Obama's "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

Tawnos said:

What is so ostentatious? Are you a Christian? Do you ever wear a cross, or shirts that proclaim your belief, or carry a bible, etc? Isn't that "displaying [your] lifestyle ostentatiously"?


1 Lifestyle, interesting choice of words. Did you choose to be straight? Do you consider being straight your "lifestyle"? If not, why do you presume to tell gay people that it's a lifestyle choice?


2 Could you provide examples of those who act in such a way? Would you consider it distracting for a gay man and his husband to show up in matching black and white tuxes? What if they danced together, held hands, kissed? At what point does it offend you?


3 Why is it so damn hard for you to accept that others are gay?


4 And if that's how they are, and they're not acting out, but simply being who they are?


5 Bull.Shiat.

6 Define your terms. What is "acting normal"? What is being done that isn't based on stereotypes?

Click to expand...

1. It is a life style choice simple as that NO ONE IS BORN THE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. There are life events that people experience that make them whom they are. Its has not been proven by science one way or another.

2. As for both gay men showing up in suits for events I would say NO. It would be an issue if one of them came dressed in a dress or other questionable attire and the same would go for a female couple whom one dresses in a tux. You may say it should not matter but it does because it is against UCMJ to do so. The Military IS NOT some political social experiment that anyone one has the right to threat our men and women that way. When you sign your name on the dotted line you give several of your rights to serve.

3 How am I not accepting of gays, I have served with many and are still close friends with many. THE MILITARY is not the place to be anyone's soap box about political issues. You can serve and keep your private life's to yourself and I have personal seen 4 people in my unit who showed photos and videos of their wife's. They are now dishonorably discharged because of it. So get off your high horse that I or others are out to get gay people.

4. It may be for some, but my gay friends who you would never know they where gay unless you where friends with them say other wise. They have told me time and time again that so many feel they have to act that way to make sure they are noticed and they think it helps their cause and my friends say it does more damage than good. Instead of winning people over it turns more people away.


5. Grow up there's no needing to cuss. Also going around the profanity filter is not smiled a pawn here.


6. What I mean by normal is this: capable of loving, working, and adapting constructively to changing conditions and acting mature in public, not trying to make your personal lifestyle everyone's business. Gay or straight, people who are "in your face" about their sexuality is not something anyone whats to have thrown in their face and being told you have to accept it. Usually these are the activists who are trying to make a point. I have no problem with seeing two men or two women holding hands or giving each other a quick kiss. It another thing when your in the military I do not want to hear about their personal sexuality just like others don't want to hear mine and in the military it is against UCMJ for either party to do so. Because it DESTROYS unit cohesion and makes units un-deplorable period. It has no place in the military. Simple keep it to yourself and the military is not a social experiment.

zack991 said:

1. It is a life style choice simple as that NO ONE IS BORN THE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. There are life events that people experience that make them whom they are. Its has not been proven by science one way or another.

Click to expand...

Then it is false to claim that "it is a life style choice"

wrightme said:

Then it is false to claim that "it is a life style choice"

Click to expand...

No its mine and many others personal opinion its either accept it or disagree theres nothing more that need to be said. Just like evolution is not proven its still a theory so you have two differing opines. My close gay friends whom I have asked this too, have said they chose to be gay because they felt its who they truly are as a person from their personal life experiences.

Tess said:

End of discussion.

Click to expand...

Wow. Whole lot of "Nuff saids" and "End of discussions" thrown around. Is that how it works?

The problem with simply reporting a problem with behavior as stated in the example of a homosexual soldier making an advance on a heterosexual soldier, or perhaps making suggestive comments, is it won't matter. What will happen in the military is what is already happening in civilian life. Gays are a privileged and protected class. They are protected by hate crime legislation. If as an example I were to get in a physical confrontation with a gay person, whether or not I had ANY CLUE he was gay, I'm potentially going to get in far more trouble if the person were straight. In fact, the guy could lie and say I called him a derogatory term and I'm charged with a hate crime.

