Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
I believe it will be just like that, if not at first, then soon enough. And, soon enough can’t come soon enough! 👍
Click to expand...
That is an entirely unrealistic proposal. That is why I presented it.

The American public has consistently voted down gay marriage, twice in California. That means the only option available to LGBT marriage proponents is to influence judges and politicians. That’s all they can get to and I suspect it’s being viewed as more cost effective.

Like abortion, which required the interference of the Supreme Court, it is possible the same may happen here. And to those who think this country will become more debased, remember, the people voted against this - so it is not as debased as it seems. In fact, I think the people understand this better than the judges and politicians.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The American public has consistently voted down gay marriage, twice in California. That means the only option available to LGBT marriage proponents is to influence judges and politicians. That’s all they can get to and I suspect it’s being viewed as more cost effective.
Click to expand...
I’m not addressing gay marriage; I’m talking about gays being able to serve in our Armed Forces openly. I don’t care what those people voted down. They don’t make the rules for the military. It’s up to the Services, to the President and the Congress.
And to those who think this country will become more debased, remember, the people voted against this - so it is not as debased as it seems.
Click to expand...
And, I don’t think it “debased” to allow homosexuals to serve in our Armed Forces openly. Let those civilians who don’t like the idea join in place of the gays and lesbians if it’s such a horror to them.
 
edwest2 said:
Rich,

Here’s the link between gay marriage and the repeal of DADT from 365gay.com:

365gay.com/opinion/culhane-how-dadt-repeal-will-help-gay-marriage/
Click to expand...
I have only one interest in this - for all men and women who want to serve and are fit to serve to be able to serve. I don’t care whom any serviceman or woman marries. My focus is entirely on the military mission and getting the best people to carry out tht mission - without peeking into their bedrooms.

You don’t agree, but that’s what makes a horse race. We’ll see sooner or later, preferably sooner, whose horse wins.
 
edwest2 said:
What will happen then, if gays are allowed to serve openly? They won’t tell anyone? No one in their unit will know? If so, what’s the point of serving “openly”?

Or will it go like this:

“Oh by the way, guys, I’m gay.”

Followed by: “Really? No kiddin’.” And everybody just goes back to what they were doing?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Do you know any heterosexual people? How do you know - do they describe their heterosexual acts to you? Do they announce “hey, I’m straight” when you meet them? Our servicemen and women know that most people are straight and some people are gay. They know that some of the people that they serve with are gay. They find out the same way that they find out that some are straight. But even if some of the gay servicemembers did announce their orientation to their comrades - so what?
 
TMC said:
Do you know any heterosexual people? How do you know - do they describe their heterosexual acts to you? Do they announce “hey, I’m straight” when you meet them? Our servicemen and women know that most people are straight and some people are gay. They know that some of the people that they serve with are gay. They find out the same way that they find out that some are straight. But even if some of the gay servicemembers did announce their orientation to their comrades - so what?
Click to expand...
What was the point of all that? Tell me, what does serving “openly” mean? Nobody knows?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What was the point of all that? Tell me, what does serving “openly” mean? Nobody knows?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Everyone knows what serving openly means - it means the same thing that it does for heterosexual people that currently serve openly. It means that a servicemember cannot be discharged if the service learns that he or she is gay. The current rule is that a gay servicemember must be closeted, but even if they are discrete, they can be discharged if their orientation becomes known. Repealing DADT means that they can no longer be discharged merely because their orientation becomes known - whether it becomes known by personal proclamation, by being “outed” by someone or by some other means.

It will be no different than it currently is for heterosexuals in that regard. That has been explained repeatedly on this thread. I don’t understand what it is about “serving openly” that you don’t understand.
 
