Ahmadinejad: no homosexuals in Iran [Archive]

leekohler

Sep 24, 2007, 10:56 PM

MACDRIVE

Sep 24, 2007, 11:52 PM

Make no mistake about it- I think these people are savages. If I had my way- we'd nuke them off the face of the planet.

That works for me, but will the oil survive? ;)

G5Unit

Sep 24, 2007, 11:54 PM

That works for me, but will the oil survive? ;)

Oil isn't the reason we are in Ira....gets slapped in face.

solvs

Sep 25, 2007, 02:32 AM

The video on CNN shows that part and the audience gets a kick out of it.
I think they were laughing at him.

I'm assuming someone will come in here to ask us what we think of Adnutjob (or whatever they'll call him because they don't know how to spell it right or they're just being snide) now, because we all like him so much. Even though we don't. We just don't think he's as bad as has been said, or as I said in the other thread, at least not as much of a threat that would warrant another failing war we don't have the resources to deal with.

Someone also pointed out that he's a worse version of Bush, what we could slowly head towards if we're not careful. That could be disputed, but they do share a love of rhetoric. And they aren't great with dissenters. Maybe Addy is worse in some ways, Bush has certainly done some damage himself though, but any reasonable person, given the evidence, should dislike both of them for what you'd think would be obvious reasons.

Thomas Veil

Sep 25, 2007, 07:50 AM

I think they were laughing at him.Didn't see it myself, but work colleagues who did said the same thing: that they were laughing at him.

How could you refrain from giggling in the face of such monumental stupidity?

Swarmlord

Sep 25, 2007, 08:29 AM

He's right, because they kill them all. While I feel that every country has a right to sovereignty, he is a liar. That also doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn his actions. And just so Swarmlord knows (before he shows up), I hate militant Islam as much as I despise fundamental Chistianity. Extreme religion in any form is repulsive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

This is an example of the most disgusting thing that ever happened there. It made me sick to my stomach to read this. Make no mistake about it- I think these people are savages. If I had my way- we'd nuke them off the face of the planet. However, I understand that different countries have their own laws and their own ways. It's not my place to tell another country what to do. Let's hope that someday, the people in those countries rise up.

http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml

See, there isn't all that much difference between us on many issues. I thought of you the moment that I heard Abdimjob make his statement. I was happy he made that statement though. Anyone that might have been leaning towards giving this guy the benefit of the doubt on the other answers he provided would HAVE to realize that this guy is out of touch with reality to deny the existence of ANY homosexuals in his country.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 25, 2007, 08:32 AM

I thought I was watching Borat when I saw that...:rolleyes:

Sdashiki

Sep 25, 2007, 08:37 AM

Debate the holocaust, ok, bring it.

Swarmlord

Sep 25, 2007, 08:42 AM

I thought I was watching Borat when I saw that...:rolleyes:

There was a strong resemblance and certainly as absurd.

BoyBach

Sep 25, 2007, 08:55 AM

I think they were laughing at him.

That's exactly why Columbia University should be applauded for letting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk. It showed him up as being an intellectually 'retarded' and really, a rather silly figure.

joepunk

Sep 25, 2007, 09:10 AM

Oh I just love this. The U.S. allows this guy into our country but denies M.I.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathangi_Arulpragasum) a visa to perform at the 2007 Sasquatch! Festival (http://lineout.thestranger.com/2007/05/mia_cancels_sasquatch_appearance) in Washington State.

I understand that he is a political figure and all but still.

adrianblaine

Sep 25, 2007, 11:30 AM

I think they were laughing at him.

That's what I meant... I did not mean to imply that they were laughing at the "fact" that there were no homosexuals in Iran. I think it was pretty clear they were laughing at him.

mactastic

Sep 25, 2007, 12:03 PM

That's exactly why Columbia University should be applauded for letting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk. It showed him up as being an intellectually 'retarded' and really, a rather silly figure.
Amen. You give this guy a place to make an idiot out of himself, and voila... one idiot produced.

Had he been restricted from his appearance, this issue would have become about the refusal to let him speak. Instead, we're all talking about what an asshat this guy is.

Although, to his credit, he visited an openly hostile forum with an audience that had not been pre-screened, nor signed any loyalty oaths to Ahmedinijad and/or his political party. He showed up knowing he was going to be taking it on the chin, and he did it anyway.

