This post is not meant to be personal.

So far, after reading many of the threads on this forum, I've noticed that most of the anti-gay people appear to fall into one of several categories: very religious, old, never served in uniform, not well educated, etc.

So, why would it make sense to keep a policy in place that is obviously wrong, just to satisfy the lower rungs of society? In other words, just because some back country redneck stay at home mom doesn't like gays, we all know that thinking people and those that actually are serving their country know better - much better.

Gays are not a threat to morale or discipline. Closed minded, ignorant, insecure dead-enders are.

If felons can serve, why can't gay people?

quote:

Originally posted by JCfromTB:
If felons can serve, why can't gay people?

If felons can serve and gay people are serving, why not drop the requirements for people who are overweight. 6 weeks extra of basic, plus a sound diet, should make them drop the weight necessary. They are smart, ready and willing.

Interesting idea, KlassyLady25, but what does it have to do with gays in the military? I mention this because other categories of people who are disqualified are often thrown up as a justification for disqualifying gays -- as in, if we can ban overweight people, why not ban gay people?

It's really apples and oranges, isn't it? Each potentially disqualifying criterion needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Allowing gays to serve is totally independent of allowing or not overweight people to serve, people with disabilities, people with mental impairments, etc. Each needs to be evaluated on its own. And I would say the same thing for felons, too.

I'm not one who subscribes to the "slippery slope" argument in either direction (i.e., if we allow gays, we have to allow polygamists and pedophiles and rapists, and the mentally ill, physically unfit, overweight, etc. -- but also, since we ban polygamists, pedophiles, rapists, the mentally ill, the physically unfit and the overweight, etc., we should also ban gays).

It has to do with not being discriminatory. Again, we agree on the "slippery slope".

Most you described are not fit and even overweight isn't initially, but those men and women can be if given time.

Oops, slipped again!!

Not wanting gays to serve is not redneck, not lack of education, or old, it is a morale issue!
Gays do not deserve to put on a uniform, gays are not a ethnic group of people, they are ill behaved sexual degenerates like pedophiles, they have a mental issue, gotta admit that there is something wrong when a man lust for a man or a woman lust for a woman, it is against all that God has created, by the way there us a difference in people of faith and religion!
If gays get rehabilitated, get there minds straight and turn from homosexual behavior then a morale waiver for entry should be considered, other than that they do not belong!

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDawg1981:
This post is not meant to be personal.

So far, after reading many of the threads on this forum, I've noticed that most of the anti-gay people appear to fall into one of several categories: very religious, old, never served in uniform, not well educated, etc.

So, why would it make sense to keep a policy in place that is obviously wrong, just to satisfy the lower rungs of society? In other words, just because some back country redneck stay at home mom doesn't like gays, we all know that thinking people and those that actually are serving their country know better - much better.

Gays are not a threat to morale or discipline. Closed minded, ignorant, insecure dead-enders are.

Young men screw up at times, if they are trying to better themselves, have turned away from crime and not have committed any sex crimes they should get a chance to serve.
Alot of these young guys getting in trouble are inner city with no oppertunity, bad influnce, the military can change these guys lives.
Gay people, thats is a different issue, that is a mental issue, gays that are in now follow the rules because of military discipline, if that discipline is altered to cator to the gays then unit cohesion will faulter and the military unit breaks down, lets keep the gays out for the sake of National Security!

quote:

Originally posted by JCfromTB:
If felons can serve, why can't gay people?

Wow, now that is the most seething, homophobic, bigoted, religion-based hatred I think I've seen here yet. God should have you punished.

quote:

gays that are in now follow the rules because of military discipline, if that discipline is altered to cator to the gays then unit cohesion will faulter and the military unit breaks down, lets keep the gays out for the sake of National Security!

Hey, CDBarlow, I guess you're unaware of the recent Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan troops where 68% of the troops said they knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit, , and 73% of them said they were comfortable working around gays and lesbians. Yet (horror of horrors), the military continues to function just fine, and national security continues to be defended -- even with all those known gays around. Perhaps you might want to rethink your stance that gays can't serve openly -- looks like a lot of them are already.

quote:

Originally posted by jdknight:
Wow, now that is the most seething, homophobic, bigoted, religion-based hatred I think I've seen here yet. God should have you punished.

