Marine's set up recruitment desk at LGBT center

Since YOU claim that 'Homosexuality is not genetic', that would mean, heterosexuality is also not genetic (using your logic that 'Homosexuality is not genetic').

So why does your choice allow you to server your country while mine does not?

Also, homosexuality is more than 'just how we like to get off”. If you are homosexual, that means you are only attracted to your sex, will only date or have a relationship with your own sex, and will only have sex with someone of the same sex. A little more too it than just getting off.

Tell ya what....tell your significant other that being heterosexual simply means getting off with the opposite sex. Let me know how long it takes before you get another piece..mmmmkay?

 

That's not your quarrel... nice try. You talk about homophobia, which (like racism) boils down to bigotry. At that point, genetics are irrelevant to the discussion... as you point to the presumed phobia of soldiers. Using race as an analogy is perfectly acceptable, for which you have yet to refute.

or just "better me".

 

Not really, AIDS is for life.

 

Pretty amazing I even have to dignify this with a responce:

Brief History of Gays in the Military

 

Skin color isn't a perversion. Homosexuality is.

Actually they're just beginning in earnest, thanks in no small part to people who "think" like you.

 

Nope, he's right and you're wrong. This is the same argument that was used about blacks and unit cohesion. While they might have fought for us, they were not put in the same barracks or given the access to MOS's or Career Paths.

So some things here:

1. Gays are going to know that they'll still be discriminated against. Just like the blacks of the 40's - 70's. They know there will be people gunning to get them kicked out and prove this was a bad decision. As a result, they are more likely to become model officers and enlisted personnel. The last thing they are going to do, is flaunt their sexuality.
2. Sexual harrassment is already a violation in the UCMJ. it will be no secret that the military will be 100 times more likely to prosecute a gay officer than a straight one for even a hint of this. This is a non-issue.
3. We lost several Arabic translators in Iraq and Afhgnistan because they were "outed" and when asked, they told the truth. We lost critical assets who respected by their fellow soldiers and we left our Force Recon Marines walking "blind" for weeks. None of that makes sense to me and it sure as hell didn't make our SOF Marines very happy.
4. This is a tremendous plus on the intelligence side for two reasons. First, one of the most common methods of asset conversion is to find a gay officer, set a honeytrap and blackmail them. We are now impervious to one of the oldest tricks in the book. Second, this will be a huge plus in the conversion of foreign assets. Our intel agencies took an ass-beating for several years. We just didn't seem that different than our enemies. This will definitely open the door to convert every gay officer / intel director of foreign countries (especially Muslim countries!) into one of our assets. As Sun Tzu said, One well placed spy is worth a thousand soldiers. This is a big victory for both our military and civilian intel.

 

Your choice did allow you to serve, you just couldn't ask about my choice or talk about yours. Pretty fair rule if you ask me... and there is a lot more to it than choice. I never said "choice". It's complicated. There just isn't a gay gene.

My wife agrees with me... with the noted exception of family, and continuing the species.

Pretty amazing that you have to source a claim? Maybe where you come from.

Does the date 1776 ring a bell?
You started at WWII.

 

Let me know when that opinion translates to "he can't shoot".

yeah, what I said before.

 

3 and 4 were rendered moot by DADT. I need a source on 3.
1 is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). They are showing up to dances together and (*)(*)(*)(*). Its all over the news.
2 is a strawman. Nobody suggested the problem would be sexual harassment.

You don't get to just tell me I am wrong... You have to prove it.

The primary force of bigotry against gays is biblical, the majority of service members are Judeo-Christian. The bible does not talk about black people in a negative way. There was also not the fears of blacks which exist in the mind which 2 alludes to.

It is a different animal... and the black homophobe in the service probably doesn't want you whoring his plight for an agenda.

 

Nothing's forcing them to act on their homophobia, or join for that matter.

Better chance of getting in a car accident, and losing blood (which could require blood transfusion). How long have you owned a vehicle?

 

And if I had a husband, then I couldn't any of afforded to heterosexual marriages for my spouse. Benefits such as housing and medical just to name a few. And if my company found out I was gay, I could get discharged.

That is fair?

Do you have a link to your claim that your wife agrees with you? If you want to ask for links about homosexuals dating back to 1776, then I can ask for silly links too

 

It isn't your quarrel... that is sort of the point.

I am not willing to call racism a phobia. I don't think it is was a "fear" of black people which prevented their integration... but a belief that they were not quite human yet... like, really smart monkeys. They felt they did not deserve the privileges of white humans.

That isn't at all the same thing as homophobia.

 

You're wrong. Really. Just totally wrong. You have lost ability to think objectively on this because of your childish fears and prejudices. It's okay. I understand. It's how you were raised or some experience you had as a teen-ager or whatever so you can't help it. But you're wrong.
Hey. Did I mention you're wrong?

