'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[Team Sergeant]

This is going to leave a mark....... now I've got a question, will this require another set of bathrooms on all military installations?:rolleyes: (I'm sure glad I'm retired;))



Military Veterans Push for Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
President-elect Barack Obama faces a political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration

More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own -- an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.

"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's transition team, declined comment.

The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy -- ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.

But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.

Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/military-veterans-push-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[The Reaper]

Let the drama begin....:rolleyes:

TR

[Soft Target]

"This is going to leave a mark....... now I've got a question, will this require another set of bathrooms on all military installations?"

The Army only needs one latrine - E-TOOL!

[Team Sergeant]

The Army doesn't allow women to serve in combat units, with this in mind, as a leader, will you have to ask the gay soldier if he/she uses the boys or girls bathroom before he/she is assigned??:rolleyes:

[Swoop]

"More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press."

Mighty bold of them to stand-up and support something they will not have to deal with. (I'm with you TS, glad I'm retired)

Just my .02

Swoop sends

[greenberetTFS]

GB TFS :munchin

[HOLLiS]

"More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press."

Mighty bold of them to stand-up and support something they will not have to deal with. (I'm with you TS, glad I'm retired)

Just my .02

Swoop sends

About my thoughts too. Also a big difference in 18 - 20 year old's and the more mature members on this issue. IMHO 18 -20 year old crowd will make things very interesting.


Maybe one day, the politicians will realize the military is not a social club, dating service or laboratory for social experiments.

H.

[The Reaper]

Maybe one day, the politicians will realize the military is not a social club, dating service or laboratory for social experiments.

H.

They will, right about the time that it sinks in that more people would rather not be in a military with additional genders and problems to deal with than the number of gays and lesbians who wish to be in the military.

Unfortunately, it will be too late as recruiting numbers drop and crazy policies proliferate.

How long till the commanders are forced to deal with HIV positive, sexually active gay service members, gay marriages to contend with, and gay partners demanding dependent ID cards, BAH at the with dependents rate, and requirements for "partners" to get government housing? Can't wait till the first pregnant "man" shows up at a medical facility near you for OB assistance.:rolleyes:

TR

[Dozer523]

Let the drama begin....:rolleyes:TR

Reaper, you have that crap right! "Drama" is ALL it is. Don't these retired folks have anything better to do with their time -- volunteer in schools, play cards, write books?
Can't we at least let Obama be CinC for a day or two? This issue was a lightning rod with the last Democratic / liberal administration. But, then somehow, it was a non-issue with the Bush adminstration. Because it was the "the law of the land"? Because the Republican administration didn't want to mess with it? (Point: It didn't matter for the last eight years.) This is just stirring it all up again. I know "don't ask don't tell" is not so great from the straight or gay perspective but it seems to work. (I suppose the "He-man" types want it back to being punishable under UCMJ and the "Flamings" probably want cadence to be called with a lisp.)
I wonder if "Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals," really believes Clinton's approach was flawed because he (Clinton) rushed to change military culture. (it would appear that the Admiral is calling for open gayness in the uniformed services.) I understand that admirals are allowed cabin-boys, but even so this call from this quarter makes no sense. Until you remember that "The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military." Sorry, sounds like an ambush to me.

[Richard]

New nightmare scenario - being assigned as the PL/PSG for the 'Poofter' Platoon of a Service Company! :eek: :eek:

Happiness is--indeed--a blue ID card. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[abc_123]

Can't wait till the first pregnant "man" shows up at a medical facility near you for OB assistance.:rolleyes:

TR


...don't say that too loud, or we're likely to get a new mens blue service maternity uniform!
:confused::munchin

[Airbornelawyer]

Is is not a bit suspicious that this just happened to come up and it wasn't President-elect Obama himself proposing it, but a group of retired officers? A hundred or so generals and admirals just happened to be chatting on MySpace one day last week and said "hey, how's about we do something about this 'gays in the military' thing?".

Remember in 1992 when then President-elect Clinton proposed it, given his own background and the hostility of many of his liberal supporters to the military, there was a huge backlash. So now Obama can just support a change of policy, and not have the backlash against him? Mighty convenient.

As for the officers themselves, it would not surprise me that there are quite a few generals and admirals whose careers, after the first few years, were completely divorced from having to think about unit cohesion and the brotherhood of arms.

[Puertoland]

What I'll never stop wondering, is why the hell they feel they need to tell everyone about there sexual preference, and feel they must be treated differently.

Can't they just shut the hell up, and do the job without having to expose a limp wrist, or talking like a tranny? This is something I am pretty opinionated about, and I'll make sure to keep from typing anything that is crossing the line, but I feel its completely unnecessary for people to tell the world about who/what they like.

They want it to be considered along the lines of race, they already receive enough preferential treatment.

They are not being hampered in their duties by not screaming out to the world about there personal business, so they should leave it as just that.

[JumpinJoe1010]

"The officers’ statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military."


I am curious where they get these numbers if they are not allowed to ask?


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/ap_military_dadt_repeal_111708/

[The Reaper]

"The officers’ statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military."


I am curious where they get these numbers if they are not allowed to ask?


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/ap_military_dadt_repeal_111708/

Probably based on the prison survey that showed 10% of inmates claiming they were gay, leading the homos to extrapolate that percentage to the entire population.

I suspect that it is far less.

Anyone who is a gay or lesbian and is serving either lied on their enlistment papers, didn't discover it till after joining and is abstaining, or is in violation of the law. Two of the three reflect dishonor, IMHO.

TR

[afchic]

Reaper, you have that crap right! "Drama" is ALL it is. Don't these retired folks have anything better to do with their time -- volunteer in schools, play cards, write books?
Can't we at least let Obama be CinC for a day or two? This issue was a lightning rod with the last Democratic / liberal administration. But, then somehow, it was a non-issue with the Bush adminstration. Because it was the "the law of the land"? Because the Republican administration didn't want to mess with it? (Point: It didn't matter for the last eight years.) This is just stirring it all up again. I know "don't ask don't tell" is not so great from the straight or gay perspective but it seems to work. (I suppose the "He-man" types want it back to being punishable under UCMJ and the "Flamings" probably want cadence to be called with a lisp.)
I wonder if "Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals," really believes Clinton's approach was flawed because he (Clinton) rushed to change military culture. (it would appear that the Admiral is calling for open gayness in the uniformed services.) I understand that admirals are allowed cabin-boys, but even so this call from this quarter makes no sense. Until you remember that "The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military." Sorry, sounds like an ambush to me.

It makes sense if you know that he has a gay daughter, and from what I was told by a retired two star this afternoon, that is the case.

[Detonics]

Sound's like the Armed Services are gonna get sucked into the political correctness movement!:o

[afchic]

What I'll never stop wondering, is why the hell they feel they need to tell everyone about there sexual preference, and feel they must be treated differently.

Can't they just shut the hell up, and do the job without having to expose a limp wrist, or talking like a tranny? This is something I am pretty opinionated about, and I'll make sure to keep from typing anything that is crossing the line, but I feel its completely unnecessary for people to tell the world about who/what they like.

They want it to be considered along the lines of race, they already receive enough preferential treatment.

They are not being hampered in their duties by not screaming out to the world about there personal business, so they should leave it as just that.

We all have our opinions about this, so I will respect yours. Here is my take on the issue. In my time in the service, I have yet to meet one limp wristed tranny as you call it, although I have met many fine upstanding Americans who want to serve their country in the same manner we do. I have yet to meet one that feels the need to flash their homosexuality in my face. Additionally I have met many more heterosexuals in the military that want to flaunt their sexuality in my face than any homosexual I have ever served with.

I have had the pleasure of working for a 3 star who is a homosexual, and this person is one of the finest officers I have ever had the pleasure to work with. You might be surprised to find out who it is.

I agree there are many issues that are going to come up in regards to this issue, especially the whole gay marriage issue. They can get married in one state, but it is not considered legal in another, and how does the federal government deal with that? Who knows. But what I do know is that alot of the same arguments against gays in the military are the same ones that were used about women and blacks. I know a few General Officers that are more up in arms about Gen Dunwoody getting her 4th star than they are about this issue.

The military has always been a social experiment for the rest of the country, right wrong or indifferent. I have faith that those of us in a leadership position will act accordingly should the time come to pass that gays are allowed to serve openly. A gay servicemember is no less a member of my team than a heterosexual one.

IMHO Obama has more on his plate to concern himself with than this, and will not be something that comes to pass in this term.

[sf11b_p]

We all have our opinions about this, so I will respect yours. Here is my take on the issue. In my time in the service, I have yet to meet one limp wristed tranny as you call it, although I have met many fine upstanding Americans who want to serve their country in the same manner we do. I have yet to meet one that feels the need to flash their homosexuality in my face. Additionally I have met many more heterosexuals in the military that want to flaunt their sexuality in my face than any homosexual I have ever served with...

Ah yes, but that is all under the rule of "don't ask don't tell". So what would be the differences of an open policy and "don't ask don't tell".

I would think more enlistments of the more visible and stereotypical gays. By visible and stereotypical I refer to dress and mannerisms. If you want to meet/see them try a gay pride parade or go to a fully gay bar. I'd bet an open policy would mean at least as much visible hand holding, kissing, hugging and such that heterosexuals now exhibit, on Posts, in the barracks, the PX, Posts clubs, pools and other Post recreational areas.

If policy says "open the door" I'm thinking you'll see plenty of flash and in your face homosexuality. Just as such policy would've meant you'd have named the three star you've worked with instead of stating, "You might be surprised".

[The Reaper]

afchic:

I think you have a different perspective on this due to your service, and your job.

Those of us who have had to live in austere locations and primitive conditions have a different perspective.

There is a world of difference between working with someone in an office or seeing them in the DFAC, and sharing a common shower, gang latrine, hide site, or blood with them. I do not care to be sharing a shower with another man who is looking at me as a potential mate. I doubt that you would appreciate having to share personal space with someone of another gender or orientation while naked either.

Soldiers are soldiers, regardless of race. Gender is a different issue, as like it or not, there are physical differences between the sexes.

Sexual orientation leads to a whole different ballgame of relationships, harrassment, benefits, preferential treatment, perceptions, etc. That sort of problem is corrosive to a unit and its ability to accomplish its mission.

I would reiterate that IMHO, this will cause far more problems than it solves. If you are gay, and want to serve your country, you can do so. Just keep your mouth shut about it and either abstain, or be discrete.

Last I heard, the huge numbers of "gays" being put out of the service were overwhelmingly new enlistees at Basic (primarily at Lackland, IIRC) who decided that they did not want to be there, and the homo discharge was the fastest, least punitive one available.

Just my .02, if you want to fight the next war with the Rainbow Division, have at it and best of luck.

TR

[SF_BHT]

TR has said it very well.

You have to look at it in the perspective of the war fighter on the ground not the individual flying high or in a nice office in the rear. I have know or assume that a person is gay and that individual kept it quiet and did not prance around. Lots assumed but could not prove it. We do not want to shower or any thing else with them as you would not want to shower with me as a unit member. Even if GB, Israel, etc have done it they have had a hell of a lot of problems that came with it. I may be old fashioned but that is how I feel. Did this AF General admit he or she was Gay? If so you are violating regulations by not reporting it.:confused: If not then you are just assuming that the LTG is.

I work in Government Service now after retirement and if you are gay who cares. I am not HOMO Phobic I just do not swing that way and if they did not go around acting like a Gay clown I would not mind them. It is not like I go around asking a person what flavor they like. I currently have 3 Gay/Lesbian individuals that I have to work with and none flaunt it and I could care less as they are professional but we are in a completely different situation in Federal Law Enforcement than as it would be in the military.

Just my 2 cent.

[afchic]

afchic:

I think you have a different perspective on this sue to your service, and your job.

Those of us who have had to live in austere locations and primitive conditions have a different perspective.

There is a world of difference between working with someone in an office or seeing them in the DFAC, and sharing a common shower, gang latrine, hide site, or blood with them. I do not care to be sharing a shower with another man who is looking at me as a potential mate. I doubt that you would appreciate having to share personal space with someone of another gender while naked either.

Soldiers are soldiers, regardless of race. Gender is a different issue, as like it or not, there are physical differences between the sexes.

Sexual orientation leads to a whole different ballgame of relationships, harrassment, benefits, preferential treatment, perceptions, etc. That sort of problem is corrosive to a unit and its ability to accomplish its mission.

I would reiterate that IMHO, this will cause far more problems than it solves. If you are gay, and want to serve your country, you can do so. Just keep your mouth shut about it and either abstain, or be discrete.

Last I heard, the huge numbers of "gays" being put out of the service were overwhelmingly new enlistees at Basic (primarily at Lackland, IIRC) who decided that they did not want to be there, and the homo discharge was the fastest, least punitive one available.

Just my .02, if you want to fight the next war with the Rainbow Division, have at it and best of luck.

TR

Sir, with all due respect, just because I am in the AF does not mean my entire perspective is limited to my butt sitting in a chair in front of a computer in a nice comfy cushy air conditioned building/tent. There are those of us in the Air Force that well aware of what living in austere environments entails, even if it is not to the scale to which you and the QPs deal with on a regular basis.

I was TALCE for 3 years, and have been to some pretty austere locations. During that time, on several occasions, it was necessary for me to live with the men. There aren't many women that go out with a TALCE, and as such it is a force protection issue, as well as just being a pain in the ass to set up a tent for just a couple of women. To a woman, we all preferred living with the men. There are ways of being discrete that do not entail inconveniencing anyone, or embarrassing anyone. Now I am the type of woman that I really could give a rat's behind if I change clothes in front of the men because in the end, they have all seen "it" before. The problem lies in the fact that it would be uncomfortable not for me, but for my men.

I would talk about the whole gay int he shower thing but I think my feelings are better left unsaid at this point.

Sir, the whole deal of preferential treatment, harassment etc, to me is a moot argument. We have already proven that we as the military are quite capable of integrated blacks and women into the military, when not too long ago there were those that said the same thing about them. People believed it would be corrosive to the military, and for some time initially, it was. But would you say the same thing now?

This is going to happen. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow and it may very well be after I retire. But times are changing, and kids growing up these days don't have the same hangups about this issue that many of our generation do. Same as blacks in the military. When my dad was in, it was a huge issue, but in my generation, not so much. Same thing will happen with homosexuals.

I know there is no way in hell I am ever going to change the mind of any of you, and that is not my intent. But sometimes seeing issues such as this from someone else's perspective, even if not accepted, opens a constructive dialogue.

[Pete]

.... But times are changing, and kids growing up these days don't have the same hangups about this issue that many of our generation do.......

I really hate it when it boils down to I'm the one with "Hang Ups." That must mean I'm "Homopphobic". I'm the one that needs to deal with "my issues".

afchic - the other guys pretty much laid it out for you. None of them, to include me, have "issues" we need to deal with. We have all served with people we suspected were gay - but we didn't ask and they didn't tell.

We all understand the issues that will come "openly serving" gay people. Once "Open Serve" is the norm, in addition to what the others have stated, the promotion lists will have to be scrubbed to insure the proper ratio of gays are promoted.

[ZonieDiver]

I really hate it when it boils down to I'm the one with "Hang Ups." That must mean I'm "Homopphobic". I'm the one that needs to deal with "my issues".


I don't think I have any of these "hang-ups" or "issues". I prefer to think that I have a very insightful view on the subject, and agree that openly gay individuals in certain units/locations would present more problems than it would solve for the military. I do agree that the "younger generation" by and large does not hold the same view as I do. They certainly view me as having a "hang-up" with this. Since our military, in the end, is reflective of our society, this policy will probably be changed in the not-too-distant future.

That said, with all the issues sure to confront our military forces in the immediate future, I think it was very unfortunate that this many "general" officers chose this time to advance this issue. It just brings to mind my answer to a question asked me by a young soldier around 1981. He asked, "How do you think the Army could be most improved?" I said, give every Colonel and above an all-expense paid cruise. Put them on three ships. Then bomb and sink TWO of the ships. It really didn't matter which two - the Army would improve, at least temporarily! :D

[Team Sergeant]

But times are changing, and kids growing up these days don't have the same hangups about this issue that many of our generation do.

Pete you’re a homophob.;)

AFchic I like what you said and must agree!!!!!

I cannot wait until the rest of our "hung-up" population wakes up and learns to (or is forced to) tolerate adult sex with small children, sex with dogs, sex with dead people, sex with horses, etc etc etc. Please enlighten me as to where you think it will end or where you intend to "draw the line?"

Oh and just wait until Guy reads this, you're comparing the tolerance of blacks in the military to tolerance of gays in the military....LOL, tic tic tic tic.....

This is going to be a historic thread....:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

[Sigaba]

Afchic, I admire your intellectual rigor and moral courage.

I am of the view that the argument against the presence of openly gay and lesbian Americans in the armed services is not well served by rhetoric that is very similar to that used to argue that the services should not be integrated or that women should not be allowed to serve.

In my opinion, the conflation of sexuality, gender identity, and cultural practice (i.e. the alleged flamboyance of gays) deflects attention away from the core issues (unit cohesion, military effectiveness, and civil-military relations).

Members of the armed forces argue that the services is not a laboratory for social experiments. My reply is that this perception is somewhat contrary to the history of this country's armed services. The configuration of civil-military relations, the evolution of civilian command of the services, the formulation of strategy, the conduct of operations, are but a few examples of how the armed forces have been a lab for the experiment known as America.

I believe that Afchic's comment about changing times merits careful consideration. The stage on which this issue is debated has changed. The audience is different.

I believe that if the armed services are going to resist successfully the 21st century political, social, technological, scientific, psychological, and cultural arguments for the full and complete integration of the armed services (including combat roles for women), they will need to re-examine and revise (if not discard and re-imagine) arguments that were of declining value in the mid 20th century.

[Team Sergeant]

afchic,

Re-write your post or leave. Your sexual ad homen comments relating to me will not be tolerated.

Team Sergeant

[The Reaper]

Why two consenting adults?

If three consent, or thirty, who are we to say what is right or wrong?

