Thu Apr 28, 6:17 AM ET
USA Today

Chances are the Pentagon brass and members of Congress who defend the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military never watched MTV's Real World: New Orleans. But there's an excellent chance the MTV generation, which the military now plumbs for recruits, saw the hugely popular series.

The 2000 version of the group-home reality show featured a gay character, Danny. His boyfriend was an Army Ranger whose face was digitally obscured when he visited the home. News coverage at the time said the youthful audience considered Danny a highly sympathetic character. The program raised the question: Why should his boyfriend be forced to conceal his sexual orientation to save his military career?

That's an important question for the Pentagon and Congress, because the country pays a stiff price to enforce the 12-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Under the rules, recruits aren't questioned about their sexual orientation (don't ask) but are discharged if they engage in "homosexual conduct" or admit to being gay (don't tell).

Since 1993, about 10,000 servicemembers have been forced out. The cost to the Defense Department: $191 million to recruit and train replacements. Those replacements included more than 300 with critical language skills such as Arabic, concluded a Government Accountability Office study requested by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., who is trying to repeal the law. The policy is particularly irrational at a time when the Army and National Guard are struggling to meet their recruitment goals.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise between those wanting to repeal the ban on gays in effect before 1993 and military leaders who issued grim predictions that allowing gays would trigger plummeting recruitment and morale.

The Defense Department insists the policy must stay or recruitment will suffer among those who wouldn't want to serve with gays. But maybe the military isn't paying close attention to the MTV generation. The suggestion of sharing a foxhole with a gay soldier is less likely to make them cringe. In fact, many of the arguments cited a dozen years ago to justify the policy seem outdated:

•"The public won't stand for it." Eighty percent of the public now approves of gays in the military, up from 50% in 1993, according to Gallup polls. When a more specific question - Should gays be able to serve openly? - was asked in a 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll, two-thirds said yes. And that's the view of the general public. Young people generally hold more liberal attitudes.

• "Recruitment will plummet." Among junior enlisted personnel, half say gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, according to the Annenberg poll. Those are the soldiers many assume can't tolerate gays.

•"Morale will suffer." When Britain decided five years ago to allow gays to serve openly, military officers predicted that conflicts would break out between gay and non-gay cliques. But that hasn't happened.

Gays should be able to serve openly in the U.S. military, as well. If they engage in sexual harassment or misconduct, they should be punished - just as heterosexual soldiers are punished for harassment or misconduct. The current policy lacks common sense, which may explain why we had trouble finding a member of Congress willing to defend the law in the "opposing view" below.

The supply of soldiers didn't dry up when the British army dropped its gay ban. And there's no reason to believe America's MTV generation would act any differently if Congress junked this archaic law.

Originally posted by Echo2
Thu Apr 28, 6:17 AM ET
USA Today



•"The public won't stand for it."
• "Recruitment will plummet."
•"Morale will suffer." funny, all of these thing happened when that jackass sent them to a war that wasnt necessary !!! i guess "
ole bush" couldnt wait till the gays did this, so he PRE-EMPTED IT !!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......WHEW !

why does this country revolve around what homosexuals can and can not do?

Because there are things they aren't allowed to do. If they had the same freedoms as the rest of us you wouldn't be hearing them asking for those freedoms. DUH!

so when they get everything they ask for what will you do then?

at that point the pro pedohilia movement will begin. it will start small, but eventually we will be lead to believe they are really suffering the humiliation of having to hide who they are. then we will be told children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults, and we should get rid of age of consent laws. no slippery slope my ass.

Originally posted by Travh20
why does this country revolve around what homosexuals can and can not do?

Maybe it's because the vast majority of the electorate here are religionists [iow, superstitionists] who have a "perfect" Book by the sky fairy that tells them that homos are "evil" and deserve to be executed.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Maybe it's because the vast majority of the electorate here are religionists [iow, superstitionists] who have a "perfect" Book by the sky fairy that tells them that homos are "evil" and deserve to be executed.

why just the honosexuals? why not the pedohiles too? what do you have against them?

Anyone that lumps homosexuals and pedophiles together doesn't deserve to even be discussing this issue.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Maybe it's because the vast majority of the electorate here are religionists [iow, superstitionists] dont forget gay ! a lot of bush's guys in the white house are gay ! they were in his fathers camp. they are using this to show the weakminded that they are moral ! along with other spins, like, the democrats dont believe in OUR god !!! what a bunch of hypocrites .....to the core !

Originally posted by Travh20
why just the honosexuals? i heard of heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals..........but never, ever, have i heard of HONOSEXUALS ! LMAO AT TRAVH.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Maybe it's because the vast majority of the electorate here are religionists who have a "perfect" Book by the sky fairy that tells them that homos are "evil" and deserve to be executed.

[i]Originally posted by Travh20
why just the homosexuals? why not the pedohiles too?

You have a good point there.

It ISN'T just the homos.

The god of the Christians ALSO instructs his followers as to how foul, disgusting and unworthy several other groups of people are; including, but not limited to;

--people with physical deformities

--people whose testilces are misshapen

--people who do not make blood sacrifices correctly

--women who are menstruating

--people that are
brokenhanded or crookbacked

--dwarfs,

--people that have a blemish in
the eye, or scurvy,

Originally posted by Travh20
so when they get everything they ask for what will you do then?

at that point the pro pedohilia movement will begin. it will start small, but eventually we will be lead to believe they are really suffering the humiliation of having to hide who they are. then we will be told children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults, and we should get rid of age of consent laws. no slippery slope my ass. i think he has some kind of point echo. we're not talking about reasonable people here. there are some , who lump the 2 together, and those are the pedophile's lawyers, who will use that as a defense, and the religeous right, who will think that they are one in the same ! idiots, but still voting !

When they threw out the laws against inter-racial marraige, there were predictions of people marrying animals. When they passed the equal rights amendment there were predictions of men and women being forced to use the same restrooms. The list goes on and on.

Useing the defense that if we do this then all will go to hell ASSUMES that Americans are idiots. While I will admit that a great majority of them are idiots, I would bet money that pedophilia will never be legal because it involves children. And the one thing most Americans have in common is the protection of our young.

why just the honosexuals? why not the pedohiles too? what do you have against them?

