Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

[DeeJayH]

Yes this reply is a hypothetical, but paints the picture well

lets say gays are allowed to serve openly
and that only 1% of the military are such homophobes that they resign or do not re-enlist or do not enlist to begin with
will the gay population volunteer in such large numbers as to offset the losses?

I do not believe so, nor am i willing to risk our security to find out
which is why we need to get gays more acceptance in society, before the military changes its policy
progress usually takes time....and patience

 

[shuamort]

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? That people in the military dont want to be around openly gay people? That some people in the military dont trust openly gay people? That some people in the military dont like gay people? What exactly are you refuting?

What am I refuting? Your spurious and dubious claims that this "will decrease military effectiveness". Those are your words and your claims. You have yet to provide any proof of them.

There is a poll on this post somewhere stating 26% (might be 24, it's around there) or something will not serve with openly gay people.

Umm, ok. Then this poll says 79.31% that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. What's your point?

Can you show me the proof that it is a problem that military personnel are complaining about, that as a whole will decrease overall effectiveness.

If that's what I claimed I would, but since I said: "So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof. " It wouldn't be germane to what you're asking.

When I said they knew the rules, it was referring to the link that you provided in the post that I responded to. You cant call it incorrect by then adding another url because I didnt comment on this one..

Sure I can, don't dance around the topic. You said: They knew the rules and broke them. I showed that in case that he knew the rules and DIDN'T break them.

I dont know exactly what happened in this case, however he says

Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.

This could mean a lot of things. He befriended who? How many people? Only his lovers? Someone in the military? Who knows?

It didn't matter as he was following DADTDHDP which is the code of the land.

Electronics are replacing the need for arabic speakers. It will be awhile before we can completely replace them, but we are making progress.

link

Progress? The first sentence of the article is:
New system can recognize words, understand simple foreign phrases
This is going to replace people who are needed NOW as we are in direct conflict? Let's hope that this technology will catch info on the next terrorist attack on the US because some small fraction of folks can't handle gays in the military. It's all too ****ing ridiculous to believe.

 

[shuamort]

Yes this reply is a hypothetical, but paints the picture well

lets say gays are allowed to serve openly
and that only 1% of the military are such homophobes that they resign or do not re-enlist or do not enlist to begin with
will the gay population volunteer in such large numbers as to offset the losses?

I do not believe so, nor am i willing to risk our security to find out
which is why we need to get gays more acceptance in society, before the military changes its policy
progress usually takes time....and patience

I wonder if Truman thought the same thing when issuing his executive order too?

You really have to wonder about the caliber of person who would quit because of "teh gay".

 

[aps]

I am sorry aps. Dont take it personal. It's just that many people are posting one line answers while ignoring all the discussion.

I hear you. I appreciate the apology, and I hope I wasn't rude myself.

I am in the military and if they should change the DADT policy and I dont like it, I CANT quit.

Good point. I hadn't really thought of that. However, if they allowed gays to openly serve in the military, I would like to think that they would allow people like you (who were uncomfortable with it) to quit without any repercussions.

May I ask what bothers you about serving with openly-gay people? If they were professional and didn't oogle you and showed no interest in you, would you be more accepting? Many times, people assume that just because someone is gay that such person is attracted to ALL members of the same sex, which is not true.

 

[Alex]

Explain to me what makes the military NOT effective just because gays are open??????

Comfort in the shower and I hate fags excluded please.....

I already asked for this, he cannot.

 

[SpooK]

What am I refuting? Your spurious and dubious claims that this "will decrease military effectiveness". Those are your words and your claims. You have yet to provide any proof of them.

Here you go.
link

The majority of military members in the US were not in favour of a policy that permitted gays and lesbians to ‘come out of the closet’. About 95 per cent of those in military service opposed homosexuals serving openly because of the potential effect it would have on morale, cohesion and discipline. For the sake of military effectiveness, the majority felt that it is best not to ask service members to reveal or discuss their sexual orientation.

Umm, ok. Then this poll says 79.31% that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. What's your point?

My point is, still many many people in the military are not in favor of it and would cause a negative effect on them/the military. I think Deejay said it well,

If that's what I claimed I would, but since I said: "So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof. " It wouldn't be germane to what you're asking.

