Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[MADAMESINCERE]

So how do you guys think it will go over in the military if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is overturned? As a nation we have become more accepting of homosexuals, but how will it effect the military?

[ChiefB]

So how do you guys think it will go over in the military if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is overturned? As a nation we have become more accepting of homosexuals, but how will it effect the military?

There is about 1000 posts on this subject over at the DADT forums at: http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=83

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

What's wrong with a fresh thread for people who primarily visit just this (Army) forum?

I personally don't think it will ever happen. John McCain said yesterday "thankfully we have a congress that makes the law and the decision is not up to the secretary of defense or the joint chiefs. It's been tried before and congress always squashes it. It won't ever happen. Too many smart people in congress that won't bow to political pressure (no money in it).

I don't personally care if service members are gay or not. I don't get intimidated by men (gay or straight). I'm sure there are plenty of closet homosexuals currently serving. I just don't think that allowing them to serve openly passes the common sense (smell) test nor the Cost Benefit Analysis. Especially not in Combat Arms. Clerks, cooks, legal, loggies and medics (except those in combat units) is acceptable.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[JERETP]

:argue: We as an Army have been tolerating Gay Soldiers since I was in basic training in 1993. Gay Soldiers are there, and it seems like the Army is a haven for Gays just like the catholic priesthood. Everyone just ignores sexual preferences. To lift the ban would simply give way to those Gay Soldiers who serve in the military the ability to express themselves freely, which would start a hate war within the ranks. Leave the policy alone. We alll get along fine now and to bring this controversy back is doing more harm than any good that could come from it.

[adrbuddy]

Dear Dirty McGiver...

1. As always you are very close minded.

2. Lets use Australia's ARMY as an example.

3. Did they have any issues ?

Thanks
ADRBUDDY

[Mike K.]

As our new commander in chief directs the lift on the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, I have to ask myself what about all the Soldiers and families that have deep rooted religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a deviant and immoral behavior? Isn’t the real reason for the demand of open service is to pave the way to legitimize this abhorrent behavior. Are we now going to have government housing for them? I refuse to teach my children that it is an acceptable normal lifestyle. Nor do I want to attend mandatory EO training telling me I have to accept their deviant lifestyle as acceptable. We are given Army values to live by, but what happens when those values are not as high or don’t reach the standards of those values instilled in you by family and by faith? Are those people of faith that have an unwavering value system and a belief that the behavior as unnatural and unacceptable going to be forced out of the Army and labeled as bigots and homophobes? Are those personnel going to be entitled to end their military service with honor if they refuse to accept homosexuality as a natural healthy lifestyle? After all we are the only thing standing in the way of legitimizing their deviant behavior. By forcing this on the Military it paves the road to legitimize it for the entire nation. I will not compromise my faith nor will I accept it as normal behavior.

Mike K.

[INGUARD]

Can heterosexuals bathe with the opposite sex if the current law is repealed? Hey, I am all for it then lol.

Also, just because other nations allow something; doesnt mean the US should. Some nations are hurting for people to join the military and they must do anything they can to increase the ranks.

There are also alot of male on male sexual assaults that happen today in our military. Will those numbers spike?

I am against it but if its allowed; then so be it. I have other things on my plate to worry about.

[adrbuddy]

Dear Madameosincere:

Please read this QUote from Top Brass.

We received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly,” Gates said.

That means whether you are agree with it or not. It will happen. Wake up it is 2010.

Thanks
adrbuddy

[rgronovius]

I wonder what happens when Captain John Jones shows up at a formal military social function with his partner "Steve"? How do you think the troops will treat Capt Jones in the motor pool on Monday? Sure, on the surface they will be professional and respectful, but the man would possibly suffer in the eyes of his troops. Eventually snickers and sneers will subside as more Americans become conditioned to the presence of openly gay troops, but in the near term leadership will suffer.

Imagine a dual military wedding with both parties the same sex, arm in arm under arched sabers.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, just providing some visual food for thought.

[NMWH1985]

As our new commander in chief directs the lift on the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, I have to ask myself what about all the Soldiers and families that have deep rooted religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a deviant and immoral behavior?

Too bad. We don't live in a theocracy.



Isn’t the real reason for the demand of open service is to pave the way to legitimize this abhorrent behavior. Are we now going to have government housing for them? I refuse to teach my children that it is an acceptable normal lifestyle.

Then don't teach them that. That is certainly your prerogative as a parent.



Nor do I want to attend mandatory EO training telling me I have to accept their deviant lifestyle as acceptable.

I doubt the EO training will do anything but tell you to keep it to yourself.

[adrbuddy]

Dear Mike K.

1. I just wanted to give you some feedback for your easy questions. You said "I have to ask myself what about all the Soldiers and families that have deep rooted religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a deviant and immoral behavior? First of all, that is a personal religious belief to think that being homosexual is a deviant and/or inmoral behavior. There is not facts nor data that can proof or back up that statement .

2. Your second questions is "Isn’t the real reason for the demand of open service is to pave the way to legitimize this abhorrent behavior. Are we now going to have government housing for them? If a individual is a lesbian or homosexual they should be treated as any other soldier, as well as having the same rights as any other straight soldier. We are both serving the same country.

3. Finally, we are not trying to change the way you think. If you dont like gays or not that is your personal decision. But If they should be allowed to served openly. If you dont want your kids involved with the real world, Then you will have to keep them lock up at your home. I am not trying to be mean or anything. But Wake up 2010. Your generation has to move on.

ADRBUDDY

[adrbuddy]

HA HA .. Yup that will be very interesting.

Or what about you have the longest crush on your Commander .. OH my god .. ooppss ha ha

ADRBUDDY

[adrbuddy]

Dear Mike K.
I just wanted to give you some feedback on your questions and concerns.
1. You asked “I have to ask myself what about all the Soldiers and families that have deep rooted religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a deviant and immoral behavior? “
That is a personal statement or belief. There is no data or proven facts that being homosexual or a lesbian is deviant or of immoral behavior.

2. You then asked “ Isn’t the real reason for the demand of open service is to pave the way to legitimize this abhorrent behavior. Are we now going to have government housing for them?
Homosexuals and lesbian will get the same rights as any straight soldiers; Meaning that if we are providing free housing for you and your wife, and kids, then I will get my free housing for my man, and my adopted kids. Get it?

3. Please don’t be offended for what I am about to type. I don’t understand what has given you the idea we are trying to imposed gay stuff into your life and/or make you gay, or your kids. You are living in a different generation unfortunately I have to suggest for you and your family to not come out of your home. It is 2010 there are gay people all over the world.

Thanks so much

ADRBUDDY

[INGUARD]

ADRBUDDY, seems like your posts are jumping around. I dont know.

Even though the President and his cabinet are moving forward on this; Congress will be a part of the equation. So lets see what happens with them. McCain and others didnt seem so positive about the topic.

[MCGYVER]

Adrbuddy, what (in your little mind) makes you think I'm dirty? Am I not entitled to my opinion just as you are to yours? I simply stated some facts (mixed with my opinions) about congress not buying off on the change in the past and not likely buying off on it in the future. If we lived in a dictatorship then Mr. Obama could do what he wants and his words would be law. Fortunately (for me and most sane people) we don't live in a dicktatorship. Have a nice day cupcake.

btw, don't worry about what happened before, I'll leave that alone.

[CrimLaw]

Can someone explain to me how homosexual behavior is normal?

[adrbuddy]

Dear INGUARD:

Yes, I noticed my computer is been messed up all morning.. My apologies.

ADRBUDDY

[adrbuddy]

Dear McGyver:

Thanks for your response.

1. About the dirty thing, I can smell it from far the type of sausage you are. lol

2. Also, I don't have a little mind? Anyway, I do not get it, and yes you are entitle to say anything you want. Just do not lie about the situation.

3. Thanks again,

ADRBUDDY

[adrbuddy]

Dear CrimLaw:

1. What is so illegal to about it ? Please explain which law says that being gay is against the Law ?

ADRBUDDY

[MCGYVER]

adrbuddy, I do happen to like sausage, just not the kind you are probably thinking of. Mine would be served with eggs or on a pizza. Anyway, I don't personally care if a Soldier is gay, straight, bi or a tranny. I simply don't think it wise, frugal or prudent to have anything except heterosexual males in the combat arms MOS's. That's my opinion.

[INGUARD]

adrbuddy, I do happen to like sausage, just not the kind you are probably thinking of. Mine would be served with eggs or on a pizza. Anyway, I don't personally care if a Soldier is gay, straight, bi or a tranny. I simply don't think it wise, frugal or prudent to have anything except heterosexual males in the combat arms MOS's. That's my opinion.

I like your name brother. I think of this new movie lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF8uL16Uurg

[RONALD45]

My take on the situation is this, for years Don't Ask Don't Tell and the exclusion of homosexuals from the military has been used as an excuse for every liberal cause out there as to why they shouldn't be recruiting, ROTC etc.

So here is how I would like to see it play out, Don't Ask Don't Tell is sent up for deletion to a decidely liberal Congress as they want. However I don't believe it should be Congress getting everything they want from the military. So how about a little "give and take" I say attach to the VERY SAME BILL that repeals DADT a clause stating something along the effects of:

San Fransisco becomes a MAJOR HUB FOR RECRUITING GAY/LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS with a recruiting office opened up for every Branch on the Berkeley Campus.

Every College campus with a population of over 10,000 students and receiving government funds is by law to provide an ROTC chapter on that campus. (afterall this is a HUGE reason that a lot of LIBERAL universities give for not having an ROTC on their campus, so after it is repealed what damn*ed excuse will they give.

Finally, just to P*ss off Congress I would like to see a clause IMMEDIATELY reinstating some form of mandatory service for everyone who is of sound mind and body for a period of two years upon turning 18 before they are eligible for ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE period.

Then send this Bill to Congress and see if the Liberal horse's sixth point of contacts up there will actually "put up or shut up" about how seriously they want DADT repealed and sign the bill as is or give a "no" vote on it, anyone want to bet what it will be????

[Aitrus]

2. Lets use Australia's ARMY as an example.


I just thought I'd point out that this is a bad example. The Aussie Army is about 45,000 strong, only about 28,000 of which are full-timers. That's about the same size as the California National Guard. The reprucissions and complications are much, much bigger with a military the size that the US has.

Just so you know, I agree with you. Get rid of DADT.

[adrbuddy]

Dear Aitrus:

1. Thanks so much for your response. I look forward in debating you to the point you get upset. (lol)

2. I am not quite sure in which US Army you are currently serving as we no longer have the biggest ARMY of
the planet.

3. Our Army is getting smaller and smaller by the minute due to regulations such as the DADT.

Thanks

adrbuddy

[adrbuddy]

Dear McGiver:

1. Let me began by stating u r disgusting. I was not referring to your little sausage. Geeezzz, I am going to throw up now... Since i do not like military hairy men like you ..

2. I am done talking to you ... You violated my DADT right about a month ago, which proves the failure of the policy. If i was a bad soldier that did not care about the Army, I would have reported you to my COC. But as I have always done, I put the Army First and knowing that we keep loosing soldiers due to the many violations that people like you create, I Just moved on. You have not been the first one in my 7 years of service to ask me if I am gay or not. I have never told but I have always been asked. Whatever. Moving on.

3. DADT is an unfair, inconsistent policy as many of those regulations that the ARMY of the old generation had created and enforced without having any proven data.

Thanks again for your time.

[adrbuddy]

Dear ronald45:

1. Let me clarify, that this is the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. We are not RUSSIA.

[MCGYVER]

adrbuddy, I would have to be in your chain to have violated the DADT regulation. The don't tell refers to the Soldier not telling on themselves. Besides, I never asked if you were gay.

[adrbuddy]

Dear Dirty Mcgiver:

1. You did break it.

Adrbuddy

[MSMUROTC]

Well, this sub-plot is getting a little creepy ...

Ok, first off -- homosexuality is not a choice.Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. Do you really think with all the beatings, prejudice, etc. that someone would CHOOSE to be homosexual just on a lark? Really, pretty dumb. Homosexuality occurs in nature in other species, so it's not unprecedented. So please, can we get rid of this fantasy already?

Second -- minorities used to be prohibited from military service (and, incidentally, from mixed-race marriages) for almost precisely the same reasons. Pretty sick that we're still here.

Third -- where are all you guys taking all these group showers? You read these arguments and you'd think that the Army doesn't do anything except get naked and soap up. When I've had to do it -- Basic, AIT, RGR -- it was always like, you have 15 seconds to get in and out. I don't think anyone's really going to be meatgazing in there. And if they do? Oh well. I'll live.

Fourth -- I'm sorry that so few of you have faith in American soldiers to be tolerant, respectful, etc. Do you realize that the entire premise of the argument is based on American soldiers being violent, homophobic bigots?

Lastly -- For those of you who ARE violent, homophobic bigots ... I'd rather serve with the most flaming homosexual on the planet who constantly made passes at me than with a piece of human trash like you. You are a disgrace to this country and the military.

P.S. I didn't read this entire thread that closely and this last statement certainly isn't directed at anyone in particular, so if you're offended by it and feel like it's directed at you ... well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

[MSMUROTC]

P.P.S. I also think it's hilarious that presidents consistently contravene the constitution and just take us to war, and even lie is into wars but you all (and congress, and the president) don't think he has the power to let a couple of dudes kiss? So let me get this straight ... 5,000+ American dead based on us getting lied into an unnecessary war is OK, but some hot girl-on-girl isn't....riiiiiiiiiiight.

If Obama really wanted to do this, he could ... right now. And congress couldn't do a thing about it. What are they going to do, impeach him? Cut funding to the military?

[MCGYVER]

MSMUROTC, Um, all I can say is that the president can say whatever he wants but he does not make laws, Congress and the house of representatives do.

[JD2780]

Let all the gays in!!! We all have the right to be miserable!!

[Aitrus]

Dear Aitrus:

1. Thanks so much for your response. I look forward in debating you to the point you get upset. (lol)

2. I am not quite sure in which US Army you are currently serving as we no longer have the biggest ARMY of
the planet.

3. Our Army is getting smaller and smaller by the minute due to regulations such as the DADT.

Thanks

adrbuddy

1. No problem. I often do more reading than debating, so you'll have to catch me on a good day.

2. Not in the Army - I'm an Air Force Warrior. (Man, how I hate the way they forced that one on us. Most of us are as much warriors as the guys handing out basketballs and towells at the gym.) That said, I do realize that we don't have the biggest Army in the world - never did. The Chinese and Russians have always had more, even during WWII as their entire populations are considered to be a part of their military might via conscription. However, compared to the Aussies and Canadians, we have a much larger military. Much larger means more logistics which means more problems with accomodating any resulting issues relating to the removal of DADT, mostly in the EO, the "education of the masses" and peer-vs-peer threats areas. We saw it during the early years when we first allowed women to serve, then again during the de-segregation years. No reason not to expect the same issues. I'd expect that things would normalize in the long run, but in the short term there would be many growing pains that would be felt all up and down the chain of command.

3. There are many other things that are shrinking all the forces. In the AF it's our leadership cutting manpower in favor of planes; ridiculous PT policies that aren't effective for combat; and a changing culture that puts image, uneeded "improvements" and rampant non-duty related volunteerism above technical job performance and knowledge.

I believe that removing DADT would have about the same effect as de-segregation: A few would get out, but those that get out probably didn't have the moral and integrital fortitude to belong in the military to begin with. In the end, it would balance out just as it always has, although we would be hurting for a few people in the short term, but we wouldn't be crippled. Fighting too many fronts and maintaining too many overseas bases while shrinking the force is what is crippling us.

[INGUARD]

1.

2. Not in the Army - I'm an Air Force Warrior. .

figures. that branch is emasculine anyway lol

sorry, I am former marine and Army and served in the combat arms. we bathed with our comrades. I wouldnt want my package being checked out.

would it be ok for you as a man to now bathe with women?

see my point? a sex that is attracted to a sex that they total have access to. (in the showers and in the barracks)

yes, repeal DADT and bring back DADT do ask; do tell. that is how it was for me when i enlisted.

I saw a gay airman the other day. It was obvious. talked with the super light voice, feminine gestures, had a base coat (on the face) and was around females who considered him harmless. and the mannerisms were so overt. I just looked in amazement and thought about the future lol

[partschanger]

Thank goodness I'm retired and won't have to deal with it .

[RONALD45]

Dear ronald45:

1. Let me clarify, that this is the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. We are not RUSSIA.

Your right in Russia they expect you to WORK to earn your keep and WORK to defend your country, not sit on your ass all day expecting government handouts for doing nothing while less than 1% of your nation's population keeps the rest of the fat ass lard tub welfare receiving population safe and sound to have more welfare kids. In Russia you are expected to produce for society, before you get any benefits from that society. No we are not Russia at all we are fat, dumb, happy and content. They are lean, smarter on average, and hungry and driven.

[Scruples]

It may not be a big deal in combat service support units especially the medical department. Anticipate problems in infantry units and special operations.

[DarkHeart]

It may not be a big deal in combat service support units especially the medical department. Anticipate problems in infantry units and special operations.

Because highly trained service members are incapable of acting like professionals.:rolleyes:

[MCGYVER]

The part I find most amusing is that proponents of doing away with the DADT use poll results showing that 65% of those polled favor allowing gays to serve openly. Not even 5% of those polled are in any way affiliated wtih the military so have no vested interest in the change. If polled I would bet money that 65% of the people would favor taking all Billionaires money and distributing it to the rest of the people. :)

[MSMUROTC]

AITRUS: it's hard to have a "combat focused" pt test that doesn't have high overhead. i.e. people bitch about the APFT, but you can do it with no more equipment than a watch and relatively flat running area, and it's close enough to approximate what you need in combat -- general physical fitness. At the end of the day, the old Air Force PT standards were a joke and needed overhauling. At the very least, the current test is a reasonable request of logistics and fitness that can be reasonably extrapolated to combat-focused fitness.

RONALD45: Russia is a third-world, repressive oligarchy. I don't know why you're romanticizing them. I don't know why you want to defend a nation you despise (lard asses, welfare babies, etc.)

MCGYVER: First -- the office of the president has done a lot of things with the military that they shouldn't legally be able to (call them to war). Obama could simply tell the service to disregard the law (i.e. signing statements) or come up with an executive order, regulation, etc. If Congress wanted to, they could take it to the Supreme Court. I think it's sad that Congress would theoretically fight THAT in court, but would let the president take the country to war unilaterally. Second -- last time I checked, the people that were polled are citizens. Doctors don't just get to vote for laws that affect doctors.

[DarkHeart]

The part I find most amusing is that proponents of doing away with the DADT use poll results showing that 65% of those polled favor allowing gays to serve openly. Not even 5% of those polled are in any way affiliated wtih the military so have no vested interest in the change. If polled I would bet money that 65% of the people would favor taking all Billionaires money and distributing it to the rest of the people. :)

The polls that are giving out the 65% number state plainly that those polled are civilians. And since we work for them, what they think is relevant to how we do business. What is your point? You think 65% of Americans are Communists. Yeah. And? So? What? If that were true you'd now be spreading Communism to the Middles East and not Democracy, or you'd get the hell out of the military and possibly the country. You work for America, and if she wants us to treat homosexuals as equals and work with them you're going to do it, or get the hell out.

[chucksnee]

The polls that are giving out the 65% number state plainly that those polled are civilians. And since we work for them, what they think is relevant to how we do business. .

Thats the problem...they know nothing about what actually happens inside the military but they have they make the rules....oh wait I mean PC....

[MCGYVER]

DarkHeart, we don't work for them, we protect them. There is a HUGE difference. Saying that we work "for them" is akin to saying that I work "for my kids" but in the context of having to report to them and get their approval on things. By the way, I'm not part of the 65% and therefore don't propose that taking the billionaires money is a good idea. My point was that just because the majority of a group polled think something a good idea does not make it so. Nor does it have anything to do with efficiency or logic.

[Variable Wind]

DarkHeart, we don't work for them, we protect them. There is a HUGE difference. Saying that we work "for them" is akin to saying that I work "for my kids" but in the context of having to report to them and get their approval on things. By the way, I'm not part of the 65% and therefore don't propose that taking the billionaires money is a good idea. My point was that just because the majority of a group polled think something a good idea does not make it so. Nor does it have anything to do with efficiency or logic.

Actually you do both. If you are a government employee, your boss is the people. The highest ranking office in the military is the President, and who is his boss? The people.

Who do you think you are working for?

[NMWH1985]

Actually you do both. If you are a government employee, your boss is the people. The highest ranking office in the military is the President, and who is his boss? The people.

Who do you think you are working for?

