Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

[Alastor]

There are religions that will never accept gay lifestyle to their moral belief... many of these religious folks fill the ranks of the military.

And there are religions and sects of society that will never accept blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Women, and so on...

Shall we kick them all out too, or just tell the nut-job zealots they'll need to suck it up because they live in a fair and free society?

 

[SpooK]

And there are religions and sects of society that will never accept blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Women, and so on...

Shall we kick them all out too, or just tell the nut-job zealots they'll need to suck it up because they live in a fair and free society?

Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. Blacks do not choose to be black, but gays can choose not to ACT gay.

 

[Navy Pride]

And there are religions and sects of society that will never accept blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Women, and so on...

Shall we kick them all out too, or just tell the nut-job zealots they'll need to suck it up because they live in a fair and free society?

Horse ****............Name them..........

 

[Alastor]

Horse ****............Name them..........

Do you really need a list of racists and religious idealogues?

Come now, even you should be more well-informed than that...

Come now. Let's come out of our caves if we're to have serious discussions.

 

[Alastor]

Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. Blacks do not choose to be black, but gays can choose not to ACT gay.

So Acting straight is equally detrimental, right?

The way they act is a choice? I don't see any evidence of that.

People act like arrogant jerks. People act like they're idiots. People act disinterested...

Should we begin outlawing all ways that people act in the military that are not totally within what you constitute as "constructive for our military?"

There is a UCMJ, as well as a U.S. law. As if the U.S. law wasn't enough, the UCMJ is very restrictive on what does and does not constitute bad behavior. It's specific, and it's a read to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned as long as someone is conforming to UCMJ and Civil laws then they're probably a good soldier, and should be given the respect and deference they deserve.

 

[SpooK]

So Acting straight is equally detrimental, right?

The way they act is a choice? I don't see any evidence of that.

People act like arrogant jerks. People act like they're idiots. People act disinterested...

Should we begin outlawing all ways that people act in the military that are not totally within what you constitute as "constructive for our military?"

There is a UCMJ, as well as a U.S. law. As if the U.S. law wasn't enough, the UCMJ is very restrictive on what does and does not constitute bad behavior. It's specific, and it's a read to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned as long as someone is conforming to UCMJ and Civil laws then they're probably a good soldier, and should be given the respect and deference they deserve.

How could you disagree that acting openly gay is a choice? Arent there many people who are not acting openly gay (as per DADT policy)? Yes there are. In that case, how is it not a choice?

No. Acting heterosexual is not EQUALY detrimental because there is no an equal number of heteros as homos in the military. There is also not equal acceptance of homo/hetero in the military. Therefore, the impact is not equal.

 

[Inuyasha]

Homophobia is still a convenient way to feel better, superior or what have you. You can no longer call a black person a n****r, or an Hispanic a sp** or an Italian a w** because it is not "Politically Correct" but you can still get away with "fag", "queer" or any other derogatory term for a homosexual. It is not really in the realm of "PC" yet, at least not totally. You can get away with it. It also brigs all these other ethnic groups who only a few short years ago were at swords points, together in a perverse kind of way.

I know this from personal experience. I grew up Italian in Rochester New York. A city with a large enough Italian population to be considered a threat to the Anglo power structure. We pretty much stuck to our own because that was about the only way to survive. Our only associations outside of our own ethnic group were the Irish Catholics. And even that "union" took about 50 years in the making. Needless to say I had plenty of unpleasant experiences as a youngster.

Demographics does play a part in all this as I learned later when at 16 my family moved to California and there I was finally a "white" person. It was an overnight transformation which did not fool me or my brother for a minute. We were a bit too old to forget that we were just "dagos".

It is also very telling that the English language has more ethnic and racial slurs than any other language. But now we can all rag on the "fags". Maybe that's progress... of a sort. But to most I'll probably always be a Wop (said in a whisper) and you'll be a Spic. Sad but unfortuantely true.

 

[DeeJayH]

Homophobia is still a convenient way to feel better, superior or what have you. You can no longer call a black person a n****r, or an Hispanic a sp** or an Italian a w** because it is not "Politically Correct" but you can still get away with "fag", "queer" or any other derogatory term for a homosexual. It is not really in the realm of "PC" yet, at least not totally. You can get away with it. It also brigs all these other ethnic groups who only a few short years ago were at swords points, together in a perverse kind of way.

I know this from personal experience. I grew up Italian in Rochester New York. A city with a large enough Italian population to be considered a threat to the Anglo power structure. We pretty much stuck to our own because that was about the only way to survive. Our only associations outside of our own ethnic group were the Irish Catholics. And even that "union" took about 50 years in the making. Needless to say I had plenty of unpleasant experiences as a youngster.

Demographics does play a part in all this as I learned later when at 16 my family moved to California and there I was finally a "white" person. It was an overnight transformation which did not fool me or my brother for a minute. We were a bit too old to forget that we were just "dagos".