When was the last time our president did something like that?

Queso

Sep 25, 2007, 01:07 PM

When was the last time our president did something like that?
This could start a trend. Bush could speak at Tehran U :p

pseudobrit

Sep 25, 2007, 08:19 PM

The GOP may take a liking to this guy if he keeps hitting on their hotbutton issues. All he needs now is a strong anti-abortion message and an NRA card and I think he'd have a shot at being a darling.

coffey7

Sep 25, 2007, 08:27 PM

I remember reading on this forum a while back many people saying they they trusted Ahmadinejad and Chavez more than Bush. I wonder if that still stands today.

Ahmadinejad was part of the group in Iran that held our Embassy workers for 444 days. That was in 1979 way before Bush was president. No matter what anyone says he was the guy that was there. If your held for 444 days you get to know your captors well. some of them said he was one of the head guys and even if you put him in a pink TuTu its Still the guy.

The GOP may take a liking to this guy if he keeps hitting on their hotbutton issues. All he needs now is a strong anti-abortion message and an NRA card and I think he'd have a shot at being a darling.

Guess you don't have a 2nd Amendment in your country. NRA forever. They didn't have an NRA in Nazi Germany and look what happened. All the people were disarmed and then taken away.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 25, 2007, 08:37 PM

Guess you don't have a 2nd Amendment in your country. NRA forever. They didn't have an NRA in Nazi Germany and look what happened. All the people were disarmed and then taken away.

With a line like that I can't tell if you're serious or a shill for the rabid anti-gun lobby...talk about tossing out softballs!

Ahmadinejad was part of the group in Iran that held our Embassy workers for 444 days. That was in 1979 way before Bush was president. No matter what anyone says he was the guy that was there. If your held for 444 days you get to know your captors well. some of them said he was one of the head guys and even if you put him in a pink TuTu its Still the guy.

1979...in those days Bush the younger was still sleeping off the hangover he acquired from drinking his way through the Vietnam war as a half-baked National Guard pilot...

killerrobot

Sep 25, 2007, 08:48 PM

Isn´t Ahmadinejad gay?
Therefore when he was speaking, he wasn't in the country and therefore there were none there?

Okay, I may have crossed a line, but I'm just following the lead of all politicians...

Thomas Veil

Sep 25, 2007, 09:36 PM

Iscariot

Sep 26, 2007, 01:33 AM

solvs

Sep 26, 2007, 03:45 AM

See, there isn't all that much difference between us on many issues. I thought of you the moment that I heard Abdimjob make his statement. I was happy he made that statement though. Anyone that might have been leaning towards giving this guy the benefit of the doubt on the other answers he provided would HAVE to realize that this guy is out of touch with reality to deny the existence of ANY homosexuals in his country.
Are you still ok with the rhetoric given against the homosexuals in our country by those you support? We know Iran sucks. We know he sucks. We're supposed to be better than that. While we may not have state sponsored gay stonings, we do persecute them. Many of our leaders have no problem doing so openly, and have even been helped to be elected on such issues.

I also look at things like what happened to Matthew Shepard, and think we aren't as far away from them as we think we are.

All he needs now is a strong anti-abortion message and an NRA card and I think he'd have a shot at being a darling.
I think they shoot abortionists, so that's covered. ;)

I remember reading on this forum a while back many people saying they they trusted Ahmadinejad and Chavez more than Bush. I wonder if that still stands today.
As has been said many, many times, it's not that we like either of them. We don't. We just really don't like Bush. Since he's our guy, we get to complain about him. We don't want him turning into someone like Ahmadinejad either, because we're supposed to be the good guys. We see a lot of similarities, and would like to prevent such things.

The aforementioned notwithstanding, the Bush administration is certainly doing a lot to help Ahmadinejad's public image by maligning him with so little substance to back it up.
Also part of the strategy. Iran walks the fine line. Lots of rhetoric, but not enough to show follow through. The Bush administration talks tough against them in return, and it escalates. If they're trouble, we can't really do much. But we lose for not at least trying to handle it. If they have nothing but tough talk, and we do try to do something, we look like the bad guys. They can just claim self defense either way too. It's a tough position, and some in this country are just playing right into it.

So of course we blame Bush, because he's our guy and is just making things worse.