"The People" are not in my chain of command.

Officers swear an oath to the Constitution, enlisted swear an oath to their chain of command.

Nowhere in there does it mention anything about obeying the orders of the voting citizens of America. We are a Republic. Not a democracy. The people elect representatives to do the governing for them, which, in case you haven't figured out, includes running the military.

Supreme Court justices area also "government employees." They do not answer to the people at all. Your argument is false.

[Variable Wind]

"The People" are not in my chain of command.
Yes they are.


Officers swear an oath to the Constitution, enlisted swear an oath to their chain of command.
I was enlisted...I swore an oath to the Constitution...you know the document of the people by the people and FOR the people.


Nowhere in there does it mention anything about obeying the orders of the voting citizens of America. We are a Republic. Not a democracy. The people elect representatives to do the governing for them, which, in case you haven't figured out, includes running the military.
Yeah, you just proved my point mmkay thanks.


Supreme Court justices area also "government employees." They do not answer to the people at all. Your argument is false.
They have to have the approval of those that the people appoint in order to reach their position. I know that such a radical idea may be foreign to you, but we have been doing this here in this country for only a couple of centuries now, so its kind of a new idea :rolleyes:

[DarkHeart]

VW got it right on the money, as he is often want to do.

We may not get our orders from the people directly but the will of the people eventually makes its way back to us.

Regardless, the highest ranking Officer in the Military and the Secretary of Defense have made it known they support the president's call for a repeal of DADT. Adm. Mullen even went the extra mile to express his personal views on the matter. So if you take your orders from on high, there you go. Get ready to make it happen cause Mr. Gates was right, its not a matter of if anymore, its when.

[adrbuddy]

Dear DarkHeart:

You are right one the money. He received his orders and the MIlitary will follow..

Yeay ! .. ;O)

ADRBUDDY

[adrbuddy]

Dear McGiver:

I find you amusing period.

ADRBUDDY

[Variable Wind]

Dear McGiver:

I find you amusing period.

ADRBUDDY

Just an FYI, I woundnt go casting stones, you dont strike me as particularly bright either.

[CrimLaw]

Dear CrimLaw:

1. What is so illegal to about it ? Please explain which law says that being gay is against the Law ?

ADRBUDDY

ADRBUDDY,
I did not mention ANYTHING about homosexuality being illegal. Go back and re-read.

[Seasons]

Can someone explain to me how homosexual behavior is normal?

Normal is a loaded term that can't be used to qualify any situation, really.

"Natural" has been on that some have thrown around, but in fact homosexuality exists in several natural species. Which means the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is false.

[MCGYVER]

Seasons, female black widows kill and eat the male after mating. That doesn't make it normal nor acceptable for humans to mimmick the behavior. You can find all sorts of examples in nature to justify some seriously sick stuff if that's your goal. Even in other species homosexuality is the exception, not the rule. The monkeys that see gay monkeys going at it are likely laughing their collective asses off and think that the gay monkeys are just retarded.

[Seasons]

Seasons, female black widows kill and eat the male after mating. That doesn't make it normal nor acceptable for humans to mimmick the behavior. You can find all sorts of examples in nature to justify some seriously sick stuff if that's your goal. Even in other species homosexuality is the exception, not the rule. The monkeys that see gay monkeys going at it are likely laughing their collective asses off and think that the gay monkeys are just retarded.

Normal and acceptable are opinionated qualifiers, as I said. You've taken my words to mean something they do not.

I was pointing out that the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is inherently false, since "natural" means "existing in nature, not manufactured". Therefore, all arguments against homosexuality must be made on grounds of morality (which is based in society and religion) and propagation of the species (a rather...pointless argument given worldwide population growth).

Oh, and a funny, random fact. If you think chicks with dicks is unnatural, I've one question...have you ever *seen* a female hyena?

[MCGYVER]

Seasons, then I guess we disagree because pedophiles and necrophyliacs are not manufactured but I would not consider them natural in any sense of the word. One of the synonyms for "natural" is "normal". Another one is "typical". If you look at the majority of the meanings of the word natural then your argument loses validity. You are picking one definition and not a very good one at that and disqualifying all other definitions.

[RONALD45]

Something to ponder, since the military (especially the Army) has seperate months set aside to celebrate diversity (November=Native American History month, March=women's month, May I think is Pacific Islander month etc) will we now be forced to add in a "Homosexual" month to celebrate their diversity as well??? I mean we have a month set aside for everyone else we celebrate their "culture and lifestyle" will we have the same for the homosexuals in the military now.

And before any of you say this is absolutely "ludricous idea" and such a thing would never be proposed in the military need I remind you that 20 years ago the same would have been said about the whole Homosexuals in the military to begin with.

[MSMUROTC]

MCGYVER: In your panoply of bigotry, you forgot to compare homosexuality to beastialty. Just trying to help!

RONALD45: If I don't have a problem with gays in the military, I don't see why I'd have a problem with a gays in the military month.

...and I can anticipate it "waa waa waa but why isn't there a white/male/heterosexual history month?!" ... because every month is white/male/heterosexual month. if you run everything, you don't get a month.

... and I think we're all forgetting that if we let gays in the Army, we might get the whole uniform mess sorted out.

[Variable Wind]

MCGYVER: In your panoply of bigotry, you forgot to compare homosexuality to beastialty. Just trying to help!

RONALD45: If I don't have a problem with gays in the military, I don't see why I'd have a problem with a gays in the military month.

...and I can anticipate it "waa waa waa but why isn't there a white/male/heterosexual history month?!" ... because every month is white/male/heterosexual month. if you run everything, you don't get a month.

... and I think we're all forgetting that if we let gays in the Army, we might get the whole uniform mess sorted out.

Well you were doing good all the way up until you said white straight males run ewverything and completely dumped yourself in the clown category with ronald and mcdonald here.
How stupid of a statement that is, especially since white people encompasses a multitude of ethnicities, ass.

Try to leave out your whiny, sorry comments about your irrational jealousy toward another persons skin pignment...you will look less like a putz

[MSMUROTC]

asian pacific history month ... hispanic history month ... those lump disparate people together too.

who said I wasn't white? because I criticized a common knee jerk reaction?

and people that aren't white are automatically jealous of white people?

if I'm a clown, you can be a fry kid.

[Variable Wind]

asian pacific history month ... hispanic history month ... those lump disparate people together too.

who said I wasn't white? because I criticized a common knee jerk reaction?

and people that aren't white are automatically jealous of white people?

if I'm a clown, you can be a fry kid.

The point was, dunce, that you made a completely inane remark. I called you on it and now that hollow sense of self respect you have compells you to defend you self with what one could only be described as an old joke from the "just say no to drugs" campaign..."I'm not a chicken, you're a turkey"

:rolleyes: give me a break.

[MSMUROTC]

I don't feed the trolls and I'm not going to contribute to this thread digressing into nonsense.

[Variable Wind]

Nice knowin you...

Better yet, it wasn't. Next time avoid situations that will cause your foot-in-mouth disease to flare up.

[Seasons]

Seasons, then I guess we disagree because pedophiles and necrophyliacs are not manufactured but I would not consider them natural in any sense of the word. One of the synonyms for "natural" is "normal". Another one is "typical". If you look at the majority of the meanings of the word natural then your argument loses validity. You are picking one definition and not a very good one at that and disqualifying all other definitions.

Actually, I'm picking the meaning that is used in every argument in which the word is used against homosexuality.

Regarding pedophilia and necrophilia...talk about inane statements. Both are illegal and based upon the idea of performing an action against someone/something's wishes (remember, age of consent is what defines pedophilia, and a corpse cannot say no).

[MCGYVER]

Seasons, today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world. It wasn't until the 2003 U.S. Supreme court ruling that it was legal in all the States. Legality can be changed.

You can continue to use whatever definition and interpret that definition any way you like because this is, after all, America, where everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals and I've stated that repeatedly. I simply don't find it necessary, intelligent or logical to force the combat arms to accept them with open arms. Is this discrimination? Hell yes. Does the military discriminate? Hell yes. That's why you don't get whatever job you want, you get the one you are qualified for (that's open). It's why there are no females in the infantry or Artillery. It's why we have height and weight limits/restrictions.

Don't like it? Write your congressman. Why do they always say that? Because the congressmen have the power to change the rules, not the president. He can make suggestions but that's about it. He can make executive orders but not ones that countermand established laws or violate the constitution.

[Pueblo]

Seasons, today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world. It wasn't until the 2003 U.S. Supreme court ruling that it was legal in all the States. Legality can be changed.

And an esteemed club those 70 nations belong to! And to think it was only 7 years ago that we broke with such diplomatic giants as North Korea, Somalia, and Eritrea!

[Seasons]

Seasons, today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world. It wasn't until the 2003 U.S. Supreme court ruling that it was legal in all the States. Legality can be changed.

There's only one question I've left for you: who is the victim of homosexuality? If you're going to make any comparisons with necrophilia and pedophilia, both of which have legally non-consenting victims, I'd love to see who you see as the victim of homosexuality. :rolleyes:

[MCGYVER]

Why does there have to be a "victim" in order for something to be wrong? Many people would consider prostitution or gambling victimless crimes but yet they are both illegal and considered immoral by most. Same goes for many, many other crimes. I think you are getting narrow minded in an effort to defend your position and losing sight of the big picture here.

[MSMUROTC]

What's the bigger picture here, bigotry?

I don't want to know about how homosexuals are like black widow spiders, gamblers, prostitutes, necrophiliacs, or pedophiles.

How are homosexuals incompatible for military service? Why is it a bad idea? All you said was it didn't pass the "smell test" ... please elaborate as to why you want to discriminate against patriotic Americans and think that currently serving US servicemembers are too bigoted, intolerant, and violent to work with them.

[MADAMESINCERE]

There is about 1000 posts on this subject over at the DADT forums at: http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=83

ChiefB

Well, it's now in the ARMY forum. If you don't want to read it here, feel free to go elsewhere :rolleyes:

[MADAMESINCERE]

Dear Madameosincere:

Please read this QUote from Top Brass.

We received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly,” Gates said.

That means whether you are agree with it or not. It will happen. Wake up it is 2010.

Thanks
adrbuddy

I don't need to wake up from anything. I didn't say whether I agree or disagree with it. Move along.

[Variable Wind]

Well, it's now in the ARMY forum. If you don't want to read it here, feel free to go elsewhere :rolleyes:

What he didnt tell you is that the Moderator is going to move it to the DADT section...trust me, they all get moved there. It keeps the other sections from getting convoluted with 3 or 4 DADT threads.

[Shrike]

Something to ponder, since the military (especially the Army) has seperate months set aside to celebrate diversity (November=Native American History month, March=women's month, May I think is Pacific Islander month etc) will we now be forced to add in a "Homosexual" month to celebrate their diversity as well??? I mean we have a month set aside for everyone else we celebrate their "culture and lifestyle" will we have the same for the homosexuals in the military now.

And before any of you say this is absolutely "ludricous idea" and such a thing would never be proposed in the military need I remind you that 20 years ago the same would have been said about the whole Homosexuals in the military to begin with.

And if this happens then...what?

What's the impact to us regular joes to all of the current diversity programs? Speaking only for myself, this is the impact:
1) I'll get an e-mail with the title Antarctican-American Heritage Month Luncheon This Tuesday. I delete the e-mail without reading it.
2) I'll be reading the base paper. There'll be an article about Indian-(Dots not Feathers)-American Heritage Month. Unless I'm bored or the article is accompanied by a picture of an attractive woman I'll skip the article.

And...well, that's about it. So if there's a homosexual diversity month, who cares?

[adrbuddy]

Dear Ronal45 and Shrike:

Remember we already celebrate that on Pride Weeks through out the year...But the current DADT wont allows to attend to the big parties.. ;o)

ADRBUDDY

[Seasons]

Why does there have to be a "victim" in order for something to be wrong? Many people would consider prostitution or gambling victimless crimes but yet they are both illegal and considered immoral by most. Same goes for many, many other crimes. I think you are getting narrow minded in an effort to defend your position and losing sight of the big picture here.

Congrats! You said the dreaded "immoral".

Guess what? Morals are defined by two things: society and religion. Not everybody shares the same views of immorality, not even in the US. A recent poll I saw said that something in the order of 60+% of Americans think homosexuality is fine (which kinda kills the whole "immoral by most" argument).

However, again, you missed the point. You continue to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, so I asked you how they even begin to compare. One has legal consent and no victim, while the other doesn't and does. The only similiarity is that they're both sexually related. That's like saying consentual sodomy (oral sex) is the same as gang rape. :rolleyes:

[adrbuddy]

Dear Seasons:

1. You have made an excellent comment. It couldn't have been better stated. Thanks

ADRBUDDY
aka
McGyver only buddy

[Variable Wind]

Dear Seasons:

1. You have made an excellent comment. It couldn't have been better stated. Thanks

ADRBUDDY
aka
McGyver only buddy

Adr, the best thing you could do for your argument is to just shut up. Most of your comments just a mirror image of the rhetoric the people you are argueing against. No substance, just "OMG IM RIGHT LULZ!!!1!!1!!"

:rolleyes:

[adrbuddy]

Dear Variable Wind:

You dont have to be so mean about it .. Geezzzz

ADRBUDDY
aka
McGyver's only buddy

[Variable Wind]

Dear Variable Wind:

You dont have to be so mean about it .. Geezzzz

ADRBUDDY
aka
McGyver's only buddy

Hypocrisy tries my patience.

[NMWH1985]

Yes they are.

Again.

False. I look at the wall where it says "Chain of Command," and the highest picture on there is that of the POTUS.

"The People" cannot issue lawful orders, therefore they are not in my chain of command. The only recourse they have is to replace the person who fills that "Commander in Chief" slot.

You're confused. I make the Supreme Court analogy because they do not answer to the "people" either. The people change their opinions with the weather. The SCOTUS do not rule on any case based on the will of the people, but rather, the Constitution.

We can split hair and get into social contract theory, but the fact is that as a military member, I do not answer to the people. Some asshole off the street cannot give me a legal order.

A million assholes off the street cannot give me a legal order. They can replace the person who gives the legal orders that they may happen to disagree with, but that does not make them a part of my chain of command.

[Variable Wind]

False. I look at the wall where it says "Chain of Command," and the highest picture on there is that of the POTUS.
:rolleyes: Hmmm, POTUS...not king. I wonder who puts the POTUS in charge...oh thats right, the people. That is why issues like FOREIGN POLICY, and DEFENCE SPENDING, and GWOT are such important topics during an election year.


"The People" cannot issue lawful orders, therefore they are not in my chain of command. The only recourse they have is to replace the person who fills that "Commander in Chief" slot.
You still work FOR them.


You're confused. I make the Supreme Court analogy because they do not answer to the "people" either. The people change their opinions with the weather. The SCOTUS do not rule on any case based on the will of the people, but rather, the Constitution.
Again, a document of the people, by the people and for the people. Did you study civics in Venezuela or something? I have a feeling you are getting the US confused with some other country.


We can split hair and get into social contract theory, but the fact is that as a military member, I do not answer to the people. Some asshole off the street cannot give me a legal order.
Its not splitting hairs, its stating a fact...I understand that you are in control of your own destiny, but those making military policy, answer to the people...Its not rocket science, its common sense.


A million assholes off the street cannot give me a legal order. They can replace the person who gives the legal orders that they may happen to disagree with, but that does not make them a part of my chain of command.
Still stuck on that legal order nonsense, that one thread keeping you on the edge of this debate. Ask any pentagon official, defense secretary, cabinet member or congressman, (all but one of the above are elected) they will all tell you that the people are the boss and you work for them. Try to keep up.

[ChiefB]

Well, it's now in the ARMY forum. If you don't want to read it here, feel free to go elsewhere :rolleyes:

Hey, lighten up... I was only pointing out that your answers might be found in the DADT forums. I even provided you a link.:confused:

So much for helping old ladies across the street!:eek:

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

What's the bigger picture here, bigotry?

I don't want to know about how homosexuals are like black widow spiders, gamblers, prostitutes, necrophiliacs, or pedophiles.

How are homosexuals incompatible for military service? Why is it a bad idea? All you said was it didn't pass the "smell test" ... please elaborate as to why you want to discriminate against patriotic Americans and think that currently serving US servicemembers are too bigoted, intolerant, and violent to work with them.

I never said that homosexuals were incompatible for military service. If you bothered to read any of my posts on this subject in it's entirety you'd know this. I'm saying it's not a good idea, logical idea, fiscally good idea or an efficient idea to put them in combat arms. I didn't say that any servicemembers were too bigoted, intolerant or violent either. What I said was that it wouldn't be a good idea. The one group of men (combat arms) that there would likely be problems, good order and discipline would suffer or morale would be lowered is that same group of combat arms guys.

[Seasons]

I found this to be quite interesting to read.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-402882?hpt=Sbin

[MCGYVER]

Congrats! You said the dreaded "immoral".

Guess what? Morals are defined by two things: society and religion. Not everybody shares the same views of immorality, not even in the US. A recent poll I saw said that something in the order of 60+% of Americans think homosexuality is fine (which kinda kills the whole "immoral by most" argument).

However, again, you missed the point. You continue to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, so I asked you how they even begin to compare. One has legal consent and no victim, while the other doesn't and does. The only similiarity is that they're both sexually related. That's like saying consentual sodomy (oral sex) is the same as gang rape. :rolleyes:

The Army values are morals, are they not? In some countries pedophilia is totally legal, does it make it "okay" in your mind while in those countries? Morals can be affected by religion but it's more related to simple "right and wrong" as defined by society. It's more about character than anything else. In this particular case the "society" would not be the population at large but the military population and those that make the rules governing the military (congress).

As for your poll, once again, if 65% of people polled think that the top 10% of the richest people should give their money to the poorest people you would be okay with that being mandated?

I am a Soldier and will do as I'm lawfully ordered. I take heart in knowing that others before me have tried to do away with DADT and failed miserably and any future attempts should result in the same. :) John McCain (and most other Senators) think it's a good policy and should be left alone. You may not respect John McCain and if you don't that's your right. Just like it's my right to think of you as a sorry piece of shit if you disrespect a M.O.H. recipient.

[Seasons]

The Army values are morals, are they not? In some countries pedophilia is totally legal, does it make it "okay" in your mind while in those countries? Morals can be affected by religion but it's more related to simple "right and wrong" as defined by society. It's more about character than anything else. In this particular case the "society" would not be the population at large but the military population and those that make the rules governing the military (congress).

As for your poll, once again, if 65% of people polled think that the top 10% of the richest people should give their money to the poorest people you would be okay with that being mandated?

I am a Soldier and will do as I'm lawfully ordered. I take heart in knowing that others before me have tried to do away with DADT and failed miserably and any future attempts should result in the same. :) John McCain (and most other Senators) think it's a good policy and should be left alone. You may not respect John McCain and if you don't that's your right. Just like it's my right to think of you as a sorry piece of shit if you disrespect a M.O.H. recipient.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Seriously?

US legal definition of pedophilia is "sexual acts with a minor" where minor is defined by state law using age of consent. Guess what? Other countries may think pedophilia is ok cause...its not pedophilia to them. Welcome to the wonderful world of the differences in culture and law! That doesn't make it right for you, maybe, but does that mean you're more right than them?

Anyway, its pointless to continue using this analogy in a discussion on homosexuality, as it has no connection (which I've already pointed out).

[MCGYVER]

Seasons, I'm completely convinced that you don't even read my replies any more.

[Seasons]

Seasons, I'm completely convinced that you don't even read my replies any more.

Oh, I read it. And I agree that as a servicemember, I will do as ordered. That said, the whole thing with McCain and MOH? I don't care. Anyone with a MOH likely deserved it, and I will respect their service, but if they do something stupid or that I disagree with, that MOH ain't a special little shield granting them total immunity. So understand that.

As to the rest, I merely once again pulled your argument down to its component parts, and asked you once again a question I know you'll never bother to answer.

[Pueblo]

Why does there have to be a "victim" in order for something to be wrong? Many people would consider prostitution or gambling victimless crimes but yet they are both illegal and considered immoral by most. Same goes for many, many other crimes. I think you are getting narrow minded in an effort to defend your position and losing sight of the big picture here.

And both of those victimless crimes are legal in at least parts of the US. If I walked into work tomorrow and admitted to visiting the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, I'd get looks, but nothing beyond that (perhaps in an ultra-reactionary office, they'd consider it inappropriate, but couldn't even use paperwork). Additionally, our clubs overseas have slot machines and it's perfectly acceptable to frequent the tables in Vegas so long as you can fulfill your duties. Again, your argument is without validity. So at this point, your points of contention have been 1) 70 nations (and other than Egypt, nobody here would want to visit let alone live in any of them) have bans on homosexuality and 2) gambling and prostitution; two activities that are somewhat tolerated and wholely compatible with military service are vices that hurt your feelings. Are there any vaild reasons you feel such exceptionalism towards homosexuality?