So let's playback your scenario in some modern, all-inclusive politically correct military. I complain to a superior about an advance or suggestive remark made by a gay soldier. The gay soldier is questioned about the incident. He denies it and says that I called him a hateful name and that I'm making it up because I'm a "homophobe." You tell me what the net result of that will be? Hey, how 'bout afterward I confront the guy for being a liar like I would any straight guy I knew? I've just placed myself in more jeopardy and fed into the accusations of being a "hater."

We are creating a protected, privileged class of soldier within the military and I can see that having no other result than being poor for morale-- at least for the vast majority of soldiers who aren't going to be part of this privileged, protected class.

RockerFor2A said:

Wow. Whole lot of "Nuff saids" and "End of discussions" thrown around. Is that how it works?

The problem with simply reporting a problem with behavior as stated in the example of a homosexual soldier making an advance on a heterosexual soldier, or perhaps making suggestive comments, is it won't matter. What will happen in the military is what is already happening in civilian life. Gays are a privileged and protected class. They are protected by hate crime legislation. If as an example I were to get in a physical confrontation with a gay person, whether or not I had ANY CLUE he was gay, I'm potentially going to get in far more trouble if the person were straight. In fact, the guy could lie and say I called him a derogatory term and I'm charged with a hate crime.

So let's playback your scenario in some modern, all-inclusive politically correct military. I complain to a superior about an advance or suggestive remark made by a gay soldier. The gay soldier is questioned about the incident. He denies it and says that I called him a hateful name and that I'm making it up because I'm a "homophobe." You tell me what the net result of that will be? Hey, how 'bout afterward I confront the guy for being a liar like I would any straight guy I knew? I've just placed myself in more jeopardy and fed into the accusations of being a "hater."

We are creating a protected, privileged class of soldier within the military and I can see that having no other result than being poor for morale-- at least for the vast majority of soldiers who aren't going to be part of this privileged, protected class.

Click to expand...

Fortunately most military commanders and NCOs are smart enough not to fall for that kind of thing. Facts is facts and although it may seem like the sky is falling, most people do not fall for this kind of thing. More often than not, the truth will come out during even the most basic questioning and justice is served appropriately.

BTW- what's preventing you from falsely accusing a gay Soldier of accosting you and then having the command put the screws to the gay dude under the same scenario?

zack991 said:

No its mine and many others personal opinion its either accept it or disagree theres nothing more that need to be said. Just like evolution is not proven its still a theory so you have two differing opines.

Click to expand...

slowfiveoh said:

Being secure in your own sexuality will assist you in not feeling uncomfortable around these people. If you are scared otherwise, I would charge it is you who has the problem.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but this is the biggest crock and favorite yarn of all time. Im not uncomfortable around gays, however I *am* uncomfortable around men kissing or making out with each other, and it has nothing to do with whether I'm secure about my heterosexuality. To be quite honest, like the vast majority of men on the planet, I find it completely baffling how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Frankly, to my mind it is unnatural and deviant behavior, and THAT is what makes me uncomfortable with it.

BTW, for now I'm legally allowed to express that opinion. It's not hard to imagine that at some point in the future, a public statement like that may result in my arrest and prosecution for a "hate crime" which is really "thought crime." Maybe I'll be required (forced) to attend a government-mandated class to change my outlook. A "re-education camp" perhaps?

RockerFor2A said:

Wow. Whole lot of "Nuff saids" and "End of discussions" thrown around. Is that how it works?

The problem with simply reporting a problem with behavior as stated in the example of a homosexual soldier making an advance on a heterosexual soldier, or perhaps making suggestive comments, is it won't matter. What will happen in the military is what is already happening in civilian life. Gays are a privileged and protected class. They are protected by hate crime legislation. If as an example I were to get in a physical confrontation with a gay person, whether or not I had ANY CLUE he was gay, I'm potentially going to get in far more trouble if the person were straight. In fact, the guy could lie and say I called him a derogatory term and I'm charged with a hate crime.

So let's playback your scenario in some modern, all-inclusive politically correct military. I complain to a superior about an advance or suggestive remark made by a gay soldier. The gay soldier is questioned about the incident. He denies it and says that I called him a hateful name and that I'm making it up because I'm a "homophobe." You tell me what the net result of that will be? Hey, how 'bout afterward I confront the guy for being a liar like I would any straight guy I knew? I've just placed myself in more jeopardy and fed into the accusations of being a "hater."