I think you should have left "God" out of this one. If we were all punished on our wrong thoughts by God, there'd probably only be critters on this earth. Never presume to know what God does and doesn't approve of.

quote:

Originally posted by klassylady25:

quote:

Originally posted by jdknight:
Wow, now that is the most seething, homophobic, bigoted, religion-based hatred I think I've seen here yet. God should have you punished.

I think you should have left "God" out of this one. If we were all punished on our wrong thoughts by God, there'd probably only be critters on this earth. Never presume to know what God does and doesn't approve of.

According to Christian scripture and doctrine, God does indeed punish bad thoughts, even if they are not acted upon, as long as they are entertained and not banished from the believer's mind as inappropriate.

An old preacher one told me, "The judgement seat is not a criminal court. Rules of evidence and the bill of rights do not apply."

I don't believe a word of that, but just sayin'...

I wasn't the one who brought God into this.

CDBarlow jutted into the conversation, not to offer a rational counterpoint, but to condemn people based on the same crap that has been spewing from pulpits.

CDBarlow obviously is not aware that this is 2008 and the APA and several other credible associations agree that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and studies have shown that it is indeed biological.

CDBarlow stoops as low as to call gay "ill behaved sexual degenerates like pedophiles" and goes on to state his reasoning is because God says so.

So, no. I did not bring God into this. And apparently I am the only one who has a problem with those like CDBarlow making hellacious comments like this.

CDBarlow's words: "Gays do not deserve to put on a uniform" and that denigrates my 20 years of service and every other gay person who serves or has served in the military.

He also insinuated that homosexuals are quote: "they are ill behaved sexual degenerates like pedophiles"....

And then throws in a little religion to finish his fomenting speech.

What can I say, DevilDawg1981 accurately described CDBarlow. So I conclude that DevilDawg1981 must be correct in some of his assumptions, as CDBarlow fit all the descriptions except "stay at home mom".

The "Stay at home mom" part of DevilDawg1981's description I don't agree with, it denigrates mothers who are back country and redneck. I personally know one back country redneck stay at home mom who likes gays; my mother.

I'm not finished yet,

CDBarlow denigrated my military service, a person who was in diapers when I was floating on some hot stinking ship out in the Indian Ocean/Pacific Ocean/Atlantic Ocean and several Seas to boot. He can Kiss-My-Grits,, and shove his petty attitude back into his snaggle toothed mouth where he keeps his fungus rotting foot most of the time.

I should have added this

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimCrackCorn,

CDBarlow appears to have deep issues that go far beyond gay's in the military. Gay's in the military are the least of his problems, IMPO.

Sometimes it is best to just ignore these individuals when they rant and rave. They are much like a stray cat, feed it and it will hang around forever, don’t feed it and it will go away and seek out attention elsewhere … although often it is very difficult not to respond to such loonies and their insults. Nevertheless, I feel my time is far too valuable to waste it responding to their swill.

Something that never gets addressed and I'm sure will be attacked. How do we separate the sexes, genders, sexual identities now? Follow me here. We now separate based on gender alone, male and female facilties and living quarters. Well if we now recognize in the military and outside the military that there are hetero males and females and gay males and females how do we separate them? Is it an issue? Sure, why wouldnt it be, it is an issue to separate the biological sexes because of privacy issues and other reasons. Now if hetero people are not comfortable around gays then should they have to be housed around them or have to use the same facilities? Well if we go by the same rules as now I say no there must be 4 different arangements, maybe more if you factor bisexuals and crossdrssers. But like I said this will be attacked even though it is a valid arguement and issue. Think about it before your radical thoughts take hold.

MilitaryPoPo, this issue isn't new; it has been discussed numerous times on various threads. The gist of my response is as follows:

Nowhere else in American society do we separate gays from straights in housing, locker rooms, gyms, showers, hotels, dormatories, etc. You are/have been a police officer. I'll bet your police department did not provide separate locker facilities and showers for gay cops. And I know fire departments don't either; nor YMCAs, nor high schools, universities or colleges, etc.

