E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPUL-E-ALAM, Logar Province, Afghanistan – Exactly one year since the ban on gays serving openly in the military was lifted, here’s a different way of gauging how the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is playing out: How good is the media access to gay soldiers?
The short answer: It’s still a work in progress.
Ultimately, we got our story for NBC’s Nightly News. We spoke with a dozen or more gay or lesbian soldiers and airmen – both on relatively safe rear guard bases, but also on the front lines.
That wouldn’t have happened without the approval of military commanders and the cooperation of our “minders” – the Public Affairs Officers who were our liaisons to a gay community which, only months ago, still had to socialize covertly.
But it was an uphill, two-week battle, full of last minute changes and disappointments. And while in the end the military let us tell the story, we often felt, along the way, that some commanders simply didn’t want us snooping around such a sensitive issue for fear of opening a massive can of worms.
Reconciling ‘two lives’
For instance, the sudden cold feet of a young, gay combat engineer – who did not want to be named, based in eastern Afghanistan. Even though he had told his story to the national media before, he had never been publicly identified, and he canceled our interview just as we were to chopper out to meet him.
It turned out, like many gay soldiers, he had lived two separate lives. In this soldier's case, his private, gay life and his “normal” life with a wife and child back home. He had never “come out” to his wife or family.
But he faced an even bigger problem: By admitting to a gay relationship while married, he would also violate U.S. military laws against adultery, which can result in a dishonorable discharge. It made me realize how complicated the coming-out process can be for gay and lesbian service members.
As a Plan B, I made a quick call to see if we could set up a military embed on a large base in northern Afghanistan. Could we spend a couple of days with U.S. soldiers over Thanksgiving and get their story out to loved ones and our viewers? I asked.
“That shouldn’t be a problem, Jim,” was the answer from the very can-do Public Affairs Officer I spoke with.
“Good,” I replied. “And while I’m up there I’d also like to ask some soldiers a few questions about how the lifting of the ban on openly gay service members is going in their units.”
After a long pause, I heard: “I don’t think I’ll mention that to the boss.”
“Fine,” I said. “It was just a thought.”
A few hours later the same PAO left a text message: “Request not granted – sorry, Jim. The boss thinks it’s too unsafe up here right now.”
Photo Blog: Two women share first kiss at US Navy ship's return
Slow ripple effect
There were other setbacks, usually a result of that gap “between two lives” – straight and gay, civilian and military. Many gay soldiers still choose NOT to tell their story rather than be caught in the collision.
It’s only been three months since the repeal took effect in the field, and the ripple from that change still has a long way to travel, despite the real freedom from the fear of being discharged from the military that all gay soldiers we spoke with now enjoy.
One example, the same military policeman who had no problem showing his face on-camera during a gay “coffee hour” at Bagram Air Field, canceled a more personal one-on-one interview the next day near his work station. An articulate soldier with a macho swagger, the MP apologized for the change of heart. But he hadn’t yet come out with some of his colleagues and wasn’t yet ready to do so.
A year ago the U.S. military was almost evenly divided over the lifting of DADT during war time. But we saw huge strides forward in retraining soldiers to deal with a new reality: Gays always served with honor during war and made their country proud, only now they’re able to do so without having to hide or lie.
Still, old habits die hard.
After conversing with gay male and female service members – many of them officers – at one of the “coffee hours,” our PAO was driving us back to our sleeping quarters when an overhead light caught the condensation on our front windshield and one word, written hastily by someone’s finger, appeared for all of us to see.
“Fags.”
“Idiots!” belted out our PAO, excoriating his own comrades.
And I thought to myself, “Now that’s the reality check.”
Leave a Comment:
With the rampant homophobia, could you blame them?
seriously and who is going to protect the gay soldiers RIGHTS??
"All that", the overwhelming majority of their fellow soldiers will protect their rights, as they protect yours.
I don't blame them for keeping quiet considering how most of these bases are still located in areas where racism and other phobias are the norm.
I'm just glad now that even if a gay soldier is outed, that the service has no ability to kick them out for it! THAT'S the part of DADT that I thought was most egregious
Neither do all those closeted republicans and evangelists.............
It's just like Civil Rights laws. You can tell people how to act, and penalize them if they get out of line, but you can't tell people how to feel. As with everything, education has to follow the law, in this country, because we are progressive in nothing.
America will be dragged, kicking and screaming like a child, into the 21st century...eventually.
@junganimus
Way to stay on topic moron
Thinly-veiled gay pun, or just coincidence?
I didnt expect that most soldiers would willingly offer up the information.
I know a few lesbians who married gay men during their service, so as not to be targetted for harrassment...and for the most part it worked.
I imagine, not all gay or lesbian soldiers were fortunate enough to find someone with which they could confide, and ultimately conclude to do this...which is why I suspect many married heterosexuals, and tried their very best to carry out a very hetero life...
and why some straight people are hellbent on keeping this reality in place, is beyond me.
why would any straight person want to find out 10 years deep into a relationship it was all lies?
or worse, never find out.
I'm sorry folks, but there was a big collective yawn in the straight military community about DADT repeal. I mean really, we have much more important things to worry about. Most of us just don't care what you do on your off time, but I don't want to see a same sex make out session as much as I don't want to see a hetero make out session. Keep professionalism on point.
Todd has a point.
You pretty much don't care about sexual preference of the man/woman beside you when you're under enemy fire.
Eight soldiers, NCOs and a1LT, hounded Danny Chen to his death in Afghanistan, just for being Asian. It's still a leadership problem.
He wasn't hounded for being Asian doofus. Get a life.
It's not the media's job to out the soldiers. They can that themselves if/when they feel ready. This article felt like a hit piece bitching that the military didn't hand a bunch of gay soldiers to the reporters to talk to.
Actually, he was. According to reports, he was teased for his asian name and called "Jackie Chan", etc.... His asian background WAS a factor in the abuse.
I think the best point that this article failed to make is that, unlike the resounding calls made by opponents of repeal, GLBT servicemembers weren't asking for repeal so they could rub it in the face of the entire armed services. They wanted it for the simple need to serve freely without fear of reprisal.
While some still fear the result of their coming out, the overwhelming notion is that many have, and that those many continue to be honored servants of this great nation. That is what I call freedom in a great democratic state.
Jessica, fundamentalist religionists (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) simply cannot accept the reality of gay people being born gay because if they do it would mean that their God made them that way and that their infallible Bible is at least slightly in error, which would be much too confusing for them.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was far more protective of gay rights than the present situation.
DADT accomplished two things:
1. It protected gays' privacy, and also, frankly, protected cross-gays, and even straights. It was and is a PRIVACY issue.
2. It protected our military from becoming an "accredited" brothel. Think about it! To be able to "tell" encourages solicitation. That is NOT appropriate for the Military where the purpose is to train men (and presumably women now) to handle and survive warfare.
This article reveals the truth of those two points: Don't Ask Don't Tell protects PRIVACY and protects against encouraging SOLICITATION.
Violations of one, the other, or both weakens our Military force with distractions from their purpose of military responsibility in our nation's defense and hot wars. Even more important Prostitution is against Federal Law! Eliminating Don't Ask Don't Tell by the Obama Administration literally breaks Federal Law.