Trav always seems to be pro-pedophile...why is that? Something you'd like to reveal to us?

I am not pro pedophile, it is just a sad fact of life that if you insist that gays have the same rights as non gays, then you by default must argue that pedophiles should be abel to get married too. saying that pedophilia is agaisnt the law is no argument at all as you have seemn the laws change for homosexual marriage. all it takes is one judge, as we have seen. once the precedent is set that any form of sexual deviation is reqwuired by law to get married, then its over. homosexuality is a sexual deviation like it or not. it is just one that has forcefully been madee "normal" by society

Originally posted by Travh20
why does this country revolve around what homosexuals can and can not do?
Because we are equal citizens, and we aren't allowed to do all of what you can do.

who wi be the next group to claim they are not equal? I am surious. do you really think it will end with the homosexuals?

Originally posted by Travh20
who wi be the next group to claim they are not equal? I am surious. do you really think it will end with the homosexuals?

It won't end until humans are no longer plagued by xenophobia. Should we stop striving for equal rights for all just because you think it will never end?

Gays have served in various military services almost since there have been military units. Those that coulnd't handle the discipline/lifesyle openly declared their homosexuality & got discharged. Those that chose to remain in the military typically got to fulfill that choice. The sorriest individual ever to occupy the Oval Office attempted to appease all fronts with the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was a huge mistake. That stupid policy has solved nothing. All Pvt Snuffy has to do is tell the immediate Commander of thier homosexual tendencies & get out. Soldiers have attempted to extract themselves from service forever using various excuses. The homosexuality claim is just one more avenue for an easy discharge, regardless if the soldier is actually homosexual. There is no medical or psychological test available that will answer that question with any certanty.

All able bodied U.S. citizens should serve a minimum of 2 full years in the service of their country following high school and prior to attending college.

Originally posted by Echo2
Anyone that lumps homosexuals and pedophiles together doesn't deserve to even be discussing this issue.

Neither should anyone who lumps all Christians together, but sadly Freethinker is still here.

I am not pro pedophile, it is just a sad fact of life that if you insist that gays have the same rights as non gays, then you by default must argue that pedophiles should be abel to get married too. saying that pedophilia is agaisnt the law is no argument at all as you have seemn the laws change for homosexual marriage. all it takes is one judge, as we have seen. once the precedent is set that any form of sexual deviation is reqwuired by law to get married, then its over. homosexuality is a sexual deviation like it or not. it is just one that has forcefully been madee "normal" by society

You're not getting it. Pedophilia is not just against the law, its HURTING INNOCENT KIDS!!!! Wow, I can't believe that actually needed to be said.

Trav, if you are not comparing gays to pedophiles, then your slippery slope argument is faulty because its wrong to prevent one group of people from having certain rights just because you think it will lead to an evil group of people wanting the same rights. Thats like saying that non-murderers should not have rights because then by default murderes will want the same rights. You know what, you give up your rights when you murder and if you are a pedophile.

Let me ask you three questions Trav:

1. Are homosexuals, in general, decent law-biding citizens?
2. Are pedophiles horrible evil people (even if some judge in the future decides to legalize it)?
3. Should we prevent decent law-biding citizens from having rights because giving them the rights will lead to horrible evil people claiming they should have the same rights?

In case you don't answer, I will assume your answers are:
1. yes
2. yes
3. no

If my assumptions are wrong, let me know. If they are correct, then how can you continue to use this ridiculous argument?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It won't end until humans are no longer plagued by xenophobia. Should we stop striving for equal rights for all just because you think it will never end?
Nice post, Vile. Too bad Trav didn't reply...

:rolleyes: Figures.

I don't mind gays in the military, for the record.

Originally posted by Freethinker
You have a good point there.

It ISN'T just the homos.

The god of the Christians ALSO instructs his followers as to how foul, disgusting and unworthy several other groups of people are; including, but not limited to;

--people with physical deformities

--people whose testilces are misshapen

--people who do not make blood sacrifices correctly

--women who are menstruating

--people that are
brokenhanded or crookbacked

--dwarfs,

--people that have a blemish in
the eye, or scurvy,

Prove it....

Originally posted by Travh20
who wi be the next group to claim they are not equal? I am surious. do you really think it will end with the homosexuals? ok travh, you're cracking me up here. are you serious, or curious.........

Originally posted by dnamertz

2. Are pedophiles horrible evil people (even if some judge in the future decides to legalize it)?
no, they are sick people.......who should be murdered !!!

what definition of pediphile are we using?

is it consentual relationship between someone under 18 and someone over?

Pedophilia is designated in the pshychoogy books as having sexual attraction to someone who has not completed puberty. It also designates that there must be more than a five year difference in the ages of the two people involed.

Thus a 19 year old who is messing around with a fourteen year old is not considered a pedophile. However they would still be guilty of having sex with a minor.

well... if its consentual... i don't see how you could say that is wrong and homosexuality is right

just let me state this for the record: there will be a day in the near future, when homosexuals are being married, that a small movement will begin to make pedohilia OK. it will gain steam by using the same arguments the homosexuals used until eventually people will go to forums saying "why do we even have age of consent laws? a 15 year old is old enough to know what they want. they are smart. if they want to marry a 50 year old let them" you can make me out to be whatever you want, but when that day comes remember who warned you of it. there are already physciatrists out there saying that children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults.

and I will answer viles majestic civil rights comments. I don't think people should stop fighting for civil rights, but fighting for a civil right for someone who is defined by who they get aroused by is not fighting for a civil right. Let's say this group over here like people of the same sex, what's next? men who like fat women will fight to be accepted and celebrated and put on a pedestal too? for the last time, once one sexual deviation is elevated in status to "normal" then they all must be elevated to that status, no matter how grotesque they may be. we have standards of what is normal for a reason, and this is a prime example. the fact that we are even debating whether 2 men should be able to amrry each other proves everything I have said. I am sure 20 years ago two guys were sitting around joking that one day men would fight for the right to marry each other. the honmosexuals would say "your crazy, all we want is to be able to be gay, nothing more"

Originally posted by Decka
well... if its consentual... i don't see how you could say that is wrong and homosexuality is right

HUH? You do understand that people under 18 are not considered adults and therefore are protected from many things.