  1. To clarify what I said earlier, official opposition to gays in the military is is based upon the claim that it affects group cohesion. That is only true so long as the soldiers and sailors care. There is a generational divide on caring about that, with younger people seldom as bothered as older generations, like Senator McCain. This generally mirrors the attitudes of society, which are likewise split generationally, with most of those opposed to gay rights literally dying out. Consequently, concerns about group cohesion should also die out in the military, and are currently being held mainly by older officers, rather than the front line troops who are the object of the concern. Being generally younger, they already dont care about it.
  2. “Serving Openly” is a very confused (and less than descriptive) standard, as the example of one airman might demonstrate. The police in a community were looking for a person who lived with the airman off-base. When the police went to their home, they claimed that they could see without entering that there was a marriage certificate on a table with the names of the airman and the person of interest to the police. The police contacted the Air Force and told them that the airman was a lesbian, and the the Air Force acted on that information to discharge her. Not due to her co-workers knowing, but because she went to another state to get married, and the local police somehow learned of it.
  3. As for referenda on gay marriage, a seperate question but connected by the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians, the Bill of Rights seems to say that this is not a matter of majority rule, any more than a majority can ban Catholics (as many sought to do). As has been said, we dont generally allocate basic civil rights on the basis of a majority vote.
    It is my understanding that not long after California voted against Gay Marriage, the majority actually supported it, and its backers hope to have a new ballot initiative at the earliest opportunity. Again as time passes, and opponants pass away, there will probably be democratic support for gay marriage in the US. Continued opposition from the Catholic Church to what other Churches offer as sacraments will eventually not concern most American Catholics.
  4. It seems to me that the claim that homosexuality is a choice must include the idea that all these people are masochists and have a death wish, as choosing to identify as gay has been the death of many, as well as led many people to losing their families. Why would people go to great lengths and expense to hide their homosexuality if they could simply choose not to be gay? Why do some people raised or living in virulently anti-gay enviroments choose to kill themselves rather than simply choose to be not-gay? At the very least we have to conclude that they dont believe that they have a choice. And yet those most violently opposed to gays make no secret of their belief that it is a choice, and so such beliefs can be no secret to those who choose suicide.
  5. As for the Catholic Medical Association, one has to wonder if these were the same doctors who said it was safe to put priests accused of sexual abuse back into contact with children.
 
Phil_Stone said:
  1. To clarify what I said earlier, official opposition to gays in the military is is based upon the claim that it affects group cohesion. That is only true so long as the soldiers and sailors care. There is a generational divide on caring about that, with younger people seldom as bothered as older generations, like Senator McCain. This generally mirrors the attitudes of society, which are likewise split generationally, with most of those opposed to gay rights literally dying out. Consequently, concerns about group cohesion should also die out in the military, and are currently being held mainly by older officers, rather than the front line troops who are the object of the concern. Being generally younger, they already dont care about it.
  2. “Serving Openly” is a very confused (and less than descriptive) standard, as the example of one airman might demonstrate. The police in a community were looking for a person who lived with the airman off-base. When the police went to their home, they claimed that they could see without entering that there was a marriage certificate on a table with the names of the airman and the person of interest to the police. The police contacted the Air Force and told them that the airman was a lesbian, and the the Air Force acted on that information to discharge her. Not due to her co-workers knowing, but because she went to another state to get married, and the local police somehow learned of it.
  3. As for referenda on gay marriage, a seperate question but connected by the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians, the Bill of Rights seems to say that this is not a matter of majority rule, any more than a majority can ban Catholics (as many sought to do). As has been said, we dont generally allocate basic civil rights on the basis of a majority vote.
    It is my understanding that not long after California voted against Gay Marriage, the majority actually supported it, and its backers hope to have a new ballot initiative at the earliest opportunity. Again as time passes, and opponants pass away, there will probably be democratic support for gay marriage in the US. Continued opposition from the Catholic Church to what other Churches offer as sacraments will eventually not concern most American Catholics.
  4. It seems to me that the claim that homosexuality is a choice must include the idea that all these people are masochists and have a death wish, as choosing to identify as gay has been the death of many, as well as led many people to losing their families. Why would people go to great lengths and expense to hide their homosexuality if they could simply choose not to be gay? Why do some people raised or living in virulently anti-gay enviroments choose to kill themselves rather than simply choose to be not-gay? At the very least we have to conclude that they dont believe that they have a choice. And yet those most violently opposed to gays make no secret of their belief that it is a choice, and so such beliefs can be no secret to those who choose suicide.
  5. As for the Catholic Medical Association, one has to wonder if these were the same doctors who said it was safe to put priests accused of sexual abuse back into contact with children.
Click to expand...
As for point 3), it is now clear that there was no reason to have put this issue on any state ballot. None.

The California comment actually makes less sense considering the issue was voted down not just once but twice. This invisible majority appears to have not voted in significant numbers in both cases.

Peace,
Ed
 
jerryson said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

bottom of the page includes 86 footnotes & references as well
Click to expand...
But where do you come up with your statement about 99 percent of studies showing whatever?

