'gays shouldn't serve openly in the military'I assume you mean they shouldn't be open about their homosexuality while serving...... which you know, I think that's a good idea. I think that not being open about one's homosexuality, just because people may look at you different(no matter if they're right or wrong about that) is a good enough reason to do so no matter what argument one may have for advertising their sexuality(which many gays unfortunately go over the top with...). Sometimes when you're in something as important as the armed services you need to show a little professionalism and do something for the good of your team. You don't want someone 2nd guessing putting their ass on the line to save you because you were that weird gay guy. That's just an example that's easily understood though, there's a lot more circumstances that could arise to make it a good idea.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0526/Don-t-ask-don-t-tell-How-do-other-countries-treat-gay-soldiersThe Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that some 66,000 gay and lesbian troops serve in the US forces today. And Britain, a key ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, has allowed homosexuals to openly serve in its military for a decade.Canada and Australia lifted their bans in 1992, followed by Israel in 1993, and South Africa in 1998. The lift on bans did not result in a mass “coming out,” the Palm Center found, nor were there instances of increased harassment of or by gay people.When Britain looked to repeal its ban, its military initially considered DADT. But they found it was a “disaster,” which “hadn’t worked,” was “unworkable” and was “hypocritical,” according to the Palm Center’s report, "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer."Instead, the British military based its regulations on the Australian model, which simply ban public displays of affection, harassment and inappropriate relationships – regardless of whether the couple was gay or straight. In 2002, the British Ministry of Defense reconfirmed that “there has been no discernible impact on operational effectiveness” as a result of ending the gay ban and that “no further review of the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality” was necessary.
I can't watch the video quite yet but do you have any comments, quadz, in regard to the legitimacy of the stuff he said about nazis?(how much is true, in your opinion)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/more_savage_than_natural_men.php#comment-2690827Oh, the good reverend is quite clearly a closeted homosexual.First, notice that he said that openly homosexual men are different from "natural" men. Clearly, being closeted isn't quite as bad. It's all about repressing the urges.This leads us to the second point; he states that openly gay men don't have the restraint that normal men do. I.e. they give in to they "unnatural" urges, while normal men repress them.It sounds to me like the reverend has a few urges of his own, but since he represses them, he can rationalize himself as not being openly gay, and therefore a "normal" person.I mean, if he didn't want to get down and dirty, then why would he need restraint?
I was aiming to see your opinion if you thought it was a smart decision, personally to make in America's armed services and not from a political standpoint.
...once DADT has been repealed, i can only imagine that's an individual decision that would not be made lightly by people who are all too aware of the persistent social stigma they're up against.
Welcome, Guest. Please 
November 21, 2024, 08:26:55 PM