PDA

View Full Version : Okay to Be Openly Gay in U.S. Military



Pages : 1 [2]

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:50 AM
As well as what's been taking my time.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6197/6101336788_0c633e50b7_z.jpg

And this has exactly what to do with the subject in this thread Non Sequitur Man?

hai
09-26-2011, 02:52 AM
Why are u harassing and bullying me?

I'm gay and i hate bigots and homophobes.

And all i can say is i'm glad DADT has been lifted.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 03:20 AM
Why are u harassing and bullying me?.

heh, if you think this is bad, you might as well leave here and never come back. This is nothing.


I'm gay and i hate bigots and homophobes.

So that makes you a bigot as well. And if you think getting a single BJ makes you gay then you're dumber than advertised. And I'm not a homophobe....those that have a phobia are afraid of the subject. I'm not afraid of gays. I pity them for having a head full of defective wiring.


And all i can say is i'm glad DADT has been lifted.

So you're going to run down to the nearest recruiter and enlist tomorrow right? Ottherwise, your being for DADT lifted makes you a fake and not worth a crap....also makes you a gutless coward too.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 03:39 AM
Nice dodge....now answer Marv's question.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America. It's a fucking lie and you all know it but you keep pushing it as if it were the truth.

I'm curious to know what rights under the Constitution they don't already have that they seem to think they need to be treated as a protected class to get?

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 03:43 AM
Why are u harassing and bullying me?

Put on your big boy pants and STFU.


I'm gay and i hate bigots and homophobes.

And I hate ignorant narrow minded people that throw those terms around on people that aren't what you say...jsut because they disagree with your agenda.


And all i can say is i'm glad DADT has been lifted.

http://www.army.com/us-army-enlistment-re-enlistment-and-education-information-request

http://www.navy.com/joining.html

http://www.airforce.com/joining-the-air-force/enlisted-overview/

http://www.marines.com/#default


Let me know if you have any questions about basit trainning.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 03:45 AM
I'm curious to know what rights under the Constitution they don't already have that they seem to think they need to be treated as a protected class to get?

None as far as I can tell but of course Nova and his sidekick Hai will come up with some lame assed reasoning why they deserve special treatment for a lifestyle choice, not a skin color difference.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 03:55 AM
So the Sharia which would be applied to the destruction of America is also what makes the American military strong? Wow, and you have accused me of being disrespectful to the military?

I must have missed the hanging of gays that were serving in the US military. To compare Sharia Law to Military rules is idiotic in the least and outright disrespectful at the most.

Yes Nova, with that remark you are being a disrespectful idiot to the military.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 04:15 AM
Should the policies of a civilian controlled military be put to a vote of the officers and enlisted?

Well it damn sure shouldn't be the policy of our civilian "leaders" to use us as a social experiment like some damn ant farm. They should use the military to bludegon states into doing something they don't want to do.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 04:36 AM
COLONIAL LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY
The first English statute against homosexuality was placed on the
books by Parliament in 1533, under Henry VIII. This law, which
made it a capital felony for any person to "commit the detestable and
Dr. Crompton is Professor of English, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588.
He wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Daylene Bennett, Larry Lackner, and Barbara
Vincent in searching colonial codes.
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 1(3), 1976 277
278 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
abominable vice of buggery with mankind or beast," was several times
reenacted and repealed, and finally reinstated under Elizabeth in
1563 in a form that remained unchanged until 1861, when the death
penalty was dropped for life imprisonment. The word "vice," the
biblical term "abominable," and the theological expression "buggery"
(from the "Bulgarian" heresy) all point to the religious background of
the law, as does the treatment of the offense in Coke's Institutes,
published early in the 17th century. Though Continental law, follow-
ing canon law, regularly made lesbian acts capital crimes (as in the
Constitutions of Charles V issued in 1532), English law was not inter-
preted as criminalizing these.

..............


In America, the five pre-Revolutionary southern colonies, follow-
ing the lead of Virginia, either regarded the English law as in force
without incorporating it into their statutes or else, as in the case of
South Carolina, adopted it verbatim. In the north, however, a special
Puritan code developed that uniquely distinguished America's legal
style (though not, in this case, the substance of the law) from that of
England...................

The first
American "code," if it can be called that, was a simple list of "Capitall
offences lyable to death" drawn up in Plymouth Colony in 1936.
These included treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape,
buggery (here denoting bestiality), and adultery.
In the same year the General Court of Massachusetts asked the Rev.
John Cotton to draw up fundamental laws. Interestingly enough,
Cotton proposed to place lesbianism on a par with male homosexual-
ity as a capital offense..............

