| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2012 05:26:57 PM · #5601 |
I never cease to be amazed by this phobia some people have. I have brothers who served in the USMC during the Vietnam war and some of the men the fought with were gay and according to them was not an issue.
I spent 30 years working as a police officer and know for a fact that there were gays in the organization back then. When I retired, an officer came up to me and thanked me for never disclosing the fact that I knew he was gay, something that was not an issue for me.
I don't know about anyone else, but determining the sexual orientation of someone I was called upon to work with was never an issue of consideration in the equation and had no impact whatsoever on how I dealt with the issue at hand which was enforcement of the law.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/12/2012 09:03:33 PM · #5602 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Unfortunately, what I've noticed about homophobes is that due to their ignorance, they have these bizarre ideas of what a gay person really is. They don't seem to understand that gay people are regular folks. |
The whole point of DADT was that if a soldier didn't declare homosexuality, in many cases nobody would ever know the difference. The fact that some soldiers were gay obviously didn't affect their ability to serve or they wouldn't have been allowed to enlist and keep it to themselves in the first place. The only change is that fellow soldiers didn't know about it, which some people apparently believe would affect military performance. It follows then that the policy wasn't in place to protect gays at all, but to protect a few bigots from being so distracted by their own phobias that they forget about duty and jeopardize everyone else for the sake of petty prejudice. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: if covering your ears makes everything OK, the problem is you. |
Mmm... right you are. This is always my favorite ridiculous objection to things concerning gay rights. Like with gay adoption "the other kids will make fun of them!" Well, if people like you went away maybe they wouldn't. "It's dangerous to be gay in the military." Um yea, if homophobes and bigots wish them harm. It's the ultimate in circular logic. You can't fix the problem, because we've made the problem for you. So now, just back off for your own good. |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 06:54:15 PM · #5603 |
I hope nobody's overlooked the simple irony of suggesting that someone should avoid joining the military because it might be dangerous. Who the hell enters military service because they think it'll be SAFE?
Granted, we were talking about safety from your peers. But who would you rather be on a team with? The guy willing to give up personal safety to protect his fellow countrymen, or the guy who'll sabotage the effectiveness of a team over their inability to control petty personal issues? Who's really the problem, here?
I too would love a more detailed breakdown of what "for their own safety" means. The first thing I see happening to a segregated 'gay' unit is being sent out to do all the shit work nobody else wants to do. And they better act like they like it, after all we're giving them the chance they wanted, right? So stop complaining.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2012 03:18:06 PM · #5604 |
This "gays in the military" discussion continues even today. Has the punishment changed?
On this occasion, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to remember how far we've come in 50-60 years.
Longtime readers of this thread probably remember an early post of mine about my brother.
One reminder of his brief & sad history: He volunteered for the Army during the Korean Conflict.
Eventually, his homosexuality was discovered, he was thrown into the stockade and then released and
confined to a mental hospital for a year to cure his disease.
Again, longtime readers know what happened next, but that is not part of this discussion. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 06:21:28 PM · #5605 |
Today's question is related to the lingering stay on the original Prop 8 decision that ruled it unconstitutional, a stay supposedly meant to avoid 'irreparable harm'.
How many more gay would-be spouses will we irreparably harm with this stay before it's lifted? I know of at least four cases of couples that wanted to get married after Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, but now one of the two has DIED. They were never able to marry, or say 'I do' to the one they loved. And then the survivors got slammed with estate taxes.
Who's being irreparably harmed, here?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 08:39:26 AM · #5606 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I hope nobody's overlooked the simple irony of suggesting that someone should avoid joining the military because it might be dangerous. Who the hell enters military service because they think it'll be SAFE?
Granted, we were talking about safety from your peers. But who would you rather be on a team with? The guy willing to give up personal safety to protect his fellow countrymen, or the guy who'll sabotage the effectiveness of a team over their inability to control petty personal issues? Who's really the problem, here?
I too would love a more detailed breakdown of what "for their own safety" means. The first thing I see happening to a segregated 'gay' unit is being sent out to do all the shit work nobody else wants to do. And they better act like they like it, after all we're giving them the chance they wanted, right? So stop complaining. |
I can see both sides of the "gays in the military" issue. Granted, I am all for gay rights, as gay people don't bother me any more than a purple person with green spots would.
However, this is a greatly debated topic. But what about certain things? Barracks, showering, being out on the field in a foxhole for weeks, some people have issues with this. Just as some people have an issue with women being in the military. Some men (and women) are "put off" by the fact that a gay man (or woman) may be "checking them out".
It's like I told my husband, if a woman hits on you, be proud that she finds you attractive... same with gay men. If they take the time to hit on you, take it as a compliment, not an insult.