[DarkHeart]

The Army values are morals, are they not? In some countries pedophilia is totally legal, does it make it "okay" in your mind while in those countries? Morals can be affected by religion but it's more related to simple "right and wrong" as defined by society. It's more about character than anything else. In this particular case the "society" would not be the population at large but the military population and those that make the rules governing the military (congress).

As for your poll, once again, if 65% of people polled think that the top 10% of the richest people should give their money to the poorest people you would be okay with that being mandated?

I am a Soldier and will do as I'm lawfully ordered. I take heart in knowing that others before me have tried to do away with DADT and failed miserably and any future attempts should result in the same. :) John McCain (and most other Senators) think it's a good policy and should be left alone. You may not respect John McCain and if you don't that's your right. Just like it's my right to think of you as a sorry piece of shit if you disrespect a M.O.H. recipient.

You keep saying that polls are useless yet you keeps saying "most people think this or that, therefor...." How do you know what people are thinking, and why is your interpretation of what they think more credible than the professionals taking the polls?

Right and wrong is rarely simple and many societies define themselves by their religion. Take some of the members on this board for example that believe America is a Christian Nation, and some of those same people believe that homosexuality is wrong for the military and America at large.

[MCGYVER]

Pueblo, someone hasn't had their "Combatting Trafficking in Humans" training have they? Prostitution (or the frequenting of) will earn you a quick discharge if your chain were to become aware of it.

[MCGYVER]

Dark heart, I wasn't trying to "use" the statistics or Polls, I was attempting to point out how useless they are. I don't know what people think, I know what "I" think. The only people I see attempting to use religion are those that are slamming others for their thoughts and assuming they are basing their thoughts on religion. Pretty funny actually.

Like I've stated numerous times (but it seems to fall on deaf ears), I don't have a problem with homosexuals, lesbians, transexuals, bisexuals or trisexuals. I simply don't think we should force the combat arms folks to be open minded about letting them in. There are hundreds of other jobs they can do and I don't really see the average homosexual desiring to be in the combat arms anyway.

[DarkHeart]

You still make generalizations that are based on statistics, either done in the real world or from personal experience. I'm saying that you're trying to have it both ways. You can't say "65% blah blah blah but that doesn't make them right." And then say, "A majority of Congress thinks blah." That doesn't make them right either according to your logic!!! So if some people in combat arms don't feel comfortable with gays, it doesn't matter, just because some of them, or a majority, thinks something, doesn't make it right. You're shitting on your own feet.

The first service member (a marine) to be injured in the middle east (Iraq) after 9/11 was a gay man (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701589.html) in combat.

Why is combat arms special? Because they are the tip of the spear they get to be bigots? If your in the trenches and your mind is on whether or not Bill is hitting on you. Your a piss poor war fighter and I don't want you watching my back because your mind isn't in the game. As I keep saying on other boards its all about professionalism, it doesn't go out the door just because we aren't firing gays for who they are.

I appreciate your stance, good for you, but your exception to the rule makes no sense.

[MADAMESINCERE]

Military Times just said they are going to publish a poll they sent to 3,000 troops that states opposition has declined. I think this is a load of BS! There are over 1 million Soldiers in the Army alone. If you include the members of other branches of course the total number is higher. Taking that into account, they only surveyed 3,000 people, and that is suppose to represent the thoughts of the entire force? GTFOH!

[MADAMESINCERE]

Hey, lighten up... I was only pointing out that your answers might be found in the DADT forums. I even provided you a link.:confused:

So much for helping old ladies across the street!:eek:

ChiefB

LOL my bad.

[DarkHeart]

Military Times just said they are going to publish a poll they sent to 3,000 troops that states opposition has declined. I think this is a load of BS! There are over 1 million Soldiers in the Army alone. If you include the members of other branches of course the total number is higher. Taking that into account, they only surveyed 3,000 people, and that is suppose to represent the thoughts of the entire force? GTFOH!

Google "statistical analysis" and find out for yourself how it works. 3,000 is a pretty damn good response rate for statistics about a population the size of the armed forces.

[MCGYVER]

Darkheart, 3,000 is about .1 (that's point 1) percent of the total military population of all the various services.

[DarkHeart]

Darkheart, 3,000 is about .1 (that's point 1) percent of the total military population of all the various services.

I urge you to take a Statistics 101 class. If you have, you weren't paying attention. Steps are taken when doing statistical studies of a population to get a large and diverse enough group to get statistically significant results. That means in terms of probability it is more likely that the results are reflective on the whole population than that the pool's responses are an abnormality.

Statisticians and researchers, in general, don't like to publish findings that don't stand up to statistical hypothesis testing. Its dishonest and would be destroyed in every peer review board and never be published by an accredited journal. You can look up the study yourself, you'll find a mathematical breakdown of the 3000 polled showing why it is more likely that the results are reflective of the population being studied and not that the pool's responses are an anomaly.

If you want to continue to argue the findings I recommend reading the actual research article to find issue with what questions were asked, was the test a double blind, and other procedural biases or inconsistencies that could lead to alternative interpretations of the data. I guarantee the researcher's math is solid.

[MSMUROTC]

DARK HEART: While I am heartened by someone actually bringing some amount of intellect to the issue, I doubt the survey is actually scientific. And even if it is, personally, I don't like military times polls ... a lot of the time, if you read the fine print, it mentions that they polled retirees. So I don't see that as being pertinent.

MCGYVER: I read all of your posts and if you want to play word games, fine, you didn't say exactly that. I guess that's just my reading into it. But what you do keep doing is 1. talking around the issue in vague terms and 2. making bizzare analogies. So let me play the quote game:

"I'm saying it's not a good idea, logical idea, fiscally good idea or an efficient idea to put them in combat arms. ... The one group of men (combat arms) that there would likely be problems, good order and discipline would suffer or morale would be lowered is that same group of combat arms guys."

Explain that statement. Why?

[Variable Wind]

Military Times just said they are going to publish a poll they sent to 3,000 troops that states opposition has declined. I think this is a load of BS! There are over 1 million Soldiers in the Army alone. If you include the members of other branches of course the total number is higher. Taking that into account, they only surveyed 3,000 people, and that is suppose to represent the thoughts of the entire force? GTFOH!


Darkheart, 3,000 is about .1 (that's point 1) percent of the total military population of all the various services.

Dark heart is right, you two toolshed must have skipped your high school statistics classes because if you pay attention to most state wide election campaigns and other initiatives (with a higher population pool than the military) they normally pool around 1500 people. 3000 people is a decent polling size.

[MCGYVER]

Darkheart, if you believe every study or poll you hear or read then this would explain quite a lot. Not sure if you are up to speed on some of the recent revelations in some of the statistics used in the global warming debate but if so you will know exactly why I don't put a lot of value on "studies". The other point is that 95% of the time that someone does a "study" they do so with the "goal" of finding a certain outcome. This is the root of the problem. If I want to have my "study" favor the poor I will conduct it in a predominantly poor area but leave that little tidbit out of the disclosure. I guess if all were perfect in the world there would be no ulterior motives or unscrupulous behavior but that's simply not the case.

[MCGYVER]

MSMUROTC, the bottom line up front is that the mentality and demeanor of that group of individuals does not (as easily) lend itself to tolerance of sexual preference. While the majority of those "quiet professionals" wouldn't care one way or another there would still be a significant number who would have a problem with the concept. This is why I don't see the "need" to integrate homosexuals into THOSE ranks.

[DarkHeart]

DARK HEART: While I am heartened by someone actually bringing some amount of intellect to the issue, I doubt the survey is actually scientific. And even if it is, personally, I don't like military times polls ... a lot of the time, if you read the fine print, it mentions that they polled retirees. So I don't see that as being pertinent.

Thank you for the complement.

Statistics are extremely simple, you will never have to move past Algebra II in order to crunch the numbers of a survey. The hard part, in my opinion, is two fold;

1. Wrapping your head around statistical and probability theory. Basically the reasons why we trust statistics. I'm a pretty intelligent individual that can handle complex concepts, this part of Medical Statistics I and II nearly killed me in tests, but when it came to the math I could do it in my sleep.

2. Integrity. Building a survey that is straightforward with questions that leave very little room for errors in interpretation (I'll eat a box of MREs if the Likert-scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale) wasn't used for the survey in question) and writing intellectually honest interpretations of the results. This is where you really put your credibility on the line. If you write leading questions on your survey or dismiss reliable results because of personal bias, you're done in your field of work unless you don't mind being ignored as a pariah.

What I'm driving at is, while my last might be a little intimidating, the Military Times is well within the means necessary to commission a scientific survey. Statistical programs like SAS are very powerful compaired to the pen and paper statistics that a freshman can do. They are extremely easy to use and pretty cheap, though its more likely the military has built its own number cruncher in Linux. I'm sure the news monkeys of the Military Times have handle on what they're doing.

[DarkHeart]

Darkheart, if you believe every study or poll you hear or read then this would explain quite a lot. Not sure if you are up to speed on some of the recent revelations in some of the statistics used in the global warming debate but if so you will know exactly why I don't put a lot of value on "studies". The other point is that 95% of the time that someone does a "study" they do so with the "goal" of finding a certain outcome. This is the root of the problem. If I want to have my "study" favor the poor I will conduct it in a predominantly poor area but leave that little tidbit out of the disclosure. I guess if all were perfect in the world there would be no ulterior motives or unscrupulous behavior but that's simply not the case.

Question everything.

Yes I believe the studies I read about because I trust the sources they come from. If I'm particularly interested or I read about a similar study with a different conclusion, I'll go to the source read the actual research and judge the interpretations for myself. As Human Rights is something I take very seriously I read all the research for myself. I'd be very surprised if you have looked at the issue beyond what news outlets have published.

You don't get to say, "I don't trust statistics" and in the next breath "95% of the time...." You are contradicting yourself one sentence after the other.

If your position is going to be, "I don't trust anyone" you've given up the debate before its started. If we're are going to debate an issue we have to work in a framework that is governed by axioms that everyone can agree on, the scientific method is a great example. If you start with, "Accredited Journals with statistical studies are not to be trusted, ever," you've already lost. Not because your arguments failed but because you have no frame to build a coherent argument on.

Now if you want to attack the integrity of a specific study, we can do that. You can find issues with the math, the people doing the study, whatever, but you have to agree that there is a correct way for it to be done. You're telling me statistics tell us nothing. That is just plainly not true and you are being intellectually dishonest.

Where is your evidence that combat arms personnel are a group that is unfriendly to gays?

Remember, your answer can not use statistics. :cool:

[INGUARD]

Where is your evidence that combat arms personnel are a group that is unfriendly to gays?

Remember, your answer can not use statistics. :cool:


Since that is the constant opinions I hear with fellow combat arms soldiers. Remember this incident at Fort Campbell?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324013/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier's_Girl

TRUE STORY
Soldier's Girl is a 2003 dramatic film produced by Showtime. It is based on a true story: the relationship between Barry Winchell and Calpernia Addams and the events that led up to Barry's murder by fellow soldiers. It was written by Ron Nyswaner and directed by Frank R. Pierson, with Troy Garity starring as Barry and Lee Pace starring as Calpernia.

1 Plot
2 Cast

Barry is a private with the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Calpernia works as a showgirl at a transgender revue in Nashville, Tennessee when the two met in 1999. Barry's roommate Justin Fisher (Shawn Hatosy) brings Barry to the club where she performs. When Barry and Calpernia begin seeing each other regularly, Fisher begins spreading rumors on base about their relationship, which appeared to be a violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about discussing the sexual orientation of military personnel. Barry faces increasing harassment and pressure, which explodes into violence over Fourth of July weekend. While Calpernia performs in a pageant in Nashville, Barry is beaten to death in his sleep with a baseball bat by Calvin Glover, who had been goaded by Fisher into committing the crime. The film ends with a discussion of the aftermath. The film depicts Fisher as a sexually confused manipulator jealous of Barry or Calpernia or both.


We all know that if you didnt act macho or manly in many all-male units; you will being questioned and ridiculed.

Again, I am not saying that a homosexual that cannot perform in his MOS but just the climate of mindset. And yes, there have been gays serving in those MOSes for ages incognito

[INGUARD]

Since that is the constant opinions I hear with fellow combat arms soldiers. Remember this incident at Fort Campbell?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324013/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier's_Girl

TRUE STORY
Soldier's Girl is a 2003 dramatic film produced by Showtime. It is based on a true story: the relationship between Barry Winchell and Calpernia Addams and the events that led up to Barry's murder by fellow soldiers. It was written by Ron Nyswaner and directed by Frank R. Pierson, with Troy Garity starring as Barry and Lee Pace starring as Calpernia.

1 Plot
2 Cast

Barry is a private with the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Calpernia works as a showgirl at a transgender revue in Nashville, Tennessee when the two met in 1999. Barry's roommate Justin Fisher (Shawn Hatosy) brings Barry to the club where she performs. When Barry and Calpernia begin seeing each other regularly, Fisher begins spreading rumors on base about their relationship, which appeared to be a violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about discussing the sexual orientation of military personnel. Barry faces increasing harassment and pressure, which explodes into violence over Fourth of July weekend. While Calpernia performs in a pageant in Nashville, Barry is beaten to death in his sleep with a baseball bat by Calvin Glover, who had been goaded by Fisher into committing the crime. The film ends with a discussion of the aftermath. The film depicts Fisher as a sexually confused manipulator jealous of Barry or Calpernia or both.


We all know that if you didnt act macho or manly in many all-male units; you will being questioned and ridiculed.

Again, I am not saying that a homosexual that cannot perform in his MOS but just the climate of mindset. And yes, there have been gays serving in those MOSes for ages incognito.

[INGUARD]

Since that is the constant opinions I hear with fellow combat arms soldiers. Remember this incident at Fort Campbell?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324013/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier's_Girl

TRUE STORY
Soldier's Girl is a 2003 dramatic film produced by Showtime. It is based on a true story: the relationship between Barry Winchell and Calpernia Addams and the events that led up to Barry's murder by fellow soldiers. It was written by Ron Nyswaner and directed by Frank R. Pierson, with Troy Garity starring as Barry and Lee Pace starring as Calpernia.

1 Plot
2 Cast

Barry is a private with the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Calpernia works as a showgirl at a transgender revue in Nashville, Tennessee when the two met in 1999. Barry's roommate Justin Fisher (Shawn Hatosy) brings Barry to the club where she performs. When Barry and Calpernia begin seeing each other regularly, Fisher begins spreading rumors on base about their relationship, which appeared to be a violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy about discussing the sexual orientation of military personnel. Barry faces increasing harassment and pressure, which explodes into violence over Fourth of July weekend. While Calpernia performs in a pageant in Nashville, Barry is beaten to death in his sleep with a baseball bat by Calvin Glover, who had been goaded by Fisher into committing the crime. The film ends with a discussion of the aftermath. The film depicts Fisher as a sexually confused manipulator jealous of Barry or Calpernia or both.


We all know that if you didnt act macho or manly in many all-male units; you will being questioned and ridiculed.

Again, I am not saying that a homosexual that cannot perform in his MOS but just the climate of mindset. And yes, there have been gays serving in those MOSes for ages incognito

[bcoco14]

Ok, first off -- homosexuality is not a choice.Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. Do you really think with all the beatings, prejudice, etc. that someone would CHOOSE to be homosexual just on a lark? Really, pretty dumb. Homosexuality occurs in nature in other species, so it's not unprecedented. So please, can we get rid of this fantasy already?

I wasn't going to bring it up due to the controversial nature but after reading all of your posts I've reconsidered.

I believe being gay is a choice and I am far from an idiot. Why would someone choose that way for fear of beatings? Maybe they found refuge in a social group after receiving beatings from the "cool kids" in High School. Maybe they were an outsider and wanted to fit in somewhere and their local gay community was open, receptive and sympathetic to the harsh realities they were feeling. There could be thousands of different scenario's.

Now this is gonna piss you off and probably a lot of other people but I make no apologies. If some scientific study was to be published and have irrefutable evidence that a person was born gay, then it should be classified as a birth defect. A birth defect by definition- any physical, mental, or biochemical abnormality present at birth. Can't really argue with that. If that were the case than I believe the Federal Government would have every obligation to fund the necessary research to prevent such a defect, or find a way to chemically control it.


RONALD45: Russia is a third-world, repressive oligarchy. I don't know why you're romanticizing them. I don't know why you want to defend a nation you despise (lard asses, welfare babies, etc.)

You obviously never been to Russia. I on the other hand have. It is far from third-world, their econemy was doing just fine. Imagine my dismay finding out the dollar wasn't going to carry me as far as I imagined it would and I saw very few lard asses. Lets not forget the fact that Russia is one of the countries funding OUR debt.

[MSMUROTC]

MCGYVER: "I didn't say that any servicemembers were too bigoted, intolerant or violent either." ... begat ... "the mentality and demeanor of that group of individuals does not (as easily) lend itself to tolerance of sexual preference." ... so yes, you're right, you didn't say it, but I knew you meant it, you knew you meant it, everyone knew you meant it. So if that's what you meant (and it clearly was) then don't waste your, my, and everyone else's time with meaningless "gotchas".

I think your "mentality and demeanor" regarding the professionalism of American soldiers is lacking. And if they can't be professional enough to move on and do their jobs -- mind you, the same EXACT ARGUMENT was used when women and minorities were entering the service -- then THEY don't belong in the service, not homosexuals.

INGUARD: I'm sure there are a million examples of racial crimes in the military ... or sex crimes ... should we get rid of minorities or women? Or violent sociopaths in the ranks?

bcoco14: That's why I brought up the thing about it occuring elsewhere in nature -- do penguins do it to fit in with their peers? Do whales do it because they find acceptance in the LBGT whale community? Or maybe it's natural. If you want to look at fully functioning, normal, healthy, human beings as "abnormal," I guess we should have a eugenics program and start killing handicapped people, right?

As far as Russia ... do I even really need to go into a debate as to why the US is superior to Russia? I'm sure they have some great traits, but really?

[DarkHeart]

I wasn't going to bring it up due to the controversial nature but after reading all of your posts I've reconsidered.

I believe being gay is a choice and I am far from an idiot. Why would someone choose that way for fear of beatings? Maybe they found refuge in a social group after receiving beatings from the "cool kids" in High School. Maybe they were an outsider and wanted to fit in somewhere and their local gay community was open, receptive and sympathetic to the harsh realities they were feeling. There could be thousands of different scenario's.

Now this is gonna piss you off and probably a lot of other people but I make no apologies. If some scientific study was to be published and have irrefutable evidence that a person was born gay, then it should be classified as a birth defect. A birth defect by definition- any physical, mental, or biochemical abnormality present at birth. Can't really argue with that. If that were the case than I believe the Federal Government would have every obligation to fund the necessary research to prevent such a defect, or find a way to chemically control it.

Don't worry, men and women far, far smarter than you have studied homosexuality in nature and in the human population. A cursory google search about the subject would do you good. Until then, try not to embarrass yourself further.

[bcoco14]

Don't worry, men and women far, far smarter than you have studied homosexuality in nature and in the human population. A cursory google search about the subject would do you good. Until then, try not to embarrass yourself further.

Don't worry I'm not embarrassed nor will I loose any sleep over your apparent dislike of what I had to say by taking shots at my intelligence. After all anyone who disagrees with your take on this position must be an religious bigot. I suggest you take your own advice and do a google search on the subject. You will notice that there are studies that support my position as well. Maybe not exactly as I described but the same position none the less.

If you wish to refute my claims or even my way of thinking, then by all means put it out there. That's part of what comes along in discussions such as this. Otherwise you just look as though you were bested and all you could come up with was cheap shots.

[Your_Name_Here]

I wasn't going to bring it up due to the controversial nature but after reading all of your posts I've reconsidered.

I believe being gay is a choice and I am far from an idiot. Why would someone choose that way for fear of beatings? Maybe they found refuge in a social group after receiving beatings from the "cool kids" in High School. Maybe they were an outsider and wanted to fit in somewhere and their local gay community was open, receptive and sympathetic to the harsh realities they were feeling. There could be thousands of different scenario's.

