TRhank you for the PERFECT example. Are policies in US society asking women to cover their breasts based on their GENDER, or their sexuality? Are only straight women supposed to cover their breasts? Does the sexuality enter into the policy at all? No, it is entirely based on gender, just as the decision to separate men and women into seperate bathrooms is based entirely on gender with NO REGARD WHATSOEVER to sexuality of the individuals.

That is my point throught this entire debate. The assertion that allowing men and openly gay men to shower together would be the same as allwoign men and women to shower together is patently WRONG, as it assumes showers are separated based on sexuality, which they are not. EVER, in ANY segment of society.

Thats why gays (open and closeted) shower and live together with straights in every other location but the military without incident, even in places and jobs where close and extended proximity is run of the mill. Thats why the shower and bunk together in the militaries of a dozen other countries without difficulty.

The entire line of argumentation is based on the ASSERTION that there will be a serious, unsolvable problem when gays and straights shower together in the military, but NO EVIDENCE has ever been offered to back up that assertion, and vast evidence has ben offered to rebut it. I have been asking for some evidence for pages now... Now, Suddenly it is the turn of the anti-gays-in-the-military people to go silent and dodge the issue. After accusing others of refusing to answer their question again and again and again, now the tables are turned.


WHY is the military of the US so much different an enviroment than every single sector of civilian life when gays and straights shower and bunk together, even in jobs and employments demanding close proximity for extended periods of time? WHY is the US military SO different from the militaries of Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, France Portugal, Spain, ROK, Japan and Israel that what has worked for ALL of them cannot possibly work for the US?

So people who stand in the line of fire and face death on a daily basis are too fragile to shower with gays... why, exactly?
I'd think losing your limbs because conservatives sent you off without proper equipment would be more traumatic than showering with someone who is attracted to your gender.

Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

Of course not. The fact that gay men and lesbians are just as able, if not more able, to perform as soldiers is irrelevant. The fact that the substantial portion of the United States armed forces that is and always has been gay has been forced to hide it, lie about it, or just "not tell" is irrelevant. The fact that there have always been gays in the military - everywhere in the world throughout human history - is irrelevant. The fact that some of the greatest military leaders in recorded history were gay is irrelevant.*

The only thing that matters, really, is that serving in the armed forces is a high-risk occupation with a high mortality rate - especially in times of rampant illegal warfare. Therefore, homosexuals should be banned from the military outright. The more heterosexuals lost to presidential adventures, the sooner we can establish a gay hegemony in the US, if not an outright gay majority. How can the framers of the Homosexual Agenda have overlooked this valuable point? Gay men and lesbians should just shut up and let the religious right do their work for them.

Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

We should "blame" people who want to serve in our military for wanting to serve? The only people to blame for this idiotic "controversy" are those who would like to see all gay men and lesbians exterminated ("Their blood is upon them. They shall be put to death.") - and, maybe, a few self-hating closet cases. Those unwilling to admit this due to political correctness or whatever are, simply, liars.

Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

No, none. Gay men and lesbians should either be able to serve equally or they should not be allowed to serve at all. My ironic response to the first question notwithstanding, it stands to all possible reason that they should serve equally.


_________________________

*ottimista's hoary old list might have made some sense had it been restricted to the likes of Julius Caesar and Admiral Halsey, but I'm afraid I have to agree with Baphomet's Advocate on this one. I could just as easily come up with a list of infamous gays - starting with Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Aleister Crowley, Ken Mehlman, Gilles de Rais, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ernst Röhm, Kim Philby, Matt Drudge, and Liberace - which would tell us no more than what was posted here. Do you have a point, ottimista - or do you just have a meaningless list?

My point is that sexual preference in combat is irrelevant. There have been some brilliant gay soldiers and military leaders, there have been some brilliant straight soldiers and military leaders, there have doubtless been some terrible gay soldiers and military leaders, just as there have been some terrible straight soldiers and military leaders. The same goes for sailors, national guards, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, senators, choreographers, and every other occupation one cares to name. Sexual preference as a job qualification for anything is irrelevant - even prostitutes and porn stars. As it is clear that there have been thousands of gay men and lesbians who have excelled in the military - from the Sacred Band of Thebes to the few good men of the modern Marine Corps - it is, perhaps, particularly irrelevant when it comes to the armed forces. It would probably be more constructive to ban homophobes from military service: who needs armed sociopaths anyway?

Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?
Yes. Sexual preference has little if nothing to do with a person's ability to be a member of the Armed Forces.

Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?


The blame can be put on all of the institutions that have perpetuated the myth that homosexuality is a moral wrong or a social disease. It is a deeply embedded prejudice that exists in most of us who are not homosexual. Until you are disabused of the false idea there will continue to be controversy. One organization that could actually do wonders in subverting the falsehoods surrounding the subject of homosexuality would be the Catholic Church. And of course education and familiarity with the subject from a relatively young age would help in creating a more accepting environment.



Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?
An acceptable compromise would be that sexual preference not be discussed. Why should it? It's not a pertinent issue. You don't go to the family doctor and ask him if he is gay. IT doesn't affect his ability to administer treatment. The same rule applies here.

I didn't realize that a tampon dispenser was something specific to a bathroom. My point is that toilets and sinks have nothing to do with gender.

And I challenge you right now to show me a specific example of where I made any type of reference to a fear of getting raped in the shower or whatever.

