CenterBHSFan;598007 wrote:Pants, McCain didn't have the power for years to do that. The dems had control for HOW LONG?

Are you saying that they couldn't have done this in that time? Why didn't they?

They could have damn well done it and nobody could have stopped them - that's your answer.

Again, putting the blame on the republicans isn't gonna fly with ANYBODY who can remember anything that happened within that timeframe; whether they like it or not.

Considering it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, the D's never had the votes to end debate to vote on the measure.
What screwed it up last week was Reid tried to rush the debate and did not allow amendments or debate, which R Collins and I Lieberman wanted. They were prepared to vote for the repeal and that would have pushed it over 60. But, since there was not time to debate, Collins and Lieberman voted against the measure.

Now, in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything, and that is a killer for any measure. That was why the D's could not get it done.

CenterBHSFan;598007 wrote:Pants, McCain didn't have the power for years to do that. The dems had control for HOW LONG?

Are you saying that they couldn't have done this in that time? Why didn't they?

They could have damn well done it and nobody could have stopped them - that's your answer.

Again, putting the blame on the republicans isn't gonna fly with ANYBODY who can remember anything that happened within that timeframe; whether they like it or not.

What? I literally just said that the Democrats should have done it in that time.

Writerbuckeye;597303 wrote:I'm gonna disagree, Believer. The generations now coming into the military, for the most part, don't have the hangups about gays that prior generations have had. They simply don't care one way or another.

Is this your opinion or do you have a link to back this up? Not trying to be argumentative but gays have been serving in military organizations for a long, long time. Not sure why new recruits are somehow more accepting of it than past generations.

Writerbuckeye;597303 wrote:It's been a stupid policy and deprived the country of a lot of good service people -- and it's time to repeal it.

Again, if the military has been deprived of good service people because they're gay it's because the gay service members decided to come out of the closet with their sexual preference. It would have been their choice to do so.

On the surface it would seem that one's sexual preference would not or should not impede a soldier's ability to perform their duties. That's not the issue here. Right or wrong there would still be plenty of military personnel even today who would not want to share a room, or a shower, etc. in the presence of openly gay soldiers despite today's generation's seemingly miraculous ability to shed their gay hang-up's.

Hell why stop there? If we're going to allow openly gay and lesbian soldiers to commune, why not allow male and female heterosexuals share rooms and showers while we're at it? Oh that's right....it might cause discipline and morale issues.

You know darn well there are been plenty of cases where a service member kept their secret but was found out, somehow, and then was unceremoniously booted from service. It had to have happened in the thousands of discharges that have taken place through the years.

As for your emotional diatribe at the end: Isn't there some sort of honor code by which service members are supposed to conduct themselves at all times? Doesn't that include NOT fraternizing sexually? I have to assume that stays in place and pertains to all members, regardless of their sexual orientation.

As for my saying younger generations don't make as big a deal (or care as much) about sexual differences than prior generations...I look at how public polling has changed dramatically on this subject through the years. In most of those polls, if you look at them closely, the most notable differences are in the younger groups polled.

On a personal level, I have two nieces and a nephew (all teens) who have gay friends and don't think anything about it. I simply don't see the hangups in them that I saw in my generation and others before me (and yes, we've discussed these issues...our family likes to debate current events).

So long as service members adhere to the codes of behavior already in place, I would hope there wouldn't be any problems. If some arise, then it's up to the officers overseeing those individuals to make sure the wrong behavior won't be tolerated. Hell, they've been doing this with minorities and women for decades, so I don't see how it will be any different when it comes to enforcement.

Look...I realize I'm in the minority on this issue and that's fine.

We seem to be so adamant about "doing the right thing." But while we're being so noble and "open-minded", what about the rights of soldiers who for personal reasons simply do not approve of the lifestyle or see at as an affront to their religious beliefs even if the gay soldiers comply with the "honor code"?

Should the beliefs of those who view homosexuality as deviant and wish not to be associated with that supposed "alternative lifestyle" be ignored?

