Dont Ask Dont tell

[OMGBEARS]

Ah, yes. Similar to the content of the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution which declare that the rights of "life, liberty and property" cannot be threatened by any government without due process of law. Ironically, congress passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Following the Constitution is hard, isn't it? Several congressmen have wished to pass into the Constitution an Amendment barring homosexuals from being married, but such an amendment that limits and restricts the rights of a specific group of individuals has never succeeded.

This is not mentioning the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (in which the United States signed) states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

Ah, yes. Similar to the content of the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution which declare that the rights of "life, liberty and property" cannot be threatened by any government without due process of law. Ironically, congress passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Following the Constitution is hard, isn't it? Several congressmen have wished to pass into the Constitution an Amendment barring homosexuals from being married, but such an amendment that limits and restricts the rights of a specific group of individuals has never succeeded.

This is not mentioning the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (in which the United States signed) states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

sorry, but this isnt what this thread is about =/

99% of you are basing your ideas from an outside prespective.. try thinking about what you might think if you are or where PREVIOUSLY in the army before hand. Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

[mag36]

Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

So what is being changed? A few more guys join are gay....... plenty join already. If your feeling uncomfortable in the shower and possibly gay guy looks at your junk? Hell you might as well take it as a compliment.

My point gay or straight in the military it doesn't really matter they are human they all know or can learn how to shoot a gun and even possibly save your life in battle. The only gays I have a problem with it is the ones that make a big deal about it, like they deserve to have a metal for taking it up the ass.....
but thats few and far between

If people want equal rights fine... just act equal
problem with any cultural differences is when they try to segregate them selves.

[StarsMine]

even possibly save your life in battle.

Like that show Shit My Dad Says, Dad - "hey! a lesbian saved my life."

[Jeimuzu]

The only logic you can apply to homosexuality is that which you create within your own mind to rationalize something you don't understand.

The more plausible explanation for homosexual's "low self-esteem" could be chalked up to conditioning as a child and an ignorant, prejudice society.

Like I may have said, there are millions of reasons and possibilities. When dealing with individuals you can usually put them in broad categories, but looking into it deeper and deeper, the possibilities are seemingly endless.

There are heterosexuals who don't want children. This in no way relates to self-esteem, but instead to genes, and DNA. Specifically it relates to the gene which influences the desire to reproduce (at least in mice- http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...nd-female-mice). Homosexuals have been found in close to 1500 species, from penguins to gut worms, and these relationships don't only include sex- but also involve the courtship, bonding, etc that is found in male/female pairs.

They aren't idiots- they are human beings who simply wish to live their lives as you wish to live yours. We as humans have moved past the idea of "we must procreate or we die" as we as a race are becoming less concerned with procreating, and more concerned with self-enlightenment. Even if it was a choice- who decides what is right or what is wrong? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to all Americans?

Self-esteem was just to exemplify one of many reasons for such a thing. Scribbles mentioned a few other ones; such as society, and parenting. And I said something along the lines of "If their beliefs consist of--" to also give an example as to what might effect one's reasoning.

Anex hates people who prevent the advancement of human kind, and I hate when I don't see any reason for something, so naturally I'll try to rationalize it.

I suppose the original issue was "Gays in military, good or bad?"

They have to pass training in order to be on the field. If they pass, good. If they're distracted by my sexiness, that's bad. My problem is that I can't leave it at that. I want to know and discuss more and come up with the possibilities mentioned.

"A conclusion is only the point at which someone stops thinking."

And no, they are not a race; your definition of "race" is incorrect. In addition, homosexuals might not be able to reproduce in homosexual partners, but they aren't required to do so. There will always be a chance for heterosexual couples to have homosexual children. This should be obvious, as if heterosexual couples only produced heterosexual children, we would not be having this discussion.

Think of it this way, James- take someone who cannot see the color blue. They simply cannot see it, no matter how hard you try to make them. It might not make sense to you why they can't see the color blue, but no matter what they will simply not be able to. Ever.

It isn't in the dictionary, it's my way of referring to social categories as I explained. I'm sure if you looked around on the forums you would find me using it in that context.

Funny thing is, when I refer to idiot race, you say "They aren't idiots, they're human," as if they were a race.. Or maybe being human is a social category. In that case, I sacrificed my humanity for the sake of those not human long ago.

I had a conversation with a family member the other day and I was trying to explain the difference between concepts and actualities. We can understand the concept of infinity but when it comes to actually visualizing it my mind starts to overheat and I knock myself out, or something along those lines. Though one could argue that infinity simply stands for a number uncountable by us but is in fact a value that is not endless.

That kind of relates to your "Seeing Blue" concept. They might not be able to see blue, but they could understand that there is another color out there that they aren't seeing.

But I have to say, what does being gay have to do with seeing blue? I mean, I can understand what you're saying, but literalism sets better with me.

[OMGBEARS]

Like I may have said, there are millions of reasons and possibilities. When dealing with individuals you can usually put them in broad categories, but looking into it deeper and deeper, the possibilities are seemingly endless.

Yes, you certainly can. However, calling them the "idiot race" is horrifyingly bigoted.

Self-esteem was just to exemplify one of many reasons for such a thing. Scribbles mentioned a few other ones; such as society, and parenting. And I said something along the lines of "If their beliefs consist of--" to also give an example as to what might effect one's reasoning.

Anex hates people who prevent the advancement of human kind, and I hate when I don't see any reason for something, so naturally I'll try to rationalize it.