Swarmlord

Sep 26, 2007, 08:30 AM

<snip>I also look at things like what happened to Matthew Shepard, and think we aren't as far away from them as we think we are.

<snip>

We? Surely the criminal actions of a handful of haters doesn't reflect policy as a country. Do you think that heteros weren't just as abhored by that as the gay community?

leekohler

Sep 26, 2007, 09:11 AM

We? Surely the criminal actions of a handful of haters doesn't reflect policy as a country. Do you think that heteros weren't just as abhored by that as the gay community?

Unfortunately, probably not as many as should have been. And no- I don't think as many heteros were just as appalled by that as the gay community. Many were, but hardly just as many. Think about what you said for a minute.

takao

Sep 26, 2007, 09:21 AM

Guess you don't have a 2nd Amendment in your country. NRA forever. They didn't have an NRA in Nazi Germany and look what happened. All the people were disarmed and then taken away.

fact 1: actually there were plenty of gun associations in germany and theiy are still there today
fact 2: the nazis actually where for loosening gun legislation during their raise to power (after all they wanted to arm their paramilitary SA) and in early 1938 actually loosed the laws from 1928 considerable... especially on rifles .. dropping minimum age etc.
fact 3: first time all weapons got already taken away was 1919 to prevent a civil war and to secure safety after the war
fact 4: the amount of confiscated weapons after late 1938 when the jews were forbidden to own them actually was rather small since the jews were not really pro gun anyway or had already left the country to france,poland etc.: remember: most jews killed weren't germans but from eastern europe
fact 5: if you are arrested by the police it's quite a hard thing to resist even if you have guns ... you know it's the old thing with the "frog boiling"

fact 6: it is completly offtopic

mactastic

Sep 26, 2007, 12:16 PM

Just out of curiousity, does the US military acknowlege that there are any gays in the military?

Swarmlord

Sep 26, 2007, 01:11 PM

Just out of curiousity, does the US military acknowlege that there are any gays in the military?

Of course they do. They process them out all the time.

mactastic

Sep 26, 2007, 02:06 PM

Of course they do. They process them out all the time.Ah yes, the modern equivalent of stoning?

skunk

Sep 26, 2007, 02:20 PM

Of course, the fact that practically all Muslim countries treat homosexuals appallingly is merely an inconvenient impediment to the targeting of Ahmedinejad.

leekohler

Sep 26, 2007, 02:26 PM

Ah yes, the modern equivalent of stoning?

Oh come on Mac. Losing your job just because you're honest isn't that big a deal. :rolleyes: ;)

mactastic

Sep 26, 2007, 02:37 PM

Oh come on Mac. Losing your job just because you're honest isn't that big a deal. :rolleyes: ;)
Watch it or I'll stone you. ;)

Swarmlord

Sep 26, 2007, 03:24 PM

Ah yes, the modern equivalent of stoning?

After lying about their orientation going in and knowing full well what the consequences were? I don't think so.

Do you think that other professions should allow people to lie about their background to get a job just because they want it badly enough and think that the rules shouldn't apply to them?

ChrisWB

Sep 26, 2007, 04:06 PM

After lying about their orientation going in and knowing full well what the consequences were? I don't think so.

Do you think that other professions should allow people to lie about their background to get a job just because they want it badly enough and think that the rules shouldn't apply to them?The rule is unjust. It is discriminatory. Are you also alright with discrimination against other minorities as long as it is part of a business' stated practices?

adrianblaine

Sep 26, 2007, 04:17 PM

The rule is unjust. It is discriminatory. Are you also alright with discrimination against other minorities as long as it is part of a business' stated practices?

Discrimination happens all the time, whether it is called that or not.

I worked at a grocery store once where you had to have absolutely no visible tattoos, males could not have facial hair more than a mustache or have anything pierced (Females even had a limit as to how many piercings they could have...).

This isn't quite on the same level, but shows that it isn't unheard of to discriminate certain people for employment (nor am I saying it is right).

leekohler

Sep 26, 2007, 04:27 PM

After lying about their orientation going in and knowing full well what the consequences were? I don't think so.

Do you think that other professions should allow people to lie about their background to get a job just because they want it badly enough and think that the rules shouldn't apply to them?

