Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'

[Scott T]

As long as there are countries out there like Canada and the UK that have gays serving openly in the military without having a negative impact on unit cohesion or morale, the whole argument that the pro-DADT crowd beaks off on completely falls apart, revealing it for the shallow bull**** that it is. Is the ( male) American soldier really that insecure in his masculinity compared to the soldiers of those other nations that fighting alongside a gay guy will throw him off his game?

I doubt it.

I think it's more the fear of geriatric fat-fart politicians who have their own fudge-packing relationship with the religious right that's more determined to keep DADT on the books.

 

[Bruno@MT]

How about a couple of simple facts:

1) many armed forces in the world make no bones about being gay or not. And they're operating just fine.
2) it is etimated that about 10% of the people are homosexual, though some repress their feelings for the sake of fitting in, and some stay in the closet. Given that, gays and lesbians are already fighting in the US armed forces, and have proven their valor.

So what is the fuss all about? Gays are fighting in the military already. Acknowledging that fact will not tear up existing units, since most will already have a fair idea of who is gay and who isn't.

It seems to me that the people outside make far more of an issue out of it than the people on the inside. In which case I would say: if you care so much, why don't you pick up a gun and fight? Because otherwise, you are depending on them to fight for you. Beggars can't be choosers. Gift horse and so on...

 

[Tez3]

K831, being gay is your forces is illegal because a law was passed excluding gays from joining up, the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a sop only. If someone is discovered to be gay they will still be disciplined and removed from service often 'dishonourably' losing all benefits.

America is just about the only country in NATO (probably the world too actually) now that doesn't allow gays into it's military ranks, it also has worrying figures for being anti female and from what an American officer has told me recently it has political and religious leanings not found in other NATO forces. That is probably a discussion best held among yourself about how desirable it is to have senior military officers so involved in political processes but it may have bearing on this subject in that being gay one wouldn't normally align yourself with far right wing Christian groups so perhaps they are afraid more of losing a source of support?

 

[geezer]

I understand where both you and tez are coming from, but I think the way you both are stating it is a bit loaded.

From a completely objective point of view, words like "underestimate" and "backwards" are clearly working from the position that the inherent or absolute truth is that there is nothing morally or psychologically wrong with homosexual acts and that as such, there is no reason people who participate in those acts should keep quite about that.

The problem is, not everyone believes that... Many people don't believe that, but rather, that it is a choice, a behavior you indulge in or a sin, etc etc.

I think it is important to look at the issue from both sides.

Jason, you are quite right. I am coming from the point of view that we, as a diverse and pluralistic society, cannot assert a single, narrow-minded system of puritanical Christian morality on our citizens. We can choose to follow those beliefs ourselves, but we must tolerate the beliefs and legal actions of others. Otherwise we become no different from the taliban, and other intolerant extremist groups. So, while I cannot say that it is the "absolute truth" that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, I can say that I believe we as a society must either choose to be tolerant and accept the principle of individual freedom, or drop the pretention of being inclusive and impose the cultural and religious beliefs of one group on all.

I've heard social conservatives complain, "Why should I have to accept gays and lesbians forcing their values on me?" The answer is they don't! It is one thing to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but to accept the rights of others to do as they choose, and another thing altogether to insist that all people live according to your own code. In the first case you are just accepting different points of view. It is the second perspective, and only the second, that imposes one point of view on everybody. And, that is what the current anti-gay policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" does.

Finally... why do I go on about this. Well, because at a deep level, I'm still a bit homophobic. I've carried that with me since I was a kid. And I work every day to get over it and see my friends, straight and gay, just as people. Hell, if a closet "Cracker" like me can get over it... so can other folks.

 

[K831]

You're post brings up some interesting questions. I wouldn't consider myself part of the "religious right" for many reasons. One, their approach drives me nuts, I often find it overzelous in the wrong areas and often disingenuous. However, my life is based around "Christian values" and even though I hate the broad titles, I consider myself "conservative" (more fiscally than socially).

So, while I agree with much of what you are saying, it does present some problems for me;

Jason, you are quite right. I am coming from the point of view that we, as a diverse and pluralistic society, cannot assert a single, narrow-minded system of puritanical Christian morality on our citizens.

