wounded, heroic gay soldier too gay to serve

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Abomb-baby said:


And I suppose you get all your news information from the weekly standard and Fox news, right? I mean, I love how you all dismiss what I say as bullshit, but the fact is people use the media to support there viewpoints. I could post articles from all sorts of conservative media outlets debunking what the writer says and you would all dismiss it in a heartbeat.:|


to set up a comparison between, say, The Weekly Standard and, say, Newsweek is hugely false. TWS is conservative, and makes no bones about it, and that's fine -- totally their right to do so. Newsweek, however, has no stated agenda and they do their best to report as they see it, keeping in mind the natural bias that all reporters have, because they are human. what is completely false is to say that publications like the NYT, the Washington Post, or whatever other mainstream, non-ideological newspapers are out there are therefore "liberal" simply because they do not tow a right wing party line.

it's like debates on fox. they usually have a somewhat conservative commentator, one very right wing pundit, and a moderate-to-slightly-left leaning pundit. this format sets up a natural, but false, binary opposition -- it's not "left vs. right" but "far right vs. moderate" and the effect is both to skew the center of gravity of the dialogue to the right as well as, through this juxtaposition, cast the moderate as actually being as far "left" as the right winger is to the "right" as if they were both equidistant points from that space we might call moderate.

sorry, it drive me crazy.

the fact remains, though, is that your objection to gays in the military was not rooted in any newspaper article but in your own personal experience. that's 100% valid. and it would have also been valid for you to read the NYT article and disagree with it based upon your own personal experience, but to simply dismiss it as "ultra liberal" doesn't do much for dialogue, and weakens your own earlier positions.

that said, could you address my point: why is your sense of being "comfortable" more important than a gay person's right to serve? why should someone be dismissed from the military, especially in light of all these interpreters fluent in Farsi and Arabic who have been discharged, simply because they are gay? are the justifications for removal -- the points you mentioned -- more important than the contributions made by these gay soldiers?
 
Irvine511 said:
that said, could you address my point: why is your sense of being "comfortable" more important than a gay person's right to serve? why should someone be dismissed from the military, especially in light of all these interpreters fluent in Farsi and Arabic who have been discharged, simply because they are gay? are the justifications for removal -- the points you mentioned -- more important than the contributions made by these gay soldiers?

:up:.

Angela
 
Judah said:
I wonder if the courts will (or can?) help decide this one.

Does anyone know if anyone's ever taken the military/government to court over "don't ask, don't tell"?

Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.

Okay, I'm gonna say for sake of argument that we let anyone OPENLY gay serve in US armed forces. So will there be any limitations on this? I mean, what if a gay drag queen wants to serve in the Navy? Will he be allowed to serve as a female, using this as an argument that "hey I'm allowed to openly serve, its my right"? What about multiple gay men serving in a combat unit? Could this cause a problem with discipline if there were some kind of love interest? Would 2 single gay men or women who were romantically involved be allowed to share government living quarters? At this time, single male and female military members are not allowed to share government quarters due to differences in gender.

Oh, and Irvine the military is NOT on a witch hunt to kick out gay members like these interpreters and such you are talking about. Do you mean to tell me 200 plus gay people were kicked out of the military because they "accidentally slipped up" and told something personal about there sex life? Hogwash. I'm sure most gays are perfectly capable of keeping there sex life a secret when they want to. These ppl chose to share there lifestyles with others and it went against the policy. The Military is in no position at this point in its history to try to look for ppl to kick out. It just isn't happening. As a matter of fact,I was just forced to attend a video briefing discussing "Tolerance" and one of the issues was sexual orientation and how military members are not allowed to harrass anyone based on this (which I agree with by the way) the bottom line is gays openly serving, especially in forward combat units, will undermine morale and cohesion for that unit. In the end, it will cost lives.
 
Abomb-baby said:
Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.

I hope an activist judge bans openly heterosexual people from the military.

Melon
 
Thats always the answer, isn't it? Get some activist judge involved to further push the liberal agenda.

Of course it does. When has a society ever not needed to have the law tell them when to accept rights and liberties? Its comments such as the one above that make it necessary for 'some activist judge' to get involved in the first place.

Ant.
 
Abomb-baby said:
As a matter of fact,I was just forced to attend a video briefing discussing "Tolerance" and one of the issues was sexual orientation and how military members are not allowed to harrass anyone based on this (which I agree with by the way) the bottom line is gays openly serving, especially in forward combat units, will undermine morale and cohesion for that unit. In the end, it will cost lives.

Funny, how the artcle I posted about other countries NOT having problems in Iraq is ignored by you in this sentence.

Again, I served my country along side of gay and lesbian soldiers. Never had any problems at all.
 
From a Canadian's perspective, it sounds like the United States has more of a screening problem with its judiciary than with homosexuals in the army.

Apparently, "activist judges" are running rampant across the country. They should get rid of that "don't ask, don't tell" policy on "judge activism"...root those deviants out, man.
 
Study: Gay Military Discharges Plummet
Bay Windows
by Ethan Jacobs

As American troops continue to risk their lives abroad, two new studies cast doubt on the policy that forces GLBT military personnel to remain in the closet while in the service.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), an advocacy organization for GLBT members of the military, released a report March 24 showing that discharges under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy fell by 17 percent in 2003. SLDN links the drop in discharges to the need for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that GLBT personnel are less likely to be removed from service during a time of conflict. The organization contends this indicates that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unnecessary since GLBT soldiers are capable of serving alongside their straight peers in the most arduous of circumstances.