Please note:
6.
Coercion and enticement
Title 18 Part I Ch. 117 Sec. 2422
"Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual [who] travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Up to 20 yrs and/or fine
The full summary of intent is on this link: prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000119
It's incredibly logical and more, it is common sense.
Perhaps there are simply not as many gays as their supporters try to make people believe. Remember that 10 % of the population nonsense that was later revealed to be 1.8 %? Perhaps the lack of gays coming out is simply a lack of gays.
"There is no such thin as homosexuality. Just homosexual acts (social/moral wrongdoing). ALL humans have innate feelings of heterosexual and homosexual thoughts and urges. Some choose not to act on impulses or curiousities.
SecondSight1, DADT protected no one from anything. Go back and read again. How is having a wife and child at home while you are living a gay life keeping the military from being a brothel? Believe me gay sex was taking place, and that guy's wife was caught in the crossfire. Have you heard of HIV? There is danger in dishonesty. Further, my experience has been that being closeted invites sexual abuses, especially blackmail. Gay women, especially, and some men were being blackmailed for sex under DADT. Gays and lesbians often will sexually harass each other when they realize that there is no protection and, therefore, their victim cannot and will not tell.
Chris: before calling anyone a "doofus" perhaps you should read up on that story and the letters he sent home detailing his harrassment (as well as the charges that have now been filed for the hazing and other abuse he received at the hands of his fellow soldiers).
Yeah, it was so protective of the privacy of gays that even if a civilian third-party revealed that a soldier was gay, that man/women was subjecty to discharge.
Claiming that DADT is merely an effort to protect gays is like saying that requiring women to wear burkas is merely an effort to protect them from over-sexed men or that segregation in the military was intended to protect blacks from racist whites.
To..Timothy"""
Who told you that ..what was the methodology used in that study and where is that info from ..... what did they do knock on doors ...have people call in .. random telephone poll...how did they come to 1.8 %
" ... It protected our military from becoming an "accredited" brothel. ... "
Just where the hell do you people get this @!$%# from? Do you sit around all day doing nothing but making up @!$%# like this? Fear, hate and lies. And I bet you CLAIM to be a Christian.
" ... "accredited" brothel ... "
Go back to your room, stick you head back up your ass and leave the rest of the hell alone.
And remember ...
God loves you, The rest of us think your a @!$%#.
Appalling.
But I'm sure no one will feel any sympathy for the wife. After all, she is only a woman who was duped and lied to and exposed to AIDS.
There are several complex issues involved in this all-too-oversimplified situation:
1) Like the NFL and NBA, there have always been approx twice the ratio of gays in the military compared to civilian life. A psychologist would tell you that as pre-pubescent gays realize that "something is different" they tend to overcompensate by indulging more in "macho" activities such as playing military and sports. This nas absolutely nothing to do with sex, but only with orientation. (Gay women are about the same proportion in the military as in civilian life.)
2) A psychologist would also tell you that sexual orientation is a continuum. There are no absolutely straight or absolutely gay people in orientation. (I did not say behavior.) People are somewhere along the continuum and vary greatly in their precise orientation. You hear about gay men, but what about the "mostly gay" men that outnumber them? Gay is not an off/on switch, but rather more like a dimmer switch.
3) Not everyone in civilian life "comes out" even where there is perceived to be little social penalty. Mostly they are paranoid of the actions and words of the abusive minorities who spew hate speech and lost don't consider their sex life to be anyone else's business. Why would the military be any different?
4) Everyone who has ever served in the military (Vietnam vet, 10 years in the USAF) knows that there have always been lots of gays in the military. I watched gays persecuted and valuable skills lost to the military because of it. I have watched witch hunts that decimated whole units. And I watched as women in the military who refused the advances of their superiors be kicked out of the military because the refusal was used as "proof" that they were gay. (John McCain did this at least four times that we know of, for example.)
5) The military, like sports are full of men and women under the age of 26 (the age at which the forebrain is considered fully developed.) People under 26 tend to struggle with sexual orientation and like most humans, that struggle and insecurity manifests itself as anti-gay hate speech. If you want to see how it works, look at the Congressmen such as Craig and Foley who were closeted gays --- they sponsored numerous anti-gay bills. Compare that to Barney Franks who sponsored no anti-gay bills and was openly gay. This is just human nature --- those who spout the loudest hate speech are the ones most insecure in their own sexuality. They have all the horrible social burdens of being gay with nont of the positive aspects or fun. The military actually depends on men and women under 26 as the modern version of "cannon fodder" --- people who will risk their lives in situations where older men would just hunker down and try to survive.
Before DADT was repealed, the military had determined that there would be very little impact on the military or its institutions or operations. The Pentagon estimated a savings of about $1.5 billion a year from processing discharges and the lost value of training and experience from the discharges.
And the anti-gay hate speech on this thread is a perfect example of why the Founding Fathers despised and hated the thought of this country ever becoming a democracy. They had seen, time and time again, with some of the religious-based colonies, the French Revolution, and the Roundheads in England that in a democracy, the majority (or a coalition of minorities) will always use their populist power to strip rights from minorities. That is why the Founding Fathers only allowed the people to directly elect the House of Representatives (and gave Representatives very short terms to offset it.) The President, Supreme Court Justices, and Senators were all to be appointed or indirectly elected as a way of preventing people like the current Tea Party from disenfranchising others --- and even then it hasn't always worked.
Dear reporter, don't expect to find too many people, in or out of the military, telling you they are gay. In nearly 60 years, I've never had anyone spontaneously reveal to me that they are straight.
So you've never seen a man kiss a woman in public? Or hold hands as they walk down the street? You have never seen a wedding picture on someone's desk? All of these are spontaneous revelations of one's heterosexuality. So unless you have been licing in a box all your life, you indeed have had someone's heterosexuality spontaneously revealed to you.
Agreed EMDF and thank you for today's accidental chuckle fest... Licing in a box... OMG that image will stay with me all day. :)
Rick, that old line is one of the stupidest comments around. Get a new one, buddy.
EMD - A display of a wedding photo on the desk is usually there for one of two reasons - first it simply says I love this "person". The second is the wife made sure you had one and it better be displayed for everyone to see...or else. It has nothing to do with a display of their sexual orientation. The problem comes when THAT is the reason for the display, i.e. to push your sexual orientation into someone else's face.
When I was in the service and among my friends since I retired, people really don't want to know about your private sex lives. There are always a handful who like to talk about their sex lives but most of the people I know really don't want to hear it and they think less of the person for bringing it up. Most of us still believe the simple line "A gentleman doesn't kiss and tell". It was good advice before and it remains good advice today.
Ok, so is it possible for a homosexual to show their wedding photo on their desk because they simply are showing that they love the person and their significant other insists on other people seeing it?
Or are you implying a double-standard where it's NOT POSSIBLE for a homosexual to be able to because it's ALWAYS about sexual orientation?
I hope you don't do any public displays of affection, I don't want to know what your private life is like either ^_^
Seriously - Of course they can display a wedding photo on their desk...and with the repeal of DADT they can do that in the military as well. In the private sector they have been able to for many years. No double standard implied. As for public displays of affection, again, not a problem. You want a great example though of pushing this into people's faces? Watch a Gay Pride parade some day and tell me that's simply people displaying normal affection.
