Dadt

[layoutshooter]

As has been noted already, people in the military are already taking showers with gays. They have been for years, decades, centuries, even. Not really a lot of problems with people bringing their own wash cloth hangers so far.

However, if you create gay-only showers, sheesh, you'll never get them outta there.

Part of the problem is that current regs REQUIRE separate showers for men and women, for good reason. There is NO difference in the problem with openly gay men in group showers. NO one should be REQUIRED by LAW to shower with someone who may be interested in them in a sexual manner UNLESS they WANT that. OR, have 100% unisex barracks. Women deserve NO special treatment.

 

[jaminjim]

Normally when we had known gay people in the platoon we showered at different times, if I was heading to the shower and noticed one of them already there then I would postpone my shower until they were done, they did the same thing. Some of them may have done so out of common courtesy, while others did it for self preservation, either way they played in their own little world, same as us.

That still doesn't mean that the average line dog wants to be forced to live and sleep in close quarters for a year or more, with a girlyboy.

 

[layoutshooter]

Also, DADT had "protections" in that law that included anti sexual harassment provisions. Those are now gone. Also, 60 days to change a policy that has been in effect since Moses was a private? How stupid is that? An entire new set of regulations will need to be written. That alone will take longer than 60 days.

 

[Black Sheep]

The shower room is probably not at the top of the concern list. Suppose one of the openly gay troops becomes HIV positive after his enlistment? Has this repeal changed anything in that regard?

 

[Turtle]

The shower room is probably not at the top of the concern list. Suppose one of the openly gay troops becomes HIV positive after his enlistment? Has this repeal changed anything in that regard?

What if one of the openly straight troops becomes HIV positive after his enlistment?

 

[jaminjim]

Did anyone read the survey questions that they gave the military. If they based some of their decision on those answers they must have not read the answers. I spent some time reading those questions and it seemed to me that they purposely asked questions that could be interpreted either way depending on your agenda.

 

[witness23]

Hey......look at the bright side, at least now you can't have cowards using DADT to get out of basic training when they find out they can't call mommy or daddy. Or try to use it so they don't get shipped over seas.

 

[AMonger]

What does this mean (from the article quoted)?:
As copdsux noted, it isn't exactly something one chooses... the only choice is whether one chooses to come out of the closet or not.

It most certainly is a choice. You choose to put rod A into slot B or you don't. That's what makes you a homosexual. Urges, preferences, desires, all that means nothing. If you have sexual relations with someone of your own sex, THEN you're a homosexual.

 

[AMonger]

You could be right, some may take it too far, deliberately provoking a response. But I don't agree that 'the beater' would be blamed, in that case, because provocation is taken into account in allegations of assault. If someone is going to ask for it, then they deserve what they get.

Nope. Any whiff of any objection to this particular sexual perversion will result in the one who objects being slammed by superiors. The homosexuals will have extra rights, which is what they have wanted all along. Hate crime laws will be applied to a ridiculous extreme.

 

[greg334]

Hate crimes abridge our rights. They assume we are the government by charging an individual with the crime of taking away or violating someone's civil rights. Under our constitution, the government is limited by the citizens granting that limitation to the government through the Constitution, therefore a citizen can't be the one charged with limiting another's civil rights because we are not the government.

The second thing is my questioning the allowance of Gay rights for any reason because if we are to use the only real test that we as society has to go by, then Gay rights is a fallacy. What I mean is if you put three people on a stage - a black man, an Asian and a Mexican, can you tell which one is gay?

You can't. See civil rights is based not on how people act but how they are made in outward appearance. We can't tell be looking at a group of people if they are gay, but we can tell if they are Asian or black.

 

[Turtle]

The phrase "civil rights" is a translation of Latin ius civis (rights of citizens). The Bill of Rights (free speech, free thought) are civil rights. The Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1968 dealt mainly with racial and sexual discrimination, but religious and creed discrimination is in there, too.

The problem with the homosexual's agenda of trying to (and amazingly succeeding) in getting people to think about gay rights as a civil rights issue is, there's nothing in any of the civil rights laws or spirit of the laws that should protect gay people from being discriminated against. You certainly have the right to be gay, but that's about as far as it goes (or should). You have the right to be obnoxious, but if you're gonna be all up in my face obnoxious I'm not gonna rent you the upstairs apartment, either, and it won't violate your civil rights. But it will (or should), according to gays.

 

[Pilgrim]

What if one of the openly straight troops becomes HIV positive after his enlistment?

I believe the policy as it now stands, is that someone who contracts HIV while enlisted is placed on non-hazardous duty and of course is allowed taxpayer-funded medical treatment. Fortunately, anyone that's HIV positive is disqualified from enlisting in the military; unfortunately, those that contract HIV while enlisted apparently are not discharged. I wonder if that policy also applies to soldiers with other contagious, potentially lethal diseases? Maybe there's someone in our group that's up to speed on current military policy.