So then you do or dont think that people in the military are complaining about this issue and it should be changed?

If not, what is it's relevance?

Sure I can, don't dance around the topic. You said: They knew the rules and broke them. I showed that in case that he knew the rules and DIDN'T break them.

Certainly you can add more information to the topic. However, dont say my claim is incorrect when I responded to one link you showed me by adding another.

I am struggling to think of a good analogy.. hopefully this will get my point across.

If we are discussing football and you provide me to a link of the eagles winning their first game of the season and I say wow, the eagles look awesome this year.

Then they play next weeks game and you provide a link with the eagles getting blown out 41-0 and say, incorrect.

See what I am trying to say or no? I admit, that is a very shitty analogy just hope it suits it's purpose.

It didn't matter as he was following DADTDHDP which is the code of the land.

How do we know? Do you have proof? Who is to say he didnt confide in a friend, who was in the military? He obviously told someone or multiple people. Who is to say how many or who?

 

[SpooK]

I hear you. I appreciate the apology, and I hope I wasn't rude myself.

Not at all.

Good point. I hadn't really thought of that. However, if they allowed gays to openly serve in the military, I would like to think that they would allow people like you (who were uncomfortable with it) to quit without any repercussions.

If many many more people had the option to quit because they didnt feel comfortable with the policy (many more than the amount of gays who join) wouldnt that then decrease military effectiveness?

May I ask what bothers you about serving with openly-gay people? If they were professional and didn't oogle you and showed no interest in you, would you be more accepting? Many times, people assume that just because someone is gay that such person is attracted to ALL members of the same sex, which is not true.

I never claimed to be bothered by it. My whole deal is effectiveness of the military. I know many many people are against it and by changing the policy would be a disaster, IMO.

DADT was a reasonable compromise that has worked well.

 

[shuamort]

Here you go.
link

The majority of military members in the US were not in favour of a policy that permitted gays and lesbians to ‘come out of the closet’. About 95 per cent of those in military service opposed homosexuals serving openly because of the potential effect it would have on morale, cohesion and discipline. For the sake of military effectiveness, the majority felt that it is best not to ask service members to reveal or discuss their sexual orientation.

My point is, still many many people in the military are not in favor of it and would cause a negative effect on them/the military. I think Deejay said it well,

If that's what I claimed I would, but since I said: "So does sexual contact with a person's partner. Of course, if you're not aware of the fact that differing religions can cause conflict, then I can show ya some proof. " It wouldn't be germane to what you're asking.

So then you do or dont think that people in the military are complaining about this issue and it should be changed?

If not, what is it's relevance?

I'm having a hard time bringing that link up. The title at the top of my window states "The silent right:Homosexuality and the military-African Security Review Vo 8 No 5 1999".

I'm finding different info from a more current article(Dated 12/11/06):

Unit cohesion and good morale thrive when team members bond tightly, sharing details of their lives and friendships. Increasingly, young adults -- the backbone of our armed services -- have gay friends and support their serving openly.

In 1994, 18- to 29-year-olds favored allowing gays to serve openly by 56-43 percent. Since then, support has zoomed to 72-23 percent, the Pew Research Center found. The "build-your-case" strategy is working.

Or this article from 2003 (which discusses Britain's decision to lift the ban)

Congressman Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Aaron Belkin, CSSMM’s director, that the successful coalitions witnessed during the Iraqi war constitute further proof that gays serving in the military do not impede military morale.

“The adherents to the ban have never been able to produce any evidence that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly and honorably would harm the effectiveness of our military,” Rep. Meehan told Belkin.

Finally, let's hear from the military themselves:

US troops would welcome gay soldiers

A recent poll from Zogby International and the Michael D Palm Center shows that US military personnel are increasingly at ease serving with openly gay colleagues.

The poll reveals that 73% of military members aren’t bothered by lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23%) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21% of those in combat units

How do we know? Do you have proof? Who is to say he didnt confide in a friend, who was in the military? He obviously told someone or multiple people. Who is to say how many or who?

Yes, the proof is in the pudding. Since he is aware how DADT works, if he were to confide in a friend in the military he would be in violation of the law. He said he didn't violate the "Don't Tell" part, therefore he didn't tell.