It is also very telling that the English language has more ethnic and racial slurs than any other language. But now we can all rag on the "fags". Maybe that's progress... of a sort. But to most I'll probably always be a Wop (said in a whisper) and you'll be a Spic. Sad but unfortuantely true.

n******
sp!cs
wops are spawned by n!ggers
fags
wetbacks
porchmonkeys
gooks
slopes
ragheads
dotheads
micks
krauts
nazis
etc ad nauseum
this and a million more terms are still very much alive and well, well, not well, but....you get teh point
not sure what world you live in
nary a day goes by I do not hear one of these terms used by someone I encounter

 

[Alastor]

How could you disagree that acting openly gay is a choice?

Some nuerologists and psychologists have suggested that there is a difference in brain construction among homosexuals, and that what is a "natural behavior" to them is not a "natural behavior" to us.

How can you argue that "acting straight" isn't a choice? And how about being grumpy? Or how about aggression? How about argumentative nature?

Arent there many people who are not acting openly gay (as per DADT policy)? Yes there are. In that case, how is it not a choice?

Aren't there people who don't discuss their sexuality at all? If so, doesn't that make the straights just, if not more, guilty as the gays?

No. Acting heterosexual is not EQUALY detrimental because there is no an equal number of heteros as homos in the military. There is also not equal acceptance of homo/hetero in the military. Therefore, the impact is not equal.

That's preposterous. There aren't an equal number of women either. There weren't an equal number of blacks until we let them serve openly as well. That's... Ridiculous.

Ethics are ethics, freedom is freedom, equality is equality. It'll have to be up to the few homophobe soldiers to adjust their deviant behavior and learn to tolerate that someone in this society isn't "just like them."

I don't put the burdon on the gays or the straights that take no issues with it. I put the burdon on those that are behind the times, uneducated, and that limit the term "equality" to mean "as long as it's okay with me."

 

[Topsez]

And there are religions and sects of society that will never accept blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Women, and so on...

Shall we kick them all out too, or just tell the nut-job zealots they'll need to suck it up because they live in a fair and free society?

I think my point missed you entirely... There are not many religions that refuse to accept minority races that adapt to their beliefs... I was speaking of religion as it impacts on acceptance the gay agenda. Gays are in each of the groups or races you identify, so dislike for persons based on origin or sex is entirely a different topic... those sects that don't like and choose to call people by slang insults would simply add gay, fag or queer in front of the formerly singular insult.

We have a volunteer military and in your words we should just tell those religious service members to suck it up or leave the military if their beliefs interfere with the gay agenda... Well yes, a judge or congress could do just that and I guess that is what faces the judges and congress now when addressing the DADT policy if Barney Frank does in fact introduce it to be changed to openly recognize gays. Should this action be approved and those not willing to serve with open gays would choose to depart the military where is your argument?

Then when the draft was enacted to fill the ranks of the military every new strait recruit would be saying I hope there aren't any open gays in this unit because I want a piece of the gay *** that caused me to be drafted... Would the gay service member leading the strait draftee be able to convince him or her it is for the good of the fair and free society we live in that you are here? I give you odds 50-1 the gay servicemember would have Playboy Playmates of the month postered on his walls and have every female in his family on his speed dial to keep the closet closed.

 

[SpooK]

Some nuerologists and psychologists have suggested that there is a difference in brain construction among homosexuals, and that what is a "natural behavior" to them is not a "natural behavior" to us.

There are many studies and arguments, none in which are proven.

How can you argue that "acting straight" isn't a choice? And how about being grumpy? Or how about aggression? How about argumentative nature?

I never said that acting strait wasnt a choice. Being grumpy isnt a choice, but acting grumpy is. You can be anything, but actually expressing that is a choice.

Aren't there people who don't discuss their sexuality at all? If so, doesn't that make the straights just, if not more, guilty as the gays?

What do you mean?

That's preposterous. There aren't an equal number of women either. There weren't an equal number of blacks until we let them serve openly as well. That's... Ridiculous.

Race and gender are benign characteristics. Acting gay isnt. Cant compare them.

Ethics are ethics, freedom is freedom, equality is equality. It'll have to be up to the few homophobe soldiers to adjust their deviant behavior and learn to tolerate that someone in this society isn't "just like them."

The problem is the 'few' is a very lot.

I don't put the burdon on the gays or the straights that take no issues with it. I put the burdon on those that are behind the times, uneducated, and that limit the term "equality" to mean "as long as it's okay with me."

The opinion many people in the military have doesnt have to be right. It is irrelevant. Because they feel the way they do, it woul dhave a negative impact on the effectiveness of the military.

 

[Adrian]

Race and gender are benign characteristics. Acting gay isnt. Cant compare them.

Sure you can. Until you can provide evidence that gay people consistently act inappropriately or cannot do their jobs effectively, denying them the same rights as heterosexuals turns this into a civil rights issue. Simply being uncomfortable with their presence isn't sufficient.

 

[SpooK]

Sure you can. Until you can provide evidence that gay people consistently act inappropriately or cannot do their jobs effectively, denying them the same rights as heterosexuals turns this into a civil rights issue. Simply being uncomfortable with their presence isn't sufficient.

No, you cant. Do you know what benign means?

When you join the military, you forfeit many rights/liberties/freedoms. Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privledge.