I’m not disagreeing with the results of any of the studies referenced (even if they are from Wiki, which is well known to be a questionable source for anything). But I don’t think that 99 percent of studies have shown anything. And I don’t think you can back up your statement re 99 percent of studies show that…"

Can you?
 
jerryson said:
Everybody here and in this whole debate seems to miss the obvious point: Gay people pay federal taxes, taxes fund the military, hence the military is a tax payer funded institution. If gay people pay taxes for the military, then they have every right to join it. Now, if you believe so strongly that gay people should not join the military, then at least be consistent and demand that gay people be exempt from paying military taxes then.
Click to expand...
Yes, and then let’s let everyone who should not or cannot join the miltary become exempt from paying military taxes. Like people over a certain age, like those who can’t be accepted into the armed forces because of injury and/or disease, like those who have too many responsibilities at home, etc.

Why should they have to pay military taxes? Why should I have to pay military taxes? I would never be accepted into the armed forces.
 
jerryson said:
And what about the 99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way? What about the 99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions? What about the 99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them? And I would love to hear how the homosexual giraffes and penguins and chimpanzees “chose” their lifestyle :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How do you come up with “99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way” and “…99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions” and “…99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them?”

What’s with this 99%? Can you back this figure up? Or is this just an unfounded assertion?
 
LittleSoldier said:
How do you come up with “99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way” and “…99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions” and “…99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them?”

What’s with this 99%? Can you back this figure up? Or is this just an unfounded assertion?
Click to expand...
Is anyone able to prove otherwise? The idea that being a homosexual is entirely mental is nonsense. They have witnessed homosexuality in dozens of species, and they have even p(name removed by moderator)ointed the gene/DNA strand which leads to homosexual tendencies.
 
jerryson said:
Is anyone able to prove otherwise? The idea that being a homosexual is entirely mental is nonsense. They have witnessed homosexuality in dozens of species, and they have even p(name removed by moderator)ointed the gene/DNA strand which leads to homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my questions. I’ll repeat them:

How do you come up with “99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way” and “…99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions” and “…99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them?”

What’s with this 99%? Can you back this figure up? Or is this just an unfounded assertion?

You are the one who made the assertion. It’s up to you to show proof. I am not questioning your claim that homosexuality is a common occurrence in many species. In fact, I know that to be true as my background is in biology and research psychology/animal behavior.

What I’m questioning is your use of “99%.”

Can you answer the questions? Can you back up your assertions with proof?
 
jerryson said:
Is anyone able to prove otherwise? The idea that being a homosexual is entirely mental is nonsense. They have witnessed homosexuality in dozens of species, and they have even p(name removed by moderator)ointed the gene/DNA strand which leads to homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
We have witnessed sexual cannibalism amongst the animal kingdom as well. Please let me know when we start justifying the murder/consumption of the human male by the human female because the animal kingdom does it too.
 
LOL, so far the only thing my wife is eating is my wallet.

JK, she’s a wonderful woman…(looks over shoulder).
 
Hi, Stan,

Well, here I am.

As to the OP’s question, no our allies’ experience doesn’t matter; because God put America on the Earth to change Europe and other nations, not to follow them.

About being born gay. So what? All of us are born with a ‘flight/fight’ reflex but we all learn that fighting solves little; to stand and not run and face the conflict; and that killing is wrong.

That flight/fight and killing to solve conflict is all hardwired into all of us, and we learn to overcome that hardwiring. Same can be done with sexuality.

God loves you,
Don
P.S.
When I was in the military ('61 - '65 and '72 - '74)DADT was common practise from common sense. Now, since progessives have slashed the foundations of America, and sense there’s more than one language, there’s less in common which people have. And, so, since citizens of our nation, thanks to progressives, Muslims, Mexicans and political correctness, has little to nothing in common, we have little to no common sense. And, so, it was necessary for Congress to leigislate DADT, to save America.

Now, because of gay rights and abortion and such, God blesses America less and I wish He would start saving America.
 
donsnow said:
God put America on the Earth to change Europe and other nations, not to follow them.
Click to expand...
The notion that the United States is God’s chosen, doesn’t appear in Catholic beliefs, but derives in great part from Calvinist theology in its belief in the “Elect.” Manifest destiny is the secular form of this theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top