It is, quite simply, this. Our honorable gay men and women in uniform are doing their job and just want to be left alone. They just don’t want to get kicked out of the military just because they’re wired to be attracted to someone of their own sex.
And they shouldn’t lose everything they’ve earned (yes, this happens a lot) over the years because of which way they swing.
Morality is not a legitimate argument. It’s not like we kick soldiers out for having sex before marriage or lusting after someone they’re not married to, just to name a few “equivalent” sins.
There is not a problem in the world with gays serving in the military. Knew alot of them way back when and it never really was an issue for most. Though while were on the issue of equal standards and treatment perhaps we should shift forward even further, by allowing all to serve with true equality. Which should include not having special exemptions on physical standards, work loads or combat zoning based on sex or gender. I mean you can either do the job or you can’t and if you aren’t up to the standards then you should be removed from service. Then we can go to universal same sex berthing and showers. Lowers costs when you don’t have to set aside special resources for quarters to seperate boys from girls since sexual privacy is not an issue anymore which should allow us to do like several other civilized countries did in the 90s and merge everything together and blur the identity crisis in the military. Won’t have unfair practices like female enlisted getting officer quarters cause their isn’t a female berthing area on certain smaller ships or bases. Sounds like a good step in the right direction now if they can only follow it through without bias representing more equality for some than others.
This is a dishonest comic as the guy in the right is a bum on the street, not an actual serviceman. I’ve never seen any member of the military looking like that (straight or gay)… of course, it is merely a politicized comic, so one expects a certain level of dishonesty, especially from where it is coming from.
Here’s the stuff no one wants to talk about. Of those anonymous gays currently serving in the military (which is a very small percentage of the military) only a very small percentage of them want to be free to come out. Most admited on the surveys that if they were allowed to come out they still wouldn’t.
So what this is, is a pompous political movement by a small minority of a small minority which wants special treatment and recognition. It’s selfish narcissism by people not looking at the larger picture, they only care about themselves.
Many servicemen who have or are serving with someone they believe to be gay are fine with them. But at the same time it’s not thrown in their face. Furthermore, of those actively serving in the military in active duty especially in combat areas (where it matters most), the largest percentage would not want don’t ask don’t tell repealled, especially Marines.
Worse yet, a vastly larger percentage of active servicemen and reservers would quit the military if DADT was repealled than there are gays serving who want to be free to come out. Risk/reward… use some logic and common sense, not just emotions and politicization. Think scientifically, not emotionally… that doesn’t even have to take in effect relgious morality.
Why don’t we allow women in the same bunks and showers as men? Because of man’s nature. Just because a man is gay doesn’t change their sexual nature (which is to gawk and desire). Just as women are naturally uncomfortable with men who desire them, so to are men with other men who desire them.
When dealing with this issue you have the ‘sexual harrassment’ problems. Anyone who has been through the training knows about the “touching” - however unintentional or basic - as well as comments that can be taken as harrassment. Men have a tendency to do these things, a lot, especially with other men. The potential for sexual harrassment claims causing serious problems is astronomical.
There are many other points, but I’ll stop with this one. Maybe there is a time to deal with this issue and maybe you deal with each area of the military seperately. Maybe, just like with women, you could proportion open gays in specific roles or areas of the military (like the Coast Guard). However, now is not the time when you are in the midst of a war. Handle these things in peace time where it is more feasible and potentially less detrimental. That’s just simple wisdom.
Speaking of relgious morality, you have another major problem with reverands and such in the military. Sure, some humanists and atheists might think that just getting rid of all of them is a great idea, but looking at the numbers of those who want them and their effectiveness, etc., - scientifically/mathematically/logically - it’s not worth it.
Furthermore, the principle of don’t ask don’t tell (put in play by a liberal Democrat - Clinton) was done as a means of meeting halfway. This is the best system. No one asks what you personal sexual interests are, no one needs to talk about it either - straight or gay. It is the middle ground. Anything else plays favorites. That’s not equality.
