Spot on Opinion about DADT from Oliver North

[Zaphod]

This will never be solved until the issue of a person's right to privacy is addressed.

Why are men and women segregated? Due primarily to privacy concerns for the women. One could argue that it's to keep improper males under some control, and if that's true, then there's a point to that later.

So, if the matter is privacy and "decency" or "decorum", then the fact that we are now mixing potential ogglers with those who don't wish to be oggled has to be addressed. If it's valid between men and women, then it's valid between gay and straight.

There are only two ways to ensure this: 1) have four separate berthing compartments; gay and straight for male and female, and then we cross our fingers and hope the gay spaces don't become the afloat version of the Village People. This option at least protects everyone's privacy, but does grant one group certain "opportunities" that would be denied the other group. Is that fair?

The other option is to not respect ANYONE'S right to privacy, and berth everyone together, Battlestar Galactica style. Now we run the valid risk of having The Love Boat.

Of course, we still have the issue Pima mensioned of spouses or "domestic partners". We also have the issue of what a "spouse" or "partner" consists of; after all, some moonbat woman in England married a DOLPHIN a few years back.

And before anyone gets bent out of shape with the suggestion that gays would be oggling straights or otherwise misbehaving, if that assumption works for men and thus they are segregated from women, then why is it OK to descriminate against them but not against gays?

BTW, there's two wars on, and always the possibility of a few others popping up. Let's try to remember that while we're all busy worrying about playing Romper Room in uniform.

 

[Zaphod]

The other little detail that will have to be handled is things like free sex-change operations, cross-dressing, medical support for those who have opted to have sex-change operations, etc.

Sure, there are regulations, but there's also this regulation called DADT, and look how well THAT is being left alone.

I'm not being paranoid. I'm simply pointing to things that the "alternative lifestyle" all too often generates.

 

[vampsoul]

One of the first lessons you learn in debate: avoid the slippery slope argument. It's easily rebuked and mostly harms your own credibility.

 

[SamAca10]

Wow! Lot's of responses here guys....Honestly though, I scoff the comparisons between the Civil Rights movement for African Americans and this new "Gay Right's" movement that we are experiencing. After all, this is bringing up a SEXUAL issue, not one of a person's skin color or national origin. Should we be bringing SEX into the work place anyway? I mean, isn't the military supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL organization?

What do you guys conjecture? That at some point, DADT will be repealed and homosexual's will be considered another minority in the military, just like women, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino's, and Native Americans? Will there eventually be a recruiting effort at the SA's to recruit the "homosexual" minority, in order to better represent the fact that we have a "disproportionate number of homosexual officer's compared to our enlisted force"?

I agree with Zaphod completely- shouldn't a man's privacy be just as respected as a woman's? Or should we just berth males and females completely together and make all of the facilities unisex? It would certainly cut down on the logistics, would it not?

Devildog- Would you be completely okay if your own son/daughter was gay? Or is this just one of those things that "it's okay if I am not involved with it."?

PIMA- So are you saying that homosexual unions would just be a federal certificate, just a piece of paper? I believe in my heart that marriage is defined in the Bible (now that I've opened this can of worms, I'll probably be criticized by some on here for expressing my religious beliefs) as a union between a man and a woman...NO where does it say that marriage can between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. As a matter of fact, it states that these things are forbidden (although some religious sects are editing this part out of the Bible, conveniently )

But back to the issue at hand: Do you consider it just a piece of paper then that the government issues? Or an actual union? Is this just like getting your passport or your driver's license? I feel that homosexuals should be able to practice what they want in civilian life and express their opinions, as long as I don't have to see or hear them....I mean, they expect people to accomodate them, but they are unwilling to respect my rights or my thoughts.

Sprog- How do we truly know that Alexander the Great was bisexual? I've noticed in the past few years that people are starting to rewrite history and say "such and such is homosexual/had homosexual tendencies because of this action or this behavior." It's ridiculous, and nothing more than pro-gay groups trying to further their cause.

I remember that one of the posters said that I wasn't aware of the beliefs of MY generation. My argument is this: Many of you joined the military in the 1970's, an era that was clearly anti-military. Did you stop that from serving your country? Do you think that this current issue is going to stop me from my beliefs?

