Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Tiger Wench]

Just wait until you hear my pro-choice stance...

http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=8677.msg112971

[Tiger Wench]

I'm getting a little off topic, but that's what bothers me about eugenics.  Sure, I'd love to be able to ensure that my offspring is not going to have any sort of debilitating defects or diseases.  However, the question is where do you stop, and where will other people stop?

Everyone's going to have perfect vision, be of a particular societally accepted height, have a culturally agreed upon attractive hair color and eyes, etc.  Eugenics has the possibility to advance us and do great things for the species, but it also has the ability to essentially make us pre-fabricated biological robots.  And that's just fucking scary.

Redheads - Arise!!

[Pell City Tiger]

When the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was being formed, researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.  The UK was the only one who outright banned homosexuals.  Germany had a policy similar to our "don't ask, don't tell," and the others had no limitations whatsoever.

Several observations emerged from these visits.  In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small.  Open homosexuals did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less efficient or impede their careers.  When problems were reported, they were usually resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis.  None of these countries reported any impairment in military performance resulting from the presence of homosexuals.

It makes sense really.  Whether you are gay or straight, you join the military for a reason: to serve.  Even if it's for education or financial stability, you're still there to fulfill a reason.  Your first inclination is not going to be to flamboyantly parade about or ass ram other dudes spontaneously.  This is not a gay bar; it's a military government organization that will break you down and rebuild you if you attempt to circumvent the rules (and hell, it's going to break you down and rebuild you even if you are obedient).

Our studies confirmed this: Acknowledged homosexuals very seldom challenge the norms and customs of these organizations.  Effectiveness of the organization had not been diminished by the presence of homosexuals on the force.  Recruitment and retention of personnel had not been affected by a policy of nondiscrimination.

I agree 100%.

Most of you know my background; retired after 22 years of active duty in the military. I am not pro-homosexuality by any means. I do not agree with the lifestyle at all. This being said, my experience with homosexuals in the military during my career reversed the strong opposition I held against them. I was the operations chief for several years prior to my retirement. There were a couple of folks that I knew were gay. They weren't flamboyant about it; it was just who they were. I found them to be among the most dedicated, dependable, and motivated people in the unit. They easily outperformed 90% of the straight people, and I never had any trouble with them grab-assing or harassing any of the others. The concerns with shower boners, junk grabbing, or any other means of perversion are simply not valid based on my experience. Throughout the years, I dealt with numerous cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other forms of criminal misconduct and not one of them involved same sex contact.

My take is this; as long as they serve honorably and adhere to the rules and regulations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why not let them serve? We let people with less than desirable criminal records serve. We allow people that lack the basic forms of personal responsibility serve. We let muslims, wiccans, atheists, and racists (black and white) serve. I don't agree with their lifestyles either. I can't count the number of people I saw get reprimanded or discharged for severe cases of misconduct - be it theft, fraud, destruction of property, spousal abuse, child abuse, or pornography. Military life is no different than civilian life, except we get to kill people for a living. We have the same societal makeup as any other segment of civilization. The only difference is we have a code we are required to live by. A homosexual is no more of a risk to morale, order, and discipline than anyone else.

[Pell City Tiger]

And one more thing; they make fabulous cleaners and cooks.

[Token]

And one more thing; they make fabulous cleaners and cooks.

 

[Kaos]

 

You can't just say "Cure being gay because it is genetic or stop making that choice."  Green eyes are genetic.  Black hair is genetic.  Should those be "cured" because they are not the same as everyone else?  Not all genetic conditions should be cured, and not all of them CAN be cured.  That is a bizarre argument.  Who gets to decide what genetic conditions should be cured?  Maybe some are choices – but straight people make all kinds of choices every day too.

Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion.  It is an abomination and against the natural order of things.  To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument.  It's BEYOND bizarre.  

I cannot have a rational conversation with someone who can make that kind of illogical leap to attempt to justify something that is unnatural.

I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private.  But it's not in private.  They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public.  They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that.  Sorry, that will never fly with me. 

You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public.  And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams.  Nope.  You have to draw moral lines.  This is one of them. 

That's the point you're missing in all this.  

