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

[Bruno@MT]

No this has nothing to do with my righteousness or whatever. I was drawing an analogy.

In the 50s and 60s, black people were subject to the same sentiments that gays are subject to now.
And when their government sanctioned discrimination was lifted, the reactions in a certain subsection of the general public were the same that are now expressed by the people who think it is ok to discriminate against gays.

I mentioned the word n****s to draw attention to this parallel.
You will also notice that I didn't type it in full (don't know if that would get censored or not btw but I thought it would be). I could also have mentioned it as the 'N' word or whatever. The point was that the word was used to illustrate the parallels and the strength with which people react against people being gay.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think that it is a good move. Political or not...and I really see little to no impact on military operations. If you're gay and you're in, it probably isn't a secret. The problem now is that those people live in constant fear that the wrong person will find out and decide to prosecute or they are caught in an action that compromises them. I've known quite a few gay people in the military and they are just as good as anyone else.

 

[geezer]

Unless, of course, they happen to be forners...

Well... ain't that the truth too. I know it's off-topic, but you should check out our town sheriff, Joe Arpaio. He's made his reputation on going after undocumented workers...even to the point of exceeding his legal authority. No matter that he's constantly being accused of overstepping his authority, of racial profiling, and even of breaking laws himself in his zeal to get them illeagals... he's more popular than ever and gets re-elected by ever greater majorities, especially in this economy.

In short, it ain't just gays that get bashed where I come from. But then I guess everybody has their scapegoats. After all, we're only human (sigh).

 

[Blade96]

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.

i'd like to add that i also still dont understand how homosexuality can still be mentioned in the same breath as bestiality and pedophilia (as someone did earlier in this topic when trying to draw an 'analogy"

It is so NOT the same.

 

[shihansmurf]

I think that it is a good move. Political or not...and I really see little to no impact on military operations. If you're gay and you're in, it probably isn't a secret. The problem now is that those people live in constant fear that the wrong person will find out and decide to prosecute or they are caught in an action that compromises them. I've known quite a few gay people in the military and they are just as good as anyone else.

Its nice to see someone the is serving on active duty comment in this thread. I'll add my two cents as well.

I suport the repeal of DADT. I think that we'll have a period of adjustment that will include some unpleasantness, but in the end openly serving gays will not harm our combat effectiveness. I think if a person is willing to serve their country, which as noted upthread a lot of straight people who oppose gays in the military aren't, then I wlecome them as brothers and sisters in arms. At some point in our culture we need to understand that what consenting adults do with one another in private is only the business of those involved. I tend to think that as long as gays in the military conduct themselves with the same levels of professionalism, discipline, devotion to duty, and discression that is expected of straights, then there is no reason to exclude them for service.

Just my view
Mark

 

[Cryozombie]

It is so NOT the same.

I would guess that would depend: Do you believe that sexual preference is a choice or genetic?

If its a choice, then yes, it could be the same, and if it's genetic, then who is to say that predisposition to sex with women, or men, or children, or goats aren't ALL hardwired on some level?

Just food for thought. *I* am certainly not comparing being gay with wanting to shag a sheep.

 

[Blade96]

I would guess that would depend: Do you believe that sexual preference is a choice or genetic?

I dont believe its something people 'choose' to do. well first of all Who in their right mind would choose a life like that, where people get killed because of it. and live a life of holy terror. (anyone remember matthew sheppard? Or Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to public office. He was murdered.)

Second. I know many gay people. Including my brown belt lesbian friend at my dojo. I dont believe she chose to be sexually attracted to girls and love her gf. Its just who she happens to be. No more than I 'chose' to be attracted to men. Its just different.

If its a choice, then yes, it could be the same,

I would disagree. Bestiality and pedophiles hurt others. Animals cant choose. Children arent mature enough to consent. Both would be hurt by it. It is an act of violence and abuse, not of love. But two consenting adults who choose to be in a relationship with each other (and have the same private parts) is NOT an act of violence, terror, or abuse.

Pedophiles may not necessarily control who they are attracted to. Nor does anybody, really. What their 'choice' is, however, is to choose to hurt others. It still is not the same.

and if it's genetic, then who is to say that predisposition to sex with women, or men, or children, or goats aren't ALL hardwired on some level?

could be. They still choose to hurt others though. That is the 'choice' they do, IMO.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Bestiality and pedophiles hurt others. Animals cant choose. Children arent mature enough to consent. Both would be hurt by it. It is an act of violence and abuse, not of love. But two consenting adults who choose to be in a relationship with each other (and have the same private parts) is NOT an act of violence, terror, or abuse.

Pedophiles may not necessarily control who they are attracted to. Nor does anybody, really. What their 'choice' is, however, is to choose to hurt others. It still is not the same.

This is really the key of the argument. Noone is harmed in a consentual adult relationship.

For that matter, I can turn the argument around: suppose someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural or not the right moral choice... how is that any different from having oral sex, anal sex, S&M, or any of the other things that is done in heterosexual relationships in cases where such things take the fancy of the parties involved?

One could demand that everybody who ever got a blowjob or had anal sex be thrown out of the military as well. How many soldiers would there be left?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, remember oral sex is still a crime in some parts of the US regardless of who is doing it, where they are doing it, or when.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I just did some googling, and it seems this is indeed true. Crime against nature, it seems. Insane... why not make it illegal to skip church on sundays...
In nature, of course, there are a vast amount of species where homosexuality and oral sex happen regularly, so I don't know hwo nature can be used as a justification.

But why stop at oral and anal sex? How about using contraception. That should be illegal by the same reasoning. Durex doesn't grow on trees, you know?
How about S&M? Perhaps it is ok to inflict pain on genitals (with consent of course) but not love and tenderness? Of course biting would be out of the question too since that would require mouth to genitals contact.

How about sex toys. Is there a list of what is allowed and banned? Perhaps dildos are ok, but not the kind with a vibrator because nature does not provide buzzing action either.
How about pulling out? Should that be illegal too? Kinda borderline I admit. Because the sex is as 'nature intended' and you simply stop at (hopefully) the right moment.

 

[Blade96]

Well, remember oral sex is still a crime in some parts of the US regardless of who is doing it, where they are doing it, or when.

are you serious?! Wtf? First time i ever heard that......

 

[Touch Of Death]

"the assumption that gay men are also effiminate? "
It's a commentary on the stereotype. Most of the gays I know are as "normal" as anyone else.

I'd say about half of them are a little more masculine that most straight men.
Sean