Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Not every married person wants their spouse to inherit things after their death or determine what should be done with their body and property.
There are plenty of single persons who would want to establish a non-family member to take emergency responsibilities for them, and perhaps some one else entirely for inheritance... or any number of other privileges only afforded to married persons.

These issues should each be handled individually. They shouldn't be automatic because of some government registration of their living arrangement. They should be easily changeable. They shouldn't only be available as part of a "package deal". They shouldn't only be available to two romantic partners that choose to sign on the dotted line (regardless of if it's called a "marriage" or "civil union").

There are wills to handle things, but do you remember the Terry Shiavo case? Woman on life support, unclear if she's really even "there". Who gets to decide? What if you were Terry? What if you were Micheal? Do you want to be the one to decide what happens to the love of your life? Or do you want to leave that decision up to the government, or to family members who may or may not like you or him/her?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

There are wills to handle things, but do you remember the Terry Shiavo case? Woman on life support, unclear if she's really even "there". Who gets to decide? What if you were Terry? What if you were Micheal? Do you want to be the one to decide what happens to the love of your life? Or do you want to leave that decision up to the government, or to family members who may or may not like you or him/her?

As my posts have explained, the ability to elect some one to handle these things should be available to anyone, not just some one who decides to get married, nor just to people in romantic relationships. In such a system, the person deciding Terry Schiavo's fate would be the person she selected. The person she was married to, if she so chose.

If all marriages were perfect, that system would work... for married people. But there are marriages with significant problems where one spouse would NOT want the other to have the legal powers afforded to a spouse. And that would still leave single people where they are now, unable to designate a person to handle their affairs. OF COURSE there would need to be a legal framework in place to give everyone this option. But considering that we already have systems to handle such contracts in marriage, allowing individuals persons to designate such persons for such privileges individually and at will would be pretty easy.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

In such a system, the person deciding Terry Schiavo's fate would be the person she selected. The person she was married to, if she so chose.

The whole issue behind the Terry Schiavo case, was that she *didn't* select anyone. So when she ended up in her state, it was already too late, that's why I asked what you would have done. When no one has selected who will make those decisions, who does it default to? Because there *will* be people who don't make that choice before tragedy strikes.

[Arbitres]

Oh c'mon. Everyone should have the chance to be happy, by their choice. By their free will. Some don't choose to be like that, and simply live like that. Some overlook this and consider it atrocious.

All I have to say: They can all go to hell. People shouldn't be hated because they live differently or dilvergently. They should be respected for uniqueness. Not brandish them with something that might as well be a caste.

"Gay" "Straight" or "Bi" being the caste i'm speaking of.

C'mon, people should be happy by choosing how they live or how they cope with living. Gay marriage isn't wrong, in my opinion. They aren't freaks or evil creatures. Just another thing called 'individuality'.

Put up with it, everyone is inherently different. But automatically putting the 'gays' into the bad or minority categories doesn't fit right.

*Deep breath* 'Kay, Rant done. xD rawr!.. lol

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

The whole issue behind the Terry Schiavo case, was that she *didn't* select anyone. So when she ended up in her state, it was already too late, that's why I asked what you would have done. When no one has selected who will make those decisions, who does it default to? Because there *will* be people who don't make that choice before tragedy strikes.

No, the issue behind the Terry Schiavo case was that there was testimony that her family objected to her husband's decision to not continue life support. Imagine a situation like Terry Schiavo's in which the person knew ahead of time that their spouse would not honor their wishes in such a situation. Even a will can't always override the spouse's wishes in every case.

Now, if in a system that did not require marriage to designate some one to handle such issues (outside of serious legal contracts), if not designate such a person, then I imagine they would do the same thing they do now. These tragedies already happen, and funnily enough it happens to unmarried persons regardless of their sexual orientation or relationship status.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

No, the issue behind the Terry Schiavo case was that there was testimony that her family objected to her husband's decision to not continue life support. Imagine a situation like Terry Schiavo's in which the person knew ahead of time that their spouse would not honor their wishes in such a situation. Even a will can't always override the spouse's wishes in every case.

Actually, a will *can* override the spouse's wishes; that's the whole point of it. Your own wishes overrule everyone else's, and a will is what *you* want. The whole problem was that Terry's will didn't say, and most people's don't.

