Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

[sprog]

Alright kids, it's time to get out of the pool.

 

[fly boy]

If you can't get over your prejudices and it would make you feel queer to serve with a gay person, then I don't think you belong in the military. The law of the land states that they are as entitled as you are to serve this great country, if that is a problem for you then you should not expect the public to pay for your education. You need to look to the private sector for your career.

So, since I disagree with the healthcare law, should I seek to bring my citizenship to another country? I sure can't get over my prejudices about that.

 

[Pima]

mvt,

Many of us have been stating your mother's opinion for a very long time. It wasn't an issue about homosexuals serving, it was more about the issue of bennies and in the military bennies are tied to W/dependents or W/O.

The military does not ask for a Tax return to get a military ID or those priviledges. All they ask for is a valid marriage certificate from their state.


Flyboy,

I respect your religious convictions, however, in the military your religion should not play a part in your military career. As Max stated, you need to decide if you can separate the two. If you cannot than as much as you love the idea of serving in the military it may not be a good fit.

By 2012 this will be a done deal and by 2016 it will be a fact of life. You have 2 options:
1. Get on board and openly accept this

or

2. Don't enter.

That's the fact. You enter harbingering an attitude regarding homosexuality, and I can guarantee you ONE THING...

YOUR CAREER IS OVER BEFORE IT STARTS!

I am not a mod, but this seems to be drifting off from a DADT to a religious argument, let's keep it about DADT and not about religious beliefs.

 

[Pima]

flyboy, I think you can agree I have been trying to defend your stance/position, but you are now letting your emotions take over, and you need to step away.

You just jumped the shark with your last post

So, since I disagree with the healthcare law, should I seek to bring my citizenship to another country? I sure can't get over my prejudices about that.

Old adage, what does your statement have to do with the price of shoes in China? There is no connection to the two topics and prejudices. Opposing Healthcare is not prejudice at all, it is a fiscal position. Opposing homosexuals serving openly is prejudiced because that is a personal position.

 

[fly boy]

Contradiction #1.

Why don't you believe in killing homosexuals if the Bible is your #1 authority?

The Old Testament was God's revelation to the people of Israel back in the old times. The New Testament was given after Christ's incarnation, in many ways replacing the OT. This does not mean that the Old Testament is old bunk, but many things have been changed, such as sacrifice of animals, etc. However, there are still principles we hold to that were not rescinded by the NT , such as the 10 commandments. It was the job of the government in Moses' day to carry out the punishment for those who broke God's law. Today's government is not invested with that power, and it is not in my hands, or that of any other citizen to take it upon ourselves to carry out the punishment. However, man is still bound by those laws, such as children honoring parents. Punishment will be given by God at the Judgment day. All whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire: Revelation 20:11-15. It is not my job to punish people for their misdeeds, and neither is it in the hands of our government. That part of the God's Law is not up to me or the government to decide.

 

[fly boy]

flyboy, I think you can agree I have been trying to defend your stance/position, but you are now letting your emotions take over, and you need to step away.

You just jumped the shark with your last post



Old adage, what does your statement have to do with the price of shoes in China? There is no connection to the two topics and prejudices. Opposing Healthcare is not prejudice at all, it is a fiscal position. Opposing homosexuals serving openly is prejudiced because that is a personal position.

I thank you for your assistance, but I do not think that it is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

If you can't get over your prejudices and it would make you feel queer to serve with a gay person, then I don't think you belong in the military. The law of the land states that they are as entitled as you are to serve this great country, if that is a problem for you then you should not expect the public to pay for your education. You need to look to the private sector for your career.

DevilDog says that if I can't get over my prejudices, I shouldn't serve in the military. I should seek a job in the private sector, and in essance, set myself apart from the military, because I disagree with the law of the land which will inevitably affect me if I join. Since I disagree with the healthcare law, which will inevitably affect me if I remain a citizen, following that same line of argument, I should then, if I can't get over my prejudices about the law, seek to set myself apart from the U.S. i.e. renounce my citizenship and seek a citizenship in the foreign sector.

