News-Record.com

Bill, do you envision a leather riding crop as being standard issue to our new military recruits?

I have no problem with gays serving in the military as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else.

Take note DD, here is another example where I differ from the current Bush admin. policy, which actually is the Clinton admin. policy. Your theory that I blindly march lockstep with 100% of admin. policies is proven incorrect again.

"I have no problem with gays serving in the military as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else."

Agreed. It's a crying shame that this policy has hampered our sigint work abroad.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

Dan,
Glad you realize how rare it is for you to shake off your goose step with the President. It is also comforting to know that it is on one of those issues that should NOT be an issue. Follow Denzien's link for the sad state of affairs caused by the radicals within the Bush administration---it will truly be an eye opener for you.

Denz,
Great link but just another faux pas by the right.

"It is past time for those churches to update their theology."

Why? So they can agree with you?

Although, I'm sure it isn't true for all, I'm betting if the military decided to look the other way and allow these protestors to enlist, they would have pooped their pants. I'm sure that some seriously would like to join the military but there were a few that I'm convinced would not join if given the chance. They just wanted to make a scene.

I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was about the most spineless piece of crap instructions ever given. Just another example of sorry politicians to afraid to take a stand in any direction. Either say gays are out or say they are in. Spare us this Don't Ask, Don't Tell crap.

Nit,
You are right. We are past the "Don't ask, don't tell" stage. Bush should just make it legal for openly Gay people to be in the military. And it goes without saying they will be held to the same rules of conduct for all soldiers. Something that dovetails with this discussion was on PBS last night in "Eyes on the Prize". When school integration was ordered, it was to be done gradually. We've seen the "gradual" part of "officially" having homosexuals in the military. Now it's time to make that the law of the land. The homophobes of the world will have to adjust, but so did the bigots of the old South. Life goes on.

DD,

I agree that a decision needs to be made one way or the other. I think one thing that might need to be considered is the potential effect on recruiting new military personnel. Would allowing openly gay people to serve in the military significantly harm recruitment by making the 'homophobes' not want to enlist or would it increase recruitment because the increase in openly gay recruits would make up the difference? I don't have the answer but I think that it would be important to look at that information as part of making a decision one way or the other.

Of course, there are the other ethical/moral questions of goverment acts legitimizing homosexual relationships. Those, of course, are matters of personal belief and everyone has a right to their opinion.

Nit,
Well put.

This one gives me trouble as well, Dan.

While I cannot bring myself to condone homosexuality, probably because I cannot understand it, I do not hate homosexuals. I believe that sexual orientation should not be a determining factor in a job description. In short, I would agree with your statement about gays serving in the military as long as conduct rules are adhered to.

That being said, maybe a little background is in order.

I served in the U.S. Navy aborad ship. Since I am an old fogey, this was in a time when females were allowed to serve aboard only hospital ships. When the Navy decided to allow women to serve aboard any ship, I was amazed. The personal dynamics of shipboard life are complicated enough without throwing raging hormones into the mix. I'm not just taliing about unplanned pregnancies, of which there were far too many. I'm talking about the relationships of the people aboard the ship. I thought about how the jealousies, real and imagined, would complicate things. I thought about pulling a "Red Devil Blower" (a device for clearing a space of smoke) up a ladder, and how it took 2 strong young men to do it. I thought about how most of the men in the service are brought up to be gentlemen, and how that might effect the attitudes of a woman "pulling her own weight."

As it turned out, most of the things i thought about ended up being problems. Overcoming those problems have been no big deal in some cases, very big deals in others.

I don't have the answer to gays in the military, but I think it should happen. And I believe that any problems that come up because of it will be dealt with, hopefully with no detrimental effect on our fighting ability.

I feel differenly about gay marraige. I believe that that is a money grab, and society as a whole should not be forced to fund it through social security benefits. If a private company wants to offer benefits to same-sex partners of their employees, that is not my business. When my government does it, it is my business, and I'm against it.

I forgot one important thing......