 

[SpooK]

I'm having a hard time bringing that link up. The title at the top of my window states "The silent right:Homosexuality and the military-African Security Review Vo 8 No 5 1999".

I'm finding different info from a more current article(Dated 12/11/06):

Did the link work for you? Working fine for me.
I am not sure what the point of your url is. If it is that there will be some positive things about gays being able to server openly, I agree. However, I feel that overall it will have a negative impact (as do many Generals/the President/other people in the military, aka people who know a whole lot more than the average joe)

Or this article from 2003 (which discusses Britain's decision to lift the ban)

Countries such as the Netherlands have cultures that are far more tolerant of gays then the American South. You can’t expect 19 year old American boys from southern states to react the same way to gays as a Dutch soldier would.

Finally, let's hear from the military themselves:

US troops would welcome gay soldiers

That's the UK, not US.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding. Since he is aware how DADT works, if he were to confide in a friend in the military he would be in violation of the law. He said he didn't violate the "Don't Tell" part, therefore he didn't tell.

Oh he said. In that case it's golden.

 

[shuamort]

Did the link work for you? Working fine for me.

Got it now. It took a couple times.

I am not sure what the point of your url is. If it is that there will be some positive things about gays being able to server openly, I agree. However, I feel that overall it will have a negative impact (as do many Generals/the President/other people in the military, aka people who know a whole lot more than the average joe)

From my last source:Senior military leaders are increasingly speaking up in favor of reviewing the ban on open service as well. Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, the first female to achieve three-star rank in the Army, recently called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a "hollow policy that serves no useful purpose."

OR

Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality."

Countries such as the Netherlands have cultures that are far more tolerant of gays then the American South. You can’t expect 19 year old American boys from southern states to react the same way to gays as a Dutch soldier would.

I hate when I set the bar too high on bigotry...but there it still sits.

That's the UK, not US.

The website was based in the UK, the article is based on US facts, statistics, and quotes however. (Like your article based in Zaire was based on the same).

 

[DeeJayH]

n 1994, 18- to 29-year-olds favored allowing gays to serve openly by 56-43 percent. Since then, support has zoomed to 72-23 percent, the Pew Research Center found. The "build-your-case" strategy is working.

so progress is being made by DADT
and by society as a whole
but I dont think we can afford to risk losing those 23%, or part thereof, of our armed forces to appease 3-10% of the population
given time, maybe even in our lifetime, Gays in the military will be openly welcome and everybody will be happy

 

[shuamort]

so progress is being made by DADT
and by society as a whole
but I dont think we can afford to risk losing those 23%, or part thereof, of our armed forces to appease 3-10% of the population
given time, maybe even in our lifetime, Gays in the military will be openly welcome and everybody will be happy

At what percentage should fairness be instituted? 20%? 10%? 5%? Should Truman have waited for integration to be acceptable before issuing the executive order?

 

[DeeJayH]

At what percentage should fairness be instituted? 20%? 10%? 5%? Should Truman have waited for integration to be acceptable before issuing the executive order?

i just noticed from some of the previous posts, if true
that it is only the inbred southerners that have trouble with niggars and fags

as to your question
I would say when the benefit would outweigh the loss
when there are enough gay volunteers to replace the homophobes that leave
you can do the math if you like
I would guess at about 1% of the military

 

[SpooK]

as to your question
I would say when the benefit would outweigh the loss
when there are enough gay volunteers to replace the homophobes that leave
you can do the math if you like

Exactly. We are in complete agreement DJ.

 

[Inuyasha]

Here is an interesting article about the dismissed language specialists. It just goes to show that there is plenty of vindictive people who also lower efficiency in the military and cost us (the taxpayers) a lot of money by pulling petty crap like this. Read the whole article. It's a eye opener on inefficiency in the military. As a former language specialist I know the value of a good translator and even more one who rises to the level of interpreter. They people are rare and costly to train,. At last they used to be.


JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. - A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, though he says he never admitted being gay and his accuser was never identified.
Bleu Copas, 30, told The Associated Press he is gay, but said he was “outed” by a stream of anonymous e-mails to his superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.
“I knew the policy going in,” Copas said in an interview on the campus of East Tennessee State University, where he is pursuing a master’s degree in counseling and working as a student adviser. “I knew it was going to be difficult.”
Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com

As a side bar this article is a perfect example of how the military is different from civilian life. It demonstrates that the military is a far more authoritarian form of live and outside your normal freedoms.