Now this is gonna piss you off and probably a lot of other people but I make no apologies. If some scientific study was to be published and have irrefutable evidence that a person was born gay, then it should be classified as a birth defect. A birth defect by definition- any physical, mental, or biochemical abnormality present at birth. Can't really argue with that. If that were the case than I believe the Federal Government would have every obligation to fund the necessary research to prevent such a defect, or find a way to chemically control it.



You obviously never been to Russia. I on the other hand have. It is far from third-world, their econemy was doing just fine. Imagine my dismay finding out the dollar wasn't going to carry me as far as I imagined it would and I saw very few lard asses. Lets not forget the fact that Russia is one of the countries funding OUR debt.

Oh yeah--God forbid ANYONE different from you be anything but defective--that's what it HAS to be, right?.:rolleyes: Might want to listen to your instinct next time.

If you truly believe the crap you just wrote, then IMO, you are not as far from being an idiot as you hoped.

Everyone knows the "happening place" is really Kazakhstan!

[bcoco14]

bcoco14: That's why I brought up the thing about it occuring elsewhere in nature -- do penguins do it to fit in with their peers? Do whales do it because they find acceptance in the LBGT whale community? Or maybe it's natural. If you want to look at fully functioning, normal, healthy, human beings as "abnormal," I guess we should have a eugenics program and start killing handicapped people, right?

As far as Russia ... do I even really need to go into a debate as to why the US is superior to Russia? I'm sure they have some great traits, but really?

You can't reasonably compare humans to penguins, whales, or any other insect or what ever. Natural? I think if it was natural then there would be more than 1-2% of the population affected. I am hardly for killing the handicapped, but I never refered to them as handicapped did I? I said birth defect, 2 totally different things. I never said gay people went pysically or mentally capable. However the military does reserve the right to discriminate for handicapps and birth defects and anything else it chooses to with in the law.

As far as Russia is concerned there is no need to debate we will in all likely hood end at the same point, may take differnt roads to get there but whatever. I was simply pointing out your preception of them was inaccurate. They are in fact not third world, generally have a better education, and don't have nearlly the obesity problem plagueing our country.

[MCGYVER]

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that certain people don't fit well in certain jobs? There are no female rangers, special forces, infantry, artillery and many other jobs but you don't hear people crying about that, do you? There are reasons that we have different standards for different MOS's. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I give up. Later cupcakes.

[DarkHeart]

Don't worry I'm not embarrassed nor will I loose any sleep over your apparent dislike of what I had to say by taking shots at my intelligence. After all anyone who disagrees with your take on this position must be an religious bigot. I suggest you take your own advice and do a google search on the subject. You will notice that there are studies that support my position as well. Maybe not exactly as I described but the same position none the less.

If you wish to refute my claims or even my way of thinking, then by all means put it out there. That's part of what comes along in discussions such as this. Otherwise you just look as though you were bested and all you could come up with was cheap shots.

I suggest you send those research papers over to the AMA and APA since they seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon within the human population. Why it exists is still being researched. One of the leading theories, in male homosexuality, is that its a product of an evolutionary tendency in some women to be more sexually active and less monogamous. To simplify further for you, natural selection is a beast when it comes to conservation of useful traits, why then would natural selection allow homosexuality to propagate in a population? Its because homosexuality may be a small byproduct of a trait that is useful to a species' success. Regardless the AMA and APA agree that Homosexuality in humans is a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a disease of the mind.

While you're at it you might want to look at the research done by scientists on the 1500 or so animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Those guys might be interested to hear the research your talking about, maybe the gay disease is zoonotic!!!

Leave judging what is and is not a disease to the guys with the MD since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[DarkHeart]

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that certain people don't fit well in certain jobs? There are no female rangers, special forces, infantry, artillery and many other jobs but you don't hear people crying about that, do you? There are reasons that we have different standards for different MOS's. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I give up. Later cupcakes.

"That's just how it is, accept it?" In an age of reason that argument doesn't cut the mustard. You need evidence to back up your claims, which you and others on this board have not done. Which isn't entirely your fault since there is almost no credible evidence in any accredited journal to support your claims to begin with.

@ bcoco14; If it were true that we couldn't compare animals to humans, we wouldn't have modern medicine, biology, sociology, psychology, even fields like robotics and architecture. Nice try, thanks for playing.

[bcoco14]

I suggest you send those research papers over to the AMA and APA since they seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon within the human population. Why it exists is still being researched. One of the leading theories, in male homosexuality, is that its a product of an evolutionary tendency in some women to be more sexually active and less monogamous. To simplify further for you, natural selection is a beast when it comes to conservation of useful traits, why then would natural selection allow homosexuality to propagate in a population? Its because homosexuality may be a small byproduct of a trait that is useful to a species' success. Regardless the AMA and APA agree that Homosexuality in humans is a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a disease of the mind.

While you're at it you might want to look at the research done by scientists on the 1500 or so animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Those guys might be interested to hear the research your talking about, maybe the gay disease is zoonotic!!!

Leave judging what is and is not a disease to the guys with the MD since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Better thanks. I have a couple of things though. Can you please point out to me where I ever 1. claimed to be an MD 2. said that being a homosexual is a disease of the mind. I believe my stated opinion was I believe it was a choice. Anything other than that was purely speculation and theory. I thought that was apparent but I guess not. I would however would be interested reading what the AMA has to say about it. I have been unable to find anything other than there policies so if you have a link could you pm me with it or post it here.

[DarkHeart]

Better thanks. I have a couple of things though. Can you please point out to me where I ever 1. claimed to be an MD 2. said that being a homosexual is a disease of the mind. I believe my stated opinion was I believe it was a choice. Anything other than that was purely speculation and theory. I thought that was apparent but I guess not. I would however would be interested reading what the AMA has to say about it. I have been unable to find anything other than there policies so if you have a link could you pm me with it or post it here.

While I apologize for assuming your thoughts on the matter take a formative role in your opinion of homosexuality being a choice, my statements still stand, with one amendment, the AMA and APA do not recognize homosexuality as being a cognitive choice, though they do accept that a person's sexual identity can change over the course of a lifetime.

Offical statement concerning homosexuality by the American Medical Association (http://www.clgs.org/official-statement-concerning-homosexuality-american-medical-association). The very first link i found upon a google search. You didn't try very hard.

[bcoco14]

Offical statement concerning homosexuality by the American Medical Association (http://www.clgs.org/official-statement-concerning-homosexuality-american-medical-association). The very first link i found upon a google search. You didn't try very hard.

Well I did find that link when I googled it however the Pacific Schools of Religion title made me skeptical right off the bat so I didn't bother to read it. I find once religion gets tied into this issue some level of credibillity goes out the window.

[DarkHeart]

Well I did find that link when I googled it however the Pacific Schools of Religion title made me skeptical right off the bat so I didn't bother to read it. I find once religion gets tied into this issue some level of credibillity goes out the window.

HA! I didn't even notice that. Good for you for being so discerning about the sources of information. The quote within the link is from the AMA regardless. I'm currently having issues logging into the AMA's website from the link within the link I first provided, I'm guessing it may be dead, but the quote is the same from a lecture I had a while back at Boston University. I think its pretty safe to say its the real deal.

[MADAMESINCERE]

Darkheart, if you believe every study or poll you hear or read then this would explain quite a lot. Not sure if you are up to speed on some of the recent revelations in some of the statistics used in the global warming debate but if so you will know exactly why I don't put a lot of value on "studies". The other point is that 95% of the time that someone does a "study" they do so with the "goal" of finding a certain outcome. This is the root of the problem. If I want to have my "study" favor the poor I will conduct it in a predominantly poor area but leave that little tidbit out of the disclosure. I guess if all were perfect in the world there would be no ulterior motives or unscrupulous behavior but that's simply not the case.

Exactly. You can find "statistics" to support anything you want.

[Texpat]

The Military Times poll found most are against repealing the ban. Yet they spin the article on the downward trend.

There's a downward trend for legalizing marijuana too. Think that's a good idea?

[Variable Wind]

The Military Times poll found most are against repealing the ban. Yet they spin the article on the downward trend.

There's a downward trend for legalizing marijuana too. Think that's a good idea?

Its not spinning if there really is a downward trend. It has been pretty much established that the majoirty of soldiers don't want it repealed, so reporting changes in its popularity makes more sense...hmm that may be a little over your head.

[Shrike]

The Military Times poll found most are against repealing the ban. Yet they spin the article on the downward trend.

There's a downward trend for legalizing marijuana too. Think that's a good idea?

Seeing that it is so much less harful than alcohol, it's monstrously idiotic and incredibly hypocritical that it's illegal. So yes, I do.

[DarkHeart]

The Military Times poll found most are against repealing the ban. Yet they spin the article on the downward trend.

There's a downward trend for legalizing marijuana too. Think that's a good idea?

Considering its less dangerous in all aspects compared to beer and cigarettes, yes, its a great idea. Eff the paper industry and eff those who would continue to demonize sexuality.

[Seasons]

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that certain people don't fit well in certain jobs? There are no female rangers, special forces, infantry, artillery and many other jobs but you don't hear people crying about that, do you? There are reasons that we have different standards for different MOS's. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. I give up. Later cupcakes.

Once you can prove why they don't fit in, maybe then you'd achieve something.

[INGUARD]

I. One of the leading theories, in male homosexuality, is that its a product of an evolutionary tendency in some women to be more sexually active and less monogamous.

I never saw a picture of a caveman pulling another caveman by the hair.;) It was always a cavewoman. It was those damn Greeks that started it all lmaof.

[Fed Up]

If this passes, I will make an EO complaint every time I hear anyone talk about sex or sexual relationships. Having just attended an EO briefing, I was informed that if someone is offended by a comment or action, then that is an offensive action and an EO complaint can be made. The military will be so tied up in EO complaints it won't be able to move. When the military dismisses my complaints, I will bring civil suit for violation of my civil rights (Why should I have to work in a hostile environment!?). Don't think it can be done? Watch me. Even better, how about a class action suit? Do they really want to go there? Do they really want to open this can of worms? There is nothing wrong with the current policy. Homosexuals can serve right now. They are simply subject to certain restrictions which do NOT impinge their civil rights. We are all subject to restrictions. If you are Enlisted you can't date Officers. We don't have open showers between men and women. Men are required to meet a higher AFPT requirement than women. Etc. Etc. Etc. They're betting that we'll just sit here and validate a lifestyle we don't condone. They're using the military as a political football to forward their agenda. I say they can go find the own GD football. We've bought this one with our own blood, sweat, and tears.

[DarkHeart]

They are simply subject to certain restrictions which do NOT impinge their civil rights.

Considering homosexuals are denied a lot of civil rights, this is an ignorant statement.

Lets go through some of them and maybe you'll like to tell me how I'm wrong.

Under DADT homosexuals can not engage in sex, be openly affectionate to their partners, anywhere, they may not talk about their sexuality (e.g. they can't talk about their personal lives) and they can not get married.

There are no laws that outlaw homosexuals from having sex except DADT and Sodomy Laws. Heterosexuals can have sex all they want, even outside of marriage in the military. Nearly every person I know in the military, on a personal level, has relayed to me a story about a sexual exploit, every one of them has engaged in sodomy while in the military. Should I write them up, and for sexual harassment for talking about their sex lives.

Out of uniform service members can be openly affectionate, even physically, with in reason, with their g/f b/f or spouses. Homosexuals can't. Screw their pursuit of happiness right?

Heterosexual service members can talk about their girlfriends and wives with seeming impunity. Again, maybe I should write up my whole command to include my XO and CO, the III MEF general. Who do I even go to about this? I'm pretty sure I've seen Adm. Mullen with his wife a few times, how dare he shove his heterosexuality in the faces of everyone watching AFN. The nerve!

I'm from Massachusetts, if I were so inclined I could marry another man in my home state. Not under DADT, but that's hardly a civil rights matter now is it?

[LOAL-D]

If this passes, I will make an EO complaint every time I hear anyone talk about sex or sexual relationships. Having just attended an EO briefing, I was informed that if someone is offended by a comment or action, then that is an offensive action and an EO complaint can be made. The military will be so tied up in EO complaints it won't be able to move. When the military dismisses my complaints, I will bring civil suit for violation of my civil rights (Why should I have to work in a hostile environment!?). Don't think it can be done? Watch me. Even better, how about a class action suit? Do they really want to go there? Do they really want to open this can of worms? There is nothing wrong with the current policy. Homosexuals can serve right now. They are simply subject to certain restrictions which do NOT impinge their civil rights. We are all subject to restrictions. If you are Enlisted you can't date Officers. We don't have open showers between men and women. Men are required to meet a higher AFPT requirement than women. Etc. Etc. Etc. They're betting that we'll just sit here and validate a lifestyle we don't condone. They're using the military as a political football to forward their agenda. I say they can go find the own GD football. We've bought this one with our own blood, sweat, and tears.


Well, thanks for your opinion Mr. "Cut and Paste"...

[Fed Up]

Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to sex or marriage. If you feel offended by the actions of your command, it is your prerogative to make a complaint. If this intimidates you, you might want to check your moral compass. You do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. I suggest you might be happier outside the military. Why don't you pursue that?

[Texpat]

I believe the number of military attracted by this ruling will be far exceeded by the number repulsed by it.

That's liberal progress for ya.

[RONALD45]

Funny colleges won't let women play on male sports teams AT ALL, but it is these same college idiots and morons spouting that we are the ones that should be "diverse". Well how about it, how's about when the military let's those discriminated Gays into the service the colleges open up their sports teams to whomever wants to play??

Let's do away with the women's basketball league and just place them on the men's teams, same with college football time to open it up to the ladies as well if they want to play.

Why not might it hinder the male dominated sports industry??? Might college teams "lose their winning edge" and therefore their FUNDING FOR THE UNIVERSITIES???

Come on we are all equal players here, if the US "citizenry" wants us to allow Gays to serve in the military then let's get completely gender neutral and open our NFL, Hockey, NBA, Baseball and other sports teams up to women.

OTHERWISE YOU JUST LOOK LIKE THE FLIPPIN' HYPOCRITES YOU ARE ;-)

Or is that "certain" discrimination is a good thing, but only when it is "politically correct" discrimination as it is with the sports teams. See it just isn't politically correct in this day and age to discriminate against Gays, which is why the military is in trouble. Never mind all the other BS they feed you as to why it shouldn't be, this ONE REASON ALONE seems to be the answer.

[Seasons]

Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to sex or marriage. If you feel offended by the actions of your command, it is your prerogative to make a complaint. If this intimidates you, you might want to check your moral compass. You do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. I suggest you might be happier outside the military. Why don't you pursue that?

Ok, lets flip it. How about we pass a law saying that if you show any signs of being a heterosexual (showing off your wife, talking about your sexual exploits), then we can discharge you?

[kenny10]

Funny colleges won't let women play on male sports teams AT ALL, but it is these same college idiots and morons spouting that we are the ones that should be "diverse". Well how about it, how's about when the military let's those discriminated Gays into the service the colleges open up their sports teams to whomever wants to play??

Let's do away with the women's basketball league and just place them on the men's teams, same with college football time to open it up to the ladies as well if they want to play.

Why not might it hinder the male dominated sports industry??? Might college teams "lose their winning edge" and therefore their FUNDING FOR THE UNIVERSITIES???

Come on we are all equal players here, if the US "citizenry" wants us to allow Gays to serve in the military then let's get completely gender neutral and open our NFL, Hockey, NBA, Baseball and other sports teams up to women.

OTHERWISE YOU JUST LOOK LIKE THE FLIPPIN' HYPOCRITES YOU ARE ;-)

Or is that "certain" discrimination is a good thing, but only when it is "politically correct" discrimination as it is with the sports teams. See it just isn't politically correct in this day and age to discriminate against Gays, which is why the military is in trouble. Never mind all the other BS they feed you as to why it shouldn't be, this ONE REASON ALONE seems to be the answer.

Wow well this is a dumb comparison.

[Fed Up]

Works for me.

[Fed Up]

Ok, lets flip it. How about we pass a law saying that if you show any signs of being a heterosexual (showing off your wife, talking about your sexual exploits), then we can discharge you?


Works for me.

[CWO5SMITH]

Dear CrimLaw:

1. What is so illegal to about it ? Please explain which law says that being gay is against the Law ?

ADRBUDDY

The issue isn't about civil law, probably never was. The issue is "good order and discipline". Anything that disrupts good order and discipline, which the military must have to operate effectively, is regulated.

[Seasons]

Works for me.
So you'd be all for advocating a removal of the dependant system too? Since, you know, your wife can't be your dependant anymore cause that would violate a telling of your sexual preference. No more hitting on women at bars with your unit either. No more hugging your spouse after you get back from deployment.

Enjoy!


The issue isn't about civil law, probably never was. The issue is "good order and discipline". Anything that disrupts good order and discipline, which the military must have to operate effectively, is regulated.
Yes, but its been shown many times over that it does not disrupt good order and discipline anymore than having a convicted criminal with a waiver...or even anymore than just another person.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

The issue isn't about civil law, probably never was. The issue is "good order and discipline". Anything that disrupts good order and discipline, which the military must have to operate effectively, is regulated.

Roger that Chief. I can see this scenario now.

GRUNTS BEING DISMISSED FROM FORMATION

Squad leader = Squad that was some awesome training and this weekend we need to bond together to relax before our deployment.

Gunner = Sarge, PFC Jones is getting married before we deploy and we going to have a bachelor's party with lots of strippers

Gay Soldier - I pass on this fellers since I got my new video of "pole smokers" and want to spend time with my man before we leave.

Squad leader = ok private, stay out of trouble and see you on monday.

Team Leader = I cant wait to frag him when we deploy

THE END lol

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

Yes, but its been shown many times over that it does not disrupt good order and discipline anymore than having a convicted criminal with a waiver...or even anymore than just another person.

It has not be shown so I dont know where you are getting your statistical data from. But there have been articles that you have seen on here of the backlash taken on homosexuals in the military.

Show me the articles of servicemen serving proudly with known gay members. You cant because there are none.

Ok, you want gays to serve and you are a proponent of it. We disagree. End of story.

[RONALD45]

Wow well this is a dumb comparison

How, many on this site have said that allowing homosexuals to serve would be and cause no more harm then allowing women to serve. Well guess what we went that one and women do serve in the military yet for all the "women can do the same men can" we still have no women playing on men's sports teams do we???? So if we are going gender neutral then let's do away with men's sports teams and open them up to everyone. Afterall as long as they can "do the job" there should be no discrimination right? Isn't this the same arguement for allowing Gays to serve, as long as they can do the job. Well there are some women that can play football fairly well so let's open up the stadiums to em.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

I see your point Ronald. I think they think the woman sports analogy or them serving in combat jobs doesnt compare to the gays openly serving issue.

I know that you saying that DADT should be sufficient enough as it is.

[Creaminess]

There are already gays serving in the military. I'm willing to bet that every single one of us knows some, and we KNOW they're gay. I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with it. As long as you can do your job, that's what matters.

[E4RUMOR]

I posted this in the DADT forum, but I figure I'll go ahead and point out a couple of the following things to consider:

1.) IF homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, there WILL be descrimination of some type. While the majority of America is coming around to the idea of homosexuality being normal and acceptable, the majority of military members still have a problem with it (based off statistics). Just the same as there was discrimination in WWII with African Americans, and the fact that they trained separately on a remote area at Parris Island from other servicemembers, I have no doubt it will be the same with homosexuals. It took years for the segregation to cease. While I realize this is not necessarily a race issue, the principle is basically the same, and it will take years for many to adjust to the transition.

2.) The Uniform Code Of Military Justice will have to be reviewed and ammended. The act of sodomy is against the UCMJ. I will concede to the fact that some heterosexual couples serving in the military are guilty of performing this type of sexual behavior, and what takes place in the bedroom should be the servicemember's personal business. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how male homosexuals engage in sexual activity, and it is a DIRECT violation of the UCMJ. If this change takes place, it'll be interesting, because then heterosexual couples that were motivated and abided by the letter of the law will be free to engage in porn style intimacy.... and some of them may find that liberating ;0)

So the changes will affect more than logistics. Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

[Creaminess]

I posted this in the DADT forum, but I figure I'll go ahead and point out a couple of the following things to consider:

1.) IF homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, there WILL be descrimination of some type. While the majority of America is coming around to the idea of homosexuality being normal and acceptable, the majority of military members still have a problem with it (based off statistics). Just the same as there was discrimination in WWII with African Americans, and the fact that they trained separately on a remote area at Parris Island from other servicemembers, I have no doubt it will be the same with homosexuals. It took years for the segregation to cease. While I realize this is not necessarily a race issue, the principle is basically the same, and it will take years for many to adjust to the transition.

