. I say leave them alone.

Salem-News.com Marijuana Coverage

Where and How to Smoke Legal Marijuana without Fear of Arrest in the U.S.

Eulogy of a Great Warrior: Hoss Plourde

The Ripple Effect How Marijuana Laws Are Impacting Society

Audit the Audit

Welcome Home, Tom

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Sam H October 19, 2009 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

I would be shocked if this policy is rescinded. It will all boil down to a vote count for the 2010 or maybe even the 2012 election.

Daniel October 19, 2009 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

Someone who serves honorably should not be dishonorably discharged , and lose their earned benefits , for telling .

Russ October 13, 2009 11:07 am (Pacific time)

This debate has been going on long before Clinton established the "Don't ask, don't tell policy." Which is really not a new policy if you think about it. What caught my eye recently was the below article that just absolutely shocks me. If this is allowed to happen in Albany it could happen anywhere. Albany is a town that not only supports veterans and the American Flag, but celebrates them. Ideally we find who the "decision-maker" is, then allow them to have the American flag be flown in their proximity 24/7/. Link to below story: http://www.katu.com/news/local/64059697.html ALBANY, Ore. - At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments - but residents have been told they can't fly any flags at all. Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag - he said - is his way of showing support. "This flag stands for all those people," said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. "It stands for the people that can no longer stand - who died in wars. That's why I fly this flag." But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems. He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction. "It floored me," he said. "I can't believe she was saying what she was saying." Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down.

Osotan; October 12, 2009 9:37 pm (Pacific time)

the real question is what stand would rush limbaugh take? Lets tak it right to the top.

exhippie October 12, 2009 9:31 pm (Pacific time)

Jim Crow would have been proud of Salem after reading most of these comments. I served in the Army and no one was doing anything in the shower but get the days duty's washed off, now cast thy stones ye bigots!

Anonymous October 12, 2009 8:13 pm (Pacific time)

the democrats and republicans fighting amongst themselves.. With fury and lies. Sexual lifestyle fighting, actually violently. The fighting has been promoted. I like you much Dr Phil promoting the benefits of marijuana, but you kinda messed up this time. Instead of promoting anger from lifestyle decisions, you should have promoted how the elite planned all of this. We should NOT be upset by others lifestlyes, we should ALL UNITE TOGETHER, and expose the elite who are causing this. I believe we have come to a time in drastic change. A paradigm shift. I wont say what side to get on. I will say, if you feel something is wrong? go with it, you wont regret it.

Anonymous October 12, 2009 7:19 pm (Pacific time)

if the U.S.(owned by israel) was not such a warmongering entity, maybe this would not even be an issue? If the Western elite did not have a passion for world domination, this would not be an issue? Let me ask you a simple question ok? Whether gay or not, does not death hit each one of us? But what do they die for? Guarding opium fields and oil pipelines? Lets not look at the lifestyles of the soldiers, its just a distraction, so the warmongers can continue their agenda. And on it goes as obama continues the agenda of the elite. Like so many before him.

Mike H. October 12, 2009 3:06 pm (Pacific time)

Wow, this one has quite a few comments. Must have got some pretty good arguments going on or something. My opinion: Let them serve too, they are just people too, with a few bolts loose. If they want to proudly serve their country, let them. I have nothing against homo's at all, I only ask one thing: keep it at home. Saw two guys making out on Commercial St. once and almost threw up.

Godsofchaos December 30, 2007 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

"I'm truly done this time, over and out."Anne He will be back. "Neal wants to call it censorship, but I've attempted to point out how bad it is for the S-N image/reputation to associate with such a rabid attack dog loser like Neal, but your response has made it very clear that it's a futile effort since you're birds of a feather."Anne You just figured that out. The only sanely debates with you on this site is Tim King unfortualy he tends to disapper when Neal Feldman and Henry Ruark start to bash peoples chacters instead of debateing the subjuct at hand.

Anne December 30, 2007 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

Editor says to Neal "I recognize that yours was a response." Did you even read what he said?? Neal: "I told him to set a date, time and place and I would be more than happy to say what I say right to his face. The coward has yet to even respond to the challenge much less accept it. Which only underscores his illegitimacy and proves his cowardice. Ah well..." So "he started it" is a valid excuse for your staffer to be calling out readers/commenters to "accept the challenge" of meeting face to face!?! Neal wants to call it censorship, but I've attempted to point out how bad it is for the S-N image/reputation to associate with such a rabid attack dog loser like Neal, but your response has made it very clear that it's a futile effort since you're birds of a feather. I'm truly done this time, over and out.

Godsofchaos December 30, 2007 12:07 pm (Pacific time)

"About 10% of men and women are homosexual." Dr. Phil Leveque I dought it I think 3% would be a more accurate percentage. If it were 1 out of 10 You would see a drastic drop in population since they wouldn't be reproducing themselfs. "Why don't you make a staement contrary to Henry's twisted ideology and then give him your ID so you can do what?"Jefferson What are you talking about I have pointed out Henry Ruark's illogic fallcies before.

