Don't Ask; Don't Tell, Not So Bad? ROTC Girl "Comes Out" On Eve of Graduation

[tonymctones]

I think "justifying" is the wrong word to use here.  If a transmission on a car was broke and your answer/solution differed from mine and i cited other examples of how my solution would work, You could say i was "justifying" my answer, but really, I'd be "supporting" it.

Of course there would be problems.  As with any change there is a period of adjustment.  Integration didn't do away with discrimination.  It probably increased for a period before it significantly decreased.  i think, I could be wrong, but Sexual harassment has harsher consequences so the adjustment will be quicker.

If you think about it the arguments against open gays in the military are backward, not forward in nature. (like the pun?  )

potato, potato you know...

where does the accomidating end OZ? and at what cost to others rights?

you see ppl arguing for this are about GLBT rights but they dont understand that they are stripping the rights of others away by doing this...

[OzmO]

potato, potato you know...

where does the accomidating end OZ? and at what cost to others rights?

you see ppl arguing for this are about GLBT rights but they dont understand that they are stripping the rights of others away by doing this...

Just off the top of my head, and i admit I am stating this from a completely uninformed in the details position, it stops where those other countries stopped it.  Like in Israel for example.

[tonymctones]

Just off the top of my head, and i admit I am stating this from a completely uninformed in the details position, it stops where those other countries stopped it.  Like in Israel for example.

lets stop talking about other countries OZ where do you see it stopping in this country? where are you comfortable with it stopping in this country...

why do you feel that its ok for ppl who are sexually attracted to someone to be able to look at them naked, room with them, use the same bathroom in the military but not in public life?

[Dos Equis]

The issue is about having gays in the locker rooms and showers and the problems it would cause.  My point is they are already there and therefore is kind of a moot argument. 

But there are no openly GLBT taking showers, etc.  Not sure how better to explain this, but that's like saying a man who looks like a woman is already taking a shower with women, so the privacy issue shouldn't matter to women, even though the women don't know the "woman" is really a man. 

Same goes for homosexuals.  You can't really say the privacy issue is moot when there aren't open homosexuals sharing bathrooms, showers, etc. 

[Dos Equis]

Other countries, including Israel, also have mandatory military service. So, it ain't that hard to see how gays end up in the mix.

Good point.

[OzmO]

lets stop talking about other countries OZ where do you see it stopping in this country? where are you comfortable with it stopping in this country...

why do you feel that its ok for ppl who are sexually attracted to someone to be able to look at them naked, room with them, use the same bathroom in the military but not in public life?

Its not going to stop moving forward in this country.  Sexuality and its social patterns are always changing.  Not much more than 100 years ago it was taboo to show ankles.   50 years ago Mary Tyler More and Dick Van Dykes slept in separate beds.  Now, we see 98% skin on the beach.  We see women kissing each other on sit coms.  We are slowly getting over ourselves and the repressive doctrines religion has instilled in our society.  People get attracted with or without clothes on.  Yes, people want to be able to chose who sees them naked.  What if a straight man doesn't want other straight men to see them naked?  What about his rights?  Change doesn't come without pain.  But the reason I keep bringing up other countries is because they have found a way to make it work.  And that's why other countries is very relevant in this discussion.

Regarding other countries

[Skeletor]

Not strictly a "don't ask don't tell" issue but what about doctors or nurses (in the military or elsewhere) who often see and examine (naked) service members/patients of the same or the opposite sex. There is the potential that they are sexually attracted to them. What should be done about this?

[OzmO]

But there are no openly GLBT taking showers, etc.  Not sure how better to explain this, but that's like saying a man who looks like a woman is already taking a shower with women, so the privacy issue shouldn't matter to women, even though the women don't know the "woman" is really a man. 

Same goes for homosexuals.  You can't really say the privacy issue is moot when there aren't open homosexuals sharing bathrooms, showers, etc. 

That's why i say its "Kind of" moot.  They are already there, and other countries have found a way to deal with these issues you have brought up.  Don't get me wrong i see them as valid issues also.

BTW:  I bet women in the military are taking showers with other women they know for certain are gay but can't prove it.  

[Dos Equis]

It's not an exact comparison, obviously, and how much of a comparison in regards to whether its a good or bad one is really just matter of opinion.

