Comments on: I Asked, He Told

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:23:54 +0000

Thank you Professor and Tom B for adding breadth to the comments.

Predujices run deep. It seems that military prejudices run deep AND are not subject to U.S. laws prohibiting discrimination.

The slogan should be…"Don't ask about our open discrimination policy, and we won't tell you."

By: Tom B

Tom B — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:53:14 +0000

Being gay is not a lifestyle. Lifestyles are how you chose to live your life. You may be a religious person and attend church. That is a lifestyle. You may be a biker, travel the USA on a Harley and party in bars. That is a lifestyle. You may be a civil rights activist and participate in political and social causes, rallies and protests. That is a lifestyle.

The key to a lifestyle is “choice”. You choose to belong. Many, many studies have shown that being gay is not a lifestyle. All medical and psychological organizations agree with this. Being gay in not a lifestyle.

Given this distinction, the question is should our government purposely look the other way and have a blind eye towards violence and discrimination to gay people in the armed forces? The answer to this should always be “no”. Fair treatment under the law should never sanction violence. The key is to deal with incidents in a fair and equal manner; educate the armed forces on issues surrounding sexuality; and reinforce that sexuality has no bearing on an individual’s performance in the ranks.

It’s not about shoving anything down anyone’s throat. It’s about being civil and respectful to all people. Gays in the military are not asking for anything special. They just want to serve their country the best they can; living their life as the person they are.

By: Will Huhn

Will Huhn — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:03:17 +0000

Reverend,
There is plenty of Supreme Court precedent to back you up on the point that the government may not enact a law simply to protect and reinforce the biases and prejudices of individuals. Here is a paragraph from Justice White's opinion in the case of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centers, Inc., where the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Cleburne, Texas, had to allow a group home for the mentally retarded in a residential neighborhood:

The District Court found that the City Council's insistence on the permit rested on several factors. First, the Council was concerned with the negative attitude of the majority of property owners located within 200 feet of the Featherston facility, as well as with the fears of elderly residents of the neighborhood. But mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently from apartment houses, multiple dwellings, and the like. It is plain that the electorate as a whole, whether by referendum or otherwise, could not order city action violative of the Equal Protection Clause, and the City may not avoid the strictures of that Clause by deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic. “Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:41:48 +0000

King and I are finding more common ground. Could develop into a parcel…never know.

Quid…gays are similar to heteros in that they are both human. All humans in America should be granted equal rights….I mean, right?

Just as heteros do not choose their orientation, so too gays. Gays are different only in that they are not heteros.

Are you saying that gays are asking for special treatment?

average…..homosexual behavior observed in 1500 species….can you believe it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:13:26 +0000

I have to agree with the Rev here. Homosexuals don't choose to be that way. Sexual preference isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, I just am heterosexual.

Rev, I don't know what government action would change anything, but of course gays should get the same civil rights as the rest of us. You can't mandate how people feel about things. I know people are much more tolerant of gays now than they used to be 30-40 years ago.

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:36:12 +0000

I did recognoze that fact Walter. There are many people that are born as hermaphrodites(having both sex organs). The doctor usually decides the sex of the child by which organ is more developed, hormone levels aren't considered because the sex organs and their functions aren't fully developed. If they mess that up I can see where a child may be programmed to be attracted to the same sex.

Genetics in and of themselve can't be at fault because there is no sexual orientation gene.

By: Quidpro

Quidpro — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:51:25 +0000

Homosexuals insist that they should be treated on the same basis as heterosexuals. They should be allowed to marry partners of the same sex, serve in the military, lead boy scout troops, and generally have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals because they are in all respects similar to heterosexuals except as to their preference in sexual partners.

But then they claim that they had no choice in their sexual "orientation", that they were genetically determined to be homosexual. In other words, they are different. So which is it?

By: walter

walter — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:00:07 +0000

joe sez….."Is it their fault they are fat? THere are a million reasons including genetics that cause this problem."

I would think that if you accept the argument that genetics can cause a person to be fat(or bald, or tall, or short, or dark, or light) than you would accept the argument that a persons sexuality can also be determined by genetics

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:22:16 +0000

Rev where is their homosexuality in nature? Because a dog sniffs anothers butt is that gay? THere are asexual organisms, that is not gay. We are programmed to reproduce we are programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I never said anything is wrong with gay sex if that is what one is into, as I said I don't care how one gets their orgasms. It is none of my business.

What if I demanded special rights because of obesity or baldness? Obese people are discriminated against everyday, denied rights including insurance, plane seats, limits at the Golden Corral. Is it their fault they are fat? THere are a million reasons including genetics that cause this problem. THis is just another arguing point that politicians use.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:05:20 +0000

Preferences, I believe, are one thing. Discrimination is another.

When our personal preference is to discriminate….jobs, housing, marriage…then the line is crossed into illegality.

It would not be legal to discriminate against bald men, right?

Talking bad about someone because of their baldness is childish, mean, and basically destructive. Denying bald people equal rights with non-bald people would be illegal.

And average, I don't think this is correct….

"Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a lifestyle that some chose to pursue."

Did you choose to be hetero-sexual? I know I didn't choose heterosexuality, it chose me. I'm relatively certain that's how it is with homosexuals as well.
Homosexuality is found in nature. Did those creatures choose to be homosexual?

When the genetic numbers combine and form new life, the new genetic number of the new life is what it is…..nothing is chosen.

King…..do you think it will take another generation, 20-30 years, before military attitudes will change? If so….is there room in your thinking for government action to end the discrimination?