Jefferson December 28, 2007 11:04 pm (Pacific time)

Henry so who decides who puts out information you deem perverted or whatever? You!? I will always acknowledge my sources and will provide a link anytime one is requested. You simply do not like those who offer a different opinion/view...you hate it, then you start acting out with your insults. The child feldman acts in the same fashion. When I first came to this site I corrected feldman's statement when he said the military was not meeting their enlistment goals, well I posted a primary source (DOD) that it was. That's when I saw the evasiveness of his character (genetic?) and reviewed his insulting comments to other posters. I could go on, but people like you (and the other moonbats) simply slide away from facts, that's what you do. I guess this site's owner could require that everyone ID's themselves before posting. From my experience the successful websites out there allow people to use a made-up moniker if they so choose. There are safety factors to consider, especially when some moronic loser's have gotten rather pugnacious, which is really stupid for some people, it really is. Anyway, I end this post by again stating that you simply do not like views different than yours and that is probably why you have not enjoyed the success that many professional journalists have. Seems that small statured people frequently act out like that...Napoleon complex? P.S. People, how many of you are simply lurker's out there? Why don't you make a staement contrary to Henry's twisted ideology and then give him your ID so you can do what? Exchange emails with this individual, frankly my time is better used helping other's learn about the dangers of socialists!

Henry Ruark December 28, 2007 12:08 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Secret ballot protects voting rights from precisely the same kind of anonymous open attack for opposition as does ID in this channel, when sought by others seeking same information re to whom they respond as voter does. Every voter knows governing agency involved and thus can respond appropriately.

Henry Ruark December 28, 2007 12:22 pm (Pacific time)

Factual observation for all: "...the left wants to minimize your choices...think about it people!" YES: DO think about all the issues, events, situations, laws, protocols, procedures, and so on, fought for over the years by all seeking freedom. Of all groups, which ones sought to defy and deny the common people's wit, wisdom, and will for many years ? COULD list many, many, but prefer to let you seek your most and dearest ones, and then check to see which side of aisle promoted, and which side of aisle prevented, action on those you hold dear. Truth will truly make you free --if you can recognize and appreciate it.

Henry Ruark December 28, 2007 12:02 pm (Pacific time)

"Anon" or name-only (NO ID) fully acceptable here, until controversial, unproven, irresponsible, obvious distorted or perverted statement made. Then, for continuing honest dialog, any reader needs full knowledge of whence cometh that special interest involved in the distortion/perversion. Social compact under which we all live provides that in conversation since you know your participant..or can find out by face-to-face inquiry. Here, if sought and denied, any reader is thus deprived of essential responsibility and accountability by the person so denying ID. In dialog, as in debate, one has the right to know to whom one speaks. Debate thus provides this as requirement for any formal encounter. "My Momma done tol' me to be very careful what strange old men I had any talk with"...applies here in spades.(No pun intended !) Without it, honest dialog rapidly reduced to horrific defenses and repeated unreal name-calling --as you "have seen with own eyes" in far too many Comments, while tone and value and content of honest exchange on issue, event or story is lost --and Tim is stuck with costs for huge waste of time and effort and attention, from what should, could - MUST, to continue-- return to honest, open, good faith, democratic dialog as in decent conversation with each other --and our original history here, until perverted recently by those who wish to kill off any such channel as this, in any way they can find and manipulate and maneuver, and perhaps as paid shills, too, as other channels have encountered across this nation now. You pays your money to take part here --in responsible relation to all others, as their democratic right--and you have the right to expect that same ongoing responsible, rational, reasonable action from them, too. That way the editor can now abandon what is becoming an overwhelming necessit to surveil every word in every Comment, simply to avoid the legal responsibilities which occur when irresponsible and irrational statement is allowed to occur here. Choice is simple: Respect and relate to others as in normal conversation. Easy test: IF you not ready and willing to sign what you send with full ID -don't send it ! Any action otherwise is both irresponsible and may become dangerous to you later, too, as experience in all publications surely proves to the hilt.

Jefferson December 28, 2007 11:31 am (Pacific time)

People regarding Henry's desire to have everyone ID themselves in their conversations on this site and everywhere else...ask yourself one simple question and wait for HENRY'S NON OR CONVOLUTED RESPONSE: HOW COME THE MEDIA USES "UNNAMED SOURCES" IN THEIR ARTICLES AND/OR BROADCASTS? Not to mention that there are some real crazies out there who might not like your opinions and choose to act out in an unfriendly way. What Henry does is choice, what one does by not putting their real ID is also choice. In my opinion the latter, serves democracy in a much better way, for people have more freedom giving their opinions when they don't have to worry about overt hostility. Maybe Henry does not understand what the secret ballot is for either? At any rate, freedom is about choices, and the left wants to minimize your choices...think about it people!

Jefferson December 28, 2007 11:21 am (Pacific time)

Pam just to let you know, heterosexuals are discharged (some are dishonorable discharges) all the time for their sexual (mis)behaviors, as per military protocol. Feldman simply was a lower ranked enlistee non-combatant who has made a financial (albeit a tiny remunerated one) career out of a brief and mundane military service. His knowledge of the military legal system is like his understanding of his environment. Personally I do not take insults directed at me as personal, so those of you who engage in that behavior, and you know who you are, it has no significant impact. I simply try to offer a different viewpoint on a number of topics, please try to evaluate my posts that way and if not, oh well. When I do get insulted, sure I respond in kind, that's normal behavior, but simply tit for tat. I am a conservative, in that I believe in a limited government, which is not unlike what the majority of Americans desire, as what the Founder's of this country set up. I do not care for socialists, they are such a terrible danger to all of us (and they are responsible for killing tens of millions in the 20th century going back to 1917). Many of these creatures set up here in the states (mainly in New England and New York falsifying birth documents and family histories, which was very easy to do back then) in the 1920's/30's and pass themselves off as something they are not. Many have been and still work in the mass media, including their offspring-a form of nepotism assures them of employment, and even entrance into top university graduate programs ), and they are very sneaky in their approaches to getting control and demonizing those with truthful facts and data. For me they are easy to spot, and they know it!