The trend of fewer discharges is most likely not the result of a formal or informal policy shift in the Pentagon. Sharra Greer, SLDN's director of law and policy, said in prior conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War in the early '90s, the military instituted stop-loss orders that suspended discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and under the gay ban that existed prior to that policy. Branches of the service have instituted stop-loss orders during the current conflicts, but those orders do not apply to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proceedings.

According to Greer, the reduction in discharges stems from the decisions of military leaders in the field.

"It is a command level, ship level, unit level sort of decision," said Greer. "... If your command needs you to go into combat, they keep you."

She said that the drop in discharges flies in the face of the original rationale behind the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: that openly gay troops would disrupt morale. She said that the drop in discharges, a 39 percent decrease since 2001, shows that when the military is in a time of crisis, it is able to rely on its GLBT service members.

According to SLDN, not only is the policy unnecessary, it is also costly. The organization estimates that the cost of training all the soldiers discharged under the ban since its enactment is between $250 million and $1.2 billion.

Greer said SLDN hopes to use this report to convince policy-makers to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Since the policy was passed into law by Congress the military acting on its own cannot rescind it, Greer explained. Calls to the Department of Defense were not returned by press time.

Another study, commissioned by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a program of UC Santa Barbara, and released Feb. 9, also called into question claims that openly GLBT service members would undermine morale. The study's authors examined interactions between soldiers from the U.S. and from allied nations in NATO and the United Nations that allow gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly. Included in the study were five case studies of gay soldiers from these allied nations who served with American soldiers in various contexts, including in the current conflict in Iraq.

Aaron Belkin, director of CSSMM said that these openly gay soldiers encountered little friction with their American counterparts.

"There were not any problems with cohesion," said Belkin. "One of the officers actually commanded Americans."


Notably absent from the study, however, are interviews with the American soldiers who served alongside the foreign soldiers featured in the case studies. Belkin explained that American personnel would see themselves as "bucking the chain of command" if they commented on the policy. He said the study's authors examined the performance evaluations of the foreign soldiers featured in the study and found no evidence of friction with American troops.

Belkin said that despite these studies, and recent polling indicating that the majority of Americans support allowing GLBT soldiers to serve openly, there is little will in Congress to revisit the policy.

"I don't think that any of this research is going to have a major impact on public policy any time soon," said Belkin.
 
From the Log Cabin republicans

[Q]Issue: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Don't Work

The United States military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy must be changed. This blatant discrimination damages our military readiness and weakens national defense. A 2003 research report commissioned by the Liberty Education Forum shows how this policy is hurting the American military.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is the only law in America that authorizes the firing of an American for simply being gay. Researchers estimate tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans currently serve in our nation's military-on the front lines of freedom. We commend their sacrifice, along with the sacrifices of all the other Americans who protect our nation. No man or woman in uniform should have to worry about being thrown out of the military for being gay. One's sexual orientation is no reflection of their courage. Those who fight for freedom shouldn't face discrimination from the government they protect. Furthermore, the military should be promoting honesty among its service members, not secrecy.

There are many reasons why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be changed. Here are some of them:

1. With our nation at war, it is imperative to have the best and brightest fighting for freedom. We need the most qualified and competent people defending us, regardless of their sexual orientation. Don't Ask, Don't Tell keeps many talented Americans from serving this nation. As recruiting an all-volunteer force becomes more challenging, the military should not jeopardize its effectiveness by closing the door to qualified Americans interested in serving. In November 2002, seven linguists fluent in Arabic got kicked out of the military's Defense Language Institute for being gay. This happened even as intelligence agencies complained about a shortage of linguists fluent in Arabic. Winning the war on terror depends on having such people serving our nation.

2. Allowing openly gay service members will not hurt unit cohesion or competence. Our closest allies allow openly gay service members, including every member of NATO except Turkey. Research shows none of the countries with openly gay service members have been hurt by their non-discrimination policy. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Israel are just some of the 24 nations that allow openly gay members in the military. Even South Africa allows openly gay service members.

Even though many opponents predicted problems in these countries before their bans were lifted, time proved them wrong. Researchers say not a single country with openly gay service members has reported any decrease in morale, recruitment, retention or cohesion. Researcher Aaron Belkin studied this issue for the Liberty Education Forum's recent white paper on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He interviewed 100 experts around the globe, many of whom opposed their country's efforts to lift the ban on openly gay military personnel. Not one of the people he interviewed believed that their nation's military performance suffered when the ban was lifted.

3. U.S. soldiers already serve with openly gay service members from other countries. This joint service has created no problems for American personnel. The British military, our strongest ally in Iraq, has openly gay service members working alongside American forces. This has not caused any problems. Since the Persian Gulf War, United States forces have joined 20 joint military campaigns with other nations who have openly gay service members. A recent University of California study shows that in these 20 campaigns the American unit's cohesion, performance and morale did not suffer because of the presence of openly gay service members from other nations.

4. Supporters of the current policy often argue that allowing gay and lesbians service members would violate the privacy of heterosexual members. Again we can see what has happened in other countries who changed their anti-gay policies. Studies in England and Canada show very few complaints of sexual harassment involving homosexual members. For argument's sake, even if we concede this point, the U.S. military, by decade's end, will have private rooms for all sailors, Marines, soldiers, and airmen. The so-called privacy problem will be gone.

5. Even if some heterosexual members of the United States military have moral objections to homosexuals, that won't impact unit effectiveness. A Harvard research report examined hundreds of studies that showed a unit's effectiveness has nothing to do with whether or not members of the team liked each other.