 

[greg334]

Well their's another point altogether, when does the right of the individual end and the right of another begin?

The Civil rights acts seem to make clear that individuals rights seems to be more abridged to correct a social action than anything else. In other words the right of the individual to do what they want with their own property within the limits of not damaging other's people property (setting a fire to clear brush but causing the fire to spread and burning down their barn) should be over the right of an individual who wants to rent or buy the property. If I don't like to rent to someone, it should be accepted as part of my right as an individual to do what I want. The same goes for a private business (not a public traded business) where that business is my property.

NOT saying it is right not to rent to or serve someone because they are black or Asian or Gay, but the bigger picture is that within the basic concepts of our rights, I'm neither violating or abridging their rights or damaging their property which is what is happening to mine when I don't have that choice.

As far my question, who is gay of those three comes down to the fact I can't look at them as gay but as an individuals just as I can't really see a black, Asian or Mexican unless they act or say something that forces me to look at them like they want me to.

 

[aristotle]

Did anyone read the survey questions that they gave the military. If they based some of their decision on those answers they must have not read the answers. I spent some time reading those questions and it seemed to me that they purposely asked questions that could be interpreted either way depending on your agenda.

If I were to commision a poll or survey and allowed to tweak the questions, one could be assured of a pre-determined outcome. The Obama administration has fervently pushed the homosexual agenda and needed a gay-friendly survey to provide cover for their intentions to repeal DADT. The Pentagon bureaucrats hoping to curry favor with Obama had little choice but to fall in line. The lame-duck Democrats pushed this to a vote knowing the GOP coming to power in January would never let such social engineering see the light of day. In the final analysis, this is nothing more than the Democrats throwing a bone to a core constituency.

 

[pjjjjj]

It most certainly is a choice. You choose to put rod A into slot B or you don't. That's what makes you a homosexual. Urges, preferences, desires, all that means nothing. If you have sexual relations with someone of your own sex, THEN you're a homosexual.

Urges, preferences, desires, all mean everything, as far as I'm concerned. If someone has an urge to molest children, but he goes about living a 'normal' life outwardly, perhaps even with a wife and kids of his own, and makes great efforts to never act out his urges.. in his heart and mind and spirit, he's still a child molester (IMHO). And I sure wouldn't want to be his wife nor the mother of his children.

Same thing for a man who is really craving other men... no thanks.. whether he acts on his urges or not... if it's in his heart, to me, that is what he 'is', whether he is mentally able to accept it, come out of the closet and move on, or whether he just lives a lie for his entire life.

Would you feel betrayed if you found out your best male buddy of 30 years has secretly fantasized about having sex with you all these years? Or would it be ok, so long as he never acted upon his desires?

 

[AMonger]

Urges, preferences, desires, all mean everything, as far as I'm concerned. If someone has an urge to molest children, but he goes about living a 'normal' life outwardly, perhaps even with a wife and kids of his own, and makes great efforts to never act out his urges.. in his heart and mind and spirit, he's still a child molester (IMHO). And I sure wouldn't want to be his wife nor the mother of his children.

I don't know how you can call that man a child molester. He has a problem, definitely, but if he's got it under control.... Sure, you'd want to keep an eye on him and not let him get into a situation in which he might slip, but I don't think you could call him a molester. After all, a molester, by definition, is one who molests.

Same thing for a man who is really craving other men... no thanks.. whether he acts on his urges or not... if it's in his heart, to me, that is what he 'is', whether he is mentally able to accept it, come out of the closet and move on, or whether he just lives a lie for his entire life.

I can understand your feelings there, but I can't really consider him a homosexual. I see him as a guy battling sinful and disgusting urges. Kind of like if you had an urge to rob a bank. Maybe you have money troubles and you figured all your money problems would be solved with one good heist. Are you a bank robber if you don't do it? I couldn't consider you one, unless, of course, you acted on your urge.

Would you feel betrayed if you found out your best male buddy of 30 years has secretly fantasized about having sex with you all these years? Or would it be ok, so long as he never acted upon his desires?

Betrayed? I don't know how betrayal works into the matter. If that's the case, I'd prefer he keeps it to himself and doesn't tell me. If I knew about it, I might not hang with him any more. Kinda like the molester example; don't complicate life for him by giving him temptations. But as a matter of morality, until he does it...

When I was in the military, we had a flaming homosexual in the barracks. As flaming as he was, his roommate had to be nervous. But as long as he didn't touch, you know...


Reminds me of an episode from Seinfeld, in which Kramer, Jerry, and George are dressing after a basketball game at the gym.