We are creating a protected, privileged class of soldier within the military and I can see that having no other result than being poor for morale-- at least for the vast majority of soldiers who aren't going to be part of this privileged, protected class.

Click to expand...

The "nuff said" is based on the way it should work -- no discharges, treat others respectfully -- and not to attempt to end the discussion. I'm sorry you read it otherwise, as it appears you missed the second part. Treat others as you would be treated.

I was the first female to serve in my career field. I have first-hand experience with needing to man up and act like an adult. I expect others in the military to do the same, and as a senior NCO it was my job to see that happen.

You mean like the way you are treating those who disagree with you with respect?

I see a whole lot of arrogance of opinion from both sides of the debate.

My opinion: The old policy did not bar homosexuals from serving. It barred certain behaviors that the civilian and military leadership believed would be a detriment to the efficient functioning of military units as agents of war. I happen to agree.

eye95 said:

My opinion: The old policy did not bar homosexuals from serving. It barred certain behaviors that the civilian and military leadership believed would be a detriment to the efficient functioning of military units as agents of war. I happen to agree.

Click to expand...

+1. The only reason there's a move to change this is because you have democrats trying to shore up support from the left wing of the party. The DADT system worked just fine, but the left wing idealogs just had to try and push their social re-engineering agenda on the military as well. These are the same people endangering us all by trying to ratify the START treaty now.

RockerFor2A said:

Excuse me, but this is the biggest crock and favorite yarn of all time. Im not uncomfortable around gays, however I *am* uncomfortable around men kissing or making out with each other, and it has nothing to do with whether I'm secure about my heterosexuality. To be quite honest, like the vast majority of men on the planet, I find it completely baffling how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Frankly, to my mind it is unnatural and deviant behavior, and THAT is what makes me uncomfortable with it.

Click to expand...

Mankind has engaged in it for thousands of years.

Irregardless your personal feelings, it clearly is a "natural" thing, and stems from some sort of internal process that is different from a heterosexual male, but not intrinsically "unnatural" because of that.

I find no understanding in "why" they do things that way, but I don't have to understand it to realize that it is absolutely real, and very natural. Irregardless my personal discomfort.

There is a way to separate fact, from opinion, but I am aware that all of the scientific evidence in the world will not sway those who don't, or refuse to, understand it because they deem it "unnatural and gross".

RockerFor2A said:

BTW, for now I'm legally allowed to express that opinion. It's not hard to imagine that at some point in the future, a public statement like that may result in my arrest and prosecution for a "hate crime" which is really "thought crime." Maybe I'll be required (forced) to attend a government-mandated class to change my outlook. A "re-education camp" perhaps?

Click to expand...

Who the HELL is talking about political or societal reeducation, or new "hate" crimes?

I mean really?

What a fear-mongering, delusional, sensationalized comment.

Seriously? Godwins law already?

slowfiveoh said:

Mankind has engaged in it for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

Not mankind, but a small fringe element of mankind. Mankind has probably engaged in incest for thousands of years. It's longevity isn't proof of anything. And in "unnatural" I'm talking about the potential for procreation.

Who the HELL is talking about political or societal reeducation, or new "hate" crimes?

I mean really?

What a fear-mongering, delusional, sensationalized comment.

Seriously? Godwins law already?

Click to expand...

Hardly. As certain secular values begin to take on force of law, we will see persecution of people who refuse to conform. There may be a day where clergy who dare to strictly interpret the Bible and preach that homosexuality is a sin may risk criminal charges. However the first attack will likely be via revoking tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. You may think it far fetched. I don't.

As far as Godwin's law, man, get real. Look it up. I didn't invoke a maladjusted, failed painter or his movement, so brush up on your net jargon.

eye95 said:

You mean like the way you are treating those who disagree with you with respect?

I see a whole lot of arrogance of opinion from both sides of the debate.

My opinion: The old policy did not bar homosexuals from serving. It barred certain behaviors that the civilian and military leadership believed would be a detriment to the efficient functioning of military units as agents of war. I happen to agree.