6. The FBI, CIA, and Secret Service, along with most police and fire departments around the United States, now allow openly gay Americans to serve in their ranks. These non-discrimination policies have not hurt performance, professionalism, or morale.

7. There is strong sentiment to change this policy among both the public and the military. A recent Gallup poll of the American public shows 72% support the right of gays and lesbians to serve in uniform. A poll during the 2000 campaign showed 65% of Republicans in favor of gays and lesbians serving in uniform. A 1998 study of Army soldiers shows that only 36% oppose serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers.

8. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is corrupted by some people as a way of avoiding military service. Research shows, and even the military admits, that a sizable percentage of those kicked out of the armed forces for being homosexual are actually heterosexual. They use the policy like a get out of jail free card. Eliminating the policy would close this loophole.

9. The military wastes millions of dollars each year investigating "violations" of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. With a huge budget deficit, this money could be better spent on projects that actually improve national defense.

Conclusion

More than 55 years ago, President Harry Truman desegregated the military. His courageous act received a hostile reaction from some Americans. Many of the same arguments made against President Truman's decision can be heard again today as a way of keeping openly gay Americans from serving this nation. Since World War II,110,000 Americans have been discharged from the military for being gay or lesbian. Tens of thousands of others have served in secrecy, with distinction. Some have given their lives in defense of freedom. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy tramples the principles they died protecting. It rips at the fabric of liberty that so many thousands have died defending. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy must be transformed into Don't Discriminate, Don't Surrender! [/Q]
 
[Q]Twenty-four nations allow gay individuals to openly serve in the military. And the U.S. armed forces has ample evidence that doing so has not created the problems they fear. Although not widely reported, an article was published in 2003 in Parameters, a publication of the U.S. Army, which reviewed the experiences of foreign military allies who abolished their ban on gay personnel. The article concluded that there was no negative impact on unit cohesion, morale, retention, or recruitment.

American troops have been serving with gay British soldiers in Iraq for the past 18 months. British military authorities have noted that there have been no problems. The British navy is so pleased with gay personnel that they are now actively recruiting gays and lesbians. Part of this effort includes allowing gay couples to live in housing previously reserved for married couples. Royal Navy Commodore Paul Docherty said they want to change the military’s culture so that gays will feel comfortable working there.[/Q]

http://www.counterbias.com/250.html
 
Abomb-baby said:



Oh, and Irvine the military is NOT on a witch hunt to kick out gay members like these interpreters and such you are talking about. Do you mean to tell me 200 plus gay people were kicked out of the military because they "accidentally slipped up" and told something personal about there sex life? Hogwash. I'm sure most gays are perfectly capable of keeping there sex life a secret when they want to. These ppl chose to share there lifestyles with others and it went against the policy.


firstly, why the assumption that it's all about sex? do you realize that when you, as a straight man, talk about your wife, your children, your girlfriend, the date you went on, the pictures you put of your wife/girlfriend/children on your desk ... you are flaunting your sexual orientation, and you are doing things you wouldn't ever think twice about. nor should you. being gay is not just about sex. it's about being constitutively, which is to say physically and emotionally, attracted to your same gender.

it's a massive double standard, and you're scope is pretty narrow. you seem to be focusing on infantry, which is where you certainly have your strongest argument. but, as you know, the military is much bigger than that. here's a snippit from a WP article on this subject:






"The Defense Language Institute, at the Presidio of Monterey, is the primary foreign-language school for the Department of Defense. For decades, Russian was the dominant language taught. But since Sept. 11, 2001, the size of the Arabic class has soared. Of the roughly 3,800 students enrolled at the DLI, 832 are learning Arabic, 743 Korean, 353 Chinese and 301 Russian, with the remaining students scattered in other languages.

Many of the discharged gay linguists were studying Arabic or Korean, among the most rigorous taught at the DLI and most costly to the U.S. government. The DLI estimates the value of its 63-week Arabic language program -- not including room, board and the service member's salary -- at $33,500.

The Army gave Cathleen Glover a proficiency in Arabic, but it also typed the words "HOMOSEXUAL ADMISSION" on her official discharge papers. The best job she could find was cleaning pools.

Glover looks like the standout soccer goalie she was in high school in rural Ohio. Her skin is tanned from a summer spent outdoors, her hair streaked blond by pool chemicals. Her backpack is crammed with books on Islam and the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine. She shares an apartment in Adams Morgan with another discharged gay linguist, who works as a temp in a law firm. The two of them watch al-Jazeera on cable to keep their Arabic oiled.

Glover graduated from Miami University in Ohio in 1999 with a degree in political science. She'd spent a semester in Ireland studying conflict resolution. She was substitute teaching in Ohio, contemplating graduate school, when an Army recruiter called her parents' farm. The recruiter pitched the DLI. Glover thought that learning a language would prepare her for a career in foreign policy.

Glover knew she was gay. A private person by nature, she thought she could live under a rule such as "don't ask, don't tell."

"It sounds simple," she reasoned. "Don't say anything."

Glover arrived at the DLI after nine weeks of basic training. The campus was beautiful, studded with palm trees and overlooking Monterey Bay. Like Glover, many students had college degrees. Glover had hoped to study Russian, but her high scores on the language aptitude test bumped her into the more difficult Arabic program.

The new soldier immersed herself in modern Arabic. Six hours a day, five days a week, 63 weeks. Nights were occupied by homework and study groups. Some students were so intent on absorbing Middle Eastern culture that they wore Arab headdresses to class.

