Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the military? (Poll)

Sorry for the mistake above.
Correction:
I dont think someone's patriotism or his/her will to die for the country can be measured by their sexual behaviour & preferences.

There is no "right" to serve in the military. People are excluded from service for a variety of reasons, including fitness, security risk issues, and yes, even the potential to affect adversely morale.

If you gave this poll to soldiers only, I'd imagine you'd get a very different results than you'll get on a politically oriented website.

You don't have to imagine it, there's polling regarding their attitudes.

OK, so looking at that polling data, why exactly should gays not be allowed to serve?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Do you understand the term "militia?" Do you understand the term "bear arms?"

If the 2nd Amendment was about owning guns, it wouldn't start out with that line about the militia. The reason it starts out that way is because it is about having a citizen army rather than a professional one.

The Framers envisioned something along the lines of the Swiss armed forces: all men are required to be trained in military tactics and the use of small arms, and to keep a military weapon in their home during their service period, which generally lasts until age 30.

Whether that is practical or not today, the right to serve in the military should be respected.

OK, so looking at that polling data, why exactly should gays not be allowed to serve?

Because...the military does not function on polling and popularity displays?

Just a thought.

Because...the military does not function on polling and popularity displays?

There you go. So in the absence of data from countries that have implemented open service by homosexuals negatively impacting unit cohesion, we should treat the data on its merits and not look to popular squeamishness against implementing it, eh?

Nope, I don't think "popular squeamishness" should play a part (whatever that is).

Just the thought of a military or its purpose makes some people squeamish and I don't want their views dictating how the military operates either.

Just the thought of a military or its purpose makes some people squeamish and I don't want their views dictating how the military operates either.

Agreed. Peaceniks make horrible generals.

But is the military better or worse off discharging willing, competent soldiers during a time of conflict when recruitment goals are routinely not being met? Is the military better or worse off discharging Arabic, Persian, and Urdu translators when we know those languages are in common use by our enemies?

The only argument I find convincing against open gay service is that it would somehow harm the military. But the simple fact is that it hasn't harmed military readiness in any country that has implemented it, and changing attitudes among our servicemembers expressed through recent polling suggests that it's unlikely it would harm our military either.

Essentially, it seems to me that we're demonstrably harming our readiness because of subscription to dogma, when empirical data show that dogma to be wrong.

Peaceniks make horrible generals.

General William Tecumseh Sherman.

Maybe the exception that proves the rule?

I would say that peaceniks don't like war, and so they are more likely to end them quickly.

This got me humming The Village People's "In the Navy"

On the other hand, many people just cannot deal with the fact the guy beside them likes to sleep with other Men. No matter what you say, it creates an aura of confusing, undeniable weirdness. And that is not something you need to have when bullets start flying.

So when the bullets start flying you're thinking about his sexual prefernce? Wow. You have a problem. You say you don't have a problem with homosexuality, but your statement says otherwise.

Hint; They're just people!

You have a lot to learn. I hope you do get to know a gay brother-in-arms. I suspect you'll be asking yourself, "What is the big deal"

I actually think the new don't ask don't tell rules work.

So you think discharging 58 Arabic linguists is a good thing during a war with an Arabic speaking enimy?

Wow again.

The point of military training is to get you over your own internal prejudices towards any other individuals that might be in your unit and learn to operate together. Many were violently opposed to racial integration, and eventually the armed forces just had to say, "Get over it." Did that mean the armed forces became devoid of racists over night? No. Is it likely the armed forces are devoid of racists now? No. But the army still operates, and operates well because of their training and the necessity of caring more for your life in the middle of a firefight than your squeamishness.

So when the bullets start flying you're thinking about his sexual prefernce? Wow. You have a problem. You say you don't have a problem with homosexuality, but your statement says otherwise.

You could attack this person for their honesty, why not? Seems to be a mainstay in our society. Your comment was pointless and your attack unnecessary.

If you never served in the military or had to live that particular lifestyle, you have no business attacking someone who will be or has.

When you are in the field, or on a ship you live with the same sex. When I served in the Navy, we had over ninety sailors in the same berthing (sleeping) space with a curtain as our wall. We showered in the same head (bathroom), we slept within a few feet of each other. In the Army we have a particularly similar issue where we have several men sharing the same living space, sharing shower rooms and latrines (bathrooms). You depend on each other and there is a particular level of trust which must exist as the same guys, or gals you live with you also fight with. Any animosity causes issues with the cohesiveness your team must maintain to endure the rigors of the lifestyle of a sailor, soldier or airman. If you don't trust the guy you sleep next to, shower with or fight with than your mind is not as focused on the task at hand and the animosity you hold towards the guy you caught checking you out in the shower puts his and your life at risk in battle.

Men and women in the military have their own living space and personal hygiene facilities due to sexual orientation. So I suppose if we wanted our military to spend the money to create new facilities for homosexuals than maybe this issue would become null and void.

The military lifestyle is not compatible to the civilian lifestyle and if you have never lived it, you could not possibly grasp it.

The point of military training is to get you over your own internal prejudices towards any other individuals that might be in your unit and learn to operate together. Many were violently opposed to racial integration, and eventually the armed forces just had to say, "Get over it."

The issue of racial integration and sexual orientation is not the same issue. There are comparable points, but the issue of homosexuals in the military is much more complicated than racial discrimination.

See the above comment.

If a guy can accept that bullets are flying at his head, then a guy can accept that there's a gay man fighting beside him, otherwise I would seriously have to question that first guy's manhood. Seriously. If thinking about gay men having sex (and no-one's even asking anyone to do that, so if it happens, maybe some introspection is in order) gives someone the willies, why should I think they could handle blood and guts? It's war, not a junior high locker room.

Same for women soldiers/lesbians, I was just using men as an example, as I happen to be one, and all.

Although I understand the points I made are not popular points, they are none-the-less valid.

It is hard for a soldier or sailor to describe why it is an issue to a civilian who has never experienced the lifestyle of a service member. There are already privacy issues in the field and every aspect of one's daily experiences affects the mindset of the service member. The amount of stress these guys and gals are put under is not comparable to the normal rigors of life here in suburbia and it is way to easy to judge situations one does not understand based on a comparison to working with homosexuals in an office where the heterosexual has their own living space aside from their workspace and social surroundings. We understand how stress affects focus, we understand the importance of controlling sexual misconduct by men and women, we offer them separate facilities in both the civilian and military sectors, and why is that?

So the military should have four separate living spaces and personal hygiene facilities to accommodate men, women, homosexual men and homosexual women?

If we understand the need for women and men to have separate quarters and facilities, than why is it so hard to fathom the need for heterosexuals to have separate living spaces and facilities from homosexuals?

Then consider the logistics involved in providing the facilities required to facilitate sexual orientation. At what point do we stop focusing on social accommodation?

There clearly are privacy issues, but I fail to be moved by them when women are in the armed forces, and seem to be making a pretty good go of it, despite a lot of the ass-grabbing that pervades the armed forces. And if an ass-grab is frowned upon (and rightly so) and women still decide to join the forces, then I would suggest that a big burly hunk of a testosterone fueled man (and aren't they all?) can handle a little peek in the shower. Assuming anyone's peeking. Which they probably aren't.

So the military should have four separate living spaces and personal hygiene facilities to accommodate men, women, homosexual men and homosexual women?

I can actually see your point here, to which I have two answers: 1) yes, because we're a rich-assed nation and can easily afford it, or 2) no, because, seriously, get over it. I mean, what would a straight soldier be afraid of? That he's being oggled? By (gasp) a man? The horror! Or do they think that some sort of bad porno is going to break out and all the straight soldiers, the weak-knee'd fainting things that they are, will be powerless to do anything but watch or (doublegasp) join in?

Or, you know, they could add shower curtains.

As for living space... What's with that? Afraid the gay guy will get the remote and force you to watch "Queer Eye"? Do they still even make that show?

Epictetus, many other militaries around the world do perfectly fine with openly homosexual members, with no need for separate facilities.

#5.3 Well, actually, in the Army I was in, we didn't have separate facilities in the field. I slept on a cot next to guys, and there were males in the foxhole with me. I didn't worry about males harassing me because I made it very clear that I knew what to do with my weapon if there was a problem. Besides, these are people you live and work with.

My point is that no females feared showering with me, and I didn't worry about the guys in my unit raping me. It's about respect. I respected their space, and they respected mine. We had each other's backs.

But that was then...

This is one of those issues where if you haven't experienced it, you wouldn't understand it.

Personally, I don't care. I do agree with comment #17 though. In all reality, "Don't ask, don't tell" is ultimately for the protection of the homosexual more than a compromise of gay rights. If we lived in a Utopian society, or a more sexually open society than we would not even be in the position to have a debate, but we do live in a sexually conservative society where the majority of our volunteer military has a very conservative mindset. We also have the most powerful military in the world, most in part due to our soldiers and sailors than the equipment we carry and this is in part due to our training and the complexities of the social structure of the military. Be careful what you ask for, sometimes you actually get it.

Well, actually, in the Army I was in, we didn't have separate facilities in the field. I slept on a cot next to guys, and there were males in the foxhole with me.

Not to be too facetious, but which combat unit were you in where you were in a foxhole with men? In the US Army I am a part of women aren't in combat units, nor in foxholes. They are in support units which are based in FOBs which have separate facilities for females and males. Unless you are referring to Basic Training where there are drill instructors monitoring recruit activities?

"Don't ask, don't tell" is ultimately for the protection of the homosexual more than a compromise of gay rights.

Even if the homosexuals in question do no want that protection? Abridging someone's freedoms, but saying you're doing it "for their own good" sounds suspiciously sinister, don't you think?

How much time have you served in the military Chasing?

How much time have you served in the military Chasing?

I grew up on a military base, have many family members which have been in the military, and have a brother-in-law on the way to Iraq. Myself? Haven't served. But I don't need to have served to expect my military - and it is the public's military - to achieve certain basic standards.

I grew up on a military base, have many family members which have been in the military, and have a brother-in-law on the way to Iraq. Myself? Haven't served. But I don't need to have served to expect my military - and it is the public's military - to achieve certain basic standards.

Under idealistic circumstances you are correct. But, in all fairness, unless you have served you do not have the capacity to understand what is required to be a soldier, to perform the tasks they are required to perform. It is easy to sit back in suburbia and judge from your armchair, but you have no accurate dipstick to form an accurate account of what is or is not best for those within the military. Nobody says it is right, it is moral, but just maybe it is the best way. Like it or not, there is a particular mindset which stands up and says he/ she is willing to put their lives on the line to protect your armchair way of life and with this mindset comes it's own inherent fallibilities, but because no human is perfect, no human is completely balanced and we all make mistakes, there are certain protections in place, that although may not be fair are in fact a necessity.

Nobody says it is right, it is moral, but just maybe it is the best way.

Except I don't have to accept that, and, as I say downthread, if we elect representatives that force a change, then the military will have to stop whining, and change. If there are people who cannot live with those changes then they need not be soldiers. It is not the gay people in the armed forces which are causing the problem, it is the bigots in the armed forced. Therefore it is not the gay people who should be kept out, but the bigots.

Except maybe under some bigot-specific form of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

If there are people who cannot live with those changes then they need not be soldiers. It is not the gay people in the armed forces which are causing the problem, it is the bigots in the armed forced. Therefore it is not the gay people who should be kept out, but the bigots.

Oh, really? That is a nice, but very skewed perspective. A boat ferries passengers from one shore to the other. Because the boat is not a large boat, the people in it must adhere to some simple rules in order to ensure their safety and the proper operation of the boat. Those rules are put in plain sight for all to see before they board. Now if a passenger, having read the rules, decides those rules don't apply to them or the rules are 'wrong', whose fault is it if the boat capsizes and kills all the passengers? Is it the passengers who obeyed the rules for not accommodating the passenger who didn't? Or is it the passenger who blatantly ignored the rules? My bet is on the later.

Is it the passengers who obeyed the rules for not accommodating the passenger who didn't?

Again, are you seriously saying that the unwritten rules of the military include homophobia? That, if someone went into the army/navy/air force/marines with no sense of uneasiness toward gay people that they would come out of service unable to stomach the idea that gay people are enlisted with them?

If there are people who cannot live with those changes then they need not be soldiers.

So who will be our soldiers then? Why do we have the most powerful military in the world? If you know anything about personality typing, certain personality types are attracted to certain professions. This is not definite, some personality types venture out into other professions due to individualism and environmental influences, but the majority of those who choose the military are of like mindset. So if these individuals are excluded, who will defend our borders? You?

Join the military, experience the culture for yourself, then judge the institution. You didn't join, why? Not your thing? Thats fine, no problem, but for your reasons for not joining, others did choose for their own and due to the lifestyle and the experiences they endure, there is a necessity for that mindset to do the things others are not willing or interested in doing. There are multiple reasons for the issue at hand, and if it comes down to a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, then so be it. The military is not whining about it, society is.

I guarantee there are things about yourself you keep to yourself and do not share with your social circles, and why would that be? Because all people are judgmental towards those not inline with their own ways. That is life, that is an error in humanity, but it is reality.

others did choose for their own and due to the lifestyle and the experiences they endure, there is a necessity for that mindset to do the things others are not willing or interested in doing.

What mindset are you talking about? Because all the gay people who have chosen to serve clearly don't have it if homophobia is part of it. If homophobia is NOT part of it, then why is the mindset part of this discussion?

What mindset are you talking about? Because all the gay people who have chosen to serve clearly don't have it if homophobia is part of it. If homophobia is NOT part of it, then why is the mindset part of this discussion?

Referring to above:

This is not definite, some personality types venture out into other professions due to individualism and environmental influences, but the majority of those who choose the military are of like mindset.

Most often you can point out a military service member based on their behavior, their parenting style, the way they handle everyday affairs. If you do not know what I am referring to, then I don't see the point in trying to explain it to you. But, stressing what I repeated above, not all in the military of of like mindset, just the majority.

You never answered the question about other nations who allow homosexuals to serve and why there seems to be no effect on their troop cohesion.

You never answered the question about other nations who allow homosexuals to serve and why there seems to be no effect on their troop cohesion.

What other nations whose military presence is as powerful or capable as ours has an open homosexual policy and what are their living conditions?

Here's an article for you spiffie:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/gays_in_the_british_military_a_different_approach

But then we still have social differences in the United States as opposed to other countries around the globe, or do you disagree with this assessment?

What other nations whose military presence is as powerful or capable as ours has an open homosexual policy and what are their living conditions?

The question in meaningless. Power and "capability" don't have anything to do with intra-unit cohesion. You're creating a question to which the answer has to be "none" because no nation has a military as powerful as ours.

Why don't we instead look at armed forces that are as (or nearly as) modern as ours? We could look at Israel or Britain or Australia, which all have advanced arms, use modern tactics, and two are nuclear-capable. All three allow open service, and Britain specifically has done research showing no significant effect on unit cohesion.