Kramer: Hey you know this is the first time we ever saw each other naked?
Jerry: Believe me, I didn't see anything.
Kramer: Oh, you didn't sneak a peek?
Jerry: No, did you?
Kramer: Yeah, I snuck a peek.
Jerry: *laughing* Why?
Kramer: Why not? Hey, what about you George?
George: Yeah, I snuck a peek, but it was so fast, I didn't see anything. It was just a blur.
Jerry: I made a conscious effort not to look. There's just some information I don't want to have.

 

[Turtle]

What if you are plotting a terrorist bombing. You've talked to people about it, told them you'd like to. But haven't actually carried it out yet? Are you a terrorist?

You can certainly be arrested, tried and convicted as being one. You are, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist. You don't get a pass just because you didn't light the fuse.

Same with homosexuality. You don't get a pass just because you didn't light that fuse.

 

[pjjjjj]

I don't know how you can call that man a child molester. He has a problem, definitely, but if he's got it under control.... Sure, you'd want to keep an eye on him and not let him get into a situation in which he might slip, but I don't think you could call him a molester. After all, a molester, by definition, is one who molests.

I guess this is where we're having a difference of opinion on 'choices' vs 'inherent/non-choices'. I believe that when it comes to homosexuality and even pedophilia, these are not just fleeting thoughts like fantasizing about robbing a bank to get needed money once in awhile. These things, from everything I've ever read/heard/whatever, get stronger, and uncontrollable.. they are within you and there is no discarding them. There is no 'cure'... you are what you are.. do you remember long ago they used to send 'homosexuals' to psychiatrists to try to cure them? We know better now. This is not a choice. And if it's between two consenting adults, then I guess it's hurting no one. I'd sure rather be in these times when people don't have to live a lie for their entire lives, which I believe hurt a lot of people.

I can understand your feelings there, but I can't really consider him a homosexual. I see him as a guy battling sinful and disgusting urges. Kind of like if you had an urge to rob a bank. Maybe you have money troubles and you figured all your money problems would be solved with one good heist. Are you a bank robber if you don't do it? I couldn't consider you one, unless, of course, you acted on your urge.

It is possible that I am alone in my thinking, but I believe that you are what is in your heart and mind. Take this example, and to me it is a very interesting one, because I know that people have different views on this and it boggles my mind.

Say you're a man married to a woman (or vice versa). The woman goes online and meets some guy who she starts talking to more and more as time goes on. They get really deep and know inner thoughts and feelings and experiences and just all kinds of things about each other.. your wife tells him things about herself that even you don't know about. They fall in love, these 2 internet people. They start also talking on the phone.. and perhaps they regularly engage in 'net sex', perhaps even 'phone sex'.. hey let's go all out and they're even netsexing while on the phone! And/or they can even go further and do the video thing as well.

For all intents and purposes, this woman, this wife of yours is mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, in love with another man. She knows intimate details of, and has shared intimate details with, this other man. She is having virtual sex with this guy. Perhaps she's no longer having sex with you, because in her mind, she can't do two at once. This guy knows everything about her. But hey.. to date they haven't really touched in 'real life', so that makes everything ok, and in your mind, she's not really having an affair? Do you really believe that?

Betrayed? I don't know how betrayal works into the matter. If that's the case, I'd prefer he keeps it to himself and doesn't tell me. If I knew about it, I might not hang with him any more. Kinda like the molester example; don't complicate life for him by giving him temptations. But as a matter of morality, until he does it...

That was probably not a great example. But like you said, 'if I knew about it, .... ', Exactly! Wouldn't it be respectful to know about intent before you invest 30 years of friendship in a lie? Just because it never came to fruition doesn't make it any more comfortable or less true.

Take a woman who is married to a man and has 3 kids with him, and then after 10 years of marriage, he decides to come out of the closet. He hasn't perhaps had sex with a man yet, but he's leaving the wife and kids so he can find his real identity. To me, that doesn't make him any less gay for all those 10 years, it makes him just not true to himself and living a lie and hurting others in the process.

What of a father who, in his brain, has recurring and obsessive thoughts of molesting children.. and he has a young daughter who he lives with and fantasizes about.. ?? Tell me that daughter is not going to be pretty screwed up, even if he never touches her physically.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Whats really a shame is that we as a people had to even have a civil rights law. Like we know all, who can and cant do what.

 

[skyraider]

This on going story sounds like a Jerry Springer Show. Why waste ur time on such stuff. There are to many problems and many of them are tied to race, sexual preference and lawsuits and he said, she said, and in the end,,the d*mn lawyers get all ur money anyway. Its just another day in Mamby Pamby Land and the Jack Wagons are whinning and need another box of tissues, IMHO.

Now lets move some freight!