2.) The Uniform Code Of Military Justice will have to be reviewed and ammended. The act of sodomy is against the UCMJ. I will concede to the fact that some heterosexual couples serving in the military are guilty of performing this type of sexual behavior, and what takes place in the bedroom should be the servicemember's personal business. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how male homosexuals engage in sexual activity, and it is a DIRECT violation of the UCMJ. If this change takes place, it'll be interesting, because then heterosexual couples that were motivated and abided by the letter of the law will be free to engage in porn style intimacy.... and some of them may find that liberating ;0)

So the changes will affect more than logistics. Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

That's true on both counts. Yes, it WILL take a while for the military in general to adapt to this change, but I think you'll see it happen quicker than desegregation did. You will always have some in the military who don't like gays, but there are also still those who are racist. Changing the policy won't change personal feelings about it. There was actually a letter to the editor in today's European version of Stars and Stripes that likened the change of the DADT policy to desegregation of the military, so you've got even more company in that comparison.

And yes, the UCMJ will have to change. I can tell you that my wife and I have done things that I KNOW have violated the UCMJ as it's written (only between the two of us; no group, swapping, etc.). We're consenting adults, so while I don't think somebody should have the right to tell us what we can do, I realize that I've given control of certain aspects of my private life to the military by serving, and I"m largely OK with that. But the stuff in the bedroom should not be illegal if both parties agree to it.

[INGUARD]

I responded in that thread the the UCMJ under Sodomy wouldnt have to be change. I am military MP and it has to fit all elements for a person to be charge. Its forcible sodomy under the UCMJ not consenting.

[kenny10]

It has not be shown so I dont know where you are getting your statistical data from. But there have been articles that you have seen on here of the backlash taken on homosexuals in the military.

Show me the articles of servicemen serving proudly with known gay members. You cant because there are none.

Ok, you want gays to serve and you are a proponent of it. We disagree. End of story.

Dumb! There aren't any articles because being homo and in the military is not legal so who the hell would publish an article about gay service members and straight ones serving honorably together? Who would come forward for that?THINK ABOUT IT! Who is We? You do not speak for everyone

[Variable Wind]

Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to sex or marriage. If you feel offended by the actions of your command, it is your prerogative to make a complaint. If this intimidates you, you might want to check your moral compass. You do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. I suggest you might be happier outside the military. Why don't you pursue that?

I have a better idea, show me in the Constitution where it states anything about homosexuality. It doesnt, so they are not to be treated as any different from anyone else.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. We arent talking about a policy like Galactic Healthcare or the Cult of Global Warming...you are talking about free citizens. Man up to what this nation stands for.

[Seasons]

It has not be shown so I dont know where you are getting your statistical data from. But there have been articles that you have seen on here of the backlash taken on homosexuals in the military.

Show me the articles of servicemen serving proudly with known gay members. You cant because there are none.

Ok, you want gays to serve and you are a proponent of it. We disagree. End of story.

I base it on the statements of those who have served with known homosexuals on these forums. I base it on the article I posted not too long ago in another DADT thread regarding a CC telling his seaman to destroy his "coming out" letter so that nobody would be the wiser, and to just continue serving cause he felt the man was a great sailor.

So yes, I suppose we disagree.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

Dumb! There aren't any articles because being homo and in the military is not legal so who the hell would publish an article about gay service members and straight ones serving honorably together? Who would come forward for that?THINK ABOUT IT! Who is We? You do not speak for everyone

First of all, the WE are the ones who stands against DADT being repealed (and they have posted in this thread). Also, Seasons stated that there is proof that gays and homo are serving together without issues. Obviously, they are if they are not exposed but all I asked was to show cases that homosexuality was admitted and that there was harmony between the soldiers in the company.

Yes, I have seen cases when people have known and the gay soldier was accepted and whatnot but then the gay soldier was ultimately discharged. I am saying provide a reputable sample to form your conclusion. Military times with its 3000 poll is not cutting it for me.

The servicemen hiding in threads like yourself are proponents and the ones speaking against are sitting right across from me. I havent yet talked to a soldier face to face that says let them serve openly. Sorry. Stay hiding lol

[kenny10]

First of all, the WE was the one who stands against DADT being repealed. Also, Seasons stated that there is proof that gays and homo are serving together without issues. Obviously, they are if they are not exposed but all I asked was to show cases that homosexuality was admitted and that there was harmony between the soldiers in the company.

Yes, I have seen cases when people have known and the gay soldier was accepted and whatnot but then the gay soldier was ultimately discharged. I am saying provide a reputable sample to form your conclusion. Military times with its 3000 poll is not cutting it for me.

The servicemen hiding in threads like yourself are proponents and the ones speaking against are sitting right across from me. I havent yet talked to a soldier face to face that says let them serve openly. Sorry. Stay hiding lol

I'm not hiding from anyone. Well I'm sorry that you surround yourself with such like-minded individuals, so sad! I've got service members sitting right next to me that agree and disagree. We are the only westernized military that doesn't allow gays to openly serve. Google homosexuals and military, I am not going to do simple crap for you. You were also speaking about fragging a fellow service member. I am damn glad I don't serve anywhere near you and I'm as straight as a arrow.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

I'm not hiding from anyone. Well I'm sorry that you surround yourself with such like-minded individuals, so sad! I've got service members sitting right next to me that agree and disagree. We are the only westernized military that doesn't allow gays to openly serve. Google homosexuals and military, I am not going to do simple crap for you. You were also speaking about fragging a fellow service member. I am damn glad I don't serve anywhere near you and I'm as straight as a arrow.


I didnt say I was going to frag a gay soldier ok. So dont go crazy over a joke. And straight soldiers have killed or harmed soldiers who they found out to be homosexual so get mad at them. And just because someone doesnt want a gay member to serve shouldnt paint them as close minded; indifferent or wrong. You even have some gays that believe that gays shouldnt serve in the military.

Who cares about us being the only western nation. Israel accepts women in the combat arms and imposes drafts for men and women; should we do that too? That is naive to use that as a basis for your point.

We are the best military in the world and we dont have to repeal this to become better or look better in the eyes of other nations. I simply disagree.

You want DADT; fine but that doesnt mean I wouldnt serve with you.

[Texpat]

Show me in the constitution where it says a guy with a tattoo on his neck can't serve in the military...

The military discriminates left, right and center.

And if homosexuals get their pass, the fatties and flat-footers will be next.

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

Show me in the constitution where it says a guy with a tattoo on his neck can't serve in the military...

The military discriminates left, right and center.

And if homosexuals get their pass, the fatties and flat-footers will be next.

I agree brother.

[Seasons]

Show me in the constitution where it says a guy with a tattoo on his neck can't serve in the military...

The military discriminates left, right and center.

And if homosexuals get their pass, the fatties and flat-footers will be next.

They can't perform their duties to the standards of the Air Force in most cases, so why should they be given a pass?

[OEFOIFCOMBATVET]

They can't perform their duties to the standards of the Air Force in most cases, so why should they be given a pass?

Because it was your basis on discriminination. Who said overweight and flat foot cannot perform their duties when they are?

That was his point.

Either way, this will take time if any decision is made. Can we agree on that?

[Seasons]

Because it was your basis on discriminination. Who said overweight and flat foot cannot perform their duties when they are?

That was his point.

Either way, this will take time if any decision is made. Can we agree on that?

The point's moot because you're talking now about physical fitness standards, of which there are loads of documents speaking to the need for such standards to have a ready military.

But yes, I agree that no matter what this is going to take quite a bit of time before things quiet back down.

[Texpat]

DISCRIMINATION against tattooed American patriots is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Even if it's on their faces.

Bigot!

:)

[MCGYVER]

What about a Fat, gay, flat footed Soldier with tatooes on his face, hands and neck?

[Texpat]

The US Air Force discriminates against women!

A chickenshit 20%

Are you KIDDING ME?

[Seasons]

DISCRIMINATION against tattooed American patriots is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Even if it's on their faces.

Bigot!

:)


The US Air Force discriminates against women!

A chickenshit 20%

Are you KIDDING ME?

You're really running out of any sort of argument, aren't you?

[BURRI8]

As our new commander in chief directs the lift on the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, I have to ask myself what about all the Soldiers and families that have deep rooted religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a deviant and immoral behavior? Isn’t the real reason for the demand of open service is to pave the way to legitimize this abhorrent behavior. Are we now going to have government housing for them? I refuse to teach my children that it is an acceptable normal lifestyle. Nor do I want to attend mandatory EO training telling me I have to accept their deviant lifestyle as acceptable. We are given Army values to live by, but what happens when those values are not as high or don’t reach the standards of those values instilled in you by family and by faith? Are those people of faith that have an unwavering value system and a belief that the behavior as unnatural and unacceptable going to be forced out of the Army and labeled as bigots and homophobes? Are those personnel going to be entitled to end their military service with honor if they refuse to accept homosexuality as a natural healthy lifestyle? After all we are the only thing standing in the way of legitimizing their deviant behavior. By forcing this on the Military it paves the road to legitimize it for the entire nation. I will not compromise my faith nor will I accept it as normal behavior.

Mike K.


I agree with Mike K. Gays don't have any business being in the military. I have worked with Gays while I was in the military twenty years ago. Every other day, I was being asked why I didnt like Gays having to justify to this person why I didnt feel comfortable being around them. Every opportunity this person had when I would see them, they would berate and try to interrogate me wanting to know why I didnt feel the same as they did. Yes, we have Gays in the military that have done great but that's because they know they have to go beyond the call of duty to impress people so they aren't looked down upon and to make sure their secret is kept. But once you do away with the policy, and let Gay's come out of the closet we all best watch out. You saw how that Gay that was on the judging panel that treated one of the contestant 's who didnt believe in Gay's in the Miss America Pageant. He didnt vote for her because of her belief and He kept making negative comments about her which was uncalled for. Well, wait until you have a Gay supervisor or a Gay Officer that outranks you and see how well you are rated and treated if you don't tell them you don't agree with their lifestyle. See where that will get you. Yeah, let them in the miltary and you will have opened a can a worms. There was a reason God spoke out in the Bible about Gays. I keep reading that they have been placed in the same classification as race meaning that they were born as a Gay just like a Black was born black, White was born white... but that is hogwash. Gay is a characteristic in a person. They are not born Gay. The biggest thing I read on most of the comments that were for letting Gays in the Military from former people that was against it before was that their attitude had changed. I don't think it was their attitude that changed but I believe that their morals changed. When you accept things in society that you know deep down that it is not right but you say it's alright for other people to do it that is your morals. And the sad thing is in the past 10 - 15 years that other people have given up their morals and let God be taken out of everything, at the same time America has been slowly declining in strength, honor, character, and integrity. If you don't believe me how many more Americans go hungry? How many Americans went bankrupt or lost their houses last year? How many more Americans lost their jobs and are unemployed. So, for all the Gay supporters out there, make sure you learn to practice how to shake hands, walk and talk because once you let them go then it won't be long before America will be another Sodom and Gommora just waiting to be destroyed.

[ChiefB]

For all you with anti-gay protestations.. get this straight, Jesus was compassionate and forgiving AND tolerant of all man's transgressions/shortcomings regardless of the cause, source or form they come in.

Bible thumping does not excuse intolerance, unforgivingness nor lack of compassion. If your weapon is to be the Bible, the least you must do is practice its teachings. Hypocrisy does not become they who wish to dictate.

Homosexuality is no more a "learned" trait than heterosexuality, it is a trait you are born with.... why can't you hosers get that straight? There has been no empirical evidence EVER produced, that it is learned behavior.

Now...if we develop compassion and tolerance it does not mean you have to move to condoning the behavior, just give it a respectful tolerance and understanding.

And... save us the "Chicken Little" spiel... it is the defense of the moron.

ChiefB

[Seasons]

Holy runon sentence Batman!


I agree with Mike K. Gays don't have any business being in the military. I have worked with Gays while I was in the military twenty years ago. Every other day, I was being asked why I didnt like Gays having to justify to this person why I didnt feel comfortable being around them. Every opportunity this person had when I would see them, they would berate and try to interrogate me wanting to know why I didnt feel the same as they did.
Those are assholes, not representative of all homosexuals. Just like you're not representative of all heterosexuals (I presume, and thank god for that).


Yes, we have Gays in the military that have done great but that's because they know they have to go beyond the call of duty to impress people so they aren't looked down upon and to make sure their secret is kept.
Or maybe because its their job.


But once you do away with the policy, and let Gay's come out of the closet we all best watch out. You saw how that Gay that was on the judging panel that treated one of the contestant 's who didnt believe in Gay's in the Miss America Pageant. He didnt vote for her because of her belief and He kept making negative comments about her which was uncalled for.
Wow, ain't that a doozy of a statement. "Look out guys cause this judge on Miss America was mean to a lady she didn't agree with!" Grow a thicker skin already, Miss California was a ditzy idiot who didn't represent America with her beliefs, hence she did not become Miss America. Wouldn't've mattered if the judge was homosexual or not, if they disagreed.


Well, wait until you have a Gay supervisor or a Gay Officer that outranks you and see how well you are rated and treated if you don't tell them you don't agree with their lifestyle. See where that will get you. Yeah, let them in the miltary and you will have opened a can a worms.
Gee, if you are, and prove a bias...ain't that an EO complaint? Irrelevant argument.


There was a reason God spoke out in the Bible about Gays.
It was the word of God as translated and understood by man. Besides, the sin of Sodom was: "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." This spoke to sexual deviancy, an unacceptable practice of the time that did not necessarily focus on homosexual acts.


I keep reading that they have been placed in the same classification as race meaning that they were born as a Gay just like a Black was born black, White was born white... but that is hogwash. Gay is a characteristic in a person. They are not born Gay.
Incorrect, and I posted an article recently talking about some genetics studies that are disproving the idea that people cannot be born homosexual.


The biggest thing I read on most of the comments that were for letting Gays in the Military from former people that was against it before was that their attitude had changed. I don't think it was their attitude that changed but I believe that their morals changed.
It was both, in a good way.


When you accept things in society that you know deep down that it is not right but you say it's alright for other people to do it that is your morals.
You presume our morals are the same as yours. I already tore Drakevampiel apart for this logical fallacy, don't make me repeat myself.


And the sad thing is in the past 10 - 15 years that other people have given up their morals and let God be taken out of everything, at the same time America has been slowly declining in strength, honor, character, and integrity.
That's your opinion. Maybe we've just wised up to how much religion has integrated itself like a disease into a secular system that isn't supposed to favor one religious group like it has been?


If you don't believe me how many more Americans go hungry? How many Americans went bankrupt or lost their houses last year? How many more Americans lost their jobs and are unemployed.
So...the economy is related to homosexuality? I never knew. :rolleyes: This is a reach, even for you.


So, for all the Gay supporters out there, make sure you learn to practice how to shake hands, walk and talk because once you let them go then it won't be long before America will be another Sodom and Gommora just waiting to be destroyed.
Nope. We'll be the perfect land under the guidance of Jesus, for we'll accept and forgive all, letting God make the judgements when our time comes.

Learn to preach if you're gonna try.

[eggshells]

As far as the Bible is concerned....

Jesus never said one thing, for or against, homosexuals. Whoaaaa!!!! Say whaaat??? He actually spoke out against the practice of pedrasty....old guys doing incredibly young men(children), a common practice in ol' Roman times.

God, however....you ever read the Old Testament? Hellfire and brimstone that book....The Leviticus Code is where the Bible states 'thou shall not lay with a man they way they lay with women'. The Code also says you can't wear mixed fabrics (50% polyster/50% wool- big no-no according to Leviticus) and you can't eat shell fish.

New and Old Testaments are very different books.

So basically everyone in the military is breaking the Leviticus Code by wearing their uniforms.

If you're going to use the Leviticus Code for saying homos are wrong, you should probably make sure you're following all the rules in that Code, otherwise....


....Kettle, this is Pot, over.....This is Pot, over.....yeah, Kettle this Pot, you're black, over.....

If you're going to say the Bible speaks out against homos-you're right. But if you think homos are the worst for breaking the code......what about you?

-EGG

-Everyone's a hypocrite, it's just a matter of degree.

[DarkHeart]

Chief, you're still my hero.

[Variable Wind]

For all you with anti-gay protestations.. get this straight, Jesus was compassionate and forgiving AND tolerant of all man's transgressions/shortcomings regardless of the cause, source or form they come in.

Bible thumping does not excuse intolerance, unforgivingness nor lack of compassion. If your weapon is to be the Bible, the least you must do is practice its teachings. Hypocrisy does not become they who wish to dictate.

Homosexuality is no more a "learned" trait than heterosexuality, it is a trait you are born with.... why can't you hosers get that straight? There has been no empirical evidence EVER produced, that it is learned behavior.

Now...if we develop compassion and tolerance it does not mean you have to move to condoning the behavior, just give it a respectful tolerance and understanding.

And... save us the "Chicken Little" spiel... it is the defense of the moron.

ChiefB

I agree with everything here except where you say that people are born gay. There is only conjecture that this could be true. Everywhere geneticists have looked for the socalled gay gene, they have not. Personally I'm a a behaviorist, my opinion is that you are born straight but personal decisions and feelings combined with envirionmental factors influence you as to whether you believe you are a homosexual.

Though your theory is based on valid psych, it lacks real hard evidence...just sayin

[DarkHeart]

I have to disagree, if only slightly. I don't think anything about human behavior is only nature or nurture, but a combination. There is no such thing as the gay gene but there have been many studies that suggest natural influences, such as conditions while in utero, that could have an effect on sexuality. Though I guess you could say that's a behaviorist argument... haven't read any behaviorist studies using the uterus as an environment. Meh.

[MCGYVER]

You can be turned gay, I've heard of it being done from gay people. Therefore not all gay people are born that way. Therefore, it can be a learned behavior.

[MSMUROTC]

if you're not born gay the necessary corollary is that you're not born straight.

so none of you are straight because that's the way you are, it's because society made you that way.

none of you are, deep at your core, straight. you could all, apparently very easily, be gay.

just checking.

[DarkHeart]

You can be turned gay, I've heard of it being done from gay people. Therefore not all gay people are born that way. Therefore, it can be a learned behavior.

I've never heard of such a thing. The only cases I know of are young teens who are the victums of abuse (both heterosexual and homosexual in nature). People who were "turned gay" are Bisexual at best, an attraction has to be present, maybe I'm speaking out of my rear but I would never let my little sailor any where near something I didn't find attractive.

Like that old internet adage says, "Everyone is gay for Bridget."

[MCGYVER]

It's called being "turned out". Here is a link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turned+out numbers 2, 3 and 5. It doesn't just happen in prison either.

[Measure Man]

It is natural for humans to have 5 fingers on each hand.

But, some people are born with 6 fingers on each hand...I've seen it.

No one can deny that people are born with a million varieties of physical characteristics...why is it so hard to assume that people can be born with varieties of emotional characteristics?

We know that chemicals can influence emotions..and can influence sexual attraction...why is it so hard to believe that these chemicals, which occur within us naturally, can be different in different people? There are even people who have no sex drive whatsoever

It is natural to be born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex...but, some people are born with an innate attraction to the same sex...or both...or various proportionas of each in between along a sliding scale...

If you believe we are born heterosexual...how can you not accept that in SOME people, this sexuality might get mixed up naturally...every other characteristic that we can see and measure does...why not sexuality?

If you don't believe people are born with certain personality traits...you must not have more than one child.

I also believe environment and experiences can and do have a huge influence on that innate attraction...or any other personality trait, emotional trait, etc...sort of like eating rotten eggs can turn you off of eggs for life. I think a good many gays are born that way...others "learn" it or are developed into it...though maybe never to the same level of satisfaction as someone born with it. Just as a gay who lives a heterosexual lifestyle may struggle with it their entire lives...

I will say I've never bought the argument that it must be born because no one would choose to be gay...people choose all kinds of crazy stuff...why would anyone choose to be gothic...or homeless...? Yet, many people do...go figure. But I mean, c'mon, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that people are born different...some more different than others.

[DarkHeart]

It's called being "turned out". Here is a link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turned+out numbers 2, 3 and 5. It doesn't just happen in prison either.

Ah, the urban dictionary, the end all be all of the internet's endless resources of knowledge.

You go ask someone who's been in a max-security lock-up if he's gay, let me know how that works out for you once your jaw heals.:rolleyes:

[MCGYVER]

Measure Man, I agree with what you wrote. I simply don't think it a good idea, necessary, adminstratively or fiscally smart to allow gays to openly serve. It will cause WAY more problems than it would solve. The only thing that could possibly be gained is that very small segment of the population feeling more empowered. The Cost Benefit Analysis says it's really, really stupid. It's not broke now, don't fix it.