This is a fine line for me. I am not over excited about the legislating of morality because my faith asserts that every man has the right to choose good or evil, and should not be forced either way, however, "legislating morality" is an inherent and integral part of any set of laws.

Currently, we find the notion of taking something from another citizen by force or by fraud, simply because you can, to be "immoral" or "unethical". As such we have created laws against it. There are cultures (currently and throughout history) who do not feel that way. Many in our on country do not feel that way, yet we enforce one view of the morality of said actions...

We can choose to follow those beliefs ourselves, but we must tolerate the beliefs and legal actions of others.

Can we? I'm not being argumentative here, as this is something I have often considered. How can you really adhere to a set of beliefs, and at the same time simply condone actions or behaviors you find to be wrong, hurtful etc?

Tolerating is broadly defined. I think you can be kind, charitable and helpful to others without "tolerating" their behavior.

I don't tolerate drug use. I find it to be a significant social ill that causes far more damage to society and individuals than any good it can cause. As such, I don't tolerate the behavior. I am out spoken against it. But that dosen't mean I am intolerant of the individual or unkind or unhelpful etc... I think we can separate the individual and the behavior.

So, while I cannot say that it is the "absolute truth" that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, I can say that I believe we as a society must either choose to be tolerant and accept the principle of individual freedom, or drop the pretention of being inclusive and impose the cultural and religious beliefs of one group on all.

Again a very fine line. I am in agreement that "we" should not force all our individual, religious or cultural views on others.

But we do, many times, in most every law we make, in every agenda we push. We use different arguments to do this. Utilitarianism/greatest good for the greatest number/individualism and so on.

So the question is, where does it stop?

All "ism's" do this; Environmentalism is a great example, and in my opinion, is really just a religion. The believers on the extreme end want to force their beliefs and values on others in the name of the "greater good of the planet" regardless of scientific data or the effectiveness of policy.

Are they to be "tolerant" of culture and beliefs of the person who see's nothing wrong with driving a gas guzzling SUV or taking her quad into the mountains? They don't, do they?

I've heard social conservatives complain, "Why should I have to accept gays and lesbians forcing their values on me?" The answer is they don't! It is one thing to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but to accept the rights of others to do as they choose, and another thing altogether to insist that all people live according to your own code.

No one on either side tows this line though. I have several homosexual friends and relatives. They push their agenda, they want it on TV, they want it taught in schools, they want everyone to think it is ok. They do not want to just be left alone to do as they please in their bedrooms.

They are proactive, and as such, all those holding opposing views will be as well.

My siblings, and children of friends, have come home from school having been taught that it is "okay" for Johnny to have two dad's an that it is just as normal and healthy as having a mom and dad. Where was the "tolerance" for the opinion of these families who feel the opposite?

Why isn't creationism taught in school as an opposing view point? Why can't the religious kid sit down and bless his food at lunch time at school and be "tolerated"? So long as other kids are allowed to eat without saying prayers. That is fair right?

I agree with, you in principle, but I don't think either side wants to tolerate the other. Every aspect of our society is forcing some opinion or belief set on another.

I think it is about accepting individuals, I don't think you have to accept or condone their behavior.

Finally... why do I go on about this. Well, because at a deep level, I'm still a bit homophobic. I've carried that with me since I was a kid. And I work every day to get over it and see my friends, straight and gay, just as people. Hell, if a closet "Cracker" like me can get over it... so can other folks.

And I think you should see them just as people, because they are. I don't think that means you have to see their behavior "just as behavior".

As I mentioned above, I have homosexual friends and relatives. I love them. They are wonderful, talented people in many ways. I do not condone their behavior. I think the two can be separated.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this: my issue with the general notion of tolerance it that it seems to lead to the idea of "relative truth" wherein if it is "right for you" then it is right. Where do we draw the line of "tolerance". Surely there are some behaviors and beliefs we do not have to be tolerant of, right? Where does the line get drawn? And how do we draw the line, since every time we draw it, the exact argument you just made, can be applied, perpetually, until we tolerate everything?

 

[blindsage]

K831, of course we legislate morality, as you said, that's what laws are. And they are a continually evolving set of law based on some sort of consensus of our society (most fundamentally based on the Constitution). The problem with your question is how one sided it is. The only 'morality' that anyone is legislating in regards to homosexuality is to let individuals live how they decide in their private lives. Letting homosexuals serve in the military does not deny anyone with Christian values the right to disagree with them and to teach their children that it is unnacceptable to be that way. What it does do is deny them the right to legislate away it's legal existence for others.