For instance:
They cannot sign a legally binding contract without counsel and guardian authority.

They connot give consent to have sex.

Homosexuality is between two consenting adults.
Pedophilia is between an adult and a child.
Statutory rape is having sex with a minor that consented, but the law does not recognize their ability to give consent.

Trav

just let me state this for the record: there will be a day in the near future, when homosexuals are being married, that a small movement will begin to make pedohilia OK. it will gain steam by using the same arguments the homosexuals used until eventually people will go to forums saying "why do we even have age of consent laws? a 15 year old is old enough to know what they want. they are smart. if they want to marry a 50 year old let them" you can make me out to be whatever you want, but when that day comes remember who warned you of it. there are already physciatrists out there saying that children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults.
But Age laws are not "discrimination" because these children will turn 18 and they will be able to get married. That's why age laws work. Eventually they will get the same rights, it just takes maturity. It's simple. A child's emotions and maturity are not as developed when they are 15. So, we put in an age law. They will turn 18, and be allowed to do whatever they want. Gays on the other hand will never have the rights to marry who they love, even when they turn 18.

but fighting for a civil right for someone who is defined by who they get aroused by is not fighting for a civil right.
Why? Isn't who you get aroused by just as minimal as the color of ones skin? Well, I suppose to most Republicans it's not, because we "choose" to be gay you don't "choose" the color of your skin (what a bunch of BS). But regardless, sexuality and the color of your skin does make you different, but it's a difference that shouldn't matter in the eyes of the law.

men who like fat women will fight to be accepted and celebrated and put on a pedestal too?
Gays aren't fighting to be accepted, they are fighting for equality, Trav. Men and fat women can marry, all they want. They have equal rights. Gays don't. That's the difference.

for the last time, once one sexual deviation is elevated in status to "normal" then they all must be elevated to that status
You don't have to think it's "normal", Trav. But if marriage is a law, you must give it to everyone in America.

"your crazy, all we want is to be able to be gay, nothing more"
haha, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Overdose



You don't have to think it's "normal", Trav. But if marriage is a law, you must give it to everyone in America.




thank you for validating the slippery slope argument. EVERYONE in america, no matter how abnormal. Again the gay brothers come to mind. they will have to be allowed to get married, however unlikely. Since your only argument agasint inscest seems to be the chance of birth defects.

just let me state this for the record: there will be a day in the near future, when homosexuals are being married, that a small movement will begin to make pedohilia OK. it will gain steam by using the same arguments the homosexuals used until eventually people will go to forums saying "why do we even have age of consent laws? a 15 year old is old enough to know what they want. they are smart. if they want to marry a 50 year old let them" you can make me out to be whatever you want, but when that day comes remember who warned you of it. there are already physciatrists out there saying that children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults.

You're missint the point. Your argument that "gays can't have this right because pedophiles will want it too" is not good enough. Using this argument, no one should be allowed to get married because then pedophiles will want it too. Again, if you are not putting gays and pedophiles in the same boat, then withholing rights from gays because you worry that pedophiles might get them is pathetic reasoning.

"there's the way it is and the way is should be". as of now only one man and one woman can get married. thats the way it has been for a long, long time. unless you have a time machine you cant change that. Opening the door for others based on their particular sexual devaition from "normal" means everyone HAS to be given the right to marry, no matter what we think of them. It is opening a can of worms. in fact, from now on, i will rename my slippery slope argument "opening a whole new can of worms"

Opening the door for others based on their particular sexual devaition from "normal" means everyone HAS to be given the right to marry, no matter what we think of them.

No it doesn't. Its not just about "what we think of them" its about whether they (pedophiles) are hurting someone. They are and gay people are not. There a plenty of other rights I don't think pedophiles should have besides marriage...do you feel the same way, or do you think everyone HAS to be given the same rights as everyone else?

Also, why are you wanting the government to give people different rights based on their sexual practices (even if you think its deviant) if they are not hurting anyone and are consentual adults? Do rights only belong to the "normal"?

"there's the way it is and the way is should be". as of now only one man and one woman can get married.

OK "thats the way it is" now, and what is "the way it should be"?

I dont think left handed people should be allowed to marry right handed people. Lefties are no good freaks that comprise 10% of the population and that proves that they are abnormal and inferior. They are tainting the gene pool and must be stopped before the government takes the next logical step and impliments and mandatory breeding program for retarded people...

Well I was gonna post on this thread but after reading just the last page it seems like the right wing echo chamber is in full effect.

not fighting for a civil right Bwwhahahaaa. Trav you really need to find some common sense. You can start by reading these things called books and then thinking about what you read rather then letting the TV or radio tell you what to think.

OD has covered all that needs to be said.

Do yourself a favor and argue with your cat instead of Trav. Youll probably get better responses...

Originally posted by dnamertz
No it doesn't. Its not just about "what we think of them" its about whether they (pedophiles) are hurting someone. They are and gay people are not.

if a 13 year old girl insists she is in love with a 50 year old man (or woman), what are you going to tell her the reason she cant get married is? if she says she is not beign hurt, what right do you have to keep them apart?

Originally posted by dnamertz
There a plenty of other rights I don't think pedophiles should have besides marriage...do you feel the same way, or do you think everyone HAS to be given the same rights as everyone else?



I thought you were the one saying everyone HAS to be given the same rights. isnt that the whole argument for gay marriage? or is it only heterosexuals and homosexuals and no one else?

Originally posted by Travh20
just let me state this for the record: there will be a day in the near future, when homosexuals are being married, that a small movement will begin to make pedohilia OK.

That would depend on what is deemed *pedophilia*.

I can only imagine that you and other sanctimonious assholes will eagerly volunteer to instruct the entire species as to what constitutes *pedophilia*. LOL.

Originally posted by Travh20
it will gain steam by using the same arguments the homosexuals used until eventually people will go to forums saying "why do we even have age of consent laws? a 15 year old is old enough to know what they want.