 

[Adrian]

No, you cant. Do you know what benign means?

When you join the military, you forfeit many rights/liberties/freedoms. Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privledge.

Hoo boy. I feel like I'm debating ptsdkid or Navy Pride. I'm outta here.

 

[SpooK]

Hoo boy. I feel like I'm debating ptsdkid or Navy Pride. I'm outta here.

LOL. ptdskid! :rofl That is funny.

 

[Kandahar]

Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privledge.

Umm no. As long as it's MY tax dollars paying THEIR government salaries, the military has no right to discriminate against gays. We have a 14th amendment.

 

[SpooK]

Umm no. As long as it's MY tax dollars paying THEIR government salaries, the military has no right to discriminate against gays. We have a 14th amendment.

I guess you are unaware that when you join the military you forfeit the rights in the constitution.

 

[Alastor]

I think my point missed you entirely... There are not many religions that refuse to accept minority races that adapt to their beliefs...

There are some. There are quite a few that treat women differently than men too.

No, I got your point. I just think you're wrong, and I think there's a long, long list of groups and affiliations whether secular or religious that don't believe or practice true equality among its citizens.

But this is the United States; and we do.

 

[Kandahar]

I guess you are unaware that when you join the military you forfeit the rights in the constitution.

Yes. Perhaps you can direct me to the clause of the Constitution that says "this document is null and void for soldiers."

 

[Alastor]

Yes. Perhaps you can direct me to the clause of the Constitution that says "this document is null and void for soldiers."

Actually... He's right.

Soldiers are still subjects to those laws, but they are not protected by it.

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled many times that it's not possible nor legal for any citizen to ever give up their rights, even as a course of voluntary choice.

It'd be interesting to see a military case face this challenge in the courts. I bet the military would lose.

But so far, it's not ever been tested, and I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig.

He's right. Soldiers are not protected by the Constitution in many ways once they become soldiers.

They're "Property of the U.S. Government."

But again, it's never been challenged in court. And no, I don't think I'd like to be the one that does.

 

[Topsez]

There are some. There are quite a few that treat women differently than men too.

No, I got your point. I just think you're wrong, and I think there's a long, long list of groups and affiliations whether secular or religious that don't believe or practice true equality among its citizens.

But this is the United States; and we do.

All right I got your point but we are not going to fix all wrongs on this thread... I provided a link a long while back that indicates the military is operated outside of the constitution so it simply doesn't apply... citizens can be denyed employment for many more reasons than being gay that would be protected by the constitution if they applied for civil work at the DOD. The congress decides the catagories of persons that may serve in the military and the congress provides the rules for that service... unlike civil employment service or duty is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in total control of the congressional rules... even on vacation the congress retains control over many of your actions and freedoms... it is clearly outside of the constitution protection.

With that said, I think the congress reflects the will of the American people in determining the rules. Therefore I think congress sees the nation at a state of DADT when it comes to gays both in and out of the military... Many of the rights gays desire are simply desires and are regional at best. DADT is the baromoter of the nation on the gay agenda or it would not exist.

Do not blame the church, Boy Scouts or other groups... blame the families of the gays that don't support their desires or agenda... for that is the population of the US, the families and extended families of the gays.

 

[SpooK]

Actually... He's right.

Soldiers are still subjects to those laws, but they are not protected by it.

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled many times that it's not possible nor legal for any citizen to ever give up their rights, even as a course of voluntary choice.

It'd be interesting to see a military case face this challenge in the courts. I bet the military would lose.

But so far, it's not ever been tested, and I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig.

He's right. Soldiers are not protected by the Constitution in many ways once they become soldiers.

They're "Property of the U.S. Government."

But again, it's never been challenged in court. And no, I don't think I'd like to be the one that does.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Alastor]

I either stipulate or disagree to such an apathetic extent on your post, Topsez, that I'm inclined to not even respond to most of it.

Part of it I will though:

Do not blame the church, Boy Scouts or other groups... blame the families of the gays that don't support their desires or agenda... for that is the population of the US, the families and extended families of the gays.

Oh, I blame the church. Just because the blacks didn't make enough noise doesn't make it okay that we enslaved them. Just because the Jews "didn't rebel enough" does not make it okay to kill them. Just because one group fails to find a way to respond does not mean they are wrong, nor does that make their oppressors right.

But I do agree that those that support diversity and equal protection issues could do more, should do more, and so far have not mounted campaigns of the type and potency to do so.

 

[Inuyasha]

I was not in the US for most of the 60`s and all of the 70's but in seeing old TV programs and movies it would seem that in the 90's and the first decade of the 21st century we have returned to the morality of the late 19th century and the early 20th. I don't think that's all that much progress. Going backwards means a people are slipping IMO.

 

[Navy Pride]

Do you really need a list of racists and religious idealogues?
Come now, even you should be more well-informed than that...

Come now. Let's come out of our caves if we're to have serious discussions.

Not that you had any creditability in the first place but when you start insulting and calling name you lose the very little credence you might have had...........

If you can't name them just say so..............

Maybe "Slick Willie" Clinton might be one.........He signed the DADT law......