And you can call homosexuality a choice if you want too, but then you have deal with vast majority of Christians believing that it is immoral to be of any religion other than Christian. According to that value, nobody of any religious background other than Christian should be allowed to serve. The same for being Black. No it isn't a choice, but if the majority of people who are in the military believe it is immoral for blacks and whites to serve together, then according to that standard you've proposed, why should blacks be allowed to serve?

As for believing homosexuality could be a mental condition, so what? The military standard for these kinds of things is whether or not the individual can perform the duties required of them. Until someone can prove homosexuals can't do that, it's an irrellevant point.

People haven't just been taught that homosexuality is immoral, they've been taught that because they believe it is immoral that it is justification for bigotry and inequality. It is not.

 

[K831]

K831, of course we legislate morality, as you said, that's what laws are. And they are a continually evolving set of law based on some sort of consensus of our society (most fundamentally based on the Constitution).

I agree with you here. Interesting question is, where does DADT stand with the "majority"?

Do you think it is a valid argument that the "majority" that matters are active military personnel?

Additionally, part of the point I was trying to make is that you are right, laws should be based on some consensus of our society, and yet, it is becoming more common that laws are pushed through despite the majority consensus. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. The vocal minority, lobbyists etc. That's a problem, isn't it?

The problem with your question is how one
sided it is.

My question was a general one concerning both sides, so I am not entirely sure why you are reading it as one sided, since the notion can be applied to any political agenda. I tried to show that with examples, both of legislating sexual morality, religious freedom, and movements like environmentalism.

The only 'morality' that anyone is legislating in regards to homosexuality is to let individuals live how they decide in their private lives. Letting homosexuals serve in the military does not deny anyone with Christian values the right to disagree with them and to teach their children that it is unnacceptable to be that way. What it does do is deny them the right to legislate away it's legal existence for others.

I personally agree with this. However, I do find merit to the counter argument. Every step society takes towards a more permissive environment of certain behaviors is also a step towards that behavior leaving someones private life and invading the life of another. We see this all the time.

And you can call homosexuality a choice if you want too, but then you have deal with vast majority of Christians believing that it is immoral to be of any religion other than Christian.

I don't know many Christians who actually believe this, so I don't agree with the language "vast majority" however I have met some who feel that way, and I think they are nuts.

According to that value, nobody of any religious background other than Christian should be allowed to serve. The same for being Black. No it isn't a choice, but if the majority of people who are in the military believe it is immoral for blacks and whites to serve together, then according to that standard you've proposed, why should blacks be allowed to serve?

This is exactly my point Blindsage. There is this battle cry, this mantra of "tolerance" and "acceptance" but it isn't valid. Someone's view will always be treated with intolerance. That is why I find the notion fallacious.

This line of tolerance has to be drawn somewhere.

Take for example Heterosexual relationships with minors. We have state laws that differ on the subject. Many cultures have found this behavior to be completely acceptable. Many people in our culture find it acceptable. Yet we do not tolerate it. Where is the tolerance? Why don't they have every right we do? Just because they like 14 year old boys or girls? And who has the right to say that is too young to consent? Where do we draw the line?

When I went through the testing proccess to become a police officer, they asked me on the polygraph if I had ever had sex with animals. I have lived in areas of south America where this is not the taboo it is here. Where is the tolerance for people who sodomize animals? Where are their rights? There are cultures where death follows the disgrace of breaking marriage vows through adultery. We don't tolerate that viewpoint here in the sates because we deem it "uncivilized". As though it isn't uncivilized to lie to a spouse about sexual relations with another.

I have copies of the DSMV where homosexuality was deemed as deviant as sexual activity with children and animals.

So again, my question is, where do we draw the line? How permissive and tolerant are we to be of all behaviors? You would seem to be suggesting that it is solely decided by general consensus of the population. Perhaps so. Does that mean you believe all truth or morality is relative and there are no absolutes?

That is what I am driving at.

As for believing homosexuality could be a mental condition, so what? The military standard for these kinds of things is whether or not the individual can perform the duties required of them.

