Sorry, as an officer who had to process out a homosexual (edit: heterosexual, I mis-typed) for committing a homosexual act and ensuring all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed...you're right, I should defer to others' feelings on the matter, since I know nothing of the issue. Do you actually want to discuss what I "know nothing" about? Or choose to live blindly? Either way's fine by me, but I didn't have you pegged as the latter. Aside from the facts and quotes that I used, you want me to go to "military stories" for "facts"? On a website with Lady Gaga on the front page?
You can be homosexual without actively having sex. I know, from previous threads, that that blows your mind, but it's true. And, of course, that policy is bigoted, if heterosexual sex acts are allowed (I have no idea if they are). If no sex is allowed, period, then there's no problem. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly and anyone having sex should be punished. But even if that policy is bigoted, it's no reason why a second bigoted policy should live on. It just means that other policy (if it is only targeting homosexuals) should also be changed when possible. Classic example of the homophobic side of the argument not having any rational arguments: comparing banning homosexuality to banning violent crime because both are "prejudice." This is right up there with saying that "tolerant" people should tolerate racists, because not tolerating racists is intolerant. Here's a clue: spousal abuse actually bears on the person's temperament, judgment and control. Homosexuality doesn't. Therefore, it isn't prejudice to refuse to arm the person who's been convicted of having anger issues and lack of control. Comparing them both as "prejudice" is either stupid or dishonest. I know you're not stupid.
For the first part, the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the performance of the act in the defined manner. Anything you contend differently does blow my mind, and is a bigoted remark. Just b/c you march in a gay pride parade or think Brad Pitt is hot or read a certain book or like Glee doesn't make you homosexual. If I thought about having sex with a male co-worker (but didn't), it doesn't make me a homosexual any more than thinking about having sex with a female co-worker makes me an adulterer (in the non-biblical sense). The comment wasn't about Lautenberg, it was about saying "if you can't handle going to war with (X), you're not patriotic and shouldn't be there." The government decides who I can go to war with. They've decided I cannot go to war with child molesters or misdemeanor spousal abusers, no matter how reformed they are or how good they promise to behave. They also have decided that I cannot go to war with openly homosexual soldiers, which was the point of my response to agoo. How dishonest is that? You don't seem the type to drop the "homophobe", "racist" and "stupid" card...is today a bad day for everyone? And, going back to part one, homosexuality in the military (the act, if it needs to be parsed out) is almost ENTIRELY about temperament, judgment and control. The exercise of which crandc spelled out pretty well when talking about what she called "lies".
Incorrect. Due to DADT, simply openly admitting that you have a same sex significant other or that you're attracted to the other sex is against the rules, so clearly the military has a designation of homosexuality that doesn't involve a sexual act in uniform. If all you're saying is "Policy is policy and I follow policy," then it's not dishonest...you're simply not saying anything at all. I assumed you were defending the policy by pointing out that the government "prejudices" against other groups of people (like convicted spousal abusers) in terms of military service. That would be highly dishonest. I never called you stupid, precisely the opposite. And obviously I didn't call you a racist. I thought "homophobe" was accurate and non-controversial. Don't Christians essentially believe that homophobia is the correct way to be, because the Bible condemns homosexuality? You consider it an insult for me to say that you are prejudiced toward people that your admitted "Lord" condemns (at least, condemns in your mind/interpretation of the Bible)? Since DADT proves you wrong, this is clearly a dismissible point. You can be openly gay without having sex, yet DADT makes that illegal.
crandc made a few points that cannot be refuted. Like, look at military forces around the world where there is no such exclusion and the results. The same kinds of arguments were made against integrating the military. Integration hasn't turned out to be a bad thing. A man and a woman can engage in sodomy. The rules of the military do not preclude men and women from serving. Seems like a huge logic fault to me.
I guess first of all, I need to elucidate that I'm trying to educate rather than convert. It's not my place as a serving member to state my like or dislike for a policy, whether it's women on submarines, homosexuals openly serving, homosexuals "closetly" serving, whether we have blue or red uniforms, whether we bomb another country or not, etc. I'm trying to provide a viewpoint and clear up blatent untruths about this policy, which is divisive enough without resorting to making things up. I'll go back to the part of DADT quoted in my reply to crandc's post: You cannot even provide a basis for initiating an investigation for those things. Much less discharge based on it. Again, for the Lautenberg part, my patriotism or ability in the eyes of agoo to fight his war for him is not based on who I think should be next to me. It's based on who Congress says can be next to me, promulgated through the DoD and DoN. Again, not making a stand but clarifying a point. As for my Christian perspective, you're again misrepresenting it. I don't know what you're defining "homophobia" as, so we could be talking across each other, but I think it's been pretty explicit in my posts that, as a Christian, I couldn't care less what non-Christians do in their bedrooms. It's not my place to care, judge, condemn or mollify. If it was someone next to me in church, I would be concerned for them for their disobeyance of God's will, but no more or less than I'd talk to my friend about God's requirements for his adherents on any number of issues like divorce, abortion, honoring parents, "little white lying", etc. For people like you and crandc who are admittedly not Christians, not only do I expect you to not understand but also not to hold yourself to any rules the Flying Spaghetti Monster may put out for consumption. Attaching homophobic motives based on an erroneous interpretation of my faith is also not something I find endearing. Can you (or anyone else) please give me an example of being openly gay without ever having homosexual sex?
Technically, they can't engage in sodomy. Agreed, that you generally don't see anyone punished for sodomy, but it's not legal. And if someone WAS convicted of sodomy with a woman, they would not be allowed to continue to serve. Again, just clarifying a misconception.