Furthermore, there are already gay and lesbians serving in the military, many with the knowledge of their peers, and sometimes even with the knowledge of their commands. And nobody has reported a problem, so far as has been published or as anyone is aware. In fact, a recent Zogby International Poll of Iraq/Afghanistan troops shows that 68% of them say they know for certain or suspect there are gays in their own units. And 73% of them say they are comfortable working around gays and lesbians.

Right here in this discussion group is an openly gay sailor, Bleah, who is currently on a submarine, and everyone on that boat knows he's gay. And they don't mind. Can you think of any military environment that might be worse than a sub in terms of privacy and potential discomfort among straight guys? I mean, it's an all male crew, confined together in a small space for months at a time underwater, and they even share sleeping spaces (called hot racking, since there are not enough individual beds (racks) for each crewman).

Then there is the experience of our military allies, 26 of whom allow gays to serve openly, and none of them report any problem of the type you are hypothesizing.

So, no radical thoughts on my end -- just the facts. Most guys don't seem to care in reality, particularly when they find that it's not some random gay guy, but it's Joe, your shipmate or battle buddy or fellow marine whom you find out is gay. Most guys don't think it's a big deal. And if they do, I imagine they get over it pretty quick when they realize "Joe" is not ogling them, hitting on them or treating them in any way other than professionally.

quote:

Originally posted by CDBarlow:
Not wanting gays to serve is not redneck, not lack of education, or old, it is a morale issue!
Gays do not deserve to put on a uniform, gays are not a ethnic group of people, they are ill behaved sexual degenerates like pedophiles, they have a mental issue, gotta admit that there is something wrong when a man lust for a man or a woman lust for a woman, it is against all that God has created, by the way there us a difference in people of faith and religion!
If gays get rehabilitated, get there minds straight and turn from homosexual behavior then a morale waiver for entry should be considered, other than that they do not belong

You Sir, are the most uneducated, religion clinging ignorant person I have ever met.

Please, go buy a couple of hearts and souls at Wal-Mart, they are on sale.

BTW, question if you ever come back (i think you are a troll): Would you kill a gay person if the opportunity presented itself?

The real bottom line on this point is two fold:

1) If there are servicemembers that feel "uncomfortable" around gays, or that harass gays, or think that gays are immoral, then those servicemembers have exhibited a failure to adapt to military life of working well with others and should be discharged.

2) Those that are not in the military (especially those that never have been) should have no say on the issue because they obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

These are the same nutjobs that didn't want racial integration.

You can run polls till you're blue in the face but those who have been in the trenches sho to speak know what talk goes around when the gay issue is brought up or someone is suspected of being gay. Make all the polls you want, polls are crafted to say what they are intedned to say. Gays are fine in society but those who do not accept them are going to be discriminated against if this rule goes away. Its another attempt at PCing society, making peopel accept what they weren't apt to accept in the past by forcing it then they just accept it out of apathy.

I've been in the military for 25 years, so I know full well what gets said. But the fact is, young Americans today are far more comfortable with gays and lesbians than were older generations of Americans. So I tend to believe the polls, particularly since the poll was from Iraq/Afghanistan troops themselves. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the poll isn't scientifically accurate. Are you also saying that DevilDawg1981, an active duty Marine, has no experience with life in the trenches?

You didn't answer my question about the housing issue, which was your initial question on this thread. Does your police department provide separate locker rooms or shower facilities for gay troopers or gay policemen? Does you fire department provide separate sleeping quarters and showers and bathrooms for gay firemen? Does your local YMCA provide separate facilities? In fact, can you name anywhere in America where gays and straights are segregated?

You also didn't comment on Bleah's situation as a gay submariner -- all male crew; lack of privacy; confined together for 3 months underwater -- yet he is accepted as a functioning, valued member of the submarine crew, and he is openly gay. How does that square with your "in the trenches" comment?