Glover's class was midway through the program on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The DLI campus went into lockdown. The only channel that came in on the TV in Glover's classroom was al-Jazeera. The students used their limited Arabic to piece together what had just occurred. In just a few hours, their value in the military had skyrocketed. An officer visited Glover's classroom to remind the linguists that their job was to defend the United States. "He told us not to get too close to the culture," she said.

Glover was maintaining a 3.2 grade-point average and leading study groups, but privately she was stressed. Being gay at a place such as the DLI had its advantages -- San Francisco was two hours up the coast, and the DLI campus was more academic than most military posts. But "don't ask, don't tell" was still the law of the land. She was making every contortion to hide the fact that she was a lesbian.

"What if a married person in the military couldn't tell anyone that his wife exists?" Glover said. "And if he did, he'd be fired?"

That was Glover's predicament. Her partner had moved from Ohio to an apartment in Monterey. Glover told no one, splitting her time between the post and her partner's place, and lying about her whereabouts on the sign-out log. She was afraid to be seen in public with her partner. The hiding took its toll; the four-year relationship ended. The breakup fueled Glover's anger toward "don't ask, don't tell."

Then came the surprise room inspection that snagged Alastair Gamble and his partner, raising the level of anxiety for gays at the DLI.

Glover's best friend was another gay linguist. He received orders to ship out to Fort Campbell, an Army post in Kentucky dreaded among gay service members. In 1999, Pfc. Barry Winchell was bashed to death in his barracks by a fellow solider for being gay. Rather than shipping out to Fort Campbell, Glover's friend declared his homosexuality and was discharged.

Glover graduated from the Arabic program in 2002, but emotionally she was sliding. Her first sergeant suggested she see a counselor. Finally, she confessed her problem: She was exhausted from hiding her identity. Confirming Glover's fears, the counselor asked her for the name and phone number of her commander. Not long after, she was ordered to see an Army psychiatrist.

Glover sat down at her computer. After a year of intense internal struggle, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of both the United States Army and my mental well-being that I inform you that I am a lesbian. She carried the letter in her pocket for two days. When she finally gave it to her commander, he accused her of lying. It's possible that he was looking the other way in order to keep her. In frustration, Glover wrote an essay about her experience living under "don't ask, don't tell" and mailed it to the Monterey County Herald.

Within a week, she was shipped to Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Tex., for intelligence training. In class one day, a sergeant used a mocking lisp as he talked about all the gay linguists discharged from the DLI.

Finally, Glover's letter-writing caught up with her. She was ordered to report to battalion headquarters, where the captain was holding a copy of the op-ed piece from the Monterey paper. She was recommended for a general discharge, a less-than-honorable characterization that could have meant no veterans' benefits and would send up a red flag to potential employers. With the help of an Army lawyer, she won an honorable discharge.

Glover's last day was March 24, 2003. "It was a day of feeling nothing," she said. She drove to Fort Hood to sign her paperwork. The hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles that usually stretched for acres were in Iraq.

She cleaned out her barracks room. In an act of symbolism, she left one of her Army uniforms -- her class dress uniform -- hanging in the closet.

Instead of relief, Glover felt a sense of disloyalty. She moved to Washington, where she applied for a job at the National Security Agency. Since her security clearance had been revoked, a background check would take months. She took a job with the pool company. In what she calls an act of "karmic irony," one of the pools she cleaned each week was owned by Pat Buchanan."
 
Now put up or shut up.....getting tired of BASELESS comments...that are mired in the shit of ones insecurities........

Show some evidence of studies that it is bad for morale.
 
Hey Dread, I would appreciate the courtesy of at least civility. I have yet to personally attack anyone on this forum and I would appreciate the same from you. Otherwise' I can only asssume you are an idiot. If you don't like my comments your welcome to not read them. I won't be bullied by you or anyone else on this forum because you disagree with my opinion. I'm in the military unlike most of you who are reading off some Harvard study or some Gay friendly web site or the NY times. I live it and I know what ppl in the military want. But just to back up my statements here is a blurb. And yes' I did read the last part about views softening. All I know is if 75% of the ppl in the Army don't want gays serving openly, then there will be MORALE problems!


2003 Military Times poll — We asked. You answered.
Military backs Bush more than civilians do — but not by much

Stories by Gordon Trowbridge
Times staff writer

How troops view gays, women, harassment

On a list of controversial social subjects, from women in combat to race relations to gays in the military, the Military Times Poll finds troops remarkably satisfied with the current state of military affairs.

But experts say the poll raises renewed concern on the issue of sexual harassment — an issue that’s hardly new to the military.

Among the polls findings:

•Four of five respondents, and almost two out of three minorities, said minorities receive better treatment in the military than society at large.

•More than two in three supported the idea of women serving in combat, though many suggested women should only get such assignments if they choose them.

“I don’t think men give women enough credit. I think they’re very capable,” said Sgt. 1st Class David Sayre, an active-duty marketing and advertising manager in the Montana Army National Guard. “There are some men who should not be in combat, and there are some women who shouldn’t be there either.”

•Nearly half of women surveyed said they had been the victim of sexual harassment in the military.

Experts said that number comes with several cautions. Because of the small number of women surveyed, the margin of error is high — plus or minus 9 percentage points.

And Laura Miller, a Rand Corp. sociologist who served on the congressional panel investigating the Air Force Academy’s sexual assault scandal, said polling on sexual harassment is notoriously tricky because of the differences in how those polled define harassment.

Still, observers said the figure is cause for concern.