If you can't figure out the difference between a simple display of true affection between two people and a demonstrative display to make a point then you need to look up the meaning of the word obtuse.
@ JJMurray
Agreed
And yeah...the gay pride parades are over-the-top, just don't watch or attend.
While I agree that activists can be obnoxious and abrasive, they've gotten the permits for the parade and there are people who like to go to them, so I've got no interests in stifling them as long as they respect everyone else's rights.
Seriously - Agreed. If they want to have a parade and they buy the permits, etc. then go right ahead as far as a I'm concerned. The point, which you got, was the difference between a "normal" (I know, I know) public display of affection and a demonstration to make a point that really has little or nothing to do with affection is the kind of thing I oppose and wish people simply would refrain from.
JJ,
You're incorrect about displaying their pictures in the private business world. In 35 states, I believe but I may be off by a few, there's no legal recourse against an employer who terminates you for sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
I'm also willing to place money on the "symbolic displays of public affection" ending, when they are no longer "symbolic". As in, they're common place and accepted. Until such time, the best weapon against bigotry or unjust laws, is knowledge, and the best way to make people more knowledgeable, is to bring the inequity the gay community faces out into the open. See, we're talking about it right now, aren't we?
As for over-the-top parades, that could describe many Carnivale/Mardi Gras celebrations.
Nah most good Mardi Gras celebrations end up involving NO top :-)
As for the whole premise of the story, really who gives a flying eff if gays weren't flocking to have their story printed? Maybe people just want respect for their privacy. Novel concept for the press I am sure.
Well, based on the article, it is the media, not gays, who are "flocking" to the story.
JJ,
The gay pride parades are often used as an excuse against the gay community. Have you been to one? Yes there are always some idiots there doing over the top crap, but, what about the churches that mark in the parades or PFLAG with signs that say "Proud of my gay son"? For every over the top idiot acting poorly there are a dozen more that are acting appropriately.
I would also say that because it might the one event a year where people can hold hands, embrace, or kiss like any other normal couple that sometimes people go to far as they feel they have to get it all in one weekend.
The Mardi Gras celebrations are a good counterpoint or if you've ever been to a St. Patricks Day parade in a big city, outside of the parade root, you see a lot of drinking and lewd behavior. It's call human nature to behave badly when given the opportunity. Girls Gone Wild anyone?
Wether military or civilan life...coming out to oneself and to others is an ominous struggle. But once you have that weight lifted off your soul, life is unimaginably great!! Be strong!!!
If one has a mental disorder, it's best to keep it to oneself.
Just wondering if you could tell me on which page of the DSM-IV homosexuality is listed?
Oh that's right, it was removed as a medical disorder.
Page 1: "Telling a fellow marine you are gay is insane."
Ruken, it was removed due to PC, not medical science. Telling a crazy person he is not crazy doesn't make him sane.
Actually it was removed due to medical science. There was no proof in that it was a disorder.
And yet, Road Warrior, you still can't help but shout out that you have a mental disorder!!!
Road,
Okay, so where's this medical science you speak of? And who were these "PC" doctors who removed it from the standard diagnostic manual which is respected and used all around the globe? If you're right, wouldn't that be a breach of the Hippocratic Oath??? In which case, why haven't they been addressed by their fellow doctors? Unless you think this is some enormous conspiracy encompassing the entire medical profession?
Or, you're just pulling it out of your behind???
Uh, a male shuns female and prefers another male. Looks like some wires are crossed in the computer.
I love how true homophobes only dwell on the male thing. That's because in our society, two females making out is hot.
Let me tell you this Road, if all the female choices were you, I'd probably...no...most definitely prefer another male.
Sarah,
Don't say "behind" on this thread. It will get everyone creaming on the screen.
Because those that support equal rights for all (regardless of sexual preference) must they themselves be homosexual.
Right?
Road,
So, what you're saying is you have no answer to my questions. Your only point of reference is what you think, in your head makes sense. I didn't know your opinion was now considered fact by the medical community.
Ruken,
I do like men, and I don't believe being gay is a choice, however, Road might make me think twice.
Ruken,
I never said mentally ill people shouldn't have equal rights. They can marry, divorce and do all the things that sane people do.
But your contention that they are mentally ill when the evidence says otherwise is in itself delusional.
Sarah,
You are assuming I am male. You must think only men feel the way I do. That is sexist in itself.
I don't think it's a choice either. I just think some wires are crossed in the brain.
I'm assuming your male, because of your post #4.8, which is written from the perspective of what a man is thinking. If it were written from a female perspective it would be reversed. If you're not male, than perhaps some basic writing courses may help???
Sarah, could be one of two views. If RoadWarrior is:
If male: "All those sickos are humping each other and not those hot women".
If female: "Why are they humping each other and not me? They must be deviants."
Ruken, I choose to think of RoadWarrior as a lonely woman who fanticizes about young gay guys double teaming her. I don't know why, but the image just fits.
Ruken,
So true. Simple language just works better sometimes. You know?
Sarah,
Road Warrior can't answer your question because he's simply parroting one of the religious right's talking points when he says that homosexuality "was removed (as a mental disorder) due to PC, not medical science." Obviously, that's just a pretext for continuing to hold beliefs that are contradicted by modern science. The rigid belief system of religious fundamentalism is being challenged by scientific advances on every front. Perhaps it's a natural reaction, but they seem to feel that even a poor excuse for contradicting science is better than none at all, as also seen when they deny evolution by arguing that it is only a theory.
Ruken, Heterosexuality or Homosexuality are sexual orientations, not preferences. This may seem like petty "political correctness" distinctions, but "preference" implies "choice", and I guarantee you, as a gay person, it is NOT a Choice. I am very happy being gay, I am not ashamed of it, but if I had a choice between living a life where I could have a natural family and grow up in the traditional value mold, I would take that choice in a second.
I don't think you personally believe that our orientation was a choice, but I you to be aware of what the word preference implies. The substance of your remarks are good, and that is what really matters.
benji,
I am atheist. Some of us do believe homosexual is abnormal and a mental illness, but they do deserve equal rights. We treat all handicapped the same.
Isn't it interesting that the post that gets the most rebuttals gets collapsed? Liberals always want to shut down speech they disagree with.
So road, why then do you parrot the same talking point as the religious right AND how is it you feel qualified to disagree with the medical community about this?
This thread is a strong debate and interesting to follow. I have a couple of links I personally found fascinating in clarifying the whole scientific issue of homosexuality and also lesbianism. Some of you might want to click on them...
The first is a PDF file which deals with the two main theories of what determines homosexuality, whether genetic and/or biological factors, or whether the result of psychological and environmental influences and early experiences.
downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf
The second is a paper by N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D (author of "My Genes Made Me Do It"). This paper gives what I thought was an objective discussion, with resources on several aspects from accredited specialists.
www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
Homosexuality has become an inordinately large issue due, I think, primarily to gay activists who, in my opinion, give more of a disservice to gay men and lesbian woman by jumping around with parades emphasizing their difference from the rest of us, rather than allowing us to absorb any and all of them as just ordinary folks often interesting and good friends (on a platonic basis). Why emphasize differences? Why not emphasize our many commonalities of intellect and emotions?