[Vandy Vol]

Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion.  It is an abomination and against the natural order of things.  To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument.  It's BEYOND bizarre.

I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se.  Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago.  However, that doesn't make it wrong.  It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.

When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants.  As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case.  Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.

Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays.  Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay.  And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.

I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private.  But it's not in private.  They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public.  They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that.  Sorry, that will never fly with me.

I don't mean to be hyper-technical about the language used, but you refer to "they" as if all gays act alike.  I personally know (and I'm sure you do as well) several gays who are not flamboyant, who do not talk about their sex lives in public, who do not even make their homosexuality known to the public, etc.

Even if they do, it's their right to free speech; and it's your right to free speech to express your disgust over their lifestyle.  However, I think your subjective morality concerning homosexuality has no bearing on whether they should be allowed in the military.  The fact that you view them as sinners doesn't necessarily mean they will perform poorly in the military.  This is supported by the fact that many sinners are already in the military and appear to conform just fine to the military code, as is evidenced by Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.

You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public.  And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams.  Nope.  You have to draw moral lines.  This is one of them.

Corpses and children can not consent to sexual intercourse (technically, children can say "yes," but legally they're incapable of consenting).  We're talking about sex between two consenting adults.  I find it slightly appalling that you would compare a homosexual to a child molester.  You may view both as immoral, but you at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other.  I'd rather leave others the free will to do as they wish than to compare them to people who force their will upon others.

[Kaos]

I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se.  Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago.  However, that doesn't make it wrong.  It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.

When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants.  As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case.  Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.

Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays.  Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay.  And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.

I don't mean to be hyper-technical about the language used, but you refer to "they" as if all gays act alike.  I personally know (and I'm sure you do as well) several gays who are not flamboyant, who do not talk about their sex lives in public, who do not even make their homosexuality known to the public, etc.

Even if they do, it's their right to free speech; and it's your right to free speech to express your disgust over their lifestyle.  However, I think your subjective morality concerning homosexuality has no bearing on whether they should be allowed in the military.  The fact that you view them as sinners doesn't necessarily mean they will perform poorly in the military.  This is supported by the fact that many sinners are already in the military and appear to conform just fine to the military code, as is evidenced by Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.

Corpses and children can not consent to sexual intercourse (technically, children can say "yes," but legally they're incapable of consenting).  We're talking about sex between two consenting adults.  I find it slightly appalling that you would compare a homosexual to a child molester.  You may view both as immoral, but you at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other.  I'd rather leave others the free will to do as they wish than to compare them to people who force their will upon others.

You make verbose arguments, but they still fail the test of nature.  Would you allow mongoloids to determine if they wanted to be "cured"?  

You used the word choice multiple times. Multiples of multiples actually.  To me, that's the root of the issue.  If you choose to be gay, so be it.  If you choose to fuck the logs in your fireplace, that's awesome.  If you've got a stuffed animal filled with jello, by all means burn that bitch out.  

The problem -- and the very root of this issue (that's what she said) -- is that people are not making private choices.  They want to make very public ones, choices that are unnatural and by any reasonable definition perverted.  I have zero problem with someone who wants to be gay so long as they do not insist that I abandon my own moral principles and accept their choice (your word) as natural.  I have no problem if personal deviations are kept behind closed doors -- where they ALL belong.  

That's the point.  Not whether homosexuality is right, wrong, genetic or should be cured. The problem is that it isn't enough for them to have the right to make their own private decisions, those decisions are forced into the mainstream where they must be accepted as natural and normal.  They're not.  Period.  

Where do I have the right to freely express that opinion and have it ascribed to me?  Where is the majority opinion allowed that it isn't shouted down with words like "narrow minded" and "unenlightened"?  We currently live in a backward world where sickness and deviant behavior has more rights and voice than that of the dissenting majority.

This has nothing to do with how straight they shoot or whether they can sashay out of a foxhole and toss a grenade.  This is about their demand to be given preferential treatment.  Serve if they want.  Just shut the fuck up about whose ass they want to drill.  

Oh, btw? Child molesters claim they are genetically wired that way and can no more help themselves than gays.  I see no distinction.  