The statement that "It is past time for those churches to update their theology." is ridiculous. If you don't agree with the theology of a particular church, don't go. Reminds me of the people who move into a house near the airport, then want the noise stopped.

Nic, first of all thank you for your service. I don't dislike gays, in fact I have a good friend and a nephew who are gay. My only stipulation is adhering to the code of conduct and even DD agrees, and that is rare. I would not want to be in my bunk trying to sleep while two people are having sex, hetero or homo. I remember my college roommate pulling that stunt one night with his girlfriend!!

DD, I didn't agree with this policy when Clinton signed it and still don't agree with it under Bush. You try very hard to paint anyone who agrees with a president as walking around with their nose in the president's tail. Granted there are some like that on both sides, but I choose to support what I think is right and will call it wrong when I see it as well. Just happens I tend to agree more with conservative policies than liberal, but not 100% of the time.

So you can add gays in the military to the other issues in which I disagree with the Bush admin. along with illegal immigration, excessive govt. spending and waste (both parties heavily involved in this, and flag burning.

Gotta agree with you on the church thing Nic, it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. The LTE author raised some good points until the last sentence.

Wow, I find it unusual to find this much unity in an LTTE topic!

I agree with the LTTE writer and most of the comments of those who hae posted.

One sentence used several times troubles me though; "I have no problem with gays serving in the military as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else." What reason is there to believe that heterosexuals adhere to teh personal conduct rules? There have been far too many instances of where that has not happened. Anyone care to remember the problems at the US Air Force Academy? Tailhook? Need I continue listing?

I think it shows some prejudices when a sentence such as the aforementioned. Homosexual people are sexual just like heterosexual. Each person has some degree of sexual urges. Some are just more rampant than others. However, there is NO information to suggest that homosexual people are just about sex. To even suggest such using the sentence, "I have no problem with gays serving in the military as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else.," is ludicrious.

Please remember, that just because someone has a differing sexual identity than that of your own self does not mean that the other person is a sexual deviant.

Dan, sorry to put you on the spot, however it is noted that you have a gay nephew; do you feel that this nephew is only about sexual encounters with other men? Or, is he a human being who was "wired" from birth with the inate desire for same-gender intimacy just a much smaller piece of the larger identity of person he is?

Shalom

Darryl,

I used the example of being in the military in my bunk while two people nearby are having sex. I don't want it whether they are homo or heterosexual. That happened in my dorm room with my roommate and a female and I didn't care for it.

That being said, most military members are men and they share small quarters together correct? Since that is the case, it could lead to easier circumstances for two men to engage in sexual behavior when they shouldn't.

For example, my first two years of college I lived in an all male dorm. There was a person at the front door who monitored who could enter and women were not allowed in after 9 pm. My junior year I lived in a coed dorm at UNC-CH and anyone could come in and out 24/7. Trust me my friend, there was much more sexual activity at the coed dorm. It's human nature to take advantage of opportunity.

I'm not a military expert, but I assume women and men in the military live in separate quarters. This logically would make it more difficult to engage in inappropriate sexual activities. When you have men together in the same quarters it obviously would make it easier for two males to engage in inappropriate sexual activities.

Just because some heteros don't abide by personal conduct rules doesn't mean green light for homosexuals to do so either. Everyone should abide by the same rules and be punished if they don't.

Now for your next question Darryl, I don't believe my nephew is only about sexual encounters, did I ever say that?

I do remember from my late teens and early twenties the strong sexual urges of that age in life. Most military enlisted are of that age group, so there is that urge Darryl, it's undeniable.

For your last question, I have no idea why some people are homosexual and others hetero. My nephew is an only child and I do have a first cousin who is a lesbian. They are the only two I know of in my family, which is rather large. I don't think homosexuality is hereditary and I don't know if one is "wired" that way, could be.

My good buddy who is gay says he has always been naturally attracted to males and the thought of sleeping with a female disgusts him. I have learned alot from him, especially the myth that gays will try to hit on heterosexuals. He has never done that to anyone and I have never had a homosexual hit on me.

