By Plain Truth

February 17, 2010 1:39 AM | Link to this

The majority of Ohioians are not open minded but closed on sexual perverted marraiges, Voters have turned this BS down in 31 consecutive states. Hw about the 18 year old that was picked up in a van and raped by a man is that permited or the people that are pushing to allow sex with children. There is a percentage of people that only want children for sex, there is a percentage that can only feel sexually satisfied when raping, why not leagalize any kind of sex that is wanted desired no matter the consequences, NOT!!! This will never happen there are too many people that would see that this never passes. There would have to be gay bathrooms and then there would have to be lesbian bathrooms so as not to erouse the person next to you in a latrine perverted sexual desires. Gays are put in prison in other countries and some countries put them to death leagally so the Military would be limited in where they could send them. So so much for allowing gay/leasbians to serve openly in the US Military.

By carpe.noctem1962@att.net

February 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Link to this

I’m glad to see that the majority of Ohioans are open-minded enough to want to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. We can’t afford to discriminate against people who want to serve our country and who are qualified to do so.

By carpe.noctem1962@att.net

February 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Link to this

I’m glad to see that the majority of Ohioans are open-minded enough to want to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. We can’t afford to discriminate against people who want to serve our country and who are qualified to do so.

By fortressdayton

February 16, 2010 12:03 PM | Link to this

If I may wade through the emotions and insecurities for the moment…? Inappropriate conduct is dealt with in the UCMJ -it is not gender specific. The arguments against are gut-level and hard to remove. Think for a moment how this sounds: Remove all men from the military so they can’t rape female soldiers. It would work but it wouldn’t make much sense. I agree flaunting your sexuality is improper…for heterosexuals too. Don’t hold hands or kiss in public; don’t wear rings that announce your marriage…kinda sounds like the Taliban….Taliban are fundamentalists, and… Oh, I get it now!!! Before you ban gays from serving in the military, you should start with your priests and ministers of the churches that perpetuate this hate. And who do they serve when they go after our kids? God? Bunch of hypocrites.

By Vietnam Vet

February 15, 2010 11:36 PM | Link to this

Better off leaving it as is Don’t tell don’t ask policy. Otherwise if they are sent to the front lines and get shot they will/could claim that the commander or sarg did not like them and intentionally got them hurt to get rid of them. Personally I am fed up with the gay/lesbian BS. Why should this country change laws for 1-2% of the population that are perverts by choice? Definition of pervert is something deviate. Deviate from what? From what is accepted as the Norm. I will never quit supoorting the movement against such perverted behavior. It is perverted because they desire to tell all there sex life in the public.

By ironmyke

February 15, 2010 11:11 PM | Link to this

“By a 57-36 percent margin, voters say gays should be able to serve openly.” End DADT now. It’s just the right thing to do. These folks are members of our families, neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens and taxpayers who have been serving our country selflessly for generations. It’s unconstitutional, indecent, and immoral to deny them the same rights other American citizens have.

By Raoul

February 15, 2010 5:15 PM | Link to this

Gays can serve in General Gaylord’s battalion - “we’re very disciplined.”

By Ignorance is bliss

February 15, 2010 11:34 AM | Link to this

oh yes here we go again…the ignorants are out in full force. If being gay is unnatural then why does it occur naturally in nature in just about every animal species. It seems to be a natural occurrence and expression of sexuality in animal polulatoions of all kinds, including humans. So when you say unnatural, you are being ignorant. God made gay people and animals too. So what you are saying is because they cant produce children? Well then infertile women who cant bear children are unnatural too according to you. Shut your ignorant a*s up. NO one cares about your redneck stupid a*s opinion

By slav

February 12, 2010 1:03 PM | Link to this

Good God. This is the well thought out answer to those who believe promiscuous sex between anyone is unhealthy: send your kids to die in wars so the sodomites can continue to party. To quote my favorite saying from the 60’s…let this place burn. It’s no longer worth it.

By fortressdayton

February 11, 2010 6:09 PM | Link to this

First: the only thing unnatural is that which cannot do. Second: Many gay men and women serve proudly to protect your freedom to criticize who they choose to sleep with. Your own fears and insecurities are yours; don’t presume to pass them on to others. Personally, I would suggest the ban not be lifted, so that the bigots can send THEIR children to die in the next senseless conflict our weak-chinned, slobbering politicians choose to wage.