Neal Feldman December 28, 2007 11:20 am (Pacific time)

Anne (and editor) - It seems you read my words wrong and also ignore who started that that particular thought line... It was the coward who went all on me and others that we 'would not say what we say to their face' (words to that effect)... I merely replied that I most assuredly would say everything I have said here to their face just say where and when. To try change this statement of mine into trying to set up some kinf of gang banging is patently ridiculous. I'm in a wheelchair. Yeah, I go around gang banging all the time don't I? It is no just a taunt at the coward who tries (and fails) to talk like a big man as he hides behind an alias to spew his venom and lies (as Henry has pointed out). And it is amusing how Anne seems to love censorship. Nothing else explains her desperate attempts through ludicrous whining to excise opinions she dislikes but clearly cannot cogently or coherently argue against with any intellectual honesty or success. I know the type well and see them all the time. Ah well...

Editor: Neal, that was a general statement and timing is what it is. Let's just try collectively to keep the fervor down and if anyone's threat slips through and I don't see it please send me an email and I will take care of it. I recognize that yours was a response.

Henry Ruark December 28, 2007 10:50 am (Pacific time)

Anne et al: Any editor always faced with dual responsibilities, Anne...first is to protect right to speak without undue restriction for his writers, second is to do same for readers --all the while making difficult decision as demanded on each separate situation. That's why editors sit in heavily upholstered chairs, that is really concealed protection for essentials vs sure-to-come attack from all sides, well demonstrated here. That green eyeshade we all wear is to protect head, it conceals thin-metal around brain, which also prevents damage from projected brain-waves from some really dangerous perpetrators, always encounted in any open channel environment. Hope that helps; still using my two protective devices, and will welcome any suggestions for others, any time...best I've found is straightforward truth, offered with "see with own eyes" links, per my Dad's original guidance long ago...

Anne December 28, 2007 6:11 am (Pacific time)

Editor -- If you truly want "nothing to do with" this sort of behavior, tell me why oh why Mr Feldman is still listed as one of your staffers?

Anonymous December 28, 2007 6:04 am (Pacific time)

To all: Editor's Comment re seeking public confrontation "right on" and sets solid standard for all to "see with own eyes" and understand completely. No true student of First Amendment will find in it any "right" to abuse and defy and deny to others the sacred privilege of full personal and professional responsibility for any and all statements --that is crux of the matter and precisely why the First was written: To protect the individual from the depredations of both any government AND others so inclined. AND from abuse by those protected by anonymity, too. John Dewey, world-famed educational philosopher and practitioner, has termed conversation as the foundation for democracy. That demands the strong and decent respect for each other usually shown in face-to-face dialog...why should it be any different here ? Anonymity or partial-name seems to provide irresponsible cover for those seeking to assuage personal psychological needs in lieu of responsible, open, honest, democratic dialog, for which this channel is intended: That way we learn from each other, which is what Dewey et al had in mind --and what our Founding Fathers did in most controversial and strongly stated dialogs ever written: The Federalist Papers. "See with own eyes" in any standard edition, for still further guidance here !!! They signed their stuff, too, sometimes only after being requested to do so...pseudo/name was standard practice then, always open to such request for those who did not recognize the writers.

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 10:34 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark - And let us not forget the coward's refusal to accept my challenge. He accused me or someone else of being too cowardly to say what we are saying to his face and I told him to set a date, time and place and I would be more than happy to say what I say right to his face. The coward has yet to even respond to the challenge much less accept it. Which only underscores his illegitimacy and proves his cowardice. Ah well...

Editor: This is the last time that you will ever see anything published with a reference toward using this news site as a place to set up confrontation. I can't believe you guys. This is wrong and it won't be tolerated. It is pathetic that anyone would consider actually meeting in public over comments on this Website. You need to seriously consider the implications and refrain from using Salem-News.com for this.
Freedom of what?
By the way, if anyone actually thinks that a business is a democracy they need to go read a dictionary. As fair as we like to believe we are, this is not a democracy it is a business and therefore there is no such thing as freedom of speech. This isn't a public institution, it is a news site for Oregon. So don't complain about being censored, we'll flush any comment that we want to and if a person doesn't like it they can go somewhere else for their news. We rarely flush comments but it isn't every day we have to deal with people letting written words escalate into "meeting in public." We want nothing to do with it and we won't facilitate it.

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 10:31 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous - QQ world's smallest violin playing just for you. So everyone not bowing and kissing your feet at your every utterance dooms the site to medicrity, eh? I would say you are doomed to mediocrity but that would be an insult to mediocrity. Ah well...

Henry Ruark December 27, 2007 1:35 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Thomas with such terrific Army experience, I note, never ever mentions Marines and especially Gen. Smedley Butler. This is simple test, to see if he does know but conceals historic situation, which I would do too in his place since his handling once again confirms his fraudulent status, easy to disprove: Simple ID to editor, while there is still time, for direct, friendly, open, honest contact...on my end that is, as proven here allatime until tough hide finally pierced by direct lies.

Anonymous December 27, 2007 9:55 pm (Pacific time)

This news site is destined for mediocrity. This will be my last post, ever, because I recognize the futility of trying to carry on any sort of reasonable dialog. Thanks for the discourse on how to attack opposite viewpoints into "submission." Tim and Bonnie, good luck with your site and good luck with the idiots working for you.