DJGravityX, thank you for proving the comic’s point. You’re using the same arguments that people used when Eisenhower ordered the integration of blacks in the military.
The highest number of people being pushed out due to DADT? POC women, who are often harassed by their fellow soldiers to either submit to their sexual advances or reported as gay to their commanding officers.
The military investigations involve searching through private emails and interrogations and anonymous sources to convict soldiers of being gay.
X-Man– Military dentists will tell you going back to the draft that many, shall we say “backward” individuals enter the military requiring significant dental reconstructions as their previous lifestyle didn’t include either education, or health care prior to entering the military. So, well, the Coast Guard IS the “gay service”?? Gays were not a problem in the Viet Nam era, even though it was well known and accepted by all but a few bigots, as long as everyone left everyone else alone to their own.
YES X- man their IS a problem with “reverends” in our military!! Mikey Weinstein, a Jew, runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The objective is specifically to STOP the persecution of “non-Christians” in the military, whether the be Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or any other view. B.B.43, Before Bush 43, this was a problem at the Air Force Academy and a few other places, but mostly, chaplains were told also to leave folks alone. “43 Time” came along and the evangelical “Christians” gained a huge amount of power, and became VERY obnoxious in all the branches, like the incident with the bible verses on gun sights. Being a “non-Christian” became a lot bigger target than being gay.
Why always the shower issue? Even if gay men were the sexual maniacs every straight guy claims them to be, statistically, there’s still only one of them for nine straights. If the gay one is stupid enough to go grope one straight man in the shower, there are eight more straight man to, at best, stop him or, at worst, punch him into unconsciousness.
Women, on the other hand, are just a few. Put one of them in a shower, one man will grope or rape her and the rest will, at best, stand and watch, at worst, join in.
Somebody here thinks that his god has a great interest in war and homosexuality. How about leaving god out of it and just argue logically about the rest?
The Declaration of Independence states: “The laws of Nature, and nature’s God.” So “Nature’s law” comes first. The Constitution does NOT mention “God”, period, the word doesn’t appear in the document, for good reason. Article VI prohibits ANY religious test for any position of trust- like the military- so don’t confuse “religion” with any “rights” granted.
Perhaps Drtroutman should spend more time reading the federalist and anitfederalist papers. It would seem a half-cocked opinion based in little historic substantiality must rule the night for education is seldom required to spread ignorant condemnation under the justification of perceived truth.
Article Six is brief, and specific. The Federalist papers, Hamilton et al are fine, but we only had two “Federalist” (favoring a powerful central government) presidents, Washington and Adams– history shows that those with a different “interpretation” wrote the key document, and had more staying power as a party. Hamilton was also in favor of a king, but that didn’t make it into the Constitution, either. He also didn’t do too well against Burr.
It always boils down to the same thing- those who believe in “the creation God”, even though over three billion people, only half the world’s population, agree with them, those folks can’t get along with each other- as in ask a Muslim to a bris or St Patty’s day event, so the other half are supposed to let them “rule”? “America” was founded by polytheists, animists, and others, then came European invaders, shoving their “religions” down the throats of indigenous peoples.
I am not currently a Christian, but we should probably do exactly what Jesus said we should do about homosexuality–NOTHING! There is no reference to gays or gayness in the New Testament. If you wish to use the Old Testament as your “Christian” guidelines for life, we all better get some stones because almost every leader in the republican party will need stoning.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
It is, quite simply, this. Our honorable gay men and women in uniform are doing their job and just want to be left alone. They just don’t want to get kicked out of the military just because they’re wired to be attracted to someone of their own sex.
And they shouldn’t lose everything they’ve earned (yes, this happens a lot) over the years because of which way they swing.
Morality is not a legitimate argument. It’s not like we kick soldiers out for having sex before marriage or lusting after someone they’re not married to, just to name a few “equivalent” sins.