What worries the most about our current age is that those who hold differing opinions are viewed negatively and treated along the same lines as racists or people who perform hate crimes. . . . It truly is disturbing and un-American.

 

[vampsoul]

Rally held outside the white house gates today for the repeal of DADT; 2 army officers chained themselves to the gate and are being held in jail tonight until court tomorrow.

 

[sprog]

Sprog- How do we truly know that Alexander the Great was bisexual? .

I served with him in Persia, he loved showtunes and had fabulous fashion sense.

The historical record contains numerous accounts of his close relationships with men. Of particular interest is his relationship with Hephaestion, who is widely considered to have been intimate with him. Aristotle (their tutor) said they were "one soul residing in two bodies." As Fleigler said, homosexual relationships were the norm in Ancient Greece, and his bisexuality is pretty much accepted by mainstream historians.

FYI-history is always written and rewritten as years go on, and the societal values at the time of writing (versus at the time of the occurrence of events) have always been an influence into what goes in to an historical account. Thus, a history of Ancient Greece written in Victorian times would likely make no mention of sexuality at all. In fact, Greeks did not distinguish sexual orientation as homosexual or heterosexual, that is a construct of 19th century psychiatry. Homosexuality was listed as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM-IV (the diagnostic manual for assessing mental illness) right up until recent years (it is no longer in the DSM, thankfully). Thus, societal attitudes of the recording generation are always present in history, and "rewriting" is not the sin that you assert, it's the norm.

 

[SteveHolt243]

So basically Sam your argument is that gays make you uncomfortable, so you should never have to see or hear them, we should define our marriage laws off the Bible, gays in Ancient Greece are an invention of modern gays, and that a reason to discriminate against gays is that you might have to hear about some dudes date with another dude over the weekend after you hear about someone's dinner with their wife?

Nothing about any of that strikes me as really, really stupid.

 

[SamAca10]

I served with him in Persia, he loved showtunes and had fabulous fashion sense.

The historical record contains numerous accounts of his close relationships with men. Of particular interest is his relationship with Hephaestion, who is widely considered to have been intimate with him. Aristotle (their tutor) said they were "one soul residing in two bodies." As Fleigler said, homosexual relationships were the norm in Ancient Greece, and his bisexuality is pretty much accepted by mainstream historians.

FYI-history is always written and rewritten as years go on, and the societal values at the time of writing (versus at the time of the occurrence of events) have always been an influence into what goes in to an historical account. Thus, a history of Ancient Greece written in Victorian times would likely make no mention of sexuality at all. In fact, Greeks did not distinguish sexual orientation as homosexual or heterosexual, that is a construct of 19th century psychiatry. Homosexuality was listed as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM-IV (the diagnostic manual for assessing mental illness) right up until recent years (it is no longer in the DSM, thankfully). Thus, societal attitudes of the recording generation are always present in history, and "rewriting" is not the sin that you assert, it's the norm.

I agree with both of your statements that "history is always written and rewritten as years go on, and the soceital values at the time of writing have always been and influence into what goes in to an historical account."

My question now is if the current views in our society are biasing these view points. i.e. since homosexuality is becoming more acceptable. After all, no one has proved nor disproved that homosexuality is a disease. Heck, people are not sure if it is a choice or if it is predetermined (which would make it an abnormality) yet. A basic knowledge of historiography tells us this, which you should well be aware of

So basically Sam your argument is that gays make you uncomfortable, so you should never have to see or hear them, we should define our marriage laws off the Bible, gays in Ancient Greece are an invention of modern gays, and that a reason to discriminate against gays is that you might have to hear about some dudes date with another dude over the weekend after you hear about someone's dinner with their wife?

Nothing about any of that strikes me as really, really stupid.

So are you saying that I should have to be around homosexuality even though the practice is repulsive to me? If one doesn't like cigarette smoke, will one want to be around a smoker who's puffing on a cancer stick?