However, there are similarities:

-  opponents of integration cited that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites would damage moral.  The same is being said with gays.
-  Same with unit cohesion
-  discrimination can or does exist for both minorities and gays
-  Many of the problems are rooted in assumptions about gays and minorities.  
I read this in an article on the subject:  "Most people think of racial identity as a matter of (racial) status, but they respond to it as behavior. Most people think of sexual identity as a matter of (sexual) behavior, but they respond to it as status. Accordingly, people who fear and dislike blacks are typically preoccupied with the threat that they think blacks' aggressive behavior poses to them.  Hence they're inclined to make exceptions for the kindly, "civilized" blacks: that's why "The Cosby Show" could be so popular among white South Africans. By contrast, the repugnance that many people feel toward gays concerns, in the first instance, the status ascribed to them. Disapproval of a sexual practice is transmuted into the demonization of a sexual species."



Interesting note:  when Truman issue in the integration order, 63% of the american public was against it.

There are also a lot of differences, including:

1.  People can and do change their sexual preference.  We have a number of examples of straight people becoming "gay," and then straight.  People getting married, having kids, and then having the "gay" epiphany.    

2.  A person cannot change his or race.  You have it at birth and at death.  You can't decide to be Asian one year and white the next, unlike people in the GLBT/gender identity community.  

3.  There are deeply rooted objections to the GLBT/gender identity classifications that are not based on "fear."  The conduct was actually illegal for most of our country's history.

4.  It's unnatural behavior, unlike race, which is innate.

5.  There are well founded moral objections, based on explicit scriptural references and the majority of the country is Christian.

[Dos Equis]

That's why i say its "Kind of" moot.  They are already there, and other countries have found a way to deal with these issues you have brought up.  Don't get me wrong i see them as valid issues also.

BTW:  I bet women in the military are taking showers with other women they know for certain are gay but can't prove it.  

Ah so.  Understood. 

I think it's going to happen (repeal of DADT), just like homosexual marriage is coming.  Only a matter of time. 

[Soul Crusher]

Just in time to get the lgbt's all riled up for 2010 to donate their $ $ $ to lib candidates. 

[OzmO]

There are also a lot of differences, including:

1.  People can and do change their sexual preference.  We have a number of examples of straight people becoming "gay," and then straight.  People getting married, having kids, and then having the "gay" epiphany.    

2.  A person cannot change his or race.  You have it at birth and at death.  You can't decide to be Asian one year and white the next, unlike people in the GLBT/gender identity community.  

3.  There are deeply rooted objections to the GLBT/gender identity classifications that are not based on "fear."  The conduct was actually illegal for most of our country's history.

4.  It's unnatural behavior, unlike race, which is innate.

5.  There are well founded moral objections, based on explicit scriptural references and the majority of the country is Christian.

Agreed, the differences are also clear.  And your arguments seem more focused on those rather then the similarities regarding moral, unit cohesion, etc.. 

[Dos Equis]

Agreed, the differences are also clear.  And your arguments seem more focused on those rather then the similarities regarding moral, unit cohesion, etc.. 

I don't know if they're more focused on one or the other, just pointing out the differences. 

I don't think there will be huge morale or unit cohesion problems when the ban is lifted.  I think the bigger concerns should be living arrangements and the fact we're talking about more than just gays and lesbians.   

[tonymctones]

Its not going to stop moving forward in this country.  Sexuality and its social patterns are always changing.  Not much more than 100 years ago it was taboo to show ankles.   50 years ago Mary Tyler More and Dick Van Dykes slept in separate beds.  Now, we see 98% skin on the beach.  We see women kissing each other on sit coms.  We are slowly getting over ourselves and the repressive doctrines religion has instilled in our society.  People get attracted with or without clothes on.  Yes, people want to be able to chose who sees them naked.  What if a straight man doesn't want other straight men to see them naked?  What about his rights?  Change doesn't come without pain.  But the reason I keep bringing up other countries is because they have found a way to make it work.  And that's why other countries is very relevant in this discussion.