Like I stated before, I am all for gay rights. They should have the same opportunities to as everyone else... the opportunity to hold a mediocre job, the opportunity to receive midnight phone calls from their brother in jail, the opportunity to hold crummy cell phone service... you know... the American Dream! LMAO.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:03:37 AM · #5607 |
Originally posted by dyridings:
Some men are "put off" by the fact that a gay man may be "checking them out". |
Then they may start to grasp how most women feel all the time.
Why aren't soldiers simply ordered to exhibit tolerance? I thought the military was good at molding minds into obeying whatever they're told to do .... |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:22:42 AM · #5608 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dyridings:
Some men are "put off" by the fact that a gay man may be "checking them out". |
Then they may start to grasp how most women feel all the time.
Why aren't soldiers simply ordered to exhibit tolerance? I thought the military was good at molding minds into obeying whatever they're told to do .... |
Think that depends on which branch of the military you are referring to.
Besides, with the Army (I know of, probably across the board), they have so many restrictions/guidelines put on them now
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 02:39:09 PM · #5609 |
Originally posted by dyridings:
However, this is a greatly debated topic. But what about certain things? Barracks, showering, being out on the field in a foxhole for weeks, some people have issues with this. Just as some people have an issue with women being in the military.
|
You do realize these are basically the same reasons people argued against integrating the armed forces in the 1940's, right? |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 02:56:34 PM · #5610 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by dyridings:
However, this is a greatly debated topic. But what about certain things? Barracks, showering, being out on the field in a foxhole for weeks, some people have issues with this. Just as some people have an issue with women being in the military.
|
You do realize these are basically the same reasons people argued against integrating the armed forces in the 1940's, right? |
One's race is different from one's sexuality.
Like I said before, *I* don't see a problem with the idea of it, on paper it sounds like they've thought of everything. But in theory, the system is flawed, NO ONE can be completely satisfied with every decision. That's just the nature of the government.
Like Obama's proposed tax increase on the wealthy. To some, it sounds like a great idea, but *I* don't agree with it.
We each have our own opinions and views.
In a perfect world... one could only imagine...
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 14:57:39.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 05:28:16 PM · #5611 |
So basically this argument relies on an offensive stereotype that gay men are threatening sexual predators unable to control their impulses. You know what that sounds like? Islam's view of straight men and their inability to control themselves around women, so let's blame the women and cover them up head to toe so as not to tempt the poor helpless men. Is that where we really want American conservatism to head?
You're sympathizing with a worldview based on the fundamental weakness of your fellow man. Gay men's inability to not eye rape people, straight men's inability to not physically assault someone for looking at them the same way they look at women all day.
Masculinity has to be one of the most fragile things in the world, if we take the the arguments of conservatives at face value.
P.S. I bet most gay men check you out in the shower/toilet a lot less that straight dudes with junk size anxiety... the gay man is ever vigilant, understanding that even a misinterpreted glance can get your jaw dislocated, or worse. I know that, personally, I feel like I have to act like I have blinkers on anywhere some potentially anxious dude might feel vulnerable. It blows my mind that some guys have conversations at the urinals. I pretend I'm alone in the room. Just acknowledging someone else's presence makes me anxious about misinterpretation. My behavior is basically the equivalent of deliberately slowing your steps down when walking behind a woman on the sidewalk, so she won't worry you're trying to catch up to her for some involuntary lovin'. It sucks to have to do it, but you play the cards you've been dealt, eh?
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 17:29:44. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 07:55:21 PM · #5612 |
Originally posted by dyridings:
I can see both sides of the "gays in the military" issue. Granted, I am all for gay rights, as gay people don't bother me any more than a purple person with green spots would.
|
This thread is useless without pictures.
Sorry, Denielle, sometimes I can't help myself.
:)
Oooops, PS to add credit and thanks to Barney and its many subsidiaries.
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 19:59:30. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 08:01:02 PM · #5613 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
|
Nooooooo!!!! ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 08:09:14 PM · #5614 |
Just as an interesting side note, there was an article on the increase in mixed race marriages. In that article was this rather sobering tidbit: "In 2000, Alabama became the last state to lift its unenforceable ban on interracial marriages."
In 2000. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 09:36:31 PM · #5615 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
In 2000. |
We're not so far removed from the days where interracial marriage was a "threat" to traditional marriage that would result in [fill in all the supposed bad things now ascribed to gay marriage here].