And going to the roots... since the 20th Century, some say as a reaction to the "Victorian Era," there has been among populations, certainly here in America (haven't researched other countries) an enormously increasing publicly-expressed interest in Sex.
It clouds an appreciation with other aspects of our human characters and personalities. Sex is really not the be-all and end-all of existence. Us humans are a heck of a lot more complex than that.
Can't we folks get beyond "sexual preferences" and look and minds, gifts, accomplishments, aspirations we can relate to of our fellow human beings?
That, frankly, is why I personally objected to Mr. Obama's getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." How silly of him. In fact, how incredibly discriminatory to cancel that!!! On a superficial level is like refraining from asking a person whether she dyes her hair. (As a natural redhead that has, in fact, happened to me on occasion... and I didn't always feel like laughing it off!)
It is simply good manners NOT to... and DADT is simply, perhaps, like Emily Post was, a reminder of good manners.
Still waiting on your peer-reviewed medical source, Road Warrior. Take your time...
My mistake Charles, I apologize for that conception.
A no news day is good news.
Joe... may I coat-tail you? (btw I like your post.. concise! lol and rather profound if one thinks about it)
~~~~~~~~~~
OK... this is not addressed to you, Joe... but since the previous comment above was collapsed along with the entire thread of responses, I'd like room to respond here. Hope you don't mind.
Silencing really innocuous opinions by collapsing posts a few here don't agree with is beneath contempt. Personally, and I suppose I will get collapsed for this opinion... I think it is revealing that folks, so insecure in themselves, vote to silence someone else.
Every hear of the American Bill of Rights? Well, read it. You shame yourselves.
Sure, I will vote against the rude, crude, and/or too lewd to know.... but I respect opposing opinions. This is NOT a ONE WAY THOUGHT PROCESS... These are Debates... ever heard of those? It means observing and learning more than one side of an issue.
You don't have to agree, but don't be so asinine as to think silencing another comment here actually silences that person. I, for one, always open the collapses because you raise my curiosity. In fact, for many, you create a provocative advertisement.
It says more about you than the folks you might collapse.
btw folks... unfair collapsing can be appealed to Newsvine and Sally or Tyler will check it out. You can be revealed who you are that way... so think twice. You may find your actions are against the Code of Honor here.
Why should they, and why should it matter?
Because America hasn't shed its hypocritical-Puritanical roots
Same reason why it's ok for kids to watch cartoons with incredible amounts of violence, but if they see some boobies, the FCC goes insane!
America is obsessed about sex, or at least the double and single-digit IQ's among us are.
Don't you DARE start ragging on the old Buggs Bunny cartoons!
Well Buggs did do a lot of seduction, cross-dressing and french kissing of Elmer Fudd. I'm sure there were a lot of confused little kids ^_^
it's like the muslim clerics in the UK (i think thats where) who are trying to ban muslim women from eating, touching, preparing any vegetable that resembles a penis.
obviously, doing so will cause them to do nothing but think about sex.
me doth think they protest too much...
I grew up watching Buggs but never once had any problems with what he did because I at that age i didn't have a bunch of people telling me that a cartoon rabbit kissing someone was sending me a message about sexual orientation...it was just funny.
@ JJMurray
Right there with you! I find it fascinating to watch parents fill their children with the lies, ignorance, fears and hate that has been passed down to them. It's a thing that I think stunts their mental growth and ensures that they will have the same problems operating in a modern society as their parents do.
HAHAHA, I wasn't aware of that! I'm sure we know what the clerics are thinking...they probably need more little boys in their Madrassa
I think Mathuin's point is that one's sexual orientation is nobody's business, so it should come as no surprise that people don't just randomly shout in the streets about it.
Anyone that holds their SO's hand, kisses, talks about their 'girlfriend' or 'boyfriend' is bringing their sexual orientation into the picture.
Which has what exactly to do with this article?
The only thing obama accomplished was to assure the destruction of america with his order to repeal "don't ask, don't tell", either way those acts of men with men and woman with woman are an abomination in the eyes of God period and they will have answer to HIM, not obama, obama is not god, nor is he the savior, if anything obama has secured your judgement for the sake of destroying america, obama is not the friends of these people, he's using them to help destroy america. Why not repeal obamacare? obama is the enemy of the people of the USA. He is out to destroy this nation using what's wrong with america against america.
Don't blame God, blame the leaders you voted in, who decieve.
Romans 1
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
My God thinks your God is wrong. Luckily we both get to vote and Your God's opinion is fading. Have a great Gay filled day.
Sounds like the passages bible-thumpers use to preach their hate.
Noneyabusiness-2291315
Ummm...This is a secular nation. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant.
No one blames God except the simpletons who believe in their mystical sky fairy.
The rest of us trudge forward on these issues with the above mentioned people slowing our pace.
Oh, and God didn't write the Bible, he clearly left those passages up to one of his homophobic followers.
The religious extremists have been forecasting the doom of america because of our moral laxness for 200 years. They continue their "zero for" record of accuracy.
Noneya must be a joy to live with, since every third word is "doom" or "destruction".
@ Noneyabusiness-2291315
I like how we are pulling quotes from a book and arbitrarily assuming that it's all factual!
Why didn't you pull from the story of Gilgamesh?
Why don't you pull from the Iliad?
Why don't you pull from The Chronicles of Riddick? Or Superman Issue #18?
They all have as much basis in fact as the book you cited from
The funniest thing of all? Your handle "Noneyabusiness-2291315" insinuates that it is none of your business. So why are you getting involved at all...It's None of YOUR Business.
/your fanaticism is showing.
My God loves everyone equally. He is, however, disappointed that His gift of free will is used by closed-minded bigots to hate and vilify those who don't conform to their ignorant view of what the world should be.
And by the way, my son, an Iraq vet, tells me he fought alongside gay and Lesbian comrades, and was proud to be their brother-in-arms. In the battlefield, everyone is the same...
@ carolanne-2700965
Well said!
Paul was a very disgruntled man, largely consumed with his own guilt. The passage describes the acts and attitudes that were the consequence of man worshiping images of animals in place of the eternal nature and spirit of God. By refering to the acts as "God giving them over to" belies the fundamental place of free will in Christian philosophy. Perhaps the poster implies that all gays are idolators... in any case, a proper Christian attitude would be to hate the deed, not the doer. In that respect, much of the so-called "Christian" right falls well short of the mark.
I have read the Bible and I fail to see where homosexuals will destroy the world. Such extreme hatred seems to be what will do us in. I do remember reading that God is Love. So shouldn't we follow that aspect of His ways? It's much nicer than preaching death and destruction?
@ Realistic woman
Because there's a difference between worshiping God and worshiping one's religion
Religion is a creation of people, and throughout history all the way to present, it has been twisted to serve the agendas for the morally bankrupt and outright psychotic.