You are unreal. What about people who come out after they've already joined? Either way- show me how that rule is a good thing. We've lost tons of arabic linguists because of it as an example.

mactastic

Sep 26, 2007, 06:49 PM

After lying about their orientation going in and knowing full well what the consequences were? I don't think so.
Do they actually lie? My understanding was that the military doesn't ask, and the soldiers don't tell.

Do you think that other professions should allow people to lie about their background to get a job just because they want it badly enough and think that the rules shouldn't apply to them?
Again, is there actually any lying going on? Is there a "Let me be clear. I am not gay. I never have been gay" box that you have to check when you sign up?

solvs

Sep 27, 2007, 03:06 AM

We? Surely the criminal actions of a handful of haters doesn't reflect policy as a country. Do you think that heteros weren't just as abhored by that as the gay community?
Some of us were. But the people you support regularly call homosexuals things like abominations. And want to deny them rights. Such as...

Of course they do. They process them out all the time.
Proving my point.

After lying about their orientation going in and knowing full well what the consequences were? I don't think so.
If the law wasn't there to discriminate against them, they wouldn't have to lie. But as said, they aren't supposed to even ask. So the only real lie is a lack of admission. Which would lose them the job in the first place, if they could even admit to it, which they can't because the military can't ask.

So you can see where this is a vicious cycle.

I worked at a grocery store once where you had to have absolutely no visible tattoos, males could not have facial hair more than a mustache or have anything pierced (Females even had a limit as to how many piercings they could have...).
Those are choices, so yeah, not the same thing.

adrianblaine

Sep 27, 2007, 09:33 AM

Those are choices, so yeah, not the same thing.

I said myself it wasn't on the same level, however, it is still discrimination. Is there another word for it? Picky?

imac/cheese

Sep 27, 2007, 10:00 AM

Do they actually lie? My understanding was that the military doesn't ask, and the soldiers don't tell.

Again, is there actually any lying going on? Is there a "Let me be clear. I am not gay. I never have been gay" box that you have to check when you sign up?

Actually there is a form that you have to fill out that states you will not engage in homosexual activity and that you will not make any statements that disclose that you are a homosexual. The military policy is that being homosexual is fine but carrying out homosexual behavior or stating that you are homosexual is not.

This way the military can state that they are not discriminating against homosexuals, but they are instead placing restrictions on the types of behavior that military members are expected to adhere to. The military is a very discriminatory organization. They discriminate against age, health, and weight, in a physical sense and a whole rash of behaviorial aspects such as homosexuality, tattoos and piercings, hairstyles, facial hair, wearing your seatbelt, wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, engaging in high-risk activities such as hang-gliding or bungee jumping, being involved in hate groups, adultery, and any activity that might endanger the mission.

However on another note, the US military is probably one of the most diverse organizations in America and was definitely a forerunner when it came to integration and placing minorities and women in positions of authority.

leekohler

Sep 27, 2007, 10:30 AM

Actually there is a form that you have to fill out that states you will not engage in homosexual activity and that you will not make any statements that disclose that you are a homosexual. The military policy is that being homosexual is fine but carrying out homosexual behavior or stating that you are homosexual is not.

This way the military can state that they are not discriminating against homosexuals, but they are instead placing restrictions on the types of behavior that military members are expected to adhere to. The military is a very discriminatory organization. They discriminate against age, health, and weight, in a physical sense and a whole rash of behaviorial aspects such as homosexuality, tattoos and piercings, hairstyles, facial hair, wearing your seatbelt, wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, engaging in high-risk activities such as hang-gliding or bungee jumping, being involved in hate groups, adultery, and any activity that might endanger the mission.

However on another note, the US military is probably one of the most diverse organizations in America and was definitely a forerunner when it came to integration and placing minorities and women in positions of authority.

And exactly how is it that homosexuals are bad for the military? If you're going to discriminate, you need to at least give a valid reason- something the armed forces never seem to be able to do. Of course it doesn't help their case when our allies' armies don't discriminate, now does it?

imac/cheese

Sep 27, 2007, 11:02 AM

And exactly how is it that homosexuals are bad for the military? If you're going to discriminate, you need to at least give a valid reason- something the armed forces never seem to be able to do. Of course it doesn't help their case when our allies' armies don't discriminate, now does it?