Click to expand...

I agree.



Also here's a question for those who believe homosexuals are born that way:
If that is the case, then said individual was born with a genetic abnormality leading to a defective reproductive urge. Afterall hetrosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation to ensuring the procreation, and survival of the species. That being said , said individual was born with a birth defect that is either a currently undiscovered physical abnormality, or worse a mental disorder. If this is so that person would be inelligible anyway.

Military service is not a civil right. If it were there would be handicapped ramps and wheelchair access on ships, and guide dog programs for blind snipers. Hell, you can't even serve on a sub if you're over 6' tall.

zack991 said:

1. It is a life style choice simple as that NO ONE IS BORN THE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. There are life events that people experience that make them whom they are. Its has not been proven by science one way or another.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

Then it is false to claim that "it is a life style choice"

Click to expand...

zack991 said:

No its mine and many others personal opinion its either accept it or disagree theres nothing more that need to be said.

Click to expand...

NOW you claim it is simply an opinion. That wasn't how you presented it.

It has not been proven by science one way or another. You have an opinion.

RockerFor2A said:

Not mankind, but a small fringe element of mankind. Mankind has probably engaged in incest for thousands of years. It's longevity isn't proof of anything. And in "unnatural" I'm talking about the potential for procreation.

Click to expand...

It's longevity does indeed lend credibility to its existence as a natural phenomenon. Incest is not a parallel because it leads to malformed offspring, and limits the genome.

If two guys wish to have sex, that is their business. The thought of it may be utterly disgusting to you and I, but it is THEIR body, and their right.

Hiding your true feelings, and actions that show affections to your partner is completely acceptable to us, because we do not (Can not?) see, nor understand that angle. It still does not make it wrong. It is merely something we are unfamiliar with.

This unfamiliarity has bred contempt within our society, and it is cemented by religious belief, and the never ending preaching that it is "bad", or "evil in the eyes of the lord".

This in itself is manufactured hate and bigotry, which then leads to many of the attacks that have happened on homosexuals, who DARE show their affection for each other in public.

RockerFor2A said:

Hardly. As certain secular values begin to take on force of law, we will see persecution of people who refuse to conform. There may be a day where clergy who dare to strictly interpret the Bible and preach that homosexuality is a sin may risk criminal charges. However the first attack will likely be via revoking tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. You may think it far fetched. I don't.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of churches that perform gay marriages dude. Come on now, you are reaching and I think you know it.

As for tax-exempt status revocation, just no. Doing so would violate the 1st Amendment in a manner that would cause such tumultuous uproar that it could even sew seeds for a civil war.

Besides, I can't think of a single homosexual I have ever met, flamboyant or not, who wants to suppress religion or freedom of speech. The sooner homosexuality normalizes, the less sensationalized it will be by its opposition. The hatred, scorning, and non-acceptance of homosexual activity in public is kept alive by bigots who MAKE IT an enormous deal.

I think the real problem here as the religious fanatics who preach death to homosexuality see it, is the pursuit of equity under the Constitution of the United States, and peaceful protests and marches that these people partake in, and pursue.

Whens the last time you guys saw a straight man beat to death by a homosexual for kissing a woman in public, or sharing commentary about his heterosexuality?

Go ahead and post your replies here. I will be watching.

RockerFor2A said:

As far as Godwin's law, man, get real. Look it up. I didn't invoke a maladjusted, failed painter or his movement, so brush up on your net jargon.

Click to expand...

I think you are misinformed as to what Godwins Law describes dude.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
- Godwins Law

The probability exists with your spontaneous inference that the following will occur:

RockerFor2A said:

Maybe I'll be required (forced) to attend a government-mandated class to change my outlook. A "re-education camp" perhaps?

Click to expand...

Let's quit reaching please.

RockerFor2A said:

... I find it completely baffling how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Frankly, to my mind it is unnatural and deviant behavior, and THAT is what makes me uncomfortable with it.
And in "unnatural" I'm talking about the potential for procreation.

Click to expand...