[MCGYVER]

Darkheart, that's the ticket, just discredit your opponents source, don't offer your own to counter it. You're acting like a tool. By the way, I fear no man and this includes ex cons. I also didn't even infer that all men in prison were gay, that was your twisted interpretation (or desire). ;)

[Variable Wind]

if you're not born gay the necessary corollary is that you're not born straight.

so none of you are straight because that's the way you are, it's because society made you that way.

none of you are, deep at your core, straight. you could all, apparently very easily, be gay.

just checking.

Didnt do much studying in your biology classes did you? "born straight" is a genetic instinct necessary for the continuation of the species. Your hormone levels drive you to be straight, this is why those people with hormone imbalances are more susceptable to arriving at the conclusion that they are gay.

Im a behaviorist, but I am not a taliban behaviorist, I understand that there is some biological composition that gives a person more or less of a chance to come to that decision.

[Variable Wind]

I have to disagree, if only slightly. I don't think anything about human behavior is only nature or nurture, but a combination. There is no such thing as the gay gene but there have been many studies that suggest natural influences, such as conditions while in utero, that could have an effect on sexuality. Though I guess you could say that's a behaviorist argument... haven't read any behaviorist studies using the uterus as an environment. Meh.

True, your opionion is not too different from mine. Like I said, I cant say that ChiefB is wrong, because "the absense of evidence is not evidence of absence" but from growing up with a couple of friends who are now gay and my studies in psychology have lead me to the conclusion that is more nurture than nature.

Your thoughts and ChiefBs are entirely plausible. I just disagree with an equally plausible position.

But I guess, in the end...does it really matter all that much?

[Seasons]

I agree with everything here except where you say that people are born gay. There is only conjecture that this could be true. Everywhere geneticists have looked for the socalled gay gene, they have not. Personally I'm a a behaviorist, my opinion is that you are born straight but personal decisions and feelings combined with envirionmental factors influence you as to whether you believe you are a homosexual.

Though your theory is based on valid psych, it lacks real hard evidence...just sayin
Though there was the article I posted awhile back talking about how much more likely it was for a mother to have homosexual children if all the same X chromosones were active in her cells (instead of it being a random distribution).

[INGUARD]

The PX in Afghanistan is not going to sell the Sports Illustrated calendar or other male "soft" magazines since its considered pornographic.

So the military is implementing their "values and morales" in a war zone.

But gay sex is ok lol

[Measure Man]

Measure Man, I agree with what you wrote. I simply don't think it a good idea, necessary, adminstratively or fiscally smart to allow gays to openly serve. It will cause WAY more problems than it would solve. The only thing that could possibly be gained is that very small segment of the population feeling more empowered. The Cost Benefit Analysis says it's really, really stupid. It's not broke now, don't fix it.

I don't believe it will cause any great problems...no moreso than any of the other diverse groups we allow to serve. Lesson 1 in Basic Military Training is about working with others from different backgrounds, isn't it? I believe the gloom and doom prognostications are wayyy overstated.

First...I wholeheartedly believe that the vast majority of gays will not be openly flamboyant to every one on base...they will be openly gay to their close friends, family and other gay people....like much of the general population gays are.

I don't see the administrative or fiscal challenges of it all....I don't think we'll need to build separate "gay dorms" or separate latrines and dressing rooms...or any of that. I honestly believe that once DADT is lifted, the lack of ruckus that it causes will have us all scratching our heads and saying "what was the big deal again?"

That's not to say there won't be any problems at all...of course there will be. Any time you have people, you'll have problems. I do believe there will be some gay harassment....but there currently is every other type harassment, too...you deal with that like you do every other crime, by punishing the criminals. I don't think a gay sexual assault is any worse than a hetero sexual assault. I believe the VAST majorty (in the 95%+ range) of people who claim they will get out if DADT is lifted are talking out of their ass.

What could be gained is #1, it's the right thing to do. And #2, there is a rather large number of fully qualified gays who can serve...this should allow us to eliminate some of the less than desirable waivers we have taken in. #3 We can stop discharging fully qualified people that are found out or can no longer live in secret from their closest friends and family. #4 We eliminate a potential to exploit gay servicemembers.

#5. It IS broke.

[Measure Man]

Didnt do much studying in your biology classes did you? "born straight" is a genetic instinct necessary for the continuation of the species. Your hormone levels drive you to be straight, this is why those people with hormone imbalances are more susceptable to arriving at the conclusion that they are gay.

Im a behaviorist, but I am not a taliban behaviorist, I understand that there is some biological composition that gives a person more or less of a chance to come to that decision.

...you're only one step away from admitting that the hormone imbalances could actually create a biological instinct to be attracted to the "wrong" sex.

[Variable Wind]

...you're only one step away from admitting that the hormone imbalances could actually create a biological instinct to be attracted to the "wrong" sex.

But still, one step.

[Measure Man]

But still, one step.

Yeah, but once you accept that there is some biology to sexual attraction, then it is only logical that you will eventually conclude that biology can be a little screwy in some people

So, your position is that although people can be born with 6 fingers, three legs, one eye...conjoined twins...hermaphrodites...and every other conceivable variation...that the hormone mix is not capable of being mixed up to the point of "crossing the line?"

[Variable Wind]

Yeah, but once you accept that there is some biology to sexual attraction, then it is only logical that you will eventually conclude that biology can be a little screwy in some people
Absolutely people can be a little screwy, but aside from catastrophic genetic degeneration, I do not believe people are screwy because they are born the way they are. Everything is based on environment, decisions and momentary actions, feelings and dispositions. I do not believe that gays suffer from some catastrophic genetic degeneration, if they did then there would be very little debate here because the science would show it. That is why I have never referred to homosexuals as degenerates. That doesnt mean that homosexuality is always a choice, I but I believe in more cases than not, it is.


So, your position is that although people can be born with 6 fingers, three legs, one eye...conjoined twins...hermaphrodites...and every other conceivable variation...that the hormone mix is not capable of being mixed up to the point of "crossing the line?"
In a word, yes.

[MSMUROTC]

Variable Wind: "from growing up with a couple of friends who are now gay and my studies in psychology"

I can either listen to the Royal College of Psychiatrists or the American Academy of Pediatrics ... or I can take your opinion based off your one semester of Psych 101 and the massive sampling size of your completely non-biased research pool.

Please. You have a backwards opinion you've managed to beef up with an afternoon of reading and a few acquaintances ... "But I have a couple of friends who are gay!" ... to cover up your bigotry with a whitewash of intellect.

"my studies in psychology" ... my god, how pretentious. i await your first published book with the picture of you in a tweed jacked on the back cover, thoughtfully posed, ivory and mahogany pipe in hand.

[INGUARD]

pwnd!! on a forum; many can talk the talk; but can they walk the walk? lol

Hey, I am going for my master's but I am far from an intellectual lol

[INGUARD]

the picture of you in a tweed jacked on the back cover, thoughtfully posed, ivory and mahogany pipe in hand.


That will be exactly me when I take over the playboy mansion lol:eek: :tongue:

[Variable Wind]

I can either listen to the Royal College of Psychiatrists or the American Academy of Pediatrics ... or I can take your opinion based off your one semester of Psych 101 and the massive sampling size of your completely non-biased research pool.
Since I minored in Psych, my studies probably greatly exceed what little you have proven to know (I use the word know very loosely) which is still less than what I could have gathered after an afternoon of reading. Now in ALL of my psych classes, I do not really remember the American Academy of Peds to be very prominent in psych studies for much more than broken homes and ADD/LD case studies. The AAP (the American Association of PSYCHOLOGISTS) has several approved theories, some of which conflict with what I believe and a few that agree...way to make yourself look like an uneducated college ASS. The RCP? which one? The one in the UK, the one in Australia? The one in Saudi Arabia? There are many. Either way, the first thing you learn in psych 101 (which is obviously a class you have yet to attend and that I passed in high school) is that there is much debate over the various theories. Whether you subscribe to Jung, Freud or Watson, organizations like the AAP recognize theories based on the science behind them. Hence why I said that ChiefBs and DarkHearts ideas are entirely plausible, I just disagree. YOUR post however was based on an incredibly inane logical fallacy with that little hint that you knew more about this subject than I. Trust me, the bullshit you threw up was pretty obvious.


Please. You have a backwards opinion you've managed to beef up with an afternoon of reading and a few acquaintances ... "But I have a couple of friends who are gay!" ... to cover up your bigotry with a whitewash of intellect.
Uhh, while I disagree with homosexuality, I believe that they should be granted civil unions and be allowed to serve in the military. I have no problem working with people who are gay and if you took two seconds to check ANY of these DADT threads, you will see that I have absolutely NO problem with anyone based solely on the fact that they are homosexual. I dare you to find a thread where I say I dislike gay people. Trust me, there are enough people here who bash gays based on that simple fact alone that if I had any prejudice, I would join them.


"my studies in psychology" ... my god, how pretentious. i await your first published book with the picture of you in a tweed jacked on the back cover, thoughtfully posed, ivory and mahogany pipe in hand.
I think I have sufficiently dismissed your acinine ranting about something you havent the first clue on...if you need any further education, by all means let me know. But dont expect me to buy into the hurt feelings of some ROTC wannabe who is majoring in Pys Ed to lecture me on something they pulled out of their ass.

[MCGYVER]

Measure man, it isn't broke and here's why;

1. Gays are currently serving (we all agree on this)
2. The only gays that are getting kicked out are the ones that choose to make their gayness known
3. We already let them join the the military (see #1)
4. I've been in 20 years and NEVER heard of one situation where someones sexual preference cost them a promotion or appointment (Exploitation)
5. The right thing to do is to maintain good order and discipline at all cost, yes, even if it hurts somebody's wittle feewings.

[ghostrider]

Measure man, it isn't broke and here's why;

1. Gays are currently serving (we all agree on this)
2. The only gays that are getting kicked out are the ones that choose to make their gayness known
3. We already let them join the the military (see #1)
4. I've been in 20 years and NEVER heard of one situation where someones sexual preference cost them a promotion or appointment (Exploitation)
5. The right thing to do is to maintain good order and discipline at all cost, yes, even if it hurts somebody's wittle feewings.

MCGYVER,

Agree with you totally!!!!!!

[MSMUROTC]

I'm not saying I know more than you. I'm just saying you pretend to know a lot more than you do.

Let's get the pissing contest out of the way: Fact of the matter is, I went and am going to a "real" school as opposed to whatever dippity-doo, make-believe U you went to. I have a BA and I'm working on my MA, just need to finish up my master's thesis. I like to maintain some privacy, so I'll give you a hint: The BA and the MA are from schools in the top 15 on this list. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings. Doubt whatever diploma mill you went to is even on there. I say this not to try to show you up (ok, maybe a little) but to point out that that my education level is a hell of a lot higher quality and level than yours and I STILL would not go on a internet board and try to pretend like I'm some sort of expert in my field, and throw my weight around on the topic ... "in my studies" ... what a joke... And a MINOR? PLEASE!!! I have a minor and missed a second minor by one class, I know how LITTLE a minor means. All a minor is good for is trying to seem important at a cocktail party and coming off like a pompous ass with an over-inflated sense of self importance.

Fact of the matter is, "in my studies" (i.e. a 15 minute google search) no reputable psychological society in the world recognizes homosexuality as a disease, disorder, or choice. the closest any of them even come to your position is that nature MAY play a factor in forming individual preference, but that's completely separate from choice. That's like saying a guy who lost his legs in a car accident CHOOSES not to walk because he wasn't biologically born like that.

I will admit I'm a bit off base in calling you a flat-out bigot since you don't seem to be one. But giving a pseudo-scientific justification that it's a choice, a choice akin to what flavor of ice cream I'll have today, empowers all these bigots to continue to hold the caveman opinions that they do. You're their intellectual cover.That's why you get my hackles up.

[Measure Man]

Measure man, it isn't broke and here's why;

1. Gays are currently serving (we all agree on this)

agree, albeit under restrictions that are not placed on any other member serving.


2. The only gays that are getting kicked out are the ones that choose to make their gayness known

completely untrue. Many have been "outed" by third parties...Major Witt for example.

http://dont.stanford.edu/cases/Witt-v-DeptAirForce9thCir21May2008.pdf



3. We already let them join the the military (see #1)

with restrictions that are not placed on any other member of the military....


4. I've been in 20 years and NEVER heard of one situation where someones sexual preference cost them a promotion or appointment (Exploitation)

I've been in26 and saw several situations where someones sexual preference cost them their job. But really what I was referring to...is let's say someone has a secret on you...that if revealed could cost you your career/livlihood/retirement, etc...there is a chance for exploitation that doesn't exist otherwise.

Not saying this is a huge problem now...haven't heard of it really happening, but supposing there is a potential...and having a national policy that requires members of the national defense, who possess information vital to national security...to maintain a secretive personal life that if revealed could be devastating to their livelihood...is, well, just dumb national policy.


5. The right thing to do is to maintain good order and discipline at all cost, yes, even if it hurts somebody's wittle feewings.

Not talking about hurting someone's feelings...we're talking about the right to life, liberty and property...(see also US Constitution, 14th Amendment)

The right thing to do is to practice the freedom and equality that we as a nation stand for and our Constitution requires...even if it hurts somebody's wittle feewings about their wittle pee-pee being seen in the shower...

Not to mention the presumed widespread "harm to good order and discipline" has not been shown anywhere....not in any foreign military that allows gays...not in US paramilitary organizations that allow gays...and not in the cases of known homosexuals serving in the US military.

[DarkHeart]

Darkheart, that's the ticket, just discredit your opponents source, don't offer your own to counter it. You're acting like a tool. By the way, I fear no man and this includes ex cons. I also didn't even infer that all men in prison were gay, that was your twisted interpretation (or desire). ;)

Discrediting a source is an extremely good debating technique, and considering your source, providing one of my own is not really necessary, but I'll throw you a bone for trying ;)

No Escape: Male Rape in Prisons (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/report.html)

You didn't imply that all men in prison are gay, you just implied that all men who engage in homosexual sex (willingly or not) are gay (UrbanDictionary.com, "Turned Out." Definitions 2 & 3 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turned+out).). Which is equally ignorant. Definition 5 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turned+out) has no supporting evidence of its claim, so I'll just throw that out all together with.

Despite your well crafted assertion of your masculine prowess, its folly to underestimate a large convict who regularly rapes other convicts.

Thanks for playing.:cool:

[MCGYVER]

Measure Man, anecdotal evidence is a pretty weak tactic. We can all dig and find an example of something that will lend credence to our point. Far better to show a pattern or substantial number of incidents to make your case. I'm just sayin.

The U.S. Military is an institution that does regularly discriminate in many areas. Those that are color blind cannot be aviators, those that are female cannot be 11, 12 or 13 series, those that don't meet certain GT scores can't get certain jobs, those that are not a certain height cannot fill certain billets, etc., etc. Restricting certain individuals from certain jobs is perfectly normal, legal and logical discrimination. You could call it discernment if you prefer. Bottom line up front, we already discriminate, accept it and move on.

Your example of their sexuality being used as a weapon for the enemy to commit SAEDA is ridiculous, there are plenty of other opportunities that we don't guard against already, why would homosexuality be so different from any of the others? If this were the case don't you think there'd be at least one case of it having happened? If so there would, no doubt, be a movie made on the subject.

As for your constitutional rights, not sure if you knew this but you checked them at the door when you enlisted. You no longer have the right to free speech and many other freedoms if they hinder the mission, disrupt good order and discipline, pose a national security risk, etc., etc.

Love your Air Force creed, sounds so rugged. :)

[acesfilter]

Measure Man, anecdotal evidence is a pretty weak tactic. We can all dig and find an example of something that will lend credence to our point. Far better to show a pattern or substantial number of incidents to make your case. I'm just sayin.

The U.S. Military is an institution that does regularly discriminate in many areas. Those that are color blind cannot be aviators, those that are female cannot be 11, 12 or 13 series, those that don't meet certain GT scores can't get certain jobs, those that are not a certain height cannot fill certain billets, etc., etc. Restricting certain individuals from certain jobs is perfectly normal, legal and logical discrimination. You could call it discernment if you prefer. Bottom line up front, we already discriminate, accept it and move on.

As for your constitutional rights, not sure if you knew this but you checked them at the door when you enlisted. You no longer have the right to free speech and many other freedoms if they hinder the mission, disrupt good order and discipline, pose a national security risk, etc., etc.

Love your Air Force creed, sounds so rugged. :)

Jesus-tapdancing-Christ you are reaching! :rolleyes: This "discrimination" as you so call it, already takes place in civilian life as well. It's how they [management] set standards and determine who is qualified to do a specific task.

Now, while I don't necessarily agree with not letting females serve in combat arms, you have to realize that your other 2 examples are in place for good reason. For example, I wouldn't want someone with a GT score below 100, much less 110, serving as a Warrant Officer for the United States Army. Maybe the guy can't read or take tests well. Or perhaps he's just a moron. In any case, he (or she) has no business serving in such a highly technical, highly demanding position.

[MCGYVER]

Dark Heart, you can take my statement however you like. I didn't say I could beat the shit out of ANY ex con, what I said was "I fear no man, ex con or otherwise". I give them no more credit for being able to dominate another man than I do any other person. I'm sure there is an ex con (somewhere) that could definitely beat my ass. On the same note, I'm sure there is a female kickboxer (somewhere) that could do the same. I would "fear" neither of them. My point was that ex cons are simply people and all people are different. Some could whip your ass, some can't. There is no logical reason to believe that an ex con would be any more capable of kicking your ass than someone that's not an ex con. That's just stereotyping and silly.

Have a nice night cupcake. :)

[DarkHeart]

As for your constitutional rights, not sure if you knew this but you checked them at the door when you enlisted. You no longer have the right to free speech and many other freedoms if they hinder the mission, disrupt good order and discipline, pose a national security risk, etc., etc.



And your Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all said that DADT should go. Now go be a good mindless automaton for the US military and deal with it.

As for your, "the military discriminates... blah blah blah," blithering; the military does not allow people to perform jobs that they can't physically do. A color blind person can't be a pilot because he can't do the job. There is no evidence anywhere that a gay man can't pilot a fighter jet because of his sexuality. Or any other job for that matter.

Your assertion is false. Good Day.:cool:

[Measure Man]

Measure Man, anecdotal evidence is a pretty weak tactic. We can all dig and find an example of something that will lend credence to our point. Far better to show a pattern or substantial number of incidents to make your case. I'm just sayin.

Your claim was ONLY gays who choose to out themselves get discharged...it takes only ONE example to prove your assertion false. That isn't anectdotal. Perhaps you want to amend your claim now...surely you'll have the substantial data to back it up before you spout off another generalization again? I'm just sayin'


The U.S. Military is an institution that does regularly discriminate in many areas. Those that are color blind cannot be aviators, those that are female cannot be 11, 12 or 13 series, those that don't meet certain GT scores can't get certain jobs, those that are not a certain height cannot fill certain billets, etc., etc. Restricting certain individuals from certain jobs is perfectly normal, legal and logical discrimination. You could call it discernment if you prefer. Bottom line up front, we already discriminate, accept it and move on.

...and yet all the examples you cite have a bearing on the individuals ability to perform their duty. Homosexuality does not.

Yes...there is discrimination everywhere...but it is the arbitrary discrimination that we should eliminate.

Anyway...was there somewhere I claimed the military should not discriminate on any basis? Ludicrous argument against a point no one was making!


As for your constitutional rights, not sure if you knew this but you checked them at the door when you enlisted. You no longer have the right to free speech and many other freedoms if they hinder the mission, disrupt good order and discipline, pose a national security risk, etc., etc.


Actually, I did NOT now that...in fact, your statement is completely untrue...the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and is NOT checked at the door to the US military...there are limits to those rights for everyone...but there is also something called Equal Protection.


Love your Air Force creed, sounds so rugged. :)

Wow...great point...I think you've won!

[DarkHeart]

Dark Heart, you can take my statement however you like. I didn't say I could beat the shit out of ANY ex con, what I said was "I fear no man, ex con or otherwise". I give them no more credit for being able to dominate another man than I do any other person. I'm sure there is an ex con (somewhere) that could definitely beat my ass. On the same note, I'm sure there is a female kickboxer (somewhere) that could do the same. I would "fear" neither of them. My point was that ex cons are simply people and all people are different. Some could whip your ass, some can't. There is no logical reason to believe that an ex con would be any more capable of kicking your ass than someone that's not an ex con. That's just stereotyping and silly.

Have a nice night cupcake. :)

Good job at ducking the real issue by expounding on my pointless jab at your masculinity.