But back to Terry, we don't know who was telling the truth: Micheal or Terry's parents. Neither of us knows what Terry really wanted. The parents wanted to keep her on life support in her vegetative state, while her husband claimed she wouldn't want to live that way, since "Terry" was already gone anyway; it was expensive and cruel to keep her on life support.

Because Terry didn't have someone selected ahead of time, in her will, to address who could make the decision like this, it defaulted to her husband(and the big question you haven't answered yet, is WHO it should default to if none is selected). If we take your route, that a spouse shouldn't have the say in a situation like this... then who does? You still haven't answered that question. The parents? What if Terry really would have preferred to die if she was like that, and the person who knew her best, her spouse, tried to honor those wishes... and was prevented.

That's the whole reason for marriage privileges, because we generally love and trust our spouse more than life itself; that's why we married them in the first place. If that level of trust isn't there, then it's a bad marriage and you probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place.

But even if you were 100% right, these privileges are not going away anytime soon. They've been around for thousands of years, and most people do prefer the one they love and trust the most, to make these kinds of decisions as a default.

Which means our argument is pretty much moot. The only thing that will change, is that gays will get the same privileges as other married couples.

[Terransheep]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Personally, I don't particularly care. What two consenting adults do with each other in private isn't really my concern.

Unfortunately, in public life, I cannot call for nor defend marriage for homosexuals. It's simply not possible, because doing so would kill all chance of getting conservative Singaporeans to even accept homosexuality in the first place. Conservative Singaporeans have repeatedly said that attempts to decriminalise gay sex between two males are the start to a slippery slope — that is, today they ask for sodomy to be legalised; tomorrow they'd start asking to legalise gay marriage, and so on.

Best I can say is this: Homosexual men here can live together, so long as they keep their love life private. No one would deliberately seek to persecute them. But if they push the boundaries too far, before people are willing to consider ideas such as "gay marriage", they're bound to get ugly reactions.

Change, if it does arrive, will not come from pushing an agenda too aggressively. At least, not in Asia. That's just the fact of life in this part of the world.

Quoted! I agree totally with ya!~~ Of course each marriage is private unless it has some problems outside, or is related to other people. Then that will bring disturbance. Other than that, it's fine!~ Let them be!

[Zu Ra]

Some protest Signs hilarious at best :

Marriage is as old as Civilization and Society itself . So no one religion can claim stake to it . Though the founding fathers never meant the Country to be Christian . The current crop of politicians are brainwashing scribes to believe otherwise . (Ooh yeah Jefferson got censored in the new Texas Text Books Review)



* Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own " .

* Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

" Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the Common Law " .

* George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

" If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. "

* George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

" We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States "

.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Terransheep

Quoted! I agree totally with ya!~~ Of course each marriage is private unless it has some problems outside, or is related to other people. Then that will bring disturbance. Other than that, it's fine!~ Let them be!

It's not okay. How would you feel if you had to hide your orientation or risk losing your job, your pension, your livelihood and being slapped with a dishonorable discharge?

That's the reality for gay people serving right here in the US military. And it's beyond fucked-up.

Brings a whole new meaning to the tropes Hide Your Lesbians and Bury Your Gays...

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

That's the whole reason for marriage privileges, because we generally love and trust our spouse more than life itself; that's why we married them in the first place. If that level of trust isn't there, then it's a bad marriage and you probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place.

But even if you were 100% right, these privileges are not going away anytime soon. They've been around for thousands of years, and most people do prefer the one they love and trust the most, to make these kinds of decisions as a default.

Which means our argument is pretty much moot. The only thing that will change, is that gays will get the same privileges as other married couples.

Regardless of our disagreement on whether these things should be part of the "marriage package" and the government's recognition of marriage, do you disagree that extending all of these privileges and agreements to be available piecemeal to everyone, regardless of marriage status, would be an equitable solution?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Regardless of our disagreement on whether these things should be part of the "marriage package" and the government's recognition of marriage, do you disagree that extending all of these privileges and agreements to be available piecemeal to everyone, regardless of marriage status, would be an equitable solution?

You'll have to forgive me, because your question doesn't make much sense, and we may have a fundamental misscommunication here.

Everyone already has these benefits. You can already designate someone with Power of Attorney to handle things about you and your estate if you're not in a condition to do so yourself; at least in the US.

The point I keep hitting at, though, is that not everyone does this. And not everyone is prepared when an accident or something happens. So I bring the same question back to you yet again:

Who should the "power of attorney" default to, if *NO ONE* is selected, and a person is unable to so themselves?