The only thing that a homosexual cannot do to "advance human kind" is reproduce. Though they cannot reproduce, they are still human- and they hold all of the intelligence and cunning that you do. They hold positions as defense contractors, and research or finance research to improve conditions for the Military, they are scientists and are researching lifesaving technology, and they are countless other professions who all make life better for heterosexuals who refuse to allow them equality. In this sense, are they working for their own children? No. They are working for the next generation, and they are working to make tomorrow better than today.

The issue of using that quote by Anex and in this context is that you are saying that reproduction and propagating the human race is the only way of advancing it. Are you then suggesting that when humans become infertile, they be euthanized or otherwise removed from society?

I suppose the original issue was "Gays in military, good or bad?"

They have to pass training in order to be on the field. If they pass, good. If they're distracted by my sexiness, that's bad. My problem is that I can't leave it at that. I want to know and discuss more and come up with the possibilities mentioned.

"A conclusion is only the point at which someone stops thinking."

Yes, back to the original topic.

They do have to pass training, just like anyone. You assume that homosexuals are simply overcome with all members of the same sex. That they are constantly distracted by members of their same sex. I have news for you- they are not. Heterosexual men work with heterosexual women every day, and some work with members of the opposite sex who are vastly more attractive than they, and while they might be distracted, they are still able to do their job. Men and women may be biological compliments, but we are not driven by our desire for sex, and can still function in the presence of the opposite sex.

It isn't in the dictionary, it's my way of referring to social categories as I explained. I'm sure if you looked around on the forums you would find me using it in that context.

Funny thing is, when I refer to idiot race, you say "They aren't idiots, they're human," as if they were a race.. Or maybe being human is a social category. In that case, I sacrificed my humanity for the sake of those not human long ago.

I said "They aren't idiots, they're human," to say that they are a part of the same exact race to which you belong. I wasn't classifying them as their own race, as you were. I would suggest to not use words outside of their accepted definitions- you sounded horrifyingly bigoted, and extraordinarily close minded. Being human is a race in regards to biological similarities, and has little to do with societal issues, or groupings. Calling them their own race separates them and makes them inhuman.

I had a conversation with a family member the other day and I was trying to explain the difference between concepts and actualities. We can understand the concept of infinity but when it comes to actually visualizing it my mind starts to overheat and I knock myself out, or something along those lines. Though one could argue that infinity simply stands for a number uncountable by us but is in fact a value that is not endless.

That kind of relates to your "Seeing Blue" concept. They might not be able to see blue, but they could understand that there is another color out there that they aren't seeing.

But I have to say, what does being gay have to do with seeing blue? I mean, I can understand what you're saying, but literalism sets better with me.

I am saying that they might very well know that there is a color blue out there in the world, just as they know that heterosexuals are sexually and romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they can see the color blue, or be sexually and romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex. They simply are not able to do so. Similarly, there are females who hold additional color receptors. They can see a greater area of the light spectrum. Can you? No. Does that make either of you inhuman? No.

[OMGBEARS]

sorry, but this isnt what this thread is about =/

99% of you are basing your ideas from an outside prespective.. try thinking about what you might think if you are or where PREVIOUSLY in the army before hand. Try to understand the struggles that may come for people like myself who do there jobs perfectly having this massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual.

I am not homophobic. I wouldn't mind. In fact a majority of america wouldn't mind- this poll says that since 2005, consistently 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military. (http://people-press.org/report/679/)

I actually work with gays almost on a daily basis. Can they do their job just as well as I can? Yes.

And who says that there will be a sudden "massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual." rather than a large number of the men and women with which you serve coming out finally as openly homosexual. Homosexuals join the military each day- repealing DADT won't really increase those numbers. Those openly serving, however, that will change.

So it really comes down to this: don't be so scared that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. Things won't change unless you do it. If you turn around after seeing more gays in the military and refuse to accept them as soldiers as you would a straight person- you are taking a toll on moral.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

I am not homophobic. I wouldn't mind. In fact a majority of america wouldn't mind- this poll says that since 2005, consistently 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly in the military. (http://people-press.org/report/679/)

I actually work with gays almost on a daily basis. Can they do their job just as well as I can? Yes.

And who says that there will be a sudden "massive influx of new soldiers who happen to be homosexual." rather than a large number of the men and women with which you serve coming out finally as openly homosexual. Homosexuals join the military each day- repealing DADT won't really increase those numbers. Those openly serving, however, that will change.

So it really comes down to this: don't be so scared that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. Things won't change unless you do it. If you turn around after seeing more gays in the military and refuse to accept them as soldiers as you would a straight person- you are taking a toll on moral.

are you in the military?
you dont have to be afraid of gays to think that this is a bad move.

at first gays could still join the military and conform to the MILITARY by not expressing there sexuality, even though some did and units found it perfectly fine because they spent the time with him.

after DADT is lifted its more like the MILITARY conforming to gays then everyone conforming to the military.

in the military.. Units are like tight knit groups of people you would die for and do anything to save. All im saying is that i dont think the "excepting" rates are going to be what congress expected.

[StarsMine]

all DADT does is kick out a person if some higher up hears that the dude is gay.
straight people can say they are straight, so mikey, why cant gays?

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

all DADT does is kick out a person if some higher up hears that the dude is gay.
straight people can say they are straight, so mikey, why cant gays?

you obv never thought this threw.. not every gay man gets booted for asying he is a homosexual. i dont expect you to know any of that because you arnt in the service.

Try to look at it from a service mens point of view.

do stright guys go around bragging and flaunting to the world that they are stright? NO because it is normal and accepted.
the military has a very stern set of standards, how is it fair to the soldiers who are already servering completly confortable with the high military standards now.

this DADT lift will cause issues and i dont think it is the best time for change considering we are in a war and potentially in another with North Korea.