ok...let me pose this question. There are homosexuals in the military now. They just aren't allowed to let people know. If there isn't a problem now, why would there be a problem if it is known, except to those that are against it?

let me give an example of how,, I am not AGAINST heterosexual males, I assume they have the propensity to be sexually attracted to any female(including myself), therefore if I were in a high stress environment where my time to rest and shower were limited, I would not want to be spending that time worrying about the potential lust or advances of a heterosexual male

If I knew a male was homosexual, I wouldnt care about him being in my barracks, If I later found out he was indeed HETERO,, then there would be a problem


If my husband were sharing a hotel room with a female under the impresson she was homosexual,, no problem,,, if it came to light she was heterosexual BIG PROBLEM

a homosexual male giving me a backrub has an entirely different potential implication than a female heterosexual

a pat on the behind can be seen as friendly or inappropriate depending upon the sexual inclination of the party doing the patting,,

etc,,,etc,,,



of course, all we see on the surface is whether someone is male or female and MOST of us will naturally see those of the same sex as similarly inclined,,,therefore not feeling that same potential implication for inappropriate emotions or advances UNLESS we learn that they are indeed NOT similarly inclined,,,




I know that wasnt simple, but its what I got for now

good point. Makes sense. Then again I'm not in that situation. All I can do is ask questions

There are alot of invalid excuses to keep homosexuals as "less than" heterosexuals by making them have to act by law "ashamed" of their love life.

It isn't fair and shouldn't be.

let me ask this..why does it need to change? why doe they need it known?

fair shouldn't even be a consideration in this... there is alot of unfairness in life

I don't get why it was enacted in the first place, so I'm the wrong person to ask this.

I try to differ to those in the military since they are the ones that are there.

yea, i have asked this question 4 times already, and none of the lefty's want to answer it...

hey...I'm conservative myself, but I don't think I could give a good answer since I'm not in that situation.....so I just ask a lot of questions

Personally...if they are there anyway....then why does it matter if it's known? I don't know....I got nothing

lol...there is no answer to it, and they know it...

Our country still remains somewhat unique in all the world because the foundation on which it was built took shape from the ideological perspective that "all men are created equal".

Our laws are created to reflect the value of every human by making sure that no action infringes on the basic human rights of any other person.

Laws are put into effect from the basis of what we know but we can't see into the future, we can't predict which attitudes, values, and beliefs in responce to urban development, population growth, or technelogical and medical advances.

When all those things change we have to be ready to make ajustments in our laws to account for changes in lifestyles.

If we are not vigilent, if we don't accept the responsibility of showing others when the law no longer reflects the ideology it was founded on - then no one has equality and no one can 'expect' the law to protect their freedom.

There is no such thing as being 'more' equal because those who think they are priviledged for whatever reason are just as vulnerable under a discriminatory policy as those against whom the policy discriminates.

That is why I care.
Thanks for asking

Now for a quid pro quo - my turn to ask you something.

Why do you feel the need to assign derogetory names to whole groups of people of which you know nothing about individuall or even as a cultural group?

what makes you think i know nothing about it?

"The Military" - a group, an organization of hundreds of thousands, and in a short time frame, new 'issues' must all acquire the same shared values, attitudes and ethical standards.

It's a necessary indoctrination process and as such it requires adherance to it's own laws, doctrines and, in most cases, even its own judiciary system. It was created to be a nealy self-contained and self-identifying cultural unit.

That's what it takes to create a 'Government Issue' - it is by design an organized American sub-culture - "The Military".

However, they are still American citizens and there is one part of that citizenship that is still protected under the constitution - ethically applied treatment and certain civil & human rights.

It's because those particual rights cannot be signed away that Military policy is still required to conform to those areas of Constitutional law that protect the rights of every human.

That's the real argument against DADT, that it places restrictions on certain individuals that infringe on the human rights that are considered to be basic to every human.

The military has not been 'fine' for over 200 years: In fact most of that time gays were 'banned' from participating UNLESS war made it necessary to accept them as recruits.

The article at the following web site is kind of interesting:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html


DADT was supposed to have provided an end to that ban. Don't ask about someone's sexual orientation and Don't tell others about your sexual affairs.

Instead it became a military witch hunt. If a woman absolutely refused or shrugged off the sexual advances of a male peer or a male officer - SHE MUST BE A LESBIAN.

There are even dozens of cases in which the accusation was false, but the bias of those officers with no other evidence except heresay led to discharge.

Billions of dollars - down the drain - because the privacy of those accused (on heresay)was illegally invaded. They DID NOT TELL, and in most cases They WERE NOT ASKED - they were judged with bias on heresay.

Many of the recent cases you will find on the internet involve people who Did Tell or they admitted after being accused - because they loved what they did, they had pride in their conviction, they served with honor, had high achievements, and they expected to be 'lifers' - BUT how can anyone deny their family, their loved ones, their entire life for 30 years?

How many friends do we make through our work? How many people socialize with others they work with? The military is an extremely tight organization in which life-time friendships are formed.

But how can gays and lesbians form those kinds of relationships if they are not allowed to share the most important parts of thier life, with anyone?

I tell you true, it can not be done honestly, and telling lies, being dishonest, is not a part of the code our GIs are trained to adhere to.

Taking DADT away or leaving it place would not change the living arrangements that exist today.

There are only two things that bring about that change - an outright ban on homosexuals in the military or segregation.

The ban could only take effect if Congress could provide absolute and undeniable proof that homosexuals are either incapable of serving or that allowing them to serve would somehow put our country or the entire military itself at risk.

Segregation, is only another way to further the propagation of prejudice throughout our military and our country. If anything would put the military at greater risk it would be to promote greater prejudice by setting apart those people who NEED to learn to trust and depend of each other.

I like your first idea, of 'really' stressing and ENFORCING a strong sexual harassment policy. Let offenders be the ones who suffer the consequence of their actions no matter who they are or what sexual orientation they happen to be.

The living arrangements are what they are, anyone going knows that. As others have said a military commintment is not for everyone.

being pc in the military will get people killed... and those restrictions are there for a reason... this isn't a discrimination issue, it's an issue of qualification...if they can pass the qualifications to get, then they should get in... but they they do not ask if anyone is not gay either...they do not ask about anyones sexual orientation... so how is that discrimination? the ONLY reason someone wants to raise the gay pride flag is they are looking for a lover... is the military a pick up joint? they frown on a man and woman getting together in the military, much less two homos... unless someone can come up with a reason why gays need to "advertise" their gayness in the military, i will always be against it.

They have chosen - each and every one of them has made this choice. They go in with a basic understanding of the living arrangements.

I admit I havn't done a thorough search, but in all the research I've done I have not come accross any group of poeple advocating for segregation of homosexuals.

Hi YR,

I hope you have read the posts that follow yours because I think you will find your answer contained in them.

every gay has the exact same rights and is just as equal as a non gay...again...
your saying the same thing over and over...
????
our lifestyles, not the military...
no ones freedoms are being threatened...
wrong...gays are always pushing to be more equal than everyone else...


because i can't stand listening to all this crying and whining from gays about extra rights...a gays life is so miserable, huh...change all the laws just to suit your gayness....gays act like that being gay is their on race... it's a decision, like all decisions in life we make... and i already know what your going to say, it's a genetic trait, or whatever... so is cancer and brain tumors, and they don't get special rights...