You will note that being nonwhite or Jewish is not listed in these capital offenses.

The Bay Colony, in making sodomy a capital crime, did not follow the
English statute but instead adopted the language of Leviticus 20: 13.
Section 8 of the 1641 laws was thus a word-for-word translation of a
Hebrew law more than 2,000 years old: "If any man lyeth with
mankinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed
abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death" (Whitmore,
1890, p. 55). Astonishingly, this phraseology was to remain on the
books of at least one American state-Connecticut-until some 46
years after the Declaration of Independence.

So much for this cultural bias not being rooted in religion, regardless of whether one actually attends the services of the religion with which he is ethnically identified.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs&sei-redir=1#search=%22homosexuality%20capital%20crime% 20american%20until%22

Why is it that when you Libs try to prove a point about something allegedly happening today...you always have to reach back 150-200 years ago.

That doesn't prove anything except how stupid your argument really is.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 04:38 AM
Sara Rumpf was in the debate audience and what she witnessed was vastly different than the account the outlets linked above are reporting:

I want to put this on the record now about an incident that happened at tonight’s Republican debate. It’s important that the truth is shared, because I have already seen liberal bloggers and some people on Twitter completely distorting what happened.

The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/09/23/media-narrative-gets-it-wrong-debate-crowd-did-not-boo-gay-soldier/

Another meme bites the dust...:rolleyes:

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 08:33 AM
Religion and racism, the last bastions of one who has totally lost the argument.

marv
09-26-2011, 10:28 AM
To be black (Negroid), white (Caucasoid), yellow (Mongoloid), or brown (generally "Malayan") is the product of inheritance as dictated by nature. In other words, it's natural! And the most basic natural need of any specie is to reproduce.

Homosexuality is a learned defense developed in response to stressful situations. That's been demonstrated in laboratory experiments by overcrowding rats of either gender alone in cages. Homosexual behavior can also seen in all-male and all-female prisons. What constitutes stress depends on the individual's ability to deal with everyday conflicts and varies from individual to individual.

Fortunately, homosexuals seldom choose to reproduce the natural way.

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 12:11 PM
Should the policies of a civilian controlled military be put to a vote of the officers and enlisted?
No, that's part of the Constitution. But we should be a lot more careful who we put in the civilian positions that control the military. Giving Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the DNC political power of any kind is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

I think part of the conservative opposition to all things related to homosexuality is, to put it simply: "if one thing taboo becomes acceptable, then all things taboo become acceptable"..

:eek:
Well, part of the left's love of homosexuality is that when you weaken one taboo, you weaken them all, and the left has made it quite clear that they seek to remake sexual morality, marriage, the nature of the family and everything else that they can get their hands on.

The Japanese have been doing this long before the internet.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/1/3017.jpg

~QC
This is why you should never order the calimari if it's too fresh.

i know you are but what am i
Seven years old, apparently.

Why are u harassing and bullying me?
Nobody is harassing and bullying you. You are eliciting responses based on what you write. If you write drivel, you will be treated like a troll.


I'm gay and i hate bigots and homophobes.
Yeah, we got that. We also don't care. Your sexual proclivities don't entitle you to automatic credibility on this issue.

And all i can say is i'm glad DADT has been lifted.
Yes, we get that. You've made it quite clear. But, since you also lack the conviction to sign up and do a htich in the armed force of your choice, it's pretty obvious that your commitment to this is pretty shallow. You talk the talk, but you will let someone else walk the walk. Typical.

hai
09-26-2011, 02:02 PM
No, that's part of the Constitution. But we should be a lot more careful who we put in the civilian positions that control the military. Giving Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the DNC political power of any kind is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

Well, part of the left's love of homosexuality is that when you weaken one taboo, you weaken them all, and the left has made it quite clear that they seek to remake sexual morality, marriage, the nature of the family and everything else that they can get their hands on.

This is why you should never order the calimari if it's too fresh.

Seven years old, apparently.

Nobody is harassing and bullying you. You are eliciting responses based on what you write. If you write drivel, you will be treated like a troll.


Yeah, we got that. We also don't care. Your sexual proclivities don't entitle you to automatic credibility on this issue.

Yes, we get that. You've made it quite clear. But, since you also lack the conviction to sign up and do a htich in the armed force of your choice, it's pretty obvious that your commitment to this is pretty shallow. You talk the talk, but you will let someone else walk the walk. Typical.

Dude,i'm no troll.