 

No, and the first valid point you have brought up.

Ah... it was your claim that they served since 1776. I could absolutely prove everything about my wifes claims, but that would require divulging a lot of personal information, and outside of the realm of reason.

Substantiating a claim, that I am willing to substantiate for a different group, is not an unreasonable request if you are going to have the audacity to claim it as a counterpoint to my initial claim.

So, to recap, I can source my claim... can you?

 

You are naive, and evidently have reading comprehension problems.

I have no fears whatsoever about homosexuality. I have gay friends and family members. If my kids ended up being gay I would love them just as much as today.

I don't care what makes people happy... so long as it doesn't involve victims.

However, until a couple of posts ago, saw absolutely no benefit, and a huge detriment to people who were homophobic, who I do not demonize... because hey... their spaghetti monster tells them to... it's just kind of how they were raised.

Spouse benefits, etc, are huge, and have just blown a huge hole in my "absolutely no good can come of it" argument.

I am now just fending off personal attacks, and addressing other aspects brought about by the discussion. I am rethinking my position atm on the overall issue.

 

Perhaps, I wouldn't know since I've never required one. Long, long time, before radials and smog pumps existed in the states.

Bottom line, blood transfusions like car accidents are everyday life somewhere in the military. I wouldn't want blood given the option from a known homosexual and neither would you if you had an ounce of honesty in you.

 

Well I don't know if I insulted you personally but I did make assumptions about you, based on your post. So let me be crystal clear about this. That was wrong. I offer my sincere apology.
Let me also add one other thing: What you just wrote above shows more character than 99.9% of the people here. Most people here are mindless drones who simply parrot party mantra and never have an open mind about anything.
I can only commend you and express my admiration for having the strength to be different.

 

Asking for records on homosexuals in the military since 1776, is outside of the realm of reason.

Since homosexuality is as old as mankind, then not believing that homosexuals have served in every war this country is also outside of the realm of reason.

Next.

 

So you are just kind of assuming... and have absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim because you were assuming. That was all I was getting at. You are probably right... but you don't get to state assumptions as facts to refute actual facts. That just isn't how it works.

In other news...

I am switching sides. My conservative friends probably will not like that much.

This is my convoluted logic.

I believe the government has no place in marriage, but it does. I believe states should decide whether or not they allow gay marriage, but I believe all should allow civil unions. In either case, neither would be honored by the military, and in fact would be cause for dismissal, which flies in the face of what I liked about DADT. I dislike the disruption it will undoubtedly cause... however, at the end of the day, while the members of the military are fighting and dying to protect my ass, they are not there to protect my ass. As an American I just reap the benefit of their protection. They are there to protect their loved ones. If their loved one is their gay partner, I cannot begrudge them because others there might not like them, nor can I deny the one they are fighting and dying for the benefits afforded all military personnel's spouses and, though I am not a fan of it in general, their children. I cannot in good conscience.

They will just have to get over it.

 

Read the quote again, Ctrl.

Racism wasn't called a phobia... both racism and homophobia were likened to bigotry, which includes devoted intolerance and/or hostility toward race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

Homophobia (like racism) is linked to negative attitudes and contempt toward a particular group... as it was once assumed that negative attitudes (toward blacks) would sacrifice unit cohesion and disrupt the capability of mission-essential factions. The two instances are quite similar.

 

Presuming the prejudice is baseless, they are similar.

I mean... they get to be prejudiced against the enemy right? I mean... they get to be biased against the motives and actions of, say, the Taliban... right? A great number of Christians certainly feel justified in their lack of acceptance... I am not sure it is my place to say "ignore your bible and listen to me..."

I haven't had a lot of success in the past at least...

 

... unless there are loads of American homosexuals filling your local street with roadside bombs, I don't see your point. Being against a foreign enemy requires action by the group (in order to become an enemy). Being against a person because they're black/homosexual requires no action by the other person... just that they're of the circumstance that motivates feeling of contempt or intolerance. Nevertheless, the point is that we've seen apprehension before with regard to pushing intolerant folks into a new era of "get along or get out of the way". History says adults were able to get over it.

 

For the majority of the military, I don't think it'll be a problem to integrate homosexuals. It's the combat units I worry about. They're a different breed entirely...

 

This is true, I think combat units have a very different mentality...

However, those guys are all about the mission, at least the ones I've known...

I think they'll do just fine...

 

More like acceded to reality. DADT was a security risk, giving potential enemy agents blackmail material to use against gay service members (who might or might not have access to classified material). Gay people have always served in the military... but until now they've had to lie or keep quiet about it, which presents enemy agents with an opportunity for blackmail.