I personally don't think that the military is right in their current stance. That being said I think that homosexuals are bad for the military the same way blacks were bad for the military back in the civil war days through WWII. The straight people will have a difficult time accepting the homosexual soldiers and they will not be able to focus on their mission. When black soldiers started fighting in our military they were not accepted by the whites and it created a lot of in-fighting and a wide range of other problems. Since the purpose of the military is defending our country and protecting our people and interests, and since the majority of the military is straight and unable to deal with gays, I believe that allowing openly gay soldiers would, for a time, be a bad thing for the military, just as integration was a bad thing for a time. Once the people were able to accept that a gay soldier could be just as effective as a straight soldier the problem would go away. It is not a problem with gays being bad soldiers, it is a problem with the straight soldiers creating problems for the gay soldiers and lack of unit cohesion. Forcing our military to deal with this problem of bigotry would be a good thing in the long run but a bad thing in the short term as the effectiveness of our soldiers would diminish until the problem was solved. It would not simply be over once the government decided to drop the restrictions. This problem would last for years or decades.

There is another aspect of the gays in the military that often goes undiscussed and that is gays in combat. This is a very similar situation to women in combat. If the only soldiers that are allowed to fight in combat are straight males, you avoid the problem of creating loving romantic relationships between members of the same combat unit. These type of relationships (whether between homosexual soldiers or heterosexual soldiers) can be a detriment to a combat unit. I know that I personally would have a hard time following my commander's orders if my wife was in a foxhole nearby that was being attacked. I have an instinct to make sure the one I love is safe and to try to keep her from harm. That instinct is still there with a good buddy or close friend but it is not the same nearly irrational instinct one has when dealing with someone they have a loving romantic relationship with. When women or homosexuals are in combat situations these type of problems can easily arise as the bond between those who have experienced hardships together makes these people even closer and romatic feelings of love can quickly develop.

I don't know how to deal with these problems. The current policies are discriminatory, but the problems are deep rooted and there is no easy solution. The easy political solution is to end the discrimination but that leaves a major problem for our military to solve and our society needs to change before the military will truly be able to deal with this situation successfully.

dswoodley

Sep 27, 2007, 11:13 AM

In short, the current generation will have the hardest time with it, future generations will have a much easier time with it.

Queso

Sep 27, 2007, 11:20 AM

imac/cheese, you are aware that none of these things are an issue in the British armed forces, which only allowed openly gay people to serve in the last few years? Believe it or not, gay soldiers can concentrate on the job at hand just as well as their straight friends, and straight soldiers in close proximity to a gay colleague see them as a member of their unit rather than a walking sexuality :p

I have to say, and I really don't want this to come off as berating you, that those sort of arguments are eerily familiar to the sort of thing the anti gay marriage brigade spout about the disruption any progress there would cause to society as a whole.

BoyBach

Sep 27, 2007, 11:29 AM

It's time for some Bill Hicks:

"Anyone dumb enough to serve in the military should be allowed in. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many pushups you can do. Put on this helmet, go wait in that foxhole. We'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7E7ChJAbg - NSFW!

Ugg

Sep 27, 2007, 11:30 AM

imac/cheese, you are aware that none of these things are an issue in the British armed forces, which only allowed openly gay people to serve in the last few years?

I think imac is telling us that American society is backward and inherently bigoted and that there's little hope for change in the future.:D

adrianblaine

Sep 27, 2007, 11:34 AM

I think imac is telling us that American society is backward and inherently bigoted and that there's little hope for change in the future.:D

For some reason the US is a little slow in catching on to things sometimes, but I don't have any doubt that it will happen in the future... It just needs more people willing to stand up for what's right and just, which I see starting to happen :)

leekohler

Sep 27, 2007, 12:08 PM

I personally don't think that the military is right in their current stance. That being said I think that homosexuals are bad for the military the same way blacks were bad for the military back in the civil war days through WWII. The straight people will have a difficult time accepting the homosexual soldiers and they will not be able to focus on their mission. When black soldiers started fighting in our military they were not accepted by the whites and it created a lot of in-fighting and a wide range of other problems. Since the purpose of the military is defending our country and protecting our people and interests, and since the majority of the military is straight and unable to deal with gays, I believe that allowing openly gay soldiers would, for a time, be a bad thing for the military, just as integration was a bad thing for a time. Once the people were able to accept that a gay soldier could be just as effective as a straight soldier the problem would go away. It is not a problem with gays being bad soldiers, it is a problem with the straight soldiers creating problems for the gay soldiers and lack of unit cohesion. Forcing our military to deal with this problem of bigotry would be a good thing in the long run but a bad thing in the short term as the effectiveness of our soldiers would diminish until the problem was solved. It would not simply be over once the government decided to drop the restrictions. This problem would last for years or decades.