US Air Force officer in California recently accused President Bush of deliberately allowing the September 11 terror attacks to take place. The officer has been relieved of his command and faces further discipline. The controversy surrounding Lt. Col. Steve Butler’s letter to the editor, in which he affirmed that Bush did nothing to warn the American people because he “needed this war on terrorism,” received scant coverage in the media.
Universally ignored by the press, however, was that the officer was not merely expressing a personal opinion. He was in a position to have direct knowledge of contacts between the US military and some of the hijackers in the period before the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.
Lieutenant Colonel Butler, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Monterey County Herald charging that “Bush knew about the impending attacks,” was vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California—a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.
In his May 26 letter to the newspaper, Butler responded to Bush supporters, who had written the paper opposing the congressional investigation into the September 11 events. He wrote:
“Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn’t elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain.”
The letter provoked immediate retaliation against the 24-year Air Force veteran. Butler was transferred from the Monterey installation and threatened with court martial under Article 88 of the military code, which prohibits officers from publicly using “contemptuous words” against the president and other officials.
Air Force officer disciplined for saying Bush allowed September 11 attacks Hijacker attended US military school

 

[Columbusite]

Back from what progressive agenda? Very well thought out response to my rant by the way, perhaps you should consider becoming a hostage negotiator...

In my expected norm I like to think those around me share the same thinking to feel comfortable... like when I go to work it would shock my norm if everyone were nude and look at me and giggle and say, what you didn't get the memo? It is as stark as that, I can work among nudists for a lifetime as long as they keep their clothes on.

Of course they both exist in the real world, travel to NYC and the only bubble of gay normality is in Greenwich Village... outside of that bubble norm is the majorities norm where gays are abnormal and a shock to the norm.

America is great because it was founded by social conservatives that supported free market capitalism and practiced Social Darwinism leaving compassion of the weak for the family, church and community. If you read history clearly then you would see the founding Americans to be more like the enemy we now face in their thinking... they view us as heathens of a lower god as we viewed the Indians and Mexicans as people's of a lower god... the war of 1812 was a defining point that endorsed the "Manifest Destiny" of our higher god justifying the conquering of "uncivilized lands". All that were not of our kind were infidels required to submit to our higher god or die. To not acknowledge what made America is to live in a parallel universe created by America haters that think Americans are bad and the liberal founders tricked the bad people to install a fair government to protect and raise the weakest to the level of the strongest.

I think it is you that is being intellectually dishonest... you live in a bubble among those who support your view and ignore the reality of the differences that have caused the agenda to be where it is at present. Write a letter to the Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division and ask to address units of his personnel on your intellectual assessment of gay strait progress in acceptance in America and conduct a poll of the soldiers and share it with the General. Perhaps then you may find it is you that's in the bubble.

It was a different time than now... gays were whispered about by adults outside of the reach of children... my half brother was an avid baseball fan and named his son Robert because his baseball hero had a nickname "Bullet Bob" for his fast pitch abilities... The only bullets his Bob shot were in the back of his lover’s throat or rectum... no bragging rights or dreams were fulfilled to "speak of."

You cannot and did not justify your positions with reason. Your gay/nudist comparison has nothing to do with a comparison between sexual orientations.
You reply to my assertion that there is no such thing as a gay or straight lifestyle with a nonsensical example of "gay normality" which you conflate with acceptance of gay people. Being gay is normal, natural even, for gay people. Of course you try and switch your "abominations of nature" argument with for one "gay normality" and you lost both.

Let's cut the PC bullsh!t. "Social conservative" is a nice way of saying "bigot" and no, they did not make our country great. We've struggled for over two centuries to overcome the irrational hatred found in bigots of all stripes. They didn't have the knowledge that we have today and for us to ignore the facts we have and to remain stagnant would make us a disgrace. We have evolved and moved on to better live up to our founding documents more truthfully than we did long ago. Well, many of us anyway. That is what makes us great. Not the fact that early Americans practiced barbarism to eliminate barbarism.