Good conversation Darryl, I hope I answered your question.

Repeat, I just think everyone in the military should follow the rules and don't intend that homosexuals are more apt to break the rules than heterosexuals, they just have more opportunity to do so in sharing quarters together just like the coed dorm situation I lived in.

Darryl, Thank you for your statement, I can make mine briefer. "...as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else..."

What makes you all think that homosexuals are in constant states of estrus or testosterone toxicity/overload. As mentioned above, look at the heterosexual (rape) abuses in our sacred military academies, what about all the date rapes, and so forth which are non-gay abuses. Have any of you ever worked with a person(s) who is lesbian or gay. Their tongues are'nt hanging down to the floor, pants wide open or bras about to burst. The problem is in the mind of the beholder. Homosexuals work freely, appropritely, professionally, and openly in the market place. No gang bangs--- "So long as they adhere to the same code of personal conduct"---I'm still trying to figure that one out. Yes, I have gay friends, have gone to conventions with a wide variety of people and never once was my integrity or personal space ever invaded or threatened. I guess they read their book on "appropriate gay conduct when in the presence of homophobes" when I was'nt watching.

Darryl, Thank you for your statement, I can make mine briefer. "...as long as they adhere to the same personal conduct rules as everyone else..."

What makes you all think that homosexuals are in constant states of estrus or testosterone toxicity/overload. As mentioned above, look at the heterosexual (rape) abuses in our sacred military academies, what about all the date rapes, and so forth which are non-gay abuses. Have any of you ever worked with a person(s) who is lesbian or gay. Their tongues are'nt hanging down to the floor, pants wide open or bras about to burst. The problem is in the mind of the beholder. Homosexuals work freely, appropritely, professionally, and openly in the market place. No gang bangs--- "So long as they adhere to the same code of personal conduct"---I'm still trying to figure that one out. Yes, I have gay friends, have gone to conventions with a wide variety of people and never once was my integrity or personal space ever invaded or threatened. I guess they read their book on "appropriate gay conduct when in the presence of homophobes" when I was'nt watching.

Somewhat on topic, somewhat off topic, but I see where Congressman Foley is now saying he is Gay and is NOT a pedophile. Interesting how he led the fight to waste our time and tax dollars over impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair. Also interesting why the GOP leadership chose to keep the news of Foley within a political campaign committee instead of a bi-partisan ethics committee. My problem is that the Speaker seemed to put political expediency above perverted sexual advances to minors! God help us.

Joejoe, since your post appeared one minute after mine, perhaps you didn't get to read it. Here is the summary of it:

"Repeat, I just think everyone in the military should follow the rules and don't intend that homosexuals are more apt to break the rules than heterosexuals, they just have more opportunity to do so in sharing quarters together just like the coed dorm situation I lived in."

No one ever said or insinuated that gays are raging sex machines in constant states of overload. It's amazing how you guys take a simple statment about abiding by the same conduct rules as heterosexuals if homosexuals are admitted into the military, twist and contort it, and read in all kinds of innuendos.

It's really a very simple concept.

Dan, I appreciate the thoughtfulness in the response/s.

As long as people follow the rules, there should be no problems.

However, I find a minor flaw in the premise presented. It was stated:

"I used the example of being in the military in my bunk while two people nearby are having sex. I don't want it whether they are homo or heterosexual. That happened in my dorm room with my roommate and a female and I didn't care for it.

That being said, most military members are men and they share small quarters together correct? Since that is the case, it could lead to easier circumstances for two men to engage in sexual behavior when they shouldn't.

For example, my first two years of college I lived in an all male dorm. .......

I do remember from my late teens and early twenties the strong sexual urges of that age in life. Most military enlisted are of that age group, so there is that urge Darryl, it's undeniable."

So Dan, was there a lot of sexual intimacy between the guys in your all male dorm your first two years in college? Remember, these are young men who are 18-20 years old.

Thanks for taking the time to give insight.