Regarding other countries

lol say other countries one more time...

ok lets look at it like this the US has the greatest military the world has ever seen and without letting gays openly serve why mess with that? simply b/c something can be implemented doesnt mean it should...what are your reasonings for wanting this implementation oz?

youre straight man not wanting other straight men to see them naked isnt the same principle in one the issue is modesty, in the other its sexual harrasement...not the same  if you want to have an equivilent analogy it needs to be about a woman not wanting to have a straight man see her naked...and I assume youre for the womans rights in that case? why not the case of straight men in regards to homosexual men?

[drkaje]

Can I claim gayness to evade student loan repayment?

[tonymctones]

Can I claim gayness to evade student loan repayment?

LOL good question I might need to go get some snake skin pants

[OzmO]

lol say other countries one more time...

ok lets look at it like this the US has the greatest military the world has ever seen and without letting gays openly serve why mess with that? simply b/c something can be implemented doesnt mean it should...what are your reasonings for wanting this implementation oz?

youre straight man not wanting other straight men to see them naked isnt the same principle in one the issue is modesty, in the other its sexual harrasement...not the same  if you want to have an equivilent analogy it needs to be about a woman not wanting to have a straight man see her naked...and I assume youre for the womans rights in that case? why not the case of straight men in regards to homosexual men?

"different nations"   

Yes, the US has the greatest military force in the world but to suggest it's because gays aren't allowed to openly serve is like saying I win at poker because i wear my pink floyd dark side of the moon t-shirt.  We are the greatest because we are the best equipped and best trained. 

I don't know i necessarily "want" this implementation, I just see it as a natural course of progression and that there should be no reason why gays can't openly serve, maybe not now but eventually soon. 

As to the straight man straight woman thing in your last paragraph.   I'd have an argument for that, but i have been cautioned as to bringing those 2 words up again.   

[tonymctones]

"different nations"   

Yes, the US has the greatest military force in the world but to suggest it's because gays aren't allowed to openly serve is like saying I win at poker because i wear my pink floyd dark side of the moon t-shirt.  We are the greatest because we are the best equipped and best trained. 

I don't know i necessarily "want" this implementation, I just see it as a natural course of progression and that there should be no reason why gays can't openly serve, maybe not now but eventually soon. 

As to the straight man straight woman thing in your last paragraph.   I'd have an argument for that, but i have been cautioned as to bringing those 2 words up again.   

Im not saying its b/c gays arent allowed to openly serve Im just citing the US and its military as an example of what countries who dont have openly serving gays can do...

Maybe but then again society could change again and there could be a backlash against all the political correctness bullshit so who knows...

[OzmO]

Im not saying its b/c gays arent allowed to openly serve Im just citing the US and its military as an example of what countries who dont have openly serving gays can do...

Maybe but then again society could change again and there could be a backlash against all the political correctness bullshit so who knows...

That would be great if that happened.

It might too early for gays in the military in the USA.  I see your points and agree with the problems that would immediately ensue..  I only cite those other groups of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. who standing armies allow gays as a reference point of it working.  Too me, all this DADT crap is a waste of time and BS. Especially when peeps are using it to skate service they signed up for.

[tonymctones]

That would be great if that happened.

It might too early for gays in the military in the USA.  I see your points and agree with the problems that would immediately ensue..  I only cite those other groups of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. who standing armies allow gays as a reference point of it working.  Too me, all this DADT crap is a waste of time and BS. Especially when peeps are using it to skate service they signed up for.

I agree and I cite the US as a group of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. whos standing armies dont allow gays to openly serve...

I just am sick and tired of the GLBT hypocrisey and their desire not for equal rights but for special treatment.

[chadstallion]

Just in time to get the lgbt's all riled up for 2010 to donate their $ $ $ to lib candidates. 

i've got my rainbow-colored Visa card ready to go!

[MCWAY]

I don't know if they're more focused on one or the other, just pointing out the differences. 

I don't think there will be huge morale or unit cohesion problems when the ban is lifted.  I think the bigger concerns should be living arrangements and the fact we're talking about more than just gays and lesbians.   

Obama isn't concerned with that. He just wants to ram it through, before midterms and the possible loss of the Congrress.

[Dos Equis]

Obama isn't concerned with that. He just wants to ram it through, before midterms and the possible loss of the Congrress.

Agree.  Just like he did with healthcare.  I don't think he really cares about the consequences. 

[MCWAY]

Agree.  Just like he did with healthcare.  I don't think he really cares about the consequences. 

No kidding!!!