Well, this has been the year of passing bad bills, and denying good ones. therefore the Dream Act will probably pass, and the DADT repeal will probably fail.
We can get used to, Washington doing exactly the opposite of what makes good sense.
LOL, from the 19th. The opposite happened. Both good policies and not just "liberal" ones won. The one making the post expressed a fear well founded based on the way things in the obstructionist congress had gone, Obama got them to be more reasonsible in one regard. Now he needs to get his head on straight with respect to the criminal immigrants.
"Polls, polls, polls, yak,yak, yak,"....polls are notoriously biased depending on the area or group polled. The aberrant populace in San Francisco are bound to be to be in favor of any lecherous polling. Being a black person, I am completely against any perverted group associating themselves with black civil rights issues. There is NO comparison what-so-ever....!
Hmmm ... as I look over from the hetero side of the fence, I didn't make a "choice" about my orientation. Somehow, when I was about 11 or 12, those annoying, cootie-laden creatures called girls started to look interesting, and by the time I was 14 they were _very_ interesting. Nobody taught me, nobody suggested anything, IT JUST HAPPENED because that's the way my brain and body are wired.
Stop thumping your Bible long enough to read the science behind sexual orientation. Gays don't "choose a lifestyle" any more than the rest of us choose a heterosexual "lifestyle". Being a guy who likes women is part of who and what I am, not a choice, and from every one of the gays I've encountered in my life it's the same for them. In fact, as one put it, why would anyone voluntarily choose a sexual orientation that would subject them to discrimination, abuse, outright bigotry (look in a mirror, joker) or even physical danger?
I've never heard of gay people peeking in us heteros' bedrooms to see what goes on, nor have I heard of the opposite. Get over it.
I love how they takes polls of sensitive issues requesting input from people that don't have to deal with the issues. If it is not going to effect them or expose them to the situation, then they see nothing wrong with it because they don't have to deal with the situation.
The people that should be asked if they support or oppose it, should be the people that are directly effected by it being our servicemen and woman and no others, and it should be done by diplomatic voting process that would help insure that one party or the other try to manipulate the votes voting more than once or try to "fudge" the numbers as every other polling process that takes place in this Country.
People conveniently speak of this person has rights and that person has rights, which they do, However, in this particular issue the straight men have rights as well. This society has come to the point that they are so concerned to offend the rights of a minority that they ignore the rights of the majority.
As far as this issue is concerned, it should be decided by the people that are affected by it by being exposed to it, which is are the service people. If they are ok with it, then the rest of American citizens should be ok with it, as long as the military is doing their job they are supposed to do that should be your only concern.
Another solution, we currently have 2 different categories of segregation based on sex being male and female. We have male restrooms/ locker rooms/ showers and birthing areas and female restrooms/ locker rooms/ showers and birthing areas, create a third area of restrooms/ locker rooms / showers and birthing areas for the gay orientated, that way no ones rights are violated and every one can be happy because they don't have to have their privacy violated by one or the other sexual oriented group, or just group them all together in one big community restroom and shower as they do in many of the Asian Countries. then their would be no need for conflict.
On December 2, I read an article by Gene Lyons in Salon.com. Lyons article cited Brian Muller, a courageous bomb technician in the US Army's 82nd division who risked his life disabling bombs, IED's and booby traps in Afghanistan, saving the lives of countless US servicemen. Muller was discharged because a superior officer found out that he was a gay.
On December 3, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about a Baptist Army Chaplain, Dale Goetz, killed in Afghanistan by a road-side bomb - the very sort of bomb that a skilled bomb technician like Brian Muller, could have disabled.
Undoubtedly Dale Goetz spread a lot of the homophobia that resulted in Brian Muller's discharge. I also can't help wondering - if Muller had remained in the service, perhaps Goetz would still be alive.
Beyond the irony of 2 days of news reports, I can't help thinking about the valuable people that the military loses because of its homophobia. In the case of Brian Muller, I can't help wondering how many servicemen are going to die because of the homophobia of Muller's commanding officer.
By opposing DADT, John McCain and the GOP are endangering the lives of servicemen. They need to accept responsibility for the deaths that occur. But they won't. Once again the GOP is the party of NO responsibility.
Well said, msimamaji. The biggest affect I can see, and it's a good one, is that gays serving in the military will no longer fear loosing their jobs based simply on who they are.
first off, Gays are not the only people qualified to be bomb tech and other positions that save servicemen lives. Secondly, I wonder how many of the actual servicemen enjoy the fact of showering in public areas with gays that are attracted to the same sex knowing that these gays may be looking at you and fantasizing some sick thoughts. How would you woman like showering with straight men knowing that they are looking at you in a sexual manner in the showers. Would you feel repulsed or be thankful that we have people placing you in uncomfortable situations because they see nothing wrong with it. You put a individual in a room full of other individual in which that person has a sexual interest in and they are going to be compelled to look in inappropriate manner at some point or even discretely. I don't think their would be a problem out in the field, buts it all the other time at the barracks that would pose problems and stressful situations. if you see nothing wrong with it, then I suggest you go to a gym and shower in the mens locker room and see how you enjoy being watch while you are trying to bath yourself. third, It may not be a bad idea to allow gays to be bomb techs and such, War is always good for population control and what better way to control the gay population then to stick a bomb in their hands. two sides to every coin.