The Evangelicals and other homophobes that use religion as their reasoning for hate and bigotry are nothing more than programmed puppets following their instructions to score points for the afterlife that their leaders have promised them, all while they keep signing that check and sending increasing sums of their wealth to the establishment.
God doesn't need your money...so maybe one should feel a tad suspicious when someone says otherwise.
How good is the media acess to gay soldiers? it's still a work in progress? Really.
It's called privacy- it means if you like people 'plumbed' the same way as you then you just keep it to yourself. The rest of the world doesn't need to/want to know about your private life as much as the media would like you to believe!
Agreed! Now if only we could get all of these evangelicals and other religious wackos to shut their yaps and stop trying to vote for an invasive and oppressive government.
The mantra of the homophobes: It's an issue of privacy. No one needs to know.
They still can't get over the fact that some people are gay. They just can't stand to hear a word about it. They read stories like this and comment on them, but then turn around and say that they don't care about sexual orientation. Yeah, right!
I'll bet you are one of those people who likes to brag about their sexual prowess, no matter if its straight or gay. What people like you don't get is that the rest of us aren't interested and talking about your sexual exploits or your sexual orientation just makes you look like a jerk. Remember the old line a gentlemen doesn't kiss and tell? Well, that still holds true today and it doesn't matter WHO they kissed.
Oh Lord!!! A story about gays especially around christmas will bring out the loving toerant christians in droves.
Or maybe not.
They are too busy not indulging in the commercialization of Christmas.
Speaking of which, have you seen the sales?! Holy Christmas! Jesus would be proud!
I'm going to be the devil's advocate here and take the side of commercialization. It's what fuels our nation's economy, and there's no reason a person can't embrace both the commercial and the heartfelt aspects of the season.
the gays aren't dumb, when obama gets run out of office dadt will be back. that nut that passed info to wiki leaks is a cross dresser. it's just the beginning.
Huh?
cross dressers! gays! we need a few more Commies! and Marxists! Its just the beginning of the doom of america!
lol, i'm willing to bet that DADT won't ever come back. When it appears that the military hasn't self destructed, this issue will go away just like mixed race marriages, etc.
Seriously: You have to approach them in a language they will understand. Like this:
wat
Funny thing: most cross-dressers are straight.
I guess silk undies don't care about sexual orientation.
Don't knock the silk. Silk boxers are win.
Very, very unlikely. That's why the far-right was so opposed to lifting it. They knew that once it was repealed and there were no problems within the ranks, they would have no justification, excepted outright homophobia, to reinstate it.
Cross-dressing is not the same thing as being gay.
duh
Good grief. Everyone needs to keep their private life private. Show some tact.
Today far too many people consider tact censorship.
There's a difference between simply keeping it private by choice, and being forced to keep it private because while there's nothing illegal about it, if it's found out, your employer can fire you for it.
Actually your employer cannot fire you "for it" since I believe that has been written into the law. Of course, if you are too demonstrative with your "public affection" in the work place you can be fired if you are straight too. See what happens if you get caught making love to your spouse on an office desk some day...sexual orientation won't even enter into the discussion.
I was referring specifically to the US Armed Forces as the only remaining employer that was allowed to fire you based on something that is otherwise a protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.
DADT was being used as a witch-hunt to remove people from the military.
Actually, most employers have the ability to fire you based on your sexual orientation because the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) still hasn't passed. Some states have taken it up, but most haven't.
At any rate, hcdouglass appears to be one of those people who seems to think he never mentions his sexual orientation...which he just did by complaining about gay people.
When straight people shut up about their sexual orientation, then they can start whining about gay people doing the exact same thing.
And Virginia recently reinstated that ability. You can be fired now because of your sexual orientation, age, or religion in Virginia.
Toasty ... recheck that law. Age and religion are protected under federal laws, so if Virginia allows such discrimination it would be purely symbolic (or would just apply to its own employees).
Correct, it is for government employees. That makes it zero percent less disgusting.
The biggest problem I have with this story is the man who has a wife and child at home.
"It turned out, like many gay soldiers, he had lived two separate lives. In this soldier's case, his private, gay life and his “normal” life with a wife and child back home. He had never “come out” to his wife or family. It made me realize how complicated the coming-out process can be for gay and lesbian service members."
With this man's situation, that's not complicated. That's just plain wrong. I don't care if you are gay, straight or have relationships with cats, you should not be leaving your wife and child at home and carrying on with another relationship. That man needs to let his wife know, so that she is no longer living a lie. It's completely unfair to the wife. Having a soldier spouse across the ocean serving is difficult enough on the family. I have no compassion for people who cheat on their partner, man or woman, straight or gay.
Always back to bestiality? You people have some...interesting... fantasies.
Leave the kitties out of your fantasies!
Out of the comments posted, your post is right on target. I was surprised to read this as well.
Spot on:
Actually, it is qute common for people to do this. Some people are "good actors" and are encouraged to do it by society, parents, and peers. The only people that are "truly who they are, are pre-middle schoolers. By middle school age, people learn "to fake it" for social acceptance. Girls have a "queen bee" and boys have their "super stud." Image is everything, and no one wants to "know" the nitty-gritty, except the closest confidant.
Ready2change (above comment) does have a point. In an effort to conceal ones "true identity" there is a risk of devastation the lives of other people. In the case of the gay soldier with a wife and children, that is just wrong. Regardless of how the soldier feels, his wife would feel like the target or a bad joke (at least)[pseudo sexual] and the children could feel like actual bastards. I really wouldn't want to be breaking the "news" to everyone: coming out to your wife and kids, God, and everybody else.
@ boom!reason I don't have interesting little fantasies. I only put that to keep people off my back as a gay hater or activist or whatever. I was simply using it to point out that I don't care what kind of relationships they have, when someone cheats on a partner it is wrong.
I'm not sure what that soldier's story has to do with DADT. No matter how many rights he has, he's not going to come out as gay. He would behave the same way if he were a civilian.
It doesn't keep you from looking like one, that's for sure. That excuse doesn't work.
Equating homosexuality to bestiality is a staple for "gay haters." Just by including it, this shows that you view it as morally relevant to the discussion.
How can any red blooded man really choose a man over some of the beautiful women we have in this world today. I could never choose a man over a woman. The thought of that gets me sick. Go ahead guys, that just leaves more choice women for th rest of us men!
Not really, women can be homosexual too.
That was really be a problem for those male homophobes out there.
The thought of Randyr! getting it on with a woman makes ME sick!
So randyr1, what you are saying is that it is not a choice for gays. They are just naturally attracted to the same sex. You people are finally getting it!!
Maybe because it isn't a choice?
So if men are so disgusting, what on earth makes you think a woman would ever want you? Surely you hope the woman who has deigned to suffer your presence isn't doing so out of pity but rather because she actually finds you attractive, right?
Thus, you have your answer. A red-blooded man chooses another man precisely because he's a man who likes other men.
And hey, if you can't live up to that, that's your problem.
Easy Randy: ones who were born homosexual. There, mystery solved.
Supposedly, homosexuals are no longer special; so, why do we keep getting these stories about the poor mentally special people? Where's the heartbreaking story of the Officer that misses his ewe but can't tell the military because it's illegal?
Maybe it's because there still are no equal rights in this country.