Anonymous December 27, 2007 8:57 pm (Pacific time)

Reader Joe - Annoyance is a shade of anger. And you evidenced fear as well... you were so afraid those gay guys were checking you out or that they might come on to you. It came through in your initial post quite clearly. So Al seems to have you pegged on both counts. No matter how much you try and dig yourself out you just keep digging yourself deeper. Kinda funny to watch actually. This is why I oppose censorship. Those like you always expose the lacking of credibility inherent in their arguments eventually. You just did it on your first post. Gotta give ya points for efficiency! Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 8:51 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas - You bring clueless to new levels. The example you bring up from Vietnam has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with abuse of authority. That is hardly limited to homosexuals. And you rant and rave that in the military all should be treated equal but then you argue supporting a policy which, to take from Animal Farm, has some 'more equal than others', don't you? And you clearly lack the intellect or perception to see the unbridled hypocrisy and inconsistency in your arguments. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 8:46 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas Your feeble and pathetic delusional attempts at ad homina against me and others is obvious on its face. It is clearly you who have no experience (or intellect or education that you have demonstrated) of any significance. Throw your spitballs of impotence all you like, they will have all the effect of a baby's sneeze against the hull of a fully functioning battleship. Delusion is a sad sad thing to watch, as someone meanders so completely out of touch with reality as you clearly demonstrate yourself to be. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 8:39 pm (Pacific time)

Pam - Sorry but your claims lack merit. Folks can form bonds that have no sexual component where they will treat the object of the bond differently than they treat others, etc. If such develops it is up to the chain of command to remove such 'couples', be they sexually bonded or otherwise, into different units, divisions, etc so as to not have the relationship undermine effectiveness. As you pointed out this can even be heterosexuals... yet heterosexuals are not kicked out with dishonorable discharges that wreck the rest of their lives. Only gays are. Do you see the problem yet? I hear Margie Phelps is recruiting. Maybe you, Thomas and Reader Joe should give her a call. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 27, 2007 8:34 pm (Pacific time)

Reader Joe Your BS is laughable. Define the terms all you like it is still not name-calling. It seems it is you on drugs to believe that accurate description of evidenced traits is name-calling. Clearly your operating definition of name-calling is "Anything that might in some way put Reader Joe i a non-positive light". And you wonder why I and others laugh so hard at your ridiculous antics. Ah well...

Reader Joe December 27, 2007 4:43 pm (Pacific time)

You ask, "Why focus on homosexuals?" --- In my scenario, they were the subject of the experience. I think you are wrong stating that "Annoyance is a form of anger or resentment." You might have been right in that "Discomfort can be in the form of fear and or anger." Operative "can be"] However not all discomfort is based on these two traits. I was neither afraid nor angry at gays in the shower with me. Uncomfortable, yes. I did not focus on avoiding the situation, ergo, no phobia. I was annoyed that I did not simply have my own shower, and could be alone when cleaning. I guess that annoyance was compounded by the fact that I had to shower with anyone, including gays, which I would have avoided in a naked situation if given the choice and the opportunity or chance. I never stated an opposition to gay people, in the military or otherwise.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 1:38 pm (Pacific time)

Hey Thomas, Why don't you use your real name? You don't have the guts. My agenda is to stop propagation of stereotypes that keep people from living full lives. I have had relatives in the American military, the German military, the British military, and the military in Argentina. Don't tell me about the military. It is basically the same where ever you go.

Thomas December 27, 2007 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

Marnell thanks for making my point. People as I wrote below Albert will avoid the issue here (he has no choice, he is ignorant1) and get to the agenda he has been cursed with, which is, well you'll figure it out in due time...The taxpayer sure does control the military, as it should, and the controlling powers sure don't agree with people who know absolutely nothing/zippo about the military like so many of you out there...but the mentally ill and the sociopaths will continue...I assume the Feldman character is warming up now, so we can embrace even more mediocrity from the Goron loser.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

To all: You are fighting for the Bilderberg whether you know it or not. Before you get all red, white and blue, read about this group of global elite and how they control our government and corporations. The military is part of the military industrial complex and is under their control. With all of your sacrifices, I think you should know who you are really fighting for and what their selfish interests are. Google "Bilderberg" and learn something that you should have known about years ago.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Anon, Read the last three sentences that Reader Joe wrote. He too uses anxiety (fear) in conjunction to the word discomfort.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 1:02 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas, The taxpayer keeps the military going and the loons are already in power. The military is being used as an excuse for corrupt officials to award big contracts. The enemy is within. All war is for profit in the end. It is all about $$$$$$$$ and power.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 12:50 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas, If you think that you are not bitter you are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with being bitter. It is a natural reaction to many circumstances that might occur in life. You also want to talk about "One Case" that occurred 40 years ago. Every case stands on its own. Every individual stands on their own and should be judged accordingly.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

Anon, You are doing the painting based on a few subjective observations. Mental discomfort can only mean one of two emotions and the shades and nuances that they manifest themselves in....fear and or anger. I did not deny that you observed something in the showers but I am sure that during the course of a day you observe lots of things. We all do. Why focus on homosexuals? Annoyance is a form of anger or resentment. Discomfort can be in the form of fear and or anger. Discomfort does not only mean that you have a runny nose or that your chair is too hard.

Anonymous December 27, 2007 11:22 am (Pacific time)

Albert, If you took the time to look up the simple word, "discomfort", you would find that it has nothing to do with fear. Only in your mind can you convolute this discussion. I thought my initial post was quite simple, benign, and clear. Why make it into anything more than it was? Discomfort: noun 1. Mental or bodily distress. 2. Something that disturbs one's comfort; an annoyance. --- For the record, I do not hate gays, I do not fear gays, I do not think gays should be discriminated against. But I did share an observation that was real. So your attempts to paint me into anything that I am not means that you will stop at nothing to further your OWN agenda, rather than accept any value from honest discourse.