“It’s clear that the military has not fully come on board with equality for women,” said Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and Boston University professor.

•Half of respondents said they supported keeping the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals. But only one in four said gays should be allowed to serve openly, a sharp difference from the U.S. public. Nearly eight in 10 Americans in a recent Gallup Poll said gays should serve openly.

Aaron Belkin, a researcher on gays in the military at the University of California-Santa Barbara, said these results and others indicate a softening of attitudes about homosexuals in the ranks.

“That harsh edge, the intensity of people’s attitudes, has changed,” he said. Other surveys, he said, show that although a majority of troops still oppose lifting the ban, the number of those strongly opposed has fallen.
 
Maybe its better if certain individuals agree to disagree before they get even more messy. Heaven knows no agreement will come out of this.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
That was completely civil. I and others have answered you.

Want to bet that the MAJORITY of the military did not want blacks when integration began?


Want to bet the feelings were the same about women?
Since when is it the soldiers who run the roost. Sorry, but I do not remember being in the service meaning enlisting into a democracy.

Sorry....

Thank you for your sevice. I have eight years in myself. So what, it makes you more of an expert than myself or any other member of the forum in what?

Nothing, not one thing you have shown counters what the evidence is world wide. The gays in the other services have worked out fine around the world.

And shockingly, as I have pointed out, AMERICANS have not only worked side by side with them, they have been COMMANDED by them.
 
"Morale problems." Maybe they just need to learn how to be more professional. Listening to what special ops people have said about the military in Afghanistan (they would take the time to get to know some civilians to get some info, and the regular military would just come in and start shooting everything upsetting them), I think that's what the military really needs.

Their inability to control their homophobia is only the tip of the iceberg and is symptomatic of a larger problem within the military.

Melon
 
This issue seems to be about the Military's policy, not your personal fears of residing with non-outed homsexuals.

The problem stops and ends with the practicing discrimination against outed homosexuals by the Military/state/government.

If you take this context, as the problem, in no way shape or form would your discomfort ever be an issue with the actual discrimination. It is what it is, regardless of what you "feel".

So to answer your question:

"If I am a straight man, why should I have to sleep or shower in the same quarters as someone who may possibly get some gratification in it? "

Thought crimes?

It is of no consequence that you have to reside with someone who may get gratification from it. This happens, as evidenced in this thread, daily, everywhere not only in this country but worldwide. If you go to a doctor's office and have surgery you can be fully naked in front of many men AND women who may or may not find it gratifying, it's not against the law, it's not breaking any rules as long as they don't start touching you.

It's the same notion of some cracker claiming not to want to reside with blacks because he thinks they are subhuman or whatever. It makes no difference in the semantics of the argument, it IS discrimination, period.

If you can accpept this, then it is painfully obvious. If you don't think it's discrimation, then I would guess you are just a homophobe and this discussion is moot. I will give you more credit than that out until shown otherwise.

It would seem, as being in the military, you are an employee of the state, being paid American tax dollars, that you would understand that, of ALL PLACES, discrimination should not exist within the institution of our government. The reason I state this is that the miltary most certainly can not practice this, even if the miltary is afforded other exclusivities as prosecuting in military tribunals and such, they cannot violate the rights of Iraqi's much less gay American SOLDIERS.

"If I am a straight man, why should I have to sleep or shower in the same quarters as someone who may possibly get some gratification in it? "

Your question has the supposition that they would even be attracted to you in the first place. You'd never know unless they made advances towards you. If that were the case, then I am sure it's an infraction of the rules or some laws.

In other words, your rights as an individual are protected, but they aren't guaranteed to keep you in comfort. I am uncomfortable with my fucking asshole neighbors, I can't have them evicted because they were giving me the "goo-goo" eyes.

That is irrelevant anyways. The issue is blatant discrimination.

Women and men do not reside together in the military in the same sense that miltary members can't smoke marijuanna and not expect to get booted out of the military. It's the rule,
there isn't a discrimination case to be made here.

These rules can be questioned, even in the military, as they had to address with blacks and women before. The case being made here is not about your fears, which are the same fears that men had with residing with blacks, jews or any number of "groups."

What is being said here is that your comfort level about roaming eyes is of no consequence if we are all equal in the eyes of the law, much less God. And if that's your best argument, it's my evidence that I am on the clear right side of this issue.
 
Last edited:
As a girl that shares a flat with her best friend, a gay 26-year old guy, I personally am sick and tired of the "poor me"-attitude a lot of gays have.
You guys are nothing, absolutely nothing different that than average straight john or jane doe.
If you keep treating yourself and the gay community as something "special", thus you will be treated. I say, stand up for who you are or keep quiet. I see so many gays that still haven't come out or have only come out to a select group of close friends.
I realize that it's hard and sometimes maybe even dangerous, but I find it pretty ambiguous to hear complaints on the "don't ask, don't tell"-policy of the US Army when there are so many of you that don't even come right out and say it yourselves.

It's like the whole debate on gay marriage, that's recently been approved in Belgium, the bill has passed and gays are now allowed to get married......only to find out a year later that hardly any gay couples actually DID get married.

I realize it's partly a matter of principles and that, in theory, the community wants equality, thus fights for equal rights, whether or not they actually use them, but still...it does seem pretty weird when you look at it from a distance. I mean, having that bill passed, does NOT change the publics opinion on gays. That's what only the gays themselves can change - open up, show who you are and prove people wrong.

Granted, I live in Europe, and people are prettty liberal towards gays (allthough that's been a very recent evolution) so I don't encounter the homo-phobic athmosphere some of you are referring to, it's probably easier for gays here.