Another interesting side note: the NJ state legislature just passed a bill legalized same sex marriage today, and the governor has promised to veto it with the excuse that such an important issue should be decided by a vote of the people, rather than the senators whose sole purpose is to represent the people, and has therefore chosen to decide the issue by the narrowest possible opinion... his own. If the court rules such discrimination is illegal, these guys cry "activist judges" and complain that it's the job of congress to make laws. If congress votes for gay marriage, they cry foul and call for a vote of the people. Then if the people vote for gay marriage, they vow to appeal the decision in court... and never once manage to show how they would be harmed in any way. The big deal, apparently, is that they are trying to protect the "traditional definition" of marriage or keep people from "redefining" marriage as anything other than what they [falsely] believe it should be. So this is some kind of grass roots rally to keep a word from becoming associated with something they don't approve of, and it's so important to protect a word that they'll spend millions of dollars on marketing campaigns and vote out judges and senators to keep their dictionary pure. You know... like the days when they staged protests and voter rallies to protect the traditional definition of "gay." |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 10:27:56 PM · #5616 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by dyridings:
I can see both sides of the "gays in the military" issue. Granted, I am all for gay rights, as gay people don't bother me any more than a purple person with green spots would.
|
This thread is useless without pictures.
Sorry, Denielle, sometimes I can't help myself.
:)
Oooops, PS to add credit and thanks to Barney and its many subsidiaries. |
+100
|
|
|
|
02/17/2012 06:59:58 AM · #5617 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Just as an interesting side note, there was an article on the increase in mixed race marriages. In that article was this rather sobering tidbit: "In 2000, Alabama became the last state to lift its unenforceable ban on interracial marriages."
In 2000. |
Wow... that's shocking. At the same time, there's a whole host of out of date, unenforced laws still hanging around... though it's pretty telling the places they hang around in. Sodomy was still illegal in 14 states until 2003. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 01:01:09 PM · #5618 |
what scalvert said
Boom! It's nice to have someone so articulate on my side. :) |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 01:27:14 PM · #5619 |
| I'm curious whether, if a new intiative overturning (California's) Prop. 8 gets on the ballot and passes, the proponents of heterosexual-only marriage will pack up and go home and let the "will of the people" go into effect, or if they'll be right back in court with some new line ... |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 02:14:59 PM · #5620 |
Again, what do you think, GeneralE? I bet you can guess correctly.
It's not about the will of the people at all. We know that a majority of Americans now support equal marriage rights, but we also know that when the question goes on the ballot it has never passed, because not every American votes. What they're banking on is getting enough states to ban it before the tide has turned far enough that even disparate voter turnouts won't influence the results. What they don't understand is that 'the people' can always vote again to change things.
These people are making a mockery of representative government.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2012 03:18:54 PM · #5621 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Again, what do you think, GeneralE? I bet you can guess correctly. |
I believe I can ... I was being a bit sarcastic. I'm always amused by the "will of the people" argument anyway, as if the vote was 7 million to zero, instead of the 6.98 million or whatever dissenters ... |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 03:52:02 PM · #5622 |
| Representative government has made a mockery of itself. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 06:43:37 PM · #5623 |
I sit back reading all of this and recall the comments made by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1967 who said 'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" when discussing issues such as homosexuality and abortion.
Today, I am positively relieved that this and other issues were addressed and dealt with many years ago and that Canadian are not required to revisit these decisions.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 12:47:26 PM · #5624 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
In 2000. |
We're not so far removed from the days where interracial marriage was a "threat" to traditional marriage that would result in [fill in all the supposed bad things now ascribed to gay marriage here].
Another interesting side note: the NJ state legislature just passed a bill legalized same sex marriage today, and the governor has promised to veto it with the excuse that such an important issue should be decided by a vote of the people, rather than the senators whose sole purpose is to represent the people, and has therefore chosen to decide the issue by the narrowest possible opinion... his own. If the court rules such discrimination is illegal, these guys cry "activist judges" and complain that it's the job of congress to make laws. If congress votes for gay marriage, they cry foul and call for a vote of the people. Then if the people vote for gay marriage, they vow to appeal the decision in court... and never once manage to show how they would be harmed in any way. The big deal, apparently, is that they are trying to protect the "traditional definition" of marriage or keep people from "redefining" marriage as anything other than what they [falsely] believe it should be. So this is some kind of grass roots rally to keep a word from becoming associated with something they don't approve of, and it's so important to protect a word that they'll spend millions of dollars on marketing campaigns and vote out judges and senators to keep their dictionary pure. You know... like the days when they staged protests and voter rallies to protect the traditional definition of "gay." |
This is just brilliant. You should check out the article I just posted in rant a bit ago about the lack of compassion among extreme right-wingers. Hypocrisy is all part of the package. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:58:42 PM · #5625 |
A glimpse at what coming out means in South Korea.
"When Hong came out in 2000, the reaction was swift and brutal: Within 24 hours, the network summarily fired him from his jobs as a regular guest on several talk shows and slapstick host of the children's show "Po Po Po."
No one would take his calls. Hong says he received so many death threats he shut himself up at home and began drinking heavily and contemplating suicide. Previously a nonsmoker, he began going through three packs a day."
Article
That being said there is a gay presence here, it just is "underground" or at least not talked about.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 23:10:23. |
|