Or why don't we look at a country whose very survival depends on an effective fighting force (not that ours doesn't, but there are exemplars out there who are clearly under more threat than we are)? Here, again, we can look at Israel. Israel spends just under 10% of their GDP on their defense forces. They have compulsory service. They're surrounded on many sides by enemies, and even have armed enemies located inside their contiguous land area. If any country should be greatly concerned about the effectiveness of their fighting forces it should be Israel. And yet Israel has allowed homosexuals to serve openly for well over a decade.

Remember also that Israel faces many of the same challenges the US does with respect to religious beliefs among its soldiers. Unlike the US, Israel has (very recently) faced violent protests over public expressions of gay pride (the last few years have seen riots over the gay pride parade in Jerusalem). But they still manage to maintain an effective fighting force. Are there occasional problems? Yes. Israel has seen instances of discrimination and abuse. However, they do the right thing, the moral thing: they punish the person guilty of the discrimination or abuse, not the victim.

Spiffie, good points, but I suspect that actual rationale will be somewhat lost on Epictetus.

So far, his entire argument can be boiled down to "Dude, y'all soldiers? No? Then I absolutely know better than you, and if gays, horror of horrors, were open about being gay in the military, then the US wouldn't be a military superpower anymore. We'd have an anarchist, pansy army, not the super-manly (though co-ed) one we have now."

For example:

Most often you can point out a military service member based on their behavior, their parenting style, the way they handle everyday affairs.

Translation: Gay guys aren't fit for battle. Oh, and their parenting style is off.

Jack, I think another part of his argument is, "You want manly men to fight your fights." Of course, that's because he's internalized a stereotype that, while not inaccurate for some gay men, is hardly a determiner for behavior for all gay men. Some Southerners are racist, but not all Southerners are racist. Some Americans are xenophobes, but not all Americans are xenophobes. Some geniuses are hopelessly inept socially, but not all geniuses are socially inept.

Apparent "manliness" among gay men is highly variable (it's worth noting that it's highly variable among straight men, too), just like most complex expressed human behaviors. I have known and know several gay men who could probably take him in any fight, on any terms that he wishes to name (although I am, admittedly, not one of them).

Spiffie, good points, but I suspect that actual rationale will be somewhat lost on Epictetus.

Assumption, what a terrible disease. I never attacked anyone in this discussion, merely pointed out a particular point of view not in line with the majority and as opposed to carrying on a rational discussion your only recourse is to hurl insults. Much like the jocks I went to school with, they couldn't argue intellectually so they hurled personal attacks.

Personally, I have offered a point of view not of my own, but one I understand and dealt with while in the military. I offered the other side, and as usual the lefty-trolls hopped on it and ran with their rants. "I think I might die of not-surprise".

It is fairly obvious most of you are pretty intelligent people, why can't you just respect other's right to their own point of view, or not take an opposing point of view so personally? Why can't you just be decent and rational? Maybe you understand the military mindset which denies open homosexuality better than you think?

#5.11 Obviously, I wasn't in a combat unit. Women are not technically in those positions, although with today's warfare, it really is a technicality. Nope, I was stationed in Ft. Campbell, KY for a year and Germany (Wildflecken) for almost 3 years. Basic Training was segregated--but after that, it was all integrated. We went to the field a lot, and I spent a lot of time in tents and in foxholes (in the States) and on guard duty with mostly males. If you are (or were) a grunt, then I can understand how you might not see much of the rest (most) of the Army. But you did get better chow than the rest of us.

Artillery, and no, military chow is military chow. Working together, yeah I see that, we have female medics who go to the field with us every so often, but we do not clean up, change clothes, use the restroom, or shower with females and I would be curious about the military unit which does not offer females a separate area for those needs.

I was referring to time in the field. Nobody showered (which I really hated), and they didn't even have portajohns the majority of the time. We jumped every 2 or 3 days, and the powers that be thought we should simulate combat conditions as much as possible. I didn't have to shower with guys (although I probably would have if a shower had been available and that was the only way I could get one).

The idiots screwed up in the field (failed ARTEP?) right before I got to Germany, so we went to the field every other week for a year. I was in supply--about 30% females.

Well, I think its cool you served, particularly in the Army.

I don't know about your experience in your units, I do know in the Navy there are separate facilities for men and women, and in the Army every post and field exercise I have been on, women and men had their own facilities and we have been told it is Army Reg. I have pulled ACP duty with female MPs, trained with females, but again there is a distinct separation including the language we are allowed to use around females. At no point is it appropriate in the field when a female is around to just go to a tree line and relieve yourself, but when it is just our unit no blade of grass or tree is safe. That separation, in my humble opinion is appropriate and if the military were to openly allow homosexuals in I would expect that separation from them and heterosexuals also. I personally do not care whether they are in, don't ask, don't tell whatever. I realize I have worked with a few homosexuals and had no issue with it, but the boundaries in place for females and males should also be in place for homosexuals and heterosexuals and quit frankly, I don't expect a homosexual to understand that, but just as I prefer not to pee next to a female, I prefer not to pee next to a homosexual.

I think the difference is that you didn't have females in your unit. I didn't feel that separation. yes, there were separate restrooms, and our rooms were separated by a hall. But that's about it. No one pulled punches on language (and my mouth was as bad as any male's). And heck yeah, I appreciate guys not peeing next to me in the open, just as I prefer females not being too close either. But I like my privacy (which is a luxury, not a reality in the military).

I guess we won't see eye to eye on this, and that's ok. I'd have preferred a unit full of lesbians because they just seemed to work better than some straight women.

I thought the rule was you can't check out someone else while peeing. But hey, whatever works for you guys... ;-)

What do I even say to that?

It was funny, but wrong. And the rule is no looking and choose your own tree or blade of grass.

I am fine with us not seeing eye to eye, it isn't our decision anyway, just a fun debate, right? ;-p

Of course. And it was interesting, which is what works for me. Thank you for your service. I am really glad to be out of the military, but I'm glad I did it too. It makes you appreciate everything much more.

Not to be mushy, but you also. I tried getting out of the Navy then went right back in to the reserves and am now in the Guard. Can't say I like much about civilian life, other than the ability to work for yourself, to tell your boss to piss off, and the ability to live where you want. Other than the freedom to pretty well do whatever whenever, it just felt pointless. Might have felt more useful as a firefighter, or EMT? Who knows, I missed the uniform, the discipline and the training. I feel like I am earning my freedom when I wear the uniform, and chicks dig it too (minor perk)... hehe

Yeah, my partner (very hot chick) is a deputy chief of a fire department. She would have done very well in the military too (unlike me--I'm not into that structured environment and uniform). I hate waiting too--another negative part of the military. I'm surprised you didn't look into police or firefighting. Gotta get your thrills somewhere, I guess. But I'm glad you enjoy it. Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

36 glorious years old.

Weighed police as an option, after doing some engineering work at the county jail and the city jail, I tried to envision police work long range figured the lifestyle would have an adverse affect. Dealing with the situations they deal with, the domestic problems, violence towards children, not my bag. Worked with computers and electronics in the Navy, so when I discharged from the military I went for the computer field. Looking back, I wish had gone fire department, but I travel a lot so the computer world has it's perks too.

It is easy to sit back in suburbia and judge from your armchair... he/ she is willing to put their lives on the line to protect your armchair way of life

- 5.15

I never attacked anyone in this discussion, merely pointed out a particular point of view not in line with the majority

- (5.28)

Wow. I did just quote the same person, didn't I?

Wow. I did just quote the same person, didn't I?

How was that an attack? It was a reference to the civilian way of life, not an attack on any particular person, or group of people. You just look for anything, any nit-pickin little thing you can to ridicule with. Seriously, I am requesting you leave me alone Huang. If you want to discuss something fine, but I don't want to play your troll game.

Well sorry, whichever it may be, doesnt really bother me. My point still remains.

Yeah, I agree with you that a lot of homophobic soldiers are going to be weirded out by a gay soldier. But what better way to promote acceptance than in an environment where working together is a paramount concern? I'm not saying that the primary function of the military is to promote tolerance, but it should certainly not promote discrimination, even when lives are on the line. Having gays in the military will result in more soldiers killed, if that's what you're saying.

Well sorry, whichever it may be, doesnt really bother me. My point still remains.

I don't think so. When accepting the fact that indeed Homosexuality is NOT a conscious decision one makes, your 'point' is pretty much nullified.

Decision? Ahem. No. It's a near certainty that homosexuality is something one is born with.

I am glad you are here to clear the debate about whether homosexuality is genetic or a social choice. Do you honestly think you speak for every homosexual?

Yeah, I agree with you that a lot of homophobic soldiers are going to be weirded out by a gay soldier.

Personally, I'd be more wierded out by an IED.

Epictetus, I speak for this heterosexual. I never chose to be heterosexual, I knew I liked girls and not boys at a very early age. Even when it would have been more socially acceptable to be homosexual, I couldn't do it.

I never chose to be heterosexual

Not saying all homosexuals aren't homosexual by natural means, but to say all are is not realistic or valid. Generalizing and categorizing individuals goes against the very fiber of intellectual progression. Some choose, some suffer abuses or social pressures that push them to it, some find comfort in it and some just are.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that some people feel forced to lie about who they are, rather than choosing which way their sexuality leans. I can't force you to want to sleep with a man (assuming you're a straight guy), any more than I can CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to a male (as I am a happy lesbian). There's a "yuck" factor for both of us, I would imagine.

Yes Chum, it would be accurate to say

that some people feel forced to lie about who they are, rather than choosing which way their sexuality leans

. It would also be accurate to same some choose and some just are.

It would also be accurate to same some choose and some just are.

How do I know that's accurate? How does anyone? I actually suspect you're correct, but really have no way of really knowing.

So you are accurate, or I ma accurate, or there is a distinct possibility neither of us are? I can accept that.

There's a "yuck" factor for both of us, I would imagine.

It's not so much a yuck factor as it is a limpness factor. When you're hot, you're hot, and when you're not, you're not.

I have a good friend who is bisexual, he has chosen to get married (to a woman he met in a gay bar) and restrict his sexual relations to her. His younger brother was gay gay gay, and never touched a woman. I doubt that my friend chose to swing both ways any more than his brother chose to swing that way and I chose to swing this way.

I'm bisexual. I was born into a military family (my father was career air force, and from a family of military service members). And I served in the Navy, and my son is currently serving in the USMC. I'd say I have the ability to speak on this issue.

This "mindset" you speak of... you don't speak for all members, past and present, of the military of the United States. Homophobia is NOT inherent in the US military any more than misogyny and rape are (Tail Hook incident ring any bells with you? Just an example.) This "mindset" you speak of is the precursor to crime, both in war and in peace time, and it is not an excuse to be used by anyone in the military for their prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, or violence. Or does the concept of "honor" no longer mean what I was taught it meant? Honor is not a 42 cent ribbon.

Generalizing and categorizing individuals goes against the very fiber of intellectual progression. Some choose, some suffer abuses or social pressures that push them to it, some find comfort in it and some just are.

O, the irony. I suppose that you absolutely speak for every homosexual on the planet by this statement. I mean, to actually support this statement, you'd have to pretty much personally know a token member of each "type" of homosexuality you just listed. Is that the case?

But hey, since no one personally knows every gay person on the planet, then we can totally just assume that the faceless homosexual we've been discussing one day went "Hey, I'm bored with being straight! I'm gonna gay it up!" the same way someone can one day think "Hey, I don't like Kung Pao chicken anymore. My new favorite is the Big Mac." After all, we're just being cautious and open-minded.

Of course, even if every gay person just decided to be gay one day, religion is protected against discrimination in the military. That's inarguably a conscious choice, infinitely than you can ever show homosexuality to be. So, I don't see how whether or not homosexuality is a choice can even be twisted into any justification for institutional prejudice.

Feel free to show me.

This "mindset" you speak of... you don't speak for all members, past and present, of the military of the United States.

OK, since we are going to continue this discussion, what the hey.
So you think as a female the men you served with spoke of the same issues in the same manner when you weren't around as opposed to when you were? When I served in the Navy, we, the men, spoke a whole other language about totally different subjects when females entered the shop or workspace. An I never said ALL MILITARY, I did specify specifically that I was speaking not of all.

Jack Huang; O, the irony. Feel free to show me.

I don't like your attacking tone, I don't too much care for you in this particular instance and I will not respond to you. Not due to a deficiency in my logic, or the inability to better explain my rationale, but due entirely to your mannerism. Go pick a fight somewhere else.

So you think as a female the men you served with spoke of the same issues in the same manner when you weren't around as opposed to when you were?

Oh, yeah, just like in civilian life. And we women speak of different issues when you men aren't around too. Does that surprise you?

h, yeah, just like in civilian life. And we women speak of different issues when you men aren't around too. Does that surprise you?

What?? Do you actually read through entire conversations to understand context, or just nit-pick points you can attack?

Actually, it's not an "attacking" tone, it's a "sarcastic", or maybe even a "condescending" tone. Of course, you have a plethora of experience with that last one here, judging from how you called anyone who disagreed with you an armchair general and stonewalled discussions above with "You're not a soldier, so I know better, and you just won't get it, you lefties."

Further, all I ask for is some sort of support for, so far, entirely baseless assumptions you expect us to take at face value. You've managed to imply that if gays were openly so in the military, somehow America wouldn't be a military superpower, since there'd inevitably be so much "stress" in the military that our soldiers won't be able to shoot straight.

As for thinking "Feel free to show me" as "attacking," I wasn't aware that "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to providing (or rather, not providing) rational support for Internet discussions.

Actually, it's not an "attacking" tone, it's a "sarcastic", or maybe even a "condescending" tone.

What's the difference in the three? All three serve the same purpose, all three display a lack of respect, all three are meant to get a rise out of the recipient, all three are designed to provoke a response. Word play, is that the best you've got? Satire, sarcasm, condescending tone, all are attacks and are unnecessary and quite frankly not a display of intelligence regardless what your fans say. All three are tactics of people who seemingly have the inability to carry on a controlled, intellectual debate. You know what Jack, don't ignore me, I relinquish my former request for you to leave me alone, have at it.

You've managed to imply that if gays were openly so in the military, somehow America wouldn't be a military superpower

What?? Where in any way did I ever say that homosexuals were less capable of doing anything heterosexuals do. Every post in reference to don't ask, don't tell was in reference to an general attitude generally accepted in the military. I have stated I personally don't care, but that separate personal hygiene facilities would be nice, but I never at any point said anything about us not being a superpower if homosexuals were openly allowed in the military, never even mentioned the word superpower. Do you think you could sarcastically debate a point without twisting the context of my words or just plain making crop up?

As for thinking "Feel free to show me" as "attacking," I wasn't aware that "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to providing (or rather, not providing) rational support for Internet discussions.

Nice stretch, almost made sense, almost. How fun is sarcasm when it is thrown back at you?

What?? Where in any way did I ever say that homosexuals were less capable of doing anything heterosexuals do.