My only point is this is NOT as cut & dry as some believe. If it were, the Dems would have slam dunked this issue while they dominated Congress.

believer;597282 wrote:The part that gets me is "...we heard from gay and lesbian Service members themselves, who told us that they simply want a repeal of the law so that they can be treated the same as everyone else."

Really? How is it these gay & lesbian military members were interviewed for their opinions on DADT without being discharged for their obvious homosexuality under current regulations? But I digress.

My experience in the military was that everyone is indeed treated the same as everyone else. All DADT is asking is that gays and lesbians keep their sexual preferences private.

It may not be an ideal set-up but it's at least compromise.

Ptown, while you are serving this country in your own way and I respect that, as a former soldier I'm very confident that it will cause a lot more than "initial discomfort."

Ok, how long ago did you serve? I served from 2001-2007 and morale would NOT be lowered if gays could serve openly. Don't you think morale is low now amongst that group? To say everyone is treated the same and the very next sentence you say DADT just asks gay and lesbians to keep their sexual preference private.......that is not being treated the same at all.

Often, people know who is gay when they work with them daily. Of course there would be some upset by a repeal, but I don't think it would be a significant portion at all.

believer;598386 wrote:
Should the beliefs of those who view homosexuality as deviant and wish not to be associated with that supposed "alternative lifestyle" be ignored?

Yes. And it is only an "alternative lifestyle" to people who have a problem with gays. To everyone else the people are just gay.

There are people who are uncomfortable with Muslims in the military for personal or religious reasons, should we not let them openly serve because some bigots don't like them?

We seem to be so adamant about "doing the right thing." But while we're being so noble and "open-minded", what about the rights of soldiers who for personal reasons simply do not approve of the lifestyle or see at as an affront to their religious beliefs even if the gay soldiers comply with the "honor code"?

What right is being infringed by gay service members being allowed to serve openly and without having to hide anything? They aren't going to be fucking in the barracks or something like that. Or at least not likely anymore than servicemen now do with servicewomen.

And as far as you needing a link for proof that people care less if someone is gay now...really? You need a link to realize that people don't care nearly as much if someone is gay as they used to even 20 years ago?

I Wear Pants;598465 wrote:And as far as you needing a link for proof that people care less if someone is gay now...really? You need a link to realize that people don't care nearly as much if someone is gay as they used to even 20 years ago?

And you know this how? Just a guess? Because today's generation is more enlightened? Every new generation thinks it's more "enlightened" and open-minded than the previous one so - yeah - I get it. So Dwccrew I suppose this also addresses your question. Why does it matter when I served? I'll answer that. I doesn't.

By the way, IWP you leftists kill me. Your ilk comes up with the euphemism "alternative lifestyle" to demonstrate how homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, yet if a conservative uses the term it shows how we have a "problem with gays." Amazing.

Again I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this: Repealing DADT may appear to be the straightforward and right thing to do (which is in an of itself a moral paradox), but it's just not that simple. If it were, the Feds and the Pentagon would have acted on this a long time ago. At the very at least it should have occurred quickly during the Pelosi/Reid Congress which one can argue has been one of the most liberal in American history.

Folks, this does NOT mean that I think DADT is particularly good policy. Despite my religious and personal beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and repugnant, I generally have no issues with gays openly serving in the military.

Pretty open-minded for a homophobe wouldn't you agree?

FairwoodKing;598009 wrote:I'll tell you another problem that has come up because of this policy. There have been many Middle Easterners who have joined the military to be translators in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages. For some reason a great many of them turned out to be gay and were ultimately thrown out. This has left our military sorely in need of quality translators and it has hurt our military operations in those countries.

Link this one for me please.