But a few millenia ago, before society became so constricted with artificial mores and norms, a 15 year old WAS old enough to know if they desired sexual contact.

Only the repressive and Puritanical society [that you seem to be championing] of the current era changed it and made natural sex (between homo sapiens of past the age of puberty) some sort of abberation.

Originally posted by Travh20
you can make me out to be whatever you want,

You are , quite simply, a superstitionist......like the majority of the sexually-repressed herd.

Originally posted by Travh20
but when that day comes remember who warned you of it.

Okey dokey.

Originally posted by Travh20
there are already physciatrists out there saying that children actually enjoy intercourse as much as adults.

Anyone who would claim that youthful homo sapiens ---who are past the age of puberty--- can NOT and do not enjoy sex [i.e., sexual stimulation to the point of orgasm] are simple-minded prudes and Puritanical fools.

Originally posted by Freethinker


But a few millenia ago, before society became so constricted with artificial mores and norms, a 15 year old WAS old enough to know if they desired sexual contact.

Only the repressive and Puritanical society [that you seem to be championing] of the current era changed it and made natural sex (between homo sapiens of past the age of puberty) some sort of abberation.



Anyone who would claim that youthful homo sapiens ---who are past the age of puberty--- can NOT and do not enjoy sex [i.e., sexual stimulation to the point of orgasm] are simple-minded prudes and Puritanical fools.

and so it begins. I knew it would be soon, but the same day! that's amazing!

Originally posted by Travh20
and so it begins. I knew it would be soon, but the same day! that's amazing!

Just out of curiosity Trav, what is it you are trying to say here?

Are you suggesting that human physiology should be legislated?

We have laws against adults (anyone over the age of 18) having sex with children (anyone under the age of 18), not for any physiological reason, but because there is the question of manipulation of the child, by the adult, for sexual gratification. We rightly consider such manipulation a form of child abuse. It's not about sex as much as it is control, and manipulation. After a person reaches the age of puberty, they are as capable of enjoying sex as much as any adult. That is simply a biological fact. While I have no problem with laws that punish adults who engage in sexual relations with minors, to criminalize sexual conduct betweeen minors is the height of stupidity, and flies in the face of common sense.

After the onset of puberty, humans like to have sex. They have hormones running through their brains that make them want to have sex. Of course we, in our infinite wisdom, have passed laws against this behavior, and have somehow convinced ourselves that legislation will overcome biology. How foolish of us.

i think he's saying that homosexuals are being selfish, and only pushing rights for themselves. But if they were truely doing this to be righteous and just, than they shouldn't just be able to "pick and choose", ALL of the "other" stuff must be allowed......

correct me if im wrong trav.

I agree with him in the sense that homosexuals AREN'T looking out for EVERYONE, they just want THEIR rights.... but the arguement against that is if you're going to let ONE thing slide, you have to let it ALL slide.

I thought you were the one saying everyone HAS to be given the same rights. isnt that the whole argument for gay marriage? or is it only heterosexuals and homosexuals and no one else?

This is like taking to a f-ing wall. I am not in favor of criminals getting the same rights as heterosexuals and homosexuals. Why do you continue to put pedophiles in the same group as heterosexuals and homosexuals. Do you not see the difference that excludes them from ever having the right to marry a kid, along with many other rights they shouldn't have?

Originally posted by Decka
i think he's saying that homosexuals are being selfish, and only pushing rights for themselves. But if they were truely doing this to be righteous and just, than they shouldn't just be able to "pick and choose", ALL of the "other" stuff must be allowed......

The only people being selfish are those who wish to have rights and then deny those same rights to others for no good reason other than they are offended by someone else's lifestyle.


I agree with him in the sense that homosexuals AREN'T looking out for EVERYONE, they just want THEIR rights....

I'm not looking out for anyone other than those who are being denied the right to marry unjustly. At the moment gay people top that list.


but the arguement against that is if you're going to let ONE thing slide, you have to let it ALL slide.

That argument is just absurd. If you cannot make the distinction between behavior that causes harm, and behavior that does not cause harm, I certainly don't want you deciding what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
That argument is just absurd. If you cannot make the distinction between behavior that causes harm, and behavior that does not cause harm, I certainly don't want you deciding what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

how is a 17-year-old dating a 27 year old causing harm?

how is a 17-year-old dating a 27 year old causing harm? Because the 27 year old is obviously the biggest loser in the world and the 17 year old is too inexpirienced to see that.
:D

how is a 17-year-old dating a 27 year old causing harm?

How is giving a 15-year-old a drivers license causing harm? How is allowing a 17 year-old to vote causing harm? How is allowing a 20 year-old to drink causing harm? How is allowing a 17 year-old to enter into a contract causing harm?

Kids, in general, are not old enough make certain decisions. Based on this fact, society has passed laws and the fact that they aren't old or mature enough until a certain age makes these laws reasonable. Sure you might be able to find exceptions to the rule, like a 15 year-old who is actually good enough to drive safely, but in general they are not and therefore these laws make sense for safety reasons. I don't see that same reason for laws that outlaw gays from marrying.

TRAV wrote:
if a 13 year old girl insists she is in love with a 50 year old man (or woman), what are you going to tell her the reason she cant get married is? if she says she is not beign hurt, what right do you have to keep them apart?

It doesn't matter whether a 13 year old insists she is in love, because as I stated above, kids, in general are not old/responsible/mature enough to make certain decisions. If you believe its unfair to those few kids who actually are responsible or mature enough, then you can argue to get rid of these laws and have the law determine each individual case seperatly. But for now this law applies to ALL kids under 18.

Using your slippery slope fears, are you against the Constitution amendment that lowered the voting age from 18? For all of American history, the right to vote applied only to people over age 20. Lowering it by 3 years opened the door for a small segment of the population. Using your slippery slope argument that "If you let this small group in the door then everyone HAS to have the same rights", then you would have to give all other age groups the same right to vote. But how many 17 year-olds or 12 year-olds have you seen going to a court of law and arguing that "I should be allowed to vote because the government has allowed this new age group in the door"?