You've made the charge - I demand you back it up now. In fact, if you could show where anybody stated this as some reason - let alone me - please show that.

I have no problem with gays serving in the military. But I would not be comfortable taking a shower, using a an unpartitioned toilet, or sleep next to (e.g. a bunk area on a ship) with someone who has made sure everybody knows he is sexually attracted to men for the same reasons I would not want to do the same with a woman. According to everyone's logic here, that makes me a heterophobe. I guess whatever it takes to make sure I'm a homophobe, huh?

Ok, let's say being openly gay in the military is ok. I have a question. Guys who are having a relationship may be sharing the same confined quarters with everybody else. If a man and a woman in the same unit are having a relationship while deployed (e.g. on a ship), shouldn't they be allowed to share the same quarters as well or is preventing them from doing the same arbitrary and discriminatory?

Accusing those of us who have concerns about full, open integration for homosexuals in the military by suggesting that we have this nightmare about being raped is getting mighty old. Not a soul has even implied this. It makes me wonder why we keep revisiting it then?

In all fairness, I should state that my issue is not having to shower or bunk with homosexuals. It has never been about that for me. I can imagine that if I were in the military I would "get over it" almost instantly. I remember once when I was completing my internship to become a mental health counselor. The clinic was located in the gay district of San Diego (Hillcrest) and I would frequently sit with gay men coming into the clinic. My "hetero-intern friend" commented one day in group supervision that if one more gay man looked at him while he was out getting something to eat he would have to clobber him. Most of us in the group including myself broke out in laughter because it was obvious to all of us what he was struggling with (i.e., insecurity about receiving that kind of attention). My supervisor tactfully (without the need of calling him a homophobe!) challenged him by questioning why it was so bad to be admired (in a sexual way) by someone of the same sex? Shouldn't it be considered a compliment or a form of flattery? She was right. I'm not sure how much of an impact this counsel had on him but it did sway me to consider what I thought about it.

The issue with open recognition in the military is something different. My concern is that over time a homosexual man having to spend an inordinate amount of time with men he may be attracted to is at least cause for consideration. I am not talking about during the "heat of the battle" moments when even the genders are compelled to bunk and shower in close proximity. These moments are not the norm. I am speaking of times of peace when no one is at war. Basically, a soldier's activities during these times probably amounts to endless day-in & day-out drills, routines, and monotonous duties. In other words, I speak of moments when each soldier has more of a luxury to indulge his private thoughts much like he would have as a civilian. These thoughts would inevitably lead toward natural attractions for either the opposite or same sex. We are all aware that straight men can barely contain themselves when not living in the same quarters with the women much less having to shower with them. As I stated in an earlier post, I would probably fall prey to these same indulgences if I had to live as intimately with the women as homosexual men must with the heteros.

I understand that this is already happening but as droop has stated several times the dynamic would most certainly shift should the homosexual man be allowed to "come out of the military closet". I'm sure many gay men keep their orientation to themselves for fear that reprisal would follow should they come out. This undoubtedly affects how much they let their guard down when inclined to indulge their natural thought inclinations. I believe Vermillion to be wrong when he states that sexuality has nothing to do with the separation of the genders. By saying that this separation is due to the difference in gender and not due to sexuality seems like one of those logical fallacy games. It is precisely because of the gender differences that men are separated from the women. It is this gender difference that invigorates the hetero-man towards coupling with these "other gender humans." IMO, the separation in the military is due primarily to sexuality. The paltry input from the females on this forum makes me curious. Excepting a few brave souls, why are the women silent? Come on ladies, don't post with some "bomb throwing" accusation that you see no point in arguing with flaming homophobes. Once again, you dodge my point.

I do not see a good solution to this. The gay community must serve in the military and must not be given a pass. Having them bunk together resolves NOTHING according to my concerns. Having them bunk with gay women isn't much better. The best of a bad situation seems to keep them integrated with the straight men and insist any "acting out" be squelched immediately and in an extreme way. D-Rocker's concerns about fellow unit members developing a relationship with one another during their free time would not be permissable. We should not allow (as best we can, hence the reason for gender separation) these indulgences to influence split-second decision making should these men be found in a time of war. I can only guess how difficult it would be to make life and death decisions in those moments. Much worse when forced to include my "soulmate" allegiance with the man next to me in the foxhole. I am surprised those who throw the homophobe smoke-curtain have not at least openly considered this.

Vermillion


If this is a perfect example for you... then you are getting desparate.

Are policies in US society asking women to cover their breasts based on their GENDER, or their sexuality?

Gender. See how easy it is to answer a straightforward question Vermillion?? Now let's see if you can do the same. Why are women required to wear Bikini tops and males are not??

Size?? Shape?? Also, I'd like to note it's not uncommon to see very young female children ( 4 or under) running around topless at a public pool. But, again why???

Straightforward question 2:

Why do we separate gym rooms, locker rooms, bathrooms etc. based on gender??

Do you believe it is because we have different looking private parts??



Well then tell us WHY we separate based on gender. My opinion is due to our perceptions of sexuality that are intrinisic in our genders. I don't think it is a coincidence in words that the term sex can mean gender, and the fact it is the base of the word we are throwing around... sexuality. These terms all interconnect into a tapestry of confusion for a reason. They are intrinsically linked. Stop trying to differentiate just to prove a point... it looks like your reaching for straws.