And I didn't say you implied that. See how you just (unconsciously?) assumed that the blame lay with the gays themselves? Intriguing, no?

Here are some quotes from you:

"You never answered the question about other nations who allow homosexuals to serve and why there seems to be no effect on their troop cohesion."
What other nations whose military presence is as powerful or capable as ours has an open homosexual policy and what are their living conditions?

Translation: All those gay-accepting militaries are weaker than ours. Coincidence?

"If there are people who cannot live with those changes then they need not be soldiers."
So who will be our soldiers then? Why do we have the most powerful military in the world? If you know anything about personality typing, certain personality types are attracted to certain professions. This is not definite, some personality types venture out into other professions due to individualism and environmental influences, but the majority of those who choose the military are of like mindset. So if these individuals are excluded, who will defend our borders? You?

Translation: We have the most powerful military in the world because a certain mindset is fit to be a soldier. Openly accepting gays into the military would drive out the people with this fighting mindset. After all, homophobes make the best soldiers.

(Again, with essentially all of your arguments, jump back 75 years and replace "homosexual" with "black." Notice something?)

How fun is sarcasm when it is thrown back at you?

I don't really feel any different. I dunno, maybe I'm just taking it like a man. ;-)

We knew what you meant ;)

That concept doesn't seem to reflect the values this country espouses, whether we live up to them or not, and that is what our military is, the defenders of our values.

Our military defends your right to have those values, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it must itself have them. When will people get it through their head the military is not the representative arm of government in our democracy? That is why you elect Representatives, Senators, and the President. They are the ones that should reflect and have the values of this country, not the military. The military serves one purpose: to defend that representative structure and the rights to have those values in the first place.

When will people get it through their head the military is not the representative arm of government in our democracy?

I'm pretty sure I got that through my head thank you, reread my post I never said it was. However the military is here to serve at the citizens discretion, we could in theory disband the military through representative processes. It also answers to me, the citizen, through my representative.

That is why you elect Representatives, Senators, and the President. They are the ones that should reflect and have the values of this country, not the military.

Yes the military, in answering to my representatives the military should reflect and have the values of my country, that's why our representatives are there. And the don't ask don't tell policy was defined by our representatives, they could change that to, don't ask but your free to talk about it, and the military would have to abide. This has nothing to do with weather or not they are a representative branch, and everything to do with that they are representative of us.

Jimster,

I suspect that there are many who do not want to serve this President - but it is their sworn Duty to serve the legally recognized Commander as long as the orders are lawful.

The cost of Bush's failed policies have been immediate, and extremely high for those in the military.

I guess I'm "dumb enough" to serve my country then. Bachelors degree, steady job, steady girlfriend, not a criminal or a moron.

I just want to be able to make an impact today, so that my children aren't fighting the evil a vast majority of out country denies.

Stuff like this really pisses me off. Good, more motivation. And personally, this guy can take his rhetoric and shove it; people have fought and died upholding the rights this guy used to spit in the face of his soldiers. Pathetic that anyone voted that comment up.

I just want to be able to make an impact today, so that my children aren't fighting the evil a vast majority of out country denies.

Obesity?

What is this great and forbidding evil you speak of?

That's not what the question asks. B.Tau is right - gays can serve in the military so your poll question does not reflect the nature of the debate.

XFS - its a relatively important distinction, and in politics, distinctions are often very important. I personally think there's nothing honrable about preventing homosexuals from serving in the military, and I'm all for allowing them in, openly and honorable. But your are straw-manning the position of a lot of conservatives - the policy of the Bush Administration has been to uphold don't ask, don't tell; even if the DoD has been discharging gay soliders in a time of war. They've never called for banning gays from the service, only to maintain the status quo.

Like in Robotech!

Because we all know one of the main factors of war is the element of surprise. And what could be more surprising... than the First Battalion Transvestite Brigade? Airborne Wing.

- Eddie Izzard

Straight people? Do you advocate for forcing men and women to shower and bunk together? If so, you are definitely in a small minority.

Putting aside that your post indicates yet another attempt by someone to equate homosexuality with criminality (?), do you think that certain kinds of misdemeanors should bar people from serving?

I don't see any of that in TJG's post, sorry. Are you actively looking for something to criticize or is this really just a (major) misunderstanding?

Don't see any of what? I'm asking her the question about males and females because it is at the heart of her 'gay people should be able to serve just like straight people' line, it's relevant and it's something that she should think about when considering this position.

And I responded with some contempt towards her 'criminal' stance because I just find it bizarre how often people use criminals and animals as defense mechanisms for homosexuality. That, and her assertion about criminals is misrepresenting the truth.

I've responded directly to her words, yet you have done little more than try to call me out on some unclear premise that contributed nothing to the exchange. I think even she realizes that she isn't coming here with the expectation of posting a monologue.

If no one knows about it, then no one can harass them, abuse them, or worse.

Why would they harass them, abuse them, or worse? And if they did, why should they get away with it? And, anyway, why would you want to harass anyone who might one day have your back in a firefight? Sounds like a pretty dumb strategy for survival, and not one I'd want represented in my armed forces, anyway.

If no one knows about it, then no one can harass them, abuse them, or worse. Trust me, it is for the benefit of the soldier that that policy is in place. The military culture has been there for hundreds of years, and you can either agree to its constraints and all its ugliness when you join, or simply don't join if you can't handle that.

So part of the military culture is violent homophopia? Seriously?

Why would they harass them, abuse them, or worse?

Why do bullies pick on kids that are different? Why do teachers allow the bullies to pick on others? Why do police officers abuse offenders? Why don't small frail book worms play football? Because we are all fallible humans and we do not live in a fair world where everyone is concerned about everyone else. Why isn't everyone apart of the coolest fraternity? Why aren't we all in Ivy league colleges? Why aren't we all wealthy?

Why ask why? Fix human nature, then we won't have to debate fair and right and wrong.

Just as much as violent sexual abuse is a part of it, just ask some of the hundreds of women who have been a victim of it in the Middle Eastern theater during deployments. The fact remains that the military culture is a very conservative one and for the most part, most involved in it like it that way. The civilian world may not, but unless you are willing to join, I really don't think you have much room to criticize or take shots at it. The military culture is what it is. Plain and simple. You don't have to be a part of it if you don't want to.

Why do bullies pick on kids that are different?

If they can't keep the bullies in check, it's not an army, it's a mob.

You don't have to be a part of it if you don't want to.

The military serves the public. If the public wants it to change, then change it must.

The military culture is what it is. Plain and simple.

Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. It doesn't appear from nothing. It is built, piece by piece, overtime and from its starting point it evolves. I don't see how allowing the military to be a haven for the most closed-minded aspects of American culture is constructive at all. In fact, it's probably that kind of attitude that leads to things like Abu Ghraib.

The civilian world may not, but unless you are willing to join, I really don't think you have much room to criticize or take shots at it.

That's very clever. You set up a system that certain people will never like and, as such, wouldn't join and then say "If you wouldn't join you can't criticize."

The military serves the public. If the public wants it to change, then change it must.

Police serve the public, the military does not serve the public, the military serves the government. If you don't understand this watch the difference in how the military carries out riot control and how the police carry out riot control, just as one example. The military does not fall under civil guidelines and is not answerable to civilian authority.

If they can't keep the bullies in check, it's not an army, it's a mob.

I guess the same can be said about society in general?

the military does not serve the public, the military serves the government.

I thought the point of military was to serve and defend the Constitution. That document crafted by "We the People" and outlining the freedoms to which all Americans are entitled.

That's very clever. You set up a system that certain people will never like and, as such, wouldn't join and then say "If you wouldn't join you can't criticize."

I guess it boils down simplistically to what my mom used to say to me at the dinner table when I was a kid. The conversation usually went something like this:

Mom: "Eat your broccoli."
Me: "I don't like broccoli."
Mom: "How do you know, you've never eaten it."
Me: "But I know I don't like broccoli."
Mom: "You can say you don't like something you've never tried."

In other words, I can't criticize a food's taste if I've never actually tasted it. So I'd say that system works just fine.

The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:

• Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.

• Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future.

Legally, the military falls under the UCMJ or military law and is and is governed by it's internal chain of command operated under it's commander-in-chief, the president.

The military is not designed to serve the public, it is an arm of war and serves our government which does serve the public, but the military itself deos not serve the public.

I would agree that as soldiers we do serve the people of the United States, but that is different than serving the public. The three branches of government serve the public, the military serves the people by ensuring their safety from foreign enemies.

Police serve the public, the military does not serve the public, the military serves the government.

People -> Government -> Military

Ultimately, yes, the military serves the public, no matter how you cut it. If, in the end, the people elect representatives who force a change upon military culture, then the military must comply.

I guess the same can be said about society in general?

What does that have to do with anything? I hold the military to higher standards than I do to an unorganized societal "mob". Do you suggest I do otherwise?

What does that have to do with anything? I hold the military to higher standards than I do to an unorganized societal "mob". Do you suggest I do otherwise?

I would suggest you adopt a realistic frame of mind and understand that since society has not learned how to control bullies and crime, it will also happen in the military where the basis of your job is to kill other human beings.

There is a place for idealism, it is a wonderful goal, but idealism is not realism. Since idealism is not realism and we live in a real world with real issues maybe we as a society could look at issues from what we can do realistically as opposed to complaining about how the military is no more ideal a social structure than the civilian sector. Soldiers are just as human as anyone else in society.

I would suggest you adopt a realistic frame of mind and understand that since society has not learned how to control bullies and crime, it will also happen in the military where the basis of your job is to kill other human beings.

The military can't stop all bullies or crime, any more than it can stop all bullets flying at its collective head. I would suggest some perspective, there. But it can, and must, stop most such incidents (bullies, not necessarily bullets) otherwise it must be weak, ineffective, and probably a piss-poor fighting force. Seriously, if it can't even muster (or demand) that much discipline? Then we are doomed.

I, however, do not think we are doomed. I think the military can muster that discipline. It just needs to remember that it is a fighting force, which is highly trained, and which is made up of adults, and set aside the petty whining which, face it, even a high school football coach wouldn't accept.

It needs to set aside the excuses and grow up, otherwise maybe we should take away their guns and make them sit in the corner, no milk and cookies, no bedtime story.

Chasing, I just wish society were as perfect as you must see yourself. Unfortunately it is not, and again we live in a real world where , as a majority, there is a certain type of person who is willing to take up arms and defend your idealistic belief system and a certain mindset that is required to be a soldier. It has nothing to do with discipline, or lack thereof. It basically falls into trusting the man or woman next to you, living with that person, and if you can't trust your battle buddy in the barracks or the shower, than how can you trust them on the battlefield. Whether your homosexual battle buddy is a homosexual who would take advantage of the living conditions you are under or not, as a heterosexual you would wonder, and although I have no issue with homosexuals, I wouldn't feel anymore comfortable sleeping and showering with a homosexual than I would sleeping with and showering with the opposite sex. If they had separate facilities, there would be no issue, but logistically, it just is not feasible. Then you do have homophobes, and this is where homosexuals are much better off with a "Don't ask; don't tell" policy than an open policy. When you figure out a way to irradicate human nature, do the world a favor and spread the news. Fragicide does happen, and will continue to happen as the life of a soldier is extremely stressful and there are those who crack under that stress which is part of the responsibility of the chain of command to enforce the UCMJ.

Don't ask, don't tell does work.

"Don't worry about it" would work even better. Ever since DADT was instituted, it has been violated.

The military culture has been there for hundreds of years, and you can either agree to its constraints and all its ugliness when you join, or simply don't join if you can't handle that.

Oh I see. The military's stayed unchanged for hundreds of years, which is it shouldn't change now. Yeah, the Tuskegee Airmen served as equals to their white counterparts, just like it's been since the beginning of American history.

Why do bullies pick on kids that are different? Why do teachers allow the bullies to pick on others? Why do police officers abuse offenders? Why don't small frail book worms play football? Because we are all fallible humans and we do not live in a fair world where everyone is concerned about everyone else...

Why ask why? Fix human nature, then we won't have to debate fair and right and wrong.

I agree: who gives a flying rat's ass about mumbo-jumbo like inalienable rights or this hippie "equality" shtick? The world's unfair. Suck it up, boy.

Come to think of it, it was moronic to let blacks and women serve in the military.

Oh wait, never mind. They were never picked on for being different. My mistake.

*high-fives Jack*
LOL, you have quite the way of putting all that. I think you should write satire, I'd enjoy reading that, I'm sure.

I second Aine's idea, Jack. VNJ.

Jack Huang. who gives a flying rat's ass about mumbo-jumbo like inalienable rights or this hippie "equality" shtick? The world's unfair. Suck it up, boy.
Come to think of it, it was moronic to let blacks and women serve in the military.
Oh wait, never mind. They were never picked on for being different. My mistake.

Aine MacDermot. *high-fives Jack*
LOL, you have quite the way of putting all that. I think you should write satire, I'd enjoy reading that, I'm sure.

Just gotta pick, and push buttons, aye? Can't quip without sarcasm, and for those of you vultures offering high fives... see, you really do understand the mindset I was speaking of. You fully get why people can't be different without fear of reprisals, or mockery and that even in a room of intellectuals the mob rules. Hope it was fun proving my point.

The whole point of satire is to teach a moral lesson in a humorous way. I think Jack succeeded in that, just as many other satire writers have. I recognized the talent for satire when I saw it. To be skilled in satire is the highest of arts, particularly among the Celts. It was held in such high esteem that it could dethrone a king.

So to lace insults in satire is ok as long as the satirical writer is on your side. I totally understand the justification. Intellectual bullyism, lol.

(There's another term for what you speak, it is called passive aggressive response)

To be skilled in satire is the highest of arts, particularly among the Celts. It was held in such high esteem that it could dethrone a king.

This isn't the middle ages, we aren't in a fiefdom, this isn't court, and we aren't coutiers and just because satirical skilldom was highly regarded at some point in history by some group of people surely does not justify it's use in a forum such as this where there is a satire tag missing from the article.

To be a virgin sacrifice was held in high regard in the Mayan culture, one of the most highly regarded civilizations in history, so should we start sacrificing virgins in fiery pits again? Destructive behavior is destructive behavior no matter the time period it was used. Acceptance of a behavior is not congruent with right or moral.

Chasing, I just wish society were as perfect as you must see yourself.

I don't see myself as perfect, though apparently some part of you does... and, you know, I hate to have to do it this way. I'm sorry, but...

I'm just not that into you.

I don't see myself as perfect, though apparently some part of you does... and, you know, I hate to have to do it this way. I'm sorry, but...

I'm just not that into you.

If I see a child flapping it's arms like wings in the air and running around trying to catch flight, then point out to the child he/ she thinks he/she is a bird does not mean I think he/she is a bird.

Believe me, it is quite acceptable that you are not into me, and as a heterosexual would appreciate you keeping your advances and/or sexual innuendos to yourself.