Trolling - In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory messages

And speaking as a member of the deviantart Anti-Troll club i'm very insulted,and hope you take back what you said.

CueSi
09-26-2011, 02:18 PM
This isn't dArt. . . there are very different rules out here. . . each board/ community has different rules. No one here will soft-glove you on first brush if you have an unpopular opinion...even if you are an Aspie. :p

~QC

hai
09-26-2011, 02:22 PM
This isn't dArt. . . there are very different rules out here. . . each board/ community has different rules. No one here will soft-glove you on first brush if you have an unpopular opinion...even if you are an Aspie. :p

~QC

Sorry,of course yesterday it seemed i couldn't wake up,even after i drank coffee.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 02:41 PM
Why is it that when you Libs try to prove a point about something allegedly happening today...you always have to reach back 150-200 years ago.

That doesn't prove anything except how stupid your argument really is.

I was responding to Zathras post:

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America.

Zathras is denying the HISTORY of discrimination and the severity of the treatment of gay people relative to blacks or other minorities. My post showed that it was once a capital crime to be gay in our culture. These laws didn't disappear over night. Most of the artifacts of these laws, ie homosexuality as a felony, were enforced until recently, and selective enforced at that. Lawrence went a long way to nullify these laws, but just as Illinois tries to end run the Second Amendment, some politicians and governments try to end-run the spirit and letter of Lawrence.

My response was appropriate. If you like I can walk you through the entire history of the country and its unconstitutional treatment of gay people. We can start at almost any given point in time if you think that colonial times are too old and boring. Would you like to chat about the 1940's or 1950's? How about the 1990's?

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Well it damn sure shouldn't be the policy of our civilian "leaders" to use us as a social experiment like some damn ant farm.

I find it interesting that you keep an "us and them" mentality, despite your awareness that the "us" is not of a single race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or political persuasion. When you say "us" you're referring to what you consider "real Americans" or "real soldiers" aren't you? Could you define that for US?

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:55 PM
I was responding to Zathras post:

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America.

Zathras is denying the HISTORY of discrimination and the severity of the treatment of gay people relative to blacks or other minorities. My post showed that it was once a capital crime to be gay in our culture. These laws didn't disappear over night. Most of the artifacts of these laws, ie homosexuality as a felony, were enforced until recently, and selective enforced at that. Lawrence went a long way to nullify these laws, but just as Illinois tries to end run the Second Amendment, some politicians and governments try to end-run the spirit and letter of Lawrence.

My response was appropriate. If you like I can walk you through the entire history of the country and its unconstitutional treatment of gay people. We can start at almost any given point in time if you think that colonial times are too old and boring. Would you like to chat about the 1940's or 1950's? How about the 1990's?

Oh please...save the drama for your mama Nova. I knew you'd come in here trying to pass the false notion that gays have had it so rough in this country. Too bad you're blinded by your pathetic agenda to see just what a falacy this is.

Gays have been slaves? Had fire hoses and dogs turned on them? Seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms? Entire communities wiped out by men on horseback? Their churches burned and bombed? Seperate seating on busses?

Get back to me when you can prove this has happened in the same amount as has happened to the blacks in this country.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:57 PM
Sorry,of course yesterday it seemed i couldn't wake up,even after i drank coffee.

So I take it you haven't gone to the local recruiter and signed up for a hitch in the US Military?

I'm surprised since you, as a supporter of DADT going away and self admitted gay, wouldn't rush right down and sign at the earliest opportunity.

By the way, that's sarcasm if you couldn't figure it out.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 03:04 PM
Dude,i'm no troll..

Yes you are.


And speaking as a member of the deviantart Anti-Troll club i'm very insulted,and hope you take back what you said.

Crap in one hand and hope in the other and see which one fills up first.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 03:26 PM
Oh please...save the drama for your mama Nova. I knew you'd come in here trying to pass the false notion that gays have had it so rough in this country. Too bad you're blinded by your pathetic agenda to see just what a falacy this is.

Gays have been slaves? Had fire hoses and dogs turned on them? Seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms? Entire communities wiped out by men on horseback? Their churches burned and bombed? Seperate seating on busses?

Get back to me when you can prove this has happened in the same amount as has happened to the blacks in this country.

And a few posts later I wrote:

Blacks and American Indians can waste their time fighting for the top spot in the oppression hierarchy, but it's simply a lie to say that gay people are not in that company. No, most gay people living today haven't had it "as bad" as blacks under Jim Crow, and perhaps never as group had it as bad, though it's hard to quantify "bad" in this context. At least when a black man was treated badly, he could find safety and comfort in his own family. So, perhaps this can't be measured like water, it's simply all water.