To me it's sorta like seeing, and coping with, seeing interracial marriages. It's more acceptable now than it was when my parents were young. That's how it is with homosexuality. It's way more acceptable now than it was when I was in high school. Society just changes over time.
And because it's more acceptable now, the younger generations just don't care about it the way they use to/might of one or several generations ago.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion, and I currently have 5 members of my family in the military; and none of them care. I'm kinda thinking that's a small sampling of overall thought, although I could be wrong.

believer;598772 wrote:And you know this how? Just a guess? Because today's generation is more enlightened? Every new generation thinks it's more "enlightened" and open-minded than the previous one so - yeah - I get it. So Dwccrew I suppose this also addresses your question. Why does it matter when I served? I'll answer that. I doesn't.

By the way, IWP you leftists kill me. Your ilk comes up with the euphemism "alternative lifestyle" to demonstrate how homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, yet if a conservative uses the term it shows how we have a "problem with gays." Amazing.

Again I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this: Repealing DADT may appear to be the straightforward and right thing to do (which is in an of itself a moral paradox), but it's just not that simple. If it were, the Feds and the Pentagon would have acted on this a long time ago. At the very at least it should have occurred quickly during the Pelosi/Reid Congress which one can argue has been one of the most liberal in American history.

Folks, this does NOT mean that I think DADT is particularly good policy. Despite my religious and personal beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and repugnant, I generally have no issues with gays openly serving in the military.

Pretty open-minded for a homophobe wouldn't you agree?

The newer generations aren't more enlightened or anything. It's just we don't give nearly as much of a shit if someone is gay. Hell, look at how big of a deal it would be in the 60s to find out someone is gay, or to use Center's relevant comparison look at how much of a stink would be made over interracial couples which are now not even a problem almost anywhere. Now if someone is gay many who are close to them may even get the hint that they are before they "come out" which probably helps it being less of a shock. Even when it is a shock most people don't care though.

I'm not saying we're more enlightened or anything it's just that we grew up around it more so we just don't give a shit. Same thing with technology, we aren't somehow all great at that kind of thinking, we've just been exposed to it a lot more since we've been young. What I meant with the "alternative lifestyle" comment is that I've seen people use that term to suggest that gay people simply choose to be gay to be edgy or nonconformist which I believe is a ridiculous claim. And I assure you I didn't come up with that term. How is repealing DADT being the right thing to do a moral paradox?

They need gays in the military... Wardrobe is just plain icky.......

The fatigues make my eyes tired and the whole Army green thing needs updated.

DADT is stupid any way. If someone makes an unwanted advance toward you, just shoot em.

believer;598772 wrote:And you know this how? Just a guess? Because today's generation is more enlightened? Every new generation thinks it's more "enlightened" and open-minded than the previous one so - yeah - I get it. So Dwccrew I suppose this also addresses your question. Why does it matter when I served? I'll answer that. I doesn't.

Sure it matters; as Center pointed out, society's view on certain issues changes over time. Her example about interracial relationships was spot on. Younger generations just don't care as much about gays in the military or in society in general. I have served more recently, so I have a better idea of what current military members attitudes toward gays are.

believer;598772 wrote:Again I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this: Repealing DADT may appear to be the straightforward and right thing to do (which is in an of itself a moral paradox), but it's just not that simple. If it were, the Feds and the Pentagon would have acted on this a long time ago. At the very at least it should have occurred quickly during the Pelosi/Reid Congress which one can argue has been one of the most liberal in American history.

There is still old prejudices that are very much alive within the Congress and Pentagon.

believer;598772 wrote:Folks, this does NOT mean that I think DADT is particularly good policy. Despite my religious and personal beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and repugnant, I generally have no issues with gays openly serving in the military.

If you have no issue why are you defending it? Honest question.

believer;598386 wrote:We seem to be so adamant about "doing the right thing." But while we're being so noble and "open-minded", what about the rights of soldiers who for personal reasons simply do not approve of the lifestyle or see at as an affront to their religious beliefs even if the gay soldiers comply with the "honor code"?

Then they should not conduct themselves in that lifestyle.