Without incident.... what are you talking about?? That is why homosexuals stay in the closet, because "incidents" with family and friends are what is likely going to happen. AGain this "without incident" is just speculation on your part.



You don't know the living conditions, you don't know that there are no problems. In fact I posted a link in post 171 that shows there are incidents and problems. In fact there are specail groups created in many places to address these incidents and problems.



Name your question



Because I have never heard of a civilian job that FORCED you to take showers with open homosexuals.

And our military isn't that different. Gays are allowed to serve in our military as well. The are not segregated, they are just not known.

I can't help but notice you pointed out how easy it was to answer my question, yet never actually answered it.

Anyways, as to your two questions:

1) Because of differenced between the genders.
2) Yes, because the two genders have different looking private parts.

I'm not sure how you felt those points helped you, in fact they did the opposite, confirmed that in our society separation is universally made on the basis of gender, not on sexuality.

Of course the two are linked, and no I have not tried to pretend they are mutually exclusive. And yes, in 90%+ of the cases, the separatiojn of gender or sexiality align. The question comes down to the remainder, and the reality is the division is ALWAYS based on gender, completely regardless of sexuality.

The answer that gender 'presumes' sexuality is a cop out, and is also incorrect. Openly gay men shower and use facilities beside straight men, and if they chose to make the distinction based on their sexuality, and use the women's facilities, they would be arrested. Gender is the universal divider, sexuality is universally irrelevant. So ASSERTING 9which is all that has been done here) that allowing gay men and straight men to shower together would be the same as allowing men and women to shower together is factually wrong.




If I'm reaching for straws, then why it is you seem unable to actually opose my contention? can you point to any circumstance, ever, in Human society anywhere on the planet, where separation is based onsexuality and not gender? can you provide ANY justification or evidence for the assertion that forcing women to shower with men would be the exact same as forcing men to shower with gay men? 9Sorry, only with openly gay men, closted gay men is just fine apparently)

Yes, gender and sexuality are linked, of course they are. That in no way alters my point.



(Sigh) and your rebuttal is PURE semantics. Fine, not 'without incident', but with no more incidents than occur in regular situations, covered by military law. Can you point to ANY evidence that gays and straights showering together ANYWHERE else in the world, in ANY situation leads to a higher level of inciidents that prevents work from being done or disrupting the standard of achievement?



Actually no, you didn't. In post 171 you cited proceedures that had ben put into place when open gays were allowed to serve in these varies militaries to deal with potential problems, thats just precaution. You posted no actual evuidence of any such problems at all.

I however posted a link to the GAO and a study they performed which examined exactly this question in the militaries of nations who had allowed open gays to serve.

"Military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their
experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not
adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale. For
example, Israeli officials said that homosexuals have performed as well as
heterosexuals and have served successfully in all branches of the military
since 1948. In Canada, where problems in these areas were predicted,
military officials said none had materialized since the revocation of the
policy banning homosexuals."





So much for 'name your question'. I asked, I'm waiting for an answer.

Plenty of civilian jobs, environments and situations compel people into close proximity for long periods of time. I listed half a dozen. Even been crew on a trawler or freighter? Ever worked an oil-Rig? Even spent time at a research or weather station? Ever been to the YMCA or any other gym? Ever taken a long distance hike or excursion? Even been to camp? Ever worked as a logger? Ever been into space? Ever been on a sports team? Ever been to a truck stop? Ever worked on a construction site? Ever been to High School?

So please don't pretend you can't imagine any cases where gays and straights would shower together outside the military.

As for your second answer, it is a pretty obvious cop out, and you had to know that even as you were typing it. ALL those countries allow gay men to serve openly, and the US does not. that IS a pretty significant diference. If, as you assert, there;'s no real difference, then there should be no problem in letting open gays in the US military, right?

So why is it that what has worked 100% for every other military in the world that has tried it, (and workes in every other aspect of human civilian life) CANNOT (according to you) work in the US? Why are Americans so different?

So what's this about, then?:



Because we certainly couldn't apply already existing rules regarding fraternization now, could we? That'd be crazy. The conservative thing to do, of course, is to create further levels of bureaucracy.

[quote name='Grendel72' date='Mar 7 2007, 05:33 PM' post='209512']
[quote name='vanguard' post='209476' date='Mar 6 2007, 10:48 PM']
Accusing those of us who have concerns about full, open integration for homosexuals in the military by suggesting that we have this nightmare about being raped is getting mighty old. Not a soul has even implied this. It makes me wonder why we keep revisiting it then?[/quote]
So what's this about, then?:[/quote]

For me, its about putting the gay men in a situation that would inevitably lead to amorous relations (not necessarily sexual) that would in turn potentially jeopordize a particular unit's effectiveness during times of war. This is premised on the rationale behind why straight men do not live in such close proximity with the women. Although it cannot be entirely controlled, the worst thing to do would be to allow these straight men to bunk with the women. G-72, how can that be considered homophobic?