I'll go through your list anyway.

Gays have been slaves?

Many were, but not necessarily for homosexuality. The English did have a habit of "transporting" felons who were too socially connected to execute or put to hard labor. So it's reasonable to assume that many gay people were sent into bondage in the Carolinas in that period.


Had fire hoses and dogs turned on them?

Police have abused the gay community since the 19th century in this country (when the gay community first started to form) clear up until the present. Abuse came in the form of extortion, physical attacks, destruction of property and business, and the loss of jobs, property and standing.


Separate drinking fountains and bathrooms?

Well you really got me there. Separate drinking fountains really trumps the continual threat of violence or personal destruction. Being blackmailed by government agents, being harassed by military police who write down tag numbers of all the cars near gay bars, loss of security clearances, denial of employment for dishonorable discharges, culturally sanctioned terrorism in the schools.... how dare we call it harm?



Entire communities wiped out by men on horseback?

Like I said, the Indians can have the top spot in the oppression hierarchy, that doesn't mean that gay people aren't on the same list.


Their churches burned and bombed?

You mean like gay bars being bombed, burned, bombarded, or storm troopered? Have you been asleep for all that?

And let's not forget that some of the folks who look like those victims ("Bishop" Harry Jackson), stand on the steps of their churches and condemn gay people (and white people, because in their mind gay people are white people) for having the nerve to move back into formerly white neighborhoods, and fix them up changing the racial mix of the "historically black communities".

And let's not forget that the hypocritical Orthodox Jews in the Bronx who bitch and moan about the former discrimination against Jews in the US and the contemporary anti-semitism in the US, then turn around and encourage discrimination against gay people from their synagogues.


Seperate seating on busses?

Or being attacked on the bus or chased from it?

Like I said, I don't like to play oppression hierarchy, and besides the blacks, indians, and mexicans are each firmly convinced of their own place at the top. That contest isn't doing anything for them given the public perception of those communities.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm surprised since you, as a supporter of DADT going away and self admitted gay, wouldn't rush right down and sign at the earliest opportunity.


Does he need to apply to work for Ford to oppose discrimination in hiring and opportunity there?

hai
09-26-2011, 03:47 PM
Yes you are.



Crap in one hand and hope in the other and see which one fills up first.

Dude,i'm no troll.

http://the-anti-trolls-club.deviantart.com/

I was also diagnosed with aspergers at a early age and went to a special school and special olympics.

Bailey
09-26-2011, 03:51 PM
Dude,i'm no troll.

http://the-anti-trolls-club.deviantart.com/

I was also diagnosed with aspergers at a early age and went to a special school and special olympics.

Well this explains a lot....

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 03:55 PM
Dude,i'm no troll.

And speaking as a member of the deviantart Anti-Troll club i'm very insulted,and hope you take back what you said.

So, calling us bigots and homophobes is okay, but calling you a troll is insulting and demeaning? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 03:58 PM
So, calling us bigots and homophobes is okay, but calling you a troll is insulting and demeaning? Seriously? :rolleyes:

If the shoe fits wear it doesn't mean it's OK to throw it.

Rockntractor
09-26-2011, 04:04 PM
Dude,i'm no troll.

http://the-anti-trolls-club.deviantart.com/

I was also diagnosed with aspergers at a early age and went to a special school and special olympics.

Stay out of the gay battles hai, no good comes of it.

hai
09-26-2011, 04:12 PM
Stay out of the gay battles hai, no good comes of it.

K.

This,to me a troll would be someone who posts goatse,insults others,or the like,i didn't do any of that.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6186615844_3b12fbd1b1_z.jpg

Rockntractor
09-26-2011, 04:18 PM
K.

This,to me a troll would be someone who posts goatse,insults others,or the like,i didn't do any of that.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6186615844_3b12fbd1b1_z.jpg

Sometimes it is just better to stick with the topics you have fun with.

hai
09-26-2011, 04:19 PM
Sometimes it is just better to stick with the topics you have fun with.

K

Zathras
09-26-2011, 04:24 PM
A long ranting diatribe with no examples given.

As expected.


Like I said, I don't like to play oppression hierarchy, and besides the blacks, indians, and mexicans are each firmly convinced of their own place at the top. That contest isn't doing anything for them given the public perception of those communities.

For someone who doesn't like to play the oppression hierachy game, you sure do a fine job at it.