While I share your moral views on a gay lifestyle, I don't think people in same-sex relationships should be denied the right to serve. There are a LOT of lifestyle choices that I find reprehensible. There are a LOT of men and women in the military who are in HETEROSEXUAL relationships that are, I would suggest, equally as unethical. Wouldn't you agree? What of them, then? Should they be discharged as well?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this argument. Should all troops who are:

1. having affairs
2. having sex with boyfriends/girlfriends
3. randomly hooking up on leave/living promiscuously
4. engaging in masturbation
5. engrossed in viewing porn regularly

be discharged? All those things make me uncomfortable, personally, and I think they're all unethical, personally. However, as each person may disagree with any or all of them, under our military, my view should have no more clout than the next. If I'm uncomfortable with those things, then I simply don't engage in them.

Now, if something gets taken to the point of harassment, that's different, but disapproving of a lifestyle doesn't mean you have a right to keep them from being open about it if:

a. it's legal, and
b. they don't have an ethical problem with it.

You have the right not to engage in it, but not to force others to keep it under wraps so you don't have to smell it.

If you walk into a pig barn, the pig farmer isn't obligated to hold a rose under your nose just to keep you from smelling his pigs.

believer;598386 wrote:Should the beliefs of those who view homosexuality as deviant and wish not to be associated with that supposed "alternative lifestyle" be ignored?

They aren't being ignored. That person, who doesn't believe it is wrong, and may engage in it, cannot force you to engage in it, nor can he force you to recognize it as acceptable. You have the right to hold the conviction you have (which isn't even a choice, but a compulsion), and you have the right to not engage in it or even discuss it if you wish. You don't have the right to make them walk on eggshells so as to allow blissful ignorance of the reality of their sexual preference.

Masturbation is unethical?

Really?

Writerbuckeye;600530 wrote:Masturbation is unethical?

Really?

I'm pretty sure that's in the bible.

Young people in the service laugh at DADT. Its the white hairs with all the egg salad on their unis that still force feed conservatives like McCain with anti-gay ammo. If it doesn't go away now it will eventually, just like all states will eventually accept gay marriage (may take another 20 - 30 years) but it WILL happen and all you Bible thumpers know it will. Why not accept the inevitable and support these young men and women now who need it?

bases_loaded;598785 wrote:Link this one for me please.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/58_gay_arab_linguists_ousted_from_military/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/military_fires_three_more_gay_arabic_linguists_as_shortfall_continues

Do you need more?

Tiernan;600607 wrote:Young people in the service laugh at DADT. Its the white hairs with all the egg salad on their unis that still force feed conservatives like McCain with anti-gay ammo. If it doesn't go away now it will eventually, just like all states will eventually accept gay marriage (may take another 20 - 30 years) but it WILL happen and all you Bible thumpers know it will. Why not accept the inevitable and support these young men and women now who need it?

Don't you read this board? McCain isn't a conservative, he's practically a Democrat.

O-Trap;600503 wrote:Then they should not conduct themselves in that lifestyle.

While I share your moral views on a gay lifestyle, I don't think people in same-sex relationships should be denied the right to serve. There are a LOT of lifestyle choices that I find reprehensible. There are a LOT of men and women in the military who are in HETEROSEXUAL relationships that are, I would suggest, equally as unethical. Wouldn't you agree? What of them, then? Should they be discharged as well?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this argument. Should all troops who are:

1. having affairs
2. having sex with boyfriends/girlfriends
3. randomly hooking up on leave/living promiscuously
4. engaging in masturbation
5. engrossed in viewing porn regularly

be discharged? All those things make me uncomfortable, personally, and I think they're all unethical, personally. However, as each person may disagree with any or all of them, under our military, my view should have no more clout than the next. If I'm uncomfortable with those things, then I simply don't engage in them.

Now, if something gets taken to the point of harassment, that's different, but disapproving of a lifestyle doesn't mean you have a right to keep them from being open about it if:

a. it's legal, and
b. they don't have an ethical problem with it.