[quote]These thoughts would inevitably lead toward natural attractions for either the opposite or same sex. We are all aware that straight men can barely contain themselves when not living in the same quarters with the women much less having to shower with them.[/quote]


[quote]D-Rocker's concerns about fellow unit members developing a relationship with one another during their free time would not be permissable. We should not allow (as best we can, hence the reason for gender separation) these indulgences to influence split-second decision making should these men be found in a time of war. I can only guess how difficult it would be to make life and death decisions in those moments. Much worse when forced to include my "soulmate" allegiance with the man next to me in the foxhole. I am surprised those who throw the homophobe smoke-curtain have not at least openly considered this.[/quote]Because we certainly couldn't apply already existing rules regarding fraternization now, could we? That'd be crazy. The conservative thing to do, of course, is to create further levels of bureaucracy.
[/quote]


I assume you read the entirety of my post? At this point, I am compelled to accept the reality that gays & straights must bunk together and I can only hope that the current rules regards to fraternization (whatever they may be) are sufficient to manage any eventuality. Remember though, this is not just about management of behavior but also the soldier's more hidden emotional world (which cannot be managed or controlled).

I am not sure what you mean by the conservatives creating "further levels of bureaucracy" as it relates to this thread? For those who would agree with you though I'm sure it sounded quite flashy

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made it clear what he thinks about gays serving openly in the military. He's dead-set against it.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

He said he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590518/

"Immoral?" Pretty strong stuff.

Just thought I'd add this in since it's very current....



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590518/

No mention about his views being based on demonstrable fact of troop effectiveness, no mention of the complexities of maintaining privacy in closed quarters, no mention of currently existing co-op living conditions that challenge these excuses and no mention of why the military doesn't pursue other acts of "immorality". General Pace has put it out there the way it is, he is a homophobe, and feels that he has the right to pass judgement on other people morals, how moral is it to send human beings out to kill other human beings? On what brand of morality is his opinion based? General Pace clearly is of the belief that his high rank justifies and makes irrefutable, his position, so much so that he hasn't bothered to read up on the all excuses that the homophobes have been using to cloud the issue. His arrogance has let down the defenses on the issue, the truth is that homophobes feel that homosexuals should be punished, that is part of the definition I posted earlier. As far as I'm concerned, the only question remaining is if General Pace is a self-hating closeted homosexual homophobe, or just a plain old homophobe.

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted had this to say on the issue...


And look at the results of this Zogby poll...

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/stor...amp;floc=NI-ne2

I don't know if General Pace has ever seen combat, but apparently he understands the meaning of the word, "RETREAT!"

In a statement Tuesday, he said he should have focused more in the interview on the Defense Department policy about gays — and "less on my personal moral views."

He did not offer an apology, something that had been demanded by gay rights groups.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

The group, which has represented some of the thousands dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation, demanded an apology.

Pace's senior staff members said earlier that the general was expressing his personal opinion and did not intend to apologize. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the record.

link

Maybe the general figured out his homophobic remarks weren't exactly "supporting the troops."

Another example why "military intelligence" can be an oxymoron.

Sure... discount a well honored Marine by calling him ignorant because his views differ from yours.

Here's my stand. 70%-75% of Americans are self-proclaimed Christians. Do you not see that this is an overwhelming majority? It's not homophobia, as Christians believe that alocholism is immoral as well but they're not alcoholo-phobes are they? Of course not.

You'll notice that he refused to apologize. Did you even read what he said?

From Yahoo News:


What do you not understand about the words I believe? If it was Noam Chomsky people would applaud his willingness to stand outside the frey. However, it's a man who doesn't believe in homosexuality so his ideas are horrible.... whatever.

What offends me is that Gen. Pace equates adulterers with homosexuals. That is not a fair or correct comparison. I can't imagine what the gays in the military ranks must think about his attitude. It can't be all that great for morale. I can't imagine, for the life of me, why a homosexual person would want to be a part of an organization that hates them for their sexual preference.

Imagine the cost if all 65,000 gay military members "came out" and were discharged. The firing of 9,500 gay soldiers between 1994 and 2003 cost an estimated $190 million in training and recruiting costs. But, heck, who needs 52 Arabic speaking American military personnel when you can get rid of a "homo"?

<sarcasm>Oh, and as for "prosecuting adulterers"? What a joke! Female US soldiers are being RAPED by those good old straight guys. They can't even go to the latrines alone anymore. And the brass does nothing. Prosecuting adulterers, yah, right.

General Pace's comments were not well thought out comments! Public policy, as I'm sure he knows, cannot be based upon one's own personal religious belief and upbringing. Unfortunately for him, he did not think these statements through before he uttered them! However, I don't think he need apologize for his comments.

Whoa Nelly... you obviously don't consider what makes US labor law when you make this statement.

Consider a number of things that construct US policy. We don't allow children to work, have numerous laws protecting the children and elderly, and an assortment of other morality based laws. The US Military is the same, and probably more strict. For instance, most jobs can't fire you for having a DWI, but the Military may demote you.

An interesting observation, Aevans, since Child Labor laws were championed not by religious organizations, but by those pinkos in the unions. Yep, it was the socialists in the labor movement who really pushed for the labor laws we take for granted today. However, I will not argue with you that they are based on morality, in a sense.



What, a "well honored" military officer can't have ignorant opinions? Are the two even related?? Kerry was a "well honored" officer, but that didn't stop you from discounting him a few years back!

And about the 70%... what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that Christians as a rule see homosexuality as immoral? Because they don't. Using the Bible to talk about the immorality of homosexuality is hypocritical cherry-picking. Do you condemn those who wear mixed-fabric clothes? Do you think adulterers should be put to death? I mean really, Aevans, if you are going to use the Bible as the basis for your opinions about homosexuals, why aren't you calling for their execution?