Melon, I know you said yourself you were exaggerating on your comments on straight men and the women that fall for them, but sadly...your comments are not *that* exaggerated really, meaning that l hear those comments frequently among my gay friends and I debate with them each and every time. It stumps me that as an "oppressed" group in this society, you don't hesite to project similar, poorly-argumented generalizations "our" way. You should know better and know that it's not as simple as that. I'm not meaning you personally, I'm just stating that I hear it more than I'd like. I am by no means attacking you.

In fact, my friend/roommate and I often have heated debates on this subject. Lol, he calls me the fore-fighter of gay's rights, while I am the very stereotypical straight high-maintenance dolly girl.
 
Last edited:
the soul waits said:

Granted, I live in Europe, and people are prettty liberal towards gays (allthough that's been a very recent evolution) so I don't encounter the homo-phobic athmosphere some of you are referring to, it's probably easier for gays here.


actually i lived in Europe for a while -- in brussels (you people certainly know how to do beer ... i miss it so). and it's interesting ... there is a very american tendency to debate social issues and "moral" issues in a very public way that doesn't seem to the be the custom in europe. european public discourse, in my experience, seems to be about the practical thing to do, the possible thing to do, with an emphasis on process. issues like gay marriage are simply more about legal rights than a debate about the essence of marriage, or the purpose of marriage, or whatever, like you see in the US. one is neither better nor worse. the european view seems to be, in my opinion, that gay people aren't going anywhere, and they don't harm anyone, so there's no basis to deny anyone the right of marriage.

what this does not translate into, i think, is genuine acceptance and embracing of difference -- again, my impression. what i think you see in the US, simply because it's a much more emotional debate about morals and principles and what is "right," is you get people who live in the major cities where gay culture is very vibrant and very much an integral part of the fabric of the city in a way that i didn't see in most of the european countries i visited -- exceptions being London and Amsterdam. again, my impression. so in the US, you tend to have wildly different attitudes -- you can get violently homophobic cities and towns -- and politicians who feel as if they can and must speak to this population -- but also cities and towns where no one even bats an eyelash at a gay couple in a restaurant or holding hands in a park or even kissing in public, where openly gay people serve at all levels of the city government, and the gay population is as much a special interest group, politically, as african-americans or hispanics. heck, in DC, even the Republicans support gay marriage.

i suppose what i'm saying is that, like so many things in the US, life is very amped up. you could be a near suicidal gay kid at a high school in North Dakota where you hear anti-gay hate speach blaring out of the car radio each and every day. or you could live in Santa Fe, New Mexico or Northampton, Massachusetts and not give your sexuality much of a second thought.

these are just my impressions. i'd love to hear more about what goes on in Europe in regards to all this.
 
the soul waits said:


Melon, I know you said yourself you were exaggerating on your comments on straight men and the women that fall for them, but sadly...your comments are not *that* exaggerated really, meaning that l hear those comments frequently among my gay friends and I debate with them each and every time. It stumps me that as an "oppressed" group in this society, you don't hesite to project similar, poorly-argumented generalizations "our" way. You should know better and know that it's not as simple as that. I'm not meaning you personally, I'm just stating that I hear it more than I'd like. I am by no means attacking you.



you are absolutely right. the one difference, though, is that these poorly-argumented generalizations are encoded into law in many US states, and i assume some European countries, and weilded as legitimate tools of oppression. while the blueprint of your argument is correct, i think that in reality, there is the simple fact that gay people are discriminated against by straight people. there is a very real cost to these poorly-argued generalizations to gay people, whereas when a gay person does the same thing to a straight person, the only repercussions are theoretica.

like any community, gays can be as blinkered in their worldview as anyone else. i think that most comments on "breeders" or whatever are made in jest, but there shouldn't be a working assumption about the superiority of homosexuality, just as there shouldn't be a working assumption about the essential morality of heterosexuality in the mind of a straight man. and this applies to ALL groups of people who's member's wrap themselves up in the form of an identity, but miss it's essence -- and this is also EXACTLY what i was trying to get at in the "labels and stereotypes" thread i started yesterday.

there are black people who are racist.
there are gay people who are heterophobic.
etc, etc.

it's the whole, "so you become a monster/ so the monster will not break you."

it's absolutely true. be better than those who would do you harm, don't become their reflection in the mirror.
 
the soul waits said:
Melon, I know you said yourself you were exaggerating on your comments on straight men and the women that fall for them, but sadly...your comments are not *that* exaggerated really, meaning that l hear those comments frequently among my gay friends and I debate with them each and every time. It stumps me that as an "oppressed" group in this society, you don't hesite to project similar, poorly-argumented generalizations "our" way. You should know better and know that it's not as simple as that. I'm not meaning you personally, I'm just stating that I hear it more than I'd like. I am by no means attacking you.

Thanks for the comments. I don't see it as an attack; just your observation.

I find it curious, because, frankly, I don't hang out with any gay people, really. It's not on purpose; it's just the way it is where I'm currently living. :huh: So I find it interesting that my "bitterness" has extended elsewhere without me knowing.

Thinking about it, I'm not surprised. Every minority group resents having their lives dictated to them by an outside "majority." I mean, look at how bitter black society is at times? I don't blame them for resenting white people sticking their nose in on a regular basis and then telling them what they can or cannot do. How is it their right? I already know that white society would have a temper tantrum if blacks or Hispanics started telling them what they can or cannot do, and the KKK, suddenly, would have a huge resurgence.

