Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed

[HERBIE1]

Herbie-- Just for the sake of argument, consider this position...

Human sexuality is one of our most basic and strongest drives. It comprises a huge portion of our psychological being. You, as a heterosexual individual, can bring to fruition your sexual desires in a fashion that is encouraged and supported by society and current tradition.

Yes it is one of our most basic urges, and from an evolutionary and survival of the species point of view, by default that sexual urge MUST be heterosexual or the species will not survive. Until relatively recently, you simply could not reproduce in any other way.

Let's flip this for a moment; imagine that homosexual relationships are the *only* approved sexual relationship, and you have been born hetero. Could you decide to only engage in homosexual relationships, even though you feel no sexual drive towards the same gender? Could you decide to live a life of celibacy in order to conform with someone's idea of proper society? Would that be psychologically healthy for you, and would you be able to live a happy life?

I am not decrying homosexual relationships, just the notion of gay marriage. I look at homosexuality not as a lifestyle, but as something that is NOT the norm. See above- it simply cannot be "normal" if the species is to

survive.

I want you to really sit there and really think about this. Very hard. Imagine yourself in this exact situation.

OK. I will also sit back and wonder why there aren't any short white guys in the NBA, why some kids are born with horrible diseases like cancer, why some people think it's OK to kill women and children in the name of a god,. and I will also wonder why some people can have the mind of a Pope John Paul, and others have the mind of a John Wayne Gacy.

How does that idea sit with you? Because that's exactly the situation that anyone of homosexual orientation is in.

Sits with me fine, since I look at the idea of homosexuality differently.

Imagine everyone getting in your business and calling you a malfunction, damaged goods, should just be able to CHOOSE not to have sex with the opposite gender because it's just plain wrong... imagine facing discrimination because you want to marry the person you love and wanting to start a family... fear for your job, fear that people will beat the hell out of you just for being born the way you are...

Not so easy as being in the majority and secure in your position...

Wendy

CO EMT-B

It's not a choice for someone who is truly homosexual. It also CANNOT be "normal" or the human race would never survive. It is a mutation, somewhere in our genetic code- just like if someone is born with diabetes, a congenital heart defect, or they develop lung cancer when they never smoked a cigarette in their life. It is not a mental illness, it is not something that should be used as a weapon against someone, nor should it entitle them to "special" treatment or protection such as from a hate crime law.

Let's be clear here, Wendy. I am not suggesting or encouraging discrimination in any way, but I also do not believe that marriage is some basic human right that should be conferred on anyone.

[chbare]

Caveat: I would say I identify with some sort of Christian faith. If you believe my "faith" somehow degrades my view on the topic at hand, feel free to disagree with what I have to say.

All this talk of God, "normality" and homosexuality is quite interesting and great for philosophers; however, I am not sure what phrases I use to best describe my belief in a divine mechanism or lifestyle is all the relevant to the crux of this thread? My question continues to be, does good evidence that suggests homosexuals in the military will harmfully impact the military exist?

If so, great, let us debate said evidence. Thus far, I have found nothing compelling and have no valid reason to oppose the destruction of "Don't ask don't tell."

Take care,

chbare.

[JPINFV]

How does someone chose to be gay? That really doesn't make any sense. Why would someone chose to be gay knowing how they were going to be treated and ostracized by society? They are not defective or a mutation as has been suggested, any more than someone who has red hair or who is short.

I think this is a non-argument. Just because someone is born with specific desires doesn't mean they have to, or should, act upon it. A quick disclaimer. I do not equate homosexuals to the group I'm about to discuss. However I believe it is an appropriate alternative to explore the difference between thought and action. I would be willing to bet that most pedophiles would love not to be pedophiles. Similarly, I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of pedophiles who will never end up in jail. Why will they never be in jail? Because while they are attracted to little children, they have control to not act on that attraction. The want or desire can be controlled in some pedophiles, while others are unable to control it and act upon it, which is against the law.

Now, what's the difference between pedophiles and heterosexuals or homosexuals? Simple. Consensual sex can cause major and long lasting physical, but more importantly, emotional and mental harm. As such, we (society) has set laws declaring that, in general, individuals under 18 lack an understanding of the benefits and risks of sex and will chose to control those risks poorly. This leads into another discussion on age of consent and maturity, which I do not want to go down. However, homosexual and heterosexual sex not involving pedophilia (as an umbrella term for underage of consent sex) occurs between two individuals who are legally presumed to have the maturity to properly engage in those acts. As such, pedophilia is not illegal because of the possible age difference (after all, there's nothing wrong with a 90 y/o having sex with an 18 y/o), but because one party is presumed to be unable to consent to the act. As such, the act itself is what is illegal, not the thoughts that propel the act. Hence, regardless of the origin of the compulsion to have homo or heterosexual sex, the question is, "Can we reasonably expect people to control their actions?"