Over the years, the age of legal consent has changed as well. In many societies, girls are married quickly after they hit puberty. If 13 or 14 is old enough in some states, who are we to tell them what is right or wrong, as long as they both consent to the relationship. What does it matter if the bride is a 13 year old boy, and the groom a 50 year old man? Should we be imposing our values or restricting others rights?

This indeed a slippery slope, and I do not regret or hesitate in my old ways.

Wait till your pole smoker arrives in a country for an MTT and finds out that the HN executes people for homosexual behavior.

TR

[afchic]

afchic,

Re-write your post or leave. Your sexual ad homen comments relating to me will not be tolerated.

Team Sergeant

Understood, and I apologize.

IMO the issues you listed above, are comparing apples to bumblebees. The sexual practices you listed are either illegal in some states, or all of them. In the ones where they are legal, we do not see an influx of members into the military that want to have sex with farm animals, etc. If we did, then the slippery slope argument may hold some validity.

The act of homosexuality may be outlawed in some states, and as such is known as sodomy. Sodomy is a crime for which heterosexual partners can be found guilty of as well.

Sexual intercourse between two consenting adults nowhere near equates to pedophilia, etc. IMO bringing in the slippery slope argument does not do anything to forward the constructive discourse on issues such as this when there are substantial other concerns in regards to this issue such as housing, health care, dependants, combat, etc..

[Pete]

.....The sexual practices you listed are either illegal in some states, or all of them. In the ones where they are legal, we do not see an influx of members into the military that want to have sex with farm animals, etc. .


afchic;

Believe it not, this thread/subject comes up at least once a year or so. This thread has yet to touch on BAQ fraud, who says who is gay - do you have to prove it, and a number of other issues we've talked about in the other ones.

And as in the other cases, it retired people or people not connected with the military who are pushing the issue.

I do not have a problem with don't ask don't tell.

Pete

[csquare]

I was a 1SG of IET training company for 68Ws (combat medics) for 3years. I had two incidents where a soldier told me they were "gay".
The male tried it on me because I was the new 1SG and he just wanted to go home. I took him in my office, called his father and told the young medic's dad that we "came to a cross road" in his son's career and I needed his help. I never told the dad why I was calling, but I had the young medic talk to his father for 5 minutes. When the conversation was finished and I thanked his dad for his help....never telling him why I called about his son. Then I looked at the young man and told him, "if you can't tell your Dad you're gay, you're not gay! Now get out of my office and be a damn soldier." The young man still emails me and has reenlisted after his 2nd tour downrange.
The female was completely different. She also said she was gay. But when she didn't like how the situation was going, she went AWOL. Then she called her congressmen asking for a congressional investigation on how we were handling the situation. She thought that we were taking too long to process the paperwork and she was scared and feared for her life living in the barracks with the 50+ other females. She came back after 7 days, with her "girlfriend". I had to move her out of the barracks for her safety. I had to make other "special" considerations for her. She was processed out of the Army and went on her way.
BLUF, the integrity of the unit will be eroded with the back biting, talking, rumors and so on. I wouldn't want these issues in my command as a leader. You have more shit to worry about then what the hell is going on with "Tom", "Dick", "Harry" or "Jane" and "Jan".

Plus if this is such a hot issue to these 104 "RETIRED" general officers, WHY didn't they come forward when they were active? Cowards..........

[afchic]

Pete, I totally respect your view on this issue. This issue needs to be looked upon with many different perspectives, in order to ascertain what the true issues are. As TR brought up previously, where you sit on this issue, in large part depends on where you stand. I stand in a very different place than you all, and as such I value the opportunity to understand a different perspective than my own. If we all agreed on everything, this world would be a very boring place to live:D

TR, Sir, if I may address some of the issues you have brought up. In terms of the decreasing age of consent. There have always been cultures that deem a girl to be of marrying age, well before we in the West have. As it stands, all we should be concerned about is what our laws state. As it is, the legal age of consent in some states as I understand it may be as low as 15. In most states a 16 year old can get married with the consent of a parent. We do not keep someone from joining the military because they have a 16 year old spouse.

As for the homosexual in a foreign country, I would hope that individual would learn the customs etc of the HN prior to deployment, as as such would not act in a manner counter to the cultural norms of that nation. Much the same, as me being a woman, I must adapt to being in a Middle Eastern nation. I may not like the fact that I had to wear an Abaya, but in order to do my job to the best of my ability, I wore it. Much the same, I would hope a homosexual would put their mission first, instead of personal wants and desires. That is what we, as professionals are trained to do. Just because someone is homosexual does not mean their entire life revolves around sex. There is a time and a place, and the middle of a deployment is neither, regardless of whether you are straight or gay.

[Eagle5US]

Sexual intercourse between two consenting adults nowhere near equates to pedophilia, etc. IMO bringing in the slippery slope argument does not do anything to forward the constructive discourse on issues such as this when there are substantial other concerns in regards to this issue such as housing, health care, dependants, combat, etc..

this turned out to be longer than I wanted...:rolleyes:

This is strictly a matter of moral opinion that has been processed into guidelines established by our society and then made into legislative restriction (law for lack of a better term). It is the exact same thing. A limit that has been placed and regarded as important enough IN OUR SOCIETY (the military) for a restriction to be placed.
In the military, we have rules as well outlined in the UCMJ, "our laws", that are for the betterment of the military, mission, the unit and the military member.
Where will it go indeed? Military surgeons doing gender transformation procedures in order to "fulfill someone's right to be who they really are"? There are already HIV positive WARDS in military hospitals who are caring for soldiers for the rest of their lives. These soldiers have contracted the virus, from whatever means, on active duty.

Women in the military and their effects (positive and negative) have been discussed in multiple threads, here and elsewhere, but to equate the female population with the homosexual population (or ANY ethnic minority) is, IMHO, nothing short of ridiculous. You mentioned apples to bumblebees...I would offer the same for your analogy.

There were homosexuals on my last rotation to Iraq. One sick call frequent flier had plucked brows, tattooed eyeliner (got a waiver for his enlistment), and was mission ineffective for damn near the entire tour due to the results of his MM sexual encounters. This "condition" then spread to others his "consensual partners who he had gotten close to and then turned to "a little experimentation". A walk on the wild side if you will. This caused quite the quandary when it came to mission effectiveness, legal reporting issues, and his eventual need for evacuation from theater. Line of duty yes or no? Pay for his health care and evacuation? Attempt to hold him accountable with knowingly spreading disease? PROTECTING HIM after his "partners" found out?
This is not limited to men - we lost a LOT of our unit's females to pregnancy (and sexually transmitted disease) either shortly before or during our rotation..

Consenting adults in both cases certainly - but I would argue NOT the same thing.

So I would disagree with your analogy. There are gays and lesbian who serve, honorably, in our military. THIS population does not feel the need to flaunt their sexuality and breech military regulation. Their privilege to serve outweighs their need to demonstrate behaviors that are not considered socially acceptable within the military, not conducive to mission accomplishment and negatively effect unit cohesion.
In contrast, the openly gay population, can accurately be described as otherwise - "going against the established rules" of whatever society they find themselves in is their norm and it will not cease with the rules of the military.

Dependant recognition, monetary allowances and benefits, deployment restrictions (as previously mentioned) secondary to cultural restriction are going to be but a few of the new battles to be fought. Blood on the battlefield is no joke, nor are the diseases that are transmitted that we cannot be immunized against.

Your desire for "constructive discourse" is appreciated, but there has to be a better basis for it than comparing a state of mind in relation to gender to someone's ethnicity or sex.

It is not a right to serve in the United States Armed Forces. Silent homosexuals know this, and adjust accordingly for the privilege of wearing the uniform.

Eagle

[Shar]

This is going to happen. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow and it may very well be after I retire. But times are changing, and kids growing up these days don't have the same hangups about this issue that many of our generation do. Same as blacks in the military. When my dad was in, it was a huge issue, but in my generation, not so much. Same thing will happen with homosexuals.


I have to disagree on this point. Just look at what happened earlier this month in California. Californians, who by all rights are pretty dang LEFT, have voted TWICE now as a population to ban gay marriage. Yes, people are freaking out - Yes, they are blaming anyone who has ever stepped foot in a church. But the fact of the matter remains - that the majority of the population in a very liberal state still do not approve of gay marriage. There is a very VERY vocal minority with a dog in this fight and I'm not willing to say that the "times are changing" because they have louder bullhorns and have been bigger bullies.

No one is saying that no gay can serve, just like the folks in California didn't say that they wanted all gays thrown in the ocean. I think what the majority of folks are saying is that they don't want to hear about it and that they don't feel like giving a non-traditional behavior, traditional treatment because like it or not - the slippery slope is there! When Joe decides he needs both of his wives to be given privileges - what do we do with that? No one in this debate likes talking about the slippery slope of "what's next" but it is a logical question with a pretty obvious answer that if you've opened up the gates to one non-traditional lifestyle, you're going to have to open them to all.

And - a lifestyle or sexual preference is VASTLY different from gender or race. It just is. We can debate the 50,000 ways that's the case - but it is.

Join me in the chorus of people saying that this would bring on a whole host of issues that no one in the military wants to deal with - we have enough problems with regular spouses and I say this from an FRG perspective. I'm a spouse, and darn it if we aren't trouble.

[AF Doc]

Plus if this is such a hot issue to these 104 "RETIRED" general officers, WHY didn't they come forward when they were active? Cowards..........



Why indeed. Why do these retirees feel the need to change the military? Do they think the current leadership is inadequate? This kind of crap from retired general officers is highly disrespectful to the current leadership. Narcissistic asshats seeking some kind of relevance. Write a book.

(Not that it matters, but I couldn't care less if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. I've know a few who have served and have been exemplary. I just don't care. Of course, I'm not out in the kudzu living under a poncho; so I don't really have to confront this issue. And I'm not going to second-guess the guys who do.)

[Puertoland]

We all have our opinions about this, so I will respect yours. Here is my take on the issue. In my time in the service, I have yet to meet one limp wristed tranny as you call it, although I have met many fine upstanding Americans who want to serve their country in the same manner we do. I have yet to meet one that feels the need to flash their homosexuality in my face. Additionally I have met many more heterosexuals in the military that want to flaunt their sexuality in my face than any homosexual I have ever served with.


I'll respect your personal opinion as well, and hope I do not come off as offensive.

While I don't doubt for one second there have been fine Americans and soldiers who happened to end up homosexuals, I cannot help but feel that it would only be a problem to further pursue an openly gay policy in the military.

Like others here have stated, I don't want to have to spend so much of my time in close proximity with a person who would be checking me out, have to worry about HIV being transferred if I have to share a meal, or worry about every minor open wound they have.

By using your logic, we should also be able to share showers with women, and go about everything co-ed.

I must also state that I have yet to meet one openly gay person who does not feel the need to tell me about the gayness, and break at least one limp wrist. While the most conservative are the ones who have yet to fully come out of the closet. My guess is that this would damage morale and affect camaraderie.

Homosexuals already are paving there way through society and forcing others to accept them. Personal views and opinion are all being crushed under the idea that liking men means you have special rights. Laws trying to be passed considering word against homosexuality being treated like a hate crime, clergy being forced to forget their religion's rules because gays want to be married or be convicted of a hate crime.

I believe that a person's private business should remain private, and they not attempt to force people to accept them.

EDIT: I'd also like to touch on how complete acceptance of homosexuality, is going to eventually lead to things that society currently frowns upon, the gateway will open to bestiality, acceptance of early sexual activity and who knows what else to be the next things people discuss and attempt to view in a different light. It may seem a bit of a strong accusation, but then again people will always push for more.

[Sigaba]

Off topic.

A small point in reference to Shar's description of California as being 'pretty dang Left'.

As a native Californian, I think that the state's population is hard to pin down as left or right. Yes, we've broken left the last few presidential elections, are responsible for Hollywood, are the source of the most vocal opposition to the necessary level of immigration policy reform, but we're also the source of many very right of center policies and politicians.

I also wonder at the notion that S.F., L.A., and S.D. are the core of the leftist population may be more perceived than actual. In L.A., people want viable solutions. If those solutions fall into the category of a policy that is traditionally right of center, they won't bat an eye.

On topic.

I am not comfortable with the argument that sexual identity is a matter of preference and therefore a matter of moral choice. The argument is vulnerable to unforeseen scientific discovery. What happens if the same scientific discovery that proves that human life begins at conception and the existence of a human soul also proves that sexuality is hard wired and not learned? (Please note that I am making a distinction between preference and behavior: promiscuity is promiscuity.)

I do not know what an alternative argument may be in regards to this specific issue but I'm hoping that someone does.

Nor am I comfortable with the use of the 'slippery slope' arguments on this issue. It has been my unfortunate experience to learn that so many civilians, mostly on the left, question the morality and ethics of the members of the armed services. In many circles, civilians' perceptions of the armed services are largely opposite of the evidence to the contrary. (My efforts to present contrasting information is met by denials, flat out refusals to access open source materials [such as books], and accusations that I'm a fascist.)

Until these bigoted perceptions can be corrected, I don't know if many proponents of allowing openly gay and lesbian Americans to serve would be capable of honest, respectful, intellectual debate over the moral and ethical issues surrounding the controversy.

What may work better in the short term are the administrative and economic arguments: How will this policy work? How 'open' is openly gay? How much will it cost? Can we afford such a policy at this time? How do we address health concerns?

Even then, I think an argument that will make the proponents of this issue stop dead in their tracks and send them back to their drawing boards still needs to be discovered. If such an argument even exists.

[Slantwire]

What happens if the same scientific discovery that proves that human life begins at conception and the existence of a human soul also proves that sexuality is hard wired and not learned?

Then they'll screen for it at MEPS, like color-blindness or anemia.

Edit: That'll usher in a new generation of "I went through the last hard MEPS."

[MVS2]

I'd like to state my own view on this subject. That is that being really gay (not for convenience) is not a lifestyle choice, but an internal physical and involuntary orientation. Whether one acts upon it by pursuing a lifestyle of sexual activity or abstinence - THAT is the choice.

What purpose does being open about it serve, besides placing oneself on the map as gay? Great, they have asked to be acknowledged by officials whom they will probably never see, and put themselves into potentially harmful situations with their immediate peers. If anything, it seems to me to open the door wider for discrimination against these individuals.

To serve openly as a homosexual, to me, would be the same as serving with next to a person notorious for being slutty or really creepy. No you don't necessarily want to work with them, and hearing about last night's snuff porn session is a focus-breaker.

The current policy seems to pretty reasonably bridge the gap between homosexuals serving and those who may feel uncomfortable from time to time serving alongside gays. IMO those seeking social justice from the military fail to understand the part of the contract they signed removing them from civilian status.

[Constant]

I'd like to state my own view on this subject. That is that being really gay (not for convenience) is not a lifestyle choice, but an internal physical and involuntary orientation. Whether one acts upon it by pursuing a lifestyle of sexual activity or abstinence - THAT is the choice.


MVS2,
:confused:From what I have read there isn't solid proof that it is or is not biological. As of right now, the only readings I've seen have stated that science has not proven it is in their internal wirings and so it's a choice (unless proven otherwise in the future). Please send me the article(s) that show it is 100% concrete that it is not a choice. Perhaps I've missed the article (didn't see it on the news, etc) so please send it my way. Thank you.

-Constant

[Eagle5US]

I'd like to state my own view on this subject. That is that being really gay (not for convenience) is not a lifestyle choice, but an internal physical and involuntary orientation. Whether one acts upon it by pursuing a lifestyle of sexual activity or abstinence - THAT is the choice.

What purpose does being open about it serve, besides placing oneself on the map as gay? Great, they have asked to be acknowledged by officials whom they will probably never see, and put themselves into potentially harmful situations with their immediate peers. If anything, it seems to me to open the door wider for discrimination against these individuals.

To serve openly as a homosexual, to me, would be the same as serving with next to a person notorious for being slutty or really creepy. No you don't necessarily want to work with them, and hearing about last night's snuff porn session is a focus-breaker.

The current policy seems to pretty reasonably bridge the gap between homosexuals serving and those who may feel uncomfortable from time to time serving alongside gays. IMO those seeking social justice from the military fail to understand the part of the contract they signed removing them from civilian status.

First, as for your initial statement...this is your opinion and should be stated as such. This "hardwire" argument is being researched to the tune of millions of dollars in order to provide backing for gay rights across the country with no scientific conclusion yet being drawn.

Second, the purpose of recognition has already been stated numerous times...read the thread. BENEFITS

And last, perhaps I missed something in your profile regarding your military service and experience. If you have not served in the US Armed forces, you have no clue what it would be like to serve with anyone - gay or straight. If you have served and you have this opinion, I would wonder the capacity in which your service was rendered.

In the future, refrain from posting regarding areas which you have no expertise or referenced facts. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to place yourself in an arena which you have no first hand knowledge.

Eagle

[caveman]

Apparently the don't ask don't tell policy was working well, at least on me, because I went through the entire first year of my enlistment thinking that I hadn't met anybody who was gay in the Army. Then the wall came crashing down when the truth was laid out to me by a female (Bisexual) soldier while we were TDY together. We'd served together for probably eight months and the list of people we both knew who were either gay or bisexual completely shocked me. I guess either I'm completely oblivious or there truly is such a thing as "Gaydar" and they can just zero right in on one another, probably both.

I have no problem with gay people doing their thing in the privacy of their own home. I don't doubt they can perform their duties to standard and maybe the compromise is to allow them to be openly gay but treat them like women and keep them out of the Combat MOS's.

At the end of the day I have no problem with gays being gay but I don't want to share a shower with them.

[sf11b_p]

There are some statements I take issue with.

I have no idea how the statement "The military has always been a social experiment for the rest of the country" is true. I can think of no social experimentation in this country that hasn't begun on the civilian side. Medical experimentation, I'd go with that.

Sexual preference or method is not a Gender or Race issue, the latter two are based in physicality and birth.

The argument of sexuality or sexual identity being chosen by the shape, size, wiring, chemical processes, etc. of the brain is the same as made for processes that urge rape, murder, theft and so on. It's not proven, and even if proven not an effective argument for tolerance. Proven, it could in fact be an argument of abnormality or dysfunction. Rape, murder and theft is considered matters of choice unless insanity is present.