 

[DevilDog]

I thank you for your assistance, but I do not think that it is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.


DevilDog says that if I can't get over my prejudices, I shouldn't serve in the military. I should seek a job in the private sector, and in essance, set myself apart from the military, because I disagree with the law of the land which will inevitably affect me if I join. Since I disagree with the healthcare law, which will inevitably affect me if I remain a citizen, following that same line of argument, I should then, if I can't get over my prejudices about the law, seek to set myself apart from the U.S. i.e. renounce my citizenship and seek a citizenship in the foreign sector.

Two different items. You are openly talking about having prejudices against a group of people because you do not agree with how they live their lives. A lifestyle that is accepted by this country. Your position on the Healthcare issue has nothing to do with how you treat a fellow citizen.

 

[bruno]

You know folks- there is no possibility of reasoned discussion when anyone who disagrees with you is tagged as a bigot. Similarly, everyone has different religious foundations and those beliefs don't always dovetail with what the law allows or does not allow- it's a civil society and the laws often do not conform to what we may believe is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. This discussion needs to either get back on course or be shut down Now. It is not a forum for promoting religious beliefs nor is it a forum for denigrating those who hold them. Stop NOW.

 

[fly boy]

Two different items. You are openly talking about having prejudices against a group of people because you do not agree with how they live their lives. A lifestyle that is accepted by this country. Your position on the Healthcare issue has nothing to do with how you treat a fellow citizen.

I agree that they are two different items. However, if a certain line of argument is valid and acceptable in one case, it ought also to be allowed in a seperate case, substituting premises, logically pulling a conclusion from it. The two instances do not have to be the same when you are examining a certain means of argument, such as in this case.

 

[Pima]

flyboy,

You are very intelligent for your age, but as I stated earlier your life experience is hampering you.

If you really wanted to argue the reason why DADT should not be repealed at this time it should have come from the basis of bennies or dorms. Healthcare is a non-issue, and you would be wise to drop it now from an argumentative position.

Back on topic, and in fear this will be locked in two more seconds if you keep up the religious or healthcare angle...

I am curious how many people they have assigned within the DOD for the 1st ACLU lawsuit regarding a homosexual couple married in the HOR of NH that can't get medical bennies or on the married housing?

Honestly, if I was a gay spouse I would be at the MPC for an ID the minute after the repeal is signed into law.

I don't know if Obama realized that the repeal would become a DOMA issue. You have millions of military members and even if 10% are gay, you are talking about 100K+ members who will now fight for those bennies.

Housing allowance is just the tip of the iceberg...dental, medical, TLA, weight allowances, etc all add up.

 

[Christcorp]

luigi; I am quite knowledgeable of the word prejudice. I know exactly what the literal meaning is. But I also know what the commonly used definition is. Just like the word "Ignorant" is not a derogatory word at all; it simply means to not know or be knowledgeable of. Yet, many people take the word as insulting if you claim they are "ignorant" of something. Yet, there is nothing insulting about the word.

Same here. The word prejudice is being used to imply that a person doesn't like something. They don't want to have anything to do with it. And in that context, being prejudice is quite normal and acceptable. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that the word "Gay" had a totally different meaning. As does the word "Fag" in other English speaking societies.

There is nothing wrong with Flyboy not liking or condoning homosexual activities. You and others can argue that such lifestyles are just as "Normal" as heterosexual; but that doesn't mean it is true or that others have to accept that it's natural.

But that brings us back to the real question!!! Will Flyboy, or someone else, "Discriminate" against a person who practices or believes the gay lifestyle is normal? If he doesn't discriminate, and can keep his personal feelings separate from his professional feelings and actions, then that is all that needs to be done. There is nothing that says anyone has to "Accept" gay lifestyle as being normal. Just like I don't have to accept everyone's personality. I don't have to be friends with everyone. If I don't like you, that is perfectly fine. What is expected, is that I respect another military member professionally. And if I don't want to speak with or associate with a person outside of our military duties, then I am totally free to do so.