Shalom

Darryl, I have no idea. That was back in '82-'83 at UNC-G. Now I remember UNC-G being nicknamed UNC Gay, but in my dorm I don't remember any guys who said they were gay. At that time being gay was not something people openly discussed. Probably the same at UNC-CH.

I just remember hanging out with guys who liked women, I was one too. If there was male-male intimacy in the dorm I wasn't aware of it.

Okay. Let me take a stab at this cause I somewhat disagree with the statement that "there is NO information to suggest that homosexual people are all about sex".

Now, if we're just talking in terms of homosexual/heterosexual, then I see your point.

But I think the main concern here is homosexual MEN. There has been plenty of evidence to suggest that MEN (regardless of sexual orientation) have much higher sexual urges than WOMEN. I think the latest I heard was that men think about sex every 52 seconds.

You put two MEN together in a bunk who are attracted to one another and I think there IS a higher chance that something would happen than a man and a woman in military service who don't bunk together.

From a purely personal point of view from my homosexual friends, there is one thing that I've noticed in almost all of my homosexual friend's relationships. (both gay and lesbian). And that is DRAMA. DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA. All the time. Non-stop. Super jealously and insecurity abound. I have a few gay friends who are in more mature relationships and that's not the case. But that, I've found, is the exception.

I think there are some very valid concerns logistically with openly gay people being involved in the military. Now, you might say that people should be able to rise above their sexual urgings, their 'homophobia', etc and be professional. But, we're also talking human nature, and there are specific issues involved with openly gay soldiers that women in the military do not face. They need to be addressed and not just buried out of fear of discussing them.

The problem with the PC line of thought is that anyone who voices an opinion is subject to being demonized by those who don't agree with that opinion. What that does is hamper open and honest discussion. The homophobe or the racist doesn't automatically stop feeling the way he does about things. He just stops talking about it and then everyone walks around with pent-up resentment and nobody talks about anything anymore.

I guess I should follow this up with my opinion that I don't support personal attacks on any person due to their race, sexual orientation or any other prejudice.

From a personal perspective, I know all too well the pain and anger that result from being the victim of racist remarks and mistreatment.

In the 90's, I dated a black woman for several years. I even proposed to her but she was smart enough to turn me down.

During our time together, whether we went to the movies, out to eat, or just for a stroll through the mall, I can't even begin to recount the hateful glares, derogatory remarks, and other encounters we had with people who didn't approve of our inter-racial relationship.

The worst experiences we encountered were black males who would actually approach my girlfriend (with me standing right there) and say that they had what she 'really needed' and that she needed to drop 'the white guy' and be with them.

Most of the time, we didn't even dignify their comments with a response, and we would simply walk away.

However, there were times when there was nothing I would rather do than punch these folks in the face for the hurt they caused her.

Though no violence occurred, it still had a way of ruining a good date.

Prejudice hurts, and when people say things that are mean and directed at us personally, it just sucks.

I still believe that an open dialogue about our feelings, whether founded or not, is a good thing. However, I think it's best when we find the humor in each other's differences and not personally attack one another.

Gotta love FOXNews, Dan's exclusive outlet for infortainment. They kept showing Congressman Foley and listing him as a Democrat from Florida during the O'Reilly show! That's so typical but those who drank the KoolAde will never admit to it.

nitpicker, open dialogue is always good; regardless of the topic.

However, what needs to be realized is that not every homosexual male desires sexual intimacy with every male that is seen! Were that true, then the following would be as well; every heterosexual male desires sexual intimacy with every female that is seen. Is the lunicy of those thoughts seen now?

nitpicker, I too can relate to prejudiced bigoted statements. Just this past weekend personal information regarding me was posted to the internet with malice, slander, and defamation of character. That is still happening. Yet, the ones who make the vicious and attacking statements do not care to enter into open dialogue. Far too often, those people are the ones who are fearful of "losing face" in such an event. That would be too much of a personal catatrosphe. So, rather than letting that happen to their own self; these people would rather cause a catatrosphe for another.

