Another stick
 

Maybe this one is too obvious in this crowd, but let's try it:

"Don't ask, don't tell." Discuss.

And you can talk about gay marriage too if you want. :D

NDD, didn't you say you were going to find a lib?

Why hasn't "don't ask, don't tell" been repealed?

I'm your huckleberry.

Repealed? Is it a law?

Policy, law, whatever. Isn't it still the policy of the DOD?

I don't know.
I've got a good one on another board. College boy just told me that being gay is biological but not genetic. His Social Science and Studies professor told him so and unless I have a doctorate in social science I need to STFU and I am a dumbass. And his professor told him to say that if anyone tried to tell him different.

I am explaining to my new friend how I didn't sign the social contract, so he needs to watch the name calling. I made him cry yesterday. LOL

Anyway,
I think there have always been gay people in the military and "Don't ask, Don't tell" is just a catchy way of appeasing a voting block by Clinton. I would imagine SP4 justice would take care of it as it always has when it becames an "in your face" type of issue.

I would doubt that gay people would tend to gravitate towards units like SF for several reasons, not the least being peer pressure and the impossibility of keeping it "don't tell" in a Team environment.

I personally don't have a problem with them serving as long as they "don't tell." And not just gays. I don't want to know the sexual habits of anybody in the military. There are a lot of people that have weird ideas and not just in the sexual arena. I don't want to know who is a member of the John Birch Society, who likes to be tied up, etc. As long as it doesn't affect the unit, how would I know?

I would think there is a big difference in terms of who has to be swayed to change the current status quo.

DoD policy would not have to be passed through Congress would it? Whereas if it is a law... it will never change in our current PC political climate. Who knows which it is?

Did my answer surprise you?

What does that mean?

No. You're a communist, so it makes perfect sense. :D

Well, what I think it means is that they didn't choose to be gay as a choice, but since it has been proven to not be genetic, it must be biological.

My current question to him (as yet ignored) is well, they must have caught it like a disease then?

LOL

My understanding from discussing the issue with gays and lesbians is that it is not a choice, but rather some sort of preprogrammed disposition. If that is true, I think it becomes more difficult to distinguish between sexual orientation and other characteristics like race for purposes of social policy.

On the other hand, the line must be drawn somewhere -- you're not going to just accept the fact that someone was born to murder or molest children or animals. So where do you draw the line?

I enjoy when people tell me that, that it’s a biological disorder and not one of conscious decision. So is cancer, so are a number of diseases. I would have asked college boy if that applies to pedophiles, serial rapists and all the other sick perverted bastards? And when he answers yes then ask why were depriving them of their civil rights? Maybe because of the widely held impression is that they are mentally sick.

The question is where does one draw the line in the sand?

Team Sergeant

I heard on TV the other day that most Americans oppose gay marriage, but they support "civil unions." The distinction is that they will tolerate homosexuals, but not endorse their behavior.

Brilliant, just brilliant. LOL

Uh, how is this different than genetic?

I don't know. That's why I asked my question above.

Has it really been proven not to be genetic? I have no idea.

How many gay people do you know that had gay parents or relatives at all? I could google it, but I don't care.

I don't care either, but I googled it anyway. Don't know if this is right or wrong, but here it is.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...s/nih-upi.html

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Many homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influences sexual orientation, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported Thursday.
The finding -- certain to add fuel to the already heated debate over gay rights -- supports earlier studies which suggested that inherited genetic factors at least play a role in determining sexual orientation.

``Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision. People have no control over the genes they inherit and there is no way to change them,'' said the study's lead author Dean Hamer, chief of the cancer institute's Section on Gene Structure and Regulation.

Hamer and his colleagues began by studying the family histories of 114 gay men and found more homosexual brothers, uncles and male cousins than would be expected in the general population. Some families had three generations of homosexual relatives.

``Since the uncles and cousins aren't raised in the same household but share genetic information, that suggested there was something inherited going on,'' Hamer said in an interview.

Following up on that suggestion, Hamer studied the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found 33 of them shared genetic markers on the X chromosome in a region known as Xq28.

The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes; it is always inherited from mothers. Genes are arranged along 46 chromosomes, each consisting of tiny coils of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the instructions to manufacture a particular body substance.

There was no such similar sharing in the same region among heterosexual men. The researchers have not yet compared the homosexuals' genetic information to the other group.