Give me a break, please. The problem isn't going to go away if straight soldiers never have to deal with gay soldiers. And believe me, once the bullets start flying, I seriously doubt anyone os going to care who's gay or straight. This is merely a convenient excuse for continued bigotry.

There is another aspect of the gays in the military that often goes undiscussed and that is gays in combat. This is a very similar situation to women in combat. If the only soldiers that are allowed to fight in combat are straight males, you avoid the problem of creating loving romantic relationships between members of the same combat unit. These type of relationships (whether between homosexual soldiers or heterosexual soldiers) can be a detriment to a combat unit. I know that I personally would have a hard time following my commander's orders if my wife was in a foxhole nearby that was being attacked. I have an instinct to make sure the one I love is safe and to try to keep her from harm. That instinct is still there with a good buddy or close friend but it is not the same nearly irrational instinct one has when dealing with someone they have a loving romantic relationship with. When women or homosexuals are in combat situations these type of problems can easily arise as the bond between those who have experienced hardships together makes these people even closer and romatic feelings of love can quickly develop.

Umm...so male and female soldiers are falling in love with each other and can no longer fight effectively? Gee- maybe that's our problem in Iraq. I'm sorry- that is really weak reasoning. I'll be sure to call General Petraes and let him know that if we just get rid of all the females and homos in the armed forces in Iraq, we'll be on our way to winning. Find my reaction defensive? Sorry, but your post is unbelievably offensive- not just to gays but just about everyone else too.

I don't know how to deal with these problems. The current policies are discriminatory, but the problems are deep rooted and there is no easy solution. The easy political solution is to end the discrimination but that leaves a major problem for our military to solve and our society needs to change before the military will truly be able to deal with this situation successfully.

Discrimination has to be confronted aggressively or it won't ever end. That's your answer. You can't wait til everyone is "comfortable", because everyone will never be "comfortable". You either end discrimination, or continue to make excuses for it.

imac/cheese

Sep 27, 2007, 01:08 PM

Give me a break, please. The problem isn't going to go away if straight soldiers never have to deal with gay soldiers. And beleive me, once the bullets start flying, I seriously doubt anyone os going to care who's gay or straight. This is merely a convenient excuse for continued bigotry.

I am not using these problems as a convenient excuse for continued bigotry. I stated in my post that:

I personally don't think that the military is right in their current stance.

and

The current policies are discriminatory

I simply brought up problems that I saw while serving in our armed forces and teaching ROTC cadets who were about to enter the military. My point is that this problem is a lot bigger than simply allowing gays in the military. The vast majority of soldiers that I encountered did not want it and would be effected by it in numerous ways. That doesn't mean that it is right to deny gays the ability to serve openly for their country, but it does mean that a lot of problems would be created that would reduce the effectiveness of our military.

Umm...so male and female soldiers are falling in love with each other and can no longer fight effectively? Gee- maybe that's our problem in Iraq. I'm sorry- that is really weak reasoning. I'll be sure to call General Petraes and let him know that if we just get rid of all the females and homos in the armed forces in Iraq, we'll be on our way to winning. Find my reaction defensive? Sorry, but your post is unbelievably offensive- not just to gays but just about everyone else too.

I am not saying that the women and gay soldiers fighting in Iraq have caused any problems, but as far as I know, there are still no women or open homosexuals fighting in the infantry. The problem of romantic loving relationships among those in combat situations is a problem that is often studied in military leadership courses. This type of situation brings up all kinds of issues with doing what is best for your country versus doing what is best for the one you love.

I apologize that I offended you. I truly did not mean to. You had asked in an earlier post how it is "bad" for the military to include homosexuals. I brought up the problems I have witnessed in my first hand experience.

Discrimination has to be confronted aggressively or it won't ever end. That's your answer. You can't wait til everyone is "comfortable", because everyone will never be "comfortable". You either end discrimination, or continue to make excuses for it.