Can we give General Pace a "break" here? First of all, he is not a politician or a media person. I would like to think that he has his eyes on "the prize" so to speak, and that's all he thinks about! In fact, if my son or daughter were in Iraq, I would rather that General Pace worry directly about our military instead of the possibility that he may have placed his well worn boot in his mouth!

I didn't call General Pace ignorant. I inferred his remarks demonstrate why the term "military intelligence" is an oxymoron at time.

But when you get down to it, it is ignorant for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call an untold number of his soldiers, sailors and yes--Marines, "immoral." That is a patently offensive and profoundly stupid thing to say. How do you tell a soldier serving his country honorably that the top man in the U.S. military thinks you are immoral and the same thing as an adulterer.

Maybe speaking while his mouth is disengaged from his brain is a reason it took so long for a Jarhead to become chairman in the first place. If Pace has a problem leading troops because they offend his private beliefs he should resign from the Joint Chiefs and find a job where he won't have to be around people that disgust him.



Well, since you've been working so hard I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not providing any kind of reference for that number of "self-proclaimed Christians." You like to cast doubts and aspersions on source material you disagree with, but that's better than no source provided at all. Even if that number were correct (and I doubt it is), that is no justification for Pace's ill-hidden homophobia.

"An overwhelming majority" means nothing. An overwhelming majority supported Hitler, slavery and the last winner of American Idol. An overwhelming majority can be totally wrong and history is replete with examples of this being so.



But it's not Noam Chomsky or Rosie O' Donnell or RuPaul who is the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't care WHAT Peter Pace, private citizen believes in. He can be as big a homophobe as he wants to be. He can think gays and lesbians are horrible people.

It's GENERAL Peter Pace who needs to keep his opinions to himself and provide some leadership and not kick his own troops because they don't meet HIS standard of morality. You don't get to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff because you're the most moral guy in the room. Presumably, you possess outstanding leadership skills.

If that's the case, what kind of leader bad mouths and dumps on the very people he's supposed to be fighting for? Not a very good one.

Here's another question to add to this debate.

Why now?

We are in the middle of a war with two fronts. The Democrats in Congress are trying to figure out:
1. how to cut funding to the troops,
2. how to prevent the President from increasing troop levels in Iraq, and
3. how to usurp the President's rights as Commander and Chief by demanding that he obtain political permission from the Congress before any action is ever taken against Iran.

With all of this going on, why is this question being raised at this time? Don't our men and women in uniform have enough to contend with at present? Does this really have to be "added to their plates"? Wouldn't our troops be better served if we simply provided them with all that they need to get the job done as soon as possible and then bring them home?

I do not question the patriotism of those homosexual men and women who wish to serve their country in the military. In fact, I'd say that their patriotism is admirable . But for Congress to debate this issue now while we are at war does strike me that some of our representatives are, in fact , showing their own lack of patriotism by trying to destroy the morale of our troops to further their own personal agenda.

The "geniuses" in Washington are losing their focus. The questions are not :

"1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?
2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?
3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?" - Baphomets Advocate

The question is "what is best for our troops that will decisively win this war and bring them home the quickest?"

It seems like somebody in the news media would have caught this and called our Representatives on it.

Actually, General Pace is simply re-iterating the policies of the US military as governed by US Law, specifically 32 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Part 41:


Apparently the entire US government is homophobic. General Pace is simply stating the policy, with the addition of his own interpretation of why that policy is in place.

On a personal note, I find it personally offensive when differing points of view are dismissed as "homophobic". Differing moralities are dismissed out of hand. Criticism of behavior that some find offensive or (gasp!) sinful (and thus immoral) is labelled a phobia, an irrational fear. It simply cannot be admitted that some behaviors, or in this case the public airing of behaviors, could be harmful to a unit's cohesion or effectiveness. This poisoning the well tactic is a logical fallacy.

You hear that applied to peladophobics, medomalacuphobics, hagiophobics and hexakosioihexekontahexaphobics all the time.

Or not. Perhaps an irrational fear of homosexuals and homosexuality is neatly explained with the word homophobia. This conversation was had upthread by the way.

I was giving my personal viewpoint. Phobia is an irrational fear. A concern with a proper reasoning behind it (as we have here) is not a phobia.

Now, how about addressing the fact that Pace's comment is the law of the United States as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The law is wrong and Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a step in the right direction in fixing it but ultimately it must be fixed entirely.

Don't forget the newest term, "heterophobe".

Apparantly, me not being comfortable using an unpartitioned toilet (not uncommon in the military) next to a woman is an irrational fear. The term "homophobe" has been as bastardized as the term "terrorist". Each has been redefined to suit a personal agenda.

NT, why do you argue everything but the point? It's like a little kid on the play-ground making 'mama jokes'... but here's one link (didn't include the quote, but you'll know what it means):
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Seriously. Enough. You knew I was right.

Secondly, the point is that because he sees homosexuality as immoral DOES NOT make him homophobic. I personally am VERY Christian and really don't see the biblical basis for people's issues with homosexuality. However, I understand that some people (if not many or most) in the US see an issue with homosexuality morally. I can easily see how people associate it with adultery if morally that's where they stand.

The real problem here is that Pace disagrees with you, and you think that because he's in a position of power that it's unacceptable? How arrogant. Who are you really? Do you think Gen Pace should shirk his moral opinion of homosexuality? Why exactly do you think most of the US has chosen not to allow gay marriage? Seriously. I personally don't care, but I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to Conservatives.