``We expect that this region will be important for both heterosexual and homosexual development -- that there will be a very small and subtle difference'' between the genes of each group, Hamer said.

However, the finding does not explain all homosexuality. Seven out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers studied did not have the common genetic factor, the researchers said.

The research, published in the journal Science, was conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute's study of cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma which afflict unusually large numbers of homosexuals.

Further study is being conducted to determine whether a similar genetic link occurs in families of homosexual women. Hamer said he also hopes to identify the specific gene involved in sexual orientation.

Gregory King, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay and lesbian activist group, said he hoped Hamer's study would ``help Americans understand that most lesbian and gay people do not choose their sexual orientation.''

But King also expressed concern that anti-homosexual activists could misconstrue the cancer institute study.

``There will be concern among people who are lesbian and gay that this discovery will be misused to suggest that (homosexuality) is something that needs to be 'corrected,''' King said.

That study doesn't say anything as far as I'm concerned. Does it impress you?

No, but it contradicts your statement to the effect that we know that homosexuality is not genetic. I don't know one way or the other, but it seems to be an open issue at the least.

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

MAn! Most of it is from church websites. People really don't like gays.

C'mon, NDD. That is an advocacy site. I don't care either way, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is research going in both directions and it is at least an open issue.

Have you ever asked a homosexual whether they feel they have a choice about their sexual preference? I've spoken to several who said that they would prefer to be straight but just can't change how they are.

IF this is true, the question seems to me to be whether homosexual conduct is something bad like bestiality or incest, or something that should be tolerated to some degree. Just like the Team Sergeant said. :D

Nice double helix .gif.

Yep. I noticed the same thing.

I know its an advocacy site, most of them are.

The subject is so controversial they are all going to take a stand. The funny thing is, it seems that the gay's don't wantit to be genetic becuase then somebody will want to "fix" it through genetic research. I can see that happening.

I don't really care. Either way. They're here and nothing is going to change that.

The real problem I have with them is the way they want to shove it in society's face. Not all, but a lot of them. If they would act more like mainstream society, they probably wouldn't have as many problems as they do being accepted in more places.

I can see how it would affect military order and discipline, but I am also sure there are gay people serving quietly and doing good things. The women seem to get that part better than the men to me. BTW, I don't consider lesbians to be gay, they're just a threesome with a pending draft choice.:lifter

I don't think every gay man in the military is there because its a target rich environment, nor do I think they're out to "turn" the rest of us. The answer is its probably best if they don't openly accept gays into the military, because no doubt a few bad apples would ruin it for the rest. I wonder how many openly gay people have tried to join the military and what they were like?

If it is finally determined to be genetic, I don't think there's much way to keep them out.

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children, because I do believe they will influence the child to be gay, even depsite protests to the contrary. What an adult does is their business, but where children are concerned its a different matter all together in my book.

This topic makes my head hurt. There's no easy answer for the future. For the present, I say don't let them in, but eventually somebody will have to deal with it. My question is, if its genetic, how are they procreating?

:boohoo

Just kidding. OK, let's stop then. Perhaps others will have something to say.

That is how we know that it is not the right thing to do.

Darwin's law. Their "kind" doesn't survive in nature. No different than a giraffe with a 3" neck... or a toothless crocodile.
Freaks... LOL


There.. that should spice things up from our lib lurkers. :munchin

This is an interesting statement, NDD. While I agree there are some fringe churches who teach hate, I have never been involved with one. If one believes the Holy Bible, then they cannot agree with the practice of homosexuality. The two cannot purely co-exist. To agree that homosexuality is okay as a practice, one must say that they do not agree with parts of the Holy Bible. It is not a matter of liking or disliking a human being, but the behavior.

I have worked with some folks who were openly participating in the homosexual lifestyle. We got along just fine, agreeing to disagree without letting it affect our work.

My wish list - return the behavior to illegal status and enforce it, no adoptions for those who have engaged in the behavior and continue to condone it as a lifestyle.

That should add fuel to the fire Sacamuelas started. :munchin


Edited to add comments rather than multiple posts...

I must say that I expected more sailor jokes in this thread. I am disappointed. LOL

Actually, homosexuals go both ways on this issue (no pun intended). Some favor the genetic argument and use it against individuals and groups trying to convert gays ("Sparky...sit!...roll over!... Don't be gay, Spark! Don't be gay!")*. Others oppose the genetic argument for the very reason you cite. They fear someone will come up up with a gene therapy to "cure" homosexuality.