First, the satire tag is really only "required" (i.e. encouraged) when the article or seed is a satire. There's no "requirement" that the author tag his article based on the comments his article generates.

Second, satire is certainly well regarded in today's society by most measures. Satire appears in everything from daily papers (both local and nationally syndicated) to Playboy to the New Yorker. One of the biggest sites on the Internet is a satire site. Satire is everywhere.

So if i use satire to provoke then it is still just happy little sunshiny satire? Calling what Jack Huang does satire, interesting, as a matter of fact he himself did not call his comments satire, Aine MacDermot gave him a "High Five" then said he would be a great satire writer.

Any language used to insult or provoke is still language used to insult or provoke whether you label it satire or not. Call Jack Huang's technique satire, but is satire appropriate at all times? Satire is a vice, it is a tool to creatively insult with the full intent to ridicule which was precisely my point in the first place. When you can't win a debate with intellect then ridicule? Do you feel the same way when you are in a debate and some satirist comes in and creatively hurls insults and hides behind "It's only satire, what's your problem?"? When someone is satirical towards you I am willing to bet you report them, because it is satire when it is in line with your view, and it is bullying when it comes back at you.

What was it you were saying above about assumptions? You don't have any idea about my repoting habits. As an example, I virtually never (and I qualify it this much only because I don't recall ever reporting Otto, but I've been involved in thousands of threads in my time here) report Otto who often resorts to a clever turn of phrase to make a point in an argument with me.

Well, Spiffie, if i were assuming it to be so I would have accused you of doing so and not said "I bet".
I assume the distinct possibility that since you choose to hop on the shirttail of an argument and defend someone else's principle or point of view in line with the usual types who love to provoke then whine when they get their dish served back to them I thought, figured maybe, was willing to bet you were probably like them in that sense also. And your are absolutely right, I have no idea what your reporting habits are and don't know of a way to track them, so maybe you are one who loves to provoke then report abuse and you in denial or just flat out BSing, I guess only you know this right?

I guess only you know this right?

Correct. The rest of your suggestions are spurious.

If you say so!

Thank you, Aine and angie. I never knew Celts thought so highly of satire -- of course, I barely know anything about the Celts, but now I know they're that much more awesome.

As for satire being used in the stead of what you call intellect, Epictetus, maybe you've heard of a cute little essay titled "A Modest Proposal." Many people consider it satire, yet shockingly, the same people consider it an extremely incisive political commentary.

I don't profess to be anywhere near Swift's level, but since you're generalizing about the evils of satire, I might as well pick a gem.

So to lace insults in satire is ok as long as the satirical writer is on your side

But I was agreeing with you! Where did I insult you?

Oh, so I just misunderstood you and your satirical rants were directed at, spiffie? So sorry crazy penguin.

Given yourself over to vice, eh? Welcome to the club!

First, the Target down the street has its grand opening, and now I'm a Celtic king-dethroning penguin!

My day just keeps getting better.

P.S. - See, your sarcasm would've been passably satirical if you didn't ruin the punchline with "crazy penguin." Points for creativity, though. Too bad I'm not a Linux guy.

Wow...some harsh words. Have you served? Because the only ones that are small minded are the ones who think that the rules that apply in the civilian world and society apply in the military as well. Well, maybe not small minded, but definitely naive. Because it is not just simplistically about worrying who it is your fighting with. And it isn't just about those times when you are actively in combat. It is about all the interaction, training and events in between. By the way, I scored a 99 out of 99 on my aptitude test for the military, scored a 30 cumulative score on my ACTs, so I would say that I am more than intelligent enough to not just do my job (Infantryman) but I believe I qualify to do just about any job in the Army. So be careful where you throw those stones, Henry VII.

jmack02 has me beat, I only scored 92 out of 99 on my ASVAB, and only 25 on the ACT, but maintained a 3.65 GPA towards my Clinical Psychology degree and was on the National Dean's List two years in a row and would echo the comment posted above by jmack02.

Because the only ones that are small minded are the ones who think that the rules that apply in the civilian world and society apply in the military as well.

You should not be allowed to implement such a system in the civilian world either. It is pure bigotry, but you hide behind bigoted laws. At one time, those laws were in place to keep out Black people. Now they are in place to keep out homosexuals. If you can't see the correlation, then you are book smart with no rationality.

You honestly mean to tell me that, while you're a 'military genius' - you are worried about having gay people work with you? I would not trust such an irrational person with my life.

There was a don't ask, don't tell for black people?

I think you just hit the nail on the head over the difference between racial discrimination and behavioral control...good job, couldn't have said it better myself.

Woah, I have no problem with having rules of conduct in the field - but they should apply to all members of the military. If mentioning that you're gay gets you kicked out - mentioning that you're straight should do the same.

That's a good point, one I haven't thought of before. It's only fair after all...

I think you just hit the nail on the head over the difference between racial discrimination and behavioral control...good job, couldn't have said it better myself.

Yeah, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was implemented as behavioral control, because if gay guys could be open about it, they'd be bending straight guys over left and right.

Is that why? I thought it was something else entirely, but that's certainly an interesting perspective. Food for thought...

I've read a ton of unqualified comments in this thread but this one sure is the winner.

lol

So if butt sex happens in a desert and no one is around to see it, then it never really happened?

the military does not serve as a left-wing social experiment

The military is pure communism. Everyone wears the same clothes, you get free housing and medical care, you have to do exactly what you are told or suffer the consequences, and you get thrown in prison if you try to escape.

The military is the military - a unique institution in America. It's still doesn't exist to be a social experiment.

And it's voluntary, contradictory to "pure communism".

By the way, I am genuine in my desire for answers to the above questions. Sorry for the rant though. I guess, basically, let's just live and let live.

Why does being able to announce your sexuality mean so damn much? Why does it have to be such an open issue? Especially when sexuality has nothing to do with a person's mission as a soldier? Why not leave that for after-duty hours outside of the normal training and duties of the day? Why does it have to be involved in the day to day job and responsibilities of a soldier?

You're making a false dichotomy between "Either shut yer trap about being gay, or proclaim it across the base every waking minute of your life." I agree: it's either 1984 or Gay Pride Day every day.

Let's say we're not talking about the special special topic of homosexuality.

If the military had a "Don't ask don't tell" policy about Judaism, let's make a parallel to your point: Why would it conceivably be harmful that a Jewish soldier can never even hint at being Jewish as long as they're in the military? I mean, it surely doesn't bother you, does it? "Don't ask, don't tell" actually protects the Jewish soldiers from the other soldiers who'd undoubtedly pick on them.

Let's go further with this:

Apart from the military, why does the gay community feel like they need or deserve the right to stand on a rooftop proclaiming their orientation and lifestyle? And why is it that if someone genuinely disagrees with that lifestyle are they immediately branded a homophobic? Is it no longer possible to disagree with someone without being called a bigot? How about some real tolerance and tolerate the fact that there are those that will never believe or agree that the gay lifestyle is either natural or appropriate. That doesn't mean they hate you or are out to get you, it just means they don't like you and will probably choose to never associate with you. But that doesn't make them a bigot or homophobic. Last time I checked, I took an oath to defend their right to disagree just as much as your right to your lifestyle. Sometimes, and I really don't mean this mean-spirited at all, the gay community, I think needs to stop worrying so damn much about what other people think or how they respond to them and just live life. So, yeah, don't worry about it.

Apart from the military, why does the Jewish community feel like they need or deserve the right to stand on a rooftop proclaiming their religion and lifestyle? And why is it that if someone genuinely disagrees with that lifestyle are they immediately branded an anti-Semite? Is it no longer possible to disagree with someone without being called a bigot? How about some real tolerance and tolerate the fact that there are those that will never believe or agree that the Jewish lifestyle is either natural or appropriate. That doesn't mean they hate you or are out to get you (entirely ignoring your previous comment about "don't ask don't tell protects gays from inevitably being picked on!") it just means they don't like you and will probably choose to never associate with you. But that doesn't make them a bigot or anti-Semitic. Last time I checked, I took an oath to defend their right to disagree just as much as your right to your jewish lifestyle. Sometimes, and I really don't mean this mean-spirited at all, the Jewish community, I think needs to stop worrying so damn much about what other people think or how they respond to them and just live life. So yeah, don't worry about it. (After all, how bad can it possibly be?)

"How about some real tolerance and tolerate the fact that there are those that will never believe or agree that the gay lifestyle is either natural or appropriate?"

You're asking for tolerance of intolerance. No can do. Being gay is natural for some people, just as being straight is natural for others. Appropriateness is neither here nor there.

Fine, then I don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance. I call just as much bs on your reasoning as you can call on mine. Either your tolerant of other's viewpoints, whether they are right or wrong from your world-view, or you are not. You can't play this game of, "we demand you are tolerant of our viewpoints but we don't have to be tolerant of yours." Tolerance is not a one-way street. You want tolerance? Try practicing some of what you preach first.

They will deny their hypocrisies jmack02.

Funny how if they weren't simply trolling for a fight, but actually took the time to read your posts, there would be no argument. They search for the content they can attack and conveniently ignore the context, and when you finally do get sick of their rants and fully deploy a defense, they will report you while more of them hop on their bandwagon because if you aren't on their bandwagon you are their enemy. There are few on the Vine who have the ability to understand more than one perspective and if you have the ability to argue more than one point of view you are the enemy. They whine for their rights, for acceptance and fairness, but are totally willing to stomp on anyone not in line with their belief system to get their way. You, I, Otto and the few others out there who can put the shoe on the other foot will never make a difference to them because they do not want to understand, only to be heard.

They whine for their rights, for acceptance and fairness, but are totally willing to stomp on anyone not in line with their belief system to get their way.

Yeah, you shoot me a memo when we try and keep "straights" from joining the military, will ya? Thanks.

Thanks for assisting in proving my point Chasing.

Epicetus -- I think you're wrong to assume that your 'side' is the only one who can put the shoe on the other foot. It's just that the discussion has remained at a singular level -- i.e., a level that only affects you. It's easy for you, then, to speak from a position of experience and to be frustrated that it seems others aren't tolerant of your unwillingness to serve with openly gay soldiers.

Surely you've read Chum's posts, though, coming from the perspective of a gay soldier; surely you understand that there's someone who can see both sides of the argument.

Let me remind you, though, that the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy is disastrous on a scale beyond the simple interaction of soldiers encamped together...and if you'd give that some thought -- some thought beyond the immediate reaction of how it affects you -- I believe you'd see that.

The military actively seeks to remove gay soldiers, and has the right to do so. Since they can't ask, they have to look for "signs" -- one soldier was (I'm not kidding) asked if he liked to go to the theatre a lot. You're proud to serve your country, sir; put yourself in the shoes of a man who was discharged because he couldn't adequately answer questions like 'Do you like to go to the theatre a lot?'.

You know, you must know, that we've lost linguists -- men and women who translated Arabic, Korean, and Chinese -- because they were gay. They were not OMG ONE-MAN PRIDE PARADE-gay, they were trained soldiers who did their jobs but couldn't answer the right questions, and were discharged. I'm not talking about a few; I'm talking about some 300 with critical linguistic skills, according to MSNBC.

We're kind of at war. We need these people. You personally don't want them next to you in a foxhole -- fine. That's your problem to cope with. But your country needs these people. You can't reduce a human being to a binary set of sexual urges and dismiss everything else; that human being enlisted because he had skills to offer, and in many cases, your country -- the one you're putting your life out there to defend -- NEEDS those skills. Desperately. And is faltering for want of them.

As I recently posted elsewhere, I'm a linguist. I speak, to varying degrees, nine languages. I'm also queer, so I never even bothered trying to get involved with the military...but I respect the hell out of the people who felt a strong enough call of duty that they were willing to go against hatred and prejudice and a policy that won't even allow them to identify the loved ones they'd like their superiors to call if they die in service. You get to look at pictures of your wife or girlfriend to remind you of home when you're lonely; they don't. You get to talk about your girl back home; they don't. They just have to shut up and do their job and risk getting discharged because they're not talking about boobs enough, and I couldn't have done that.

It's very easy for you to only think about yourself, and the average soldier, and how they don't waaaaanna bunk with somebody who might be lookin' at their ass (news flash: you might be cute and all, but dude, they're not lookin' at your ass, get over yourself). Think about what your country needs, not what you need.

Why, are Iranian men cute?

Cute enough to distract me from bullets!

Hahahahahahahahahaha! It would be easier to just avoid the recruiting office.

Why not? The military is by and large meeting it's goals and still rejecting people who don't meet the qualifications. Yes, there are down times for different branches (like a few months in 2005) but I believe the more recent reports show that recruitment goals are up and re-enlistments are way up.

But I always love this 'they should be desperate enough to lower their standards for homosexuals' argument that people like to flaunt.

The military is by and large meeting it's goals and still rejecting people who don't meet the qualifications.

Which military are you talking about?

C'mon, Otto.

The military is by and large meeting it's goals

July 13, 2007: Almost 12% of U.S. Army recruits required waivers for criminal records

WASHINGTON: Nearly 12 percent of U.S. Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and more than twice the percentage four years ago, according to new Army statistics obtained by the Globe.

and still rejecting people who don't meet the qualifications.

From the same article:

[...] Army officials acknowledge privately that the increase in moral waivers reflects the difficulty of signing up sufficient numbers of recruits to sustain an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq; the Army fell short of its monthly recruiting goals in May and June.

And, July 10, 2007: Army Misses Its June Goal For Signing New Recruits

The Army missed its recruiting goals in June for the second straight month, as rising casualties in Iraq and a strong economy at home kept the service from enlisting enough new soldiers, Pentagon officials said. The Army fell more than 1,000 active duty recruits short of its June goal.

Moral waivers must be approved by an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct - or two to four misdemeanors such as larcency, trespassing, or vandalism.

Applicants who have committed a single felony such as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana possession must also receive a moral waiver to join. Applicants with more than one felony - or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking - are not eligible.

That's a pretty wide variety of offenses, for example speeding tickets for a teen-aged recruit. I'll wait to see what the percentages are on actual waivered offenses before I get excited.

Um, yes, the Army is still turning away many who don't make the cut. The entrance processing is a huge pain in the ass. I almost had to get a moral waiver because of the amount of parking tickets I racked up while I was in college. And it should also be pointed out that while the Active Duty side of things hasn't been as successful at meeting their recruitment goals, the National Guard, in most states, hasn't had any problem doing it. In fact, around here, they have been re-evaluating some of the enlistment bonuses because they are doing so well meeting their recruitment goals. Getting into the military is not an easy thing to do. For some it is straightforward, but for many it is not. Just ask a recruiter.

Why was this - obviously sarcastic - comment deleted in the first place?

Having been a soldier myself I would say no as gay men make me very wary

Sorry Babel, but that is the definition of homophobia.

No its not it common sense, as I have had many gays try to come on to me in my life, I have learnt the hardway its best to be wary when you have nice looking eyelashes and blue eyes. I have had many fights because when I was younger drunk idiots thought I was gay. At least my daughter inherited my nice eyes unfortunatly both my sons did too. My present wife wants to swap as she is fed up trying to make her lashes curl the same way.