I agree, and personally, don't have any problem being in a fox hole with a gay guy, so long as he is good to go.

I would point out though that the military isn't just looking at the individuals ability to do his/her job, but also what effect it will have on the organizations ability. I don't have an answer for that, but I think we need to understand that as a consideration as well.

I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?

 

[Bruno@MT]

I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?

Depends on how strong the evidence was.
But given that homosexuality is accepted in other armed forces (last time I chacked we had gays in the para commandos) and those armed forced do no seem to have lost any battle effectiveness.

 

[Cryozombie]

Why is there the assumption that gay men are also effiminate?

Come to the US and watch a few Gay Pride parades, and see if you don't walk away with the Image of "Pansy Boys and Butch Chicks"

Yes, it's just a stereotype, to be true, and no, it does not fit everyone in the G/L Community, but it is the one flamboyantly tossed around in public most often here, and as such, its the one most people see and think of. There are probably far more Gays or Lesbians who are just "normal" folks, but because of that, no one actually notices them: they are just people like everyone else.

 

[Tez3]

Come to the US and watch a few Gay Pride parades, and see if you don't walk away with the Image of "Pansy Boys and Butch Chicks"

Yes, it's just a stereotype, to be true, and no, it does not fit everyone in the G/L Community, but it is the one flamboyantly tossed around in public most often here, and as such, its the one most people see and think of. There are probably far more Gays or Lesbians who are just "normal" folks, but because of that, no one actually notices them: they are just people like everyone else.

We have Gay Pride parades here which service people are allowed to attend in uniform if they want, perhaps here we are more used to camp than you are, some of our best entertainers are very camp. The parades are considered great fun but the vast majority of the communities. Those that disapprove don't get nasty about it.
Apart from gays and lesbians our forces are also accepting of transexuals.
This country was also very accepting of the black soldiers that came across in the last war much to the discomfort of the American High Command I believe.
Perhaps the truth is that America is not a tolerant country and the 'socialist' cultures it despises are in fact much more tolerant, free societies with far less government interference in private lives? Food for thought perhaps?

 

[geezer]

Perhaps the truth is that America is not a tolerant country and the 'socialist' cultures it despises are in fact much more tolerant, free societies with far less government interference in private lives? Food for thought perhaps?

This may well be true. But we tolerate other things that more "enlightened" societies don't. Some of the guys I work out with carry a concealed gun and a couple of knives wherever they go... even during training. You'll be practicing a technique and hit something hard under the side of their shirt, and they'll say, "Sorry dude, that's my piece." So we are very tolerant about weapons. And, we certainly believe in the god-given right of every idiot to own a car and drive like a maniac (scares me way more than the guns!). I guess that's the libertarian streak in our national psyche, especially out here in the West. We also hate big government, and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were. ...unless they're gay. Too much food for thought can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of brain-bloat coming on.

 

[Ken Morgan]

This whole thread confuses me.

I never saw combat but, my biggest fear sitting in a trench or on patrol was that I didn’t want to get paired up with the “stupid” guy or the “way too gung ho” guy, because both will get you killed. The women? No problem, The gays? No problem. I wanted someone who knew their job, could think quick under pressure and would be there when I needed them.

Animals do not have the ability to consent to sexual relations; children do not have the maturity to consent to sexual relations.

A gay man trying to rape another man? As terrible as that is, most rapes are committed by heterosexual males, or are rapes against women not as notable as rapes against other men?

Being gay isn’t a disease, its not contagious, you can’t catch it. Get over it.

 

[K831]

This may well be true. But we tolerate other things that more "enlightened" societies don't. Some of the guys I work out with carry a concealed gun and a couple of knives wherever they go... even during training. You'll be practicing a technique and hit something hard under the side of their shirt, and they'll say, "Sorry dude, that's my piece." So we are very tolerant about weapons. And, we certainly believe in the god-given right of every idiot to own a car and drive like a maniac (scares me way more than the guns!). I guess that's the libertarian streak in our national psyche, especially out here in the West. We also hate big government, and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were. ...unless they're gay. Too much food for thought can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of brain-bloat coming on.

I'll leave my piece at home next time Steve lol!