If accepting reality is "living in a bubble" then I'm fine with that. The majority of Americans hold their position on homosexuality on untenable grounds. That number is probably even higher in the military. They base it on blind faith, on mere hearsay (the Bible), not facts. Blind faith can never determine anything to be true. Regardless, when you're out fighting or being attacked the last thing on your mind would be whether or not some fellow soldier might have been eyeing you. Justify your position on homosexuality without the OT or NT, the same books which condone slavery and autocracies. I am not about to entertain a book that has as its premise that God came to Earth, was tortured and died for the sins of mankind. Being unconscious for three days and then getting back all he had before this incident greatly diminishes the very definition of the word "sacrifice". I dismiss the Bible just as offhandedly as you dismiss every other holy text in existence. Either you argue the facts or don't bother.

I understand the hushed manner in which the "H" word was used back in the day, but it doesn't excuse many who were violent and very emotional about the issue. You go out of your way to describe in detail homosexual acts, why is that? Whether a woman in a straight sex act spits or swallows does not concern me, though I find it strange. And let's face it, anyone would rather see two attractive A&F types going at it rather than an ugly, obese, moley, hairy straight couple. It may be natural, but it sure is visually appalling.

 

[1069]

I understand the hushed manner in which the "H" word was used back in the day, but it doesn't excuse many who were violent and very emotional about the issue. You go out of your way to describe in detail homosexual acts, why is that? Whether a woman in a straight sex act spits or swallows does not concern me, though I find it strange. And let's face it, anyone would rather see two attractive A&F types going at it rather than an ugly, obese, moley, hairy straight couple. It may be natural, but it sure is visually appalling.

Hear, hear. :applaud

 

[Topsez]

You cannot and did not justify your positions with reason. Your gay/nudist comparison has nothing to do with a comparison between sexual orientations.

I agree it only has to do with expected norms. Sexual orientations are what they are and I see heterosexual as normal and all other orientations as abnormal. I view it as a person would view normality as people normally have ten fingers and toes but some are born with differing numbers making them abnormal. The analogy using gay/nudist was to depict how I place the sexual orientation difference as a shock to my norm. Someone with less or more fingers would not shock my norm to the same level as gay-normal shocks my norm. For example my sons have a friend whose mom has no legs below the knee that I wasn’t aware of and when she came to pick up her son I invited her in the house but she insisted that she would wait in the car… learning she had no legs I was shocked but adjusted instantly. Had the child’s dad came and I invited him in the house to learn he was gay I would be shocked equally to the level of entering a nudist colony without warning.

You reply to my assertion that there is no such thing as a gay or straight lifestyle with a nonsensical example of "gay normality" which you conflate with acceptance of gay people. Being gay is normal, natural even, for gay people. Of course you try and switch your "abominations of nature" argument with for one "gay normality" and you lost both.

I have always asserted gay is a normal occurrence in nature, but unlike nature where the weak is killed by the strong humans excuse the weakness and show compassion, compassion but not elevation to the normality shared by the normal majority of the people. I would think there should be a team of scientist working around the clock looking for a cure to this abnormality. In the meantime gays should understand the shock their differences cause and not shock those around them.

Let's cut the PC bullsh!t. "Social conservative" is a nice way of saying "bigot" and no, they did not make our country great. We've struggled for over two centuries to overcome the irrational hatred found in bigots of all stripes. They didn't have the knowledge that we have today and for us to ignore the facts we have and to remain stagnant would make us a disgrace. We have evolved and moved on to better live up to our founding documents more truthfully than we did long ago. Well, many of us anyway. That is what makes us great. Not the fact that early Americans practiced barbarism to eliminate barbarism.

Well I think your and all progressive liberals are speeding toward a cliff and change should happen over time and not instantly… you can say women are equal in the military but give them a separate physical test to make up for physical differences but they are not equal to men soldiers, you can say Afro Americans are equal but many refuse to stand without being propped up by law and rights not earned… I would refer you to a post on the Do you consider yourself selfish thread

I'm very selfish. Do I care? No. I ow my personal success to school, good choices and being as selfish as I can. I have total disdain for poor people in America. I dont care if you're black, white or yellow. They have a knack for begging for help and blaming their problems on somebody else. People in America have no reason to live in the poverty they live in. They're given every possible option from the day they are born and yet instead of taking them they blame it on either "The white man" or use the "My family's always been poor" bs.