Why is it that when discussions of people's differences come us, people like to categorize them? Sort of like a "Hate Crime". I never could understand that hypocrisy and political correct garbage. If a person kills another person, it shouldn't matter why they killed them. Obviously they weren't best friends. Yet society tries to put a stiffer penalty on a crime by calling it a "Hate Crime". Just like the Pro-Choice movement says that the "right" can't legislate morality; neither should the "left" try and legislate acceptance. You can legislate "Tolerance"; but that's different than telling someone that they have to accept someone or something as being normal or the same as their position.

Don't discriminate and/or hold individuals to different standards because of their beliefs, and everything will be fine. If you can't separate your personal and professional life, then there is a problem. Pretty darn simple.

 

[SamAca10]

I agree with CC, and many others on here, that it's all about "flipping the switch". Meaning that you distinguish between personal and professional life and are able to do the job even if you don't like the people you're doing it with.

One thing that irks me on this website is when people say they don't like the gay lifestyle, then others attack them for their beliefs. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, something that is chosen. Too many people try to compare gays and lesbians to African Americans, Women, and other minorities, when it's undoubtedly different.

While there is speculation on whether being gay is genetic or not, there isn't speculation on whether someone is African American or a female.

Isn't part of toleration being able to handle differing view points? Something that I think is forgotten by too many pro-gay activists and supporters.

 

[kevster]

Well said Sam!

 

[Roy_Mustang]

Being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, something that is chosen.

Sadly, not even close to being the truth. How else to explain children raised in strongly religious families who have been taught all their lives that homosexuality is evil or immoral who later in life end up coming out the closet (sometimes at the cost of being disowned by their family)?

 

[Emsa]

Sadly, not even close to being the truth. How else to explain children raised in strongly religious families who have been taught all their lives that homosexuality is evil or immoral who later in life end up coming out the closet (sometimes at the cost of being disowned by their family)?

Not close to the truth but a very convenient argument for people who want to justify thier otherwise unjustifiable prejudices. My brother is gay, it cost him our fathers love, the career he had wanted all his life and years of his life spent hiding instead of living, you want to tell me he chose that? Do you know any gay people Sam? And if so how many of them can tell you when they chose to be gay? Do you remember when you chose to be straight?

 

[bruno]

If you can not make your point without personalizing this thread then you probably need to rethink your post.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

A good discussion overall!

I think this honestly has been an excellent discussion overall -- one I wish I might be able to have over a few frosty ones (Jeremiah Weed is not something I'm familiar with but that might work too?).

Pima, thanks for your thoughtful points about logistical issues which are likely to arise. This is not something generally discussed or written about and I appreciate getting your perspective on the less glamorous side of the equation.

Mike/Christcorp, I really like your posts as a great example of how an officer thinks -- it is about doing the job that we all swore to do when we raised our hand and vowed to support and defend the Constitution. It doesn't mean turning off our brains or beliefs, but about being a professional to get the mission done.

I admire Flyboy for having the courage to robustly debate his convictions. As I read his original post, he was making the point that he can understand the "unit cohesion" critique of the repeal of DADT, as he himself might (he doesn't know for sure) have issues given his strong religious beliefs on the subject of homosexuality. He may modify his views once he has attended college (or a service academy) or just gotten out in the world a bit and worked alongside of gays/lesbians, or perhaps not. There are many committed Christians who serve proudly in our forces and are able to make it work, and he will most likely be one of those -- but he will have time to make that decision.

Lastly, on the issue of whether homosexuality is innate or a "lifestyle choice," at a minimum let me just say that I think the science on this is unclear, but there are studies that suggest a genetic and/or physically innate explanation (e.g. brain structure/hormonal etc). I think it is fair to say, based on the research, that one cannot definitively state that it is a lifestyle choice, and perhaps just leave it at that.

I've been out of the military for a while but hold a high opinion of our military's ability to adapt. I am sure this will not happen without issues along the way but I believe the U.S. military "adapts and overcomes" better than anyone and will do so with flying colors on this issue as well.

Thanks for reading my rather wordy preachy post!