Get back to me when you feel like answering for your nonsensical arguments and get over your sexual insecurities.

I will have a nice night sweetness ;)

[MCGYVER]

acesfilter, you said yourself that you don't agree with the ban on females in combat arms but you do understand the logic (reasoning) of it, correct? Well guess what? I don't agree with DADT but I understand the logic of it. Do I want to do away with DADT? Not unless we also go back to the original policy. It is not perfect but it's better than doing nothing (the proposal by the geniuses). You can disagree all you like, that is your prerogative. You have your opinion and it means as much as anyone elses. :)

I love a saying I read on here not long ago:

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, win or lose, you're still retarded. LOL

[MCGYVER]

And your Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all said that DADT should go. Now go be a good mindless automaton for the US military and deal with it.

As for your, "the military discriminates... blah blah blah," blithering; the military does not allow people to perform jobs that they can't physically do. A color blind person can't be a pilot because he can't do the job. There is no evidence anywhere that a gay man can't pilot a fighter jet because of his sexuality. Or any other job for that matter.

Your assertion is false. Good Day.:cool:

The rule wasn't made by any of those you mentioned though. :) Therefore, it can't be "unmade" by any of them.

You miss the forest for the trees. Rules, restrictions and requirements exist for many reasons. Just because you don't understand or agree with the logic doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. :)

[Measure Man]

The rule wasn't made by any of those you mentioned though. :) Therefore, it can't be "unmade" by any of them.

You miss the forest for the trees. Rules, restrictions and requirements exist for many reasons. Just because you don't understand or agree with the logic doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. :)

...it also doesn't mean we can't voice opposition to rules while following them. Did anyone claim to refuse to follow the rules currently in place? Why do you keep making arguments against points no one is making?

[acesfilter]

acesfilter, you said yourself that you don't agree with the ban on females in combat arms but you do understand the logic (reasoning) of it, correct?

No. I stated that your other examples make no sense for the very reasons DarkHart and Measure Man previously pointed out. Those disqualifications deem that the applicant in question would NOT be able to perform the task at hand. Now, since you missed it earlier--how does this correlate with homosexuals not being capable of doing a job due to their sexuality alone?



Well guess what? I don't agree with DADT but I understand the logic of it. Do I want to do away with DADT? Not unless we also go back to the original policy.

Maybe I'm just going cross-eyed here...but this statement makes no sense. What you've stated here is that we should NOT update the current policy, but rather..regress back to a policy which made it almost completely impossible for homosexuals to serve in the military. Oh yes...that would be SO much better than what's in place now. :rolleyes:


It is not perfect but it's better than doing nothing (the proposal by the geniuses).

No, actually this policy is a weak attempt at dealing with an epidemic which, in all probability, no one has a straight forward solution for. No one in congress, anyway.


You can disagree all you like, that is your prerogative. You have your opinion and it means as much as anyone elses. :)

You're right. I certainly can disagree with you all I want...because you make it so easy. :cool:


I love a saying I read on here not long ago:

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, win or lose, you're still retarded. LOL

Thanks for that anecdote, Captain Obvious.

[DarkHeart]

The rule wasn't made by any of those you mentioned though. :) Therefore, it can't be "unmade" by any of them.

You miss the forest for the trees. Rules, restrictions and requirements exist for many reasons. Just because you don't understand or agree with the logic doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. :)

If you bothered to educate yourself on the subject you would know that 10 U.S.C. § 654 (DADT) was not based on any logic or reason.

[MCGYVER]

...it also doesn't mean we can't voice opposition to rules while following them. Did anyone claim to refuse to follow the rules currently in place? Why do you keep making arguments against points no one is making?

I was actually meaning to reply to someone else that typed: "And your Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all said that DADT should go. Now go be a good mindless automaton for the US military and deal with it."

I wasn't just pulling out of thin air. Do you only read my posts and not anyone elses here? LOL

[DarkHeart]

I was actually meaning to reply to someone else that typed: "And your Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all said that DADT should go. Now go be a good mindless automaton for the US military and deal with it."

I wasn't just pulling out of thin air. Do you only read my posts and not anyone elses here? LOL

Subtly and sarcasm aren't things you do too well, are they?

[MCGYVER]

Subtly and sarcasm aren't things you do too well, are they?

If you mean "subtlety" and sarcasm then, yes, it's something I fully understand. Not sure how it applies to recent posts though. If you mean something, say it. If you are trying to intentionally obfuscate then I understand that as well.

btw, if I quote someone in my post, that means I'm replying to THEM, not you, not the general public, THEM. When you come in and comment as if I was replying to you in these instances it makes you look a bit slow or retarded.

[DarkHeart]

If you mean "subtlety" and sarcasm then, yes, it's something I fully understand. Not sure how it applies to recent posts though. If you mean something, say it. If you are trying to intentionally obfuscate then I understand that as well.

He says while using spelling-Nazism to obfuscate the argument at hand, which is ironically how you continue to duck direct questions about your position on the argument of DADT.

[DarkHeart]

btw, if I quote someone in my post, that means I'm replying to THEM, not you, not the general public, THEM. When you come in and comment as if I was replying to you in these instances it makes you look a bit slow or retarded.

edited a bit did you?

That's okay, I can keep up in an argument.

Lemme put on my Internet White Knight hat real quick....

::ahem:: This is a public forum, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of the Inetnets.

Edit: Didn't you just try to berate Measure Man for only reading your posts and not the posts around him?

Ah, the system works.

You are hereby fined eleventy billion Internets, for public silliness unbecoming of an anonymous internet person claiming intellectual superiority

[MCGYVER]

Okay I give up, what are Inetnets? You seem to be the one that wants to wander off topic here and get involved in others conversations. Ask me a question and I'll answer it. Otherwise STFU and have a nice day.

[DarkHeart]

Okay I give up, what are Inetnets? You seem to be the one that wants to wander off topic here and get involved in others conversations. Ask me a question and I'll answer it. Otherwise STFU and have a nice day.

I'm sorry, you didn't quote me, are you talking to me?

I don't have a question, its more of a request. Use credible evidence in support of your stance that Homosexuals shouldn't serve openly.

Never mind I figured out how to form that in a question. How does homosexuality preclude service in the military? Obviously DADT, but I want to know how being homosexual makes it impossible for a person to perform the duties required of an active service member. Are homosexuals bad pilots? Is there something wrong with their pinky fingers that makes it hard for them to shot straight?

[MCGYVER]

I'm sorry, you didn't quote me, are you talking to me?

I don't have a question, its more of a request. Use credible evidence in support of your stance that Homosexuals shouldn't serve openly.

Never mind I figured out how to form that in a question. How does homosexuality preclude service in the military? Obviously DADT, but I want to know how being homosexual makes it impossible for a person to perform the duties required of an active service member. Are homosexuals bad pilots? Is there something wrong with their pinky fingers that makes it hard for them to shot straight?

Okay, most of this will sound repetetive (to most on here):

1. I don't (honestly and seriously) have a problem with homosexuals (in or out of the military). I'm not at all homophobic (sorry to disappoint).

2. I think homosexuals in certain jobs is fine. i.e. legal clerks, finance clerks, (pretty much any clerk), support units, medical (except line medics), etc., etc. I just think that it doesn't make sense to force the combat arms to "accept with open arms" the openly homosexuals at large. My logic for this is based on financial, logistical, ethical (my ethics), moral (my morals), safety (of the gays), cohesion, good order and discipline and combat capability.

3. It's not about whether an individual can do a job, if that was the only issue you'd have some female rangers, some color blind pilots, some 6'10" apache pilots, some one armed snipers, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

4. It's not about making every group (or sub group) of people happy. It's about accomplishing the mission. The military should not be a testing ground for social experimentation. We are NOT the ACLU and we shouldn't act like it. We do the best we can with what we have and we try to accomodate people but when it crosses the line of affecting the mission then we have to put our foot down.

5. Our illustrious leaders are SO far removed from the ranks and the thinking of the average Soldier (officer and enlisted) that it is humorous to even imagine them having a guage on the "pulse" of the troops. They've been part of the elite for so long that it's impossible for them to relate to you or I any more. They are now simply yes men and towing the current line of hogwash that is being spewed by the kinder/gentler, P.C., left wing liberal Main Stream Media and it's supporters.

6. Doing the right thing is often hard and it often hurts peoples feelings. That's why it's so often not done.

[CyberStormAlpha]

6. Doing the right thing is often hard and it often hurts peoples feelings. That's why it's so often not done.

Truer words have seldom been said. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on what the 'right' thing is, and both sides of the coin hurt someone's feelings.

[DarkHeart]

1. I don't (honestly and seriously) have a problem with homosexuals (in or out of the military). I'm not at all homophobic (sorry to disappoint).

Good for you, but you seem to have some strange ideas about what homosexuals are capable of doing.



2. I think homosexuals in certain jobs is fine. i.e. legal clerks, finance clerks, (pretty much any clerk), support units, medical (except line medics), etc., etc. I just think that it doesn't make sense to force the combat arms to "accept with open arms" the openly homosexuals at large. My logic for this is based on financial, logistical, ethical (my ethics), moral (my morals), safety (of the gays), cohesion, good order and discipline and combat capability.

The question is, "why." You are still not giving me any evidence to support these theories. This report (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf) chronicles the integration of homosexuals into foreign military. No significant problems.

Ethics,morals, you said you have no problems with gays, what's the ethical or moral problem?

Safety? So because some of our straight guys are unprofessional, all professional gays shouldn't serve?

Good Order and Discipline and Unit Cohesion are dead arguments, no evidence exists to support this claim while an abundance of evidence does exist that support the opposite.



3. It's not about whether an individual can do a job, if that was the only issue you'd have some female rangers, some color blind pilots, some 6'10" apache pilots, some one armed snipers, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Yes it is. Color blind pilots can't effectively operate a jet and their inferior vision constitutes an unwanted risk. If you're too tall to pilot a helo, you can't do the job cause you don't fit. A one armed person can't operate a rifle or fight as well as someone with all their appendages.

You're not answering my question again. How is a gay person, or a woman for that matter, less qualified to do a job. What is it about them that makes them physically incapable of performing a task that straight men can do?

You are comparing homosexuality with physical disabilities that the military screens against.



4. It's not about making every group (or sub group) of people happy. It's about accomplishing the mission. The military should not be a testing ground for social experimentation. We are NOT the ACLU and we shouldn't act like it. We do the best we can with what we have and we try to accomodate people but when it crosses the line of affecting the mission then we have to put our foot down.

By that reasoning black people shouldn't be in the military.

What line are homosexuals crossing? They are able bodied citizens of the US who want to serve their country with dignity. The only people affecting the mission are people that can't act professional around homosexuals, those people are the problem, not gays.



5. Our illustrious leaders are SO far removed from the ranks and the thinking of the average Soldier (officer and enlisted) that it is humorous to even imagine them having a guage on the "pulse" of the troops. They've been part of the elite for so long that it's impossible for them to relate to you or I any more. They are now simply yes men and towing the current line of hogwash that is being spewed by the kinder/gentler, P.C., left wing liberal Main Stream Media and it's supporters.

You're basically saying our leadership has no idea what they are talking about and we shouldn't listen to them. Right. You have no business being in the military.



6. Doing the right thing is often hard and it often hurts peoples feelings. That's why it's so often not done.

IT'S TOO HARD SO WE SHOULDN'T DO IT!?! I was being facetious before but now I'm serious, get the hell out of my military and my country. I'm pretty sure the USA holds itself and it's service members to better standards than that. It's too hard, grow up.

[Variable Wind]

I'm not saying I know more than you. I'm just saying you pretend to know a lot more than you do.
Because you cannot say you know more than me because when you just TRIED to point something out, you only made yourself look like some babbling idiot. The ONLY reason you got any response out of me was because your whole point in that useless diatribe of yours was to say that I was a bigot. You effectively discredited yourself.


Let's get the pissing contest out of the way:Fact of the matter is, I went and am going to a "real" school as opposed to whatever dippity-doo, make-believe U you went to. I have a BA and I'm working on my MA, just need to finish up my master's thesis. I like to maintain some privacy, so I'll give you a hint: The BA and the MA are from schools in the top 15 on this list. [url]
Yeah, I ATTENDED college. I was a National Guardsman so that I could go to a reputable UNIVERSITY and actually take real courses. Meaning I had to get a real job and learn real skills instead of playing army on campus in order to not have to pay for my schooling. And the fact of the matter is, your Masters in Pys Ed still does not require any psych classes. Both my Criminology and Psychology fields obviously exposed me to more of it than you, which again is apparent in your posts. You could have gone to Harvard and if your major/minor didnt require psych classes...you still dont know jack about the subject. Bottom line scrub, this "pissing contest" was little more than you opening your mouth and inserting your foot yourself. I only helped a little.


Doubt whatever diploma mill you went to is even on there. I say this not to try to show you up (ok, maybe a little) but to point out that that my education level is a hell of a lot higher quality and level than yours and I STILL would not go on a internet board and try to pretend like I'm some sort of expert in my field, and throw my weight around on the topic ... "in my studies" ... what a joke... And a MINOR? PLEASE!!! I have a minor and missed a second minor by one class, I know how LITTLE a minor means. All a minor is good for is trying to seem important at a cocktail party and coming off like a pompous ass with an over-inflated sense of self importance.
This is hilarious. You dont understand proper english. I STUDIED Psychology, its how I passed my classes, genius. So therefore, in my STUDIES I found a theory that made the most sense to me in a *wait for it* TEXTBOOK!!! OMG!!! Now you are right that minors mean little in the general sense (especially when you are going to college to be a gym teacher.) But for someone who was perhaps going to college to work in the field of Criminal Justice, a second study in psychology is an IMMENSE help. Now I do not expect you to understand, since you obviously arent the kind of guy who goes to college to learn anything, you go just to SAY that you have learned something.


Fact of the matter is, "in my studies" (i.e. a 15 minute google search) no reputable psychological society in the world recognizes homosexuality as a disease, disorder, or choice. the closest any of them even come to your position is that nature MAY play a factor in forming individual preference, but that's completely separate from choice. That's like saying a guy who lost his legs in a car accident CHOOSES not to walk because he wasn't biologically born like that.
Well college stud, you really got me...since every time I started a research thesis in my contemporary sociology class I went to google for 15 minutes and if I didnt find what I liked, I just decided that I wouldnt do that.

Actually I started with the experts. So I wont do your research for you...but Ill point you in the right direction:
www.apa.org


I will admit I'm a bit off base in calling you a flat-out bigot since you don't seem to be one. But giving a pseudo-scientific justification that it's a choice, a choice akin to what flavor of ice cream I'll have today, empowers all these bigots to continue to hold the caveman opinions that they do. You're their intellectual cover.That's why you get my hackles up.
Wow you really did completely misread what I said. I didnt say it was a choice (though in some cases it is)What I said that it is not GENETIC. I believe that it is a unconsious compulsion based on many different factors and experiences and decisions that alter your psyche into a state where you find sexual attraction to your own gender. Ask any behaviorist, kid...but I doubt you even know what a behaviorist is since you admittedly only looked at google for 15 minutes. It will definitely not feel like a choice, dunce, but I guess I cant trust you to actually R-E-A-D what other people since whatever "top 15 school" you went to obviously doesnt require high reading scores on its applicants SATs.

[MCGYVER]

Good for you, but you seem to have some strange ideas about what homosexuals are capable of doing.

Okay, so you find my ideas strange. Just one of the things that makes our Country great, the right to disagree and have opinions.

The question is, "why." You are still not giving me any evidence to support these theories. This report (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf) chronicles the integration of homosexuals into foreign military. No significant problems.

So, because other countries do something we should do it as well? Wow! Here I was thinking that we had the standard all others should be measured by. Silly me.

Ethics,morals, you said you have no problems with gays, what's the ethical or moral problem?

My morals tell me that homosexuality is wrong. If the Army allows it I have to tolerate it just as I have to tolerate Soldiers that wish to practice the muslim or wiccan religions.

Safety? So because some of our straight guys are unprofessional, all professional gays shouldn't serve?

Does it matter WHY people will be hurt or killed to decide not to put people in situations where it may happen (needlessly)? I don't advocate it, I'm just saying that it is a likely repurcussion and has happened before so why "experiment" when you already know what's going to happen?

Good Order and Discipline and Unit Cohesion are dead arguments, no evidence exists to support this claim while an abundance of evidence does exist that support the opposite.

No evidence exists because we haven't allowed it before. I've never been to the sun but I'm pretty sure it's hot there.

Yes it is. Color blind pilots can't effectively operate a jet and their inferior vision constitutes an unwanted risk. If you're too tall to pilot a helo, you can't do the job cause you don't fit. A one armed person can't operate a rifle or fight as well as someone with all their appendages.

You're not answering my question again. How is a gay person, or a woman for that matter, less qualified to do a job. What is it about them that makes them physically incapable of performing a task that straight men can do?

You are comparing homosexuality with physical disabilities that the military screens against.

Okay, I'll humor you. You know how you have to pass a psychological screening to be in the SF and Delta? Should we do away with that because it has nothing to do with the Soldiers physical abilities? There are many different ways of "screening". I thought you'd get the intent of my logic but apparently not.

By that reasoning black people shouldn't be in the military.

Huh? Wha? How the hell do you draw a parallel between those two statements?!?!?!

What line are homosexuals crossing? They are able bodied citizens of the US who want to serve their country with dignity. The only people affecting the mission are people that can't act professional around homosexuals, those people are the problem, not gays.

There are thousands of able bodied citizens (and non citizens) that apply every year to serve "their" country and who are rejected. Some just don't make the cut. Accept it. Quit crying. I don't make the rules, I enforce them. I do have and opinion on them though. :)

You're basically saying our leadership has no idea what they are talking about and we shouldn't listen to them. Right. You have no business being in the military.

On this subject that is my personal opinion. Last I checked this is an opinion forum. I'm hurt that you feel I have no business being in the military. Thankfully your opinion doesn't mean shit to me or affect me in any way. :)

IT'S TOO HARD SO WE SHOULDN'T DO IT!?! I was being facetious before but now I'm serious, get the hell out of my military and my country. I'm pretty sure the USA holds itself and it's service members to better standards than that. It's too hard, grow up.

Make me bitch! :)

[Seasons]

I'm sorry, did I just read someone claiming they wanted to disallow homosexuals from open service for their own protection?

Tread carefully, for you open a whole new can of worms with a statement like that. One that will end up devouring the flesh from your arguments.

[Variable Wind]

I'm sorry, did I just read someone claiming they wanted to disallow homosexuals from open service for their own protection?

Tread carefully, for you open a whole new can of worms with a statement like that. One that will end up devouring the flesh from your arguments.

We do not discuss the Zombie Posts....it brings forth much evil.

[Your_Name_Here]

Make me bitch! :)

What do you think we have all been reading from you in this thread?:rolleyes:

Or are you asking to be made "(someone's)" bitch (your words, not mine)?

[INGUARD]

report (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf) .

I bet that doctor never had to face an AK47 or sleep in the field with grunts lol.

excerpt from "A Few Good Men" lol

Already leaders in Congress who are against DADT to be lifted stated that our comparison to foreign militaries is night and day. We can look to them as an example but that doesnt mean if it worked with them; that is will work with us.

Also, people if you never served in a line unit or never did OPs outside the wire; you dont have a clue on how the combat arms (mainly Marines and Soldiers) will work with openly gays integrated. All your opinions are based on pure speculation.

From my experience in the military (The Marine Corps and the US Army) and being in combat and living in the field for months, there is a strong possibility that it won't work unless alot of conditions were met.

Can it be done? Yes, of course. But is it the right thing to do. Negative.

Yes, homosexuals can be professionals just like heterosexuals but imagine if they can profess their sexuality without repercussions?

I experienced their overtness and come ons in the civilian world. Dont you think they wouldnt come on to straight males in the barracks, showers, field, workplace? I am just saying that is a possibility right? Now we have to deal with more EOs of this nature.

[INGUARD]

Make me bitch! :)

The smiley face brings it down a couple of notches :eek:

Cmon everyone; lets all have friendly debates. You forget at the end of the day, we all on the same effin team! lol

[Shrike]

What do you think we have all been reading from you in this thread?:rolleyes:

Or are you asking to be made "(someone's)" bitch (your words, not mine)?

Yeah, that's a pretty big slip from someone who - in lieu of actually counter-arguing - was pointing out spelling/grammar errors.

Bigtime Freudian screw-up or simple mistake? Hmmm....

[Variable Wind]

Yeah, that's a pretty big slip from someone who - in lieu of actually counter-arguing - was pointing out spelling/grammar errors.