The fact is, "stereotypes" are easier to mold arguments. Unfortunately, it's true. The fact is, I hate those who fit into that "conservative breeder" stereotype. The ones who think that our rights should be up to a vote, since they know that a vote amongst the other breeders would deny us the rights. And I hate them. I hate them all. It is not their fucking right to tell us what we can or cannot do, since they are not one of us.

And the fact remains that these "Defense of Marriage" acts here garner around 60%-70% voter passage each time. So I guess a more appropriate thing for me to say is that I hope 60%-70% of voters die a slow, horrible death, because I hate them all.

There's nuance for you.

Melon
 
Thank you for the replies, Irvine, I'm new to this forum and kinda just jumped on this topic.
Thank you for clarifying the different emphasizes on a debate-level, when is comes to gay marriage and what not. I see the difference, allthough I don't understand the nature of it. Why is Europe so different from the US in that regard? Why do emotions play as big a part as they do in the debates there? That is suprising to me.

What I see in Belgium (I cannot speak for the whole of Europe) is that it's become better and more accepted the last 10 years. Most gays I know are very relaxed about it, have hetero guy friends as well as woman friends, just like any other person.
I perceive it to be more of a taboo the more you travel South in Europe, where catholicism is pretty pre-dominant (not knocking catholicism here, I'm religious myself) and people tend to be more narrow-minded.

However, and I know this firsthand from my flatmate, in the professional life, gays tend to not take too many risks and keep their sexuality on the down-low during the process of appyling for a job. Of course, this depends on the field (I suspect that more artistic work-environments would be more openminded), and the corporate world is still a testosterone-world (to which any business woman can attest) in the upper-ranks anyway, so that's why many choose to keep it a secret.
Is that discrimination? One could say so. On the other hand, when I apply for a job, I paint a rosy, non-conflict-provocative picture of myself as well, and I play my part.

A lot of people judge other people and that's a sad sad fact. My lifestyle is very far away from what conservatives perceive as ideal and I take slack for it when I choose to come forward about certain aspects about me, but I can take it. It's not a big deal. I choose what I reveil and what I keep for myself and those close to me.
Melon, you say you hate those people. I say, don't let them rent space in your head, they are not worth it. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




you are absolutely right. the one difference, though, is that these poorly-argumented generalizations are encoded into law in many US states, and i assume some European countries, and weilded as legitimate tools of oppression. while the blueprint of your argument is correct, i think that in reality, there is the simple fact that gay people are discriminated against by straight people. there is a very real cost to these poorly-argued generalizations to gay people, whereas when a gay person does the same thing to a straight person, the only repercussions are theoretica.

Yes, true on a general level society-wise. But when you take this statement and translate it to how people interact socially in the personal atmosphere, I believe it's equally disturbing for both parties.

like any community, gays can be as blinkered in their worldview as anyone else. i think that most comments on "breeders" or whatever are made in jest, but there shouldn't be a working assumption about the superiority of homosexuality, just as there shouldn't be a working assumption about the essential morality of heterosexuality in the mind of a straight man. and this applies to ALL groups of people who's member's wrap themselves up in the form of an identity, but miss it's essence -- and this is also EXACTLY what i was trying to get at in the "labels and stereotypes" thread i started yesterday.

I totally agree.

there are black people who are racist.
there are gay people who are heterophobic.
etc, etc.

it's the whole, "so you become a monster/ so the monster will not break you."

it's absolutely true. be better than those who would do you harm, don't become their reflection in the mirror.

Yes, and on that note : the best revenge to those who want to break you, is to live well and stand tall.

Ps. As I reread this post, I see that I have done the quoting thing rather poorly. There are replies to bits of your posts in the white square, Irvine; sorry.
 
Last edited:
the soul waits said:
Thank you for the replies, Irvine, I'm new to this forum and kinda just jumped on this topic.
Thank you for clarifying the different emphasizes on a debate-level, when is comes to gay marriage and what not. I see the difference, allthough I don't understand the nature of it. Why is Europe so different from the US in that regard? Why do emotions play as big a part as they do in the debates there? That is suprising to me.

i don't know for certain the root of these differences, but it's something i've observed. i think that there might be much less cultural cohesion in the United States due mostly to its history as a nation of immigrants and the country's enormous diversity, especially when compared to Europe. yes, Europe is more diverse now than it has ever been, but most European nations remain over 90% caucasian, whereas in the US it's now less than 75% and dwindling. the result, i think, is that Americans need to be very vocal about their beliefs and their passions -- it's why Americans need overt displays of patriotism, like the singing of the national anthem at baseball games or waving of flags. there's simply not a need for this in Europe -- again, all my impressions -- because a Belgian has a much clearer idea of what it means to be Belgian, just like a German has a clear idea of what it means to be German, than any American has of what it means to be an American. our country is young, we have no "myth of orgin," and as such identity is always hotly contested and very public.

the reason why i think that, today, Europe is much more socially liberal and tolerant, as a whole, than the United States -- and one of the reasons why i love to visit and would be open to the idea of living in Europe again -- is that this sense of culture is so powerful that it is able to incorporate difference rather easily. you might be gay, but you're also French, and ultimately it is the best interests of the culture for us to find a way for you to be both gay and French.

does that make sense? people often use the Netherlands. i think i might be a mistake to assume that Dutch people are more enlightened than the rest of us. while i adore the country, and most Dutch people i've met, logic tells me that Dutch people are human, and therefore can be as idiotic as anyone else. the reason, i believe, that the Dutch are so famously tolerant comes from pragmatism. it's a very, very densely populated country, and there's got to be a way for everyone to get along. so this calm, rational approach towards accepting difference, at least from a legal standpoint, is simply the best way for the culture and the country to continue to evolve while retaining what we might call essentially Dutch.

that's my supposition. anyone else? did i offend any French, Dutch, or Belgian? was not my intention to do so ... just tossing out my observations.
 