Reader Joe December 27, 2007 11:13 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you must be smoking some medical marijane. You said, on only your FIRST post, that I showed ignorance, and that I suffered from paranoid homophobia. So that you might be educated: hobia is "a symptom neurosis, characterized by a pathological fear of a particular object or situation, and the consequent attempts to avoid them. The feared situation or object leads to the feeling of fright by providing stimuli to the activation of repressed wishes, usually oedipal, and the defenses against these wishes. Because the source of this fright is unconscious, the attempt (of) avoiding the external situation (moderates) that fear, but it will not cure the phobia." Also read the following to discover what you really don't know about with your sophmoric (moronic?!) name calling: The editor of the book Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price (1992), Warren J. Blumenfeld ("writer and gay activist") has organized its 17 chapters so that the concepts of homophobia, anti- homosexuality, social and religious prejudice, and treating homosexuality as a complex symptom, are all treated as being part of the same expression of irrational anti-homosexuality and homophobia. He (Blumenfeld) refers to four types of homophobia: 1. Personal homophobia "a personal belief system (a prejudice) that sexual minorities either deserve to be pitied as unfortunate beings who are powerless to control their desires or should be hated; that they are psychologically disturbed, genetically defective, unfortunate misfits, that their existence contradicts the laws" of nature, that they are spiritually immoral, infected pariahs, disgusting - to put it quite simply, that they are generally inferior to heterosexuals. 2. Institutional homophobia "refers to the ways in which governments, businesses, and educational, religious, and professional organizations systematically discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or identity." 3. Interpersonal homophobia occurs "when a personal bias or prejudice affects relations among individuals, transforming prejudice into its active component - discrimination." 4. Cultural homophobia occurs when "the social norms or codes of behavior that, although not expressly written into law or policy, nonetheless work within a society to legitimize oppression." The comments in response to the Annual of Psychoanalysis (XXX) are even more applicable to the Blumenfeld book. There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature, as described earlier. There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined. It is somewhat similar to what occurred 100 years ago when a diagnosis was made of Ague. That label referred to any kind of ache or pain; from the mildest inconsequential ache to a severe debilitating condition. There was little understanding of the various normal and abnormal entities that could exist under that rubric. In a similar fashion, Blumenfeld and others are doing the same with the term homophobia. Their purpose may be sincere and in some contexts useful. However, the approach is unscientific and not useful in the diagnostic/therapeutic sphere. It can even be used by some individuals in an anti-therapeutic manner. Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific and decidedly anti-therapeutic. Even in the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health (Cabaj, 1996) published and sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association, the position is taken that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality and not a mental illness. There is no doubt that homophobia exists. There is also no doubt that there are rationalized and irrational anti-homosexual attitudes. However, it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric. With this in mind, let us examine the topic of homophobia, as would be correctly defined and limited as a true phobic reaction Discussion (Part I) Minor amounts of anxiety or discomfort in dealing with homosexuality is like any other anxiety response. The individual knows there is no reality to their discomfort and responds generally within normal social limits. They are aware of their discomfort and recognize that they can rationalize that response, or they will deal with it in a therapeutic relationship.

Thomas December 27, 2007 11:12 am (Pacific time)

As I extrapolated, those with no experience will engage in the most commentary about something they know nothing of. Feldman you are an extremely unremarkable individual who has no experience in anything of real substance, and you know that. You are a very bitter person as is Albert, and no matter the topic you will always develop your verbiage to accomodate that narrow- minded agenda you have been cursed with. People I will tell you of one case well over 40 years ago: There was a field grade officer in Vietnam who had been abusing lower ranked enlisted personnel and threated them if they told anyone he would put them in deathly harm's way. You must try to attempt to realize that in an infantry unit in combat, an officer or a senior NCO literally has the power of life and death over their subordinates...this is a fact that I'm sure those "real" combat veterans who may be reading this understand. Furthermore there is a very strict "chain of command" in these types of units and if you violate that chain, you get into some serious hotwater. Couple all this with the fact most of these victims are very young and really don't know what to do...we even have records of suicides, awols, and desertions in these situations. Now regarding this above officer, a young Captain working in military intelligence got wind of this criminal behavior, developed the evidence and not only got the offending officer put in prison but also his battalion commander who admitted knowing about the behavior but did nothing. Both of these officers are dead having passed away in a lovely prison back in Kansas. I still have a shot of single-malt on the anniversary of their deaths. Good riddance. There are hundreds of similar events as the above over the years, how many lives have been cut short or ruined, I would imagine that it is in the thousands. The U.S. military is what keeps America going, we do not compare ourselves with other country's military, why should we. I have no doubt that the sociopaths and the mentally ill that post on this site will make some flippant comments, but you really should get on your knees and pray that some loons do not get into power and negatively impact our military with some type of social experimentation. Our military is about killing the enemy, something we excell in, believe me, we do! Note: The UCMJ is designed to treat all equally. That's why whether you are some lower enlisted non-combatant like that Feldman character, or some member of an elite combat unit, they all are equal under military law. We cannot make exceptions! As far as civilian life, it has no comparison with the military, so you perverts can simply stay out of the military if you cannot control your behavior. It would be great if the media continually played back the behavior of the homo behaviors and how they act out in public, e.g. halloween in the Bay area, even Portland. Real classy!