Do I give a **** if you're poor and your white? No. Dont expect me to cry you a river because you didnt have inniciative to study hard and go to college like I did.

Do I give a **** if you're poor and black? No. Lincoln freed the slaves in 1865 and segregation ended like 40 years ago. You and your family have had a shitload of time to do something with yourselves.

My life started in poverty and I'm proud to say that today I have everything I need in life and more. If I've been able to accomplish everything I've accomplished without blaming my problems on anybody. I could have become a gang member. I come from a long line of people who've had problems with the law. Did I? No. Why? Because I'm selfish. And going to jail isn't something I want. Success however is and being selfish has led me to the success I have today.

Sad but true.

Now this person states he is half white-black and from several posts he’s made perhaps gay and he sounds as conservative as me. People earn respect and not demand respect. People earn compassion and understanding and like the quote above refers to others not having yet earned it are not qualified for it. In stead of earning acceptance the agenda chooses to abuse Boy Scouts and mess with military recruiters... the agenda demands acceptance!

If accepting reality is "living in a bubble" then I'm fine with that. The majority of Americans hold their position on homosexuality on untenable grounds. That number is probably even higher in the military. They base it on blind faith, on mere hearsay (the Bible), not facts. Blind faith can never determine anything to be true.

The majority wish gays were the same way they are, normal because normal is normal and feels good to be normal. In the 1950’s/60’s every American household had an ashtray on the coffee table and if a smoker met a non smoker the non smoker usually apologized for being unable to smoke because of asthma or some similar reason because they desired to be normal. Then most people smoked… compare that to now fifty or sixty years later where smokers are the ones required apologizing for smoking… The point is gays were in the closet forever but the agenda is to make such an equal transition on a dime and the normal hasn’t shifted that quickly.

Regardless, when you're out fighting or being attacked the last thing on your mind would be whether or not some fellow soldier might have been eyeing you. Justify your position on homosexuality without the OT or NT, the same books which condone slavery and autocracies. I am not about to entertain a book that has as its premise that God came to Earth, was tortured and died for the sins of mankind. Being unconscious for three days and then getting back all he had before this incident greatly diminishes the very definition of the word "sacrifice". I dismiss the Bible just as offhandedly as you dismiss every other holy text in existence. Either you argue the facts or don't bother.

I’m not religious.

I understand the hushed manner in which the "H" word was used back in the day, but it doesn't excuse many who were violent and very emotional about the issue.

I agree and came to the defense of a gay man as I posted before.

You go out of your way to describe in detail homosexual acts, why is that?

Because the word gay represents desire for those sex acts of the same sex and nothing more. That is why it is repulsive to me and I think it should be the desire of any person struck with the condition to seek out a cure. Homosexuality serves no purpose in nature as I see nature therefore one should desire to avert it.

Whether a woman in a straight sex act spits or swallows does not concern me, though I find it strange. And let's face it, anyone would rather see two attractive A&F types going at it rather than an ugly, obese, moley, hairy straight couple. It may be natural, but it sure is visually appalling.

I seldom think of strait people having sex because it is normal function that is part of many things normal people do where when one thinks of homosexuals it seems to be their purpose in life and nothing more.

 

[Thinker]

I seldom think of strait people having sex because it is normal function that is part of many things normal people do where when one thinks of homosexuals it seems to be their purpose in life and nothing more.

Let me think about that. You attach the label "homosexual" to a man because
of one small facet of his life. Having done that, you conclude that homosexuality
is his "purpose in life and nothing more".

The same nonsensical logic would apply to heterosexuals, so are they too
obsessed with sex and do nothing else?

You obviously know nothing about homosexuals other than a few minor facts
that clearly excite you.

 

[shuamort]

I seldom think of strait people having sex because it is normal function that is part of many things normal people do where when one thinks of homosexuals it seems to be their purpose in life and nothing more.

Yeah, I don't know how I do it! I stop for a couple minutes just to post here before taking the next cack on.

:roll:

 

[Topsez]

Yeah, I don't know how I do it! I stop for a couple minutes just to post here before taking the next cack on.