Denial of a correlation of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality is just denial. The moral acceptance or social tolerance of any activity is based simply on the acceptance and or tolerance by the majority. The implied reference made that as younger individuals take the place of the old and their "hangups", that tolerance will come, would seem to make those correlations possible.

Remember this is a time in which thirteen year old prostitution exists. Teachers press the boundaries of sex with students under the age of consent. Pretty female teachers in fact, seem to be acceptable, when male teachers are not, as the female is thought to come from a place of love. Pro-pedophile activism exists much like gay pride. There have been actual associations, (www dot nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-pedophile-activism) NAMBLA, DPA and now currently, internet chat rooms and support forums, as well as tourism.

The pedophile activists make the argument that their sexuality is based on love. That such love is reciprocated, and the child should be given rights to choose. This to them is an argument of consenting lovers.

Seems not so difficult to find or perceive an association or correlation.

As to the statement of what the U.S. military may or may not currently have an influx of. First the military is considerably a conservative society. Second it is an organization historically restrained in the policies governing it, and operates under UCMJ. Adjust the policies and law and the status quo will change, I have no doubt.

I'd point to San Francisco as example to how social boundaries and society may change as laws are relaxed and tolerance becomes liberal.

[Richard]

MOO here and I'm finished with this thread.

Sexuality--hetero, bi, homo--is always an issue.

For personal reasons, I harbor ill will toward anything that detracts from being able to perform the unit's mission. Having commanded a co-ed airborne HHC, there was enough drama for all of us on a daily basis...and adding an openly homosexual element would only increase the drama and provide further distractions to a unit's being able to perform their basic mission.

After watching the Prop-8 drama out on the left coast, I would like to think our leaders would not want such an emotional social-engineering distraction to deal with while we were at war.

I've heard the same arguments being used with this issue as were used for previous racial and sexual integration issues.

Happiness is a blue ID card.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[HQ6]

For personal reasons, I harbor ill will toward anything that detracts from being able to perform the unit's mission. Having commanded a co-ed airborne HHC, there was enough drama for all of us on a daily basis...and adding an openly homosexual element would only increase the drama and provide further distractions to a unit's being able to perform their basic mission.

I've heard the same arguments being used with this issue as were used for previous racial and sexual integration issues.


Agreed and agreed. My problem with this is not so much with gay or straight as a moral issue. It is with the level of drama and BS which will detract from the mission. Thereby increasing the risk of injury and/or death to the soldiers.

I think AFChic is right in that we will see openly gay people in the military eventually, but while the country is at war is not the time. It may not be in my life time, but as racial and gender integration before it, the military will eventually integrate on the basis of sexual orientation as well.

[RT AXE 10]

I'm from the old school, so I don't care how well they can work nor how prfessional they are... I still believe that if a person, (gay/lesbian) can't figure out which sex they are and act acordingly then they should not serve in any Military. Politics has taken controll of the Military and turned it into a scam... If I found that any person in my unit (other than SF:D joking) was a gay I'd quit, or get fired... 0 tolerance.

Anyone who can't tap dance is a what?

[Dozer523]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1sG9Nmz3w

So, No matter how good they are at their MOS? No matter if they train right along side you? (And never "scope you out" because they are already "spoken for ie. ”The sweetest proctocologist . . . “) Not even if they fight really, really well . . . in spite of the lisp? What if they were the old gay medic from the movie The Wild Geese?::eek:
Remember this scene? Witty, the old gay medic, is standing guard when he hears rustling in the bushes. Turns out its Africans sneaking up on him. He holds the fort majestically, allowing his comrades to get away, when disaster strikes - he runs out of ammo. The Africans converged on him menacingly: Witty: "My....just look at you big bastards. What a bloody shame we can't be friends hmm?"
Wish I could find a clip of Witty's final scene. But this is probably one of the best anyway. Enjoy!:munchin

[Box]

...so can someone define what "openly gay" actually means?

If I am "openly heterosexual" cant I get in trouble for "public display of affection" ?

[Dozer523]

Found It! "Witty" (the gay medic) is shown twice. The "shame we can't be friends" quote is near the end. If you haven't seen this movie it is a MUST SEE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4AQPQWyVrg

[Eagle5US]

...so can someone define what "openly gay" actually means?

If I am "openly heterosexual" cant I get in trouble for "public display of affection" ?
Yes, you are supposed to but it is rarely if ever enforced anymore. There was a time when you couldn't even hold your spouses hand or kiss in public while in class C uniform.
But, mark my words...
If this goes through..."openly gay" will never get in trouble for ANYTHING due to the backlash of accusations regarding discrimination, personal bias, EO, etc...
Every act to enforce a standard or uphold discipline will be because "the SGT hates gay people".
Further, they "won't be able to help" their behavior because it is "just the way they are". "They knew I was like this when they let me sign - after all I'm just being me":rolleyes:

Eagle

[Shans84]

Before you know it the gay pride parade and 5k run will on post, I just don't get why we can't be quiet and do our job. There always has to be some sidebar bs thrown into mix now with the "new army and these "army strong" soldiers. It started with stress cards, and then they took drill sergeants out of certain AITs and now this. What is next? :confused:

[Peregrino]

If this goes through..."openly gay" will never get in trouble for ANYTHING due to the backlash of accusations regarding discrimination, personal bias, EO, etc...
Every act to enforce a standard or uphold discipline will be because "the SGT hates gay people".


Eagle

We're still there with racial issues and that policy has been in effect for at least a generation. Yes, the military is society's "social labratory", yes it affects morale and readiness, yes we'll figure out how to deal with it. (No - it won't be fun or easy.)

[greenberetTFS]

Yes, you are supposed to but it is rarely if ever enforced anymore. There was a time when you couldn't even hold your spouses hand or kiss in public while in class C uniform.
But, mark my words...
If this goes through..."openly gay" will never get in trouble for ANYTHING due to the backlash of accusations regarding discrimination, personal bias, EO, etc...
Every act to enforce a standard or uphold discipline will be because "the SGT hates gay people".
Further, they "won't be able to help" their behavior because it is "just the way they are". "They knew I was like this when they let me sign - after all I'm just being me":rolleyes:

Eagle

Well said Eagle, you covered what can and will happen once this becomes enforced.:(

GB TFS :munchin

[The Reaper]

Looks like we are going to be sent to the reeducation camps. Ranks right up there with COO training.

Change you can believe in indeed.:rolleyes:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?page=1

Mr. Obama's gay-ban pledge was not a major campaign issue. However, he provided a policy statement to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law. He also said that he wants the Pentagon to school military people on how to treat gays.

"The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute," he told the group, in a statement posted on their Web site. "It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols."

TR

[RT AXE 10]

Looks like we are going to be sent to the reeducation camps. Ranks right up there with COO training.

Change you can believe in indeed.:rolleyes:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?page=1



TR


A step foward and three steps backwards.

Soon we'll see the new reeducated integrated fighting force.. oops!
reeducated integrated special ops fighting force...:o

[Dozer523]

Looks like we are going to be sent to the reeducation camps. Ranks right up there with COO training. TR

As long as they serve Koolaide . . . We're all in! Right?

[Team Sergeant]

...so can someone define what "openly gay" actually means?

If I am "openly heterosexual" cant I get in trouble for "public display of affection" ?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

For all you "civilians" reading this thread, nothing in my paperwork asked with whom I had sex or swapped spit with.

Being "openly gay" IMO is tantamount to being openly stupid and does nothing more than attract unwanted attention.

Must be nice to be gay in the military and have the heterosexuals "forced" to take showers with the limp wrists...

Tolerate it all you want, I'm damn glad I'm retired.

TS

[Richard]

For all you "civilians" reading this thread, nothing in my paperwork asked with whom I had sex or swapped spit with.

They did when I was drafted. There were a couple of guys who had to sit with the shrink for awhile and then were sent home. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Sigaba]

Early on, QP Dozer suggested that the timing of this issue reflected a political ambush.

Now, I wonder who played whom? We know that the president elect is not gung ho on the issue of gay marriage. We know that he has a habit of avoiding answering tough questions. (His supporters call it 'pragmatism'.)

How about this scenario. His camp floats the idea of gays in the military to those retired general officers sympathetic to the notion. That group floats the idea publicly. The outcry, predictably, is loud.

The president elect's campaign uses the push back as an opportunity to say it will not take any action until 2010 at the soonest. This allows the president-elect to take the issue off the radar until after the mid-term elections and reserves the chance to push the issue back further still. (In 2010, he will be able to say "we're researching the issue" and "we've got to concentrate on Afghanistan.")

He keeps delaying a decision on the issue until after 2012 without suffering the political consequences of making a decision. Instead, he reaps the benefits of not making a decision.

[Monsoon65]

Looks like we are going to be sent to the reeducation camps.

Just as long as I get top bunk!

So, let me get this straight: After this takes effect, I can get busted for saying, "This looks pretty gay" about something I don't like?

[Richard]

So, let me get this straight: After this takes effect, I can get busted for saying, "This looks pretty gay" about something I don't like?

Hey, try saying that on any school or college campus today and see what happens when the PC crowd gets finished publicly flaying your carcass. :eek:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[caveman]

Hey, try saying that on any school or college campus today and see what happens when the PC crowd gets finished publicly flaying your carcass. :eek:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

It's gay that this is even an issue.

[Richard]

Early on, QP Dozer suggested that the timing of this issue reflected a political ambush.

Now, I wonder who played whom? We know that the president elect is not gung ho on the issue of gay marriage. We know that he has a habit of avoiding answering tough questions. (His supporters call it 'pragmatism'.)

How about this scenario. His camp floats the idea of gays in the military to those retired general officers sympathetic to the notion. That group floats the idea publicly. The outcry, predictably, is loud.

The president elect's campaign uses the push back as an opportunity to say it will not take any action until 2010 at the soonest. This allows the president-elect to take the issue off the radar until after the mid-term elections and reserves the chance to push the issue back further still. (In 2010, he will be able to say "we're researching the issue" and "we've got to concentrate on Afghanistan.")

He keeps delaying a decision on the issue until after 2012 without suffering the political consequences of making a decision. Instead, he reaps the benefits of not making a decision.

Interesting strategy, but you're not thinking like a GLB community organizer. I'm no expert here, but I doubt if they'll allow such a scenario to go on like that without throwing the minority rights discrimination card right back into BHOs face without a moment's hesitation. Has anybody read Barry's book? Is there anything in there which gives any indications of how he thinks on these issues? Maybe somebody in the MSM ought to ask Barry's mentor--the Rev Wright--to give us his insight into Barry's thinking; it could be interesting.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Sigaba]

Interesting strategy, but you're not thinking like a GLB community organizer. I'm no expert here, but I doubt if they'll allow such a scenario to go on like that without throwing the minority rights discrimination card right back into BHOs face without a moment's hesitation. Has anybody read Barry's book? Is there anything in there which gives any indications of how he thinks on these issues? Maybe somebody in the MSM ought to ask Barry's mentor--the Rev Wright--to give us his insight into Barry's thinking; it could be interesting.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Sir--

Clinton threw the GLB community under the bus early on in his administration. I agree that it is hard to imagine they'd let themselves be co-opted again.

I read a few pages of each of the president-elect's memoirs. I had to stop before I wept bloody tears of despair and flung myself in front of a car.

I would hazard to guess that the president-elect is not pro-GLB. (The only thing I'm convinced that he's for is for himself.)

Rev. Wright's church does have a hospice for HIV/AIDS patients but the context is odd. Wright believes that HIV/AIDS is a product of Uncle Sam's conspiracy to kill blacks. In this light, the hospice is not only anti-American, it is also anti-GLB because it serves the cultural denial within the African American community that it has gay men. It says something about the guy's homophobia that he'd put on the tin foil hat to not deal with the issue at all.

Ultimately, it will be interesting when Democrats nationwide realize how conservative African Americans are on some issues. It was the black vote in California that pushed through the ban on gay and lesbian marriages.

It is my hope that we Republicans can re-think our rhetoric and either convince more blacks that the GOP is a better fit. (Or, at least, if we could stop alienating blacks with some of our rhetoric.)

[Dozer523]

Early on, QP Dozer suggested that the timing of this issue reflected a political ambush.
Now, I wonder who played whom? We know that the president elect is not gung ho on the issue of gay marriage. We know that he has a habit of avoiding answering tough questions. (His supporters call it 'pragmatism'.)How about this scenario. His camp floats the idea of gays in the military to those retired general officers sympathetic to the notion. That group floats the idea publicly. The outcry, predictably, is loud.

The president elect's campaign uses the push back as an opportunity to say it will not take any action until 2010 at the soonest. . . .
He keeps delaying a decision on the issue until after 2012 without suffering the political consequences of making a decision. Instead, he reaps the benefits of not making a decision.
That would be some seriously Machiavellian stuff! Hard to imagine all those Generals being either so pro-gay or easily duped. It still looks like an "L-shaped" ambush to me. But as long as it GOES AWAY, I wouldn't care the reason or the manipulation. Nothing good will come of it either way. DADT ain't perfect but it works.

[Monsoon65]

Hey, try saying that on any school or college campus today and see what happens when the PC crowd gets finished publicly flaying your carcass.

I get around that by pronouncing it "ghey". :p

What an interesting military it will be if any of my future children decide to join. :eek:

[Team Sergeant]

That would be some seriously Machiavellian stuff! Hard to imagine all those Generals being either so pro-gay or easily duped. It still looks like an "L-shaped" ambush to me. But as long as it GOES AWAY, I would care the reason or the manipulation. Nothing good will come of it either way. DADT ain't perfect but it works.


Now now now I'm sure that the "associated press" writer has proof that "hundreds" of generals said just that.:rolleyes:

Let it be said I think that's a complete lie on the part of the associated press writer/reporter. Was to bet as to the sexual pref the associated press writer that did that story?:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

[Sigaba]

http://palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/104Generals%2526Admirals-GayBanMustEnd

104 Generals and Admirals: Gay Ban Must End
Signers Hope to Contribute to Obama's Process

Contact: Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow, Palm Center, 805-893-5664, frank@palmcenter.ucsb.edu

SANTA BARBARA, November 17, 2008 - Retired Admiral Charles Larson, former Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, tops a list of 104 retired Generals and Admirals calling for an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing gay troops, the Associated Press reported today.

Admiral Larson, who was commissioned in 1958, was in charge of U.S. and Allied submarines in the Mediterranean as a two-star admiral, and became head of the entire U.S. military command in the Pacific as a four-star admiral before retiring in 1998.

President-elect Barack Obama has said that he will work with Pentagon brass to repeal the policy. Last month, however, Obama adviser and retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak, said that “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be retained. In this context, the statement may help the incoming administration clarify how it will respond to gay issues.

In 1993, Admiral Larson supported "don't ask, don't tell." He thought it was a mistake for Bill Clinton, who was a close acquaintance, to try to lift the ban immediately, and wished he would have worked more closely with the military if he wanted to make the change. "You can't change the military culture overnight," he recalled thinking. At the time he thought that banning open gays and lesbians, which was then viewed as temporary, was the best solution if properly administered.

Admiral Larson changed his view after he learned that "there were a lot of witch hunts and a lot of people were turned out on that basis." He found that the policy was not being implemented as he had hoped, and the military was losing valuable talent. He was also influenced by having a number of people work for him who were gay, and by having a gay daughter with whom he spoke at length about gays in the military.

He now believes the ban should end. "I think the time has come to find a way to let talented, young, patriotic Americans who want to serve their country serve," he said, "and let's enforce high standards of personal and human behavior for everyone.

The statement that Admiral Larson signed is reproduced here:
We – the undersigned -- respectfully call for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Those of us endorsing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. Scholarly data shows there are approximately one million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States today as well as 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces. They have served our nation honorably. We support the recent comments of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikashvili, who has concluded that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would not harm and would indeed help our armed forces. As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy.

Former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander
Admiral Charles Larson, USN (ret.)
Lieutenant General Quinn Becker, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Henry Emerson, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Jerry Hilmes, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Ira Owens, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Thomas Rienzi, USA (ret.)
Vice Admiral Harold Koenig, USN (ret.)
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (ret.)
Vice Admiral James Zimble, USN (ret.)
Major General Anders Aadland, USA (ret.)
Major General Floyd Baker, USA (ret.)
Major General Harry Brooks Jr., USA (ret.)
Major General Leslie Burger, USA (ret.)
Major General Alexander Burgin, USANG (ret.)
Major General Rosetta Burke, AUS (ret.)*
Major General William Burke, USA (ret.)
Major General Michael Conrad, USA (ret.)
Major General Eugene Cromartie, USA (ret.)
Major General James Delk, AUS (ret.)
Major General Oliver Dillard, USA (ret.)
Major General John Faith, USA (ret.)
Major General Jack Farris, USAF (ret.)
Major General Fred Forster, USANG (ret.)
Major General Robert Gamrath, AUS (ret.)
Major General Albert Genetti Jr., USA (ret.)
Major General Luis Gonzales-Vales, AUS (ret.)
Major General David Hale, USA (ret.)
Major General Randy Jayne, USANG (ret.)
Major General Lawrence Johnson, AUS (ret.)
Major General Dennis Laich, USA (ret.)
Major General Frederick Lawson, AUS (ret.)
Major General Thomas Lynch, USA (ret.)
Major General Dennis Malcor, USA (ret.)
Major General John Roth, AUS (ret.)
Major General Henry Rasmussen, USA (ret.)
Major General Alan Salisbury, USA (ret.)
Major General Michael Scotti Jr., USA (ret.)**
Major General Harry Sieben, USANG (ret.)
Major General Paul Smith, USA (ret.)
Major General Robert B. Smith, USA (ret.)
Major General Charles Starr Jr., USA (ret.)
Major General Story Stevens, USA (ret.)
Major General Joseph E. Turner, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General John C. Adams, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Clara Adams-Ender, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Hugh Aitken, USMC (ret.)
Brigadier General John "Joe" Allen, USAF (ret.)
Brigadier General Patricia Anderson, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Dale Barber, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General George Baxter, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Baxter, USAF (ret.)
Brigadier General George Blysak, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Harold Bowman, USANG (ret.)
Brigadier General Douglas Bradley, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Jack Capps, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Richard Carter, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Steve Chapplis, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General BG David Cole, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General William Colvin, USANG (ret.)
Brigadier General Joseph Cutrona, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Tom Daniels, USAF (ret.)
Brigadier General Von DeLoatch, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Dilworth, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General George Eggers Jr., USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn Foote, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Giffen, USAF (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Hardy Jr., USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Carlos Hayden, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Edwin Heffelfinger, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General James Hunt, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General J.D Johnson, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr, CSMR (ret.)
Brigadier General Douglas Kinnard, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Dean Mann, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General James Martin, USAF (ret.)
Brigadier General William Meehan II, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Harold Miller, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Kenneth Newbold, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General I.R. Obenchain Jr., USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Phil Peay, USANG (ret.)
Brigadier General Dorothy Pocklington, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Poirot, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Philip Pushkin, USANG (ret.)
Brigadier General Virgil Richard, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General William Richter, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Kenneth Rieth, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Ernst Roberts, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Murray Sagsveen, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General Norman Salisbury, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Donald Schenk, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Bettye Simmons, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Theodore Vander Els, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Daniel Wardrop, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Watling, AUS (ret.)
Brigadier General John Weinzettle, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral James Barnett, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert Krasner, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Charles Rauch, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, USPHS (ret.)