Shalom

Gotta love DD, ignore the subject of the LTE, change subjects, and launch any bombs that serve his own interests. If FNC is infotainment, then why does an ivory tower intellectual such as yourself watch it? Just to see what Joe six pack in his double wide is watching?

I am truly convinced MrP made a grave mistake in assuming you are a WFU debate coach. Anyone who employs such juvenile tit for tat unrelated arguments would never be capable of landing a debate coach job for the local sewercleaners meeting much less a prestigious university.

nitpicker---your reference to "generic" gays as being characterized by DRAMA,DRAMA etc. What night clubs do you go to? I've seen alot of everyone and regarding Gays--"Drama" is certainly not a generalization I can agree with. That sounds like someone's issue !!

Dan, I heard you and I stand by my comments. When you say that if two gay men in the same room and choose to be intimate---well that's breaking the rules. We all break rules!! But these two mythical gay men in a tight enclosure (their room) having sex, how would anyone ever know about it. No, I'm not twisting anything. Men and women on a ship, regardless of where they bunk, if they want to do "it", they will find a way. Are they going to broadcast it, I doubt it. Sorry Dan, I still hear alot of homophobia. To tell you the truth, if two gay men or two lesbian happened to be placed together in the same room, I frankly say "good for them". They are probably less likely to get drunk, be provocative and less likely to get into brawls because they are horney.

Dan, the inference here is that gays will have more sex or will be intimidating to alot of men; if that weren't the case, then why all the writing in this column? "If they have the opportunity--they will; yes, and so would heterosexuals---but I don't see that as being given the same emphasis as gay men having more or an opportunity--and they certainly will--so will Jack and Jill. Then you should be fighting to keep women off ships because.......

No, it's still there; and it's still threatening.

joejoe,

You may see some homophobic stuff in Dan's post. I don't. I do, however, think that gay men in the military would have significantly more sex than the average dude. Is it because they can't control themselves? No, not at all. It is because they would be in a "target rich environment." If an 18 year old boy got put into an all girl's dorm, he would be a lucky man indeed. No difference here. The military is predominately male. Heterosexual men have a difficult time finding dates on base or in the surrounding town as the male/female ratio is heavily skewed against them. Factor in that, giving the here today-gone tommorow lifestyle of servicemembers, this compounds the problem. Straight men in the military, don't get much (unpaid for) sex. It certainly isn't due to lack of desire, though. If gay men have more sex, it doesn't have anything to do with any difference in the sexual desires or controls of gay versus straight, but I think it has to do with opportunity.

That is what I believe and what I think was the crux of Dan's posts. If you see homophobia in this, then all I can say is that Torquemada would be proud.

On a different note, wanted to mention something that I find interesting. Many a year ago I came across a piece of research from some type of statistic study. The study was about how polls can be skewed simply by the phrasing of the question. The pollsters selected 2 groups of 100 blue collar type workers from the south and southwest. The demographic makeup of the 2 groups was identical. Anyway these were the questions posed to each group:

Group 1 was asked "Should gays be allowed to serve in the military along with straight people?" The answers were almost 100% no.

Group 2 was asked "Should gays be allowed to avoid military service because of being gay?" Again, the answers were almost entirely no.

So, when these folks were asked, they seemed to want to pick the option that was most restrictive for gays. They didn't seem to want them to be ALLOWED to serve, but they also didn't want them to be ALLOWED to avoid service (when good ol' red blooded boys gots ta fight and die fer America).

Yet another reason to question all those who are so fond of citing polls, surveys and statistics to back themselves up.

Anyway, my view is that sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor in military service.

Thank you swanks, I woke up at 4:00 this morning to get to a client's location, worked all day and who knows why my computer is still on. I'm going to sleep (alone as I'm out of town and away from my wife) very soon.

You saved me alot of work. joejoe seems to think I'm a homophobe (normal for anyone who even questions anything that has anything to do about homosexuality) even despite the fact that I think gays should be able to serve in the military.