In the United States, an opinion is lauded by the media and liberals so long as it mirrors theirs. The issue with General Pace is that he stands behind his morals and that bothers some people. They even have the arrogance to call him afraid of homosexuality. Absurd. A battle tested Marine isn't afraid of homosexuality, but rather doesn't agree with it. Liberal America should take two steps back from its assumed (definitely not earned) feeling of intellectual superiority and realize that its not in the majority nor does its self appointed brand make it right. The left needs to understand that America , particularly on this subject, isn't really divided. The way our society sees homosexuality (and frankly the world) is relatively homogeneous, arguably for many reasons. While I don't necessarily agree with the hoopla, I DO believe that a man in Gen Pace's position has EARNED the right to feel this way, unlike nearly all of the liberals I've met in my life.

"The law is wrong and Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a step in the right direction in fixing it but ultimately it must be fixed entirely." - Baphomets Advocate

Point-of-fact, Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy changed very little in the service. However, your quote suggests that the law is somehow broken because gays are not allowed to serve openly which is odd since all evidence seems to suggest that the military operates quite well with this particular law in place.

In addition, there does not seem to be any evidece that would suggest that the problems the military does have can be fixed by allowing gays to serve openly.

And if allowing gays to serve openly is not going to have any beneficial effect on the military during a time of war (in fact, there is reason to believe that the exact opposite may be true), then why does this have to be an issue now ?

With the problems that do effect our men and women in combat, this seems to be the least of their problems...unless you've got an agenda you're trying to advance ...

Yes it's working fine because everyone is ignoring it.
Oh gasp you've used italics now everyone will think I'm gay!

Perhaps this is an issue for you, but it's not for me. This particular discussion started as a break out of another conversation and both predate your appearance here which is why you might think that this has "suddenly" come up here. It hasn't. You'll find most of rather conspiracy free. Enjoy.

"Oh gasp you've used italics now everyone will think I'm gay!...You'll find most of rather conspiracy free. Enjoy." - BaphometsAdvocate

Sorry. I wasn't referring to you but to our representatives in Washington that can actually affect this issue. I referenced them earlier...

"But for Congress to debate this issue now while we are at war does strike me that some of our representatives are, in fact , showing their own lack of patriotism by trying to destroy the morale of our troops to further their own personal agenda." - Me (Dale)

More specifically, I was referring to the Democratic Congress in Washington. But my apologies to you, sir, I should have been more clear.

"Yes it's working fine because everyone is ignoring it." - BaphometsAdvocate

Is everyone ignoring it ? In every example that I've ever heard of if you were found to be gay you were discharged. "Don't ask, Don't tell" simply allows those homosexuals that wish to serve in the military to do so without having to lie about their orientation.

Does anyone know if it is still a "dishonorable discharge"? I honestly don't know.

"Perhaps this is an issue for you, but it's not for me. This particular discussion started as a break out of another conversation and both predate your appearance here which is why you might think that this has "suddenly" come up here. It hasn't." - BaphometsAdvocate

All true !!! It's my first day!

I don't really care how much battle a man has seen, if he "disagrees with" black people he'd best keep his trap shut in public.
It's not for him, or you, to agree with or disagree with a freaking fact of nature.
I suppose injured soldiers haven't "earned" the right to have an opinion either? I suppose soldiers on the ground haven't "earned" a right to their opinion either.

"I don't really care how much battle a man has seen, if he 'disagrees with' black people he'd best keep his trap shut in public. It's not for him, or you, to agree with or disagree with a freaking fact of nature." - Grendel72

I'm probably going to regret this, but....

"...a freaking fact of nature"? Do you really mean to compare black folks with homosexuals? On what grounds? Genetics determines a persons skin color, etc. The same can not be said of homosexual behavior.

Let's review, shall we?

If you believe that "science" has proven that homosexuality is innate then you may believe in the work that Dr. Simon LeVay has done regarding his study of the "gay brain" or hypothalamus study. Not only has peer review completely discredited his work but listen to his own words, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Or maybe you are referring to the work of Dean Hamer who the media has hailed as the discoverer of the gay gene. About his own work he had said that, "[w]e have not found the gene--which we don't think exists--for sexual orientation."

Or you could be referring to the Bailey-Pillard study of homosexual identical twins. This study hoped to show that if homosexuality was genetic then all of the identical twins that they studied would all be of the same sexual "orientation" since they share the exact same genes. Unfortunately, only 52% of the twin sets that they studied were of the same homosexual orientation (if homosexuality were genetic, 100% of the twin sets would have been homosexual).

And while a figure of 52% may sound impressive, it was later revealed that these "scientist" did not obtain twin sets from the general population, but instead biased their sample by only recruiting twin sets from ads in gay publications.

(My sources here include, but are not limited to, The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan to Change America by Rev. Lou Sheldon and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley.)

Since the publication of these studies there have been more that "pop-up" in the media from time-to-time and then fade just as quickly. I don't even bother attempting to disprove them all anymore because I know that if such a study--and subsequent peer review--were to find that homosexuality were really innate, then there would be dancing in the streets (I live almost an hour from Atlanta. Trust me. I'd hear all about it! And no, I'm not trying to be "cute", here).

And before anyone labels me a homophobe (which you are more than welcome to do--I don't care), please know this...