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 9:34 am (Pacific time)

Pam, People in the military have to behave in a professional way. If not they should be held accountable on an individual basis. This includes all personnel. In most cases you would not know who is gay and who is straight unless they told someone. I met a higher up in the AirForce that was married had 5 children and relatively late in life realized his preferences. The type of problems that Units can run into is endless. Why focus on and manufacture scenarios about sexuality? As I said before you may have two people regardless of gender or orientation that hate each other because one of them lost a bet on a football game. People have to get beyond their personal hatred and hang-ups and be professional. If they can not do this, they should be removed.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 9:23 am (Pacific time)

Reader Joe, Discomfort is being afraid. Of course I do not have you totally figured out but a few things are rather obvious.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 9:19 am (Pacific time)

James, I made up the word trisexual as a way waking people up to the endless expressions of human sexuality. It was a joke to make a point.

James December 27, 2007 7:54 am (Pacific time)

I hate to break up this wonderful dialogue but I have to ask Albert, What the hell is TRISEXUAL?

Neal Feldman December 26, 2007 10:55 pm (Pacific time)

Reader Joe - You do not pay attention. I never claimed to be a newsman.. that is Henry and Tim and others. I write commentaries... IOW my opinion. And nowhere did I call you ant names. I merely accurately pointed out certain anti-social aspects you displayed and continue to display. Your desperate attempts at redirection do not alter the facts in any way. But do continue as it is you digging the hole and losing credibility, not I. But are you paying attention enough to get it yet? Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 26, 2007 10:51 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas Om my poor delusional fellow... no name-calling on my part... just accurate description whether you like it or not. But making sense has never been one of your strong points now has it? Ah well...

Pam December 26, 2007 8:45 pm (Pacific time)

I've never beem in the military, but it seems to me that the unit must rely on everyone in it to do their jobs, regardless of what the other people in that unit are doing. I think that in combat, a sexually-mixed unit will run into problems. When people of the opposite sex (or gay men, for that matter) work together closely for a long period of time, personal relationships often develop. This can cause a breakdown in the effectiveness of the unit, since the partners tend to keep an eye out for each other, which sounds like a good thing, but it's not. My sister met her husband on a fire-fighting line. Mark was endangering himself and others whenever Shelly was out of sight, he was worried about her, instead of taking care of business. Is a military unit so different? You need to know that everyone in that unit is concentrating on their job, so that the unit can survive. So what do you do? Limit one gay man per unit? Restrict gays to non-combat duty - like they've done with women? And then there's the problem of identifying the homophobes, who would intentionally not support (to say the least) the gay trooper. All-gay units obviously wouldn't work either. So there are logistical problems that need to be overcome. Unless you know of a way to keep people from falling in love!

Reader Joe December 26, 2007 8:45 pm (Pacific time)

Albert, exactly what was the attack on gays that I made? I shared a personal observation and personal feelings. That is all. And - - - just because you profess to be an expert at sexuality, don't believe for a second that you have me figured out, because you don't have the faintest clue. I am neither a homophone (afraid of gays) nor a closet fag. I simply shared my feelings of discomfort at having had to take showers with gay men. There were others in my unit that didn't like it either.

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

Reader Joe, You are the one who is making personal attacks on the character of gay people that you do not even know. Anything that I wrote is nothing compared to what you hear during political campaigns. I was not trying to hurt your feelings. I was only trying to get you to think. One of my hobbies of study in my life has been human sexuality. It is at the point where there is not much left that I have not heard or do not know. I am sure in time something new will come along. Basically there is nothing new under the sun that hasn't existed for thousands of years.

Reader Joe December 26, 2007 7:25 pm (Pacific time)

Yeah, Neal and Albert, you both are really open-minded. Enough to let another have their feeling/understanding without personal attacks and name calling. Mature? I thought you were quite a bit older, based on your bio at Salem-News, but you continue to dig yourself a hole and are losing credibility as a newsman. Grow up and acknowledge that, even if others do not agree with you, that neither makes you nor them "right". Your ongoing tirades show a lack of self respect, and your lack of self discipline is going to get you into serious trouble someday. Ah well... Oh well... -- Grow Up!

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

T.J., Since civilians pay taxes to the people who finance conflict (Rockefellers and Rothchilds), I think they have a say in how things are run. The military is in service of the people, not the other way around. Unfortunately most conflict is created by global bankers who finance both sides for profit and most of the public falls for it. See "End Game" by Alex Jones.

Henry Ruark December 26, 2007 6:34 pm (Pacific time)

Re "3-year Army reporter" this is what I wrote: "Sorry to see such ongoing anti-solicitude in column intended for open, friendly, honest, sharing dialog from which we can all learn. But perhaps we will learn, from such continuance here." So we DO learn, from same ongoing recalcitrance from reality as displayed here, no matter what behind-tree name is signed.

Thomas December 26, 2007 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

As mentioned earlier, one does not compare the military with civilian behaviors as Alburt Morneel does, for they have absolutely nothing in common in terms of what is needed for the military to function as it is meant to, i.e. , with high unit cohesiveness. Unfortunately there will be poster's who simply cannot understand that concept nor be familiar with what has happened when homosexuals acted out when they were in positions of power that caused the deaths/injuries of far too many military personnel especially during times of combat (though several of you could care less, so I'm sure you will continue with your meaningless gibberish..."garbage in, garbage out", a common template for ignorant morons). This is far more serious that what even the damage pedophiles cause, far more serious, and look at the damage these perverts cause. Military prisons are full of criminals who used their positions of power for their own perverted self-interest. What happens in civilian life is an entirely different matter. I'm sure many of you veterans have your ancedotal experiences, but the military justice system has been dealing with this matter for countless generations and have crafted methods (in a fluid/dynamic way) for dealing with this unwanted behavior. Even for that individual who believes his time as a military reporter is relevant, it is not, it is experience based on command experience, long time command experience that allows for a better understanding as to why this behavior can never be openly tolerated. And when officers or senior NCO's engage in this behavior, when caught, they will go to prison, as they should! For those of you who have not been in the military, your opinions are based on nothing, absolutely nothing, and that is the sum value of those unremarkable opinions, nothing. I certainly value your comments though, for you simply verify that civilian input into this behavior is absurd and will/should be ignored. Deal with it! Note: This topic could have been a great one for reasoned debate until the Feldman started the name-calling business with Reader Joe, something overlooked by the 3 year Army reporter, on purpose? It appears that this Feldman does this to everyone who offers a different opinion. I wonder why?

