1) Tyler was not outted. So deal with a gay guy that disagrees with you, oh darn too many bad reminders of your last gay.com chat session – huh?

2) While there is evidence of a gay gene, not one scientist has ever asserted there is a liberal gene.

3) Given the controversy over the dropping of trannie rights by gay men in their quest to get ENDA vetoed, the concept of gay rights is nebulous to say the least (and yes, some transgenders are gay AND lesbian regardless of their starting and ending genders).

4) Hate is never acceptable. Isn’t that the message? Cuz otherwise you are teaching that hate IS acceptable depending on how many people agree.

Nice job Matt… I’m off to piss off other people now…

As such, he’s responsible for his actions. These actions, which comprise being a willing pawn for anti-gay bigots such as Kyle Bristow and participating in anti-gay activism.

I think the people who outed Whitney did him — and the whole gay community — a big favor. A self-hating, 18-year-old gay guy won’t grow up to become a 45-year-old, self-hating gay guy who expresses his self hatred by legislating, preaching or lobbying against gay rights.

I lean towards the “should never be allowed” — or, perhaps better put, should be done somewhere prior to your getting on the bus/standing on the tarmac waiting for the plane/etc.

Harsh, but fair to everyone, and avoids exactly the situation you mentioned of the have and have-nots.

I think you have some good points. I don’t necessarily agree, because that kind of policy would cause problems.

For example: When troops are getting ready to leave and they have their families assembled. A husband and wife are likely to hug for a very long time and perhaps share a kiss (maybe the last one they will ever share). Gay couples are denied the right to show their emotions at the (possible) loss of their loved ones in the same way.

Would you say that that kind of “public display of affection” should never be allowed, or should it be allowed and if it is allowed it should be equal, allowing all people to say goodbye to their loved one?

But what needs to be kept in mind is that the military is not a standard 9 – 5 workplace; it is literally a 24-hour “on duty” assignment in which you live, eat, shower, and sleep with your co-employees. There is still going to be an imperative to separate the genders and to “don’t tell”.

But I would definitely agree with your last; it needs to be emphasized that DADT refers to public telling. Sending an email or making a telephone call in an appropriately-private venue to your boyfriend is hardly public. To your first, soldiers should be given the privacy they request to contact their loved ones; in return, they should keep matters private. Most employers frown on non-emergency personal communications while in a workplace setting (”on duty”); so should the military.

Second question… Can we not make Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell equal in its application? Going beyond sexual attraction, why can we not make the policy so that servicemembers remain strictly business while on duty and no one is allowed to disclose his or her sexual orientation, gay or straight?

At the same time, we could make it fairer, by making the policy reflect my question above (no one discloses sexual orientation), but allow all service members to at least communicate with those they love, gay or straight, without fear of losing their jobs and livelihood. Would that work?

Again… not trying to argue, just some good ole’ fashion, clean, honest debate and discussion.

That’s a good question, Matt.

As I mentioned before, the basic idea here is similar to that with making men and women share quarters; it isn’t done, except under very specific circumstances, because of the very real and very obvious absence of privacy and the fact that there is sexual attraction between (heterosexual) women and men; that tends to create uncomfortable situations that could greatly interfere with the military’s smooth running.

What makes sexual orientation different is that it is, by and large, invisible. Most people would be none the wiser unless you tell them. Hence the point behind DADT; people won’t be uncomfortable about you being sexually attracted to them as long as they don’t know about it. It is a rather pragmatic compromise; while it doesn’t provide ideological purity in either direction, it’s a means of allowing service without creating issues for the group.

The main question I have revolves around this statement of yours: “without having to force straight soldiers into sharing intimate quarters with people who are sexually attracted to them.”

Under the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy straight soldiers are already serving with people who may (although not always) be attracted to them sexually. Furthermore, we all know that the lines between gay and straight aren’t always so clear and human behavior doesn’t always match up with the verbal and linguistic labels we have created and assigned to people throughout all of history.

If straight soldiers shouldn’t have to serve with people who are sexually attracted to them and if gay and straight people are already serving together (although gay people can’t be open about it), do you propose that we just have a complete, straight-up (no pun intended) ban on gay soldiers? Should we go back to pre-DADT policy?

(BTW… Just asking, not picking on you or anything)

And, oddly enough, the same can happen to you if you are a white male — since they don’t have any antidiscrimination laws protecting them, either, and the court system is strongly biased against fathers.

Ain’t life grand?

“HA! 50 some odd Arabic translators were kicked out of the military for being gay. Feel any safer?”

The most recent graduating class from linguistics school — just the past year’s graduates, mind you, not including other years — had approximately 500 people in it, which means that they were replaced by a factor of 10.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other government service roles — the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Commerce — in which they can be put to use without having to force straight soldiers into sharing intimate quarters with people who are sexually attracted to them.

“Attacking the sanctity of marriage? HA! How many divorced people work in Trancredo’s office?”

Do you really want to go down that path?

( Article from Boston.com )

—
Fixed problem with url link ~Matt