General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

[Bubbalicious]

I am not in favor of a Constitutional gay marriage ban. I am however, against identifying same-sex unions with the term "marriage", and I believe the issue should rest with the voters in each state.

None of which has anything to do with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

Whether or not I engage in the activity IS the point. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is just as it implies ... consenting adults.

Child molestation obviously is not between consenting adults, and is in fact an adult abusing a child. I would shoot a child molestor with about the same emotion I would a rattlesnake.

Okay so you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm talking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They think it's sick and wrong what gay people do with eachother in their bedrooms and they want it put a stop to. Legally. I'm sure you've heard of these people. Many of them are the same ones that got real upset when the USSC struck down state sodomy laws.

[Gunny]

Okayso you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm tlking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They care what gay people do with eachother in their own bedrooms and want it put a stop to. Legally.

You don't seem to be able to get past the part where I can believe something morally wrong without letting the fact that others do it "bug me."

I don't believe my morals belong in ANYONE's bedroom.

I'm not trying to preach; rather, explain myself. I will answer for MY sins. You will answer for yours. As long as your sins aren't interfering with my life in any way, that's between you and God. Not me, you and God.

If you ask me if I disapprove, I will tell you if I disapprove. But I have better things to do than concern myself with what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

[Gunny]

Okay so you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm talking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They think it's sick and wrong what gay people do with eachother in their bedrooms and they want it put a stop to. Legally. I'm sure you've heard of these people. Many of them are the same ones that got real upset when the USSC struck down state sodomy laws.

I think you are confusing moral objection with self-appointed, overly-self-righteous religious extremists who think they should dictate every facet of everyone's life according to their extreme beliefs.

[retiredman]

"What law have I supported or "made: about who does what to whom sexually?"

duh.... the continued ban on gays in the military

[darin]

"What law have I supported or "made: about who does what to whom sexually?"

duh.... the continued ban on gays in the military

Dude? There IS NO ban on people who like to have sex with members of the same sex, in the military. There IS a ban on them OPENLY talking about their illness - or DISPLAYING a propensity to commit those acts. In other words - you can ENJOY having deviant kinds of sex; you just can't talk about it/brag about it. In OTHER words - keep that shit where it belongs, tucked away in your private life - OR seek help so you can QUIT.

[dirt mcgirt]

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military would destroy the esprit de corps -- the kinship that military people rely on to keep themselves and each other alive. No matter what you legislate, you can't legislate THAT, but you can legislate it out of existence.

No normal, alpha-male is going to trust a gay fully, and that isn't speaking of the ones who just openly hate gays.

The possible gain is not worth the detrimental effect it would have.

This is the classic argument of why gays shouldn't be allowed into the military. During peace time and in the 90's, the military was downsizing and the argument against allowing homos to serve openly into the military was pretty much non-debatable. However, circumstances are different today and the arguments for allowing homos to serve openly has a little more weight. If we do allow gays into the military then we are going to allow them to pick up some of the burden and the hardships placed on our military due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing gays to serve openly means that we would have more recruits, more translators, and less deployments for some Soldiers. I think the question being presented to some Soldiers today boils down to would I want to serve with an openly gay Soldier if it means that I don't have to go to Iraq for one or two more tours. For me, I'm married with kids and am a lot more accepting compared to when I joined the military straight out of high school. I would have had a huge problem with gay Soldiers serving openly back then especially since I was living in the barracks. But now it doesn't bother me and if it means that I can spend a year at home with my kids and wife instead of doing that 3rd tour in Iraq, I'd highly consider it.

[jillian]

Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy in general, not just the military

In another post, I said how much I hate those rainbow stickers on cars. Like I really want to know who is gay.

But, since some people insist on telling us what their sexual preferences are... let me suggest a few of my own (this should be fun!)

BONDAGE
ZOO-PHILE (this one could have a picture of a pony)
SCAT LOVER (a white bumper sticker with a brown streak down the middle)
FETISH
FOOT WORSHIPPER

but here's the one that would offend people the most

S T R A I G H T

Not for nothing, someone who has a foot fetish, matched with someone who doesn't mind that (even though it skeeves me), so what?