If there are 2 arguments the conservatives never fail to make some logical/rational (not) link about they are:
1) Homosexuality and bestiality.
2) Intentional firearm homicides and car accidents.
It never fails to amaze me how out of their way some in the media will go on this issue and who they chose to highlight in their stories. The first person they mention is someone who is violating the UCMJ and quite possibly perpetrating fraud and you seem surprised they decided not to "come out"? I've known plenty of straight service members who got hit with the adultery charge as well because they fooled around on their wives and got caught. Guess what, they weren't too keen on "coming out" about that either. It has nothing to do with being gay but everything to do with violating the rules. As for the possible fraud? If he got married but he is gay, then he gained various pay and benefits under false pretenses and that is fraud.
The majority of service people I know don't talk about their sexual lives with their fellow service members. Sure there are always the handful who will want to brag but they tend to be taken with a grain of salt for one and not greatly respected either. They're viewed as blow hards (no pun intended). Yet these reporters want the gays to come out and talk all about their private, sexuality without understanding how other members in the unit would view this kind of talk.
JJ, really? Because in my 25 career, I know of only one person getting nailed (pun intended) for adultery.
People still get charged with adultery?
More people should be prosecuted for adultery. The only thing nowadays is grounds for divorce, and if people are just, social mockery to the person who cheated.
More and more women are the sleeze bags cheating. Many I have known are power-hungry a**holes wanting glory and power and will walk over men and manipulate and trap them any way possible.
Marital status, particularly divorces and adultery shoiuld be fair game questions during interviews. It reveals commitment and integrity issues.
Prosecuting adultery. Now there's a "limited, non-intrusive government" plan if I ever heard one...
Don't be so surprised, Toasty. You well know that "limited, non-intrusive government" applies everywhere EXCEPT the bedroom. Conservatives are so obsessed with the sex lives of others, it is scary.
You'd think they were the Catholic Church.
Not really suprised. Who wants to be the poster child for gay rights in the millitary? If I was gay, I wouldn't want the drama.
Another article about nothing. Why don't people just keep their private lives private like we used to do. Why does everything in life now have to be reduced to the idiocy of twitter and youtube?
Because straights have never kept their private lives private. Why should gays have to live by a standard straights are unwilling to hold to?
Brian, people like Jeff just don't comprehend that they're constantly announcing their sexuality because those actions are so culturally ingrained.
Don't want to know, don't need to know. Keep it to yourself. The military doesn't need unnecessary distractions. I'd like to retrieve my bar of soap in peace. Thank you.
Just like you are not attracted to every woman, gays are not attracted to every member of their same sex.
Most people are just not attractive enough to warrant their fantasies about being wanted by homosexuals.
BOOM!
zaj Morphine Carnival banned, rereg of multiple accounter Morphine Carnival/l/.
As a Veteran, I have no problem with gay men or lesbian women serving their country openly. In fact when I served I had a gay man in my unit and I count myself lucky to have been his friend and served with him. I did have to use my position as a Senior Petty Officer to protect him on more than one occasion and was even threatened myself for doing so. I was glad to protect him as he was hands down the best sailor on the boat. He never actually admitted to being gay so I was not forced to report him.
Having said the above, I wonder if the rush to protect gay rights is actually infringing on the rights of straight soldiers. Men and Women are housed in separate barracks mainly because they are attracted sexually to each other. Are gay and lesbian soldiers being housed in separate barracks? If not then why? Gay men are sexually attracted to men and Lesbian women are sexually attracted to women. Straight men and women need to be housed in separarate barracks from their gay and lesbian counterparts for the same reason that men and women are housed separtately. Most of the problems I was forced to deal with over my gay friend involved this housing and showering situation. To tell those straight soldiers that they will just have to deal with it or to get over it violates their rights. It may be politically correct to do so, but it isn't right.
As you know, gay people and straight people don't have sex with each other. Therefore, housing a gay person and a straight person of the same sex in the same room is of no concern. Just as we told the white people that they needed to deal with it when we integrated the military with regard to race, just as we tell Christians that they need to deal with it since there will be non-Christians in the ranks, there is no "violation of rights" in telling straights that they just need to deal with it.
It is the height of hypocrisy to demand special treatment for straights while whining that their rights are being violated. Straight people have served with gay people in the military forever. You yourself know that. Therefore, coddling the precious sensitivities of homophobes is not acceptable. Please, let us not pretend that refusal to accept bigotry is somehow bigotry itself. It is a blow to Unit cohesion if you cannot get along with your fellow Servicemember. Thus, those who cannot handle being around gay people are unfit for service.
I have seen unit cohesion threatened in the real world by housing gays and straights together. To equate this issue to race segregation is too cloud the subject. While you say gays are not attracted to straights, I'm not sure I agree. Gay men are attracted to other men. This is a fact. Same goes for women. Why is it homophobic to protect the rights of non-gay people. If what you are saying is correct then should we not integrate the military completely and house gay men, lesbian women, straight men and straight women all together instead of in separate barracks. I personally don't have any problems with people being gay. Do what you want for all I care. I also live in the real world and know lots of men who do have problems with gay men. This will be a problem that will not go away and we should deal with it now rather than later. Housing them separately would remove a large part of the problems that I dealt with in the service.
The separation of sexes in barracks has nothing to do with sexual attraction, but with privacy. What does it matter to you if a gay man sees you naked or a straight man sees you naked? You've all got the same equipment.
But what you saw was a problem with the straight people being unable to keep their minds out of their fellow Servicemember's pants. What you saw was straight people getting upset over something that wasn't happening. The cohesion was threatened because the straight people couldn't control themselves. You're adding to it with every sentence you speak: Being attracted to somebody has no bearing on whether or not you'll have sex with them. The reason why we separate men and women is because men and women are usually straight and thus, you will find that they will have sex with each other. But while a gay person may find a straight person attractive, they'll never have sex because the straight person doesn't want to.
Have you ever been in a locker room? Congratulations: You just changed clothes in front of a gay person. Oh, you probably don't know who it was, but you were seen in the nude by someone who finds your genitalia to be appealing. As a straight person, you grew up separated from the women and thus have a hard time envisioning being around a nude woman without thinking about sex. But gay people don't have that experience. Gay men grow up integrated with the other men and thus have no trouble being around another nude man without any problem. Why? Because most people are straight and thus, gay people know that nothing's ever going to come of it.
Are you suggesting gay people are going to rape straight people?
Clearly, you do have problems with people being gay. Oh, I'm not suggesting you lie in wait outside gay bars to assault the patrons, but let's not pretend that physical violence is the sole criterion by which we determine if someone has a problem. And you're right: This problem isn't going to go away and we need to deal with it now rather than later.
Those straight people who are so unprofessional as to be unable to function around another gay person because they cannot stop obsessing over sexual activity that isn't happening will be invited to retire. You don't punish the person who is doing everything right. You get rid of the person who has the problem.
I'm curious though. Say someone is attracted to you, whats the issue?