As I've said numerous times in this thread, all I believe is that all military members should abide by rules of appropriate conduct, no matter who they are. Damn if that concept isn't simple, but it sure is distorted in numerous ways. Good night.

ok Dan, I'll tell all the gays to behave themselves because swanks thinks that just because they might be in a target rich environment, they can't control themselves. Now are you both prepared to say that if the heterosexual environment was target rich, then they (the heterosexuals) couldn't control themselves either? You can't have it both ways. Gays go for it and hetero's don't (at least not as much)?? Your answer better be yes or else i go back to my homophobic interpretation. I live and work in a target rich heterosexual environment and I don't see tongues hanging down etc. The birth rate hasn't spiked.

Someone earlier suggested that if the gay protestors had been admitted into the military that they would have "pooped in their pants (or something of that nature)--I'm sure that that phrase was not cynical or prejudicial--or maybe it was just a mild sort of bashing---I guess everyone knows that gays are gutless and full of Drama and if given the opportunity would just go for it. Come Guys--lt's get honest--that's pretty simple and straight forward.

Good night John Boy !!
Good night Dan !!
Good night...........(?)

joejoe,

Now you are intentionally missing and misrepresenting the points that have been made. That is dishonest and not not conducive for dialog on this or any issue.

Despite it being stated very clearly that there is no difference between desires, ability to control themselves, and in fact controling themselves, you continue to revert back to a strawman that you set up in the first place. No one but you mentioned any nonsense about anyone not being able to control themselves.

When you are able to have a rational, honest and two sided conversation on this issue, I would be happy to endulge you. Until then, continue on your path of ascribing false and non-present arguments to those with whom you have already identified as being wrong, and keep chasing those windmills.

I second Swanks opinion on that one. If we're going to have an open discussion, it isn't helpful to have someone running around misinterpreting and demonizing people's thoughts.

Darryl,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you and do not believe that homosexuals are all just whores looking to screw anything they see. How's that for open and honest language? :) I personally know several gay men who have been in committed relationships with their partners for many, many years.

I think joejoe misinterpreted comments to suggest that people were saying that all gay guys were horn dogs and straight people were saints. I hope my comments were not misinterpreted that way. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, we are all individuals. It's all too believable that two gay guys (or as joejoe said, a straight girl and straight guy) could actually fall for one another. And it would be very tempting if you bunked in the same area to try to 'get it on' if you had the chance. It's just human nature. Not gay nature, not straight nature, but human nature. Heck, a lot of the guys in Iraq masturbate at night to relieve the pressure, both physical and emotional, and loneliness. Some more open and honest language there.

BEYOND SEX, I think there are other factors to consider. How would it affect your ability to do your job if the person you were in love with was engaged in intense fighting right beside you? How would it affect the unity of troops to each other if some were engaged in relationships. Would the relationship come before the unit.

I think there is still some separation of women and men in the military but the same separation doesn't exist between a man and a man.

As far as my DRAMA comment, I stick by it. Ever heard the term DRAMA QUEEN? I hear it ALL THE TIME. As I stated, those were my observations and I have seen several exceptions, but those are still my observations. I will admit that it is mostly younger gay guys that I know and the exceptions are generally the older guys. I think it is partly a matter of maturity and partly a matter of gay culture and generational culture. Joejoe's observations may have been different but to say he doesn't 'agree' with my generalizations doesn't mean squat to me. Perhaps he meant his observations don't agree with my observations? I can live with that.

"I guess everyone knows that gays are gutless and full of Drama and if given the opportunity would just go for it".

I think of all the comments here, yours is the only one that grouped all gays together in such an insulting way.

As far as the 'pooped in their pants' comment, that was not directed at gay people. Read when the comment was made and you'll see no reference to gay people being wimps. It was just stating that these protestors (I'm not sure they were all gay) knew without a doubt that they would not be enlisted. So, more than anything, it was a publicity stunt and protest, not a genuine attempt to enlist in the military.