 

[TheKnight]

And I imagine it would be so with many of those who currently serve. I believe that it will affect a unit's ability to get its job done effectively.

While I admit that there are some who would have a problem with it, most people don't care. Even the most conservative of people don't care. I have only met one person in my short 6 months at USMA who is entirely against gays serving, and he doesn't want to go into a combat branch.

One thing you will learn as you meet more gays is that they really are no different than straights. They just have different sexual attractions.

What DA(D)T did was...

I understand what you're saying. However DADT didn't really allow gays to serve. It allowed them to not be denied from service right away. It was a compromise to go from "You can't serve" to "If you can keep us from knowing then we don't care."

Hypothetical: How do you know that some homophobe Marine might not snap on an openly gay Marine, and during a firefight and they start arguing, no matter who's fault it is, that is a distinct possibility. Say that homophobe is killed by standing up arguing? ... Maybe his religion prohibits homosexuality?

I interpret "snap on" as friendly fire.
As a future MP (hopefully) I find it absolutely abhorrent that any service member would willing fire upon his comrades. In fact, I hold such strong views on it that I see it as treason against the United States. Such a person, who would betray his country and his unit by murdering a fellow service member does not deserve to be in the service in the first place. Chances are that such a person has a psychological problem and is definitely not the norm.

I have not been in combat, so I don't know. But I worked in law enforcement for 3 years. I was once in a shooting with one of my partners. During that situation while I was helping coordinate radio traffic, it didn't occur to me that my partner might be gay. In fact, I've never heard of anyone in a life or death situation stop to argue anything let alone sexuality.

Maybe his religion does. My religion does. However there is a fine line between prohibiting the act, and working with people who commit the act. My religion also prohibits, alcoholism and fornication/promiscuity. It doesn't mean I'm not going to work with the soldiers around me who might have a drinking problem or who might have had sex before marriage. And I certainly am not going to stop to consider that while we're fighting a combat mission.

Beyond that, no religion prohibits you from working with people don't follow the religion. If it does, then such a person should not be working in a dynamic and diverse environment such as the military.

I really have no problem with gays as I stated way back in this thread, my argument has branched off toward the General Amos flaming...

Understood. And I'm fine with the fact that he disagrees or even if he is reporting what Marines have told him. Our very own General Casey stated that he doesn't think we should implement repeal at this time.

The difference is that Gen. Casey did not say that soldiers will die because of it. He didn't say "Down at Keller, there are injured soldiers. I don't want to have to go visit soldiers that were injured because of this distraction. I don't want soldiers dying because of this distraction."

I'm fine with Amos disagreeing, even publicly. My disagreement is with the actual content of his statement, not the fact that he made it. It is simply wrong to say that people will die because of this "distraction." I honestly do believe that to say such insults our military and does not present a clear and accurate picture of how troops on the ground feel.

Flyboy you have yet to serve as an AD member, but I will say that comment is completely false.

Nobody gives a rats behind if you are homosexual, heterosexual, female, male, black, white, Native India, etc when bullets start flying. All they care about is you cover their 6.

I would second this. Most people don't care as long as the person can do their job and (obviously) as long as the person keeps to the same rules of sexual harassment/assault that everyone is held to.

Being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, something that is chosen. Too many people try to compare gays and lesbians to African Americans, Women, and other minorities, when it's undoubtedly different.

While there is speculation on whether being gay is genetic or not, there isn't speculation on whether someone is African American or a female.

Isn't part of toleration being able to handle differing view points? Something that I think is forgotten by too many pro-gay activists and supporters.

I completely agree with you that it is different from being black or female.

However, I would be doing an injustice to those who have committed suicide or attempt suicide because of their sexuality if I did not say that you are entirely wrong that being gay is a choice.

There are plenty of gays who do not want to have homosexual attractions. They fight against it, they resist it, and they try not to give in because they, for whatever reason (usually religious), do not want to be gay.

I was once of the opinion that it was a choice, then I got to work in suicide prevention and learned my lesson. It is definitely not a choice.

While there isn't evidence of a gay gene, it is scientifically biological (as all physical sexual attraction is). I used to compare it to liking a certain food (as most do not choose to like certain foods). However, taste in food changes.