However, this does not address what the legal status of homosexuals should be. Since the USA is not a theocracy (albeit, yes, religious codes have influence on the modern legal system, among other historical influences), the law should be concerned with protecting the rights of individuals instead of enforcing any specific moral code on citizens. Whose rights are being infringed by granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? Whose rights are being infringed by government recognition of homosexual marriage(note: government recognition does not compel individual religions to recognize, endorse, or provide homosexual marriage)? Regardless of the origin of the compulsion and the ability to control the action past ensuring both parties are able to, and do, freely and independently consent to any specific action, does the government have a legitimate reason to regulate it beyond some people find it dirty and some religions believe it to be morally wrong?

[crotchitymedic1986]

The troll would answer that all laws are based in a "moral code", which is usually based on the predominant religion of the land (for better or worse). For instance, note how Saudi Arabia deals with crime versus the United States; they have a different set of laws and punishments that have roots in their religous principles. The troll would also argue that all males who are pedophiles who seek out young boys, are homosexual. Who are gays hurting ? A religous person may claim "society". If you remember, Rome was a great society until it gave into it's sinful wishes, and ultimately collapsed. I imagine many religous people would look at the plight of America today and would blame it on our sinful nature. You should also remember that most people believe that AIDS was brought to us by the homosexual community (I believe it was the government who brought it to us, but we can argue that in another forum).

I would decline to call homosexuality a mental disease, but who is to say that it is not a product of environment ? A woman with low self-esteem will always be attracted to abusive men, subconsciously, even though she knows that it is a bad relationship. Maybe homosexuals are attracted to the same sex due to some similar issue ?

Now as far as the military goes, I think they should have some say in the matter. Imagine if some government body decided tomorrow that all ambulance crews must be made up of one male, one female, and that one of those two had to be a racial minority as well (to ensure diversity and fairness) without any regard for how that would work in your company (maybe you live in North Dakota and couldnt find a minority EMT anywhere, so you would have to import them). Why would it be wrong for the military to say we will use gays, but not in combat/field operations, instead they will serve in a support role. Why is that wrong ?

[chbare]

The troll would answer that all laws are based in a "moral code", which is usually based on the predominant religion of the land (for better or worse). For instance, note how Saudi Arabia deals with crime versus the United States; they have a different set of laws and punishments that have roots in their religous principles. The troll would also argue that all males who are pedophiles who seek out young boys, are homosexual. Who are gays hurting ? A religous person may claim "society". If you remember, Rome was a great society until it gave into it's sinful wishes, and ultimately collapsed. I imagine many religous people would look at the plight of America today and would blame it on our sinful nature. You should also remember that most people believe that AIDS was brought to us by the homosexual community (I believe it was the government who brought it to us, but we can argue that in another forum).

I would decline to call homosexuality a mental disease, but who is to say that it is not a product of environment ? A woman with low self-esteem will always be attracted to abusive men, subconsciously, even though she knows that it is a bad relationship. Maybe homosexuals are attracted to the same sex due to some similar issue ?

Now as far as the military goes, I think they should have some say in the matter. Imagine if some government body decided tomorrow that all ambulance crews must be made up of one male, one female, and that one of those two had to be a racial minority as well (to ensure diversity and fairness) without any regard for how that would work in your company (maybe you live in North Dakota and couldnt find a minority EMT anywhere, so you would have to import them). Why would it be wrong for the military to say we will use gays, but not in combat/field operations, instead they will serve in a support role. Why is that wrong ?

Yeeahhh...the Roman Empire spanned something like 16 or 17 centuries and had periods of alternating good times and bad times so to speak. Clearly, more than giving in to sinful wishes was going on at any given period in time. It would be very myopic and uninformed to make such a sweeping generalisation when the history of Rome was and is still highly complicated.

Why would homosexuals only serve in support roles? Again, is there a solid base of evidence that you can use to back up such claims. Otherwise, we are making arbitrary assignments. Gays can make the food, swingers can run logistics, bisexuals can do intel and heterosexuals can do the killing?

Take care,

chbare.

[Richard B the EMT]

Why would homosexuals only serve in support roles? Again, is there a solid base of evidence that you can use to back up such claims. Otherwise, we are making arbitrary assignments. Gays can make the food, swingers can run logistics, bisexuals can do intel and heterosexuals can do the killing?

Unfortunately, modern warfare has resulted in no defined front lines. One of the first deaths in Iraq of a member of the US Military, working in a a "support service" capacity, was a "Native American" woman, in a non PC phrasing, a Navajo "Indian". To quote the song dating to the "War Between The States",

One was good and one was kind,

Cannonball don't pay no mind,

It don't think of those left behind