:roll:

You have a great since of humor... Let me ask if you simply love diversity alone or appriciate normality or not? You are in a military unit and a black sergeant comes in the bay of sleeping men and screams "meneses gits your feetezes on de floor ders works to be did'' and you role over to say learn to speak English... with a return U rong mutha faker... learn to be normal if you want to be respected. I simply do not celebrate diversity unless it represents normality. I admire people of many races and cultures that emulate my normality... I reject diversity that celebrates being stupid like gangsta rappers or abnormality as a base for pride like being gay. Gay pride is equal to the Sergeant that can't speak normally. If being gay is normal and given the choice would you desire all babies born in the next five decades be born normal or all born strait if that were the only choices? Why do gays not seek a cure as a cure for polio was sought?

 

[1069]

Why do gays not seek a cure as a cure for polio was sought?

Same reason blacks don't "seek a cure": because they aren't sick.
The only problem is that some of society refuses to accept them as equals, and they are seeking to "cure" that... and they are, slowly, succeeding.

 

[Stinger]

Gays are far from "repulsive" to me. I've always though gay/bi guys were pretty hot; I don't like big bulging muscular hairy bodies, nor the requisite big bulging muscular hairy attitudes that inevitably seem to go along with them.
I like skinny bodies, and I've always been more attracted to androgynous-looking, "pretty" men.

And would you like to live in open, expose quarters with bi-guys 24/7? How about using the shower with them everyday?

That they can't is not some reflection of their general 'repulsiveness', but rather a product of a society where those who consider themselves "straight" are insecure in their own sexual identities, and therefore feel threatened by them.

Oh what a joke, perhaps they just don't want to have expose themselves to people who are sexually attracted to them. Would you like to have to shower and dress in front of a bunch of men everyday. And it has to do with unit cohesiveness's. The military is far different from an everyday job.

 

[shuamort]

You have a great since of humor... Let me ask if you simply love diversity alone or appriciate normality or not? You are in a military unit and a black sergeant comes in the bay of sleeping men and screams "meneses gits your feetezes on de floor ders works to be did'' and you role over to say learn to speak English... with a return U rong mutha faker...

If the sergeant is in command, he can speak as he chooses and the soldiers need to respond to those directions without question.

learn to be normal if you want to be respected. I simply do not celebrate diversity unless it represents normality. I admire people of many races and cultures that emulate my normality...

Define "normal" or "normality".

I reject diversity that celebrates being stupid like gangsta rappers or abnormality as a base for pride like being gay.

Gay pride is as ridiculous as racial pride, gender pride, or taking pride in any innate qualities.

As for diversity, well I grew up in a mixed home. My mom a republican and my dad a democrat. Their opinions differed greatly and they took pride in their affiliations. I embraced both of them as both opinions and lifestyles had their own values and while we had great debates about all topics, we learned to accept each other and come to at least an understanding of why the other thought that way even if we disagreed with it.

Gay pride is equal to the Sergeant that can't speak normally. If being gay is normal and given the choice would you desire all babies born in the next five decades be born normal or all born strait if that were the only choices? Why do gays not seek a cure as a cure for polio was sought?

As "gay" doesn't need to be "cured" as it is neither an affliction nor a disease. If I were going to cure anything, it would be ignorance and that's quite the uphill battle. Moreover, if white were normal, I wouldn't want all babies born to be white anymore than I would insist that they be right-handed, brown eyed, or average height. The world needs diversity to grow. If we all enjoyed the same thing or had the same interests, it wouldn't work. Not everyone can be a baker/welder/lawyer/parent.

 

[1069]

And would you like to live in open, expose quarters with bi-guys 24/7? How about using the shower with them everyday?

I would be very sad if I had to live anywhere but with my family.
But if I had to, and there was no choice... I wouldn't care whether my roomies were gay, straight, bi, male, or female.
If anyone put their hands on me without my consent (gay, straight, bi, male, or female) I'd report them to the authorities, and they'd be in trouble.

I think a more likely scenario than the one you suggest, however, is, "How would you like to live in open, exposed quarters with gay and bi women 24/7? How about using the shower with them everyday?"
Because that is the situation I'd actually encounter, were I to join the military.
And I tell you truly: it wouldn't bother me a bit.