Then most man-woman sex is unnatural, unless you use Catholic roulette in reverse (when trying to conceive) and ONLY have sex those several days when conception is most likely.

I hope this isn't news to you, but sex (done right) is fun & enjoyable. Surely if there were some omnipotent, omniscient being that designed our bodies, if sex were only meant to further the species then sex would only be fun when it's possible to procreate.
Lotsa animals are that way. I'm glad we're not.

I find it completely baffling why anyone would want to carry a gun. Frankly, to my mind, it is unnatural and deviant behavior, and THAT is what makes me uncomfortable with it.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the Brady Bunch, right? Why would you want to be as intolerant as they?

Someone kissing, or being married, doesn't affect you in the least unless they're kissing or married to you.

If someone hits on you, and you're not interested, the proper response is "no thanks, I'm not interested", or something along those lines. That has nothing to do with the plumbing of the people involved in the interaction.

TimboSlice said:

Waste money and time on soldiers who aren't going to be "true"?

Click to expand...

Quite the controversial start to your new career here...

I've seen news reports of MANY long-time, decorated, hard-working, valuable members of various services who were fired because they weren't heterosexual.

As for being a waste of time & money, I think it's more likely that people who found out they really didn't want to serve, and wanted a way to get out of their contract, claimed to be gay.

RockerFor2A said:

+1. The only reason there's a move to change this is because you have democrats trying to shore up support from the left wing of the party. The DADT system worked just fine, but the left wing idealogs just had to try and push their social re-engineering agenda on the military as well. These are the same people endangering us all by trying to ratify the START treaty now.

Click to expand...

Agreed

wrightme said:

NOW you claim it is simply an opinion. That wasn't how you presented it.

It has not been proven by science one way or another. You have an opinion.

Click to expand...

Nothing has change, I still believe that NO ONE IS BORN GAY PERIOD. There is genetic data not a single person on here can understand other then what is published by a professor who writes it in stupid so people like us can attempt to understand. NOT A SINGLE PERSON on here, has anything but their opine on the issue. No one here has any expert knowledge if there is a DNA connection or not. Your personal opine is ONLY based on what you have read on the "internet" about it period. Unless you have some DNA expertise that does not require a "Google search" anything more you post on the matter is the same as mine. It is just your opine, not expert testimony. We both claim what we have found and read and can post link after link, yet in the end its still just an opine coming from someone who has zero experience on the issue other than clicking on those links. Unlike if we were asked an open carry question we would have some actual experience that we can share of real value. Nice try making something out of nothing.

zack991 said:

...Your personal opine is ONLY based on what you have read on the "internet" about it period. Unless you have some DNA expertise that does not require a "Google search" anything more you post on the matter is the same as mine. It is just your opine, not expert testimony. We both claim what we have found and read and can post link after link, yet in the end its still just an opine coming from someone who has zero experience on the issue other than clicking on those links. Unlike if we were asked an open carry question we would have some actual experience that we can share of real value. Nice try making something out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Yeah uh, because Geneticists couldn't possibly be amongst us, nor could anybody with expertise in biology, or doctors for that matter. Right?

Because YOU don't understand gene decoding, surely none of us can. Right?

You are aware of the term "hermaphrodite", are you not?

Are you aware this is a naturally occurring phenomenon?

If a person can be born with both set of genitalia, then certainly there are gradients of individual wherein their mental makeup is comprised of components, and even chemical composition of the "other" sex.

I can remember back to high school days, where there were clear effeminate types in the classroom, and whaddya know, the ones I stayed in touch with, acknowledged being homosexual.

Welcome to the (Not So) new generation.

I don't see anyone posting any definitive studies establishing that homosexuality is genetic.

I don't see anyone posting any definitive studies establishing that homosexuality is NOT genetic.

I just see folks arguing back and forth without supporting their POV with actual data.

The truth is that no one yet knows whether homosexuality is genetic or not.

My POV is that the answer to that question does not matter. The predisposition may be genetic, but the behavior is still a choice. I am predisposed (genetically? I don't know) to throw every woman I find attractive on the ground and have my way with her. I choose to be monogamous--and just a tad gentler. Just a tad.