I think openness would be no different from exposure to any other group you've never had contact with. They'd be humanized. I think people in the trenches, backing each other up, working together with the type of comeraderie that is found in the military, would get to know and understand each other. They would become more than labels like "gay" or "straight" and sexuality would be only one aspect, and a pretty unimportant one at that, of the person. These arguments aren't much different from the arguments which were made when the troops were desegregated and I've never known of a military guy who came out a racist because someone who has your back, has your back, regardless of color. The same is true about gay troops, only they aren't allowed to talk about it. That's the only difference, because no one's saying gays can't serve, it's *openly* gay people who are subject to discharge.

So... the guy next to you in the trenches might be gay, you just don't know.

[darin]

If we do allow gays into the military then we are going to allow them to pick up some of the burden and the hardships placed on our military due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing gays to serve openly means that we would have more recruits, more translators, and less deployments for some Soldiers.

That's just not true. It's wild speculation at best.

Again - NOTHING prevents homosexuals from joining the Military. There are undoubtedly homosexuals IN the military.

The Law states:

Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily or romantic contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality.

Therefore - Gays CAN serve - they just can't have sex with members of THEIR sex. (which makes them NOT gay, IMO - having an URGE to have sex with another man is NOT the same as 'having sex' with another man. Just like having an URGE to rob a bank doesn't make one a Bank-robber).

That said - even if 'openly gay' people were allowed to join, that 1/10th of the 1-3% of the population who is eligiable could very-well cause NORMAL people to resist enlisting/seeking commission.

Even if normal people did NOT reduce their rates of enlisting/commissioning, that 1/10th of 1-3% of the population who would consider joining would name little-to-no easement in the burden of forces.

ANOTHER thing to keep in mind...Homophiles promised gays would flock to courthouses like the Salmon of Capistrano after Gay Marriage laws were passed...hasn't happened, IMO. Therefore it's logical to conclude passing Homophile-appeasement regulations about enlistements/commissions would serve NO measurable purpose, except to frustrate soldiers already IN.

In my (not so) humble opinion, of course.

[darin]

Not for nothing, someone who has a foot fetish, matched with someone who doesn't mind that (even though it skeeves me), so what?


I think openness would be no different from exposure to any other group you've never had contact with. They'd be humanized. I think people in the trenches, backing each other up, working together with the type of comeraderie that is found in the military, would get to know and understand each other. They would become more than labels like "gay" or "straight" and sexuality would be only one aspect, and a pretty unimportant one at that, of the person. These arguments aren't much different from the arguments which were made when the troops were desegregated and I've never known of a military guy who came out a racist because someone who has your back, has your back, regardless of color. The same is true about gay troops, only they aren't allowed to talk about it. That's the only difference, because no one's saying gays can't serve, it's *openly* gay people who are subject to discharge.

So... the guy next to you in the trenches might be gay, you just don't know.

Pipedream, Jillian. And as a black man, it's SO COMPLETELY offensive to see people comparing RACE to sexual preference. There's no 'preference' or 'discovering who he REALLY is' for the Black Man.

[jillian]

Pipedream, Jillian. And as a black man, it's SO COMPLETELY offensive to see people comparing RACE to sexual preference. There's no 'preference' or 'discovering who he REALLY is' for the Black Man.

And evidence suggests that sexual preference is only one of many personality traits for which there is, at a minimum, a genetic predispostion.

My point was that exposure leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to tolerance. Tolerance leads to judging people on their own merits.

Wouldn't know the color of your skin, hon. It's a non-issue. I like or dislike people on their own merits.

[darin]

And evidence suggests that sexual preference is only one of many personality traits for which there is, at a minimum, a genetic predispostion.

Uh - Jillian? Evidence suggests QUITE the contrary...that's why many of us are scratching our heads; we keep hearing YOUR camp shout things like "People are BORN Gay!" and "It's GENETIC" - without any credible evidence for your position.

My point was that exposure leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to tolerance. Tolerance leads to judging people on their own merits.

Wouldn't know the color of your skin, hon. It's a non-issue. I like or dislike people on their own merits.

But tolerance is BAD a lot of times - and again, it's not the PEOPLE most of us have a problem with. It's their behaviour. Their preference for distorted, un-natural, and harmful activities.

My skin is sorta an olive-color..not middle-eastern...more white than that.

[jillian]

Uh - Jillian? Evidence suggests QUITE the contrary...that's why many of us are scratching our heads; we keep hearing YOUR camp shout things like "People are BORN Gay!" and "It's GENETIC" - without any credible evidence for your position.