You have the right not to engage in it, but not to force others to keep it under wraps so you don't have to smell it.

If you walk into a pig barn, the pig farmer isn't obligated to hold a rose under your nose just to keep you from smelling his pigs.



They aren't being ignored. That person, who doesn't believe it is wrong, and may engage in it, cannot force you to engage in it, nor can he force you to recognize it as acceptable. You have the right to hold the conviction you have (which isn't even a choice, but a compulsion), and you have the right to not engage in it or even discuss it if you wish. You don't have the right to make them walk on eggshells so as to allow blissful ignorance of the reality of their sexual preference.

Good post, I disagree with a lot of your "unethical" list but the logic is correct in the post.

While there may be passages in the Bible forbidding masturbation, I think for clarity sake we should specify we're talking about things that some consider immoral, rather than unethical.

Given that's true, the Bible has lots of references related to the times in which they were written that have either been debunked or outright rejected by modern society...one example is a Leviticus admonition about touching a woman within a certain number of days of her period because she was considered "unclean".

Writerbuckeye;600530 wrote:Masturbation is unethical?

Really?

Maybe "immoral" would have been a more appropriate word, and though you may disagree (as many do, and which is okay with me), yes, I think it is.

I Wear Pants;601012 wrote:Good post, I disagree with a lot of your "unethical" list but the logic is correct in the post.

Many people do. Those are things I think are immoral, based on my study of biblical text, but there are those who disagree. I have engaged in communal worship freely with such people, who disagree with me on these matters.

The beauty of Christianity is that many disagreements are intended to be considered as secondary, and while there can be vehement disagreement on the morality of them, they are not foundational to the Christian faith expressed in the Bible, and two people who disagree on these kinds of issues can still hold a faith in the same Creator, and can worship him side-by-side.

Unfortunately, we don't see that play out very well in many American churches.

Writerbuckeye;601034 wrote:While there may be passages in the Bible forbidding masturbation, I think for clarity sake we should specify we're talking about things that some consider immoral, rather than unethical.

Given that's true, the Bible has lots of references related to the times in which they were written that have either been debunked or outright rejected by modern society...one example is a Leviticus admonition about touching a woman within a certain number of days of her period because she was considered "unclean".

It's not expressed in Leviticus, and actually isn't explicit outside Leviticus, either (neither is child sacrifice or bestiality, for what it's worth). However, I do think that the explanation of what a person's sexuality is, as well as for whom it is intended, doesn't leave much room for using it for the purpose of exclusive self-gratification.

If necessary, it can be discussed in a new topic, as it's not the purpose of this one, and I'd be happy to discuss it benevolently. I'm unabashed about what I am convinced is true, but I am always willing to hear another viewpoint, and hopefully am always able to do so with humility and openness.

See, while I disagree strongly with your feelings on those subjects you hold your views in such a way that is perfectly acceptable. Not that I'm to say what views are and aren't acceptable but I like when people hold views and are able to realize that not everyone is going to or must agree with them and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just different views.

Basically I like when people are able to discuss and disagree about things that are really personal or deeply held convictions and remain civil. I'm not always able to behave and debate in that manner but it's something that I genuinely try to do.

IWP, if a person doesn't hold the same sources as authorities on the subject, it then makes no sense for me to try to appeal to those things when discussing with others.

I appeal to the Bible for truth and for the "oughtness" of my life because I believe the reasons for doing so are good ones. Thus, if someone desired to discuss the BIBLICAL standpoint on something like masturbation, I could appeal to it. However, if someone does NOT accept that as a basis for a moral appeal, then I cannot expect them to see my view.

I LOVE discourse. I love learning others' point of view, and engaging the best that the opposing view has to offer. I have actually had my opinion completely change from one side to another based on such a discussion, so I think they can be VERY valuable if they are entered into with proper humility, a logical view, and a little bit of self education on the topic.

This is true, no use arguing if you can't agree on the facts or at least a basis of what you're discussing.