I think it is a little unfair to blame all the "sexual activity thinking" simple on the straight people. First off, let me say that I am not a homophobe, and have several friends who are gay or lesbian. I have even been to a lesbian bar with one of my best friends for her birthday. That being said, my husband had a roommate who was gay right after don't ask, don't tell was repealed. My husband did not ask for a room change at first, did not criticize his roommate for being gay, even though we are extremely religious. Not once did my husband try to force religion on him, tell him he was going to hell, or basically say or do anything that would make his roommate feel uncomfortable. The same could not be said for his roommate. He began to say and do little things to purposefully remind my husband that he was gay. On one occasion, while I was visiting the man even told me that my husband had such a tight, little ***. I was appalled. The man would make comments on the size of my husbands "package", ask him if he wanted to shower with him, etc. He would watch gay porn very loudly on Sundays, refusing to use headphones, forcing my husband to seek refuge elsewhere. Finally, my husband asked to be moved to a different room. While my husband had been quite respectful to his roommate, his roommate was not respectful back.
While I understand that this is not the case with all gay/lesbian people, it seems like some of them go overboard with the whole I am a different sexual orientation than you soapbox. I could probably compare it to some religious people who just can't give it a rest and be respectful of the person next to them who is of a different religion.
I've had random gay guys hit on me, as well as guys I knew were gay. In both cases I told them NO, I'm straight and not interested. So that should be the end of it, right? Instead I had some who would keep badgering me saying how do I know i don't like it unless I try it. The gays I know, say it in a teasing way just to get your reaction, all while acting like they are just joking. The ones who won't take no for an answer just tick me off and on a few occasions I had to resort to telling them they are going to get beat down if they don't leave me alone. No it doesn't happen often, but often enough where you get tired of it and wish harm on them.
I don't have anything against gays, but I don't want to see them gaying on each other in public, or approaching me. I would not be comfortable sleeping in the same room with a gay guy. I have friends who are gay and we hang out, but if one of them asked to share a hotel room with me I would say no. I have zero issue with their lifestyle, I just don't want it in the room with me when I'm sleeping.
@Brian P. Evans
I wondered when someone would get around to saying I have a problem with gay people. I do not. This seems to be the standard when someone dares question anything to do with gay people. Call them a homophobe and ridicule them. I have brought up a serious issue that I believe needs to be addressed. This does not mean I dislike gay or lesbian people. I know for a fact that gay men rape other straight men as this happened once at one of my duty stations. A rapist is a rapist whether it be a male or female, straight or gay. How many women would feel comfortable taking a shower with a guy watching. Sure she might be attractive to him but he wouldn't touch her because he knew he would get into trouble. Right. Most women I know would never think of doing such a thing. Why should our straight soldiers be forced to do so. They shouldn't and should not have to submit themselves to a humiliating experience just to be politically correct. Solve the problem proactively, build separate housing and showering facilities and eliminate the problem. Then no soldier would have to leave the military because he or she could not stand having their private parts being investigated by another soldier.
Gee .. this sounds like a night out for some of my (straight) female friends, having to fend off guys that don't interest them, but won't take no for an answer.
You're not describing gays. You're describing losers of every sexual orientation.
So someone liked you even after you rejected them. Explain the world crisis....
@ready2change: And exactly how is that a "gay" thing? Are you saying straight people are always the perfect roommate? No straight person has ever made comments about somebody else's body? To their spouse? No straight person has ever watched porn in front of someone else who didn't want to view it?
Rather than palming it off as someone being a jerk, you're making an issue of it specifically because of the sexual orientation of the person doing it. When was the last time you called someone "too straight" because of their boorish sexual behaviour?
You haven't?
Then you have a problem with gay people. Again, it isn't like I'm saying you're being physically violent with them, but let's not pretend that the standard for homophobia is sending someone to the hospital.
@Benjamin Franklin-3758745: Ah, so you are going to pretend that gay people are rapists. Yeah, let's pretend the fact that there are men who have raped other men (and by the way, it's usually the straight one raping the gay one) is some sort of common action. Isn't it interesting that despite the fact that we don't house men and women together, women are still raped on base. Surely you're not going to claim that housing straight and gay people together is going to increase rape, are you?
The reason you are being called a homophobe and ridiculed is precisely because you are questioning the integrity of people based on absolutely nothing. You're the one who is raising the question, therefore you are the one who needs to defend his position. Exactly what do you think the threat is?
The irrational reaction you are having to something that is innocuous is the classic definition of phobia. And since this irrational reaction is over homosexuality, you have textbook homophobia. Your example of showering is the perfect example and shows you didn't actually read my response: The reason women and men are segregated is because they are straight and thus will have sex with each other. And this idea that the man isn't going to do it because he's going to get into trouble is a laugh. He'll do it anyway. Remember, women get raped on base. In Iraq, a woman was more likely to be raped by her fellow Servicemembers than to be killed.
But the reason a gay man doesn't initiate with a straight man is completely different: There is no interest there. When a man goes after a woman, part of him is thinking she'll respond. He may have to "convince" her, but he thinks there's a shot. And that's because there is. She's straight, too, and thus there is a non-zero chance that she'll be amenable.
But with straight and gay people, that's never going to happen. Gay people have grown up around straight people and thus understand that there is no chance of having the offer taken up. And you know this because you've already been undressing and showering with gay people. Anybody who's been in a locker room has done it. You said you were in the military so you know you've done it. You don't know who those gay people are and that's precisely the point: Gay people don't sleep with straight people. A straight man will hit on a straight woman because there is the possibility she'll say yes. But a gay person won't hit on a straight person because there isn't any chance of it happening.
You keep on harping about this "humiliation." What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that you were absolutely and completely humiliated when you were in the military every single time you went into the showers? The locker room at your gym reduces you to tears? Because, after all, unless you are going in there alone, there's going to be a gay person in the crowd. So if you didn't get reduced to tears then, why on earth would you be now? The gay people aren't doing anything differently, so why are you so upset? Exactly what are you afraid of?
Separate housing and shower facilities for every single individual? Everybody gets a single with a private bath? Are you nuts? Do you realize how much that would cost and how inefficient it would be? Oh, no, of course not...you were saying that you want to house the gay people separately, but that makes no sense, either. There isn't a problem except that you're having a panic attack over something that isn't happening except inside your head. You've already been living with the gay people since day one and never had a problem until you couldn't destroy their careers. Now suddenly you've become a terrorized child.
The problem isn't the gays. It's you. You are unfit for service since you can't keep your mind out of your buddy's pants.
Exactly as it should be. It is no ones business. I don't care if you are gay just don't wave it in my face. I don't go around declaring that I am straight so don't go around declaring you are gay. Keep it private.
Most of the people who were dismissed for being gay did not sing to the barracks about their sexuality. Many were dismissed because someone reported a suspicion of gayness. The majority keeps it very private.
Most straight people do go around declaring that they are straight. Just because you don't say to people, "hey, I'm heterosexual!" does not mean that you are not telling people in some way. You never spoke about a girlfriend? Ever? A simple "my girl" immediately announces that you are heterosexual. No pictures either? No talk about long-term relationship goals?
Most people talk about their sexual exploits to some degree.
But honestly, none of your posts displays deep, rational, thought; it's just so easy to dispute you. Just an observation, not an attack. You really should be better than that.