* AUS is the Army of the United States.
**General Scotti passed away in September, 2007. His widow asked that his name remain on this statement.

A summary of the findings on 'don't ask don't tell' (http://palmcenter.org/system/files/NEWDESIGNFlagOfficersBookle071808.pdf) that, apparently, support the signed statement.

And then there's this white paper (http://palmcenter.org/system/files/TGPeopleUSMilitary.pdf) on transgendered service persons in the armed forces.

[RT AXE 10]

The whole lot of them are retired.... Looks like an ambush to me...
They should have the active duty general officers decide on the matter.

[LongWire]

Sound's like the Armed Services are gonna get sucked into the political correctness movement!:o


Where have you been.............we were sucked in a long time ago.



Having just inprocessed into Ft Lewis, this does not come as a big surprise.

The Army is implementing a vigorous new Sexual Harrassment/Sexual Assault policy.
What Im getting out of it is that not much has changed policy wise, just the way in which we are to respond to said policy. We as leaders are expected to correct the man to the left and right of us, if we hear of abuse. They are taking a harder position on their stance is what my perception of this policy is. Bully for them.

What I really learned from said brief is that if alcohol is involved, the victim is going to be absolved of wrong doing if consent is implied. My $.02 but the briefer harped on it, so thats how it came across.

Try just for one second to turn the tables on that, "I was drinking and took advantage of some chic, so Im clear right?" Yeah I dont think so.........

This problem will be compounded if gays can openly serve.

Im not against them, not my cup of tea, I think DADT serves its purpose and allows us all to keep our dignity and serve with pride. So what if it has them in the closet with the baggage? The flip side is handing me the baggage so I have to know that they are gay? Call me foolish but I'd rather remain ignorant.

Im not really sure what purpose it would serve to have them serve openly, other than no more secret and the benefits. It would do more disservice than service. I don't think the time is yet, Im sure it will come though.

[JumpinJoe1010]

The first problem with the Generals speaking up, is they did it after they retired and received their blue card. Where is the moral courage to stand up to issue while serving? Isn't it funny that their careers are no longer in jeopardy when they take up these controversial issues.

Secondly the DADT is part of the problem also. When they implemented it, it was done with the intent of getting their foot in the door. I remember when they enacted it back in the 90's, and it had the same uproar as this discussion about openly gays serving now.

Once this ball gets rolling it will be hard to stop. About the only thing that can be done is calling your Congressmen, but they sure haven't given me any reason lately to think they would take a stand on any issue, much less the gay issue.

[greenberetTFS]

Sir--

Clinton threw the GLB community under the bus early on in his administration. I agree that it is hard to imagine they'd let themselves be co-opted again.

I read a few pages of each of the president-elect's memoirs. I had to stop before I wept bloody tears of despair and flung myself in front of a car.

I would hazard to guess that the president-elect is not pro-GLB. (The only thing I'm convinced that he's for is for himself.)

Rev. Wright's church does have a hospice for HIV/AIDS patients but the context is odd. Wright believes that HIV/AIDS is a product of Uncle Sam's conspiracy to kill blacks. In this light, the hospice is not only anti-American, it is also anti-GLB because it serves the cultural denial within the African American community that it has gay men. It says something about the guy's homophobia that he'd put on the tin foil hat to not deal with the issue at all.

Ultimately, it will be interesting when Democrats nationwide realize how conservative African Americans are on some issues. It was the black vote in California that pushed through the ban on gay and lesbian marriages.

It is my hope that we Republicans can re-think our rhetoric and either convince more blacks that the GOP is a better fit. (Or, at least, if we could stop alienating blacks with some of our rhetoric.)

Well put Sigaba, I agree with you 100%.............

GB TFS :munchin

[Team Sergeant]

Major General James Delk, AUS (ret.)


AUS is the Army of the United States, that's nice what airsoft unit is this?

The last use of the Army of the United States was during the Vietnam War, and it was disbanded after 1974.

I'm thinking "Nathaniel Frank", "Senior Research" might just be full of shit. I wonder how many old folks homes he visited to get these generals to sign up.....

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this one.

Team Sergeant


http://palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/104Generals%2526Admirals-GayBanMustEnd




A summary of the findings on 'don't ask don't tell' (http://palmcenter.org/system/files/NEWDESIGNFlagOfficersBookle071808.pdf) that, apparently, support the signed statement.

And then there's this white paper (http://palmcenter.org/system/files/TGPeopleUSMilitary.pdf) on transgendered service persons in the armed forces.

[Richard]

Major General James Delk, AUS (ret.)


AUS is the Army of the United States, that's nice what airsoft unit is this?

The last use of the Army of the United States was during the Vietnam War, and it was disbanded after 1974.

I'm thinking "Nathaniel Frank", "Senior Research" might just be full of shit. I wonder how many old folks homes he visited to get these generals to sign up.....

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this one.

Team Sergeant

FWIW - I was a Reserve Officer (USAR) upon graduation from OCS (1979), became a Regular Army (RA) Officer upon performance review and approval after 12 months (1980), became listed under DOPMA's ADL as an Army of the United States (AUS) Officer (1981).

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[ZonieDiver]

Lieutenant General Henry Emerson, USA (ret.)

Hank "The Gunfighter" Emerson signed up for this! Hackworth must be spinning in his grave.

[Dozer523]

The first problem with the Generals speaking up, is they did it after they retired and received their blue card. Where is the moral courage to stand up to issue while serving? Isn't it funny that their careers are no longer in jeopardy when they take up these controversial issues. .

That is, actually, where it gets interesting. The ETHICALLY courageous thing was to remain publicly silent while in uniform. They were serving officers and duty and honor bound to carryout the orders of their political superiors. We can bitch and moan all we want to our teammates, to our friends, and wives. But to the public we keep our opinions to ourselves.

[Sigaba]

A recently published article in Armed Forces and Society LINK (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/DADT%20and%20military%20reputation.pdf)discusses the impact of DADT on civilian perceptions of the armed services.

[JumpinJoe1010]

That is, actually, where it gets interesting. The ETHICALLY courageous thing was to remain publicly silent while in uniform. They were serving officers and duty and honor bound to carryout the orders of their political superiors. We can bitch and moan all we want to our teammates, to our friends, and wives. But to the public we keep our opinions to ourselves.

It is an interesting quandary. Your oath lay to the nation, yet your convictions say other wise. They are bound to follow orders, but if they found it to be ethically wrong I believe they had the duty to speak up.

I will leave it at a difference of opinion on that. :)

[The Reaper]

Hank "The Gunfighter" Emerson signed up for this! Hackworth must be spinning in his grave.


Emerson is himself gay, IIRC.

TR

[Pete]

A recently published article in [I]Armed Forces and Society..........

The title in and of itself is incorrect - there is no "Gay Ban" - there is DADT, you can serve if you are gay but not openly.

[ZonieDiver]

Emerson is himself gay, IIRC.

TR

I guess that would explain the "ear kissing" BS from those days! :D

[Richard]

Emerson is himself gay, IIRC.

TR

Yep. Was married for a couple of weeks when XVIII ABC CDR to a high society type as camouflage in hopes of getting a 4th star; it didn't work because she left him mo-ricky...which is a funny story within itself. He retired and was caught cruising a local grocery store for younger guys, and then kinda dropped off the gaydar. Wonder where he's hanging out now.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Richard]

So...Iif DADT falls by the wayside, any bets on the GLB crowd pressuring DOD to go to a 13 man ODA with an additional MOS--18Q (Small Unit Fatboy)--for those looonnnggg deployments? :rolleyes::p:D

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[ZonieDiver]

So...Iif DADT falls by the wayside, any bets on the GLB crowd pressuring DOD to go to a 13 man ODA with an additional MOS--18Q (Small Unit Fatboy)--for those looonnnggg deployments?

Richard's $.02

Didn't they already have that - back in the mid-70's - with the addition of a "supply sergeant" to the ODA? :D

[Richard]

Didn't they already have that - back in the mid-70's - with the addition of a "supply sergeant" to the ODA? :D

Well...we didn't ask and he didn't tell. :D

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Dozer523]

It is an interesting quandary. Your oath lay to the nation, yet your convictions say other wise. They are bound to follow orders, but if they found it to be ethically wrong I believe they had the duty to speak up. I will leave it at a difference of opinion on that. :)

No, if you found it to be morally wrong you would be ethically bound to resign so that you could then speak up. Remember the Suicide rule. You only get to fall on your sword once -- so you better be sure it's worth it!:eek: Semantics lesson. If I drive my car 65mph in a 25mph zone, that is illegal, but not immoral. If I'm driving a Hmmv then it's unethical, it only becomes immoral if I'm speeding away from a trist with the Colonel's wife.:p

[Richard]

If I'm driving a Hmmv then it's unethical, it only becomes immoral if I'm speeding away from a trist with the Colonel's wife.:p

And illegal if she's smuggling cocaine in the DAOs diplomatic pouch! :p

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Dozer523]

I get it now. "just when you think you've . . . "

[Box]

and how many of these 104 warriors resigned so they could speak their mind?

...or have they had no real opinion until now? (or maybe they were just waiting until they had a bandwagon to jump on?)

just curious


Either way I see no moral heroics connected to that list.

[emoore]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' --- I think the policy when I was in was ‘more’ better. Don’t tell because we sure as hell don’t want to know. You can call me whatever you want but I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that a gay man was watching my back because in the back of my mind I would be wondering if he was really watching my rear.

Of course as they say times has changed and my day has long past. But nothing anyone can say would change my view on this matter. I do not believe they should be allowed in the Military.

:munchin

[bailaviborita]

Anything Claudia Kennedy signs has to be suspect...

Sir, the whole deal of preferential treatment, harassment etc, to me is a moot argument. We have already proven that we as the military are quite capable of integrated blacks and women into the military, when not too long ago there were those that said the same thing about them. People believed it would be corrosive to the military, and for some time initially, it was. But would you say the same thing now?

I take issue with that "fact"- I would say nothing has been "proven". If you have spent one month in a unit overseas you will find lots of problems with ANYONE abusing the system of preferences for their gain- Blacks and women. It doesn't get in the way too much at the tactical combat level because of two reasons: women aren't in combat units and most Blacks who serve in combat units (in my experience) have gotten over their institutionalized paranoia and touchiness about all things race-related and subserviate themselves to the good of the unit- just as other races do (Hispanics being much more prevalent in combat units in my experience- but no-one ever talks about them). Funny how pragmatism when bullets are flying at you will do that. Maybe some homosexuals would do the same (I doubt it)- but it is the rest of the Army who would have to support these combat units that I would worry about- and that have problems with race and sex now. To pretend there are no problems is to believe the PC crap you hear spewing from the public reports of our government. I don't know about the AF- you guys are a different breed, but I've heard when it comes to sex you are not too different and you have just as many problems that don't get publicized because of PC-ness.

In terms of the actual issue- I think it comes down to unit effectiveness. Just because we have women and Blacks integrated (for the most part) doesn't mean that it is more effective that way. I think it WOULD be if we took the PC out of it, but I would submit that the more homogenous a unit is, the better it will be able to function. The more touchy the personnel in a unit are, the less effective that unit will be. Whatever differences you add- be it homosexual, female, race- whatever- if they want to identify themselves as different, behave differently, and expect different standards- the worse the unit's cohesiveness will be. So, to me, until we all become androgynous automatons, we should limit mandating every category of human species serve openly in the military and limit them being protected with education and anti-harrassment programs- which to me just undermines the whole cohesiveness goal.

In terms of the gay issue itself- I don't think we can be honest about it in this country because it has turned political. In other words- you can't believe scientists in their conclusions about gays anymore than you can gays themselves or far-right groups. If scientists even attempted to do studies to find out if being homosexual was related to a mental disorder they would be denied funds, tenure, and positions. You can't even advance a theory that kids being reared by gay people might turn out to have a greater propensity to be gay. If the debate is not even allowed to happen because of politically-inspired assumptions that can't be questioned- then we really can't make any assertions as to what is good/bad truth/assumption, etc.

I personally, would like to see studies done to determine why some people don't know what they are sexually. I would like to see studies determine why some people have to dress differently than the rest of their gender. I would like to studies done to determine if a certain percentage of gays aren't effected by some type of mental instability and/or childhood abuse. Until those are done- I think it is fair to assume that a certain percentage of gays MIGHT suffer from mental problems- whatever the cause- and might should not be serving in the military.

Lastly, I disagree that the newer generations are more accepting of gays. If that were true I don't think you'd have so much harrassment at the grade school level nor the need for education programs that the gay rights groups are pushing. I think that kids identify differences early on and make fun of those differences- maybe for the same reasons that early tribal societies identified abnormal types and drove them out- for social assimilation and survival. Regardless of the current attempts to have us all believe that "diversity" is better- there is something to be said about a society that shares a set of values being stronger than a society torn into a bunch of whining groups all bent on their own little world and interests.

[Masochist]

Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I would resuscitate this one ...

ACLU Wants $800K Because Police Followed Policy
The AP via YellowBrix
March 21, 2010

RAPID CITY, S.D. – The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking a settlement from Rapid City over the police department’s outing of a lesbian Air Force sergeant.

In a letter e-mailed Friday to Mayor Alan Hanks, ACLU South Dakota executive director Robert Doody asks for $800,000 in damages for Jene Newsome, among other corrective measures.

The letter threatens a lawsuit.

Newsome’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came after police officers saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told officials at the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base. The ACLU claims the officers violated Newsome’s privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation.

“Indeed, the report clearly affirms what we had argued all along — that the information regarding the marriage certificate was intentionally turned over by the Rapid City Police Department,” said Doody.

Police Chief Steve Allender is defending the actions of his officers, saying sharing information with the military has always been department policy during investigations.

“Sgt. Newsome is responsible for her own actions, and on the same note, we will be responsible for ours,” Allender said.

Allender said his department will begin an immediate review of all polices related to the exchange of information with other agencies

http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/136212-aclu-wants-800k-because-police-followed-policy

[Masochist]

I'm curious as to why police were at the residence, as it might shed some light on why they shared that information. Were they responding to a call? Was it just a friendly visit?

[Saturation]

The story as I read it, was the police were attempting to arrest her partner/spouse and when they looked in the window saw the marriage license on the kitchen table.
The police further stated that this individual was uncooperative in helping with the arrest of said person...

[The Reaper]

Oh Jeez. IMO, we should just stay the hell out of each other's bedrooms. It's nobody's business.

Actually, I would let those who have to serve with them decide. It doesn't stay in their bedrooms, it come to work with them, every day.

The policy is don't ask, don't tell. Marrying a same-sex partner and displaying a marriage certificate in public view violates that policy. All they had to do was keep it to themselves. No one called and complained about her sexual orientation. The police were there to look into a criminal matter and saw it. They passed that info on to the military authorities, who had to take action. Should they ignore the orders given to them?

If you don't have to shower, share a foxhole, or get a direct blood transfusion from them, why do you want to impose your personal beliefs on those of us who do?

TR

[HereAmISendMe]

Call me an old fashioned young person, but being a homosexual is immoral. I believe it is a choice. All people have "urges" to contend with everyday: Lying, stealing, or cheating for example. It's the decision one makes of whether or not to fulfill that urge that makes them a moral or immoral person. There have been times in my life when I wanted to drive a car through someones front door, but I don't do it because it's wrong (and because I don't want to go to federal pound me in the ass prison). One of the military's cornerstones is morality. Its obvious that our society, or at least the people who think they run our society, is placing a lower and lower value on moral standards. Both sad and frustrating.

[afchic]

Call me an old fashioned young person, but being a homosexual is immoral. I believe it is a choice. All people have "urges" to contend with everyday: Lying, stealing, or cheating for example. It's the decision one makes of whether or not to fulfill that urge that makes them a moral or immoral person. There have been times in my life when I wanted to drive a car through someones front door, but I don't do it because it's wrong (and because I don't want to go to federal pound me in the ass prison). One of the military's cornerstones is morality. Its obvious that our society, or at least the people who think they run our society, is placing a lower and lower value on moral standards. Both sad and frustrating.

So was your deciding you were attracted to women a choice, an urge, or just the way you were?

[afchic]

Actually, I would let those who have to serve with them decide. It doesn't stay in their bedrooms, it come to work with them, every day.

The policy is don't ask, don't tell. Marrying a same-sex partner and displaying a marriage certificate in public view violates that policy. All they had to do was keep it to themselves. No one called and complained about her sexual orientation. The police were there to look into a criminal matter and saw it. They passed that info on to the military authorities, who had to take action. Should they ignore the orders given to them?

If you don't have to shower, share a foxhole, or get a direct blood transfusion from them, why do you want to impose your personal beliefs on those of us who do?

TR


You are right, as long as DADT is the policy, then people need to be held accountable for their actions, and the police did the right thing.