[Sylphic]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

That's the reality for gay people serving right here in the US military. And it's beyond fucked-up.

No it is not fucked up. The military is different and separate from the civil world, and for good reason. Discrimination or no discrimination openly gay couples can make some people uncomfortable. At least a third of the US military strongly supports this policy. So much for the "it's not hurting anybody, therefore it should be allowed" argument, because it is affecting other people. The last thing you you need in a war zone is to divide people among moral lines that are supposed to be fighting together to accomplish something greater or to stay alive.

It's not as if the military actively seeks out these people either. It's a simple "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, and don't pursue". So keep your things to yourself and you're fine. The military hardly encourages open straight relationships between service people either along the same lines of compromising military discipline.

Also, why is euthanasia and the power of attorney coming into this debate? Separate issues, no?

IANAL, but thankfully the law is fairly clear in this regard. If there is no will or designated power of attorney signed, then the legally recognized spouse will get it by default. If there is none, then the parents get it. If that person has no one... then I have no idea .

[deathcurse]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

No it is not fucked up. The military is different and separate from the civil world, and for good reason. Discrimination or no discrimination openly gay couples can make some people uncomfortable. At least a third of the US military strongly supports this policy. So much for the "it's not hurting anybody, therefore it should be allowed" argument, because it is affecting other people. The last thing you you need in a war zone is to divide people among moral lines that are supposed to be fighting together to accomplish something greater or to stay alive.

It's not as if the military actively seeks out these people either. It's a simple "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, and don't pursue". So keep your things to yourself and you're fine. The military hardly encourages open straight relationships between service people either along the same lines of compromising military discipline.

Also, why is euthanasia and the power of attorney coming into this debate? Separate issues, no?

IANAL, but thankfully the law is fairly clear in this regard. If there is no will or designated power of attorney signed, then the legally recognized spouse will get it by default. If there is none, then the parents get it. If that person has no one... then I have no idea .

I'm not saying that you don't have a point, but I have read articles of interviews of the actual military men serving in the army, and most of them actually have no problem with homosexuality. The younger generation of soldiers nearly all claim that they know someone personally who is gay, and they have absolutely no qualms in trusting their life to them, and serving beside them. I was stunned to read this, but apparently the "problem" that so many people worry about doesn't actually exist. Most misunderstandings between people are overcome when they realize that gay men don't like any man they see--just like anyone else, they like specific people, and can take "no" for an answer.

Most of the people who are opposed are those outside the army who make the policies, or the older generation. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been used to discriminate actively as well, although most of the damage comes from the feeling of pressure to stay closeted by gay soldiers. Living a life where you have to edit every word you say, screen out the details about your partner and family and general activities (went to a gay bar, or read an interesting novel that happened to have gay characters, etc) is really hard on an individual.

That kind of pressure doesn't just exist in the teenage "coming out process". Closeted adults have to fear about the consequences of coming out too, and in the army under the "don't ask don't tell" policy, they don't even get a choice in taking the consequences of coming out or not.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

Also, why is euthanasia and the power of attorney coming into this debate? Separate issues, no?

IANAL, but thankfully the law is fairly clear in this regard. If there is no will or designated power of attorney signed, then the legally recognized spouse will get it by default. If there is none, then the parents get it. If that person has no one... then I have no idea .

Take a look at the thread title "Gay Marriage" and then you'll realize we're talking about benefits that straight people get due to marriage, and thus gay people want to get the same benefits by having their marriages recognized. If two gay guys get hitched, and one gets seriously injured, the other one wants the same right to dictate what should happen to his love's life and possessions.

As for the military, "don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy. The military is not everyday life, and I don't want to know about anyone's relationships, gay or otherwise. I'm there to do a job, and I don't want it more complicated than it has to be. That's just a smart idea for a fighting force.

I don't want a gay guy crushing on me, in the same way that a female officer doesn't want a straight guy crushing on her, either. Save those kinds of things for the normal world, and just focus on what we're trying to accomplish. Two guys hooking up, can have as much impact on morale as a guy and a girl hooking up. Both can compromise the unit's integrity.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

It's not as if the military actively seeks out these people either. It's a simple "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, and don't pursue". So keep your things to yourself and you're fine. The military hardly encourages open straight relationships between service people either along the same lines of compromising military discipline.