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.

But tolerance is BAD a lot of times - and again, it's not the PEOPLE most of us have a problem with. It's their behaviour. Their preference for distorted, un-natural, and harmful activities.

My skin is sorta an olive-color..not middle-eastern...more white than that.

I think ultimately we each have the right to determine the behaviors in which *we* engage. We aren't our brothers' keepers, so to speak. And something that exists between two consenting adults, and has no effect whatsoever on my life, isn't something in which interference can be justified.

My skin's olive, too. lol... the Belarusian blood thangy.

[darin]

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.

OH MY GAWD...No way you just WROTE That!! LMAO!!!
Jillian - honestly, you've GOT to be joking....you HAVE to be joking..

Here's Just ONE exmaple of a PRO-GAY, NON religious article on the subject:

http://www.resurrection.org/Rejectin...Gay_Brain.html

Highlights:

The most famous of all the "gay brain" studies must surely be the research of Simon LeVay, who claimed that he discovered a modest but significant difference in the size of an already tiny section of the brain, the hypothalamus, in a group of dead straight and gay men. His 1993 book _The Sexual Brain_ is an effort at popularizing his theory that sexuality in all its forms is ultimately attributable to physical structures of our brains, everything from mere sexual orientation to preferences for specific kinds of sexual acts and positions. The many serious flaws in LeVay's research and conclusions have been pointed out repeatedly, as have the tentative and problematic nature of the other work that has been done on identifying the biological causes of homosexuality. For example, there was no way to tell from the brains LeVay studied whether the differences in brain structure were the cause or the effect of homosexual behavior. Moreover, there was no verifiable way to determine the men's actual sexual behavior, since they were dead by the time the research was done -- the assumption was simply made that the ones who died from HIV infection were homosexuals.

The wish is especially strong among gays and lesbians, who have of course long insisted that sexual orientation be understood as outside of the realm of individual choice, both because that is how so many of us subjectively experience our sexual desires, and also because the "no choice" argument is directly linked to claims for equal protection under civil rights laws. Such an essentialist understanding of homosexuality is the foundation of current mainstream gay and lesbian political self-representation. Proof of the biologically "hardwired" nature of homosexual desires, in the optimistic scenario of gay people and their progressive straight friends, must inevitably lead to greater acceptance and fair treatment.

However, the problem with the "no choice" position on homosexuality is that in order to be effective it requires us to forget about the important distinction between desire and behavior. The position implies that a desire one can't help feeling is a desire one is *entitled* to satisfy: thus because homosexuals can't help feeling same-sex attractions, they should therefore be allowed to act on those attractions. However, the logic of this argument cannot hold up to much scrutiny. While we may have no choice about our feelings and desires, we routinely and continually *do* exercise control over our actions. As the right-wing opponents of gay rights point out, just because you have a desire does not necessarily mean that you should act on it.

I think ultimately we each have the right to determine the behaviors in which *we* engage. We aren't our brothers' keepers, so to speak. And something that exists between two consenting adults, and has no effect whatsoever on my life, isn't something in which interference can be justified.

My skin's olive, too. lol... the Belarusian blood thangy.

You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We each DETERMINE the behaviours in which we engage.

You're lost in your third sentence, lost or naive because homosexuality hurts MANY aspects of society; financially, morally, and takes a big chunk out of our collective common-sense.

[CockySOB]

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.

*groan*

The scientific evidence points to the possibility that human sexuality (including orientation) may have significant biological factors, as well as psychological and sociological factors. You choose to only embrace evidence which supports your position, and you seem to ridicule those who embrace other evidence which supports their positions. You are every bit the blind ideologue that those who claim that our sexuality is solely a choice are.

You start with your own bias (that homosexuality is a pre-determined aspect of our biology) and you proceed to cite only the statistics which support your bias, and you refute the validity of anything that might undermine your position. Can you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

As I've been saying, science has not made any concrete determinations yet, and there seems to be enough controversy to make ideological statements suspect from the outset. Yes, that applies to my view of those who simply cite religious texts as well as those who treat inconclusive statistics and questionable scientific credentials as "fact."

[darin]

For the record: I'm not suggesting we aren't biologically or environmentally pre-dispositioned for an attraction to one or the other - I'm saying we ALL have the ability to choose to engage in homosexual behaviour - or NOT. NOT engaging in the practice means one is NOT homosexual.