Everyone can safely assume that the practice dates before prehistoric times...it's just lucky that Adam was only allowed to be straight, because I do not think any of us would be here right now if it was Adam and Steve

Well, your still calling a homosexual union a gay marriage- a paradox, as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I believe that it would be more accurate to call these homosexual unions civil unions, because they signify a legal agreement between members of the same sex to share all financial, medical, and legal responsibilities with each other. The definition of marriage has religious connotations in it, and from what the Bible says, such a union is not possible.

Let me ask you this, would you be completely comfortable if your son ever brought home a boyfriend or your daughter a girlfriend? Would that bother you at all, or would you be 100 percent accepting?

 

[SteveHolt243]

So are you saying that I should have to be around homosexuality even though the practice is repulsive to me? If one doesn't like cigarette smoke, will one want to be around a smoker who's puffing on a cancer stick?

Everyone can safely assume that the practice dates before prehistoric times...it's just lucky that Adam was only allowed to be straight, because I do not think any of us would be here right now if it was Adam and Steve

Well, your still calling a homosexual union a gay marriage- a paradox, as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I believe that it would be more accurate to call these homosexual unions civil unions, because they signify a legal agreement between members of the same sex to share all financial, medical, and legal responsibilities with each other. The definition of marriage has religious connotations in it, and from what the Bible says, such a union is not possible.

Let me ask you this, would you be completely comfortable if your son ever brought home a boyfriend or your daughter a girlfriend? Would that bother you at all, or would you be 100 percent accepting?

Depends by what you mean by "being around homosexuality." You don't have to watch two men have sex. You also don't have to watch a straight couple have sex. But if your opposition is to having to hear a man say he had a date with another man then, frankly, you don't have the right to not hear that just cause it offends you. I don't think you should have to want to be around homosexuals either. Just that you don't get to say "we shouldn't have gays around, so I never have to hear or see them."

I'll just skip the second paragraph 'cause it's really stupid.

"The definition of marriage has religious connotations in it, and from what the Bible says, such a union is not possible." - I don't believe in God, yet I'm getting married. Not Unioned. Married. I believe strongly in a public declaration and legal contract to my permanent commitment to one woman. But I don't need the bible or a religious connotation. Not to mention plenty of non-Christian religious people who believe in marriage through some tradition or belief system besides the Bible. I don't really want to go down the gay marriage rabbit hole, but my point remains. Defining marriage as purely a Christian, Biblical activity for the purposes of law is stupid.

Finally, I wouldn't care if a future son or daughter brought a boyfriend or girlfriend home, respectively. If they are happy, and lucky enough to find someone with whom they want to spend the rest of their life, that's what I care about. I have a number of very close friends, and a number of family members, who are gay, and it never even occurred to me to think less of them when they told me. What did bother me, however, was how obviously painful it was for them to come out. Because, clearly, a number of people, upon finding out they were gay, wanted to be able to never "see or hear them."

 

[capolo13]

Sam,
Homosexuality being a choice or a genetic "condition" has no bearing on this discussion. If it is a choice, would you respect the individual's choices less? Or if it is a "disease" should we quarentine them or try to find a way to "cure" the disease? What is your proposed solution? If a man wants to serve his country, let him. If a woman wants to serve her country, let her. If anyone in between wants to serve, let them as well.
If your concerns deal with logistics, you should be informed that at many colleges, including Pitzer College in CA, they offer "Gender Neutral Housing", be it man or woman or anyone inbetween anyone can room together. It works with suprising success. If a college guy and a college girl can remain civil sharing a room, you'd think in a professional work environment like the US military, it would work too. I'm not suggesting this as something that should be implemented, just a thought here.

The biggest question is what is WRONG with homosexuality in the military? Hitler argued that if the soldiers loved eachother, they would fight harder on the field of battle. Sure do hate the guy, but can't be denied he knew how to field an army.

As a civilian, you can be repulsed by it. Avoid it, continue to be ignorant, whatever makes your day. As an OFFICER, (assuming repeal of DADT!!!), you could not do that. If your CO says to deal with it, you deal with it, whether it be cigarette smoke, enemy fire, gays, or any fears you have. You can't treat homosexuals like aliens. You should also be aware: Cigarette smoke is actually harmful. Proximity to gays can do you no physical damage (unless its a gay marine, and you've just told him what you just posted here) Basically unless a constitutional right or a law is being violated, you can't tell your CO that you won't follow an order. If you end up in the military, you will have to stomach your "repulsion" should DADT be overturned and you HAVE to work with a homosexual serviceman.