I know gay people.

I hang-out with gay people.

I do not have a problem with gay people.

I am not afraid of gay people.

You see, when science, the facts, etc. bare our your point of view, beliefs, etc. you are not homophobic...

you are simply right.

And let's not forget the work of Pavlov. Didn't he and his dogs prove that behavior is "learned". And if behavior is learned, what is so different about all other types of behaviors (which are learned) and sexual behavior?

Please also keep in mind, if sexual behavior can be learned then in can be "un-learned". This, of course, would explain all those "ex-gay" folks out there.

Funny we don't hear more about them in the media, isn't it?

I know from personal experience and from common freaking sense that sexual attraction is an involuntary response. You can't choose who you're attracted to, or who you fall in love with. If you believe you can, by definition that makes you bisexual.
Who cares whether it's genetic or not? Being gay is exactly comparable to being black in that it causes nobody any harm, yet some deeply, deeply stupid people hate others for it. And just like racists did 50 years ago they proclaim their morality while spreading hate.
It's not up to straight people. I'm getting sick and tired of being a political football whenever some loser politician who has no accomplishments to demonstrate to his constituency decides to appeal to the base prejudice of the majority to get votes.

And I've known people who've been through that ex-gay crap. Torturing family members is no way to demonstrate love. Do you honestly believe a nutbag who believes in exorcising gays knows more about the supposed "choice" a gay person made than gay people themselves do? And of course, he doesn't really hate anybody I'm sure. When Lucky Louie (a nickname he got from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff) argued against giving benefits to the survivors of gays murdered by terrorists on 9-11 I'm sure he wanted to see widows and orphans abandoned out of nothing but love.
People go through ex-gay therapy to please their families. That's the only reason. It's a tragedy that some people have to deny themselves to make peace with their families thanks to the bigotry spread by some religious leaders, but the families aren't really the ones to blame, it's the scum like Sheldon who profit on the pain of families who make me sick. Nice "family values" you got there.
Being gay harms no one. Hating gays does cause harm, it ruins families, it tuins lives, it leads to violence. If something needs to be "cured" it isn't loving people, it's hating people.

I realize this is a complete tangent to the subject, but I didn't bring it up. I can't leave something this potentially damaging unanswered. Anyone out there considering this, please think twice. Ask a respected mental health proffessional- none of them support it. Ask your family members- you know your family better than some charlatan does.

As per Jaime...

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

- and -

3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

To answer the first question I will also have to answer the third--in part--at the same time.

Should gays be allowed in the U.S. military? Sure. As has already been pointed out, they are already serving without any ill affect that I'm aware of. The "compromise" here is that they are serving discretely.

I am "pro-individual rights" (vs. "group rights" / "common-good rights" / "society-rights" / etc.) in every area except where it concerns the military because I am not aware of any other "*organization" that individuals may belong to where "all" must work together or the consequences are that someone will most likely die. The cohesion that must exist in these groups is very real and must be nurtured. Introduce anything into that group that threatens that cohesion and you threaten the survival of the individuals within the group.

I realize that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may not be popular to some but it does allow those in the homosexual community to serve who wish to do so without threatening the cohesion that exists within the group or force them to lie and deny "who they are" to be able to serve.

3 - Are there any acceptable compromises for this rift?

"Who cares whether it's genetic or not? Being gay is exactly comparable to being black in that it causes nobody any harm, yet some deeply, deeply stupid people hate others for it. And just like racists did 50 years ago they proclaim their morality while spreading hate." - Grendel72

"Who cares whether it's genetic or not?" Well, we all should. If it were genetic then we would be dealing with something as biological as skin color and thus is beyond the control of the individual. As I have already demonstrated, however, homosexuality is not biological and is thus not "exactly comparable to being black" and therefore requiring that the two be treated the same is unnecessary as they are demonstratively not the same.

"It's not up to straight people. I'm getting sick and tired of being a political football whenever some loser politician who has no accomplishments to demonstrate to his constituency decides to appeal to the base prejudice of the majority to get votes." - Grendel72

To further answer question no. 3, I'm afraid that it is up to "straight" people...and everyone else. At the end of the day, whether any of us like it or not, somebody's values will rule the day and, consequently, society as well. It is my own personal belief that those values should be based on the Judeo / Christian values on which this country was originally founded. This would not be "base prejudice" or "deeply stupid people spreading hate" or even "damaging". It is instead a set of moral standards that society has established as the norm for itself.

2 - Who, if anyone, is to blame for this controversy? Is it the gays for wanting in or those wanting them out?

The idea of homosexual "rights" in this country is a rather "recent" phenomenon that began with the American Psychiatric Association removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the early 1970's due to "political pressure" that had been placed on the association by homosexual activist and not based on any newly discovered facts or scientific evidence that had been presented to the association for review and approval. But--as this idea of gay "rights" is new to this country--it would stand to reason that the one's to "blame" (I must admit, I am uncomfortable with this word in this context) would be "the gays for wanting in" as they are the ones looking to change what has been the accepted norm in our society.



* Yes, granted the individuals within fire-fighting "organizations" and police "organizations" must all work together or the individuals within these organizations may also die. However, these individuals may decide to let a fire burn or not participate in a car-chase, etc. rather than risk injury. This is different from military personnel who may have people that are actually "hunting" them down to kill them.