I guess I'm Hitler, because if the gene were identified and I had the authority, all children would be corrected prior to birth.  

[Townhallsavoy]

I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se.  Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago.  However, that doesn't make it wrong.  It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.

When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants.  As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case.  Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.

Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays.  Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay.  And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.

This doesn't connect.  

If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.  

Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.  

[Kaos]

This doesn't connect.  

If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.  

Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.  

You're narrow minded!  You're a bigot! You're nazi!  How dare you make a logical, rational, reasonable argument? 

[Vandy Vol]

You make verbose arguments, but they still fail the test of nature.  Would you allow mongoloids to determine if they wanted to be "cured"?

Are you suggesting that your sexual preference (whether chosen or genetic) makes you unable to think for yourself?  The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning.  Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that your enjoyment of watching lesbians somehow makes you a mongoloid.  At which point I would have to suggest that you be "cured" of your genetically predisposed perversion, because your sexual preferences make you too much of a mongoloid to decide for yourself.

You used the word choice multiple times. Multiples of multiples actually.  To me, that's the root of the issue.  If you choose to be gay, so be it.  If you choose to fuck the logs in your fireplace, that's awesome.  If you've got a stuffed animal filled with jello, by all means burn that bitch out.

I have one and I sho as hell do!

The problem -- and the very root of this issue (that's what she said) -- is that people are not making private choices.  They want to make very public ones, choices that are unnatural and by any reasonable definition perverted.  I have zero problem with someone who wants to be gay so long as they do not insist that I abandon my own moral principles and accept their choice (your word) as natural.  I have no problem if personal deviations are kept behind closed doors -- where they ALL belong.

They're making private choices.  They're also utilizing their freedom of speech to make their private choices known publicly.  You may not want to hear it, but...well, that's kind of the point of free speech.  I'm sure homosexuals don't like hearing you talking about your personal choice to view homosexuality as a sin, but you're making it very public right now.  I personally have no problem with you voicing your opinion, nor do I have a problem with gays voicing their sexuality.  It doesn't affect me in any substantive manner, regardless of whether any of the aforementioned opinions are perverted, deviant, unnatural or what have you.

Where do I have the right to freely express that opinion and have it ascribed to me?  Where is the majority opinion allowed that it isn't shouted down with words like "narrow minded" and "unenlightened"?  We currently live in a backward world where sickness and deviant behavior has more rights and voice than that of the dissenting majority.

This has nothing to do with how straight they shoot or whether they can sashay out of a foxhole and toss a grenade.  This is about their demand to be given preferential treatment.  Serve if they want.  Just shut the fuck up about whose ass they want to drill.

The beauty of free speech is that, majority opinion or not, you can say what you want, with very few limitations.  People can call you narrow minded and unenlightened as they see fit, just as you can call people unnatural, deviant and perverted.  It's a two way street.  You're asking to shout your opinion at the rooftops, meanwhile requesting that gays keep their opinions to themselves; you're wishing to turn free speech into a one way street for the majority view only.

Oh, btw? Child molesters claim they are genetically wired that way and can no more help themselves than gays. I see no distinction.

That may very well be the case; I don't have scientific research to either disprove or support that contention by pedophiles.  Nonetheless, a homosexual's genetic predisposition does not put him or her into a position where they are preying upon those who can not consent.  Regardless of how deviant, perverted or unnatural you view  a homosexual, you ultimately have to recognize the difference between their actions and a pedophile's actions.  You at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other.  If you don't, then I'm not sure what kind of moral code by which you abide, but it would be kind of fucked up.

[Vandy Vol]

Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.  

Taking a vow of celibacy is a choice, and it also inhibits a person's ability to procreate.  I guess we should tell everyone that becoming a priest, nun, bishop, cleric, monk, etc. is illogical and unacceptable.  In fact, because certain people don't view it as logical and acceptable, let's ban all celibate people from joining the military.  Makes complete sense to me.

 

[Tiger Wench]

This doesn't connect.  

If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.  

Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.  

Logical, rational and reasonable?  Seriously???  