Steve addressed the union part well, I'll leave him to that one.

And no, I gotta agree with Steve here too. i wouldn't be upset, it would be suprising, but it would be good to know that my son/daughter was happy. Happy, I might add, at your expense. If my son or daughter is gay, I could care less if your "repulsed" by them. They're happy with themselves, and your upset about somebody else's business...

 

[Chockstock]

The biggest question is what is WRONG with homosexuality in the military? Hitler argued that if the soldiers loved eachother, they would fight harder on the field of battle. Sure do hate the guy, but can't be denied he knew how to field an army.

Er...I think you interpreted his quote way too literally. If you recall, Hitler didn't just hate Jews - he loathed all kinds of people he deemed disgusting, including gays, and packed them off to death camps along with the Jews. I highly doubt that he literally believed that homosexual relationships among his service members would somehow strengthen his military :\

 

[Emsa]

So are you saying that I should have to be around homosexuality even though the practice is repulsive to me? If one doesn't like cigarette smoke, will one want to be around a smoker who's puffing on a cancer stick?

What a bizzarely self defeating argument

I (one) may loath utterly in every way being around smokers, but I would never extrapolate my personal disgust to suggest that smokers should not be allowed to join the military!

 

[sprog]

After all, no one has proved nor disproved that homosexuality is a disease. Heck, people are not sure if it is a choice or if it is predetermined (which would make it an abnormality) yet.

Psychiatry is an ever-evolving branch of medicine. I'll tell you this, most of what is accepted by physicians in this field is observation-based, as the more concrete scientific reasons for many disorders are not readily apparent. Schizophrenia is a disease, because people observed to have it act a certain way that is detrimental to their well-beings (based on societal norms, it is not ok to have delusional behavior). There is no way to perform a blood test to see if someone has it (yet). In the future, it might be possible to use imaging or other more scientific methods than observation and reporting (there are studies showing different levels of dopamine in schizophrenics, for example).

Whatever may happen in the future, the DSM-IV is the current guide as to what constitutes mental illness, and it has been revised as understanding of what constitutes mental disorders moves forward. Societal understanding of behavior plays a big part in this. This is a huge detour from what the thread is about, but since you brought it up, you should know that a fair amount of medicine is art as well as science and thus the scientific method which seeks "proof" is not always a factor. Of all the branches of medicine, psychiatry is the most "artful," and while there is a continual search for empirical evidence, whether or not something is a mental disease is always going to be subject to societal acceptance of behaviors. If you believe RD Laing, it also involves cultural norms as well.

As homosexuality is much more accepted now than decades ago, the behavior is not observed to be "abnormal" and hence has been removed from the DSM-IV as a disorder. The acceptance of the behavior is what has "disproved" it as a disease, although both "proving" or "disproving" it is impossible to do, since it is not based on a specific biological indicator.

 

[DevilDog]

Devildog- Would you be completely okay if your own son/daughter was gay? Or is this just one of those things that "it's okay if I am not involved with it."?

As far as I know neither of my sons nor my daughter is gay so it is really a moot point. But, I have always felt that if it turned out that way, I would love them just as much as I currently do. I also would prefer they weren't gay, but if they are, there really is nothing I could do about it.

 

[Pima]

PIMA- So are you saying that homosexual unions would just be a federal certificate, just a piece of paper? I believe in my heart that marriage is defined in the Bible (now that I've opened this can of worms, I'll probably be criticized by some on here for expressing my religious beliefs) as a union between a man and a woman...NO where does it say that marriage can between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. As a matter of fact, it states that these things are forbidden (although some religious sects are editing this part out of the Bible, conveniently

Yes it would be just a federal certificate...guess what? When you enroll your spouse into DEERS and get them a military id, the military does not accept the one from your religious organization. The only way to enroll them is to show that it has been accordance to your STATE. They want a marriage certificate, in this case I am sure they will change the reg to say union certificate.