On that same note, are you in favor of gay sex being illegal? The slippery slope argument should lead you to think gay people should not be allowed to have sex legally. Throughout history the "norm" has been heterosexual sex, so if society makes it legal (which it has) for this "deviant" group to have sex then you would HAVE to allow every group to have sex...how could you legally do otherwise? If you open the door for this new "deviant" group then sex between family members would have to be legal, and sex between kids would have to be legal, and so on. Of course this is a ridiculous argument the same way your gay-marriage slippery slope argument is ridiculous. How many siblings have you seen arguing before a court that, because gay-sex is legal, sex between siblings should be legal too?

Originally posted by Decka
how is a 17-year-old dating a 27 year old causing harm?

It might cause no harm at all, but the legislatures of the various states have set various ages as the age when you can have consensual sex, usually 17-18. I have no problem with that, as long as you don't make criminals out of two kids having sex with each other.

legislatures of various state s have said marriage should only be between one man and one woman too.

Originally posted by Travh20
legislatures of various state s have said marriage should only be between one man and one woman too. Yeah, but these legislatures are only right when the pro-gay agenda groups say they are. ;)

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yeah, but these legislatures are only right when the pro-gay agenda groups say they are. ;)

They're right, when they don't pass laws that discriminate against people who are doing no harm.

Legislatures do pass bad laws. When they do, hopefully the courts will strike down those laws.

Originally posted by Travh20
legislatures of various state s have said marriage should only be between one man and one woman too.

True..........but those lesislatures are using an EXTREMELY subjective and prejudicial view of what sort of sexual activity is "acceptable" and what is "not acceptable".

legislatures of various state s have said marriage should only be between one man and one woman too.

Yes, but the point is whether there is a good enough reason to prohibit gay-marriage other than because the legislature or majority decided to. I believe the laws that prohibit children from marrying have a good reason behind them...I do not feel the same about the law prohibiting gays from marrying. That is why I disagree with it. Provide me with a good enough reason for not allowing gay marriage and I'll accept the laws just like I accept the laws that don't allow children to get married.

Like I stated in an earlier post, The religious covenant of marriage "died" when the government began sanctioning and performing the actual ceremonies.

Whether it will be next month, next year, or next decade... the law will allow for gay marriage. The state legislatures are acting the same as during the civil rights movement of the 60's, and it will have the same effect - none (other than becoming another devisive social issue).

That said... Why is there such an uproar over this issue anyway? Does anyone really care if gays are allowed to marry?

I am curious.... maybe I've become numb to these issues now, or maybe I don't understand all the ramifications.

I did read a little on this... and one of the countries that allows gay marriage stated that only about 10% of the gays actually decided to marry anyway. (I don't remember where this was or specifics)


I just don't see it as a big issue (other than the constant media coverage of protests/arguements from both sides).

Originally posted by dnamertz
Yes, but the point is whether there is a good enough reason to prohibit gay-marriage other than because the legislature or majority decided to. I believe the laws that prohibit children from marrying have a good reason behind them...I do not feel the same about the law prohibiting gays from marrying. That is why I disagree with it. Provide me with a good enough reason for not allowing gay marriage and I'll accept the laws just like I accept the laws that don't allow children to get married.

ya, well I "feel" the laws behind making marraige only between one man and one woman have a god reason behind them too. what we feel means nothing. I have presented reasons why gay marriage should not happen, it didnt make you "feel" any different. some day someone will come along and start agruing for abolishing the age of consent, you wont feel good about it but you will be able to do nothing about it. once you have thrown your hat in the ring of "equal rights for everybody no matter what" you are obligated to side with them or be a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Travh20
once you have thrown your hat in the ring of "equal rights for everybody no matter what" you are obligated to side with them or be a hypocrite.

You are the only one here who has used this phrase...""equal rights for everybody no matter what".

In my life I have lived with women that I chose not to marry.
The difference is that I had a choice.
I am now married for 10 years.

I believe gay people should have the same choice.
Let them see the difficulties it can present also.

When I chose to "shack up" years ago it was view by some religious people, that I knew, as a sin and transgression against the laws of God. The fact that it was a man/woman relationship made no matter. In present times it does not seem to be viewed with as much animosity as it once was.

I do not believe a gay should be expelled from the military because the fact of his/her sexual preference becomes known.
I will go so far as saying that there is an element of society that would like to know who they are so that they could be put on the front lines as targets. There-fore it could have a downside.

I might add also that underage people get married to people of age most every day with parental consent. It is legal.

could this not become another gay marriage thread please?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
could this not become another gay marriage thread please?
Be thankful that the thread hasn't degraded into a discussion on whether Superman can beat up Batman or not. This is Allforums, remember. I'm amazed that the thread has stayed as on-topic as it is...

ya, well I "feel" the laws behind making marraige only between one man and one woman have a god reason behind them too. what we feel means nothing. I have presented reasons why gay marriage should not happen, it didnt make you "feel" any different. some day someone will come along and start agruing for abolishing the age of consent, you wont feel good about it but you will be able to do nothing about it. once you have thrown your hat in the ring of "equal rights for everybody no matter what" you are obligated to side with them or be a hypocrite.

If you'd payed attention to my last few posts, you'd realize I've never called for "equal rights for everybody no matter what". Letting gays marry does not mean you have to let 10 year-olds marry. There is good reason not to let 10 year-olds marry.

You may have presented what you think are good reasons gay people should not be allowd to marry, but I don't agree that they are good reasons. I don't think "because I'm offended by it" or "because thats the way it always has been" or "because I want to protect the definition of a word" are good enough reasons. I hope your reasons for not wanting 10 year-olds to marry are better than those...like because they are not mentally advanced or mature enough to enter into that kind of relationship, or do a lot of other things that we prevent kids from doing. Gay people are allowed to drive, but that doesn't mean we then have to allow kids to drive also...why would marriage be any different. I mean, someday someone will come along and start arguing for abolishing the driving age.

You didn't address the point I made about how allowing 18, 19, & 20 year-olds the right to vote did not lead down the slippery slope to where we had to allow all other age groups to vote. Why not?