And I agree tez, there is a conflicting aspect within the two groups who want small, noninvasive government. Both conservative and libertarians deal with it differently and to varying degrees. That is what I keep driving at, where do we draw the line? What should government regulate. Even the most dedicated small government advocates agree that government does have a role in dictating certain laws, disallowing certain behaviors etc. To what degree should it hold a population to task in terms of the moral foundation it was built on?

Unfortunately, most people want to simply reply with "get over it" rather than look at the long term issues presented.

 

[Bruno@MT]

We also hate big government, and believe that people should be left alone to "sink or swim" as it were. ...unless they're gay. Too much food for thought can make you fat-headed. Excuse me, I feel a bout of brain-bloat coming on.

Unless, of course, they happen to be forners, in which case you gladly overthrow their government for your own purposes and nevermind the millions of deaths. All in the name of bringing 'freedom' to the people of course.

Also, since the military is an extension of the government, you should be happy that gays are no longer being discriminated against since that was a form of government discrimination.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Unfortunately, most people want to simply reply with "get over it" rather than look at the long term issues presented.

In this instance, the issue is governmental discrinination against a group of people over their sexual preference. The libertarian in you should be GLAD that gays can finally be open about it. Rejoice!

So in this case I'd say this is a matter of 'get over it' just lke when segregation was done away with. A lot of people needed to 'get over it' and revolted at the idea of being paired up with n*****s.

I gues gays are the new n*****s.

 

[blindsage]

I agree with you here. Interesting question is, where does DADT stand with the "majority"?

Do you think it is a valid argument that the "majority" that matters are active military personnel?

Additionally, part of the point I was trying to make is that you are right, laws should be based on some consensus of our society, and yet, it is becoming more common that laws are pushed through despite the majority consensus. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. The vocal minority, lobbyists etc. That's a problem, isn't it?

At times it can become a problem, but what is often missing is an understanding that the Constitution is the fundamental consensus law that we all agree to abide by while residing in this country. If the majority want something contrary to the Constitution, then they are fighting against the definitional consensus foundation. If, over time, established majority ideas and behaviors within the society are really found to be in opposition to the Constitution, then we don't throw out the Constitution, we throw out the established idea or behaviour because they violate the foundational consensus, or in very, very, very rare cases we test the 'majority' desires and change the Constitution. But no, the U.S. is not strictly a whim of the majority society. We have foundational laws that are meant to prevent just that, and for good reason.

My question was a general one concerning both sides, so I am not entirely sure why you are reading it as one sided, since the notion can be applied to any political agenda. I tried to show that with examples, both of legislating sexual morality, religious freedom, and movements like environmentalism.

I agree that the issue can be applied to a lot of different groups, but the underlying foundation of your argument comes from the question of why do Christians have to accept homosexuality. The answer is the don't, but they do have to accept that others disagree with them.

I personally agree with this. However, I do find merit to the counter argument. Every step society takes towards a more permissive environment of certain behaviors is also a step towards that behavior leaving someones private life and invading the life of another. We see this all the time.[/qutoe]
What is strange about this argument is that the private life of one group already pervasively invades the life of the other. It's the group currently doing the invading that doesn't want that ability taken away.

I don't know many Christians who actually believe this, so I don't agree with the language "vast majority" however I have met some who feel that way, and I think they are nuts.

Do you believe anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ is going to hell? Most Christians I know are uncomfortable with this question because the answer is always 'yes'. Not being a believer in Christ is 'immoral' by the vast majority of Christian belief, some are just more bold in stating it than others.

This is exactly my point Blindsage. There is this battle cry, this mantra of "tolerance" and "acceptance" but it isn't valid. Someone's view will always be treated with intolerance. That is why I find the notion fallacious.

This line of tolerance has to be drawn somewhere.

The line of tolerance is always drawn somewhere, but why is one religious group's standard, with no other basis than God says so, the definition for the large number of people who are a) not of that religious group and/or b) the recipient of the institutional inequality that is the result of that belief?

[quote}Take for example Heterosexual relationships with minors. We have state laws that differ on the subject. Many cultures have found this behavior to be completely acceptable. Many people in our culture find it acceptable. Yet we do not tolerate it. Where is the tolerance? Why don't they have every right we do? Just because they like 14 year old boys or girls? And who has the right to say that is too young to consent? Where do we draw the line?