However I dont have anythink against gay people they can not help being the way they are but when it comes to the army you dont want someone looking at your arse when they should watching your back.

No its not it common sense, as I have had many gays try to come on to me in my life, I have learnt the hardway its best to be wary when you have nice looking eyelashes and blue eyes.

So... now you know what it feels like to be a woman? So many people coming on to you in whom you really have no interest. How hard is it to just say, "I don't swing that way"?

No I certainly have never felt like a woman I have always had a woman to feel. Having girl friends has never been very hard as they all want their babies to have my eyes.

Actually it was a hinderance easily summount by always having a beautifull chick on my arm. Its still my policy today as I have a very beautiful 25 year old dusky maiden to protect my male vertues.

No not homophobic nor cross dresser only a 61 year old dirty old man.

What I meant is, you now know what it's like to be hit on by people you have no interest - as I am sure many women feel on a regular basis. Seriously, fear of being hit on by homosexuals is homophobia - plain and simple. It isn't difficult to simply tell them you aren't gay.

Simply because I am stating the truth as I always do.

Your welcome to eradicate the truth, of course, when you wrote this you wanted fair debate. I for one have served 22 years in the British Army. I have 61 years of exeperence. I have been taken as a gay person on many occasions myself, I have seen many insidence of gay related problems whilst serving in the army.

I am not anti gay other than to those gays that try to come on to me, very seldom now days but it has truthfully happened. I have a son thats Gay of whom I respect and love as I do all my children.

I also know the feelings of soldiers as I use to adminstate 500 or so under my wing. I also know that being gay in a military establishment is dangorous and that their are many hetrosexuals within that society that simply do not like gays. Soldiers are quiet serious people they view gays mostly in a very bad light.

My suggestion is that gays should not openly state thier gay when joining the military and too keep a low profile no sexual relationships as many others do.

However if you feel my truthful comments are not warrented here please erase and I will be to pleased to write my own unbias article on the gay issue.

Actually their are many Vine members that would back me up at what I am saying these would be the ones that have served in the military and see the common sense of my comments

What I meant is, you now know what it's like to be hit on by people you have no interest - as I am sure many women feel on a regular basis. Seriously, fear of being hit on by homosexuals is homophobia - plain and simple. It isn't difficult to simply tell them you aren't gay.

I told them many many times, but why should I have been pestered in the first place. The problem then becomes a bit more complexed when you travel like I have throught out my life. In fact the first words I like to learn is "go away please I have a girlfriend" such as "Awa palihog limo biuet dilit jer jer" you see its so simple to say in the local language.

Its a big world and there is loads of pest who never take no as answer, especially when they are drunk.

Look I put it down to basics I dont like being pestered:

Here in the Philippines I am always pestered by young mostly beautiful girls as they love my eyes (plus my wallet of course" it gets to be a right pain as I am very happy with my wife. This doesnt make me womanphobic as I am wary of all these demanding girls.

Yes I associat with gays but I rather keep them out of my bedroom and my personal space. Now tell me you kiss them on the cheek and merryly walk down the road with them no of course you don't. You just say your not gay, some of these guys dont want gay guys but full blooded men.

You act as though they shouldn't be allowed to be interested in you.

That just isn't the way the world works.

Babel.. I was never too sure what to think about you - now I know. It's men like you that frighten me.

So... now you know what it feels like to be a woman? So many people coming on to you in whom you really have no interest. How hard is it to just say, "I don't swing that way"?

As always, Henry.. a big thumbs up.. Well said.

I have seen many insidence of gay related problems whilst serving in the army.

I am 100% sure that the vast majority were not "gay related probems" but "bigot related problems". So boot the bigots out of the army and call it a day.

I told them many many times, but why should I have been pestered in the first place.

Because you don't have a flashing neon-sign over your head, conveniently telling the world you aren't gay? Seriously, your issue seems less and less to be about gay people, and more and more about the fear you may be thought of as one - you've gone so far as to admit it. So get some therapy already, but don't abridge my rights in order to make yourself feel more like a man.

I also know the feelings of soldiers as I use to adminstate 500 or so under my wing. I also know that being gay in a military establishment is dangorous and that their are many hetrosexuals within that society that simply do not like gays. Soldiers are quiet serious people they view gays mostly in a very bad light.

My suggestion is that gays should not openly state thier gay when joining the military and too keep a low profile no sexual relationships as many others do.

Yeah, let's give these "many hetrosexuals" a wide berth. If they wanna abuse gay soldiers, the best thing to do is to simply tell the gays to shut up. After all, we can't do anything about bigotry.

You just say your not gay, some of these guys dont want gay guys but full blooded men.

Those damn half-blood gays!

Chasing: You get right to the point, dontcha? I wonder what Babel's opinions about beautiful girls joining the military are. After all, they're just pests who can't stop hitting on him, as well.

Many male gays are not strong enough and can not complete their training tasks for that reason alone.

You don't actually know any queers, do you? When I was just out of high school, my friends and I used to go to the local gay bars because they were the only ones that would hire the bands we liked. On several occasions we saw gay-bashers get their asses kicked up and down the street after they thought they'd have a little fun with the wussies.

Sure, there are femme gays, but there are a lot of butch ones too. There's a gay bar in town that is full of obviously military guys, and guys who want to look military. You wouldn't make that statement if you had ever set one foot in there, and you wouldn't pick a fight, either.

Further, being a translator does not entail heavy lifting.

Henry VII

In future I will be wary to answer your flame loaded comments as it takes the emphasis off of my original argument.

You tried to imply that I was anti gay, that is not the case young man.

You say that you're wary of homosexuals and that you don't want to work with them. How do you not see that as anti-gay? You may be okay with them as long as they aren't around you, but we called that segregation back in the United States some time ago. It has since been deemed illegal.

I noted that the yes vote is much higher than the no vote as most of the voters seemly have no idea about military communities.

Most "soldiers" are born, raised, and return to, civilian communities. I don't care how much they've been brainwashed into thinking they're exceptional, they're still only human.

sorry: Physically weak men

Yes let the gays join but they have got the strength and the character to survive in a mans world.

I can be both openly gay and a man, thank you very much. Be careful with comments like those - your slip is showing.

This scenario is based on a similar even in the British Army, it happened to several young bandsmen serving in Gibraltar the band Sergent was the culprit. The event was not publicized

Sexual harassment laws apply to both genders. You don't need to be a bigot to solve such a problem.

Yes, there is plenty of sexual harassment in the military. I saw it from Basic Training until the day I got out. Men in positions of power hitting on women. I was harassed but not raped--mostly because I made it very clear to everyone that I would not only kill but torture anyone who tried (described in graphic detail, which included sewing an appendage in rapist's mouth and watching him suffocate). It worked for me.

I just really can't care much if a guy gets hit on by another guy. Welcome to the world women have been dealing with and get over it.

Welcome to the world women have been dealing with and get over it.

Amen, seriously. I never thought (in this case, male) soldiers - grown, trained men, with guns - could be so scared of a limp wrist. They don't bite, y'know. It's like a cartoon elephant, afraid of a mouse! Which is not to compare gay men to mice, but rather to bring about a sense of proportion. Don't soldiers have, y'know real things to be worried about?

Gays are allowed openly to join the forces, one recruit finds himself on a fast promotion ladder and within 3 years becomes a training sergent. This guys gets crushes on young blue eyed boys and he starts using his rank to get them to his bed room he frightens them into submitting to him.

I see, it's simple cause and effect: if gays were allowed to be openly so in the military, they'd be bending over "real men" left and right.

Huh. What does your frightful scenario say about these real, "full-blooded" men, getting so unavoidably dominated by these "physically weak men."

Because of mindests like the one Babel Fish exhibits here; who feels intimidated and his health and moral values put at risk when forced to function in the proximity of homosexuals since he's just way too pretty to go unnoticed. That's why.

'Mindsets' was the word I was looking for.

Most soldiers mind set is they do not want gays within their community, it causes problems. Most of you guys have no idea about military life.

I am not against gays, I have gay friends and gay people worked for me when I had a business before I retired. My argument is not against gays working with heterosexuals its to the fact that I know that the Military is not a place for gays. In training are they to be treated as men because most gay men are not as strong as heterosexual guys? Or are they to be treated as women? Then once again this acceptance to the forces may need segregation woman, lesbians, homo, men.

The facts are clear that segregation is the best method to stop trouble. The fact that women and men have separate living quarters is to help stop sexual activity. What do you do with the bisexuals? Then there comes the problem of cross dressing.

Its not a factor of big hairy men being frighten of limp hands. There is more intricate problems, such as the feminist and broken nails on the assault course, it becomes a tragic comedy.

This whole issue becomes a big administration problem.

Gay people are mostly hardworking folk and cause no or little problems within civilian communities most lead useful lives but I would suggest their weakness and sexual leaning is not beneficial to the Military.

My argument is geared to my military experience and not to my personal feelings towards gay people, it would seem that many that have commented have not taken that factor into consideration.

Yes it would be great for gays to join the military and there was less discrimination but there are big problems concerning the administration it would not work.

I am a bit annoyed at two of my comments being delete as they both give more power to my argument. If you publish articles you should be prepared for good argument against you views. I really can not see the problem with the comments made there was no insult only truthful facts.

Most soldiers mind set is they do not want gays within their community, it causes problems. Most of you guys have no idea about military life.

I don't know about the Philippines, but in America - you don't always get what you want.

...but if you try, you'll find you get what you need.

Because of mindests like the one Babel Fish exhibits here; who feels intimidated and his health and moral values put at risk when forced to function in the proximity of homosexuals since he's just way too pretty to go unnoticed. That's why.

Sorry doctor angie I am not worried about any risk to my health But Reverent angie I like having some moral standards, such as one women at a time. I dont think I have mentioned HIV or AIDs this is obvously your thoughts that gays carry these terrible curses of morality. How dare you suggest thats my opinion. Most sensible people use condoms these days and all soldier recruits are screened for HIV.

How dare you use the term mindset on a person that is in fact open minded but steered by experience what experience have you had concerning administration in the military service?

As I have stated many times I AM NOT ANTI GAY.

The man has me speechless.

'Curses of morality'? How dare you forcing your twisted 'moral' values on everybody else? Morality implies a sense of what's wrong and right - so when you call AIDS a 'curse of morality', aren't you saying it's plain wrong to be gay? Are you or are you not?

Now.. explain to me again - one womAn at a time - where this can possibly be Pro Gay.

By the way.. nice to see that the issue you seem to have with Henry VIII's 'flame loaded' comments, yet personal insults directed at others are perfectly well in line with your own communication standards.

The only one 'taking emphasis off your original point' (whatever that might be) is you, young man. By being completely irrational, incompetent, ignorant, and highly contradictory. Oh yea.. I almost forgot to add 'heavily grammatically challenged', which is also very distracting.

You lost the argument angie

Your pigeon hold as a flamer and anti-men. Not nice is it to be placed into a pigeon hole.

Very sorry do not fit the presumed pigeon hole set by you, my grammar may be bad but my IQ is very high. Please accept my apologies for using a mixture of English UK and USA and my somewhat sloppy Professor or absent minded scientist fashion, it must be very hard to understand the simple words and presentation. Many of us here have to watch our p and q's t now as the grammar police are here. Our USA grammar policewoman may have the problem that all us world wide English users use differing forms of English and not American slang. for your information angie I have attended 2 Universities and feel educated enough to talk on most subjects.

Remember after reading this that you insulted me first, I have only reacted this way as the article writer seemingly has allowed your insulting comment and has not deleted it, as with my responses to you.

..and this is the point where I begin to feel sorry for you.

xfs292, I appreciate the amount of fairness you're displaying, thank you.

angie-

Yes it is just plain wrong to be gay. First of all it is wrong on so many levels. and second it is morally wrong. I don't think that they should be allowed anywhere. B/c last time i made a comment i got bashed for my opinion so if I have a harsh comment then i don't care. My last comment was yes they should be allowed. Well this comment is ALL GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ARMED FORCES AT ALL. If you or anyone else does not like it the oh well. Take it up with xfs292 b/c hes a freakin COMMIE!

no i am not ashamed. I am not ignorant, arrogant, stupid or a bigot. I am a very happy person. You may think that of me but you know what I don't care b/c none of which I said was arrogant or ignorant. All I did was tell you and everyone else what I thought and that is my opinion. I don't like liberals and you don't like conservatives. Because you kept deleting my comments that is why i kept writting what i was. I know that liberals will never see eye to eye with conservatives so i don't care. last thing GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANYTHING! THAT INCLUDES THE MILITARY AND ARMED FORCES!

I could say more but you would just call me IGNORANT OR ARROGANT OR STUPID.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

You are right just b/c I use GOD BLESS AMERICA does not make me a patriot. But guess what I am. I would die for this Great Country. No I am not going against the founding founders ideals. i love this country more than anything. If I could I would be over in Iraqi giving up my life to protect people just like you. Tell me how that is dishonoring my country America????? I never said that you did not like America, and I never implied it either. So you can stop calling me a bigot b/c I am not. I don't care if you think I am but I am not.

I think at this point it should be clear that meaningful discourse on the topic is dead. How about we pack it in and agree to continue it at a later date?

I am not ignorant, arrogant, stupid or a bigot. I am a very happy person.

They're not mutually exclusive. After all, ignorance is bliss.

GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANYTHING! THAT INCLUDES THE MILITARY AND ARMED FORCES!

Man, nothing arrogant or ignorant in that. BLACKS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANYTHING! THAT INCLUDES THE MILITARY AND ARMED FORCES! Can we at least let them live? Pretty please? Can they join that club?

No I am not going against the founding founders ideals.

Maybe you just don't know you're going against them. After all, slave owners thought they were bein' all patriotic and freedom-loving.
I truly wonder if you have any idea what those ideals are.

P.S. - Sorry, spiffie, but it's just too easy.

I can tell you that after all of this I believe that gays should not be allowed in anything. Jack since you said that

maybe you just don't know you're going against them

then here you go. According to the Bible homosexuals are shuned by God. He said that gays were basically evil and they were against what He taught us. I don't care if you don't believe in God or Jesus or in religion itself.

Guess what our founding fathers had slaves also. So don't say that to me. If you don't think so you might what to look again. There were a couple of them who had slaves, lets see Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had slaves. So you are telling me that they were not patriotic??

Your argument is seriously that slavery was okay because Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had slaves?

Alas, since it seems that you aren't interested in letting this peter out naturally, let's take this part on:

According to the Bible homosexuals are shuned by God.

Cite it. Where does it say that?

He said that gays were basically evil and they were against what He taught us.

Cite it. Where does it say that?

You're walking on very thin ice here. It's pretty clear that you're deriving rhetoric second hand from what you've been taught, not what you've actually studied.

you all are ignorant ok. I don't care if you think other wise. All you are doing is trying to intimidate. Just b/c i don't see eye to eye with you does not give you the right to try and "scare" me away. I would just like to know where you get off on calling me ignorant???