If and when DADT is revised, then once again, people should and will be held accountable for their actions.

[Pete]

Fair enough, TR, but let me ask this: How do you know that a heterosexual's sexual practices are any safer than those who are homosexual?

Ahhhh, not too many heterosexuals go around hitting on each other. Now with enough beer.....................

[Pete]

So was your deciding you were attracted to women a choice, an urge, or just the way you were?

Chic vs Guy - Chic vs Guy - Chic vs Guy - Sorry, no contest. Thats just the way it is.

[greenberetTFS]

Fair enough, TR, but let me ask this: How do you know that a heterosexual's sexual practices are any safer than those who are homosexual?

Because "half" of the people with AIDS are homosexual !!!!!!! :(

Big Teddy :munchin

[Richard]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[afchic]

Chic vs Guy - Chic vs Guy - Chic vs Guy - Sorry, no contest. Thats just the way it is.

That's my point, it is just the way it is, not a choice as far as I am concerned. I agree that there are many lesbians that may choose to be lesbian due to issues with men. With that being said, I still think a vast majoirty of homosexuals are "born" that way, and it is no more a choice to them, than being heterosexual is a choice to us. It is what it is :)

[TrapLine]

I still think a vast majoirty of homosexuals are "born" that way, and it is no more a choice to them, than being heterosexual is a choice to us. It is what it is :)


I agree with you and I think the argument being made is regarding more the action vs the attraction. It seems to me people are born with varying sexual inclinations. Some of them are outside the scope of what most would consider moral. The problem is, that line is very hard to define, and an argument can be made that widening the range of what is acceptable may cause greater risk to society. I happen to be of the belief that homosexual activity is outside the lines of what is moral. I realize many people disagree. The problem seems to be that the moral compass is a lot more complex than the magnetic one.

I hope I have not strayed too far out of my lane.

[Pete]

That's my point, it is just the way it is, not a choice as far as I am concerned. I agree that there are many lesbians that may choose to be lesbian due to issues with men. With that being said, I still think a vast majoirty of homosexuals are "born" that way, and it is no more a choice to them, than being heterosexual is a choice to us. It is what it is :)

Man and Man on island, woman and man on island, woman and woman on island.

I rest my case.

[The Reaper]

Fair enough, TR, but let me ask this: How do you know that a heterosexual's sexual practices are any safer than those who are homosexual?

Let me counter with a few questions for you.

What percentage of HIV cases are from male homosexual conduct?

Is that number growing or shrinking?

Has the number of homosexual males engaging in high-risk or unprotected sex increased or decreased over time?

Who is responsible for the above? Heterosexuals?

BTW, I have it on good authority that the chance of a male actually getting HIV from a female, even an infected one is pretty low.

I can guarantee that a heterosexual male is much less likely to have HIV than a homosexual one, whatever conduct he engages in. Can you refute that?

TR

[The Reaper]

No I cannot dispute that male-male sexual activity is the highest risk category. But:

Heterosexual high-risk sexual activity is still in the top 6 ways of transmitting the disease. Along with maternal transmission and IV drug use.

So, if you're going by pure statistics, than I agree with you. My point in all this is that there is still a risk for heterosexual behavior...and how do you screen for that? Make people divulge all their sexual activities? How many partners, with condom, without condom?

The health risk is only part of this equation, but it is one of the most serious.

I think you are understating the degree of gay male involvement in HIV/AIDS. Is there an agenda you are promoting? The stats I have seen only show six causes, and male hetero activty is virtually statistically insignificant, especially when you consider the chronic underreporting by bi-/gay males. In fact, more than 2/3 of all HIV cases in the US are self-identifying homosexual men. Most of the heterosexual "high-risk" acquired HIV is going to be females getting it from males. The mechanisms of transmission favor the recipient of bodily fluids. The percentage of males contracting HIV from a female is in the very low single digits.

As long as we only have straight men (or as close as we can get) in SF, the odds of an SF soldier having HIV is as near zero as we can make it. If you let women in, the number goes up. Gay men, and it goes through the roof.

No thanks. I'll pass on the social experimentation while my brothers and I are serving.

TR

[BrianH]

The health risk is only part of this equation, but it is one of the most serious.

I think you are understating the degree of gay male involvement in HIV/AIDS. Is there an agenda you are promoting? The stats I have seen only show six causes, and male hetero activty is virtually statistically insignificant, especially when you consider the chronic underreporting by bi-/gay males. In fact, more than 2/3 of all HIV cases in the US are self-identifying homosexual men. The percentage of males contracting HIV from a female is in the low single digits.

As long as we only have straight men (or as close as we can get) in SF, the odds of an SF soldier having HIV is as near zero as we can make it. If you let women in, the number goes up. Gay men, and it goes through the roof.

No thanks. I'll pass on the social experimentation while my brothers and I are serving.

TR
As an SF soldier who has an openly gay brother (blood, not SF), I've been around a lot more homosexual men than most of the other people I've met in the SF community.

One cannot deny that HIV/AIDS is far more rampant in the homosexual community than others. Sickle Cell Anemia is also more rampant among blacks. Alcoholism is common in Native Americans. What's your point?

All I see in your posts is ignorant anti-gay rhetoric dressed up in statistics about a disease that has almost zero impact on the military at large today. Your posts are indicative of someone who has digested the propaganda that all openly gay men are lecherous freaks who cannot control themselves sexually around other men. The dozens of "happily" married in the closet gay men I've met would probably disagree with that assessment.

Maybe it is the years I watched my brother struggle with suicidal thoughts due to his self-hatred because he was gay. Or hearing him pray every night since the time he was 12 to be straight. Or watching him try to date women, and seeing the look of disgust on his face as he tried to "be normal." The idea that he can't enlist to defend the Constitution because of fear-mongering repulses me.

Is homosexual promiscuity a dangerous game? You betcha. So why doesn't the government fight to for the right of men to join together in a legally binding, monogamous way? Damn those gay men and all the havoc they've caused to us straights!

[afchic]

I agree with you and I think the argument being made is regarding more the action vs the attraction. It seems to me people are born with varying sexual inclinations. Some of them are outside the scope of what most would consider moral. The problem is, that line is very hard to define, and an argument can be made that widening the range of what is acceptable may cause greater risk to society. I happen to be of the belief that homosexual activity is outside the lines of what is moral. I realize many people disagree. The problem seems to be that the moral compass is a lot more complex than the magnetic one.

I hope I have not strayed too far out of my lane.

How is an act between two consenting adults immoral? I brough this up before, oral sex between members of the opposite sex is seen as immoral, hence why there are so many laws on the books forbidding it. Anal sex between members of the opposite sex are seen as immoral, hence why there are so many laws against it. Having sex with a woman on her menstrual cycle is immoral behavior.

When I was growing up, and just about every kid I knew growing up, had sex outside the bounds of matrimony, which is immoral. Having sex in any position than the missionary positon is immoral.

Why is it ok for heterosexuals to act in an immoral fashion, but we scream, rant and rave when it is homosexuals doing it? The biblical verses that are used to state the "immorality" of homosexuality reference heterosexual behavior as well.

If you (in general, not you specifically) can honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say that you have never participated in one of the acts I have outlined above, then maybe you have a case for the morality argument. If you can't, then I propose that the morality of the act be left out of the argument, and we focus on the more here and now arguments of integrating homosexuals into the military, openly, the physical risks associated, etc...

[GratefulCitizen]

Call me an old fashioned young person, but being a homosexual is immoral. I believe it is a choice. All people have "urges" to contend with everyday: Lying, stealing, or cheating for example. It's the decision one makes of whether or not to fulfill that urge that makes them a moral or immoral person. There have been times in my life when I wanted to drive a car through someones front door, but I don't do it because it's wrong (and because I don't want to go to federal pound me in the ass prison). One of the military's cornerstones is morality. Its obvious that our society, or at least the people who think they run our society, is placing a lower and lower value on moral standards. Both sad and frustrating.

This is flame-bait.

What does the morality/immorality of these acts have to do with suitability for service.

There are many arguments for/against.
Not sure that the morality/immorality is one of them.

MOO. YMMV.

[The Reaper]

Directly from the CDC website on the 2009 HIV statistics:

High risk heterosexual contact: 4, 011 cases

I'm not sure you can consider that statistically insignificant. And really, I was speaking about DADT in general, not specifically SF.

That is an aggregate number of male and female participants.

Research I have seen leads me to believe that the infections are overwhelmingly female, and mostly transmitted from a much smaller number of bisexual males.

Have you ever served in the military?


BREAK

Brian, just saw your post.

As a brother QP, you are certainly entitled to express an opinion here, as am I.

I will focus on the regulations as I understand and obey them, and share the information I have without namecalling or impugning the integrity or motives of you personally.

In my 25 years of active service, I was in the military when the virus was discovered, and lived through the next 20 years or so while it evolved. I have seen several cases of HIV among active duty soldiers, almost every one was a gay/bisexual male. Most of them wound up being UCMJed after being ordered to refrain from engaging in unprotected sex, and subsequently infecting additional people.

Sickle Cell and alcoholism are not normally lethal, nor transmissible to others without their knowledge.

FWIW, recent surveys indicate that the number of homosexual males engaging in high-risk activities have increased, rather than decreasing as people would logically attempt to protect themselves once educated. I have no idea why people would engage in this sort of self-destructive behavior. I will leave the whys to someone else.

Maybe I am missing something, but who is keeping gay men from forming monogamous relationships? Wouldn't that be the province of the two people involved?

If the lesbian in the OP had kept her private life private, she would still be happily in the service.

TR

[Pete]

.....The idea that he can't enlist to defend the Constitution because of fear-mongering repulses me. .......

And thats the rub in this whole situation.

Because there is nothing that stops him from serving under DADT.

This isssue is not about serving - it is about accepting the gay life style as normal.

Gays will become another protected minority in the military. In the future all promotion lists will have to be scrubbed to insure they have the proper quota of black, women and gays.

[greenberetTFS]

That's my point, it is just the way it is, not a choice as far as I am concerned. I agree that there are many lesbians that may choose to be lesbian due to issues with men. With that being said, I still think a vast majoirty of homosexuals are "born" that way, and it is no more a choice to them, than being heterosexual is a choice to us. It is what it is

Sorry but I don't think so,I believe it's a "choice",they just don't want to accept that!!!!!......:(:(:(

Big Teddy :munchin

[Richard]

Sorry but I don't think so,I believe it's a "choice",they just don't want to accept that!

More recent scientific human development studies say otherwise.

Richard

[akv]

As a civilian, I don't know if the Vet Voice Foundation is credible. The description sounds like a worthwhile organization. In the absence of direct experience it's probably best to defer to the BTDT vets on this topic, however if the enclosed studies are credible, and do reflect the views of our young soldiers, what does this mean for the US Military going forward? Also, it doesn't seem to differentiate between vets and combat vets.


Bi-Partisan Poll Of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets on Don't Ask Don't Tell


To: Vet Voice Foundation
From: Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint, Inc.
Re: Results From Recent Research among Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans on Don't Ask, Don't Tell*
Date: March 15, 2010

A recent survey conducted among military personnel who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars shows that by six points Iraq and Afghanistan veterans under age 35 lean toward favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly (41% favor to 35% oppose) while veterans over age 35 lean toward opposing by five points (31% favor, 36% oppose). This recent bipartisan survey, conducted among service members in the United States, in many ways runs counter to the idea being asserted by many, that service members and the military cannot handle this change and are unwilling to do so, There is widespread agreement among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on three core principles: that veterans are comfortable around gay and lesbian people, that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service members' ability to perform their duties, and that, ultimately, these veterans would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly.

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member's ability to perform their duties. Overall, 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans agree with that statement, including 42% who strongly agree. Only 29% disagree. Two-thirds of those veterans under age 35 agree (66%) with that statement, including almost half (47%) who strongly agree. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans over age 35 also agree (57% agree, 40% strongly). Agreement also extends across the branches of service, including 64% of Air Force veterans, 59% of Army and Marines veterans, and 58% of Navy veterans. It is clear from a policy standpoint that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member's ability to perform their duties.

An overwhelming majority of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. Seven in ten (73%) say it is acceptable, including 42% who say it would be acceptable and 31% who would find it acceptable even though they would not like it. Only a quarter (25%) would find it unacceptable. Generational differences exist here as well, but they are not as dramatic as conventional wisdom might indicate. Forty-seven percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans under age 35 find it acceptable and would like the policy change and another 30% find it acceptable and do not like it, for a total of 77% who find it personally acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. Seventy percent of veterans over age 35 would find it acceptable and only a quarter would find it unacceptable (26%).

In total, 81% of those in the Air Force, 78% of those in the Navy, 67% of those in the Army, and 68% of those in the Marines would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. Half of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from the Navy (54%), half of those from the Air Force (50%), and a plurality of those from the Army (37%) find it acceptable without reservations; and while the Marines are less accepting without reservation (25%), a plurality would find it acceptable but would not like it (43%).

The notion that today's military members are uncomfortable around gay and lesbian people is unfounded; the data prove it is untrue. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Seven in ten Iraq and Afghanistan veterans (73%) are personally comfortable, including 37% who are very comfortable. Only a quarter (23%) is uncomfortable, and hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%). Notably, younger Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are more comfortable overall (80%) and show increased intensity around the issue (41% are very comfortable). Older Iraq and Afghanistan veterans also express comfort (69% overall, 35% very comfortable) but even among older veterans, very few are very uncomfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian people (only 7%). At least seven in ten veterans who served in Iraq of Afghanistan from across the branches say they are comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians: Air Force 78%, Navy 73%, Army 70%, and Marines 69%.

As mentioned, younger veterans lean toward favoring allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve openly while older veterans lean toward opposing the change, but there is little intensity in either direction. It is just simply not a burning issue that overwhelms these veterans' lives. Thirty-four percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans favor allowing openly gay and lesbian women to serve in the military, 36% oppose it, and another third (30%) are not sure (28%) or do not know (2%). A quarter is strongly in favor of allowing gay and lesbian people to serve, and 29% are strongly opposed. By six points, veterans under age 35 favor open service (41% favor, 35% oppose) including 28% who strongly favor it; while by a similar five points, veterans over age 35 oppose it (31% favor, 36% oppose). By twelve points veterans in the Air Force favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly, while those in the Navy (+1) and Army (-4) split. Veterans from the Marines are against it (-17).

In summary, an overwhelming majority of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable around gay and lesbian people, believe that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member's ability to perform their duties, and would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. Any notion that ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell would disrupt the military or that service members would be unwilling to meet the change is debunked.

* Methods: Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached a total of 510 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and/or Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The survey was conducted February 8-23, 2010. Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/new?id=0002

[BrianH]

Brian, just saw your post.

As a brother QP, you are certainly entitled to express an opinion here, as am I.

I will focus on the regulations as I understand and obey them, and share the information I have without namecalling or impugning the integrity or motives of you personally.

In my 25 years of active service, I was in the military when the virus was discovered, and lived through the next 20 years or so while it evolved. I have seen several cases of HIV among active duty soldiers, almost every one was a gay/bisexual male. Most of them wound up being UCMJed after being ordered to refrain from engaging in unprotected sex, and subsequently infecting additional people.

Sickle Cell and alcoholism are not normally lethal, nor transmissible to others without their knowledge.

FWIW, recent surveys indicate that the number of homosexual males engaging in high-risk activities have increased, rather than decreasing as people would logically attempt to protect themselves once educated. I have no idea why people would engage in this sort of self-destructive behavior. I will leave the whys to someone else.

Maybe I am missing something, but who is keeping gay men from forming monogamous relationships? Wouldn't that be the province of the two people involved?

TR
I've seen two brother SF Native Americans die of alcoholism in the past four years.

Gay men have begun to fall into a self-destructive cycle. In many ways, the hatred against gays is harder on the gays than other race related bigotry simply because so much of it stems from a total lack of understanding about why a person would be gay. I would not deny that there are men out there who choose to be gay in order to find some solace in group identity (in the same vein, there are many who profess belief in God just to join a church). However, virtually all of the gay men I've met would've given their left arm during adolescence to be straight. When they finally did build up the courage to come out of the closet, they were bombarded with slurs from the ignorant about the "choice" they've made. Nobody can argue that a black man chooses to be black, but somehow hatred is easier if we can justify our beliefs by telling ourselves that those we hate have a "choice" in the matter. It is really hard for a suburban white kid to like himself when everyone at his church tells him that he is a vile, evil creature that is headed straight for oblivion.

All of the anti-gay rhetoric I've read on this thread is nothing new, though. Every single one of these arguments was made against blacks until the 1960's. Disease transmission, lecherous activity around white women, poor leadership because of genetics, difficult integration with the rest of the fighting forces... etc. etc. Flag Officers are quoted as saying that the black man will be the death of the modern American fighting force as late as WWII.

Thankfully, we (and especially our children) can look back and ask ourselves how other smart Americans could have been so foolish to believe such nonsense. I believe that in 30-40 years time, my grandchildren will look back and read about this time in history and wonder what all the fuss was about.

If the lesbian in the OP had kept her private life private, she would still be happily in the service.
If only you would apply that across all walks of life. The government mandates a separation of church and state, something that I believe the military's insistence on hiring chaplains violates. As an atheist, I'd rather not have to listen to religious propaganda in my workplace, but I understand that people's right to religious freedoms is one of the things I have sworn to protect. Should I march on the Capital to try and get DADT laws written about religion in the military? Of course not. My oath is one to defend freedom, and the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be one's self.

DADT, if it exists, should apply to ALL sexuality. Joe is bragging about Suzy Q that he banged last week? Court-martial. Jim brings in an ultrasound of his baby, proving that he is heterosexual? Article 15.

That is nonsense, of course. But it is how the DADT policy looks through the eyes of a gay man. Oppression is all neat and find until it is you, or someone you love, being oppressed.

Land of the free.

[99meters]

More recent scientific human development studies say otherwise.

Richard

I gree with Big Teddy on this one, it's a choice.
Sex is not like eating or breathing, it's a desire/want not a need. As humans we have control over our wants and desires.
F@#k science (not directed at you Richard). When sience is done telling us there is a gene that causes men to like other men, it's going to tell us there is a gene that cause men to like little boys.