I personally don't have much of an opinion either way. Perhaps people are more genetically predisposed, but I think environment and improper socialization (overbearing mothers and all the otehr stereotypes) probably play a greater role. My intuition for this is that even gay couples tend to fall into "straight" gender roles (Ren's the pitcher and Stimpy's the catcher).

Regarding the original topic, "don't ask, don't tell", it strikes me as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences - discharges for homosexuality increased considerably after the policy came into effect. For over two centuries, once you got past the entrance questionnaire and unless you were applying for a security clearance, there was already an informal policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the armed forces. As long as you did your job and stayed in the closet, no one cared. But the Clinton Administration came along and made it a policy because they didn't trust the SP4 mafia or Army tradition (I doubt more than 1 in 10,000 Clintonites even know what a SP4 mafia is).

The reaction of soldiers? You don't trust us enough to manage an informal policy, watch how rigorously we enforce the formal policy! In so many cases, you didn't have to ask, and quite a few soldiers couldn't manage the "don't tell" part. So out the door they went.

BTW, I was in airborne school (D/1-507, the Rock) when the policy came out. First joke to make the rounds: "What's the number one pick-up line for a gay paratrooper?"
.
.
.
"May I pack your chute?"


* "Don't be gay, Spark!": http://new.wavlist.com/tv/038/104_dontbgay.wav

Trivia question: what actor who has played SF officers in two films was the voice of Stan's gay dog Sparky?

.02
 

I have always thought that the environment which kids are raised has as much or all to do with their sexual orientation. Some people are born with certain personalities and how they are raised and thier childhood environment has a lot to do with how they turn out. I do think homosexuality is a choice, but i do think the person's experience makes it easier to make that choice. Do I personally think there is any instance that makes homosexuality ok...no. But that is just my opinion. There is evidence on both sides of the issue, but i would say it is probably impossible to find research that hasn't been biased at some point either by funding or a personal agenda. Also the only evidence I have to support my opinion is from my child psych class I took at school, which by the way didn't cover sexual behavior because it was with kids. And from the gay guys I have met in my life, a majority of them came from a female household with no dominate male role model. I think that is more than a coincidence.

SO

This is the Army, not the Navy.

New techniques added to bayonet/pugil stick training in Mr. Clinton's Army:
(1) Crotch stroke to the butt.
(2) Head stroke to the crotch.

Re: .02
 

The ones I knew mostly came from traditional families, but had experienced homosexual abuse in their childhood. The young man who spoke at our self-defense class last week was raped on several occasions by three different males and is now in a homosexual relationship.

George Clooney. That episode was a riot. I also heard the same thing about discharges going up, but I thought it had more to do with dumbasses misinterpreting the policy as a pass to come "Out of the closet". Thought the don't ask part made it ok, forgot all about the don't tell part, or something like that.

Actually, looks more like kids got the word that it was an easy way to get out very early without a hassle, and with lots of free legal support.

A few Basic training installations had the majority of the discharges.

TR

Pre-DA/DT, when I was in Basic, we had a guy in my company kicked out for coming out. Our 1SG didn't actually believe him, but figured, either he was gay and couldn't stay in, or he was a liar and a quitter, so he didn't want him in. As an aside, the 1SG was a tough old guy who wore a 187th RCT combat patch for Korea and had 40 years in, active and Reserve (our drills were from the USAR's 78th Division, AKA the "Jersey Lightning" AKA the "Squashed Tomato").

Re: Re: .02
 

I've met men that have come from this background, while others come from the background that NDD discussed. It doesn't really address female homosexuals, though.

I think that the flaunting of any extreme behavior in a highly disciplined lifestyle like the military will cause problems.

This is a 1998 DOD Study, with analysis and data on discharges from 1980-1997: Report to the Secretary of Defense: Review of the Effectiveness of the Application and Enforcement of the Department's Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Military. It shows that discharges declined in the late 1980s and early 1990s but accelerated when the DADT policy came into effect.

SInce that study, annual discharges generally rose for several years and then declined:

1998: 1,149
1999: 1,034
2000: 1,212
2001: 1,273
2002: 976

The 2003 numbers will probably be released sometime this month.