Back to the topic of the thread. I am in favor of the 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' policy. It's not about whether of gay person can serve honorably or not. I think they can.

It's about the privacy and living in close quarters. I personally do not want a gay guy sleeping in the rack next to me or sharing the community shower. I would not hate him, but I would not feel comfortable in such close quarters. And others would feel this way too. Thus it would be a distraction and affect mission readiness.

How about gays on submarines. Women are not allowed on submarines due to the lack of privacy. On the small class submarines you do something known as 'hot racking.' You may have to share a bunk with another sailor. That is, when you get out of the bunk somebody else gets in, sometimes while it's still warm. Again, it's about the comfort level. Many sailors would not feel comfortable climbing into a bunk that a homosexual just crawled out of.

And unfortunately there are a small percentage of military members who are bigots (just like in society). Although the military is extemely harsh on any form of discrimination against individuals, it would be a headache.

To me it's about the personal comfort level that I would feel.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
It's not about whether of gay person can serve honorably or not. I think they can.

Then they should be allowed to do so.


It's about the privacy and living in close quarters. I personally do not want a gay guy sleeping in the rack next to me or sharing the community shower. I would not hate him, but I would not feel comfortable in such close quarters. And others would feel this way too. Thus it would be a distraction and affect mission readiness.

When you join the military, you are expected to give up a great many things, one of which is the pleasure of enjoying a level of privacy that you've become used to in civilian life.


Again, it's about the comfort level. Many sailors would not feel comfortable climbing into a bunk that a homosexual just crawled out of.

If I'm not mistaken, joining the submarine service is completely voluntary. If working in such close quarters with possibly gay sailors bothers you, don't serve on a submarine.


And unfortunately there are a small percentage of military members who are bigots (just like in society). Although the military is extemely harsh on any form of discrimination against individuals, it would be a headache.

Pandering to someone's bigotry is never a good way to deal with discrimination. If there are people who would not be comfortable serving with gays in the military, they are the problem, not those gays who wish to serve.


To me it's about the personal comfort level that I would feel.

While I can understand how you feel, I don't think others should be told they cannot serve in order to make you "comfortable".

I personally do not want a gay guy sleeping in the rack next to me or sharing the community shower. I would not hate him, but I would not feel comfortable in such close quarters. And others would feel this way too.

Then those people can choose not to join the military.

So you are saying that people that are not comfortable being naked around an openly gay people should not join the military? Why should the vast majority have to change to accomodate the few?

The 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy is not something needs fixed. I'm a firm believer in not fixing something that's not broken. It's not discriminatory, it's military protocol that directy leads to mission accomplishment.

So you are saying that people that are not comfortable being naked around an openly gay people should not join the military? Why should the vast majority have to change to accomodate the few?

They don't have to change, they can feel uncomfortable and deal with it. If they can't deal with it, then I don't expect them to deal with being in combat. And speaking of change, you have to change a lot of things when you join the military.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to do something because others might feel uncomfortable?

It's funny how people worry about not feeling comfortable in the showers, and how that's a good enough reason to not let gays in the military. But then they go out and risk their lives, and kill other people and how they are "comfortable" with that, but not with a little shower.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Are you saying that people should not be allowed to do something because others might feel uncomfortable?

I'm not saying it. The Pentagon is and I agree with it.

Why should the vast majority have to change to accomodate the few?
Because that's the point of being a constitutional republic. So as not to step on the few in order to accomodate the majority only.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Why should the vast majority have to change to accomodate the few?
Because that's the point of being a constitutional republic. So as not to step on the few in order to accomodate the majority only.

Nobodies rights are being violated. Military service is not a constitutional right. By your logic obese people should be allowed to join the military even though they do not meet required physical standards. A person over the age of 35 can't walk into a recruiters office and join either. It's not discrimation, it's policy and standards.

And nobody said gays can't serve in the military. The recruiters and boot camp commanders never ask a person's sexuality preference.

GW_Rules sez:
"I'm not saying it. The Pentagon is and I agree with it."


Colonel Sherman T. Potter M.D., late of M.A.S.H. 4077 sez:
"The Pentagon? Weird looking place - 4 walls and a spare - a monument to Murphy's Law"

The military is subject to civilian rule. Always remember that. The military did not make that rule without the express approval of multitudes of elected officials, responding to the folks they work for by approving the rules.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

When you join the military, you are expected to give up a great many things, one of which is the pleasure of enjoying a level of privacy that you've become used to in civilian life. Yes, but one of those "things" is not the right to feel comfortable from sexual harrassment, which is what it would be to have to bathe/shower nude in front of homosexuals. Im sure you disagree with my opinion, but there it is.


Originally posted by Vilepagan
If I'm not mistaken, joining the submarine service is completely voluntary. If working in such close quarters with possibly gay sailors bothers you, don't serve on a submarine..
No, how about since working together is such an important principle of working these submarines, we allow them to trust that their buddy only wants to be platonic buddies? That way they can concentrate on their jobs and not their sex lives.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Pandering to someone's bigotry is never a good way to deal with discrimination. If there are people who would not be comfortable serving with gays in the military, they are the problem, not those gays who wish to serve..
Pandering to someone's own percieved (correctly i might add) feelings that their lifestyle is not normal is never a good way to deal with any issue IMO.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
While I can understand how you feel, I don't think others should be told they cannot serve in order to make you "comfortable". I dont feel homosexuals should be told they can serve to make you feel more "comfortable".

You men crack me up. What a bunch of wimps you are about sexuality. What are you afraid of? That the gays are going to look at your package and laugh or that they are going to stare?

You suggest our soldiers who are brave enough to kill other human beings and put their own life on the line are "uncomfortable" showering with men whose sexuality they are unsure of? If that's true it is time to start handing out wimp awards.

I believe that you men are just not comfortable with being thought of as sexual prey. You have thought of and treated women as sexual prey for thousands of years and now the simple thought that someoe out there may be looking at you that way scares the hell out of you.