I'm still not sure how I have an erroneous interpretation of your faith. Even from what you typed here, it seems clear to me that you view homosexuality as a sin. You're saying that that doesn't colour your views on homosexuality in the military at all? Beyond the "policy is policy and I don't comment on policy"...every time something has come up about possibly ending DADT (which would be governmental action and therefore should be fine for you, since you'd have a new policy) you seem to be against it. So it seems clear to me that you do have a stand on this, even if you're saying that your posts in this thread are not about making stands. Having a same sex spouse or partner is one example. Knowing that you're gay, because you are attracted to the opposite sex, and mentioning it to someone. Neither requires sex in uniform (or even, technically, sex "ever" as you unreasonably made the standard), but still makes one "openly gay."
I am quite sure there are heterosexual nerd types who don't have girlfriends, so they're not having sex. Why would it be different for a homosexual person?
How do you know a nerd is heterosexual and not homosexual? Seems that you can't, until he/she has sex?
He or she knows, based on what he/she is attracted to. Or do you mean, we can't know whether he/she is lying and pretending to be attracted to one sex or the other?
The story of Tracey Cooper-Harris, forced to submit to rape and STD to avoid being "outed". How this helps "national security" is beyond me.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If I held everyone in the military to the the same standard I hold those in my faith, I wouldn't work for a captain who had a divorce or another officer who frequented strip clubs when in foreign ports. But my faith is required by law to be separate from my actions, kind of like homosexuality through DADT. Someone can't just say "BrianFromWA accosted me in the corner and tried to make me stop banging skanks and be Christian" and get me kicked out of the Navy. However, if it was proven that I proselytized and/or gave favorable or unfavorable treatment based on someone's faith or lack thereof I'd be in a lot of trouble. I think you're misrepresenting it. I've said multiple times that the whole homosexual issue is the one that should be argued, not DADT. And in multiple issues I've said that policy needs to be upheld if for no other reason than discipline. You can't have people choosing which laws they abide by. So you're not even getting my stand right, when I'm not supposed to be making stands? How did this become "Brian's a homophobe"? Because that's easier than saying, "crap, the things he brought up are right"? Having a same sex spouse or partner is one example. [/quote]Are you married if it's unconsummated? Not being snarky, just asking. I don't know the civil answer to this. Again, saying "Brad Pitt's attractive" means I'm homosexual now? (I'm assuming you meant /same/ sex) I'm still kind of waiting.
That's a horrible story. The fact that she didn't report soldiers who sexually harassed her and eventually raped her sickens me as well. You're right, it has nothing to do with national security, except that it allowed people who shouldn't be in the military to do so, while causing a heap of problems to a young woman who wanted to be a soldier. As a taxpayer, you're cool with Sgt. Cooper-Harris lying for her friends, and allowing rapists, fraternizers and sexual harassers to continue doing this for who knows how long to who knows how many women? Hell, as a woman you're ok with this?
Are you seriously blaming the victim? Really? You are fucking blaming the victim for not pointing out her attackers? Jesus Christ. Jesus fucking Christ. Also it isn't for you to decide how and when people identify, Brian. If someone is gay they know they're gay before having sex. Did you have to have sex with your wife to know you're a heterosexual? If so, why did you marry her? In fact, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy homosexual sex even more? Have you tried it? Nice invasive questions and criteria to meet, isn't it?
Yes, I'm blaming the victim for letting a group of fucking rapists to continue raping and sexually harassing women in her unit. JFC, indeed. The fact that you're sticking up for her right to a) put her career above the law and b) not tell on her male "friends" about the rape is fucking disgusting to me as well. How many other women were raped b/c these assholes were allowed to keep doing it? How many other women were traumatized like her? I'm not saying it wasn't a shitty situation, and if what she's saying is true her command organization was reprehensible. But her fucking duty is to report these things, not to go along with them. And if you can't see that, my goodness...
I don't get where you're going with this. If they want to join the military, it's been decided "how and when people identify". "Never", if they want to stay in. Don't put me on a position. The people you voted for voted for it. I didn't have anything to do with it, but it's my duty to follow the policy however it turns out. And amazingly enough, I tend to perform my duties as they're supposed to be performed. The first time I had sex was with my wife on my wedding night. Before that, no one could prove that I was homosexual or not. And I don't know if I would enjoy homosexual sex more. I just know that it's illegal (and in my religion, immoral) for me to try. Here's another tack on this...I'm listening to a lot of you talk about pot, LSD, acid, mushrooms, etc. My wife was on amphetamines for a while for severe ADD symptoms. I'm pretty certain that I'd be almost unstoppable on amphetamines, and think some of the stuff jlprk was talking about today with multi-dimensional 2000-page thoughts would sound fun. Does that make me a drug user, and therefore fit to be discharged? Or am I not one until I actually perform the act?
You're a little confused. I'm not saying how you handle policy within the military is affected by your religion. I'm saying that I don't believe that your hostility to DADT being repealed (as I've perceived it over multiple threads) is unaffected by religion. In discussions about whether the law should be repealed, this has nothing to do with anything. I would say you are definitionally a homophobe, as a practicing Christian who believes that God condemns homosexuality (and I'm also surprised that bothers you). As to the things you're saying being "right"...no offense, but I can't see that you've made a single pertinent point that you could be right or wrong on. So no, I'm not trying to escape some remarkable points you've made. You claim alternatively not to have a stand and that policy is policy so should be upheld because it's policy. Neither is "right" or "wrong"...both are non-statements. Doesn't matter in the slightest. A man having a boyfriend is being openly gay. A woman having a girlfriend is being openly gay. Are semantic games more of "the stuff you're saying that's right?" Romantic/sexual attraction, obviously. If you are romantically or sexually attracted to Brad Pitt, and generally men over women then, yes, you are homosexual. Even if you don't have sex with Pitt or those other men. No, you aren't. You're just arguing to argue, considering the efficacy of those "refutations."