Leaving aside the issue of personal rights and freedoms (at least until later), what you say here is not how the policy is enforced. Any information concerning homosexuality, even if it has nothing to do with what the soldier is currently doing in their service, or if it is not provided by the soldier being "accused", will result in a discharge from the armed forces.

Specifically, a soldier can be kicked out of the army, even when they did not "tell" and no one "asked" but they were still found out, by sheer happenstance, to be homosexual. For example, say a male soldier has a gay porno magazine that they never show anyone, but, do to unforeseen circumstances (maybe another soldier was rummaging through the homosexual soldiers luggage, or something else wholly innocuous), another soldier finds the magazine. The soldier that owns the magazine will be discharged. But, let's make it a little more innocent; say a married soldier (who wears a ring, etc) has one picture of their spouse that they keep in their wallet and never show to their fellow servicemen, but, somehow, another soldier manages to find out (without the consent of the homosexual soldier) that the pictured spouse is the same sex. What follows would be the homosexual married soldiers discharge from the army. And then there are instances like the Timothy R. McVeigh case (in which the navy discharged a soldier based entirely on his AOL username (thankfully, in this case the Navy was proven, in court, to be in the wrong, but they still managed to kick McVeigh out of the military, so even when a person beats the rap, they still lost their career…), in which the army does seek to know your gender identity, and then discharges you based on their findings.

So, even when "innocent" of any specific instance of "homosexual behaviour" (which many defenders of the ban like to mention - the phrase is meant to imply one soldier propositioning another or some other "extreme" situation), a homosexual will still be discharged simply because it is discovered, even if by accident, that they are homosexual.

Even more broadly that that, though, the problem isn't that the army is trying to turn a blind eye to the individual relationships of the soldiers (okay, that is actually a problem as well), no, the problem is that being a homosexual will get you kicked out of the military, specifically because it is almost impossible to hide. If anyone finds out that you are a homosexual, via any means, then you will be discharged from service, and even if, as with the Timothy R. McVeigh case, you are able to prove you are not homosexual, your discharage will simply become "honorable" rather than "dishonorable".

To put it simply, and to get into the issue of individual rights I mentioned earlier, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if properly implemented would penalize all acts of sexuality or gender identity (i.e. no mention of gender identity or sexual preference would be allowed), but since the policy is only used against homosexual soldiers, stripping them of their sexual identity and letting the heterosexual soldiers freely express themselves, the policy is clearly biased and should be repealed. The Army is not sexless or genderless, they are individuals with their own sexual and romantic urges and should be treated equally and fairly.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

No it is not fucked up. The military is different and separate from the civil world, and for good reason. Discrimination or no discrimination openly gay couples can make some people uncomfortable. At least a third of the US military strongly supports this policy. So much for the "it's not hurting anybody, therefore it should be allowed" argument, because it is affecting other people. The last thing you you need in a war zone is to divide people among moral lines that are supposed to be fighting together to accomplish something greater or to stay alive.

It's not as if the military actively seeks out these people either. It's a simple "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, and don't pursue". So keep your things to yourself and you're fine. The military hardly encourages open straight relationships between service people either along the same lines of compromising military discipline.

Soldiers who are overly stressed out and mentally fatigued due to being required to live a double life are far more likely to get themselves and their entire units killed.

Sorry, but your reasoning fails. Even if your reasoning was accurate (which it is not, the rule is borne from hateful discrimination and not common sense), then soldiers who were outed would not be mistreated, but simply given a neutral or even an honorable discharge.

What actually happens is much worse.

Originally Posted by james0246

Leaving aside the issue of personal rights and freedoms (at least until later), what you say here is not how the policy is enforced. Any information concerning homosexuality, even if it has nothing to do with what the soldier is currently doing in their service, or if it is not provided by the soldier being "accused", will result in a discharge from the armed forces.

Specifically, a soldier can be kicked out of the army, even when they did not "tell" and no one "asked" but they were still found out, by sheer happenstance, to be homosexual. For example, say a male soldier has a gay porno magazine that they never show anyone, but, do to unforeseen circumstances (maybe another soldier was rummaging through the homosexual soldiers luggage, or something else wholly innocuous), another soldier finds the magazine. The soldier that owns the magazine will be discharged. But, let's make it a little more innocent; say a married soldier (who wears a ring, etc) has one picture of their spouse that they keep in their wallet and never show to their fellow servicemen, but, somehow, another soldier manages to find out (without the consent of the homosexual soldier) that the pictured spouse is the same sex. What follows would be the homosexual married soldiers discharge from the army. And then there are instances like the Timothy R. McVeigh case (in which the navy discharged a soldier based entirely on his AOL username (thankfully, in this case the Navy was proven, in court, to be in the wrong, but they still managed to kick McVeigh out of the military, so even when a person beats the rap, they still lost their career…), in which the army does seek to know your gender identity, and then discharges you based on their findings.