WestTex13 over 13 years ago
There is not a problem in the world with gays serving in the military. Knew alot of them way back when and it never really was an issue for most. Though while were on the issue of equal standards and treatment perhaps we should shift forward even further, by allowing all to serve with true equality. Which should include not having special exemptions on physical standards, work loads or combat zoning based on sex or gender. I mean you can either do the job or you can’t and if you aren’t up to the standards then you should be removed from service. Then we can go to universal same sex berthing and showers. Lowers costs when you don’t have to set aside special resources for quarters to seperate boys from girls since sexual privacy is not an issue anymore which should allow us to do like several other civilized countries did in the 90s and merge everything together and blur the identity crisis in the military. Won’t have unfair practices like female enlisted getting officer quarters cause their isn’t a female berthing area on certain smaller ships or bases. Sounds like a good step in the right direction now if they can only follow it through without bias representing more equality for some than others.
myming over 13 years ago
i’m going with the guy on the left…
WarBush over 13 years ago
So that’s what a right winger looks like.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
This is a dishonest comic as the guy in the right is a bum on the street, not an actual serviceman. I’ve never seen any member of the military looking like that (straight or gay)… of course, it is merely a politicized comic, so one expects a certain level of dishonesty, especially from where it is coming from.
Here’s the stuff no one wants to talk about. Of those anonymous gays currently serving in the military (which is a very small percentage of the military) only a very small percentage of them want to be free to come out. Most admited on the surveys that if they were allowed to come out they still wouldn’t.
So what this is, is a pompous political movement by a small minority of a small minority which wants special treatment and recognition. It’s selfish narcissism by people not looking at the larger picture, they only care about themselves.
Many servicemen who have or are serving with someone they believe to be gay are fine with them. But at the same time it’s not thrown in their face. Furthermore, of those actively serving in the military in active duty especially in combat areas (where it matters most), the largest percentage would not want don’t ask don’t tell repealled, especially Marines.
Worse yet, a vastly larger percentage of active servicemen and reservers would quit the military if DADT was repealled than there are gays serving who want to be free to come out. Risk/reward… use some logic and common sense, not just emotions and politicization. Think scientifically, not emotionally… that doesn’t even have to take in effect relgious morality.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
Why don’t we allow women in the same bunks and showers as men? Because of man’s nature. Just because a man is gay doesn’t change their sexual nature (which is to gawk and desire). Just as women are naturally uncomfortable with men who desire them, so to are men with other men who desire them.
When dealing with this issue you have the ‘sexual harrassment’ problems. Anyone who has been through the training knows about the “touching” - however unintentional or basic - as well as comments that can be taken as harrassment. Men have a tendency to do these things, a lot, especially with other men. The potential for sexual harrassment claims causing serious problems is astronomical.
There are many other points, but I’ll stop with this one. Maybe there is a time to deal with this issue and maybe you deal with each area of the military seperately. Maybe, just like with women, you could proportion open gays in specific roles or areas of the military (like the Coast Guard). However, now is not the time when you are in the midst of a war. Handle these things in peace time where it is more feasible and potentially less detrimental. That’s just simple wisdom.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
Speaking of relgious morality, you have another major problem with reverands and such in the military. Sure, some humanists and atheists might think that just getting rid of all of them is a great idea, but looking at the numbers of those who want them and their effectiveness, etc., - scientifically/mathematically/logically - it’s not worth it.
Furthermore, the principle of don’t ask don’t tell (put in play by a liberal Democrat - Clinton) was done as a means of meeting halfway. This is the best system. No one asks what you personal sexual interests are, no one needs to talk about it either - straight or gay. It is the middle ground. Anything else plays favorites. That’s not equality.
idres Premium Member over 13 years ago
DJGravityX, thank you for proving the comic’s point. You’re using the same arguments that people used when Eisenhower ordered the integration of blacks in the military.
idres Premium Member over 13 years ago
The highest number of people being pushed out due to DADT? POC women, who are often harassed by their fellow soldiers to either submit to their sexual advances or reported as gay to their commanding officers.