Call 1-800-WHINE and get over yourself. Nobody is plotting to stare at your package or jump your ass. Gays are quite aware of the hetero males sexual insecurities and how dangerous hetero males can be when they feel their sexuality is threatened. They are smart enough to leave your precise virgin ass alone.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yes, but one of those "things" is not the right to feel comfortable from sexual harrassment, which is what it would be to have to bathe/shower nude in front of homosexuals.
If a soldier gets his/her panties in a bunch because of showering in front of gays, then he/she is not fit to serve in the armed forces. These are men/women who must be brave, be trusted to kill people when commanded to, but they go to pieces because a homosexual might be lustfully looking at them? Come on.
No, how about since working together is such an important principle of working these submarines, we allow them to trust that their buddy only wants to be platonic buddies? That way they can concentrate on their jobs and not their sex lives.
Working together is important in nearly any job. Would you suggest excluding gays from any job which requires working with people, so everyone can be sure that "That guy from Cubicle 138" isn't stealing glances at their respective crotches?
I dont feel homosexuals should be told they can serve to make you feel more "comfortable".
It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of equal rights.

Originally posted by Echo2
You men crack me up. What a bunch of wimps you are about sexuality. What are you afraid of? That the gays are going to look at your package and laugh or that they are going to stare? What if i am afraid or uncomfortable with that? Is your derision at these feelings enough to make them any less important? Maybe if i were a minority, feeling uncomfortable would matter more. What am i saying? Of course it would matter more.


Originally posted by Echo2

You suggest our soldiers who are brave enough to kill other human beings and put their own life on the line are "uncomfortable" showering with men whose sexuality they are unsure of? If that's true it is time to start handing out wimp awards. Sure echo. You're the voice of courage. Im not saying they are "scared" of homo's, im saying they shouldnt have to be dealing with the issue at all.

Originally posted by Echo2

I believe that you men are just not comfortable with being thought of as sexual prey. You have thought of and treated women as sexual prey for thousands of years and now the simple thought that someoe out there may be looking at you that way scares the hell out of you. So now, in your infinite wisdom, you are encouraging sexual harrassment. Good job. Like most of your contemporaries, you are a hypocrite to the nth degree.



Originally posted by Echo2

Call 1-800-WHINE and get over yourself. Nobody is plotting to stare at your package or jump your ass. Gays are quite aware of the hetero males sexual insecurities and how dangerous hetero males can be when they feel their sexuality is threatened. They are smart enough to leave your precise virgin ass alone. You are one dumb bitch. Like i said in my post in the religion section, you reaffirm that opinion every time you post.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
If a soldier gets his/her panties in a bunch because of showering in front of gays, then he/she is not fit to serve in the armed forces. These are men/women who must be brave, be trusted to kill people when commanded to, but they go to pieces because a homosexual might be lustfully looking at them? Come on. Once again, i never said they "went to pieces". It's an uneccessary distraction that also undermines team unity.



Originally posted by BorgHunter

Working together is important in nearly any job. Would you suggest excluding gays from any job which requires working with people, so everyone can be sure that "That guy from Cubicle 138" isn't stealing glances at their respective crotches? Not the same thing at all. First of all, you dont have to build trust between co workers. They dont sleep under the same roof. They dont shower together. They dont rely on each other in life threatening situations. So your example really has no relevence to what i am saying, even with your sophmoric attempt at humor.








Originally posted by BorgHunter


It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of equal rights. It's not a matter of equal rights, its a matter of common sense. Why dont they allow male reporters to interview female athletes in their locker rooms?

Havok, you need to lay off the bong for a while. You aren't making any sense.

I get this vision of a 6 foot 4 inch, 250 lb army ranger coming in from a patrol, dirty and filthy and tired. All he wants is a shower, a drink and some shut eye, but he feels so harassed by the gay guys that MIGHT me lurking in the shower just waiting to get a look at his package that he can't bring himself to shower.

Get a grip. :bike:

Originally posted by Echo2
Havok, you need to lay off the bong for a while. You aren't making any sense.

I get this vision of a 6 foot 4 inch, 250 lb army ranger coming in from a patrol, dirty and filthy and tired. All he wants is a shower, a drink and some shut eye, but he feels so harassed by the gay guys that MIGHT me lurking in the shower just waiting to get a look at his package that he can't bring himself to shower.

Get a grip. :bike: Ok...imagine that same scenario but this is what happens in real life. This 6'4", 250 pound army ranger just comes in from a patrol dirty, filthy, and tired. All he wants is a shower, a drink, and some shut eye. He goes and takes a shower and looks over at his buddy and notices him ogling him. Fear will not enter into this equation. He will handle the problem and promtly be thrown in jail for stomping the homosexual into the ground. Like i said, it is uneccessary to force him to deal with these issues.

Nobody forced him to be an asshole and beat the crap out of the guy. He is responsible for his own actions and should be court martialled and jailed. Anyone that is so sexually repressed that they would beat up another person for simply looking at them is in pretty bad emotional shape. (And shouldn't be given a gun).

What a wimp. Women get looked at like that all the time, even with their clothes on.

If men are so that fearfull of being "ogled" by another man, that they would beat them up for looking then they shouldn't be takeing showers with any men, even hetero ones.

You guys think your privates are so special. Get a grip. Most women don't give a shit about showering with lesbians. What's the big deal? They wont give you coodies, and you can't catch homosexuality. (Unless of course you want to and that's what you're afraid of).

Originally posted by Echo2
Nobody forced him to be an asshole and beat the crap out of the guy. He is responsible for his own actions and should be court martialled and jailed. Anyone that is so sexually repressed that they would beat up another person for simply looking at them is in pretty bad emotional shape. (And shouldn't be given a gun).

What a wimp. Women get looked at like that all the time, even with their clothes on.

If men are so that fearfull of being "ogled" by another man, that they would beat them up for looking then they shouldn't be takeing showers with any men, even hetero ones.

You guys think your privates are so special. Get a grip. Most women don't give a shit about showering with lesbians. What's the big deal? They wont give you coodies, and you can't catch homosexuality. (Unless of course you want to and that's what you're afraid of). I see you only understand sexual harrasment when it is a benefit to your opinions. Great post, hypocrite.