Please also know it certainly is not my intention to "belittle" the efforts of any fire-fighter or police officer. Far from it, in fact!

Sorry for not getting a reply in sooner, you definately deserved one. Seemed like the few times I started typing something would happen causing information to be erased.



Your answers did nothing to help my points, however you comment afterwards did"

"Of course the two are linked, and no I have not tried to pretend they are mutually exclusive. And yes, in 90%+ of the cases, the separatiojn of gender or sexiality align."

Exactly! In cases of separations that deal with physical ability I don't thing the separation has anything to do with sexuality. However, in cases of separation that deal with privacy, decency and things of this nature the separation between genders is likely to be based on sexuality differences.



Gender does NOT presume sexuality... we agree. However, we do presume heterosexuality in the sexes. That is one of the biggest reason you see privacy issues based on gender. I don't know someone is gay until they announce they are. And even then we don't know if a person saying they are Gay is gay. If a Gay man were to walk in a woman shower... why would he be arrested? Why do we have these laws on the book? What is wrong with women that do not want to shower with men Gay or straight?? The answer to that question is what is comparable to a man not wanting to shower with a open homosexual. The simple answer is this... A female who does not want to present herself nude in front of men does not wish to do so because she feels it is wrong due to how she was raised. Upbringing is what makes her not want to expose herself, simple as that. That is why it is factually correct to make the comparisons I am making.



Yes. I have already done so. As we have said earlier women, not men are made to wear bikini tops or something to cover their breast. However, our female children usually at an early age (i'd say about 4/5 and under) can bypass decency laws and run/crawl around beaches and public pools or front yard blow-up pools with no tops on. Why?? Because of their age, more importantly, their maturity. Because with maturity comes what, Vermillion?? Sexuality. So here is a clear and readily verifible way to see how separation is not based on Gender... but on sexuality.

Gender is just a VERY VERY easy dividing line.




It blows your argument away!!! If they are linked then what is the bases of you wanting to deny men the same level decorum and dignity you allow women?? That is why I made my initial shower comparison. Your contention is that such decorum is unneccessary for males when dealing with homosexuals, which to an extent... i really do agree. However, it is no more unneccessary than the division we allow for women and men in our society. You can say all day long how we are already separated by gender... but the reason WHY is where I make my comparisons.



huh?? No i can not prove it is happening, other than finding a story you'll dismiss (which I can do) nor you can prove it isn't happening, just by pulling some general saying... "we love it over here" We both could provide examples though.



Let me do a quick dissection

Military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their
experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not
adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale.




Are these officials low level enlisted men forced to share rooms and closed quarters with a homosexual? If not, what are they basing their experience on??

For example, Israeli officials said that homosexuals have performed as well as
heterosexuals and have served successfully in all branches of the military
since 1948.

Of course, homosexuals performed successfully, but do we presume ALL homosexuals did?? Do we know if there were any problems due to open homosexuality colliding with heterosexuality, especially between males?? WE DON'T KNOW




Vermillion, I ask again Which of these examples above are people FORCED to disrobe in front of open homosexuals against their will? Please answer.


I am not, please don't pretend that these jobs are forcing people to be around open homosexuality when they don't want to be. IT is precisely because of the nature of the military I support DADT policies, It is exactly because the nature of Civilian jobs that I would be against such policies in civilian jobs.



Answer:

Because it CAN work according to me. I just don't like to step all over people's right to privacy and decency. I say again we can force women to showere with men, and it would be the exact same thing. The military would not obliterate if it made such policies. It would just be wrong and unnecessary to put people through these changes. Same with open homosexuality in the military.

Charged Dust



I love this Statistic love it!!

3/4's are comfortable with open homosexuality.... but only 1/4 believed it should be allowed. Can we just sit back and think about this for a second.... Why are so many people comfortable with it, but do not want it allowed??

Anyone?? I've got my reasons, i'd love to hear others.

Again.. 3/4's are comfortable!! 1/4 say do it. more than a third says no!! and just as many that say no are on the fence... why???

Also am i the only one here that would love to see a breakdown in statistics based on Gender. When people say they are certain someone is Gay... is it female or male... I'm just a little interested, but I do know it doesn't really pertain to the debate.

My personal theory is that the 3/4 of people that say they're comfortable with open homosexuality, but don't want to live, shower, and sleep with them. It's like having a peer at work that's gay. You play ball with the dude, go to happy hours, and work 40-50 hrs/week with him and it's cool... but don't want to go home and lay on the couch in your underwear with him, and surely don't want to sleep 14" from him, and worse don't want to share bathroom space with him.

I do think the sentiment that statistics will be skewed by gender is 100% accurate. I actually have posted a link that supports that notion in previous posts/threads. Men are less likely to want to haev open homosexuals in their ranks statistically.

Even a displayed propensity for certain types of conduct has never been considered protected under our inherited political traditions. Now it can still be debated whether or not it should be, but I was replying specifically to a suggestion that such discrimination is "un-American" or something like that. It's nothing of the sort.


But not openly, and homosexuality doesn't have anywhere near the same level of acceptance as heterosexuality. The question is what would happen when those conditions are met, and the burden of proof would be on those who claim that homosexuals are inherently better-behaved than heterosexuals when it comes to such environments. Or, those who support fully integrating open homosexuals, should, for the sake of intellectual honesty, also be calling for the full integration of the sexes in the same facilities.