The military investigations involve searching through private emails and interrogations and anonymous sources to convict soldiers of being gay.
Yeah, DADT is the worst possible program ever.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
X-Man– Military dentists will tell you going back to the draft that many, shall we say “backward” individuals enter the military requiring significant dental reconstructions as their previous lifestyle didn’t include either education, or health care prior to entering the military. So, well, the Coast Guard IS the “gay service”?? Gays were not a problem in the Viet Nam era, even though it was well known and accepted by all but a few bigots, as long as everyone left everyone else alone to their own.
YES X- man their IS a problem with “reverends” in our military!! Mikey Weinstein, a Jew, runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The objective is specifically to STOP the persecution of “non-Christians” in the military, whether the be Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or any other view. B.B.43, Before Bush 43, this was a problem at the Air Force Academy and a few other places, but mostly, chaplains were told also to leave folks alone. “43 Time” came along and the evangelical “Christians” gained a huge amount of power, and became VERY obnoxious in all the branches, like the incident with the bible verses on gun sights. Being a “non-Christian” became a lot bigger target than being gay.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Why always the shower issue? Even if gay men were the sexual maniacs every straight guy claims them to be, statistically, there’s still only one of them for nine straights. If the gay one is stupid enough to go grope one straight man in the shower, there are eight more straight man to, at best, stop him or, at worst, punch him into unconsciousness.
Women, on the other hand, are just a few. Put one of them in a shower, one man will grope or rape her and the rest will, at best, stand and watch, at worst, join in.
spelvin2002 over 13 years ago
Somebody here thinks that his god has a great interest in war and homosexuality. How about leaving god out of it and just argue logically about the rest?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ God didn’t only made sex for reproduction.
If you think so, I sure hope you never masturbated!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^^ WHAT IS natural law?
It’s the one you see in nature, not the Bible.
And there is a lot of homosexuality in nature.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The Declaration of Independence states: “The laws of Nature, and nature’s God.” So “Nature’s law” comes first. The Constitution does NOT mention “God”, period, the word doesn’t appear in the document, for good reason. Article VI prohibits ANY religious test for any position of trust- like the military- so don’t confuse “religion” with any “rights” granted.
WestTex13 over 13 years ago
Perhaps Drtroutman should spend more time reading the federalist and anitfederalist papers. It would seem a half-cocked opinion based in little historic substantiality must rule the night for education is seldom required to spread ignorant condemnation under the justification of perceived truth.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
lowCbass - absolute nonsense. Or you’re looking at the wrong porn sites. Google “exhibitionism.”
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Article Six is brief, and specific. The Federalist papers, Hamilton et al are fine, but we only had two “Federalist” (favoring a powerful central government) presidents, Washington and Adams– history shows that those with a different “interpretation” wrote the key document, and had more staying power as a party. Hamilton was also in favor of a king, but that didn’t make it into the Constitution, either. He also didn’t do too well against Burr.
It always boils down to the same thing- those who believe in “the creation God”, even though over three billion people, only half the world’s population, agree with them, those folks can’t get along with each other- as in ask a Muslim to a bris or St Patty’s day event, so the other half are supposed to let them “rule”? “America” was founded by polytheists, animists, and others, then came European invaders, shoving their “religions” down the throats of indigenous peoples.
kreole over 13 years ago
Getting rid of DADT doesn’t change the fact that the guy in the foxhole with you is gay. He just doesn’t have to hide it.
comYics over 13 years ago
Where are the actual people at Clay Bennett?
eepatte over 13 years ago
@charlie555:
I am not currently a Christian, but we should probably do exactly what Jesus said we should do about homosexuality–NOTHING! There is no reference to gays or gayness in the New Testament. If you wish to use the Old Testament as your “Christian” guidelines for life, we all better get some stones because almost every leader in the republican party will need stoning.