We wanted me to cite what I had said here it is Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

You would not believe how much I have really studied!

*sigh*

It looks like the comment I was planning to link to where I laid out the Greek underlying the Corinthians quote is in an article that's since been deleted. RC, if I get a chance sometime this week, I'll break out my Greek New Testament copy and retranslate the relevant passage for you. It will be good practice for this coming semester anyway (I'm taking a class in Biblical Greek).

Well, in the interest of presenting the information for her in case she's interested, here are a couple of websites that discuss the perspectives I'm talking about. The first is relatively balanced, providing arguments equally from the Christian conservative and liberal camps. The second and third are specifically advocating for a liberal interpretation (although it's worth noting that clergy and Biblical scholars from many faiths subscribe to these interpretations, so it's not like it's totally out of left field):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/corinth.htm
http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/lev_18.htm

Read them and consider what they say. Keep an open mind, RC, and see if they don't at least help you understand another perspective.

xfs292 I had changed my opinion on the gays. If you remember I had first stated that they should be allowed in the military but then everybody started yelling at what I said so I decided to change it. I am not afraid of them, I am sickened by them.

spiffie

I will read them. Most of the time i do have an open mind. I will try to have an open mind more.

I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against homosexuals. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me. I never blamed it on others all i said was that I changed my anwer b/c of the comments i was getting. I did that to see if changing it would get a different response. Yes i do not like homosexuals but i never said that i would not talk to them or walk on the same side of the street, or sit next to them. All I said was that I was sickened. I am even disgusted by them. That is how i feel. You can continue to yell at me and call me a bigot about what i believe in and consider wrong, go ahead. If you don't believe me about any of this then that is your problem.

I think this is telling:
I ask you about the Founding Fathers' ideals, and you respond with "The Bible says so-and-so."

Perhaps you'd be interested to know that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and abhorred the idea of mixing religion with law.

I don't care if you don't believe in God or Jesus or in religion itself.

If this is true, then you obviously know that simply quoting the Book means nothing to me, and you'd need a halfway practical reason to convince me of anything. You know, one that doesn't involve this belief in God you don't care that I don't have. Can you think of one?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Hmm, summary execution for sleeping (after all, "lying" just means "being horizontal") in the same bed as another guy. Yeah, that makes sense. I wonder why God didn't apply this rule to women. Maybe he's kinkier than you think. ;-)

I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against homosexuals. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me.

I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against black people. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me. Blimey, how can anyone mistake that for prejudice?

Yes i do not like homosexuals but i never said that i would not talk to them or walk on the same side of the street, or sit next to them. All I said was that I was sickened. I am even disgusted by them. That is how i feel.

Well yes, we never implied that you'd refuse to talk to homosexuals even at gunpoint, but I hope, for the sake of your humanity, that you instinctively try to avoid those things you find disgusting. I mean, if I had a choice between sitting by myself or sitting next to a large pile of fresh cow manure (which I find disgusting). I'd pick the former.

I think "disgusted by" and "sickened" are pretty simple concepts with rather obvious behavioral consequences. Claiming that they have no effect on your behavior is, if not a blatant lie, then a disturbing sign that you have an unnatural lack of biological survival instinct. If you're simply trying to play vague semantic games, then I'm sorry to inform you that in this respect, you're hopelessly outclassed.

Why don't you read the whole comment? Cuz I did answer you question about the founding fathers.

Guess what our founding fathers had slaves also. So don't say that to me. If you don't think so you might what to look again. There were a couple of them who had slaves, lets see Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had slaves. So you are telling me that they were not patriotic??

Normally I do try to stay away from things that disgust me. But to some the example you gave it does not bother them. I hate being by my self and to me cow manure does not smell that bad ( I have smelled worse.) I am not saying that i would go and look for every pile of manure so i can sit next to it. What i am saying is that homosexuals are one thing that I do try to avoid. Why do you keep putting black people into the quotes? I never had mentioned black people @ all so why are you????

RepublicanChick...I believe you need to learn what 'prejudiced' actually means before you start using it in arguments.

It involves judging a group of people based on an attribute those people share; forming an opinion about a group of people because of one distinguishing feature.

This is why several people keep comparing your statements to blacks, to point out the absurd prejudice you're displaying: if you were making the exact same comments, but making them about blacks instead of homosexuals, you'd be too aware of your own racism and too ashamed to even write them. However, you feel no such awareness or shame saying the same thing about some other group. It's the same level of prejudice and discrimination, but it's easier for you to say it because your hatred makes you dismiss this group as unworthy of the same respect.

This may be too difficult an abstract concept for you. Let me try to explain.

You should be judging people on their own individual merits. You should not be making blanket statements like, 'gays are basically evil,' or 'gays sicken me and disgust me.' You should not make blanket statements like, for example, 'women are too stupid to run a business,' or 'Mexicans are lazy,' or 'blacks are violent.' These are all prejudiced statements, because they dismiss an entire group without allowing individuals to stand on their own merits.

Especially as a Republican, you ought to be a strong supporter of the freedom of the individual to rise or fall within the free market system on his own merits -- how can you support the power of the individual while being so quick to lump people into groups and dismiss their value to society? If a man -- or woman -- can contribute to the strength of the country as a whole, shouldn't he be appreciated as an individual for the unique skills and benefits he brings to the table? Prejudice blinds us to those unique skills and benefits by ascribing modifiers to masses, and...well...ultimately, that's more socialist than capitalist, isn't it? Hardly a value befitting a Republican.

By the way, I'd be careful jumping to point out Leviticus 20:13 as an indictment against modern homosexuality and, in the same breath, claim that you have "really studied." Leviticus consists of laws for the priest class, in order that they might live a spiritually pure life. Out of 27 chapters of Leviticus, only eight laws are still followed in modern society: Lev. 18:6-14, sexual relations with close relatives are considered a sin; Lev. 18:21, sacrificing your children to Molech, generally a no-no; Lev. 18:23, sex with an animal, generally considered sinful; Lev. 19:15, rendering unjust judgements is against the law, Mr. Gonzales; Lev. 19:29, do not degrade your daughter by making her into a prostitute, generally naughty; Lev. 19:35, do not use dishonest measurements, don't cheat people; Lev. 21:6, priests should be holy and not profane the name of God, pretty basic one there; and Lev. 24:17, "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death." Some states still follow that one.

Leviticus was never supposed to be followed to the letter by all people. That's why there are detailed instructions -- in Leviticus -- for what to do to make reparations when you break one of the laws, because regular people weren't expected to follow the laws; regular people didn't need to be spiritually pure. The Levites -- the priests -- did.

You wouldn't believe how much I've really studied.

Pev, excellent comment.

Why don't you read the whole comment? Cuz I did answer you question about the founding fathers.

Umm, you commented there about slave ownership. I don't see how this at all connects with a discussion about why homosexuals should be barred from the military.

Were the slaves enslaved because they were gay? I seriously see no connection.
All I got from you was "Founding Fathers ideals' = Bible + slaves."

As for citing blacks, it's just as Pev said. Hopefully, here's a more explicit example:
You said: I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against [group of people]. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me... All I said was that I was sickened. I am even disgusted by them. That is how i feel. Now, let's replace your group of people (homosexuals) with another group of people (Christians):

I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against Christians. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me... All I said was that I was sickened. I am even disgusted by them. That is how i feel. I hope you're beginning to see the prejudice showing through.
Another example: I may be prejudice about somethings but I am not prejudice against young women. I never said that. All i said was that they sicken me... All I said was that I was sickened. I am even disgusted by them. That is how i feel.

Fine you want me to leave then fine I will. But just because you "liberals" think you can just push people around you got another thing to think about. I am leaving b/c you have pissed me off for the last time. I understand all of your views and positions but you just don't give a sh** about what I have to say. That is typical of liberals. Yes I grouped you together. I must be prejudice. Guess what you can think that b/c the last time i checked i only hated liberals and gays not blacks. I know what I stand for and I don't need any of you or anyone else telling me what i should and should not believe and that is exactly what you are doing. Wether you like it or not.

As a strong patriot I leave you all with this phrase that I love dearly:

GOD BLESS AMERICA and this oneGOD BLESS THE TROOPS!

Yes I grouped you together. I must be prejudice.

You're finally starting to get it.

As a strong patriot

Judging from your comments here, you haven't the slightest idea what the word means.

Oooo. She lost an argument, so she's going to storm out, sulking, and slam the door behind her?

Wow.

I trust the Grand Ol' Party's glad to have her. I'm sure glad we don't.

I did not lose. I am not storming out or slamming a door. Yes I know what a patriot is and I am one wether you believe it or not. guess what f*** you all you all are F***en idiots. You don't know when to stop being a$$holes and to be real people all you know how to be is stupid idiotic liberals. I am not prejudice and I don't care what you say about it and all I care is that liberals need to learn.

That you can express hatred for an entire class of people and not understand that it is prejudice by definition is a little strange.

Oh.....really? You can't address any of the very reasonable points I made to you except with hysterics and profanity, and you don't believe you've lost?

You may need to look up that definition, too.

Yes I know what a patriot is and I am one wether you believe it or not.

Given your comments here, that holds as much weight as "I know what a gazelle is and I am one wether[sic] you beleive[sic] it or not."

You don't know when to stop being a$$holes and to be real people all you know how to be is stupid idiotic liberals.

Ah yes. Real people are sickened and disgusted by gays, and liberals are animatronic mannequins.

I am not prejudice and I don't care what you say about it and all I care is that liberals need to learn.

Yeah! Learn, dagnabbit! Gays are disgusting and should have their rights limited because of that! Come on, now, why can't liberals just learn that simple truth!

Plenty of gays (and lesbians, and bi-s) fit in quite well in the military, and they're having about as much sex in the work place (wherever it may be) as their heterosexual counterparts.

I didn't have sex at the places I worked or with the people I worked with while I served, and neither did anybody else. I also had a policy of never dating anybody I worked with. We were too busy doing our jobs.

Plenty of gays (and lesbians, and bi-s) fit in quite well in the military, and they're having about as much sex in the work place (wherever it may be) as their heterosexual counterparts.

I don't dispute this is true, but its anecdotal. You could also pretty easily argue that its true specifically because of don't-ask-don't-tell squashing their sexuality. Could you really say that removing that hurdle to relationships wouldn't increase relationships/sex between soldiers?

I didn't have sex at the places I worked or with the people I worked with while I served

Sure, but were you attracted to them and sleeping in the same room and showering in the same stalls? Is there any evidence that your case would be typical after the removal of don't-ask-don't-tell?

I also had a policy of never dating anybody I worked with. We were too busy doing our jobs.

Thats great, but also anecdotal. People have inappropriate relationships in the workplace. They would happen (exponentially?) more if they were sleeping and showering with coworkers they were attracted to. Further, the repercussions of such relationships are greater in the military, where you cant for the life of you get away from the person (since you don't get to leave at the end of the day)

In any case I don't see how its different from the reasons we split men's and women's rooms. If we still need to do that, how can we not need to isolate others who are attracted to each other? If we need to do that, how would it be done in the case of gay people?

You assume that intra-unit relationships don't exist because of DADT, but the military does have regulations against fraternization that could be easily extended to cover inappropriate same-sex relationships, also.

Are there inappropriate relationships in the military now? Yes. Are they being dealt with? Yes, some of them. There's already a system in place to do this, which could be easily expanded to explicitly cover the new relationships, so why exactly is it that DADT is necessary?

Are there inappropriate relationships in the military now? Yes. Are they being dealt with? Yes, some of them. There's already a system in place to do this, which could be easily expanded to explicitly cover the new relationships, so why exactly is it that DADT is necessary?

Because bunking openly gay people anywhere is the same as having co-ed bunking arrangements. It increases the odds for behavior that is being discouraged. Sure the military has processes for dealing with events that happen, but they also have deterrents to prevent those events from happening in the first place. Those deterrents go out the window when you break the bunking model.

Are those soldiers bunking together now? If gay sex were such an uncontrollable urge that it's bound to just break out all over if DADT were repealed, then that uncontrollable urge would be visible now and gay sex would have already broken out all over. People have some self-control. Some of us trust our soldiers to (mostly) conform to the behavior expected of them. I guess some people don't.

Are those soldiers bunking together now?

Not in an open way.

If gay sex were such an uncontrollable urge that it's bound to just break out all over if DADT were repealed, then that uncontrollable urge would be visible now and gay sex would have already broken out all over.

Provide some support for that statement please. Do you have any evidence that DADT isn't preventing it now? Its only logical to assume that if you aren't out, you aren't as approachable for a relationship or sex. As far as I can tell the policy is having the same deterrent effect that bunking men away from women has for straight people.

People have some self-control. Some of us trust our soldiers to (mostly) conform to the behavior expected of them.

Yeah people have some control, but its not limitless. Between DADT and the fact that we bunk different genders in different locations, that control and trust have limits that are not unique to gay people. I don't think its a gay issue, its a human sex drive issue. If you want people (all people, gay or straight) to "mostly" conform as you put it, you can't put them in situations that constantly tempt their desires. (at least not without putting sexual tension through the roof)

I guess some people don't.

Please, the self righteous attacks are not necessary. I'm just trying to get an answer to a few simple questions: How is the rational for excluding open gays different from the rationale for separating the sexes in bunking? How should you bunk gays in a way that is consistent with the need to separate people who are attracted to each other? If it doesn't have to be consistent, why not? If you're so pro-gay-military I'm sure you've thought it through enough to answer the questions. Help me out.

Human sexual drive should be common among human beings in general, correct? And so if human sex drive is the underlying concern, we should be able to look to the experience of other countries in allowing open service. Have Britain, Australia, or Israel found it necessary to accommodate homosexual soldiers with separate bunking arrangements? No. Britain and Australia are our military partners, and presumably have not seen their militaries collapse (since, you know, we can see them acting in theaters around the world). Israel, as I've stated elsewhere here, has more incentive than just about any country in the world to ensure that their fighting forces are in top-notch shape. They've allowed open service for over a decade, have not had to segregate bunks, and still manage to hold their own surrounded in close proximity by enemies that hate them as much or more than any enemy hates us from a distance of a few thousand miles.

Spiff, it's clear that you and I (and some others here) actually have more faith in our military than those who suggest weak-willed, fainting, easily dominated manly men couldn't possibly do the right thing, retain group cohesion, follow regulations, and get the hell over it.

I wish someone would just directly answer the questions I've asked instead of getting evasive and self righteous. Why do we continue to provide separate bunking arrangements for men and women if we don't need to separate people who are attracted to each other? Again it's not a gay issue, its more generally a sex and relationships in the workplace issue. If people in general can cohabitate (read: sleep, shower, etc) together, then fine - why separate men and women? If they can't cohabitate, how do you bunk gays?

Spiff, it's clear that you and I (and some others here) actually have more faith in our military than those who suggest weak-willed, fainting, easily dominated manly men couldn't possibly do the right thing, retain group cohesion, follow regulations, and get the hell over it.

Cute. You did actually read what I said right? I said: I'm a gay man. I don't have any beliefs that gay people are less able to control themselves or somehow less fit for service. I'm just asking the question: If you assume they have the same amount of self control as straight people, and we separate straight people, how would we do achieve the same effect with gay people? If we don't need to separate them, then we surely don't need to separate straight people either, so why do we maintain separate bunking arrangements for men and women?

framed, let me give it a stab. I'm not trying to be evasive, but there is an important difference between the two questions. That difference is that we don't have the same empirical evidence to refer to with fully co-ed living arrangements in military situations.

However, to directly answer your question, I don't think they should be separate. I think they can cohabitate.

Generally, though, the argument against allowing open service with same bunking arrangements for gay and straight men point to fears of harassment. The evidence, though, doesn't support this, and so the argument against cohabitation by gay and straight men is particularly weak.

If we understand the need for women and men to have separate quarters and facilities, than why is it so hard to fathom the need for heterosexuals to have separate living spaces and facilities from homosexuals?

I almost responded to this a long while ago, but deleted my comment unposted. I'll say what I meant to say then:

Because bisexuals exist.

Because human sexuality is not a binary state.

Because you can't just segregate people by who they like to screw...especially in an army, where the point is to create a cohesive team by living together, working together, and coming under fire together (whether in training or in actuality). If you start having separate bunks for the queers because they might make the homophobes uncomfy, you should probably have separate bunks for the Jews because they might make the anti-Semites uncomfy, and separate bunks for the Muslims because they might make the nutbars who think we're fighting a war against Muslims uncomfy, and separate bunks for the blacks because they might make the racists uncomfy, and separate bunks for the hispanics because they might make the people who hate immigrants and assume all hispanics are immigrants uncomfy, and then why bother having an army in the first place, let's call the whole thing off.

I get your point, framed. If sexual attraction isn't a problem, then there's no need to segregate men and women. That is a valid point. I think, however, that there are probably other reasons for womens' bunks that have nothing to do with sexual attraction and have a lot more to do with simple biology. Ya know?

If you start having separate bunks for the queers because they might make the homophobes uncomfy

I think you understand, but just to be clear this isn't my position. The text you quoted was the person I quoted, and my position is slightly different. It doesn't make sense to bunk homosexuals separately in the same way you do with men and women. Separating straight people by sex achieves a separation of people who are attracted to each other, separating homosexuals does the exact opposite which would defeat the purpose. My point is that there is NO way to bunk homosexuals that separates them generically from who they're attracted to. Therefore if you have a goal of some level of modesty in the arrangement of your facilities, homosexuals inherently fly in the face of that.

I think, however, that there are probably other reasons for womens' bunks that have nothing to do with sexual attraction and have a lot more to do with simple biology. Ya know?

Not really, what do you mean? The only thing different between men and womens quarters (as far as I know) would be urinals. A uni-sex bunking system would be nearly identical. The only real reasons we have separate facilities for men and women are related to comfort with sex and sexuality.

You could make the argument that as a society we should get over the feeling that we need to cover our privates around people we're attracted to, or that we should be able to get by in a society without modesty. I'm not sure if its true, but I see the reasonableness of that position. If you assume (like society does today) that a level of modesty is appropriate around people we're attracted to, its hard for me to see how you bunk gays.

Generally, though, the argument against allowing open service with same bunking arrangements for gay and straight men point to fears of harassment. The evidence, though, doesn't support this, and so the argument against cohabitation by gay and straight men is particularly weak.

I would agree. If your argument against gay people in the military is harassment, or wimpyness, or other stereotype related reasons you're really off base. But if I were a General and I decided to bunk gay guys with women, I bet people would have a big problem with it. In reality though, it wouldn't be any different from bunking them with other guys.

Wait...so your proposal is to bunk all the queers with the women?

...

Yeah, I'm afraid I just can't play along with these reindeer games anymore. I'll let someone else respond to that.

Uh no... I made it pretty clear, let me quote myself for you (why is it people cant read the posts they're replying to?)

If you assume (like society does today) that a level of modesty is appropriate around people we're attracted to, its hard for me to see how you bunk gays.

So I guess its more a question than a position, but I'm tired of restating it so if you can't figure it out by now I'll just assume you aren't going to.

I knew several gay men in the Army, we had two in my platoon. It was never a problem. We covered it up, all the guys in my platoon knew these guys were gay. I knew other platoons who covered for their gays, too. We had a locked-door meeting about it in the squad room, we made it clear to both guys they weren't allowed to have relations with each other, or with anyone in the platoon, which they agreed to with a will.

They were both superb soldiers. Over at the DIVARTY, one of the S2 guys named Stormin' Norman, ( not the general, heh) was known to be gay, and there were two lesbians in DIVARTY as well. The military knows about its gays, and generally shines it on.

A person can't help being gay, but he can certainly maintain a soldier's discipline.

Most Homosexuals who want to serve in the military join and keep lifestyle choices to them selves. Those who raise the issue generally are trying to make a political statement, most are negative towards the president, the war, or apolitical party. The issue is not being raised by people who want to defend the country and who generally care about the readiness of our armed forces, but by hypocrites using this issue as a political spring board.

Oh my. Can this be yet another entirely unsupported personal opinion trying to pass itself off as a statement of fact?

The issue is not being raised by people who want to defend the country and who generally care about the readiness of our armed forces, but by hypocrites using this issue as a political spring board. I just hope when this issue comes to a head we can make a decision based on the young 17-24 year olds who make up the bulk of the service

I fully agree. I hope we would be able to make a decision not based on political opinions, but based on the opinions of servicemen and women, most of whom are fine with gay fellow soldiers.

most of whom are fine with gay fellow soldiers. Good blog unfortunately there is no Zogby International poll to back it up check http://www.zogby.com

Blogs are not genuine news sources

Zogby republished essentially the same story. Try again.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14148

Go to page 38 to read about Keith Meinhold.

Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, a sonar operator and trainer on P-3 Orion aircraft,48 had served with the Navy for twelve years when he disclosed that he was gay on ABC Nightly News in May 1992. Meinhold, who flew missions throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf,49 was an exemplary sailor who had received high performance evaluations throughout his career. He consistently graduated at the top of his classes and had been certified as a Master Training Specialist, an honor bestowed upon the top 10% of instructors. Meinhold supervised a team of 32 Navy instructors and had previously been recognized as “Aircrew Instructor of the Year” (Meinhold, 2001). He was prompted to come forward after hearing about an alleged witch hunt against gay sailors in Japan, in which more than 50 service members were investigated (Turner, May 23 1992). As a result of his public statement, Meinhold’s commanding officer initiated discharge proceedings. The administrative board unanimously agreed that Meinhold should be discharged under honorable conditions on June 30, and he was separated from the Navy in August 1992 (Turner, July 1 1992; Lempinen, November 7 1992).

I hope that was a joke.

Flaunting homo-sexualness, I imagine you are talking about "flaming", would be dealt with in the same manner as flaunting hetero- sexualness, it would be considered sexual misconduct. I don't know if your statement is more hilarious if you actually meant it, or if your were joking in the first place... roflmao... homo-sexualness? Sounds like a line out of a Will Ferrel movie...

"Flaming" doesn't have anything to do with sex, so it would certainly not be sexual misconduct except for some Bizarro world definition. Flaming is a collection of body language and vocal behaviors. One could maybe debate whether extreme expressions of those behaviors could affect a soldier's effectiveness, but I think it's ludicrous to say categorically that they would result in discipline. (And how many soldiers have been disciplined for "flaunting hetero-sexualness?" Do we even have a workable defintion for what that means?)

Depending on who the flaunting is directed toward, it could be construed as sexual harassment of which the military has absolute zero tolerance.

Depending on who the flaunting is directed toward, it could be construed as sexual harassment of which the military has absolute zero tolerance.

Harassing and flaunting are not the same thing. Neither are harassing and flaming. Or even flaunting and flaming, for that matter. Someone who "flaunts" their homosexuality may also be guilty of sexual harassment, but someone who wears orange shorts on November 23rd might also be guilty of sexual harassment.

And straight people "flaunt" their heterosexuality all the time.

Do some of you just look for anything you can possibly misconstrue to hop on? Do you really think you need to be the grammar police, all the time? You took a light flicker of a conversation and just went full throttle freakabilly on it. Lighten up.

Or if you just feel the need to hop on me, let me know and I'll give you a reason, something you won't have to twist and stretch, something just blatantly nasty ;-P

I can pretty much guarantee you that neither Chasing nor I are going "freakabilly" over this, we're just pointing out that your perceptions are seriously skewed. You seem intent on reading "freakabilly" intent in what we're saying to you, but that says more about you than us.

I can pretty much guarantee you that neither Chasing nor I are going "freakabilly" over this

Not least because freakabilly is a musical style, and I don't have a drum set. Or a guitar, for that matter. Or, you know, a band.

yeah, ok... you two are a band.

spiffie

I really appreciate the way you provided proof that many soldiers actually don't mind the gays serving in the US forces.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14148

Its something that I find hard to believe but Zogby seemingly gives proof that my own opinion is wrong, however the amount of servicemen poled is a very low one.

I thank you for being sensible in a debate thats become a platform of insults.

A sample size of 545 for a population of a few hundred thousand is actually a very significant number (probably at least twice what was strictly needed), depending on their sampling methodology.

Actually, that's best no matter if it's a gay or straight relationship. The drama sucks for everyone (and there is always drama).

As far as your cousin goes, as has been stated before, the military should not tolerate any kind of bigotry--whether its about race, religion, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, or anything else. Obviously, the problems exist, and until they confront these problems and deal with them, they'll interfere with cohesiveness and readiness.

You have to be able to trust your team.

You have to be able to trust your team.

This pretty much sums up why gays should be able to serve openly. A secret as big as sexual preference is a big part of someone's life. Therefore there should be a great deal of openness to who your comrades are.

the military should not tolerate any kind of bigotry--whether its about race, religion, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, or anything else. Obviously, the problems exist, and until they confront these problems and deal with them, they'll interfere with cohesiveness and readiness.

There are rules and punishment for bigotry but sex is not allowed between servicemen and women in barracks, most gays that are chucked out are normal caught in compromising positions. Why should they be allowed to have sex when the men and women are not allowed by standing orders.

It is very hard to stop harassment and discrimination within any military establishment, it normally raises its head to late and the damage has been done. But the rules are there and there is punishment to fit the crime. Over my 22 years services I have seen and dealt with discrimination the rules and regulations of the British Army are similar to the USA's.

Most gays that are caught having sex in barracks are discharged as with A serviceman and women having sex within barracks.

The training factor concerning gays in USA is mainly due to the gay person not being tough enough to pass the physical requirements, things such as crying on the assault course or due to sleep denigration on exercise would be the norm I expect. I remember whilst I was training the abuse gave by the training sergeants was very offensive such as "Your behaving like little girls" or "Don't mess up your make up ducky". This is the norm it could be looked at as being offensive but in fact its used to get one to exert yourself to the fullest extent. Those that can not or do not have the effort are discharge, this is not discrimination its selection.

Womens training is not so hard though its tough and physically demanding. The factor is that most gays due to their femininity's would need to be treated as women whilst training.

lol... really? I'm pretty sure that gay men have the same amount of testosterone in their bodies as straight men, they are just wired differently. You are thinking I suppose of the incredibly flamboyant gays who are stereotypically very emotional. However, saying gay people are not tough enough is just wrong. If they weren't, we wouldn't have 1000+ closet gays in the marines alone right now. The statement that you made that hints that gay people should be held to the physical level of a woman is rediculous.

Oh, by the way, drill sergeants don't say "Don't mess up your make-up ducky"... because ducky isn't really an insult... I don't know how they do it in the UK, but here the drill sergeants would never say that... something more along the lines of "Dorothy! Get movin' or is that rope getting wrapped around your gaping , now move it

If you read my past comments I show my awareness that there are gays men in the military, they are the ones that are not so feminine. The one that don't get in are much more feminine the balance of sex hormones are an important factor.

Oh, by the way, drill sergeants don't say "Don't mess up your make-up ducky"... because ducky isn't really an insult... I don't know how they do it in the UK, but here the drill sergeants would never say that... something more along the lines of "Dorothy! Get movin' or is that rope getting wrapped around your gaping , now move it

Oh I agree but I think that my actual comment what is actually said would of been deleted as it would of been discriminating against gay men. But we will try a soft one.

"Get your queer bloody arse over the wall you bloody pervert"

If you read my past comments I show my awareness that there are gays men in the military, they are the ones that are not so feminine. The one that don't get in are much more feminine the balance of sex hormones are an important factor.

Such thick skin.

On the one hand, you incessantly blithely generalize that gay men are too girly for the man-warrior club.

Then you turn around and say that "Oh, there are gays in the military. Those gays are the special manly ones."

In your desperation to show that gays are unfit for the military, you're not just running around in circles. You're gnawing your own tail off.

my thoughts exactly

No I am not gay myself and of course have a very different opinion. It would seem that many want to flame that opinion.

I AM NOT ANTI GAY

I AM BEING REALISTIC

I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING IN ONE OF THE BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD THAT SEE THE SENSE OF NOT LETTING GAY PEOPLE INTO THE SERVICES AS IT WOULD CAUSE PROBLEMS AS THEY TRUTHFULLY WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

Yes its a nice thought to think that people should be less discriminated but in reality life sucks for gays and Jews. As I am from Jewish stock and often have hidden that fact to stop being discriminated against I think my view should be viewed in the proper sense. However I see that many want to flame a sensible view.

If I was gay and wanted to join the forces where the form stated sex I would firmly state MALE. Then I would obey all the military rules to show my patriotism and my dedication to my country.

As when I joint the British Army I stated where the form said religion CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Babel,

Here's an idea. Instead of blocking homosexuals from being in the military, why not block the ignorant bigots that would discriminate against them? That is the far wiser choice of the two.

This is such a lame topic and I can't understand how a vote can go nearly 90% in 1 direction and still have so much argument about it. Look, everyone gets discriminated against for 1 thing or another. So what? If you have the balls to join up and fight then you need to be able to to take a hell of a lot more than being shunned by the guys who are anti-gay. In my experience most people have no problem with gays. Their real problem is that they don't want to be mistaken as gay or teased for having gay friends so the problem is when groups are involved and peer pressure causes them to take an anti=gay stance. In the military you are challenged to be tougher and stronger than the next guy in order to fit in and earn respect of your peers. If a gay guy or girl is up for that challenge then they can break through the barriers. If not then they don't belong there. Not because they are gay but because they don't have what it takes to be in the armed forces.

I notice we are no longer talking about women joining the military so I guess that has become acceptable. So will gays in the military as soon as we stop hearing about cry babies being discriminated against and a few stories about the few that step up and act like men. Women didn't get accepted by joining the army and acting like women.. They had to prove they are tough and really need to be tougher than the men because of those extra challenges. Those who can rise to the challenges earn the respect of the men around them I am sure. How is this different from gays other than the fact that a guy doesn't mind the thought of the female checking out his ass?

Woah, there Collin. There's a difference between being tough enough to get in, and setting up extra barriers to entry for a specific group.

As I am from Jewish stock and often have hidden that fact to stop being discriminated against I think my view should be viewed in the proper sense

And naturally, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be the tactic involved for any group that contains anti-Semites. Just make the Jews shut up, and the bigots won't beat them up.

So will gays in the military as soon as we stop hearing about cry babies being discriminated against and a few stories about the few that step up and act like men. Women didn't get accepted by joining the army and acting like women

Yeah, awareness about discrimination is all the crybabies' fault. Fifty years ago, those damnable black crybabies wanted equal treatment. It was because they stopped being wusses that they got equal treatment.

Women didn't get accepted by joining the army and acting like women.. They had to prove they are tough and really need to be tougher than the men because of those extra challenges.

So women in the army don't act women? I think you mean women in the military don't act like Lindsay Lohan. As far as I'm aware, they still have periods in uniform.

If a gay guy or girl is up for that challenge then they can break through the barriers. If not then they don't belong there. Not because they are gay but because they don't have what it takes to be in the armed forces.

You really think that's why open gays are kicked out of the military? Because they're incompetent?

Well, here's a story about one of "the few that step up and act like men":

Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, a sonar operator and trainer on P-3 Orion aircraft,48 had served with the Navy for twelve years when he disclosed that he was gay on ABC Nightly News in May 1992. Meinhold, who flew missions throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf,49 was an exemplary sailor who had received high performance evaluations throughout his career. He consistently graduated at the top of his classes and had been certified as a Master Training Specialist, an honor bestowed upon the top 10% of instructors. Meinhold supervised a team of 32 Navy instructors and had previously been recognized as “Aircrew Instructor of the Year” (Meinhold, 2001). He was prompted to come forward after hearing about an alleged witch hunt against gay sailors in Japan, in which more than 50 service members were investigated (Turner, May 23 1992). As a result of his public statement, Meinhold’s commanding officer initiated discharge proceedings. The administrative board unanimously agreed that Meinhold should be discharged under honorable conditions on June 30, and he was separated from the Navy in August 1992 (Turner, July 1 1992; Lempinen, November 7 1992).

Actually, he sounds like he went above and beyond.

He still got summarily canned when he came forward about being gay. Next time, think a bit before you casually paint gays in the military with the sweeping "incompetent girly men" brush.

I'm gay and was in the Army for 4 years, honorably discharged. I fight for human rights, which includes gay rights.

How about straight people 'just fighting for gay rights'? That'd be me.

Word, angie and xfs.

*YAWN*

Why doesn't it strike me as odd to learn that Liberal.anialater18's only friend on Newsvine is republican.chick18?

Nice try.

I think his handle is supposed to be "liberal.annihilater18," but I first read it as "liberal.analater18."

That was a bad almost-image.

I personaly don't care but I don't really feel protected with them serving.

Of course. Criminals are much better at protecting our country.

hey liberal.analater18 gave her opinion. Jeez just because I am liberals only friend does not mean anything. Just because annihilater is spelled wrong does not mean she is illiterate or dumb. It was a mistake. I could go and make fun of some of your handles but I don't so why don't you just comment on the comments instead of the handles??

Well it should be 'annihilator' anyway. But that's getting pretty technical, I suppose.

Let's look at the two of them: anialater and annihilator. That's not a mistake. That's a complete and total misunderstanding of the spelling of the word. A mistake would be leaving out a single 'n.' A mistake would be dropping the 'h.' A mistake would be assuming the word was formed with the agentive suffix '-er,' like a lot of English words, and not the suffix '-or,' since it's a Latinate root. This word has at least four distinct mistakes; these aren't typos.

Additionally, the user name is not some comment dashed off in a couple seconds. If you're not going to use your real name, the user name you choose is meant to represent you. If you can't even be bothered to check the spelling of the name that will represent you (especially when that name is as aggressive as "Liberal Annihilator"), then yeah, I would say that the person is ignorant, dumb, or both.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, should we? What if you saw a user with a name "LoiyulDemakrat?" Let's assume you could tell that the name was seriously chosen. Would the name chosen reflect poorly on the user in your mind? If not, why not?

ok I spelled it wrong to make a piont that you stupid liberals are all way to freaking up tight!!!! You need to back off and obsess over something else!!! Go start a rally for Hillary or Obama!!!!! I mean you are all talk and no walk anyway so go work on the walk part of you position!!!

nice you are so right. These liberals need to take a chill pill. take a joke and get over it.

I will go else well. But I have one last thing to say. You must be a bleeding heart liberal. Oh wait Bleeding hearts want things for people. So if you think what I said before was offensive then you won't like this at all. Liberals need to learn to take a joke. Liberals need to learn that not everything needs to be changed and life should not be so stuck up!

I don't care if this is your article! This is AMERICA not a COMMUNIST country so stop being a stupid COMMIE!!!

SO GOOD BYE!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

I am not an ignorant idiot. What gives you the right to say that i should go bomb another country?? My party is not the ones who wanted to sit down with the enemy and then said we would bomb our allies. You would be the one to bomb a country. You are the one insulting me, you keep saying that i am ignorant, an idiot, stupid. All I am doing is laying down facts and opinions.

she's ignorant I think not!!! She knows what she stands for and stand for what she believes I hardy think of that is ignorant!!! A person who is uneducated(like yourself) is ignorant.

another country to bomb what the F*@$ is that crack suppose to mean?

What does stubbornness have to do with not being ignorant?

I can stick to my guns and say "Santa so totally does exist!!!!!!" That doesn't mean I'm not an idiot.

P.S. - When calling someone else "uneducated," you usually want to show people that you know what commas are. Just a tip.

Guys...we've got two accounts, one named 'RepublicanChick18,' aka teri, and the other named 'Liberal.anialater18' (sic), aka 'conservativegirl'. Liberal.anialater18's only friend is RepublicanChick18; RepublicanChick18 has friended a few people. Neither has seeded any topics or written any articles (RepublicanChick18 has 'written' three articles, all of which are just headlines with an empty body...almost like she just did it to game the system so it looks like she's participated more in Newsvine than she has).

When one starts losing an argument, the other shows up to defend her.

They write in the exact same style, with the exact same errors in punctuation, spelling, and even spacing.

I bet I know what an IP match would look like.

thats an interesting observation Pev. hahaha very coincidental

in response to the actually comment. its the dumbest thing i've ever heard. just because one is homosexual does not mean they would want to help defend America, giving up their own lives, any less than a straight. they are not any less capable.

It constantly amazes me that there is always this debate about who we should let into the military. Black people, women, atheists, and homosexuals have all gotten the short end of the stick at times.

I completely fail to understand why anyone should be barred from serving their country in a way that relatively few feel called to do. It should be pretty self-evident that anyone who passes basic without flipping out, falling short, or giving up can probably "handle" the stresses of combat and the discipline required. Isn't that the point of Basic in the first place?

Myreason for coming to this conclusion is that a Zogby pole give sufficient proof that service personel actually do not mind serving with gays. this report was provided earler in the threads by spiffie

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14148

My view is if the servicemen are happy with gays being in the military then there is grounds for gays to be allowed openly to join the forces. However it would be nice if the whole military was poled on this issue.

I still think however the administration would prove to be a headache as its going to be hard to get full acceptance from many service men and women the discrimination would take a very long time to dissipate.

24 countries allow open service by homosexual members, including members who are actively participating or have participated in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. So far as I know, none of those countries have had to make allowances for separate bunk or toilet arrangements. These include countries that have compulsory service and those that have all volunteer forces. They include very religious countries and countries that are less religious. They include countries led by Social Democrats and by social conservatives.

The simple fact is that none of these countries has seen or faced very significant problems related to allowing open service by homosexuals. The data is clear and unambiguous. People are perfectly capable of making this change, it only requires a small exertion of political will.

Babel, I would encourage you to investigate and learn about polling methods and the mathematics behind polling. In a well-conceived and executed poll, questioning every member of a population is not necessary to arrive at a sound conclusion. It's usually cost-prohibitive, as well. Also, as I'm sure you're very aware, the military is not a democracy.

Maybe it would work in the USA but the problem is the US military is very different and much more emphasis is placed on the Rambo and macho marine approach to life. However going by the pole you supplied it may not belong before USA will bow down to gay rights.

I can not foresee the British Army allowing their present recruitment plans change, I truthfully believe there is more intolerance to gays. My comments have been based on my knowledge of the British services, there are of course many differences within our cultures. Unfortunately there is a complete lack of tolerance to gays within the British community, thats why there is less cross dressing in UK.

Where I live now in the Philippines gays are more accepted by the community than many other places in the world, they openly cross dress many of them are very beautiful that its hard to tell if they are gay.

The gay rights movement in the USA is much more powerful than that in UK has it has good lobbying powers.

You Brits have allowed open service since 2000.

That is a very surprising statement its in fact something I have never heard about but somehow knowing there are 40 or so gay MP's plus the lowering of the age of consent for gays to 16 years old. For some reason I can not find any record to this open service since 2000 thing could you please give your reference concerning the bill and act that past in the British parliament?

Sure. Here are a few different sources:

Wikipedia:

The traditional justification for excluding openly gay service members is that it may lead to "harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness."[43] The British military, which removed their restriction against gay service members in 2000, has not experienced any of these feared results.[43]

Here's a version of the story from 1999 when Britain lost in the European Court of Human Rights:

In a 7-to-0 decision of 40 pages issued September 28, the court ruled that the Defense Ministry violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been signed by 40 nations and which says "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence?"

English newspapers generally praised this as a triumph for homosexual rights. For example, a London Independent editorial, September 29, said, "Today it looks like a longoverdue progressive move. Tomorrow it will look as natural as the right to vote. But before homosexual and lesbian personnel are openly integrated into the British armed services--as the European Court of Human Rights insisted yesterday that they should be-ministers face a battle with the military. No one should underrate the challenge. Our armed services remain among the most reactionary in the Western world."

That was a copy of a story from Human Events, a right-wing site. Here's one from the opposite side of the aisle:

On Monday [story date 29 Sept. 1999] the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom's ban against homosexuals serving in its armed forces was unlawful. The announcement immediately provoked disquiet in the Blair government and elicited a stream of homophobic statements from senior military personnel and the Conservative Party. Britain is the only country in Europe to maintain such a ban.

This is a copy of a NY Times story from May this year (original now behind Times Select):

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

The British military has even embraced the new soldiers, going so far as to recruit at gay pride events:

The British army regularly attends cultural events and parades in England to drum up support for the military and recruit potential soldiers. This weekend the army decided to take part in another march through the city streets of Manchester with thousands of people watching. Only this time the parade was part of the annual Gay Pride festival, and some of the onlookers were dancing men in makeup dressed in Lycra. There were about a dozen uniformed soldiers participating in the parade and manning a booth to offer recruitment information. The Royal Air Force also took part for their second successive year, but this was the first year that the army has attended.

Here's another story about the same event (both from 2005):

The army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.

It set up a recruitment stall at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, backing its new-found commitment to homosexual rights by sending 10 gay and lesbian soldiers in combat trousers and tight T-shirts to join thousands of marchers on a five-mile parade through the city.

They strode out behind a float put together by the RAF, which was also recruiting. Themed on a fighter jet, it featured an oversized cockpit and a banner proudly proclaiming, "RAF rise above the rest".

Hope that helps.

Game set and match

Thanks spiffie you have changed my mind on the whole issue

No problem at all. I'm glad we could work it out.

Well, it's certainly not the case for Britain, who were forced to make the change due to a ruling by the European commission on human rights. Britain did not change willingly, did not change due to organic internal pressure, and despite that still has failed to see any issues from the change in policy. The run-up to the policy change saw a number of gloom-and-doom predictions, all of which failed to materialize.

Summary: Modern morality has made the military soft. I was personally too wussy to yell while charging with a bayonet, and too wussy to poop with other guys. If I'm so wussy, how can gays be manlier?! Soldiers need to be penis-wagging pigs, and no gay person will ever be one of these, because I said so (and surely no gay can be manlier than Manly Me).

I think the author is confusing "being gay" with "on lots of pot." He also seems very insecure about his own straightness, going so far as to avoid all-male groups. Apparently he's never seriously played any team sports in his life. If that's not unmanly, I don't know what is.

It's good to see you've come around. Next time, try to realize that no one was flaming you. [Although, thanks for calling us idiots while denouncing flamers. You really know how to prove a point.] I simply used common definitions of words [such as homophobia] to show that your way of thinking was quite irrational. It looked like you were about to pull an Ardith.

sorry; very famine should read very feminate

effeminate

Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the equal") is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3][4] Several dictionaries also associate irrationality with this type of fear. It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry. - Wikipedia

A person can have a differing opinion with out being discriminate if you had read my comments carefully you would of noted that I was relating to my honest experiences of military life.

The honest military experience that repeatedly stereotypes gay guys as nail-breaking pansies dying to jump straight macho men, right?

I certainly do not cross the road when I see a gay or disallow any gays to sit at my table.

Of course not. You just feel uncomfortable if they're wearing camo and holding a gun.

that does not mean I am anti people, gay people that are very famine make most heterosexual men wary but it does not mean we hate gays. Its natural to be wary but not indiscriminate.

Of course. Kicking very competent people out of the military for being gay is definitely not discriminatory. After all, sooner or later they'd break a nail. I thought spiffie had convinced you that gays should be allowed in the military. Yet, you're still trying to retroactively justify saying "gays are girly men who shouldn't be allowed to wear the uniform because straight guys can't handle any possible unwanted attentions" is grounded in some sort of unbiased logic?

Wary means wary not homophobic or anti-gay.

Which is why you're also so adamantly against women serving in the armed forces, right? After all, you wouldn't want them to give the manly men unwanted touches on the knee while breaking a nail.

P.S. - I don't know what " differing forms of English" "us world wide English users" are using, but your command of the English language in this forum looks to be at around the 2nd-grade level. Also, anyone who feels the need to tell people they have a high IQ only does that because their actions imply the opposite.

P.S. - I don't know what " differing forms of English" "us world wide English users" are using, but your command of the English language in this forum looks to be at around the 2nd-grade level. Also, anyone who feels the need to tell people they have a high IQ only does that because their actions imply the opposite.

Thank you, Jack.

Barring the fact that your friend blew her top as well, I must say that the best way to not have people "go off on her" is to:

1. Tell her that simply being really, really angsty isn't a very convincing debating technique.
2. Give her a dictionary.
3. Give her a basic textbook on American history.
4. If she can fit in your shoes, let her wear them, even for a sec. Then she'll at least be able to claim that she can put herself in other people's shoes.