[BrianH]

I gree with Big Teddy on this one, it's a choice.
Sex is not like eating or breathing, it's a desire/want not a need. As humans we have control over our wants and desires.
F@#k science (not directed at you Richard). When sience is done telling us there is a gene that causes men to like other men, it's going to tell us there is a gene that cause men to like little boys.
Ah yes, screw science. Screw medical advancement, genomics, and stem cell research. Screw cell phones and the internet. Screw scanning tunneling electron microscopes. Screw the greatest standard of living man has ever known. Screw all that.

Saying sex is not a need is to show your ignorance as to why animals even exist in the first place. We are vessels, devised by DNA, to create copies of that DNA. Sex has been programmed into creatures as a basic need long before humans even existed.

Did you choose to like women, and make a conscious decision to be sexually attracted to women during adolescence? "Hmmm, who should I try to mate with..." Of course not. You are biologically programmed to be attracted to women, because mating is a necessity for survival.

So why do gay men, then, exist? Various outlying reproductive strategies have sprung up for thousands of years, and some--in small numbers--prove themselves to be successful enough to propagate (homosexuality being one). My brother had women throw themselves at him for years, and he slept with more than a few in his quest to be straight. Had it been 80 years ago, he would have probably gotten one pregnant, married her, and started a family. As I said before, I've met dozens of closeted men whose wife and children have no idea about their sexual orientation. Which is more disgusting: the man living a lie, or the man telling the truth?

That's the supreme irony of the anti-gay rights crowd: if gay men felt 100% comfortable with being open about their sexual preference, they wouldn't be having children and passing along the recessive gene.

[Pete]

Yeap, this thread is circling the toilet.

Anybody who is against gays serving openly is some kind of homophobic cave man who beats his wife because he thinks he might be gay.

All you pro gay folks just can't see the difference. It's all "our way or the highway". 100% in your face accept us or else.

And that is the difference about DADT and openly serving. You are gay and want to serve? Fine, join up under DADT and serve your little heart out. I've served with some I strongly suspected were gay, even before DADT, and it was not an issue with me. Why? Because they didn't make it an issue.

The who point of repealing DADT is to start the complete house of cards tumbling. The military is more fair than civilian life. In addition to gays becoming a protected minority and getting special treatment on the centralized promotion boards all the rules seen as discriminating agaist gays will be fought over and overturned - from marriage, finance and through the ARs. EO is going to have a field day - "The sergeant (fill in the blank) because I'm gay."

I like everybody being a soldier - I don't like protected groups getting special treatment. Repeal DADT and you get one more protected group with a big ax to grind.

[BrianH]

Yeap, this thread is circling the toilet.

Anybody who is against gays serving openly is some kind of homophobic cave man who beats his wife because he thinks he might be gay.

All you pro gay folks just can't see the difference. It's all "our way or the highway". 100% in your face accept us or else.

And that is the difference about DADT and openly serving. You are gay and want to serve? Fine, join up under DADT and serve your little heart out. I've served with some I strongly suspected were gay, even before DADT, and it was not an issue with me. Why? Because they didn't make it an issue.

I like everybody being a soldier - I don't like protected groups getting special treatment. Repeal DADT and you get one more protected group with a big ax to grind.
Just as I am against discrimination, I am also against preferential treatment. Of course there will be the outliers in the beginning that join the military as some sort of protest... there will always be those people right after a large change that they have been fighting for. Will it last forever? No. Is initial friction reason enough to rally against it?

I apologize the thread is "circling the drain" because of my opinion which differs from yours. Perhaps if you had an openly gay son who wanted to serve, you'd think differently.

As for it being "our way or the highway," I never said that gays should try to flaunt their sexuality. I don't believe heterosexuals should either. To kick someone out of the military who has otherwise served honorably, simply because they confided in a coworker? Preposterous.

[afchic]

I gree with Big Teddy on this one, it's a choice.
Sex is not like eating or breathing, it's a desire/want not a need. As humans we have control over our wants and desires.
F@#k science (not directed at you Richard). When sience is done telling us there is a gene that causes men to like other men, it's going to tell us there is a gene that cause men to like little boys.

And you know this how? Are you a geneticist, because I didn't see that in your intro.

[Pete]

.......I apologize the thread is "circling the drain" because of my opinion which differs from yours. Perhaps if you had an openly gay son who wanted to serve, you'd think differently. ......

If I had a son and if he wanted to serve I would explain the DADT policy and ask if he could serve under those rules. If he could - fine. If he couldn't - fine. His choice.

My wife's girlfriends from high school infest the Cary, NC area. All flamin' libs with tons of gay friends, mixed couple and singles. I find going to parties up there very interesting. Funny how a bunch of the libs just love to introduce them being sure to get "they're gay" worked into the intro somehow. In general conversation there is plenty of "digs" directed at the gays - well meaning I'm sure, kinda' like a red headed guy on the team, but far more than you would expect in general conversation. The gays tend to be the first to depart for the evening.

I find the dynamics of those parties very interesting.

So, if your son was in the Army and wanted to serve in SF but only had a GT score of 90 would you go on a crusade to change the reg's? After all, it's not his fault he only has a GT score of 90.

[The Reaper]

Just as I am against discrimination, I am also against preferential treatment. Of course there will be the outliers in the beginning that join the military as some sort of protest... there will always be those people right after a large change that they have been fighting for. Will it last forever? No. Is initial friction reason enough to rally against it?

I apologize the thread is "circling the drain" because of my opinion which differs from yours. Perhaps if you had an openly gay son who wanted to serve, you'd think differently.

As for it being "our way or the highway," I never said that gays should try to flaunt their sexuality. I don't believe heterosexuals should either. To kick someone out of the military who has otherwise served honorably, simply because they confided in a coworker? Preposterous.

Brian:

I don't think the thread is "circling the drain" because of your differing opinion as much as the vitriol you are attaching to it, and your personal attacks and generalizations of those who dare to disagree with you.

I don't have to agree with you, or explain my reasons for liking or disliking anyone. I can love or hate anyone I want to, just as you can. I just have to follow the rules just like everyone else, and treat people fairly IAW the regs.

Have to disagree with you about sex and reproduction as well. Gays make decisions, just like the rest of us. Gays can serve honorably as long as they are celibate, or discrete. That is the law right now. If you choose to flaunt your homosexuality (by publicly displaying a marriage certificate) in an environment with a DADT environment, you assume significant risk. It would appear that many gays are "in your face" with their sexual orientation. That is an anathema to unit cohesion and service to the greater good. Incidentally, most men choose to control their sexual urges every day. I am married and live in a monogamous relationship with my wife. I may see someone and find them physically attractive, but even if the feeling is mutual, as an adult in charge of my emotions and impulses, I choose not to act on it. Even so, I keep my personal business personal.

Also disagree with your use of the popular homosexual defense equating race with sexual orientation. Not the same, not going to be. IMHO, it is a lifestyle choice that cannot be equated with the color of someone's skin. Maybe it is in the wiring. Doesn't mean that you have to wear assless chaps in public, swap spit with your partner, and shout profanities at straight people.

If we were to go to a system which requires acceptance of homosexual service members, I would quickly expect the system to be overloaded with discrimination and EO claims as people try to get ahead. I would expect that the "outliers" you reference and their attorneys would quickly disrupt the system and destroy any semblance of good order and discipline. I personally do not feel that the social feel-good benefits of allowing gays to serve openly would, in any way, make up for the disruption that it would cause.

There are more than enough problems with two genders in the military. I do not want to see how complicated it gets when we add two (or more) additional ones. I do believe that I should not be forced to change or shower with someone who might view me as a sexual object, unless you are willing to eliminate all gender discrimination and segregation.

Judging from the pictures I have seen from gay pride celebrations, if things change, Veteran's Day parades are about to take on a whole new, non-G rated flavor.

In closing, as a professional courtesy among fellow QPs, I would ask that you stop calling those who disagree with you names and implying ill-motives to them. They are entitled to their beliefs and the expression of them, just as you are. Disagreeing with someone does not make them a bad person.

TR

[frostfire]

Saying sex is not a need is to show your ignorance as to why animals even exist in the first place. We are vessels, devised by DNA, to create copies of that DNA. Sex has been programmed into creatures as a basic need long before humans even existed.
I'm no geneticist, just an over-educated-trained caveman. IMHOO, a need is something one can't live without. Food, water, oxygen are examples of needs. I may need to get out more and see the world, but I don't think celibacy equals suicide. Yes, there's the drive to procreate. That is nature. However, there's a reason why humans are often called "advanced" animals. In addition to nature and nurture, we are endowed with choice: will and desire. Choice can (and often should) override nature and nurture.

Interesting point on closet homosexuals propagating the genes though. I've never thought of it before. Thanks for sharing.


F@#k science (not directed at you Richard). When sience is done telling us there is a gene that causes men to like other men, it's going to tell us there is a gene that cause men to like little boys.

I'll be the last to say f*** science. I've been conditioned with and earned a living by it for far too long. As a medical professional, I've also dealt with ambiguous genitalia, other "interesting" cases and have to question my personal view on sexual orientation and choice. Having said that, "I'm just born that way" is a slippery slope when it comes to pedophiles. Hey, they got rights to pursue their "happiness" too. You may not care until the registered offender is your child's bus driver, teacher, neighbor, etc.

[PedOncoDoc]

Having said that, "I'm just born that way" is a slippery slope when it comes to pedophiles. Hey, they got rights to pursue their "happiness" too. You may not care until the registered offender is your child's bus driver, teacher, neighbor, etc.

Agree with the above - but I see a big difference between an adult having sexual relations with a child and consensual sex between 2 adults (regardless of their gender/gender identity/sexual orientation). That argument holds no water here.

I would hope/expect discretion regardless of sexual orientation would be the norm for the SF community. Forgive me for talking out of my lane here, but I believe a lascivious heterosexual who couldn't control his urges in his day-to-day activities would be a big liability to a team.

[BrianH]

Brian:

I don't think the thread is "circling the drain" because of your differing opinion as much as the vitriol you are attaching to it, and your personal attacks and generalizations of those who dare to disagree with you.

I don't have to agree with you, or explain my reasons for liking or disliking anyone. I can love or hate anyone I want to, just as you can. I just have to follow the rules just like everyone else, and treat people fairly IAW the regs.

Have to disagree with you about sex and reproduction as well. Gays make decisions, just like the rest of us. Gays can serve honorably as long as they are celibate, or discrete. That is the law right now. If you choose to flaunt your homosexuality (by publicly displaying a marriage certificate) in an environment with a DADT environment, you assume significant risk. It would appear that many gays are "in your face" with their sexual orientation. That is an anathema to unit cohesion and service to the greater good. Incidentally, most men choose to control their sexual urges every day. I am married and live in a monogamous relationship with my wife. I may see someone and find them physically attractive, but even if the feeling is mutual, as an adult in charge of my emotions and impulses, I choose not to act on it. Even so, I keep my personal business personal.

Also disagree with your use of the popular homosexual defense equating race with sexual orientation. Not the same, not going to be. IMHO, it is a lifestyle choice that cannot be equated with the color of someone's skin. Maybe it is in the wiring. Doesn't mean that you have to wear assless chaps in public, swap spit with your partner, and shout profanities at straight people.

If we were to go to a system which requires acceptance of homosexual service members, I would quickly expect the system to be overloaded with discrimination and EO claims as people try to get ahead. I would expect that the "outliers" you reference and their attorneys would quickly disrupt the system and destroy any semblance of good order and discipline. I personally do not feel that the social feel-good benefits of allowing gays to serve openly would, in any way, make up for the disruption that it would cause.

There are more than enough problems with two genders in the military. I do not want to see how complicated it gets when we add two (or more) additional ones. I do believe that I should not be forced to change or shower with someone who might view me as a sexual object, unless you are willing to eliminate all gender discrimination and segregation.

Judging from the pictures I have seen from gay pride celebrations, if things change, Veteran's Day parades are about to take on a whole new, non-G rated flavor.

In closing, as a professional courtesy among fellow QPs, I would ask that you stop calling those who disagree with you names and implying ill-motives to them. They are entitled to their beliefs and the expression of them, just as you are. Disagreeing with someone does not make them a bad person.

TR
It is no secret that this is a personal topic that I take seriously. I re-read all of my posts, and could not find one instance where I called anyone a name of any sort. I have accused others of scientific ignorance, and I apologize for any ill will. I do not believe they are bad people, just as I do not believe that Thomas Jefferson was a bad person because he owned slaves, or Charles Darwin, or any other great men with beliefs that history has proven to be grossly misguided.

My vitriol stems from individuals making large sweeping generalizations about a group of people based on the images they see on the news and not personal experiences. It "appears" that many gays are in your face because the ones that ARE in your face, of course, are the ones that wish to be. The other, far vaster amount are normal citizens who wish nothing more than to conduct themselves with dignity and in peace. For every Richard Simmons, there are many more Anderson Coopers. Judging heterosexuality based on images of Mardi Gras or Carnivale would not be a fair assessment, either.

You enjoyed the freedom to be married and raise a family while a member of the armed services, and like you said, according to regulations right now, that right is not afforded to a homosexual. The constitution I swore to defend states that all men are created equal, and I know that this is where you and I differ. You believe that gay men like my brother were somehow deranged and perverted as children or adults into an alternative lifestyle of their choosing, and any penalties that come from this decision are well-earned.

On this last point, I'll respectfully disagree.

EDIT: I missed the part you wrote about the "social feel-good benefits." Those benefits, sir, are personal liberty. Also, the "destroy any semblance of order" argument was certainly the most oft-quoted with regards to blacks in the military, and yet, the nation's defense still stood strong. I totally, 100% agree that there will be growing pains. Suits will be filed. EO officers will deal with complaints. But then, after all the dust is settled, we can chalk up another "win" mark on America's board of equality, the track record of which is one of the things that makes our country so very great.

So, if your son was in the Army and wanted to serve in SF but only had a GT score of 90 would you go on a crusade to change the reg's? After all, it's not his fault he only has a GT score of 90.
No, I wouldn't. I would encourage him to study and to retake the test if that was truly his desire. If he wasn't intelligent enough to serve, I would be disappointed, but I cannot change nature. However, he could still serve in the military honorably as an 11B (or anything else his score would allow). SF may have not been in the cards for him (as it isn't for many people), but his failure to not score 90 would not put him in danger of prison or a dishonorable discharge.

Agree with the above - but I see a big difference between an adult having sexual relations with a child and consensual sex between 2 adults (regardless of their gender/gender identity/sexual orientation). That argument holds no water here.
The "slippery slope" of homosexuality to pedophilia is one of my favorite straw man arguments. I agree with you completely: there is a bright, solid line between the actions of consenting adults and people who thrive on victimization.

[Masochist]

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58476


Pentagon Changes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Enforcement

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael J. Carden
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2010 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today announced changes to the Pentagon’s regulation on homosexuals serving in the military that he said make the Defense Department’s enforcement of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law “fairer and more appropriate.”

On Feb. 2, Gates announced he’d ordered a review to understand the implications of a possible repeal of the 17-year-old law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. President Barack Obama has called on Congress to repeal the law.

The initial 45 days of that review, he said, produced findings that “would enforce the existing law in a fairer and more appropriate manner” and are supported by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen and Vice Chairman Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright and the service chiefs.

“Today, I have approved a series of changes to the implementation of the current statute,” Gates told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. “They were developed with full participation of the department’s senior civilian and military leadership, and the changes are unanimously supported by Chairman Mullen, Vice Chairman Cartwright and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

The changes include:

-- Only a general or flag officer may separate an enlisted member believed at the conclusion of an investigation to have engaged in homosexual conduct. Under previous policy, a colonel -- or for a captain in the Navy and Coast Guard – could order separation.

-- A revision in what’s needed to begin an inquiry or a separation proceeding. Information provided by a third party now must be given under oath, “discouraging the use of overheard statements and hearsay,” Gates said.

-- Certain categories of confidential information -- such as information provided to lawyers, clergy and psychotherapists -- no longer will be used in support of discharges. Information provided to medical personnel in furtherance of treatment, or to a public-health official in the course of seeing professional assistance for domestic or physical abuse also is excluded, as well as information obtained in the process of security-clearance investigations, in accordance with existing Pentagon policies.

“These changes reflect some of the insights we have gained over 17 years of implementing the current law, including the need for consistency, oversight and clear standards,” the secretary said. “I believe these changes represent an important improvement in the way the current law is put into practice -- above all, by providing a greater measure of common sense and common decency to a process for handling what are difficult and complex issues for all involved.”

The military services have 30 days to conform their regulations to the changes. The new policies, however, took effect immediately upon Gates’ announcement, meaning that they apply to all open cases, he said.

“All separations from this point forward will take place under the revised regulations,” he said. “As of my signature, every case that is currently still open will be dealt with under these new regulations. So, they will be reinitiated by a flag-rank officer.”

The intent for open, ongoing investigations is not to restart the proceedings, but to carry them forward with regard to the types of information allowed in the new policy, he said.

“As far as the services are concerned, every case that is open as of this morning will be reinitiated and evaluated under the new regulations that I’ve just set forth,” Gates said.

The secretary also stressed that the policy changes are not an attempt to change the law, but rather to be prepared to offer Congress reliable information should the law be repealed.

The Pentagon’s top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, head Gates’ working group charged with studying the potential implications of the law’s repeal. The panel will report its findings by Dec. 1. The group will spend the next several months traveling to military installations to learn how servicemembers and families will react to a potential repeal.

“There is a great deal we don’t know about this [potential repeal of the law] in terms of the views of our servicemembers, in terms of the views of their families and influencers,” Gates said. “There is a lot we have to address in terms of what would be required in the way of changed regulations. There are a lot of unanswered questions in terms of the implementation of this proposed change.

“We need to do this thoroughly and professionally,” he continued. “We need to do this right, and I think doing it hastily is very risky and does not address some of the concerns that have been expressed by the chiefs of staff of the services, and a number of questions that have been raised.”