Nomad, if somebody forces me to shower with a woman could I ask for Megan Fox or Halle Berry??? (and if I were a few years younger and not married, I really wouldn't mind being looked at...)
But seriously, folks, wouldn't the best policy be to aim for as much professionalism as possible? Really, if the universe shifted and somebody put me in a shower with Miss August, unless _she_ made the first move, I'd try to remain as cool as possible (OK, not very, but I'd STILL MAKE THE EFFORT).
In fact, years after college I found out that one of the guys on my dorm floor was, as the Brits say, "gay as a maypole". But guess what? Even in the communal bathrooms we shared he never once did or said anything that would have indicated any form of sexual attraction.
It's the same at work. I could get fired for being overtly sexual in the direction of my female co-workers, so no matter what my private thoughts are I'm mature enough and professional enough to keep them to myself! Yeah, there are some clowns who aren't - and they've paid the price.
If you're concerned about harassment, get used to the idea that it's inappropriate for any combination of genders. It's not worse if it's a guy hitting on another guy versus a woman and a man. And yeah, I've seen lots of women hitting on men, too.
Equal treatment for all. Nothing more, nothing less.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
We can get used to, Washington doing exactly the opposite of what makes good sense.
Stop thumping your Bible long enough to read the science behind sexual orientation. Gays don't "choose a lifestyle" any more than the rest of us choose a heterosexual "lifestyle". Being a guy who likes women is part of who and what I am, not a choice, and from every one of the gays I've encountered in my life it's the same for them. In fact, as one put it, why would anyone voluntarily choose a sexual orientation that would subject them to discrimination, abuse, outright bigotry (look in a mirror, joker) or even physical danger?
I've never heard of gay people peeking in us heteros' bedrooms to see what goes on, nor have I heard of the opposite. Get over it.
The people that should be asked if they support or oppose it, should be the people that are directly effected by it being our servicemen and woman and no others, and it should be done by diplomatic voting process that would help insure that one party or the other try to manipulate the votes voting more than once or try to "fudge" the numbers as every other polling process that takes place in this Country.
People conveniently speak of this person has rights and that person has rights, which they do, However, in this particular issue the straight men have rights as well. This society has come to the point that they are so concerned to offend the rights of a minority that they ignore the rights of the majority.
As far as this issue is concerned, it should be decided by the people that are affected by it by being exposed to it, which is are the service people. If they are ok with it, then the rest of American citizens should be ok with it, as long as the military is doing their job they are supposed to do that should be your only concern.
Another solution, we currently have 2 different categories of segregation based on sex being male and female. We have male restrooms/ locker rooms/ showers and birthing areas and female restrooms/ locker rooms/ showers and birthing areas, create a third area of restrooms/ locker rooms / showers and birthing areas for the gay orientated, that way no ones rights are violated and every one can be happy because they don't have to have their privacy violated by one or the other sexual oriented group, or just group them all together in one big community restroom and shower as they do in many of the Asian Countries. then their would be no need for conflict.
On December 3, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about a Baptist Army Chaplain, Dale Goetz, killed in Afghanistan by a road-side bomb - the very sort of bomb that a skilled bomb technician like Brian Muller, could have disabled.
Undoubtedly Dale Goetz spread a lot of the homophobia that resulted in Brian Muller's discharge. I also can't help wondering - if Muller had remained in the service, perhaps Goetz would still be alive.
Beyond the irony of 2 days of news reports, I can't help thinking about the valuable people that the military loses because of its homophobia. In the case of Brian Muller, I can't help wondering how many servicemen are going to die because of the homophobia of Muller's commanding officer.
By opposing DADT, John McCain and the GOP are endangering the lives of servicemen. They need to accept responsibility for the deaths that occur. But they won't. Once again the GOP is the party of NO responsibility.
You put a individual in a room full of other individual in which that person has a sexual interest in and they are going to be compelled to look in inappropriate manner at some point or even discretely.
I don't think their would be a problem out in the field, buts it all the other time at the barracks that would pose problems and stressful situations. if you see nothing wrong with it, then I suggest you go to a gym and shower in the mens locker room and see how you enjoy being watch while you are trying to bath yourself.
third, It may not be a bad idea to allow gays to be bomb techs and such, War is always good for population control and what better way to control the gay population then to stick a bomb in their hands. two sides to every coin.
But seriously, folks, wouldn't the best policy be to aim for as much professionalism as possible? Really, if the universe shifted and somebody put me in a shower with Miss August, unless _she_ made the first move, I'd try to remain as cool as possible (OK, not very, but I'd STILL MAKE THE EFFORT).
In fact, years after college I found out that one of the guys on my dorm floor was, as the Brits say, "gay as a maypole". But guess what? Even in the communal bathrooms we shared he never once did or said anything that would have indicated any form of sexual attraction.
It's the same at work. I could get fired for being overtly sexual in the direction of my female co-workers, so no matter what my private thoughts are I'm mature enough and professional enough to keep them to myself! Yeah, there are some clowns who aren't - and they've paid the price.
If you're concerned about harassment, get used to the idea that it's inappropriate for any combination of genders. It's not worse if it's a guy hitting on another guy versus a woman and a man. And yeah, I've seen lots of women hitting on men, too.
Equal treatment for all. Nothing more, nothing less.