I'm done with this crap Nova. Take your self righteous bullshit and stick it where the sun don't shine next to your head that's stuck squarely up your ass.

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 04:43 PM
If the shoe fits wear it doesn't mean it's OK to throw it.

Calling us bigots may make it easier for you to pretend that we have no arguments against your policies, but aside from flattering yourself, it really accomplishes nothing here except to demonstrate the poverty of your ideas and your lack of experience and understanding of the issues surrounding military service. Your accusations of religious-based bias against me are particularly amusing, and obviously desperate.

Just an obvious example: You cite examples of namecalling which have not been seen in the force since before I was a private (two and a half decades ago), and then use that as an excuse to tar us as homophobes, but when you are informed that those comments are not permitted, you don't retract your first statement, but blithely continue to act as though it is still part of the motivation, and then demand to know if it was really necessary for new troops in basic training to be subjected to verbal hazing, and the explanation, while obvious to anyone who ever thought about the issue for more than a second, demonstrated that you have never considered it in any way. Your failure to think about one of the most basic and well-publicized aspects of military culture demonstrates a profound lack of interest in, and understanding of, that culture, and yet you presume to dictate how we should conduct ourselves in areas of which you are completely ignorant.

In this, you are no different from Obama, who has never run so much as a lemonade stand, dictating the management of multi-billion dollar corporations, and like him, you will see your policy demands fail miserably..

marv
09-26-2011, 05:12 PM
And a few posts later I wrote:

Blacks and American Indians can waste their time fighting for the top spot in the oppression hierarchy, but it's simply a lie to say that gay people are not in that company.

Gays have been slaves?

Had fire hoses and dogs turned on them?

Separate drinking fountains and bathrooms?

Entire communities wiped out by men on horseback?

Their churches burned and bombed?

Seperate seating on busses?




http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 06:19 PM
Just an obvious example: You cite examples of namecalling which have not been seen in the force since before I was a private (two and a half decades ago), and then use that as an excuse to tar us as homophobes, but when you are informed that those comments are not permitted, you don't retract your first statement, but blithely continue to act as though it is still part of the motivation

I didn't retract because I didn't accuse or state as a fact. I speculated on a motivation, and when informed that the military had cleaned up its act in this regard, I said that I was glad to hear it. The fact that you haven't seen this in training for 25 years is good, but does it mean that the license to promote this mentality has been revoked? How could that be, when you maintain that the mentality it alive and well?

Now here is an accusation if you would like one:

Presumably a large portion of those you predict will find gay equality unbearable are under age thirty. Studies show that this age group is the least homophobic (for lack of a better word), presumably because they have been raised by parents who function in society, attend schools with discrimination/harassment policies, and haven't had the social instruction or re-enforcement for male pattern homophobia. They have grown up in the last decade or two when the youth subculture eschews "hatin'" and regards old fashioned fag bashing as idiocy.

So where is the culture of resistance that you speak of coming from? If indeed the majority of these young men (it doesn't seem to apply to women as much) are as uncomfortable with gay people as you say, then how are they getting that way between the end of high school and today? Is this culture taught and promoted in the military? By whom? Is it mere concentrated in the military? By what function?

I was surfing the web a few years back, and came across some graffiti in Brazil. Translated, it said: "Kill nwords, Jews, and queers." I was surprised. My first reaction was, "How come they always put these three together?" Because this is basically the mantra of the KKK in the US. But, in Brazil? Most of us aren't certain where to draw the line between white and black in Brazil, and who knew they even had enough Jews to have a hate group against them? But there it was, the same three in the list.

But some here think that one (that they will admit to anyway) of those is to be expected in the military, but not the other two. I'm curious how they decide where to draw the line.

Odysseus
09-27-2011, 01:15 PM
I didn't retract because I didn't accuse or state as a fact. I speculated on a motivation, and when informed that the military had cleaned up its act in this regard, I said that I was glad to hear it. The fact that you haven't seen this in training for 25 years is good, but does it mean that the license to promote this mentality has been revoked? How could that be, when you maintain that the mentality it alive and well?
There is a radical difference between not being comfortable showering with a gay person and shouting slurs in his face. To equate the two is like equating a paper cut with a sucking chest wound, and even that is a stretch, because the latter comparison is a matter of degree, while the former is not about prejudice, but issues of modesty and personal privacy. Again, a woman who objected to showering with men would not be told to "get over it."