Biographies:
Robert M. Gates (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=115)
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen (http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=9)

Related Sites:
Transcript: Gates' Remarks (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1436)
Terms of Reference for Review (http://www.defense.gov/news/CRTOR.pdf)

Related Articles:
Gates Issues Terms of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Review
(http://www.defense.gov/news/CRTOR.pdf)Gates Appoints Panel for Potential End to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=57835)

[Sigaba]

Entire post.IMO, your comments do more to validate Freud than to vindicate Aristotle.

[greenberetTFS]

Brian:

I don't think the thread is "circling the drain" because of your differing opinion as much as the vitriol you are attaching to it, and your personal attacks and generalizations of those who dare to disagree with you.

I don't have to agree with you, or explain my reasons for liking or disliking anyone. I can love or hate anyone I want to, just as you can. I just have to follow the rules just like everyone else, and treat people fairly IAW the regs.

Have to disagree with you about sex and reproduction as well. Gays make decisions, just like the rest of us. Gays can serve honorably as long as they are celibate, or discrete. That is the law right now. If you choose to flaunt your homosexuality (by publicly displaying a marriage certificate) in an environment with a DADT environment, you assume significant risk. It would appear that many gays are "in your face" with their sexual orientation. That is an anathema to unit cohesion and service to the greater good. Incidentally, most men choose to control their sexual urges every day. I am married and live in a monogamous relationship with my wife. I may see someone and find them physically attractive, but even if the feeling is mutual, as an adult in charge of my emotions and impulses, I choose not to act on it. Even so, I keep my personal business personal.

Also disagree with your use of the popular homosexual defense equating race with sexual orientation. Not the same, not going to be. IMHO, it is a lifestyle choice that cannot be equated with the color of someone's skin. Maybe it is in the wiring. Doesn't mean that you have to wear assless chaps in public, swap spit with your partner, and shout profanities at straight people.

If we were to go to a system which requires acceptance of homosexual service members, I would quickly expect the system to be overloaded with discrimination and EO claims as people try to get ahead. I would expect that the "outliers" you reference and their attorneys would quickly disrupt the system and destroy any semblance of good order and discipline. I personally do not feel that the social feel-good benefits of allowing gays to serve openly would, in any way, make up for the disruption that it would cause.

There are more than enough problems with two genders in the military. I do not want to see how complicated it gets when we add two (or more) additional ones. I do believe that I should not be forced to change or shower with someone who might view me as a sexual object, unless you are willing to eliminate all gender discrimination and segregation.

Judging from the pictures I have seen from gay pride celebrations, if things change, Veteran's Day parades are about to take on a whole new, non-G rated flavor.

In closing, as a professional courtesy among fellow QPs, I would ask that you stop calling those who disagree with you names and implying ill-motives to them. They are entitled to their beliefs and the expression of them, just as you are. Disagreeing with someone does not make them a bad person.

TR

Here,here TR!!!!!........:D Well stated,wish I could have said it myself...........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[greenberetTFS]

I'm watching ABC evening news at this moment and Congress has just announced that they are definitely going to address the DADT and will allow the men,women to give their sexual preference without fear of getting discharged!!!!!!!!!.....:(:mad::(

Big Teddy :munchin

[Box]

so can I now be openly heterosexual..........

I cant wait to tell the guys at work how much I like breasts and not worry about getting called out over it or disciplined because I just want everyone to know how much I like breasts.


...for real, I like breasts and I am tired of hiding it!

[orion5]

What? What? Did someone call Hannie? :D


LOL Billy...

[greenberetTFS]

O5, forgive an old fart but I really have a hard time getting past your avatar...... :D:D:D

Big Teddy :munchin

[Roguish Lawyer]

In many ways, the hatred against gays is harder on the gays than other race related bigotry simply because so much of it stems from a total lack of understanding about why a person would be gay. I would not deny that there are men out there who choose to be gay in order to find some solace in group identity (in the same vein, there are many who profess belief in God just to join a church). However, virtually all of the gay men I've met would've given their left arm during adolescence to be straight. When they finally did build up the courage to come out of the closet, they were bombarded with slurs from the ignorant about the "choice" they've made. Nobody can argue that a black man chooses to be black, but somehow hatred is easier if we can justify our beliefs by telling ourselves that those we hate have a "choice" in the matter. It is really hard for a suburban white kid to like himself when everyone at his church tells him that he is a vile, evil creature that is headed straight for oblivion.


I think BrianH is a brave guy and I'm proud of him for defending his brother, so I'm going to come out of the closet and support him. Well, not like you may be thinking! (Jerks . . .)

I too have known a lot of gays and lesbians, and I am completely convinced based on my discussions with some of them that sexual orientation is not a choice. It's genetic. You can be born gay just like you can be born blind or with any other atypical condition (which some may view as better or worse than the typical), and I think it's wrong to punish people for being that way without a good reason. This makes me more sympathetic to gay rights than most conservatives, although as confirmed below I'm not supportive of the entire gay rights agenda.

Constitutional rights are never absolute and the government's ability to infringe them depends on a lot of factors, including which right you are talking about and the circumstances under which the right is being undermined. The military is one environment (schools are another) in which the courts repeatedly have held that rights can be more easily infringed. The idea is that the military protects the nation, and therefore we should largely subordinate individual rights to the critically important government objective of maintaining good order and discipline.

There is no constitutional right to serve in the military or hold any other job. People who weigh 500 lbs can't serve either. As for equal protection, the question is what level of scrutiny should be applied here (the "strict scrutiny" test used for race discrimination cases allows infringement only for a "compelling" government interest, while the "rational basis test" used for weight discrimination just requires that the government interest not be irrational; there also is "intermediate scrutiny" in between) and how important the government's interest is.

I think TR and others make a good case for a government interest which would permit banning gays and lesbians from the military entirely, particularly because I doubt strict scrutiny would be applied in a military setting. However, at least some of the same types of arguments were made in opposition to racial integration, and those arguments proved to be wrong. I think the pro-gay argument overstates how similar the arguments are, but they do score points here.

Outside the military setting, it becomes much more difficult in my opinion to allow hiring discrimination against gays. You definitely need a good reason for allowing the discrimination, and once you accept that being gay is not a choice, it gets awfully tough.

Just my two cents. YMMV.

[Peregrino]

What? What? Did someone call Hannie? :D
...

That's one way to go from stealth mode to "in your face"! :munchin

[afchic]

I'm watching ABC evening news at this moment and Congress has just announced that they are definitely going to address the DADT and will allow the men,women to give their sexual preference without fear of getting discharged!!!!!!!!!.....:(:mad::(

Big Teddy :munchin

So I guess those of us that are leaders in the military are going to have to address this issue with our troops, and follow orders, just like we do with all other orders that are imposed upon us by the civilians that run the country. If you don't like it, as we are all so fond of saying"vote with your feet".

I for one feel that strong leadership is going to be needed in all the services to address this issue. And like other issues before us, you either decide you are going to follow the orders of the commander and chief, even if you don't agree with them, because like it or not this is not a lawful order debate,or you won't and you will depart the service honorably. And either option is fine with me. I applaud anyone that has the moral courage to stand up for what they believe in, and suffer the consequences of that decision, even if I don't hold the same belief.

[Richard]

All right...who told!

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[JAGO]

IMOO - it's a done deal. The MSM working w/ the admin are "on message". That message: Virtually all in the military are 'on board' with repeal of DADT.
Orders out to all - keep your mouth shut.

v/r
phil

Remember when the MSM was in love with CSA Shinseki for saying it would take 100,000 troops? Remember when the MSM was in love with all the retired Gens criticizing SECDEF Rumsfeld?

This is what it has come to.......God help us and this once great country.



http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68911


Pentagon rebukes general for opposing repeal of 'don’t ask, don’t tell' law
By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes
Online Edition, Thursday, March 25, 2010

Stars and Stripes
Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon surveying multinational participants at Cobra Gold 2009, in Thailand.
Lt. Gen. Mixon's letter ...

Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Monday, March 8, 2010

Let your views be known

The recent commentaries on the adverse effects of repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy were insightful.

It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon
Fort Shafter, Hawaii
ARLINGTON, Va. – Defense Secretary Robert Gates sharply reprimanded the three-star general who commands the U.S. Army in the Pacific on Thursday for publicly advocating against the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law restricting gays in the military.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further, suggesting that Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon should consider resigning over comments he made in a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes earlier this month.

In that March 8 letter calling on troops and their families to fight a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, Mixon wrote: “I suspect many service members, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen's desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

“Now is the time,” Mixon added, “to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.”

Gates and Mullen denounced Mixon’s letter during a Pentagon press conference.

“I think that for an active duty officer to comment on an issue like this is inappropriate,” said Gates.

"I feel the same way and actually it is being addressed inside the chain of command in the Army,” Mullen added. “I’ve spoken specifically to [U.S. Army chief of staff] Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., about this. And Gen. Mixon specifically is – the issue is being addressed with him."

Mixon, reached via email Thursday, would not comment on the matter. "You will have to address all your questions to Army (public affairs)," he said.

In recent testimony before Congress, other senior military officials have publicly opposed repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which Congress and the Pentagon are now reviewing following President Barack Obama’s expressed desire to see it eliminated. Under the law, gays are forbidden from openly serving in the armed forces.

"I think the current policy works," Gen. James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told Congress in February. "My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."

"I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for 8 1/2 years," Casey said in testimony to Congress. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness."

But Gates and Mullen suggested Thursday that Mixon’s offense had been speaking out about the policy after commanders were specifically ordered not to do so.
Mullen said the Army had given officers “very specific direction” in written form following Gates’ announcement of his intent to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

"I think as a three-star leader in command, by virtue of just that position alone he has great influence,” Mullen said. “And all of us in uniform are obliged to certainly follow the direction of leadership, right up to the president.”

Mullen added: “There’s an expectation that you would comply with that. And in the end, if there is either policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with…and you feel so strongly about it, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet. And that’s what all of us in a position of leadership, I think, have to conform to.”

Asked by reporters if Mixon should leave the military, Mullen said: “That’s a decision that would certainly be up to him.”

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.military.com/news/article/conway-concerned-with-gays-in-barracks.html?ESRC=eb.nl

BMT

[JAGO]

I wonder if the Chairman will go after CMC Conway the same as he is with Gen Mixon?

IIRC we always had the right to vote in elections, always had the right to write our congressman, always had the right to go to the IG, and so long as we didn't violate classified/opsec, we had a first amendment right to write our newspaper?

Gen Mixon did not tell his soldiers what to say, only urged them to let their feelings be known. He had been ordered not to do that. :mad:

I don't think anybody in the press was beating the drum for former CSA Shinseki to vote with his feet - IIRC he hung on to the very bitter end?

v/r
phil

[Richard]

I think the GEN knew exactly what he was doing and wrote that letter for very specific reasons. A more neutral letter on his part which the SecDef might not exactly like but could do little about would be something more along the line of the following:

It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the current "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy. However, based on my many conversations with commanders, soldiers, and families, I am not sure whether that is an accurate point of view but would not want to presume speaking for others on such an important issue.

I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering just how to be heard on this issue of repealing a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

To this end, I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we, as Americans, have a constitutionally guaranteed right to be heard, and can do so by writing our elected officials, chain of command, and newsmedia to express our personal views - whatever they may be.

If you are in favor of retaining the current policy, speak up; and if you favor its repeal, speak up for that, too. Remember, it is you right to do so.

As it stands - I would say LTG Mixon is fixing to retire pretty soon.

Richard

[Dozer523]

Man and Man on island, woman and man on island, woman and woman on island.I rest my case. All movies I'd watch. One's a Crosby and Hope "On the Road" flick.
The other two are "not again" porn. Not that, that's a bad thing.

[Surgicalcric]

As it stands - I would say LTG Mixon is fixing to retire pretty soon.

Richard

Unfortunately I think you are right Brother.

And so it goes, amongst politicians.

Crip

[Peregrino]

If they're forcing the Army to accept open homosexuals, does that mean the Navy will have to allow open heterosexuals to serve? :munchin

[greenberetTFS]

Man and Man on island, woman and man on island, woman and woman on island.

I rest my case.

Woman and woman on island,where can I rent the movie?............;););)

Big Teddy :munchin

[brown77]

What? What? Did someone call Hannie? :D



(Seeing as we're on the subject) I'm about as straight as they come, but girlfriend... your new avatar is even throwing me off balance! ;)

[Richard]

Maybe we should consider Don't Tell - Won't Ask.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Danimal18C]

I love it how any deviant behavior or counter-culture can use the scientific cop out. I should probably look into becoming a polygamist, since I am genetically disposed to love women, and I am oppressing my scientific make up by confining myself to one women.

Homosexuality is nothing more than a fetish. It's only in a terribly insecure culture like ours, do people want to justify their behavior by seeking recognition or compensation for it.

If they lift the ban on open gay BEHAVIOR, then I better get to shower with women... there were some pretty attractive girls on the FOB in A-stan.

[BrianH]

I love it how any deviant behavior or counter-culture can use the scientific cop out. I should probably look into becoming a polygamist, since I am genetically disposed to love women, and I am oppressing my scientific make up by confining myself to one women.

Homosexuality is nothing more than a fetish. It's only in a terribly insecure culture like ours, do people want to justify their behavior by seeking recognition or compensation for it.

If they lift the ban on open gay BEHAVIOR, then I better get to shower with women... there were some pretty attractive girls on the FOB in A-stan.
It's very true: human animals by their nature are probably something closer to serial monogamists than true monogamists. The reverence (and sometimes, deification) of life partnership is something fairly new in our species, and followed soon after the advent of democracy*. If you desire to engage in sexual behavior with multiple women, that is your right, and nobody has the authority to tell you otherwise... unless you try to call your plural relationship "marriage."

Fetish:

1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

I'll assume that you mean "fetish" with regards to the fourth definition. If that's the case, you're right: it is a fetish. It is most certainly in the minority, making it abnormal, and I'd have trouble finding a male who didn't view sex with "obsessive attachment." Hell, in the end everything males do in life is somehow pursuant to getting laid. Some of those males were born with different wiring. I think it is the "terribly insecure" nature of our culture that allows ANTI-gay beliefs to propagate, not the other way around. Hell, we take our kids to movies that would make a Civil War veteran puke on himself, but God-forbid there be full frontal nudity. We hugely underestimate just how sexually repressed we still are, even after the sexual revolution of the sixties. Hell, we still pay a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money on abstinence-only sex education.

With regards to showering with women, allow me to pose a question: do you think that if you were allowed to shower with women overseas, in a combat environment, you would be unable to control your sexual desires? Do you think you would be capable of being professional enough to continue the mission? I'm almost certain the answer is yes. Unwanted sexual advances are banned by the military regardless of gender, and that won't change. Will there be problems? Of course. There are problems right now... with soldiers of both sexual preferences.

I'm a little shocked that men who are brave enough go on combat patrols into Sadr City cower at the thought of a gay man getting a glimpse at their ding-dong.

*Before the advent of Democracy, the ruling and upper class dominated the available women. Many rich men had harems, and since men and women are born at a near 1 for 1 rate, a large percentage of men had no chance of ever finding a mate; there simply weren't enough women to go around with the upper class hoarding so many. For women, it made better sense for the well-being of her children to be 5th wife to a wealthy man than 1st wife to a poor one. Only when the poor were allowed to be represented in government were harems and polygamy done away with.

[Gypsy]

I love it how any deviant behavior or counter-culture can use the scientific cop out. I should probably look into becoming a polygamist, since I am genetically disposed to love women, and I am oppressing my scientific make up by confining myself to one women.



I believe the correct classification would be a lesbian polygamist. :p :D

[greenberetTFS]

Maybe we should consider Don't Tell - Won't Ask.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,your one liners make me LMAO......:p As I've said before Jay Leno could use your talent.........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[Sigaba]

Jay Leno If he were to ask me, I'd tell Leno that he's not funny.

[Danimal18C]

Brian H,

My comments about polygamy were purely sarcastic. The point I was making is that in our society, polygamy is considered aberrant behavior, yet one could probably make the scientific suggestion that it is genetically supported by men's lust for women ( or vice versa) even when in committed relationships. There are a lot of people who cheat on their spouses... would that conclude to a "Cheating Gene?"

By defining Homosexuality as a fetish, you are right to assume I meant an abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment: a fixation. Fetishes are usually stimulated by some sort of behavior or environment. I saw on some late night cable show a story about people who have "Horse Fetishes" for lack of a better definition. These people dress up in typical fetish clothing (leather, chains) but wear saddles and bridles in their mouths when engaging in sexual activities. Now, to most people this would appear strange... really strange, but to these people, it sexually excites them, and usually is the only way they can find sexual pleasure. Now I doubt these people have developed "horse genes" because their great-great grandfather in 1890 spent a lot of time "brushing his horses out in the barn." They weren't born to have some sexual disposition to like pretending to be horses. If anything, it was through some kinky experimentation that lead to their fascination with it. I've heard Homosexuals make the similar claims about their arousal. That they are only "Attracted" to members of the same sex...most homosexuals only admit to themselves that they are gay after experimenting.... sounds a lot like the dude who put a pair of reigns in his mouth... and liked it.

I've always believed in nurture over nature. Science is studying the possibility of genetic involvement with sexuality, but have yet to discover a Rainbow colored Allele on someone's chromosomes that makes them Gay. A great example of scientific evidence that does not support genetic dispositions to sexuality is Twin Studies. Scientists have studied sets of Identical twins, who have very very close sets of genetic patterns, but one is openly homosexual, the other is Heterosexual. I have an Identical twin brother, and while both of us are Heterosexual, we both have very different concepts of attraction. I don't believe I was born Heterosexual. Now, in Darwin's concept of Fitness, I believe most creatures on earth have a desire to procreate, which would suggest that only heterosexual relationships can naturally produce offspring... but I credit my Mother and Father raising me to understand sexuality as a man + a women. I credit my social groups, where members of one gender always pursued relationships with members of the opposite sex. And lastly, I credit my choices. I've never had the desire to try homosexuallity out, to see if I'd like it.