It is more akin to being like an allergy.*** You don't choose what you're allergic to. You don't choose to have a certain reaction to stimuli that trigger an allergic reaction. You simply have that particular allergy. Similarly, you don't choose you're physically attracted to. It's a simply your biological response to external stimuli.



***I am in no way, with this comparison, trying to say that homosexuality is like a disease or allergy that should be cured or treated with medicine.

 

[TheKnight]

I think the science on this is unclear, but there are studies that suggest a genetic and/or physically innate explanation (e.g. brain structure/hormonal etc). I think it is fair to say, based on the research, that one cannot definitively state that it is a lifestyle choice, and perhaps just leave it at that.

We know as much about homosexuality as we do about sexuality in general. We do not know what causes sexual attraction specifically. However, science is clear that whatever causes sexuality, it is most certainly biological.

Sex is a biological thing. Having sex and the ability to be aroused by certain stimuli is entirely physical. Yes, there are influential psychological and environmental factors that contribute. However, the actual physical response of physical sexual attraction to someone is entirely biological.

 

[Christcorp]

Whether the "Desire" to have sex and a relationship with the same or opposite sex is innate or a learned behavior, there is obviously a "Choice" whether to have a sexual relationship at all. "There are a lot of celibate people in the world. I actually know quite a few. Not all priests. Some in their 20's, some in their 50/60's. Some are still virgins, some have had sex in the past, and have chosen that is not important to them. "Obviously they are all single". It's not like there's a condition internally that if you don't have a sexual relationship with another person, that you'll explode. "Although some of us think we might".

Point is; and I'm actually glad that the whole "Born/Not Born gay" topic was brought up; that each of us still have choices. We aren't forced to say, act, react, or behave a certain way. Whether gay or straight, we all "Choose" whether to have sexual/physical relationships. We all "Choose" whether we speak openly about it among friends, strangers, family, or co-workers. We all "Choose" to what level we allow others to influence our reactions. There are so many topics of behavior in life that we "Choose" to engage in or speak about. This is simply another topic. Not saying that if a person is gay or straight, that they shouldn't engage in sexual/physical relationships with other people.

Not saying that people shouldn't talk openly about their desires and experiences. Simply that we "CHOOSE" whether we engage and speak about such activities. While I am very passionate about certain topics and activities in my life, I choose not to discuss or participate all of them with everyone. There are certain topics and activities that I don't share with my wife. Others that I don't share with my parents. Others I don't share with my co-workers or friends. Maybe because some of these people aren't into the same things I'm into. Maybe because some of these people would be offended by such topics or activities. I don't discuss religion with some people. I don't discuss politics with some people. I don't discuss sex with some people. And no, there isn't a difference between being gay and talking about it and being a hunter, conservative, catholic, straight, etc... and speaking about those topics. For every topic or behavior on the planet, there WILL be someone that will be offended by that activity or even discussing it. Whether it's a member of PETA around a bunch of hunters, or an extremely left wing liberal surrounded by a group of staunch conservative.

We choose what we say, to whom, at what settings, as well as which activities we engage in around certain people. This topic is no different. If a person wants to parade around and proudly proclaim they are gay or straight, they WILL eventually offend someone. And then, they will be addressed by the situation. Just like a person who wants to proclaim their religious or political beliefs. If they don't "Choose" to monitor their speech and activities, they will eventually offend someone. The difference is; and I eluded to it in a previous post; there are some people who are allowed to express their beliefs and activities, and it doesn't matter if they offend anyone. Those who are offended, are expected to be tolerant and "Suck it up". But if they were to express their beliefs on certain subjects, and it offends certain groups of people, they will be expected to limit their freedom of expression. We all know this double standard exists unfortunately. Anyway; if people would simply be a little considerate of others around them, and not be so selfish about "Their Rights", then we can "Choose" more properly our speech and activities, and who we say and do them around. And when someone says or does something that does offend us; we won't have such thin skin, we'll put it into perspective, and we won't let it bother us.