I do not understand sexual harasment to be taking a shower in the room with people of the same sex. No physical contact, no verbal remarks, no sugestive looks. (I just can't imagine a gay guy doing this to a straight guy knowing how sexually repressed most straight guys are).

Tell me, is it your butt or your package that bothers you to have someone see?

Originally posted by Echo2

Tell me, is it your butt or your package that bothers you to have someone see? I have no problem with either. Why, you want me to send you a picture of what a real man looks like?

Sure! :D


Sorry HaVok...couldn't resist :)

Sure, I can suggest some web sites so you can get some pics of REAL men.

LMAO @ Vile. Incorrigible as always. :D

I'm getting a mental visual of a big, ugly blue viener with a smiling idiot attached to the other end. Does it do any tricks, roll over, play dead, shake, fetch?

Originally posted by Echo2
I'm getting a mental visual of a big, ugly blue viener with a smiling idiot attached to the other end. Does it do any tricks, roll over, play dead, shake, fetch? If you are sooo interested in it, i did offer to send you a pic. However, i will not share with everyone. :)

Originally posted by HaVoK
If you are sooo interested in it, i did offer to send you a pic. However, i will not share with everyone. :)

Thank you for the offer but I would be hard pressed not to post it just for laughs so I guess you probubly shouldn't.

Originally posted by HaVoK
If you are sooo interested in it, i did offer to send you a pic. However, i will not share with everyone. :)
Alright, I cannot resist, I must see this. The sheer entertainment value is tremendous. Nevermind that it's probably illegal, I need a laugh. ;)

Let me see let me see!

taking a shower with someone is not the issue. How we ever boiled down the homosexuals in the military argument to showering I will never know. no one is afraid of homosexuals, no one cares. the fact of the matter is that the military is not a breeding ground for political correctness and diversity experimentation. its not a place for liberals to force their religion of tolerance. its serious buisness. just move along and find some other walls to break down. when men are fighting and dying the less things they have to worry about the better. If they have to worry about treating someone different then everyone else becasue they are gay it is a distraction. distractions are dangerous. I know it "shouldt" be a distraction and everyones all the same and blah blah blah, well save that for the college campus, not the battlefield. I dont care what Europe does. America is not ready for open homosexuality in combat. say what you will, but thats the truth.

Originally posted by Travh20
taking a shower with someone is not the issue. How we ever boiled down the homosexuals in the military argument to showering I will never know. no one is afraid of homosexuals, no one cares. the fact of the matter is that the military is not a breeding ground for political correctness and diversity experimentation. its not a place for liberals to force their religion of tolerance. its serious buisness. just move along and find some other walls to break down. when men are fighting and dying the less things they have to worry about the better. If they have to worry about treating someone different then everyone else becasue they are gay it is a distraction. distractions are dangerous. I know it "shouldt" be a distraction and everyones all the same and blah blah blah, well save that for the college campus, not the battlefield. I dont care what Europe does. America is not ready for open homosexuality in combat. say what you will, but thats the truth.

That is the argument they used when they were discussing integrating the blacks in the military. That it would be a distraction for the men and they would not be able to bond and trust each other.

I guess some people think that men are pretty simple minded and unable to adapt to their environment. I for one think that men are quite capable of putting their differences and silly prejudices aside and approaching change with an open mind - especially when it is for a greater cause - freedom for all.

you know what echo, take your tolerance shit back to the local university, leave the fucking military to do what it does, fight wars. the military is NOT a proving ground for your religion of tolerance and diversity! Quit trying to make gays into the new blacks! the gays never have and never will come close to the oppression black americans went through, and to imply they are even close is a slap in the face.

You certainly convinced me that gay people should not be allowed to join the military and help protect our nation. What was I thinking? Those horible little deviants should keep to themselves and stay away from anything American or religious. We shouldn't let them drive either because it is a long held tradition in this country for teens to take their girlfriends out and park at night. It would ruin the institution of driving. And who knows, if we let them drive then we have to let the pedophiles drive and all the rest of the perverts in the world. The roads will be a mess, drivers licences won't have the same traditional meaning and our culture will crumble.

I must have been out of my mind to think that gays could be integrated into our society.

your right, whats really important here is making sure everyone feels good about themselves. please, for the love of god, STFU

Originally posted by Travh20
your right, whats really important here is making sure everyone feels good about themselves. please, for the love of god, STFU

That is exactly what you are preaching about the soldiers. You want them to feel good rather than get used to the fact that not everyone is the same. You want to keep gays out of the military so the soldiers will "feel good" and not have to think about gays.

I dont want them to feel good echo, i want them to concentrate on the task at hand, that being fighting wars, not spending half their time learning all the new left wing tolerance crap you are trying to force on everyone in every walk of life. I really dont think the military should be a place where people like you go in and force people to think like you. "now listen up men, before you go to battle, let me tell you this. there are many different types of people in the world. everyone deserves equal rights and to be accepted. We can live together and celbrate our differences. kumbaya my lord, kumbaqya. actually, scratch the my lord line, we dont want to offend any muslims" WTF??

Are you implying that if we allow gays in the military that the male soldiers would be spending their time thinking about the gay guys rather than thinking about their jobs?

I am implying that front line combat units are not places for diversity workshops. the old hippie with grey streaked hair and birkenstalks preaching the values of tolerance is not wanted or needed there. combat is deadly serious, not another launching point for the diversity crusade being waged by the left in this country. If gays are going to serve let them stay gay by themselves. There are plenty of opportunities for america to celbrate the slendor of all things gay in the civilian sector. leave the military alone, especially hte combat arms. if you must take up the good fight, take it up with supply or HQ.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am implying that front line combat units are not places for diversity workshops.

I totally agree.

the old hippie with grey streaked hair and birkenstalks preaching the values of tolerance is not wanted or needed there. combat is deadly serious, not another launching point for the diversity crusade being waged by the left in this country.

Who said anything about teaching tolerance while under fire? Where do you get this crap trav? I don't recall ANYONE mentioning anything about teaching tolerance or launching diversity crusades. Those are your ideas.

If gays are going to serve let them stay gay by themselves. There are plenty of opportunities for america to celbrate the slendor of all things gay in the civilian sector.

Spoken like a true bigot.