Now here is an accusation if you would like one:

Presumably a large portion of those you predict will find gay equality unbearable are under age thirty. Studies show that this age group is the least homophobic (for lack of a better word), presumably because they have been raised by parents who function in society, attend schools with discrimination/harassment policies, and haven't had the social instruction or re-enforcement for male pattern homophobia. They have grown up in the last decade or two when the youth subculture eschews "hatin'" and regards old fashioned fag bashing as idiocy.

So where is the culture of resistance that you speak of coming from? If indeed the majority of these young men (it doesn't seem to apply to women as much) are as uncomfortable with gay people as you say, then how are they getting that way between the end of high school and today? Is this culture taught and promoted in the military? By whom? Is it mere concentrated in the military? By what function?

First, homophobic is a loaded term. Phobos is Greek for fear, so its literal translation is "fear of gays." The issue here is not fear, but disapproval, or concern that aspects of gay behavior are inappropriate in certain settings, such as a barracks, or, to put it another way, the recognition that gays are human beings who indulge in practices that most non-gays find unappealing. Those think that being gay is no big deal are most likely homoadiaforíc (Literally, Greek for "indifferent to gays"), as opposed to homophilic (Literally, Greek for "gay-loving") and those who disapprove of gay lifestyle conduct, or homoapodokimasíc (Greek for "disapproving of homosexuality"). You assume that the under thirty age group is not "homophobic", but that does not make them homophilic. It makes them, at best (to your mind) homoadiaforíc, but many are homoapodokimasíc, that is, they are tolerant, but not enamored, and perhaps uncomfortable in close quarters. The most homophilic and homoadiaforíc are not the ones most likely to join the military. Military service attracts people who are more likely to be politically and socially conservative, that is, people whom, while still tolerant of gays in other contexts, do not give unconditional approval to them, and are not comfortable in close quarters with homosexual conduct. They will be less likely to join a force that seeks to redefine itself as gay-friendly, and more likely to leave early as gay lifestyle issues are forced upon them.


I was surfing the web a few years back, and came across some graffiti in Brazil. Translated, it said: "Kill nwords, Jews, and queers." I was surprised. My first reaction was, "How come they always put these three together?" Because this is basically the mantra of the KKK in the US. But, in Brazil? Most of us aren't certain where to draw the line between white and black in Brazil, and who knew they even had enough Jews to have a hate group against them? But there it was, the same three in the list.

But some here think that one (that they will admit to anyway) of those is to be expected in the military, but not the other two. I'm curious how they decide where to draw the line.

There is a difference, as stated above, between hatred, disapproval, indifference and love. The graffiti that you described is hateful. It demands murder of Blacks, gays and Jews. It does not express mild disapproval or discomfort. It does not involve differences of opinion which may or may not be open to resolution. It does not allow for tolerance. It is a call to mass murder. You continually equate this kind of open hatred with those who simply believe that being gay is incompatible with Soldiering. You either cannot tell the difference between someone who hates you, and someone who may like or dislike you personally, but finds your sexual preference less than ideal, or you deliberately blur the distinction in order to simplify your arguments and make rebuttal more difficult. It certainly works, since half of every argument that I have to make is dedicated to my having to dispute your assertion that those who oppose the lifting of the ban are bigots. It wastes our time and puts us on the defensive, while you never respond to the points that we make, which are that you are, if not openly hostile to the armed forces (as many on your side of the debate are), you are at least indifferent to any negative effects of lifting the ban. When asked how DADT repeal will enhance readiness, you ignore the question. When asked how people who are not comfortable in intimate quarters with gay troops should react, your response is that they should "get over it", even though non-gays constitute 95% or more of the force. OTOH, when someone tells you to "get over" the ban, he's tarred as a bigot. You refuse to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate cause for concern on the part of the leadership, but demand that we embrace your lifestyle without so much as an acknowledgement of the costs that we will incur. Instead, you pretend that these costs are trivial or that they are non-existent, but our experience with sexual integration of the force shows that these costs are real, they are substantial, and we are still paying them. Until you admit that, then you cannot be taken seriously on this subject. You're just another activist, no different from an ivory-tower academic who is trying to run a corporation through regulation. Your ignorance will have real world consequences that we will have to deal with, and trying to make you see that is intensely frustrating.

hai
09-27-2011, 03:02 PM
Of course i find this forum more respectful on gay issues.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465258

Odysseus
09-27-2011, 03:09 PM
Of course i find this forum more respectful on gay issues.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465258

Then feel free to go pluck yourself. :D

txradioguy
09-27-2011, 04:09 PM
Of course i find this forum more respectful on gay issues.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465258

Good for you. Go there and don't come back.