Last edited:
While I am Belgian, I know quite a lot of Dutch people and agree with you mostly. I don't think they are all necessarily very enlightened, but the government is indeed pretty pragmatic, straight-forward, liberal and solution-oriented.

Belgians, on the other hand, tend to lose themselves in a yap-fest, hence not getting anywhere on a practical level. The new generation of politicians is slightly better, though.

I see why the US government might feel threatened by the merging of so many cultures but, from a distance, the ironic remark that comes to mind is that it's pretty funny when they act so superior to the rest of the world.
 
the soul waits said:

I see why the US government might feel threatened by the merging of so many cultures but, from a distance, the ironic remark that comes to mind is that it's pretty funny when they act so superior to the rest of the world.


it's not the government that feels threatened, is that there's no clear sense of what is and what isn't American. there are certain symbols that we gravitate towards -- the flag, baseball, apple pie, Main Street, etc. -- but the culture is far more fragmented than what i've encountered in Europe. not that one is better, or more complex, or more nuanced, than the other -- they're just different.

as for acting superior ... beats me. the hypocrisy of the powerful, i suppose. i'm certainly embarassed by how my country has carried itself in the world these past 5 years or so.
 
U2DMfan said:

It would seem, as being in the military, you are an employee of the state, being paid American tax dollars, that you would understand that, of ALL PLACES, discrimination should not exist within the institution of our government. The reason I state this is that the miltary most certainly can not practice this, even if the miltary is afforded other exclusivities as prosecuting in military tribunals and such, they cannot violate the rights of Iraqi's much less gay American SOLDIERS.

What an absolute load of crap. Discrimination exists all over the government and in all sorts of government agencies. Women in combat, single parents can't join the Air Force, minimum height requirements to be a fighter pilot. You have to have minimum scores on aptitude tests to do certain jobs. Try getting hired in the Secret Service or FBI with ANY arrest on your record, not even a conviction. How about Handicapped ppl? alot of them could do at least 50% of the jobs out there in the military. But again, they are discriminated against. When will people understand that LIFE isn't fair?So again, if my morality says being gay is wrong MORALLY, then oh well, to bad. I will be forced to live and exist with someone whose lifestyle I oppose.My rights are trumped by the gay persons right to not be discriminated against?Why? What makes their rights anymore valid than mine?

And please stop using the blacks in the military and women in the military analogy. General Colin Powell himself fought long and hard to not allow Gays to OPENLY serve. But then again, what the hell does he know about Military life and discrimination? Until you can prove the fact that a gay gene exists, then its not the same as being BORN black or female.

Many here have used the example of Gays serving in the military in other countries around the world. Well, to put it bluntly, we aren't Europe. Our culture is different in America. Alot different, and morality and christian values still holds prominance in many peoples lives in this country(unlike most of Europe). Many say you can't legislate morality. Well, then by the same token you can't discard morality with legislation either.

To be honest, if gays were actually allowed to openly serve I doubt highly that many would even choose to do so. Most would be afraid of retribution from fellow soldiers or supervisors/Commanders for doing so. I think we have a long way to go in this country before the military in the US is gonna allow the closet door to swing wide open. Hell, we have ppl in the military here who never saw a black person until they joined the service.

I know many of you are trying to pigeon hole me as a homophobe, bigot or whatever. You're wrong. I'm not. Get over it.
I have had Gay friends in the past, and I have gay friends now. Do I condone their lifestyle? No. I also don't condone certain practices of my heterosexual friends. But it isn't a show stopper for our frienship. Friends don't have to agree on everything.

And its sooo nice to see how the claws come out around here with words like"homophobe" and "Breeders". I have not used one derogatory term in any of my posts. I guess I see how far some of you extend your notion of "tolerance".
 
Abomb-baby said:

So again, if my morality says being gay is wrong MORALLY, then oh well, to bad. I will be forced to live and exist with someone whose lifestyle I oppose.My rights are trumped by the gay persons right to not be discriminated against?Why? What makes their rights anymore valid than mine?

And please stop using the blacks in the military and women in the military analogy. General Colin Powell himself fought long and hard to not allow Gays to OPENLY serve. But then again, what the hell does he know about Military life and discrimination? Until you can prove the fact that a gay gene exists, then its not the same as being BORN black or female.


being gay is as INVOLUNTARY as being born black or female. one has no choice in the matter, and one cannot change one's sexual orientation -- one can choose to live a life of celibacy, or choose to "battle" their orientation, but every single study of ex-gay ministires shows that they have a near universal failure rate.

you have every right to think whatever you want about homosexuality, but you are not free to use your moral convictions to discriminate, in measurable way -- like housing, for example -- against people who are of a different sexual orientation. actually, in many states you still can, however the direction in which we all are moving, and the general status of the world in the 21st century, is that sexual orientation is as innocuous as race, religion, or gender.

you also point out so-called discriminatory practices in the military. height requirements for airforce pilots. such standards set a bar, of sorts, of what is requried for performance.

if you could demonstrate to me that being gay disqualifies a pilot from dropping bombs on Baghdad, i'd love to hear exactly how.
 
Back
Top Bottom