In this case? There a consensus in the society that this is unnacceptable because of the demonstrable harm that is done to the child, and the inablility of human being under a certain age to physiologically give informed consent as to the actions involved. How does this relate to adult consensual relationships?

When I went through the testing proccess to become a police officer, they asked me on the polygraph if I had ever had sex with animals. I have lived in areas of south America where this is not the taboo it is here. Where is the tolerance for people who sodomize animals? Where are their rights?

Again, consent. These are not novel or new questions and have been asked and answered for decades to demonstrate their irrelevance to the question at hand.

There are cultures where death follows the disgrace of breaking marriage vows through adultery. We don't tolerate that viewpoint here in the sates because we deem it "uncivilized". As though it isn't uncivilized to lie to a spouse about sexual relations with another.

Death for who? Can you find me a report of the death penalty for a man accused of adultery? We don't tolerate it here because it is a tool of oppression. Kind of like how we treat homosexuals.

I have copies of the DSMV where homosexuality was deemed as deviant as sexual activity with children and animals.

And?

So again, my question is, where do we draw the line? How permissive and tolerant are we to be of all behaviors? You would seem to be suggesting that it is solely decided by general consensus of the population. Perhaps so. Does that mean you believe all truth or morality is relative and there are no absolutes?

That is what I am driving at.

I don't believe all truth and morality is relative, but there are many things that I believe to be absolute, but that I don't think should be legislated for others, because they are MY beliefs. I live by them to the best of my ability, and though I think others would be better off if they followed them, I don't need them to be mandated to others in order for me to believe they are absolutely correct. Let them come to that understanding on their own through my example, if it is good enough.

I agree, and personally, don't have any problem being in a fox hole with a gay guy, so long as he is good to go.

I would point out though that the military isn't just looking at the individuals ability to do his/her job, but also what effect it will have on the organizations ability. I don't have an answer for that, but I think we need to understand that as a consideration as well.

Theoretically that is supposed to be the case, and yet it has discharged a large number of highly qualified, and in some cases indispensible, soldiers because of don't ask, don't tell. In practice this is apparently not the case.

I am curious, if given strong evidence that the removal of don' ask don't tell would hinder our military, would you still be in favor of it?

If it could be genuine, unbiased, scientific evidence, sure why not? Don't count on finding it.

 

[chaos1551]

I still don't understand how homosexuality hurts others enough to have to regulate it with law. Homosexuality is our modern day civil rights issue.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Viewed from Israel, the continuing witch hunt against gays and lesbians in the U.S. military makes little sense. I have studied and written about the experience of gay soldiers in elite combat units of the Israel Defense Forces, where restrictions on gay enlistment were lifted in 1993, the same year the United States introduced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy requiring gay and lesbian servicemembers to say in the closet or risk being discharged. There has never been any suggestion that the participation of these men has hindered the performance of Israeli combat units.



The United States and Turkey are now the only NATO military powers that do not allow gays to serve openly, but Israel and other countries have shown that the participation of gay soldiers in combat units presents no risk for military effectiveness. What's more, acknowledging their presence might even improve unite cohesion.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/03/theyre_here_theyre_queer_its_no_big_deal

 

[Tez3]

Most service people value their privacy whatever their sexual preferences and as the article rightly says gays don't go shouting about any more than anyone else, it isn't relevant to what they do in the services.
Looking online I have seen from a wide variety of sources that there seems to be a big problem with women being in the American army, a high incidence of sexual assaults and sexual harrassment by men on women, I think perhaps theres problems that need resolving, perhaps a whole rethink on the 'ethos' of a lot of young men serving?

 

[CoryKS]

In this instance, the issue is governmental discrinination against a group of people over their sexual preference. The libertarian in you should be GLAD that gays can finally be open about it. Rejoice!

So in this case I'd say this is a matter of 'get over it' just lke when segregation was done away with. A lot of people needed to 'get over it' and revolted at the idea of being paired up with n*****s.

I gues gays are the new n*****s.

Here's yet another example of what I like to call the Tourette's of Righteousness. It's where a "correct-thinking" person feels justified in using offensive racial slurs to make a point because - hey, their heart was in the right place.

Please stop this. Yes, I understand that you are trying to stuff these words into someone else's mouth. But they're your words.