Bigtime Freudian screw-up or simple mistake? Hmmm....

DONT YOU PRETEND LIKE YOU KNOW PSYCHOLOGY YOU BIGOT!!!!

[Shrike]

DONT YOU PRETEND LIKE YOU KNOW PSYCHOLOGY YOU BIGOT!!!!

OK, LOL, I admit it, its just sumthing LOL I herd on the skoolbus. I'm to Jung to know anything about psykology! LOL

[Variable Wind]

OK, LOL, I admit it, its just sumthing LOL I herd on the skoolbus. I'm to Jung to know anything about psykology! LOL

10 points for that one.

[ChiefB]

Truer words have seldom been said. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on what the 'right' thing is, and both sides of the coin hurt someone's feelings.

You are correct, Sir...it all depends on your interpretation of "what the right thing is" is! :)

ChiefB

[Measure Man]

I was actually meaning to reply to someone else that typed: "And your Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all said that DADT should go. Now go be a good mindless automaton for the US military and deal with it."

I wasn't just pulling out of thin air. Do you only read my posts and not anyone elses here? LOL

Well...I saw that...but he didn't say he wasn't following rules...and you chastised him about following rules...

You just don't make sense, man.

[MCGYVER]

Well...I saw that...but he didn't say he wasn't following rules...and you chastised him about following rules...

You just don't make sense, man.

Um, no, I think you are mistaken. Regardless, let's move on and deal with the issue at hand.

[Measure Man]

Um, no, I think you are mistaken. Regardless, let's move on and deal with the issue at hand.

Sounds good.


Okay, most of this will sound repetetive (to most on here):

1. I don't (honestly and seriously) have a problem with homosexuals (in or out of the military). I'm not at all homophobic (sorry to disappoint).

Good.


2. I think homosexuals in certain jobs is fine. i.e. legal clerks, finance clerks, (pretty much any clerk), support units, medical (except line medics), etc., etc. I just think that it doesn't make sense to force the combat arms to "accept with open arms" the openly homosexuals at large. My logic for this is based on financial, logistical, ethical (my ethics), moral (my morals), safety (of the gays), cohesion, good order and discipline and combat capability.

1) Financial issues: Do gays cost more than straights?

2) Logistical: Are gays harder to move than straights?

3) Why should your ethics and morals be of concern in making national policy?

4) Safety of gays? I assume you think all the gays would be beaten and/or killed? Can you provide examples showing that gays are in more danger than any minority group? I mean, I know you can provide anectdotal evidence of gay-bashing...just as we all can for any minority group...so, what we're looking for here is evidence that gays are significantly more in danger than any other member. Ideally, this evidence would be from foreign militaries, US paramilitary organizations or US military with known homosexuals.

5) Cohesion, good order and discipline and combat capability: again, where is the evidence that any of these would be affected? Have they been in foreign militaries, US paramilitary organizations, the US military, or anywhere else?


3. It's not about whether an individual can do a job, if that was the only issue you'd have some female rangers, some color blind pilots, some 6'10" apache pilots, some one armed snipers, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

All of those things you sight have a bearing on the person's ability to do the job...sure, exceptional individuals can overcome...however, those things all serve as good indicators to make decisions on expending resources....IOW, you wouldn't want to expend resources training 100 color-blind pilots if only 10 would be able to qualify as capable pilots...same with one-armed snipers. Because vision and armedness have a direct bearing on whether or not someone can do that job...not that they are 100% eliminators...but that they have a significant enough bearing to warrant not spending resources finding out which few can overcome their disability.

The difference is that homosexuality has NO BEARING whatsoever on one's ability to do the job and IS NOT and effective discrimator for that purpose whatsoever...it would be akin to arbitrarily discrimating against people whose last name starts with "T" for sniper training....or people with "outie" belly-buttons for pilot training.

That is the difference between meaningful discrimination and arbitrary discrimination.


4. It's not about making every group (or sub group) of people happy.

Your right...its not about making people happy...yet, this policy was a compromise to make the right-wing conservatives happy. Even though, no concrete evidence has ever been shown demonstrating the national security interest at stake in allowing gays equal opportunity. Providing US citizens equal opportunity under the constitution is slightly more than "making them happy"...as if, giving women the right to vote was "just making them happy."


It's about accomplishing the mission. The military should not be a testing ground for social experimentation. We are NOT the ACLU and we shouldn't act like it.

ZERO evidence that allowing gays will hinder the mission. In fact, it could very well enhance the mission.

This is hardly a "social experiment"....every other faction of society and many other militaries have already done this...and have already proven there is no catastrophic effects...we are lagging, not experimenting here.


We do the best we can with what we have and we try to accomodate people but when it crosses the line of affecting the mission then we have to put our foot down.

once again...allowing gays doesn't affect the mission...this is a false claim.


5. Our illustrious leaders are SO far removed from the ranks and the thinking of the average Soldier (officer and enlisted) that it is humorous to even imagine them having a guage on the "pulse" of the troops. They've been part of the elite for so long that it's impossible for them to relate to you or I any more. They are now simply yes men and towing the current line of hogwash that is being spewed by the kinder/gentler, P.C., left wing liberal Main Stream Media and it's supporters.

Can't speak for the national leaders...personally, I think they'll do whatever is politically expedient without providing any real leadership either way....but as for me I've served 26 years enlisted and am hardly elite...I think I can relate.


6. Doing the right thing is often hard and it often hurts peoples feelings. That's why it's so often not done.

Which is why we should lift DADT.

[DarkHeart]

I bet that doctor never had to face an AK47 or sleep in the field with grunts lol.

So I actual link an article to defend my stance and the best you can come up with is "well he wasn't in the military so what the hell does he know."??? Try again, that's a lame argument with no intelligence behind it at all.



Also, people if you never served in a line unit or never did OPs outside the wire; you dont have a clue on how the combat arms (mainly Marines and Soldiers) will work with openly gays integrated. All your opinions are based on pure speculation.

Wrong again. You just responded to my post which has real evidence and research linked to it. So far all your posts are made up of opinion and speculation.



Can it be done? Yes, of course. But is it the right thing to do. Negative.

Funny, I thought the party line was, it's the right thing to do, but it can't be done.



Yes, homosexuals can be professionals just like heterosexuals but imagine if they can profess their sexuality without repercussions?

You mean like how heterosexuals profess their sexuality without repercussions now?



I experienced their overtness and come ons in the civilian world. Dont you think they wouldnt come on to straight males in the barracks, showers, field, workplace? I am just saying that is a possibility right? Now we have to deal with more EOs of this nature.

Sure it would, in the same way males hit on women in the work place now. Its unprofessional and shouldn't be tolerated.

MCGYVER, How about a thoughtful response, with evidence.

[ChiefB]

Sounds good.



Good.



1) Financial issues: Do gays cost more than straights?

2) Logistical: Are gays harder to move than straights?

3) Why should your ethics and morals be of concern in making national policy?

4) Safety of gays? I assume you think all the gays would be beaten and/or killed? Can you provide examples showing that gays are in more danger than any minority group? I mean, I know you can provide anectdotal evidence of gay-bashing...just as we all can for any minority group...so, what we're looking for here is evidence that gays are significantly more in danger than any other member. Ideally, this evidence would be from foreign militaries, US paramilitary organizations or US military with known homosexuals.

5) Cohesion, good order and discipline and combat capability: again, where is the evidence that any of these would be affected? Have they been in foreign militaries, US paramilitary organizations, the US military, or anywhere else?



All of those things you sight have a bearing on the person's ability to do the job...sure, exceptional individuals can overcome...however, those things all serve as good indicators to make decisions on expending resources....IOW, you wouldn't want to expend resources training 100 color-blind pilots if only 10 would be able to qualify as capable pilots...same with one-armed snipers. Because vision and armedness have a direct bearing on whether or not someone can do that job...not that they are 100% eliminators...but that they have a significant enough bearing to warrant not spending resources finding out which few can overcome their disability.

The difference is that homosexuality has NO BEARING whatsoever on one's ability to do the job and IS NOT and effective discrimator for that purpose whatsoever...it would be akin to arbitrarily discrimating against people whose last name starts with "T" for sniper training....or people with "outie" belly-buttons for pilot training.

That is the difference between meaningful discrimination and arbitrary discrimination.



Your right...its not about making people happy...yet, this policy was a compromise to make the right-wing conservatives happy. Even though, no concrete evidence has ever been shown demonstrating the national security interest at stake in allowing gays equal opportunity. Providing US citizens equal opportunity under the constitution is slightly more than "making them happy"...as if, giving women the right to vote was "just making them happy."



ZERO evidence that allowing gays will hinder the mission. In fact, it could very well enhance the mission.

This is hardly a "social experiment"....every other faction of society and many other militaries have already done this...and have already proven there is no catastrophic effects...we are lagging, not experimenting here.



once again...allowing gays doesn't affect the mission...this is a false claim.



Can't speak for the national leaders...personally, I think they'll do whatever is politically expedient without providing any real leadership either way....but as for me I've served 26 years enlisted and am hardly elite...I think I can relate.



Which is why we should lift DADT.

Very, very well put, MM ....But "armedness"? I mustuf missed that in vocabulary class.:tongue:

ChiefB

[Measure Man]

Very, very well put, MM ....But "armedness"? I mustuf missed that in vocabulary class.:tongue:

ChiefB

Poetic license...

[DarkHeart]

Very, very well put, MM ....But "armedness"? I mustuf missed that in vocabulary class.:tongue:

ChiefB

Kinda like truthiness

[MCGYVER]

Funny how I state my points over and over again but continuously get asked to provide facts or proof of my OPINION! Wow! It's my opinion folks. I believe it to be true but I can no more prove it that you can prove otherwise. If you have some facts or proof (relevant) than supply it. Otherwise you are no better than the punk that yells "FIGHT!.....FIGHT!.....FIGHT!" when you see a couple of people getting into it. Sheesh.

[Variable Wind]

Kinda like truthiness

You have to be strategeric in how you place killer words like that.

[Measure Man]

Funny how I state my points over and over again but continuously get asked to provide facts or proof of my OPINION! Wow! It's my opinion folks. I believe it to be true but I can no more prove it that you can prove otherwise. If you have some facts or proof (relevant) than supply it. Otherwise you are no better than the punk that yells "FIGHT!.....FIGHT!.....FIGHT!" when you see a couple of people getting into it. Sheesh.

Ah...so it is your opinion only that unit cohesion will be damaged...and combat capability decreased...and good order and discpline adversely affected?

Do you have some sort of expertise beyond the rest of us that would warrant attention by the makers of national policy?

Or is the whole of your argument really "I don't think gays should serve, cuz that's my opinion"...?

Well...see the thing is that you are advocating denying a group of people their constutional protections...

While this can be done in some cases...the burden is to prove that this denial is in the vital national interest...and this proof must be provided for each individual case...the govt. must show the harm that would be caused...at least that what's the 9th circuit court of appeals and the US Supreme Court said.


OH and YES, there are many facts we can post..for starters:

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf

[Measure Man]

Funny how I state my points over and over again but continuously get asked to provide facts or proof of my OPINION! Wow! It's my opinion folks. I believe it to be true but I can no more prove it that you can prove otherwise.

Oh, but I can...

start with this:

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf


If you have some facts or proof (relevant) than supply it. Otherwise you are no better than the punk that yells "FIGHT!.....FIGHT!.....FIGHT!" when you see a couple of people getting into it. Sheesh.

...and I'm just getting started.

[ChiefB]

Oh, but I can...

start with this:

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf



...and I'm just getting started.

Oh God! Fight! Fight! Fight!:eek:

ChiefB

[StephenH]

1) Financial issues: Do gays cost more than straights?




Estimated # of Male AIDS Cases, Through 2007 in the USA

Male-to-male sexual contact 487,695
Injection drug use 175,704
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 71,242
High-risk heterosexual contact** 63,927
Other***

**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure)

You want taxpayers to foot this bill just so you can have a warm fuzzy?
Would homos be medically discharged for this pesky side effect?

This doesn't even address hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections associated with homosexuality.




3) Why should your ethics and morals be of concern in making national policy?


Um... seriously? People vote their ethics and morals so that they do make national policy.Who are you to belittle an equal voice?

[Measure Man]

Estimated # of Male AIDS Cases, Through 2007 in the USA

Male-to-male sexual contact 487,695
Injection drug use 175,704
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 71,242
High-risk heterosexual contact** 63,927
Other***

**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure)

You want taxpayers to foot this bill just so you can have a warm fuzzy?
Would homos be medically discharged for this pesky side effect?

This doesn't even address hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections associated with homosexuality.

Wow...almost no female homosexuals get HIV....I guess we're clear to let them in?

Now, why would you stop there? Your source has some more interesting stats:

Estimated numbers of AIDS cases in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, by race or ethnicity:
Race or Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaska Native 3,492
Asiana 7,511
Black/African American 426,003
Hispanic/Latinob 169,138
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 721
White 404,465


Wow....one Minority group has the most HIV infections....should we ban blacks/african americans from the service?

Is HIV really the fear...is this THE issue? If so, why wouldn't gays be banned from federal civil service.....state jobs...from working altogether then? Afterall, don't they still get health insurance?

Is your proposal to banish homosexuals to an island with no health insurance?

If I could prove that heterosexuals get more gonnorhea than homosexuals...then what?

Or hey, let's just pick any other disease....Breast Cancer? I wonder what the ratio of females to males is on that? Is that a good argument to keep females out?

Did you know...that testicular cancer is found 100% in males!! :-O Wow, we eliminate males and just think of all the tax savings!

Sorry bud...picking one disease and finding out who gets it does not an argument make.

Any idea if the # of homosexuals who get terminally ill between the ages of 18-50 is significantly higher than the # of heterosexuals who do?...Percentage-wise?

[Seasons]

Estimated # of Male AIDS Cases, Through 2007 in the USA

Male-to-male sexual contact 487,695
Injection drug use 175,704
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 71,242
High-risk heterosexual contact** 63,927
Other***

**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure)

You want taxpayers to foot this bill just so you can have a warm fuzzy?
Would homos be medically discharged for this pesky side effect?

This doesn't even address hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections associated with homosexuality.



Um... seriously? People vote their ethics and morals so that they do make national policy.Who are you to belittle an equal voice?

You do realize a lot of STDs, especially AIDs, are already grounds for medical discharge? And that all those STDs you mention are preeeeetty damned common in the heterosexual community already? And that the heterosexual community *also* practices anal sex? And some even gender play (reversed sex positions)?

You want to remove people for AIDs, sure, go ahead, remove them all. Its a highly infectious and dangerous disease, which can too easily be transmitted to a person's teammates if something went wrong (blood spatter). But don't pick and choose who to remove for their sexual conduct. Only reason I could see to punish someone for such conduct is if they knowingly and willingly had unprotected sex with an infected individual, in which case dishonorable discharge them for willful negligence and destruction of government property (cause like it or not we are).

[StephenH]

Wow...almost no female homosexuals get HIV....I guess we're clear to let them in?

Now, why would you stop there? Your source has some more interesting stats:

Estimated numbers of AIDS cases in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, by race or ethnicity:
Race or Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaska Native 3,492
Asiana 7,511
Black/African American 426,003
Hispanic/Latinob 169,138
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 721
White 404,465


Wow....one Minority group has the most HIV infections....should we ban blacks/african americans from the service?



No need to ban people based on race, only on their actions...



Is HIV really the fear...is this THE issue? If so, why wouldn't gays be banned from federal civil service.....state jobs...from working altogether then? Afterall, don't they still get health insurance?


Half of these cases are already paid for by taxpayers. Sad isn't it?


Is your proposal to banish homosexuals to an island with no health insurance?

No. That would be mean. I think they should be studied and a treatment developed


.
If I could prove that heterosexuals get more gonnorhea than homosexuals...then what?

The thing is, homosexuality is a very promiscuous life style. It is all about sex and lust. It is hardly even fair to compare homos to the majority of heteros.


Or hey, let's just pick any other disease....Breast Cancer? I wonder what the ratio of females to males is on that? Is that a good argument to keep females out?
Not a result of an action. Fail.


Did you know...that testicular cancer is found 100% in males!! :-O Wow, we eliminate males and just think of all the tax savings!

see above.

[StephenH]

You do realize a lot of STDs, especially AIDs, are already grounds for medical discharge? And that all those STDs you mention are preeeeetty damned common in the heterosexual community already? And that the heterosexual community *also* practices anal sex? And some even gender play (reversed sex positions)?

You want to remove people for AIDs, sure, go ahead, remove them all. Its a highly infectious and dangerous disease, which can too easily be transmitted to a person's teammates if something went wrong (blood spatter). But don't pick and choose who to remove for their sexual conduct. Only reason I could see to punish someone for such conduct is if they knowingly and willingly had unprotected sex with an infected individual, in which case dishonorable discharge them for willful negligence and destruction of government property (cause like it or not we are).

I was just pointing out the high percentage of homosexuals that end up infected vs hetros. Odd for 4% of the population....

[Measure Man]

No need to ban people based on race, only on their actions...

black people don't get HIV because of their race...they get it because of their actions like anyone else....

How about gays who practice safe sex?


No. That would be mean. I think they should be studied and a treatment developed

It is studied...and there are treatments.


The thing is, homosexuality is a very promiscuous life style. It is all about sex and lust. It is hardly even fair to compare homos to the majority of heteros.

...not all homosexuals are promiscuous.

Perhaps, one way to cut down on the promiscuous lifestyle of gays is to allow gay marriage??


Not a result of an action. Fail.

Your "reason" for banning gays was that they tend to get HIV more than non-gays...and that we shouldn't take on those costs...does it really matter why they get it?

People who drink get most of the cirrhosis of the liver...

People who smoke get most of the lung cancer...

People who play contact sports get most of the ACL tears...

People who play tennis get most of the tendinitis of the elbow...

BTW, we have people on active duty with HIV that continue to serve.

[Measure Man]

Estimated # of Male AIDS Cases, Through 2007 in the USA

Male-to-male sexual contact 487,695
Injection drug use 175,704
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 71,242
High-risk heterosexual contact** 63,927
Other***

**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure)

You want taxpayers to foot this bill just so you can have a warm fuzzy?
Would homos be medically discharged for this pesky side effect?

This doesn't even address hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections associated with homosexuality.



Um... seriously? People vote their ethics and morals so that they do make national policy.Who are you to belittle an equal voice?


I was just pointing out the high percentage of homosexuals that end up infected vs hetros. Odd for 4% of the population....

Let's have some more fun with statistics...(your sources)

New HIV cases in 2007....16K for male to male sexual contact and 1500 or so for gay sex and drugs...

So...let's round up and say 18K Americans got HIV due to gay sex in 2007.

There are roughly 300 million people in America....as you say, 4% of them are gay.

That makes 12 million gays in America....of which 18K were infected that year....and annual infection rate of 0.15% (18K / 12 M X 100)

The US military is 1.5M personnel strong....if we can assume the same 4% gay rate (which would probably actually be less)....that would mean we'd have 60,000 gays in the military. Shall we assume that half of them are female gays...which don't have a risk for HIV...that leaves 30,000 male gays.

If they had the same rate of infection as the general population (also would probably be less)....we're talking about 45 cases of HIV.

To put that in perspective....120 servicemembers died on motorcycles in 2008.

AND of course the BIG QUESTION: as we all know...gays are already serving...the issue is allowing them to be open with their homosexuality...does allowing them to serve openly make them any more likely to get HIV somehow?

[Seasons]

No need to ban people based on race, only on their actions...


Half of these cases are already paid for by taxpayers. Sad isn't it?

No. That would be mean. I think they should be studied and a treatment developed

The thing is, homosexuality is a very promiscuous life style. It is all about sex and lust. It is hardly even fair to compare homos to the majority of heteros.
Not a result of an action. Fail.

see above.

Wow. Just wow. Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle? I don't see homosexuals going from bar to bar every night for a different lay.

Its all about sex and lust? One of the dumbest statements I've seen on these threads. You obviously know nothing about homosexuality.

[DarkHeart]

Wow. Just wow. Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle? I don't see homosexuals going from bar to bar every night for a different lay.

Its all about sex and lust? One of the dumbest statements I've seen on these threads. You obviously know nothing about homosexuality.

I just got back from Thailand with my marines. Judging from personal experience alone, we should have an all gay military if we're going to kick people out for sexual conduct. Compared to my marines the gays I know in and out of the military take their sexual health far more seriously.

[Measure Man]

I just got back from Thailand with my marines.

Ahh...Lucky!

[DarkHeart]

Ahh...Lucky!

Second time too. I hate that place.