So, even when "innocent" of any specific instance of "homosexual behaviour" (which many defenders of the ban like to mention - the phrase is meant to imply one soldier propositioning another or some other "extreme" situation), a homosexual will still be discharged simply because it is discovered, even if by accident, that they are homosexual.

Even more broadly that that, though, the problem isn't that the army is trying to turn a blind eye to the individual relationships of the soldiers (okay, that is actually a problem as well), no, the problem is that being a homosexual will get you kicked out of the military, specifically because it is almost impossible to hide. If anyone finds out that you are a homosexual, via any means, then you will be discharged from service, and even if, as with the Timothy R. McVeigh case, you are able to prove you are not homosexual, your discharage will simply become "honorable" rather than "dishonorable".

To put it simply, and to get into the issue of individual rights I mentioned earlier, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if properly implemented would penalize all acts of sexuality or gender identity (i.e. no mention of gender identity or sexual preference would be allowed), but since the policy is only used against homosexual soldiers, stripping them of their sexual identity and letting the heterosexual soldiers freely express themselves, the policy is clearly biased and should be repealed. The Army is not sexless or genderless, they are individuals with their own sexual and romantic urges and should be treated equally and fairly.

I rest my case.

The fact that it's considered a dishonorable discharge to begin with pretty much tells you right there that the rule is bound up in hateful discrimination.

For those not in the know, a soldier who receives a dishonorable discharge is stripped of all their decorations and awards and loses their pension in its entirety. It's also very shameful; "dishonorable," just like the discharge description says.

This is not right and it's not equitable. A straight man dating and marrying a woman while in the service will cause no eyebrows raised and will not receive even the slightest bit of punishment. In fact, he'll probably get moved to larger housing to accommodate the new family. But a gay man or woman is kicked out, stripped of rank and awards and denied a pension. Unfuckingbelievable.

At least I never have to worry about getting drafted. Those macho men would probably rather be filled full of 7.62mm holes than have their lives saved by a "fag..."

[james0246]

^I apologize but I must clarify my point a little. Being a known Homosexual always results in a mandatory general discharge, but that is not an actual dishonorable discharge (nor is it honorable). Rather, I was using the quoted dishonorable to emphasize that because the discharge is mandatory it is not a true honorable discharge (which mean they cannot partake in a GI Bill, or VA disability, etc (things a full honorable discharge can be provided with)) nor is it dishonorable. A dishonorable discharge comes from things like murder, sexual assault, and other serious acts; an honorable discharge comes from being wounded while on duty, or simply retiring after compliting a tour of duty; a general discharge is reserved for those that simply do not cut it in the military (i.e. they are lazy or unproductive);and, a mandatory general discharge is for those individuals that have minor offenses that are deemed harmful to the army (like drug abuse...and homosexuality ).

[Sylphic]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Soldiers who are overly stressed out and mentally fatigued due to being required to live a double life are far more likely to get themselves and their entire units killed.

Sorry, but your reasoning fails. Even if your reasoning was accurate (which it is not, the rule is borne from hateful discrimination and not common sense), then soldiers who were outed would not be mistreated, but simply given a neutral or even an honorable discharge.

What actually happens is much worse.

Sorry... how does my reasoning fail? You have given no arguments in support of this accusation. Your response is full of profanity and knee-jerk responses. I do not support your point of view, therefore I am not capable of reason and I am discriminating? To stoop to a personal attack is perhaps indicative that your argument does not hold enough water.

37% of the military said they were opposed to serving with openly gay men and women in a 2006 Zogby International poll. 48% of the US service people said they felt that their unit morale would fall if they were made to serve with openly gay men and women in the same poll. These are facts. Am I stretching it to say that a large portion of the US military does not want to see openly gay men or women serve with them? I don't think so.

How is my reasoning born from hateful discrimination and not common sense? Soldiers who are outed ARE given a general discharge. The number of these people is approximately 600 or so every year. Yes, they are judged to be disruptive to the army because they are driving home divisions in the psyche of the army as polls suggest. To argue that they deserve an honorable discharge would be a travesty to all those who actually earned that distinction and would be a great example of reverse discrimination.