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 6:15 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas, What makes you think that unit cohesiveness is based on sexual orientation? Speak for yourself only. Heterosexual men do not always get along with other heterosexual men and may prefer to work side by side with a homosexual or bisexual or trisexual man. In so many countries, sexual orientation is not an issue in the military. Israel is a good example. I can not understand how in this day and age that people are still so emotionally unevolved that they would be frightened of someone else's orientation.

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Anon, That is quite a stretch. I would skip the high school bit because of age issues. Your values are as prescriptive as mine. They are subjective. In Belgium they have had unisex bathrooms for decades. In time, you may have come up with the right solution. Maybe everyone eventually will be put together. It might enable them to develop self-control and real discipline. If you are going to put gay men with straight women then you might as well have everyone together like the "Brady Bunch". Men are men, gay or straight. In the long run, you may have come up with the real solution....everyone together...big deal. Congratulations!

Neal Feldman December 26, 2007 5:43 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous - How do you handle bisexuals then? I suggest soldiers be adults, grow up and the bigots deal with it. If you can rush a machine gun emplacement when ordered showering with a gay person of the same sex really kinda pales in the great scheme of things, you know? Get a clue. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 26, 2007 5:40 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous - The idiotic tirades seem to be coming from you and the neocon nitwit. As to your 'my brother is gay' so what? That does not mean you support equality... your terms and attitudes here prove that conclusively. You can put forth weak denials all you like... changes nothing. You exhibit clear paranoid homophobia... of that there is no doubt. That you seem unwilling to be honest with yourself about it is quite telling indeed. As for 'my brother says fag' I lodge that with black folks using 'nigger' but whites best not try it. Same concept. The fact is there is ZERO legitimate reason to cater to bigoted paranoid homophobes in military policy and if you are a soldier you shower with who you are ordered to shower with... period. But you continue to whine that you views are not 'respected' and my retort is that they are respected fa more than you seem to respect those who wish to serve their country honorably who happen to be gay. I recall similar issues were raised with letting blacks, Asians, Latinos and women into the military. It seems to have survives them and it will survive gays as well. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 26, 2007 5:32 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas - Ah Jefferson... switching to the first name now? I called no name.. I correctly identified an attribute... 'your paranoid homophobia'. It is glaringly obvious and clearly demonstrated. Your pathetically feeble attempts at ad homina aside I never claimed to be 'a newsman'. I write commentaries.... which is to say my opinion, of which I assure you I am far more familiar with than anyome else on the planet. But we need only consider your history and your ludicrous ravings to see you habe no credibility, likely never have and surely, with your continued antics, never will. Amusing that someone who hides behind aliases calls me 'evasive'. Still cowardly avoiding my challenge? Not surprising. Ah well...

Anonymous December 26, 2007 4:58 pm (Pacific time)

Albert, maybe we should let all people in high school, college and the military just shower with everyone else, and anyone who feels uncomfortable will have to just conform to your prescriptive values. Just because anyone might have sexual thoughts about others should not matter. Putting someone in the environment and forcing them to just "deal with it" is the issue. Should they be in the military? Sure, why not. But how are we going to deal with the sexuality issues? Put gay guys with straight women?

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 4:01 pm (Pacific time)

To All: The years of accumulated data is the same kind of data used to keep women and blacks and others out of the military. The data is crap and does not hold water. From 1907 to at least the 1960s there were forced sterilization laws on the books in about 50% of the states. They used contrived and convoluted data to justify eugenic sterilization. The military is a democracy. You can not do whatever you want to military personnel. They are not prisoners, slaves or property. So you can throw that argument out of the window. By the way, Hitler got his ideas about sterilization from the U.S. and England. A person should be judged by their behavior alone and not thrown automatically into some damn category because of people who are ignorant about human sexuality or anything else. Furthermore if I ever had homosexual feelings or thoughts I do not see that as something to be scared of or taken offense by. Our minds are free to wander and not be convicted of thought crimes.

Henry Ruark December 26, 2007 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Basic issue here is human rights, to which this one by well-known once-conservative leader surely applies: We Are All Prisoners Now By Paul Craig Roberts All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18954.htm

Henry Ruark December 26, 2007 3:44 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas et al: At risk of seeming to avoid issue, let me thank T. for his solid summary of real military administration problem, which I know from 3 yrs dealing with somewhat similar issues as military writer, both on and off Army base. Re other parts of this discussion, prefer to remain silent, lest I earn opprobrium undeserved from one or the other "side". Sorry to see such ongoing anti-solicitude in column intended for open, friendly, honest, sharing dialog from which we can all learn. But perhaps we will learn, from such continuance here.