Bullet and I are Catholic, I support the Catholic Church when it states that marriage is a holy sacrament. It is in accordance with the Bible. I would not support a homosexual union receiving that sacrament because of my religious beliefs. However, that is my religious beliefs and why should they supercede anybody's personal rights. I have 2 siblings, according to the Catholic Church their marriage is not recognized because OMG they married a JEW and not in the CHURCH. Are you saying that their marriage is not valid because of religious reasons? Or are you able to recognize that millions of heterosexual people get married by JP's every yr and according to our govt they are valid marriages, but not according to the church.

IMHO you need to understand the separation of CHURCH and STATE.

OBTW, if you asked me if I would be okay with any of our children being homosexual, without a doubt 1000% YES. My godmother(cousin) is gay and I loved her partner of 27 yrs as much if not more than I loved some of my other cousins....God rest her soul.

Actually, being a Mom, I am sure, I would be so supportive that when they found their soul mate, I would be all over them asking when are you going to stop living in sin and make this official? Or when are you going to give me a grandbaby?

Now here's my question for you...DADT will be overturned, and probably within the next few yrs...are you so tied towards your religion that you will resign your commission because you are forced to work near them? What will you do when you enter the corporate world where it is out in the open...are you going to tell your employer I won't work with those people?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Pima - well said.

SamAca10 -
I am just going to throw this out there - Regardless of which profession you choose, chances are you will have a gay co-worker, boss or subordinate at some point in your life. You may or may not know it. Don't join the military because you think this is an organization that is free from gay people.
Most people grow up in a sheltered environment that is not particularly diverse. Not saying this is bad - it's just the way it is. As you move out into the world either as a military officer or in some other profession you will realize that your personal success is somewhat dependent on you being able to get along with all kinds of people whether they be straight, gay, religious, atheist, white or black. If you are unable to do so then you will find your options are limited.
Open your mind, it will set you free.

 

[Pima]

Sam,

I have a quick question, and I mean this in a non-threatening way, just want to pick your brains because you are the future military. Remember people like me, Bullet, Zaph, JAM and Flieger have no bone in this fight because it will not effect us personally.

I believe you are not a cadet yet, just an appointee. You get to the SA and live with your room mate for several months, you are best buds, and have a great time together. Now the military repeals DADT, and the 1st thing he does is to inform you he is GAY. Do you ask for a new room assignment? Will you now "ditch" him when only 24 hrs later he was your pal?

How about a cadet commander? Will you say I can't belong in their command because of their sexual orientation?

In essence, I am curious to where your line is drawn in the sand or have you come to an acceptance that this is the military's future and you will salute sharply.

 

[Zaphod]

One of the first lessons you learn in debate: avoid the slippery slope argument. It's easily rebuked and mostly harms your own credibility.

I'll assume this is directed at me.

The slippery-slope argument is 100% valid. Take a look at some of the comments that were made during the debate over the implementation of the Income Tax, and take a look at how far we've come since then. That (and other examples) cannot be rebuked.

 

[Maximus]

It appears that many of the older posters here have a perception of the military at the younger levels that don't exist. I AM NOT ATTACKING. Please don't get defensive with my thought. In my travels to others bases on ops and other trips, your military's younger generation is an incredible group, well-educated and motivated to get the job done. They also don't care about someone's orientation because people aren't defined by their skin, gender, or if they like the same sex. They are judged and labeled by how they do their job. Argue about cross-dressing rights, blah blah blah, those are other issues that won't impact most of the non-straight member that are forced to hide who they are already.

Let me sum it up. Most of us in the military, at least in my age range, are ready to accept bi and homosexual members with open arms. The logistics and laws will come as they need, but let my brothers and sisters serve and protect me and you by living their lives. They deserve better. They deserve not to live a lie. And they deserve the right to be a part of this incredible institution regardless of which gender they like.

Maybe most of the military in your age range has this healthy attitude because of the current DADT policy? Just saying....

BTW, are we on a "Slippery Slope" staying with the current policy?

And lastly, as a former Enlisted Marine, the enlisted ranks will have to live/deal with this for the most part, the Officer Corps will not.

 

[hornetguy]

Maybe most of the military in your age range has this healthy attitude because of the current DADT policy? Just saying....

Incorrect assumption.