To judge the military and question military morals, ethics, and values with a civilian mindset is simply invalid. To put it in perspective, in our world, murder is a crime something to be prosecuted over. In a soldier's world, if he shoots an enemy combatant, what has he done? It's still murder, but he is doing his duty. He is to be congratulated and he is definitely not going to be prosecuted for it. It stands to reason that their priorities may be just a LITTLE different, trying to judge the military with civilian values is just flat out invalid.

Oh and you don't have to worry about the draft, not because you are a homosexual, because the last time I checked, the military was not conscripting and they haven't done so for at least 20 years!

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

37% of the military said they were opposed to serving with openly gay men and women in a 2006 Zogby International poll. 48% of the US service people said they felt that their unit morale would fall if they were made to serve with openly gay men and women in the same poll. These are facts. Am I stretching it to say that a large portion of the US military does not want to see openly gay men or women serve with them? I don't think so.

No, you are correct, large minorities of the armed forces are wary of an active inclusion of homosexuals. But, simply because a large amount of people are leery of serving alongside homosexuals doesn't mean that the issue can be ignored or pushed to the side. While I do not have the data at hand, I am sure large numbers of soldiers were wary of allowing African Americans to serve during the Civil War. And, later, I am sure large numbers of soldiers were wary of allowing mix-race squadrons and platoons. And, of course, large numbers are still wary of allowing women on the front lines. Simply because a largest minority or smallest majority feels wary of a particular issue, doesn't mean that the issue will necessarily result in failure or that people's opinions cannot be changed. As a side comment, I think the main reason as to why the inclusion of gays and lesbians hasn't been that important (to the military) is because there are so few in the army already - unlike African Americans, or even Women, there are not 100s or 1000s of homosexuals just looking to sign up and serve our country. Consequently, some, probably think that there isn't much of a need to accept gays and lesbians in the military.

If nothing else, would you be willing to accept experimental units designed to prove whether or not it is possible for gays and lesbians to serve alongside their fellow volunteers?

Originally Posted by Sylphic

How is my reasoning born from hateful discrimination and not common sense? Soldiers who are outed ARE given a general discharge. The number of these people is approximately 600 or so every year. Yes, they are judged to be disruptive to the army because they are driving home divisions in the psyche of the army as polls suggest. To argue that they deserve an honorable discharge would be a travesty to all those who actually earned that distinction and would be a great example of reverse discrimination.

A general discharge for homosexuality is actually a form of discrimination, or at least it can be. Specifically, if homosexuality is natural (which I do not feel like debating right now, but suffice to say, even if homosexuality is unnatural it would still be protected as a sexual preference), then these service men and women are being rejected do to no fault of their own. Consequently, they are being denied the extra services provided to soldiers upon their discharge (honorable discharge lets you apply for the GI Bill, greater health insurance, etc, general discharge either provides watered-down services or possibly nothing at all) simply because of something they (probably) cannot control. (It's tough to say how much morale damage serving with a homosexual would incur, specifically because the current system disallows the mere possibility to even experiment with mixed squads).

Originally Posted by Sylphic

To judge the military and question military morals, ethics, and values with a civilian mindset is simply invalid. To put it in perspective, in our world, murder is a crime something to be prosecuted over. In a soldier's world, if he shoots an enemy combatant, what has he done? It's still murder, but he is doing his duty. He is to be congratulated and he is definitely not going to be prosecuted for it. It stands to reason that their priorities may be just a LITTLE different, trying to judge the military with civilian values is just flat out invalid.

It's not really a difference between civilian and military. This is about whether a homosexual serviceman can actually, during a moment of fear and panic off the battlefield, call his or her same-sex spouse/lover and talk to them without fear of being kicked out of the military for simply wishing to communicate with someone they love for a few brief peaceful moments before they need to go back on duty. (Etc.)

I'm sorry, but the unnecessary (since it is not a significant majority, only the largest minority) infringement of homosexual rights in the military is unjust.

[Zu Ra]

First an >> Update <<


The View talk about the fight for Gay Marriage and Proposition 8 . They also talk about the fight for equality for Gay and Lesbians and talk about the comparison of Gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement . The best thing said in the discussion was from Whoopi (2.54 Onwards) i.e.

If you don't approve of gay marriage . Then don't marry a Gay person