Personally I don't care if someone chooses to be homosexual or bisexual, it's none of my business. The example I used of men showering with women has to do with sexual propriety. The reason men don't shower with women in the military is not because they can't help themselves, and turn into raging sexual tyrannosauruses... it's because in our society, its sexually inappropriate. Would anyone on this forum let another man shower with his wife, even if they didn't touch eachother? NO Way... it's inappropriate. If men are insecure about some gay guy staring at their "ding-dong" that's on them... but sexuality shouldn't be apart of our mission. It's the same reason I support the current gender limitations to combat arms. Sexualty doesn't belong on the battlefield.

People will always try to justify their behaior. Genetics seems to be the perfect excuse. how can someone be held accountable for their behavior if they were "just born that way." In an American culture where nobody accepts responsibility anymore, what better than a scientific link to explain their decisions. I think our insecurity in our culture means that we look for things to blame our behavior on instead of making choices and accepting any merit or concequence of those choices. Whether conciously or sub-consciously all sexual behavior comes down to choice... ei "do I follow my sexual compulsions?""Do I go home with that chick in the bar?""Do I cheat on my wife?" or "Do I experiment with something new?"

[afchic]

Brian H,

My comments about polygamy were purely sarcastic. The point I was making is that in our society, polygamy is considered aberrant behavior, yet one could probably make the scientific suggestion that it is genetically supported by men's lust for women ( or vice versa) even when in committed relationships. There are a lot of people who cheat on their spouses... would that conclude to a "Cheating Gene?"

By defining Homosexuality as a fetish, you are right to assume I meant an abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment: a fixation. Fetishes are usually stimulated by some sort of behavior or environment. I saw on some late night cable show a story about people who have "Horse Fetishes" for lack of a better definition. These people dress up in typical fetish clothing (leather, chains) but wear saddles and bridles in their mouths when engaging in sexual activities. Now, to most people this would appear strange... really strange, but to these people, it sexually excites them, and usually is the only way they can find sexual pleasure. Now I doubt these people have developed "horse genes" because their great-great grandfather in 1890 spent a lot of time "brushing his horses out in the barn." They weren't born to have some sexual disposition to like pretending to be horses. If anything, it was through some kinky experimentation that lead to their fascination with it. I've heard Homosexuals make the similar claims about their arousal. That they are only "Attracted" to members of the same sex...most homosexuals only admit to themselves that they are gay after experimenting.... sounds a lot like the dude who put a pair of reigns in his mouth... and liked it.

I've always believed in nurture over nature. Science is studying the possibility of genetic involvement with sexuality, but have yet to discover a Rainbow colored Allele on someone's chromosomes that makes them Gay. A great example of scientific evidence that does not support genetic dispositions to sexuality is Twin Studies. Scientists have studied sets of Identical twins, who have very very close sets of genetic patterns, but one is openly homosexual, the other is Heterosexual. I have an Identical twin brother, and while both of us are Heterosexual, we both have very different concepts of attraction. I don't believe I was born Heterosexual. Now, in Darwin's concept of Fitness, I believe most creatures on earth have a desire to procreate, which would suggest that only heterosexual relationships can naturally produce offspring... but I credit my Mother and Father raising me to understand sexuality as a man + a women. I credit my social groups, where members of one gender always pursued relationships with members of the opposite sex. And lastly, I credit my choices. I've never had the desire to try homosexuallity out, to see if I'd like it.

Personally I don't care if someone chooses to be homosexual or bisexual, it's none of my business. The example I used of men showering with women has to do with sexual propriety. The reason men don't shower with women in the military is not because they can't help themselves, and turn into raging sexual tyrannosauruses... it's because in our society, its sexually inappropriate. Would anyone on this forum let another man shower with his wife, even if they didn't touch eachother? NO Way... it's inappropriate. If men are insecure about some gay guy staring at their "ding-dong" that's on them... but sexuality shouldn't be apart of our mission. It's the same reason I support the current gender limitations to combat arms. Sexualty doesn't belong on the battlefield.

People will always try to justify their behaior. Genetics seems to be the perfect excuse. how can someone be held accountable for their behavior if they were "just born that way." In an American culture where nobody accepts responsibility anymore, what better than a scientific link to explain their decisions. I think our insecurity in our culture means that we look for things to blame our behavior on instead of making choices and accepting any merit or concequence of those choices. Whether conciously or sub-consciously all sexual behavior comes down to choice... ei "do I follow my sexual compulsions?""Do I go home with that chick in the bar?""Do I cheat on my wife?" or "Do I experiment with something new?"


The difference with the people you describe above and homosexuals is that those with a "horse fetish" can openly serve in the US Military without any fear of reprisal, as long as they are not committing adultery or a homosexual act in the process.

[Dozer523]

Maybe we should consider Don't Tell - Won't Ask.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin I think getting rid of DADT is a terrible idea but for a reason that has not been broached here.
I like Don't Ask Don't Tell because it it's a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for Gays who join the Army and find it's not for them. All they have to do is walk into the First Sergeant's office and say, "First Sergeant, Honey, we need to talk. . . "

It's practical, saves lots of time and effort, minimizes all the yelling. Once he or she has made the decision they move on and the gay community can treat them as heroes or martyrs, whatever. They tried, they're gone, they're happy. We're happy they're gone. Life goes on.

Gays who are Soldier get to leave. Soldiers who are gay, they Soldier.

[Green Light]

The difference with the people you describe above and homosexuals is that those with a "horse fetish" can openly serve in the US Military without any fear of reprisal, as long as they are not committing adultery or a homosexual act in the process.

Showing up at PT formation wearing a saddle and being led by a bridle will probably get you out of the Army faster than being gay. Walk up to your first sergeant and say something like "Bring on the whips and midgets!" and watch the paperwork fly.

[afchic]

Showing up at PT formation wearing a saddle and being led by a bridle will probably get you out of the Army faster than being gay. Walk up to your first sergeant and say something like "Bring on the whips and midgets!" and watch the paperwork fly.

It is obvious my point went right over your head.

[spherojon]

So they haven't found the gay gene yet?!? Wasn't the Human Genome Project suppose to find it? I thought it was next to the democratic gene...

[Richard]

So they haven't found the gay gene yet?!? Wasn't the Human Genome Project suppose to find it? I thought it was next to the democratic gene...

In case you haven't noticed - pink font is used by many in this forum to denote sarcasm or snark.

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Dozer523]

So they haven't found the gay gene yet?!? Wasn't the Human Genome Project suppose to find it? I thought it was next to the democratic gene... Har :D Har :D Har :D.
You calling me queer? Candidate? :mad:

[spherojon]

Note taken, PINK for sarcasm.

Har :D Har :D Har :D.
You calling me queer? Candidate? :mad:
Negative sir, just relating how politics and sexual preference isn't in the genes, rather, a choice...(well for some, because I do agree with the current science hypothesizes brought up by Richard for homosexuality).

[Dozer523]

Note taken, PINK for sarcasm.


Negative sir, just relating how politics and sexual preference isn't in the genes, rather, a choice...(well for some, because I do agree with the current science hypothesizes brought up by Richard for homosexuality).
:)

[GratefulCitizen]

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.


This is the root of the matter when it comes to the concept of moral responsibility.
Someone is either able to make a choice, or they are a slave to programming.

This is the ultimate slippery slope.
How can anyone be held responsible for a choice they never had...


Consider an alternative:
-people have a limited ability to make choices
-when someone makes a given choice, it gets easier to make that choice, and harder not to make that choice
-eventually, after enough repetition, the "choice" becomes hard-wired

This used to be called a habit.
The sum of habits resulted in character.

MOO.

[Richard]

To clarify my position - whether one is or is not a homosexual is physiological - how one behaves as such is a moral choice.

However - YMMV...and so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Pete]

The left's pickle.

Imagine

The cause of Homosexuality is found and it can be tested for during pregnacy - but the test can only be done after the 6th month.

Women begin getting abortions in the 3rd trimester based on that test.

What's the left to do - such a pickle.

[Dozer523]

The left's pickle.

Imagine

The cause of Homosexuality is found and it can be tested for during pregnacy - but the test can only be done after the 6th month.

Women begin getting abortions in the 3rd trimester based on that test.

What's the left to do - such a pickle. A Gay gene. If it's real it ought to be self NON-perpetuating. Except for women. There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".
In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

[Pete]

In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

And what made you think he was really gay? Maybe he was just a tad smarter than the guys hanging out with each other on a Friday night. :D

[Richard]

There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him". In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

Damn - wish I woulda thought of that one back then - I coulda enjoyed college even more and avoided being drafted! :rolleyes:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[armymom1228]

isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".

We are supposed to try to change men? Damn, my mom lied to me... she said, "wait on em hand and foot." I knew I had something wrong all these years.:D:(
AM

[greenberetTFS]

LOL oh, you're all going to hell-- I'll make room in my handbasket -- Dozer first, I have twinkies...

Pete has a point, and it's one that scientists are worried about -- but I would add that there's going to be a certain percentage of people who would opt for abortion, but there's also going to be a certain percentage of gay men who opt for suicide. Personally, I don't give a sheeiite whether it's choice or not -- I don't get why it's such a big deal. I don't want anyone telling me what my husband and I can and can't do in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think I have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can or can't do in theirs

It does matter a lot if these consenting adults live in the army barracks........:( However your right about Dozer,just offer him twinkies and he'll follow you anywhere.......:D;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[BrianH]

My comments about polygamy were purely sarcastic. The point I was making is that in our society, polygamy is considered aberrant behavior, yet one could probably make the scientific suggestion that it is genetically supported by men's lust for women ( or vice versa) even when in committed relationships. There are a lot of people who cheat on their spouses... would that conclude to a "Cheating Gene?"

Thanks for the reply. I sort of figured that you were joking about polygamy, but one can never tell.
They weren't born to have some sexual disposition to like pretending to be horses. If anything, it was through some kinky experimentation that lead to their fascination with it. I've heard Homosexuals make the similar claims about their arousal. That they are only "Attracted" to members of the same sex...most homosexuals only admit to themselves that they are gay after experimenting.... sounds a lot like the dude who put a pair of reigns in his mouth... and liked it.
There is only one problem with this: there are virtually no studies confirming your horse fetish theory.

Second, you are dead wrong about believing that most homosexuals only "realize" they are gay after experimentation. 99.999% of gay men I've talked with (that is, all of them) said they knew they were gay by the age of 11 or 12. A few of them did admit that they had been sexually abused earlier in life, but we're talking about a very small percentage. I know for a fact my brother was never molested.

I've always believed in nurture over nature. Science is studying the possibility of genetic involvement with sexuality, but have yet to discover a Rainbow colored Allele on someone's chromosomes that makes them Gay. A great example of scientific evidence that does not support genetic dispositions to sexuality is Twin Studies. Scientists have studied sets of Identical twins, who have very very close sets of genetic patterns, but one is openly homosexual, the other is Heterosexual. I have an Identical twin brother, and while both of us are Heterosexual, we both have very different concepts of attraction. I don't believe I was born Heterosexual.

The identical twin data suggests that in upwards of 60% of all cases where one twin is gay the other twin is also gay, which is overwhelming evidence FOR a genetic component of homosexuality. It also suggests that other factors can be at play too that interact with the underlying genetic makeup (the brothers who aren't gay).

A lot of people like to quote those studies (especially the Bailey / Pillard one) without quoting the conclusion: that homosexuality is largely hereditary.

Now, in Darwin's concept of Fitness, I believe most creatures on earth have a desire to procreate, which would suggest that only heterosexual relationships can naturally produce offspring... but I credit my Mother and Father raising me to understand sexuality as a man + a women. I credit my social groups, where members of one gender always pursued relationships with members of the opposite sex. And lastly, I credit my choices. I've never had the desire to try homosexuallity out, to see if I'd like it.
Darwin's concept of fitness has to do with an individual gene's fitness, not an organism's. The organism's fitness is a byproduct of the gene's, nothing more. Many, many gay men have fathered children, both in marriage and outside of it, and that suggests that, on some level and at some scale, the presence of such a gene can raise an individual's sexual fitness... as weird as that may seem. Game Theory has shown us time and time again that many simple strategies, while seeming counter-intuitive, can actually be very successful given certain conditions.

You were born a straight man, and for that, I congratulate you. Me too. You state plainly that you've never had a desire to try homosexuality, but I doubt you can make the same claim for heterosexuality. Many men have experienced the same upbringing as you, within the same social groups, with similar parents and lessons, and cannot make that same claim.

Personally I don't care if someone chooses to be homosexual or bisexual, it's none of my business. The example I used of men showering with women has to do with sexual propriety. The reason men don't shower with women in the military is not because they can't help themselves, and turn into raging sexual tyrannosauruses... it's because in our society, its sexually inappropriate. Would anyone on this forum let another man shower with his wife, even if they didn't touch eachother? NO Way... it's inappropriate. If men are insecure about some gay guy staring at their "ding-dong" that's on them... but sexuality shouldn't be apart of our mission. It's the same reason I support the current gender limitations to combat arms. Sexualty doesn't belong on the battlefield.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but not too long ago, there were certain races of men that were considered to be "beneath" the white man, and that even interacting with them was "inappropriate", "uncivil", and "unclean." Times changed.

How "appropriate" something is, of course, is based on societal mores of the day. 100 years ago, a woman showing her ankles was "inappropriate". Hell, letting you wife walk down the street by herself was considered to be a huge error in judgment.

I cannot argue that what many consider "appropriate" and "inappropriate" right now would not allow gay men in showers, or women for that matter. I, however, hope that such lingering vestiges of our Puritan beginnings finally dissolve in the 21st Century.

People will always try to justify their behaior. Genetics seems to be the perfect excuse. how can someone be held accountable for their behavior if they were "just born that way." In an American culture where nobody accepts responsibility anymore, what better than a scientific link to explain their decisions. I think our insecurity in our culture means that we look for things to blame our behavior on instead of making choices and accepting any merit or concequence of those choices. Whether conciously or sub-consciously all sexual behavior comes down to choice... ei "do I follow my sexual compulsions?""Do I go home with that chick in the bar?""Do I cheat on my wife?" or "Do I experiment with something new?"
People are (or should be) held accountable for their behavior when it directly affects the livelihood of others. There is a lot of evidence that people are born murderers and rapists, but I have no problem locking them up. Gay men aren't hurting anyone except when they do foolish stuff like have unprotected sex with other gay men. The same foolish things straight people do.

I am not advocating that we should simply try to point at the Human Genome (which is a cipher we haven't even begun to interpret yet) and try to lay blame for all our actions there. Somewhere along the way, though, humans became convinced that they could control everything--their actions, their outcome, their destiny, the world--just by having enough will power. This, of course, is the very definition of hubris. In the end, sometimes, shit just happens.

As for the "sexual behavior comes down to choice," I highly recommend reading "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker. It is frightening just how little "choice" there is in the things we say, think, and do around the opposite sex... regardless of what we've been conditioned to believe about ourselves and willpower.

[BrianH]

In case you haven't noticed - pink font is used by many in this forum to denote sarcasm or snark.

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin
Genomics is also still very much in its infancy.

A new, very inexpensive way to sequence an individual's genome has recently been developed (by Craig Venter, I believe). A new project is currently being funded that will ask 100,000 volunteers to have their gene sequenced, but along with that will come a contract of total personal transparency. They will have to answer huge, extremely detailed surveys about their likes, dislikes, talents, development, favorite foods, everything. All of this data will be posted into a database, right next to their full genome. That way, a scientist could find all the people that, say, are good baseball players and look for genetic similarities.

In 50 years, what we know right now about genetics and genomics will look foolish.

[BrianH]

A Gay gene. If it's real it ought to be self NON-perpetuating. Except for women. There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".
In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.
I know you wrote it sarcastically, but easily the most sexually successful (with women) man I ever knew came out of the closet in his mid twenties. He had probably slept with six or seven hundred women before then, fathering who knows how many children.

[Dozer523]

I know you wrote it sarcastically, but easily the most sexually successful (with women) man I ever knew came out of the closet . . .
I wasn't being all that sarcastic.
I shared a three room apartment off campus with two guys, one was "gay" (shad-dup) . . . he owed a couch, a stereo, knew how to mix drinks beyond a rum and coke, owned a vacuum and knew how to use it ).
On more then one Saturday or Sunday morning there was a pretty girl in the kitchen wearing his blue striped oxford shirt (it was code , and he was rubbing it in). We always hoped that one or lots) would seek solace and or revenge with one of us straight guys. . .

[Sigaba]

ImagineThe scenario I've imagined is that the same discovery that establishes the scientific bases of sexuality also determines that life begins at conception.

[GratefulCitizen]

Genomics is also still very much in its infancy.


In 50 years, what we know right now about genetics and genomics will look foolish.

There is also the issue of epigenetics.
http://www.epidna.com/

Our choices may affect the "programming" of our children, before they are even born.

[echoes]

The scenario I've imagined is that the same discovery that establishes the scientific bases of sexuality also determines that life begins at conception.

Sigaba,

Would really like to hear more about this scenario, if you care to share it?:o

Holly

[99meters]

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I believe I knew a few guys with this hormonal imbalance while growing up. These guys were very effeminate from a young age.
Most of the guys in school (me too) would call them "f#gs or sissies". Some did choose a homosexual life-style and others did not.
I can see a hormonal imbalance causing these guys to act "softer". However, I believe having their peers call them f#gs constantly at an age where we are trying to find yourself did more to push some to chose a homosexual life-style.
If I noticed, that my son was low on testosterone from a young age, I would place him on a extended steroid cycle.

[Stras]

Per the Forum rules for the Early Bird Forum, "This forum is for breaking news only. Threads will be moved elsewhere after approximately two days."

I believe this thread is long overdue for moving to another forum.

I'm not seeing any "breaking news" in the last several days of postings.

[Razor]

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

Interesting. So, to draw a loose parallel to other biochemical imbalances that cause aberrant (and potentially dangerous) behavior, should we as a society require someone suffering from such an affliction to take medication to 'correct' the imbalance?

As a related aside, if you run the numbers in the CDC link Richard posted that relate to HIV statistical analysis, 51.2% (or close to half, as Teddy correctly posted) come from male-to-male sexual contact. Another 30.9% come from high-risk sexual behavior, defined by the CDC as having sex with someone "known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection."