Gays in the Military

[Ramirez]

Well, American politics shouldn't confuse you since your IP address indicates you are in Indianapolis, IN, which is in America, and it's really likely that you are an American. Based on some of the other profiles you've created online on other forums, and with a variety of locations indicated I might add, I'm pretty sure that you are not only lying about your location, but also your name.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right, I would much appreciate you updating your profile with truthful information. I will then not suspend your account.

LOL.... well first of Lucious...lose the ***** @ss name. God help you if your parents actually named you Lucious. Despite that his posts have been fairly innocuous.

Not surprised if an American finds American politics confusing, I find Canadian politics confusing.

[David Craik]

It seems to me the authoritative voice on whether it's a 'choice' or not would be from an actual gay person. I worked with a lesbian and asked her this very thing. She told me that ever since she had sexual feelings of any sort she was attracted solely to members of the same sex; she never made a conscious decision to be a lesbian whatsoever. I don't see any logical reason she would have had to lie to me, she knows I don't really care one way or the other.

How does one 'choose' to be attracted to one gender or another? Ad Populum aside, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's like 'choosing' to like mushrooms or something. In order to choose to be homosexual, a person would first have to not find the idea of sex with a member of the same gender repugnant. And if they don't find it repugnant enough not to do it, then what 'choice' has been made exactly? I've never even heard of a heterosexual just rolling out of bed one day and 'deciding' to be gay without those feelings having been there in the first place.

As for the thread topic, I must admit to being rather too torn on a few aspects to have an opinion.

[Ramirez]

It seems to me the authoritative voice on whether it's a 'choice' or not would be from an actual gay person. I worked with a lesbian and asked her this very thing. She told me that ever since she had sexual feelings of any sort she was attracted solely to members of the same sex; she never made a conscious decision to be a lesbian whatsoever. I don't see any logical reason she would have had to lie to me, she knows I don't really care one way or the other.

How does one 'choose' to be attracted to one gender or another? Ad Populum aside, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's like 'choosing' to like mushrooms or something. In order to choose to be homosexual, a person would first have to not find the idea of sex with a member of the same gender repugnant. And if they don't find it repugnant enough not to do it, then what 'choice' has been made exactly? I've never even heard of a heterosexual just rolling out of bed one day and 'deciding' to be gay without those feelings having been there in the first place.

As for the thread topic, I must admit to being rather too torn on a few aspects to have an opinion.

yeah I find it hard that anyone would chose to be gay , even in the currently "liberal" society. Outside of a few open minded enclaves in the West, being gay is a tough choice.

[Cliff Hargrave]

So, Cliff, when did you decide to be straight?

Last week.

BTW - homosexuality was in the DSM prior to 1973 based on political/cultural reasons in the first place. No one ever made any medical discovery showing it to be a mental disorder - they just declared it to be one based on their own prejudices.

WHAT? How do you make that stretch? You know about all APAs research prior to 1973? When did you get your medical degree? Was there some secret star chamber anti-homosexual movement in the APA?

How come homosexuals were excluded and none of these others???? I guess they were prejudice against pedos and vampires too hahahahahahahaha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

I am sure everyone that suffers from one of those thinks they were born that way and cant fix it. Fact is though, many can be healed, changed, leave the lifestyles. It happens every day. Sorry I just cant make the leap from anti-homosexual to the racism experienced by Rosa Parks. That is an insult to every minority.

This is America and people should be able to do whatever they want as consenting adults. I am completely against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. However people that believe it is morally wrong should not be demonized and accused of being the same as racists by the left. That is a tactic to shut the opposition up.

[Ramirez]

This is America and people should be able to do whatever they want as consenting adults. I am completely against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. However people that believe it is morally wrong should not be demonized and accused of being the same as racists by the left. That is a tactic to shut the opposition up.

I just don't understand why anyone cares about who someone else hops into bed with as long as they are consenting adults. Seriously, anyone on this board can who meets Cliff's criteria can please tell me why they give a damn?

[Tony Dismukes]

WHAT? How do you make that stretch? You know about all APAs research prior to 1973? When did you get your medical degree? Was there some secret star chamber anti-homosexual movement in the APA?

Nothing secret star chamber about it. Homosexuality was just assumed to be mentally wrong because that was the dominant attitude in society.

I'm actually reasonably well versed in the history of psychology. I started with my bachelors in psych, then continued studying on my own due to the influence of a father who does research in cognitive psychology and a wife who is working on her doctorate in psychology.

If you want a summary of the historical evidence on the subject, here is a good link to read.

From the link: "Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with psychopathology. "

[Tony Dismukes]

This is America and people should be able to do whatever they want as consenting adults. I am completely against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. However people that believe it is morally wrong should not be demonized and accused of being the same as racists by the left. That is a tactic to shut the opposition up.

Cliff, I think it's really cool that you are against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned that makes you one of the good guys in this debate.

However, complaining about being "demonized" for your opposition to homosexuality strikes me as a bit whiny.

Here's a few questions for you.

Have you ever been physically assaulted for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been threatened with physical violence for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were going to hell for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been lost your job for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were mentally ill for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been deprived of the chance to serve your country for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?

A large percentage of gays have experienced these things and more. That's demonization.

As far as I can tell, you think that it's okay for you to call gays immoral, but not okay for other people to call your words immoral when you do so. It seems to me that if you're willing to dish it out, you should be willing to take it in return.

[Don Roley]

Double post. Sorry!

[Don Roley]

I just don't understand why anyone cares about who someone else hops into bed with as long as they are consenting adults. Seriously, anyone on this board can who meets Cliff's criteria can please tell me why they give a damn?

Personally I do not. But I do care if the military can do its job or not. When I joined, they asked me if I was a member of certain groups. I have a constitutional right to join those groups. But the military banned members because it would cause trouble if people who openly claimed that blacks were an inferior race were allowed to walk around saying it.

I was actually in the army infantry. The reality of that group is far different than that of someone who might be an officer in the navy. I fear that someone being openly gay might be a target. That would cause trouble like we talked about. Some of the guys I went through training with just do not strike me as the type to accept that the guy looking at them as the shower in the community bathroom is able to not look at them sexually. The guys I knew might have beaten them to death or waited until they were in a combat zone and given live ammo to frag them. Maybe society has changed. I hope it has. But when it comes down to individual rights or the ability for the military to do its job, then I choose the later. Seriously, I saw a guy use the "N" word and get an article 15 for it. His right to freedom of speech was perhaps just as valid under the constitution as someone telling everyone that they are gay.

Doubleouch says that kids he teaches just are not as concerned about it as his generation. I know a guy who comes from the south and served in Afghanistan who hates the current policy. I have hope that we have moved beyond such silly prejudices. But I am not willing to bet on it. People that are insecure in their sexuality are really dangerous when faced with those that are secure in theirs, but do not conform to the norm.

To again mention Doubleouch, I wish this would be settled by the congress instead of the courts or the president. If you read the constitution, you will find that this sort of thing is supposed to be determined by them. Even the republicans seem in favor of changing it. I would like the constitution to be followed even if it has been ignored for so long. Just look at the tenth amendment and consider all the stuff that would not be around if it it was not ignored when it was inconvenient to politicians.

[Ramirez]

Cliff, I think it's really cool that you are against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned that makes you one of the good guys in this debate.

However, complaining about being "demonized" for your opposition to homosexuality strikes me as a bit whiny.

Here's a few questions for you.

Have you ever been physically assaulted for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been threatened with physical violence for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were going to hell for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been lost your job for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were mentally ill for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been deprived of the chance to serve your country for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?

A large percentage of gays have experienced these things and more. That's demonization.

As far as I can tell, you think that it's okay for you to call gays immoral, but not okay for other people to call your words immoral when you do so. It seems to me that if you're willing to dish it out, you should be willing to take it in return.

Good post Tony, the idea that people who think homosexuality is immoral are in fact the victimized group as opposed to homosexuals is bit bizarre.

Outside of large cities in North America, and even in cities known for having a gay population (Vancouver for eg which has had a recent spate of gay bashing) being gay is to be open to everything you list.

[Mekugi]

Why not let military personnel vote on it? They have to fight shoulder to shoulder with one another, let them be the voice. If they want it, fine. If not, so be it. Those who want these types of laws changed can join the military and vote.

[Cliff Hargrave]

Cliff, I think it's really cool that you are against anyone discriminating against homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned that makes you one of the good guys in this debate.

However, complaining about being "demonized" for your opposition to homosexuality strikes me as a bit whiny.

Here's a few questions for you.

Have you ever been physically assaulted for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been threatened with physical violence for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were going to hell for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been lost your job for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been told you were mentally ill for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?
Have you ever been deprived of the chance to serve your country for your belief that homosexuality is immoral?

A large percentage of gays have experienced these things and more. That's demonization.

As far as I can tell, you think that it's okay for you to call gays immoral, but not okay for other people to call your words immoral when you do so. It seems to me that if you're willing to dish it out, you should be willing to take it in return.

Thinking something is immoral is not the same as denying someone their rights as an American. That is the distinction. I think people that cheat on their spouses are immoral. But I do not deny them their rights as a citizen. It's their business.

Typical liberal/leftist tactic. It's done in every area. It's moral relativism. Lumping people with different views into the same group as those who do bad things. Like me saying since you are a left wing political aficionado, you are just as bad as every murdering scum bag leftist like Che or Stalin. Is that fair?

I don't care and most people do not care. We just think it's wrong and have the right to believe that without the left trying to stamp out every part of Christianity in this country. Its getting so bad that homosexual groups are suing Churches that don't hire them.

As far as discrimination. Let me throw some anecdotal evidence out there. I have been a police officer in the south for 25 years. I have never had a single call in my entire career concerning a homosexual being a victim of anything because of their lifestyle. None, zip, nada....Does it mean it didn't happen? No, but you would think I would have seen it at least once. I mean come on, this is Texas, we gave ya'll W. Not only have I never seen it, I have never "heard" of another officer around me that has. Matthew Shepard was an anomaly.

I have answered MANY calls over the last 25 years where homosexuals were the actors in assaults, rapes, public lewdness, child rape, and murder that were directly related to their lifestyle. So based upon my actual experience, it is completely overblown by the media. Homosexuals are 1000 times more likely to be assaulted, beaten, abused, or killed by other homosexuals than they are by some redneck teenager. They need to be more scared of each other.

We are quickly reaching the point where your little list will apply to Christians or other religions. Unless its a religion that blows up Christians, then the left will love them.

[southernrock]

Homosexuals serving in the military is problematic. They have always been there, but due to the ban on their serving, and the subsequent "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, they have had to be very guarded in their conduct.

In civilian life, I am pretty much a libertarian, when it comes to sexuality between consenting adults, but military life poses problems not generally encountered in civilian professions or workplaces.

For the enlisted ranks, privacy tends to be non-existent in military life, and living quarters, and showering facilities are usually communal. For the guys posting on this thread who haven't been in the armed forces, picture yourself, in your teen years, living with, and showering with females on a daily basis. To the average 19 year old guy that sounds like heaven on earth, but it would be very difficult for the majority of guys not to cross the line and hit on those females on a frequent basis. I think it would also be very difficult for homosexuals to not cross the line, when it comes to living with, and showering with heterosexual men on a daily basis, and the same would apply to lesbians and their non-lesbian fellow servicewomen.

It seems to me, that the arguments about homosexuals serving openly in the military, having a deleterious effect on unit cohesion and morale, are valid.

[Ramirez]

Why not let military personnel vote on it? They have to fight shoulder to shoulder with one another, let them be the voice. If they want it, fine. If not, so be it. Those who want these types of laws changed can join the military and vote.

As a general point, I don't think awarding minorities equal rights will be implemented by majority vote very often.

[Tony Dismukes]

Thinking something is immoral is not the same as denying someone their rights as an American. ... Lumping people with different views into the same group as those who do bad things.

Cliff, I never said or implied that you did advocate denying rights to gays. Reread my comment. I specifically called you one of the good guys because you did not advocate such a thing.

What I did say is that the items on that list constitute much more an experience of being "demonized" than anything you've had to go through for your belief that homosexuality is immoral.

I also pointed out that you think that it's okay for you to call gays immoral, but not okay for other people to call your words immoral when you do so - then it becomes "demonization" and "shutting the opposition up". I wonder why it is that only people who agree with you are allowed to make moral judgments?

I have never had a single call in my entire career concerning a homosexual being a victim of anything because of their lifestyle.

You'll note that only one item on my list would potentially involve law enforcement. No one is going to call you out when someone loses their job or gets told they're mentally disordered for being gay.

I don't know the statistics for gay-bashing assaults or the frequency with which a victim of gay-bashing will tell the police that was why he or she was assaulted. (I can think of lots of reasons a victim might not want to mention that detail.) I do know that I've heard enough homophobes talking about wanting to inflict violence on gays that I doubt it's as rare as you think it is.

have answered MANY calls over the last 25 years where homosexuals were the actors in assaults, rapes, public lewdness, child rape, and murder that were directly related to their lifestyle.

How many calls have you answered for rape and child rape where heterosexuals where the perpetrators? I guess those were directly related to the heterosexual lifestyle. I'm guessing the assaults and murders were domestics (since that's the only way it makes sense for them to be related to the homosexual lifestyle)? In that case I guess every case of assault or murder involving a husband & wife or boyfriend & girlfriend is directly related to the heterosexual lifestyle.

We are quickly reaching the point where your little list will apply to Christians or other religions.

If you really think that Christians in this country are any danger whatsoever of becoming a persecuted minority subject to widespread hatred, violence, and discrimination - wow, you really are living in an alternate reality. What color is the sky on your planet?

[Abbax8]

One of the inalienable rights (and duties) of parents is to teach their children right from wrong. Those parents who hold traditional Christian value will teach their children that God created Man and Woman to be fertile and multiply. Further the Bible also teaches homosexual behavior is immoral. In school systems across the country battles have been fought about what is "normal".

Churches are being threatened with "Hate" speech laws if they teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. I don't speak for the Catholic church in any official way but my church teaches to love the sinner but hate the sin. Violence against another human being for any reason is condemned (self defense being the exception).

We are living in an age where if you believe a behavior is wrong your considered intolerant and your belief is not tolerated by those who consider themselves more tolerant.

Dennis.

Dennis

[Tony Dismukes]

Churches are being threatened with "Hate" speech laws if they teach that homosexual behavior is sinful.

I'm sorry, but that just flat out isn't true. There are no laws forbidding churches from teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. No one is threatening to pass any such laws. Thanks to the 1st amendment, any such law would be unconstitutional and would be instantly overturned even if one was passed.

If someone told you that churches in this country are being threatened with such laws, then they lied to you.

[David Craik]

It seems to me that the thread topic hinges less on Christian Scripture than it does on practicality for all servicemembers. The King James Bible has no FM #.

[Abbax8]

I'm sorry, but that just flat out isn't true. There are no laws forbidding churches from teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. No one is threatening to pass any such laws. Thanks to the 1st amendment, any such law would be unconstitutional and would be instantly overturned even if one was passed.

If someone told you that churches in this country are being threatened with such laws, then they lied to you.

From 2007

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41298

Dennis

[Tony Dismukes]

Dennis, the article you linked to concerns H.R. 1592. Contrary to what it states, nothing in H.R. 1592 would penalize churches for teaching that homosexuality is immoral.

Here is the text of the proposed bill.

The relevant section concerning sexual orientation is as follows:

"(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
(I) death results from the offense; or
(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

Under the law, churches would be absolutely free to teach that homosexuality is immoral. The bill just provides for extra penalties if somebody commits violence against someone based on their sexual orientation. Since you just stated that you don't condone violence except in self-defense, that shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

You should also note that the law protects you as well. If someone was to commit violence against you for being a Catholic, they would be subject to the same penalties.