By Tired of it all

February 11, 2010 8:59 AM | Link to this

I am tired of the slow changes occuring that is attempting to prove that un-nautural relationships are OK. It is a eventual legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states, what you do behind your OWN closed doors is up to you, I don’t want to see it flaunted.

By right

February 10, 2010 7:30 PM | Link to this

It’s all about LOVE..isn’t it big guy.

By very true

February 10, 2010 2:01 PM | Link to this

That’s right laughing bouy. Because I know I can’t leave my house without worry that some gay man will just go after me out of the blue simply because he’s gay. One would think in 2010 this kind of ignorance wouldn’t see the light of day, but there you go.

By Tsgt

February 10, 2010 1:29 PM | Link to this

There are gays in all the military branches, they just don’t show it which is the way it should be. What you do behind closed doors is your business. Just don’t go walking hand in hand on base, because I know for sure that you would get a nice blanket party.

By hahaha

February 10, 2010 1:04 PM | Link to this

No Eisenhower did not have gays on his staff. That was Major General Hobart Gay….nice try but having a last name of Gay doesn’t make him gay. And the reason this country WAS successful on D Day was because we were FOCUSED on saving our a$$…not grabbing one.

By sigh

February 10, 2010 12:43 PM | Link to this

Dave’s right. No one seems to be people whose opinions are most important in this case. @ moose: you realize there’s still debate as to whether women should be in the military at all, right?

By to moose

February 10, 2010 12:33 PM | Link to this

Your topic is dealt with in the UCMJ. In other words if a soldier does that to a female troop he is court martialed. End of story. Your argument makes no sense.

By openely???

February 10, 2010 12:18 PM | Link to this

What does openly mean? Anal and oral sex at will in the barracks? Who cares what your sex life consists of…if you put on a uniform pick up a gun..NOONE SHOULD KNOW OR CARE. The only ones making this an issue are the gays..truly noone in the military cares and doesn’t want to know. The only way they end up knowing is when a gay can’t keep his mouth shut, approaches another non gay or is looking for a lawsuit.

By drunken orangetree

February 10, 2010 11:46 AM | Link to this

More time and emotion wasted on bigotry. Thanks America.

By guess what?

February 10, 2010 11:34 AM | Link to this

There always have been gays in the military, Dave. They just couldn’t admit it. General Eisenhower actually had quite a few on his staff, and we somehow got through D-Day ok.

By Dave

February 10, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this

How about taking a poll of only those in the armed services? I’d guess the result would be very different. As a vet, I know I wouldn’t want gays in the military…

By moose

February 10, 2010 11:14 AM | Link to this

I am embarrassed and ashamed of the parts of my nation’s military that do not appreciate the sacrifices and work that the gay and lesbian soldiers have perforrmed in the past. If a soldier saves my life in a foxhole in a war, who in the world cares if it is a he or a she, or is gay or straight? And if people are concerned about possibly being sexually harrassed in the military, ask the female soldiers how they cope with it. there is so much heterosexual sexual harassment, and it is NOT okay. Grow up folks. DADT is flat out wrong.

By Vetteman

February 10, 2010 11:08 AM | Link to this

DADT, works, so do not fix it.Being a Veteran, I beleive Gay people SHOULD NOT be considered for military duty,but if they are going to serve, why do they feel it,s so vital that their sexual pref.be announced? Do straight soldiers reveal their sexual pref? Leave it alone. Serve your country, but leave your abnormal sexual behavior to yourself.

By null

February 10, 2010 10:46 AM | Link to this

Being homosexual does not mean one is going to try to sleep with every single person who is the same sex they are. Or does taxpayer worry about getting sexually attacked every time they are in a room with, well, anyone else, apparently.

By Tad Weitz

February 10, 2010 10:45 AM | Link to this

No…they should not be allowed in. As a vet we do not need them in

By taxpayer

February 10, 2010 10:25 AM | Link to this

dude…. you are right on……….as soon as men & women can stay in the same Barraks and shower together then it would be O.K. for men attracted to men to do the same……

By Jim

February 10, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this

It should be kept the way that it is now. That’s a pretty good compromise, IMO. We wouldn’t be open to female and male soldiers bunking and showering together, would we? This is no different.