Anonymous December 26, 2007 12:11 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks for the support, Thomas. And Vic, the word "queer" was used in the article. I just mirrored its use. My brother uses the term "fag" all the time, and i don't think it is meant to be derogatory. Neal, if you has to shower a couple a times a day in a community shower for a couple years, you tend to eventually notice things. And, the gays were not afraid to come onto guys, and sexually harass them, if we didn't tell them to "back off". So you are still all muttering nonsense. If this is going to be a real news site, the newspeople need to develop a sense of credibility. Not attack people for sharing their views. There is enough of that on other news forums! I get the fact that you don't agree with me and think I have a small member and am not educated (e.g., never read books.) I also understand your feelings about by repressed sexuality (which seems to often be the response from people when confronted with honest comments like mine.) Did you forget the fact that my brother is gay? I love him to death, and while I don't fully understand "gayness" I certainly believe that they have a right to co-exist. I just don't want them showering with me. That was my initial point that seems to be lost in the idiotic tirades.

Vic December 26, 2007 11:27 am (Pacific time)

Reader Joe sounds homophobic to me....note the use of words like "queers" (havent heard that since the 70s) and "fags" ...kind of like saying "I'm not racist, I just dont like niggers, kikes, spics or wops"

Thomas December 26, 2007 10:28 am (Pacific time)

Reader Joe: "Evasive Feldman" is no newsman! Too much information regarding your self-analysis Marnel, you're speaking for yourself and your homosexual-feelings, but not others, please keep that in mind. Thank you. People when it comes to military policy regarding the "Don't ask, don't tell", there is a lot of time and professional experience involved that I would venture to guess that none of you, including the author of the above article, have any significant background in. There is a vast array of reasoning and years of accumulated data (legal and sociological) that has gone into this; please don't try to compare the military with civilian behaviors (or your brief and limited observations while in the military), for the military simply is not a democracy and there are very good reasons for that. For one to truely grasp why military policies like this are made you need military (command, and command is the operative word here people) experience in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner. Unit cohesiveness is bigger and more important than individual rights! Because the UCMJ impacts all equally, whether you are some lower enlisted non-combatant navy dude like this Feldman character, or an actual combatant, the UCMJ administers the same way for everyone, suffice, you cannot have special rights for some and not the others who must have a highly cohesive and disciplined environment. When someone calls someone a name like this Feldman character does, i.e. , "your paranoid homophobia" , it simply acknowledges his incredible level of ignorance. From my analysis of his comments on this website, I'm sure he will continue to illustrate how incredibly uninformed he is. Count on it!

Albert Marnell December 26, 2007 5:57 am (Pacific time)

Anon, It's not a gift. It's common sense. You have a problem with sexuality in general. Read a book by Amy Bloom called "Normal". Then you will not sound so ignorant when it comes to human sexuality. What is your position on Hermaphrodites? You are making cliche generalizations that make you lose all credibility. When was the last time you went to a library or bought a book? There are plenty of books and research on human sexuality. "They" would remain in the shower to check out everyone. How would you know this unless you were checking "Them" out?

Anonymous December 25, 2007 8:57 pm (Pacific time)

They would remain in the shower to check out everyone. I don't think I said anything about them looking at me. And, surely, as you point out so scathingly, they were not looking at me at all, 'cause I ain't got anything to look at. Of course. You folks sure get riled up easily when people post honest feelings. I'm not a homophobe. Just felt like commenting. Sorry to get you riled up. And from what I wrote, how would you have even known what I had to look at? I did not know you were a mindreader, but you also know that I have homosexuality on my mind as well... You should make money from your gift.

Albert Marnell December 25, 2007 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

Reader Joe, In order for you to notice people looking at you, you have to be staring at them. What gives? When men check out other men in a shower it is usually because they are comparing themselves and may want to be as built or large (in more ways then one). You are the one with homosexuality on the brain. Maybe you have suppressed impulses and desires. From what you wrote, I do not know why anyone would want to talk to you...let alone look. What have you got that is so special?

Reader Joe December 25, 2007 12:39 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, as a newsman, you should not jump down others' opinions so quickly. I have friends who are gay, and I do not dislike them. My comment was an honest statement of how I felt in a specific experience. And they did have the behaviors that I reflected upon, whether you agree with them or not. And, they lost their security clearances because they would continue to frequent places that were considered off-limits due to drug use. Some of them would blatantly disregard the rules. I am not saying that straight people did not lose their clearances as well, just not as many. As a newsman, you should be less aggressive to your readers. You called me a bigot without even knowing me. Would it make a difference to your perceptions if you knew I was Jewish, married to a Hispanic woman and that my brother is queer, and proud of it? P.S. Merry Christmas Ah, well...

Neal Feldman December 24, 2007 12:10 am (Pacific time)

Reader Joe - I think the ignorance shown by you is quite telling, as is your paranoid homophobia. As for security clearances since being gay generally caused such losses due to the homophobic environment of the military that is like saying blacks tan more in the sun. In both cases there was something of an environmental head start involved. But whether you like it or not you showered with homosexuals.. you may not have known it though. They rarely brand it upon their foreheads (though for all I know a few might). Personally I would rather have a homosexual male or female in the military than the bigoted likes of you. At least they would almost surely have a higher intellect than that you have displayed here. Ah well...

Reader Joe December 22, 2007 11:16 am (Pacific time)

Well, I was uncomfortable when I had to shower around the queers when I was in the military. They would tend to take extra long showers and sit and stare. So, maybe you liked it, but I would rather they were not around. They were also more promiscuous and tended to lose their security clearances at a higher rate than non-fags.

[Return to Top]

Army Homosexuals: Let Them Serve

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News