Geez, guys.  You cannot FORCE a cure for everything!!  If that were the case, all those shows about freaky genetic maladies that make up the bulk of the TLC lineup would no longer exist.  You can't "cure" someone from being blue eyed and you cannot “cure” someone that is gay - especially if they are happy with the hand they have been dealt and don't think they need to be cured.  I have read plenty of articles where Downs Syndrome people are interviewed - many times they understand that they are different, that it is just the way they were made, and they wouldn't change it for anything, because that is WHO THEY ARE.  Many are truly productive members of society, holding down jobs, paying taxes – but in K’s world vision, they would not exist.  K, just who exactly gets to decide what is worthy of a cure and what isn't?  Being gay may be a perversion to you, but for some people, it is just the way they are made, just like having red hair or a birthmark or the breast cancer gene.  

Asking to be allowed to join a VOLUNTEER army and perform a service to their country even though their sexual identity is anathma to some people is NOT asking for preferential treatment.  It is asking to be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.  In that respect, it truly is no different than the civil rights movement.  Judge someone on their actions, not by the color of their skin, right?  Just as we don’t judge all black people by the actions of Jesse and Rev Al, or Quannell X, you should not judge all gay people by the actions of the freakshow population that is San Francisco.  Even my gay friends roll their eyes at that mess.

I don’t think that an intolerance of gays is the majority opinion anymore.  Each successive generation moves further and further away from that position, just like my daughter has no clue that her black friends are any different than she is, the same black friends her great grandmother would call blacks.  I already told you, K, that it was your opinion - free speech applies equally.  But you took gays in the military and turned it into the Final Solution.  That is truly frightening – and that moves beyond “opinion” into “holy shit, that’s scary”.  And here you are, calling MY argument irrational when in the same breath you state that you would “fix” people that are functioning, productive members of society, willing to sacrifice their lives and their sacred honor for this country, just because you hate their sexual preferences??  

Yeah, I am a raving lunatic.

[Tiger Wench]

Taking a vow of celibacy is a choice, and it also inhibits a person's ability to procreate.  I guess we should tell everyone that becoming a priest, nun, bishop, cleric, monk, etc. is illogical and unacceptable.  In fact, because certain people don't view it as logical and acceptable, let's ban all celibate people from joining the military.  Makes complete sense to me.

 

What about straight couples that for one genetic reason or another are unable to procreate?  Off with their heads? 

[Kaos]

Are you suggesting that your sexual preference (whether chosen or genetic) makes you unable to think for yourself?  The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning.  Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that your enjoyment of watching lesbians somehow makes you a mongoloid.  At which point I would have to suggest that you be "cured" of your genetically predisposed perversion, because your sexual preferences make you too much of a mongoloid to decide for yourself.

Last time I checked, they were.  

They're making private choices.  They're also utilizing their freedom of speech to make their private choices known publicly.  You may not want to hear it, but...well, that's kind of the point of free speech.  I'm sure homosexuals don't like hearing you talking about your personal choice to view homosexuality as a sin, but you're making it very public right now.  I personally have no problem with you voicing your opinion, nor do I have a problem with gays voicing their sexuality.  It doesn't affect me in any substantive manner, regardless of whether any of the aforementioned opinions are perverted, deviant, unnatural or what have you.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.  Your decision is either private or public.  You can't claim it's a private decision and then wave the rainbow flag.  Doesn't work that way.  

Don't ask.  Don't tell.  Don't tell if asked.  

I do have a problem with them voicing their unnatural sexuality.  it denies me my right to practice my religion.

The beauty of free speech is that, majority opinion or not, you can say what you want, with very few limitations.  People can call you narrow minded and unenlightened as they see fit, just as you can call people unnatural, deviant and perverted.  It's a two way street.  You're asking to shout your opinion at the rooftops, meanwhile requesting that gays keep their opinions to themselves; you're wishing to turn free speech into a one way street for the majority view only.

Lovely theory isn't it?  Too bad it doesn't work in practice.  

That may very well be the case; I don't have scientific research to either disprove or support that contention by pedophiles.  Nonetheless, a homosexual's genetic predisposition does not put him or her into a position where they are preying upon those who can not consent.  Regardless of how deviant, perverted or unnatural you view  a homosexual, you ultimately have to recognize the difference between their actions and a pedophile's actions.  You at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other.  If you don't, then I'm not sure what kind of moral code by which you abide, but it would be kind of fucked up.