For someone who claims that they don't go around declaring that their straight, one has to wonder why you just did. And I bet you didn't even notice it.
That's the point: You do declare that you're straight and you do it in myriad ways you never even considered. The only time you notice it is when the person doing the exact same thing you are happens to be gay.
I think you are reading too much into economykillers post. He/she is saying that they don't care if you are gay. They don't have the desire to know your sexual orientation. Just like they may not care if you like peas and carrots. Stop making something out of nothing.
You're not getting it. Very few "come out" like you, economykiller, and many other suggest. You are the ones making something out of nothing.
Homosexuals are not insane aliens: they act just like you do. Just like you don't scream that you are straight, they don't scream that they are gay.
It's being pointed out because people like you don't realize how you make your own sexuality known. It is these same methods that are the main way of people knowing that someone is gay. The people who burst out of the closet and scream "guess what? I'm GAY!" are the vast minority, over-represented on TV and other media just like the "flamboyant queen" gay man.
You meet far more gay people than you think because they act just like anyone else. Do you feel that they are flaunting their sexuality by being in pubic with their spouse and being just as affectionate as the next heterosexual couple?
It is not "making something out of nothing" as you suggest. It is about being aware of one's own actions.
Thanks for reading WAAAAYYYY more into my post than I intended. This is exactly the mindset and the attitude that I am talking about. When I say "I don't care" that is exactly what I mean. I don't care if you are gay or straight or bi or TG. If I ask you then I want to know. Don't read in some subliminal message that is not there.
When I meet a person I do just that, I meet that person. I don't judge them or wonder what their sexual orientation is or their political affiliation is, or what church they attend, or if they prefer white wine or red. Unless it is relavent to the relationship I DON"T CARE. That is all. If I want to know I'll ask. Not everyone in the world thinks the same way as you do.
That's exactly my point though: people give off far more information than they intend to.
However, you probably have not seen what economykiller has written in the past, so you don't realize that you are inserting your personal beliefs as an interpretation of what he says. He is, essentially, a far-right wing talking points machine. He is not saying that this is a private matter, he is anti-gay.
You were the one reading into things.
Like I said, this is a non-issue since, even as the article states, gays do not shove their sexuality in anybody's face. Nobody advocates that anybody's sexuality be "shoved" in anybody's face. This repeal prevents dismissal if the word "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" slips, or for holding hands with their significant other.
The problem is that you're reading too much into Boom and my responses. The only person "making something out of nothing" is economykiller: He sees gay people doing the exact same thing that straight people do and he gets bent out of shape, whining about "flaunting." He can't see the countless he announces his sexuality to the world every single day. Because he is so oblivious to it, he cannot see it when it's between mixed-sex couples. The only time it enters his head is when it's a same-sex couple, at which point he mistakenly thinks he's paying attention because the couple somehow shoved it in his face.
Demanding your rights isn't "waving it in your face," either. If he truly wants this to go away, then he will fight to ensure that gay people never have to worry about people coming down on them for their sexuality.
Whining about how he has to acknowledge the existence of gay people isn't part of the solution. It's part of the problem.
OK, maybe you are right about his post. I haven't done the extensive research into his psyche that you seem to have done. When I stated' "I think" in my first post it was to be interpreted as "I am guessing based on the actual words written in his post". I apologize for getting your knickers in a twist over what I understood someone else was saying. His or her feelings on this subject may or may not be reflective of my own. Have a safe and joyous holiday season.
If you are going to "apologize," please do so without being condescending. Just for future reference.
Some people are never happy.
Yeah, how dare some people not be happy when I spit in their face? How dare someone not take "Wow, what a nice ass, lardy!" as a compliment!
Same thing with "I apologize for getting your knickers in a twist..."
You see, it's a class thing. I expect people to behave with a certain level of civility, but most people who were not raised by parents who were socially upper-middle class (or above) cannot understand this.
Why would someone want to reveal dysfunction?
You're assuming that it is actually a dysfunction. You and RoadWarrior would get along great.
I don't know, but you appear to do so often, so you must be getting something out of it.
Bigotry is a dysfunction, why aren't you ashamed of it yet? Seriously, what made you so proud of being so ignorant?
LR, you reveal your dysfunction with every post, yet you don't seem to mind at all.
I'm sure LR encourages left-handed people to hide their dysfunction from society as well.
I am coming out of the closet as I can no longer live a lie.
World: I am left-handed!
Quit shoving your deviant lifestyle in our faces, Boom.
I just can't help it! I'm outed every time I sign a receipt!
Can't you see the extraordinary burden this cruel society has imposed upon me? /cry
Other societies don't view left-handedness as immoral, and they can marry over there too!
I'm offended. I don't think I can post to the same thread as someone who is *gasp* left-handed! It goes against all of my moral upbringing.
Just so you know, you have been posting in the same threads as 'lefties' all along and didn't even notice!
Just so you know, there is no left-handed plot to turn 'righties' into 'lefties' to destroy the sanctity of scissors.
(I think I fooled them...the plan in all detailed in the handbook. The left-handbook!)
Yes, but we left-handed people are the only ones in our RIGHT minds!
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
I notice MSNBC has their double-standard up again:
Want to say, "@!$%#"? No, that's too horrible of a word...in fact, the posting software here won't even let me say it. I'll have to code it in: nigger.
But want to say, "fag"? Go right ahead. The posting software here doesn't have any problem with that.
Time to live up to your own standards, MSNBC: Either slurs are inappropriate or they aren't. If we can't denigrate people based upon race, then we don't get to denigrate people based on sexual orientation.
At any rate, you're missing the point: The story above talks about how "Fags" was written on the windshield. If the word written on it was a racial slur, they would not have said it but would have come up with some other way of describing it without using the word.
So why is it MSNBC thinks it's OK to report on denigrations of people based upon sexual orientation but get squeamish when it's based upon race?
In England, a "fag" is a cigarette.
You wouldn't imagine the look of horror of the bystanders when my British friend asked a (ironically) gay man (who was smoking) if he could "bum a fag" (if you don't get the slang, he was asking for a cigarette).
I updated him on the lingo quickly.
And if this were England and we were talking about cigarettes, you might have a point. But seeing as how we're not talking about cigarettes, or the hierarchical structure of British boarding schools, or bundles of sticks used for starting fires, I think we can understand that double standards regarding slurs based upon race compared to slurs based upon sexual orientation are inappropriate.
Either you get to say them all or you don't get to say any of them.
this is all beyond me..i think who u sleeping with unless you are married and even then, it's a private issue...cracks me up.
i agree i could care less. this is just more radical liberals pushing their agenda on the
rest of america who don't care what they do just don't wanna hear and see it!
keep it to yourselfs! no they have to flaunt it in public! i live in new orleans and
it's digusting the gay pride festival every year in the streets half naked some
totall naked doing nasty things in public! go to another city and stay inside!
Last time I went to New Orleans, there were topless women and straight men throwing beads at them. In other blaring hypocrisy, it is stupid to tell only one group of people that if they reveal their sexuality they get kicked out of their career. Perhaps you're saying it should be illegal for any straight or gay person to reveal their sexuality in the military or in public? No? Being a hypocrite? Yes?