I do recognize the right to consent.  But I also realize that 18 is an arbitrary number.  I know 12 year olds who are much more mature and savvy than some 20 year olds.  Setting an arbitrary age limit and telling Johnny Johnson that he can't have sex with Katie Cooter on November 11, but he can on November 12 because she will become "legal" on her birthday has significant flaws and will eventually be challenged legally.  If we continue down the path we are on, where every perversity and deviation is protected as free speech, I expect at some point the legality of setting arbitrary minimum ages will be overturned.  

Beyond the clear wrongness of implicitly endorsing perversity -- essentially just because a select group opts to engage in it -- it opens the door to continued moral and societal decay.  

What about bigamy, v2?  It's illegal.  But what's the harm if one guy wants to be married to four or five women?  Seems like an optimal solution to me.  Nobody gets harmed.  Awesome bucks like me would monopolize all the hot mommas, but that's a risk we should be willing to take, right?   Consenting adults and all...

[Kaos]

What about straight couples that for one genetic reason or another are unable to procreate?  Off with their heads? 

I'm sorry but you're completely irrational and emotional in regard to this issue. 

[Tiger Wench]

The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning.

 

Last time I checked, they were.  

Holy shit.  You have snapped.

So, by your line of reasoning, a bammer man and bammer woman fucking in a trailer park are more intelligent and capable of better reasoning skills than Billy Bean, who graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 1986 with a degree in Business Administration, and played MLB from  1987 through 1995.  

Or Brian Graden, President of Programming at MTV, VH1, CMT and LOGO, and the TV exec that discovered Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, with his degree in business from Oral Roberts University (!!!) and an MBA from Harvard.  

Or Desiderius Erasmus.

Gotcha.

[Tiger Wench]

Two of our very own members (Sani and PCT), who have impecable military credentials, have both stated that they have no problem with gays serving in the military, provided they are held to the same standards as other military folk.  Seems like their opinions should hold more weight than anyone else's here.

[Kaos]

In the course of this discussion, a few of you have clearly illustrated why the minority opinion so often prevails in this country.  You've shown why open and honest debate is no longer tolerated and why lunacy is allowed to prevail.  

You've made utterly ridiculous logical leaps and shrill claims that have no basis in fact, but only serve to fan the flames of rhetoric.  

You've characterized beliefs rooted in personal religion and validated by extensive scriptural reference as "unenlightened".  

You've dismissed arguments based on personal belief and preferences as "narrow-minded."  

Instead of discussing the root of the issue -- which is whether or not gays should be allowed to openly flaunt their sexual preference in a military situation -- you've turned it into a referendum on the existence and acceptance of homosexuality itself.  

Without knowing anything about the situation, you've characterized opposition to the homosexual agenda as "hate" and extended that hate from the opposition of an idea to the specific hate of individuals.  

It's prototypical diversion and subterfuge.  Dodge away from the issue and paint the opponents with the broad brush of ignorance and hate.  It's why we are in the hell we are.  And it's pretty sad.  

[Kaos]

 

Holy shit.  You have snapped.

So, by your line of reasoning, a bammer man and bammer woman fucking in a trailer park are more intelligent and capable of better reasoning skills than Billy Bean, who graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 1986 with a degree in Business Administration, and played MLB from  1987 through 1995.  

Or Brian Graden, President of Programming at MTV, VH1, CMT and LOGO, and the TV exec that discovered Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, with his degree in business from Oral Roberts University (!!!) and an MBA from Harvard.  

Or Desiderius Erasmus.

Gotcha.

Bama man and woman are intelligent enough to know what their equipment is designed for. 

Genesis 1:28 
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In their sad, pathetic existence, they are replenishing the earth. 

Those other guys, as creative and intelligent as they may be are sword fighting and wasting their gifts. 

Just because a person is educated does not mean they make intelligent choices.  South Park?  You give me the creators of South Park as your paragons? 

Who's snapped? 

Again, you can't attack the argument so you attack the person bringing it.  I must agree with Garman, it is extremely Pelosi-ish.