I have no doubt that if congress stated that the US was no longer going to discriminate against gays in the military, our military would initially suffer because the current soldiers would have a lot of problems accepting open homosexuals just as they did in the past with blacks. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, it just means that there are going to be a lot of growing pains when it does happen.

leekohler

Sep 27, 2007, 01:29 PM

I am not using these problems as a convenient excuse for continued bigotry.

I didn't say you are. The fed and the military are.

I simply brought up problems that I saw while serving in our armed forces and teaching ROTC cadets who were about to enter the military. My point is that this problem is a lot bigger than simply allowing gays in the military. The vast majority of soldiers that I encountered did not want it and would be effected by it in numerous ways. That doesn't mean that it is right to deny gays the ability to serve openly for their country, but it does mean that a lot of problems would be created that would reduce the effectiveness of our military.

I am not saying that the women and gay soldiers fighting in Iraq have caused any problems, but as far as I know, there are still no women or open homosexuals fighting in the infantry. The problem of romantic loving relationships among those in combat situations is a problem that is often studied in military leadership courses. This type of situation brings up all kinds of issues with doing what is best for your country versus doing what is best for the one you love.

I apologize that I offended you. I truly did not mean to. You had asked in an earlier post how it is "bad" for the military to include homosexuals. I brought up the problems I have witnessed in my first hand experience.

You personally have seen two guys making out on the battlefield? And please tell me how this is going to affect cadets "in numerous ways". If the cadet can't deal with people different from him, I would suggest that cadet doesn't belong in any military situation at all.

I simply don't get what you're going for here. If people have problems with gays, they're never going to get over those problems if they are never confronted by them.

I have no doubt that if congress stated that the US was no longer going to discriminate against gays in the military, our military would initially suffer because the current soldiers would have a lot of problems accepting open homosexuals just as they did in the past with blacks. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, it just means that there are going to be a lot of growing pains when it does happen.

I disagree. I think they'd get over it pretty fast. They would have to- and evidence from other countries who've done away with it suggests it wouldn't take that long as well. Or do you consider Americans to be less capable of handling themselves and their emotions than people in other countries?

imac/cheese

Sep 27, 2007, 01:57 PM

You personally have seen two guys making out on the battlefield? And please tell me how this is going to affect cadets "in numerous ways". If the cadet can't deal with people different from him, I would suggest that cadet doesn't belong in any military situation at all.

No, I have yet to witness two guys making out on the battlefield. I have, however, spoken with many soldiers about this topic as well as discussed the topic with cadets while teaching them about the diversity inherent in the military that most of them had never experienced before. There is a deep rooted hatred/fear of homosexuals in our culture and in our military. Maybe the people who can't get past it shouldn't be allowed to be in our military anyway, but there will be problems.

I disagree. I think they'd get over it pretty fast. They would have to- and evidence from other countries who've done away with it suggests it wouldn't take that long as well. Or do you consider Americans to be less capable of handling themsleves and their emotions than people in other countries?

I guess if the military was suddenly faced with this major change, many people would get over it rather quickly, but the US is a lot different than other countries that have done away with it. I would guess that those countries as a whole were more tolerant of homosexuals before they allowed them to openly serve in the military. The US is definitely lagging behind the rest of the world in gay rights issues. Look to the US military's past in dealing with blacks and women. There are still discrimination problems in nearly every unit because people are still intolerant of others. Every base has equal opportunity offices to ensure that all races, religions, and sexes are treated equally. There is still yearly training on how not to be discriminating based on those characteristics and women and minorities have been integrated into the military for decades. To think that there won't be major issues incorporating homosexuals into our military is naive in my opinion. Can it be done? Yes. But there are going to be growing pains.

leekohler

Sep 27, 2007, 02:09 PM

No, I have yet to witness two guys making out on the battlefield. I have, however, spoken with many soldiers about this topic as well as discussed the topic with cadets while teaching them about the diversity inherent in the military that most of them had never experienced before. There is a deep rooted hatred/fear of homosexuals in our culture and in our military. Maybe the people who can't get past it shouldn't be allowed to be in our military anyway, but there will be problems.

I agree- and the only way to change that hatred/fear is with experience.

I guess if the military was suddenly faced with this major change, many people would get over it rather quickly, but the US is a lot different than other countries that have done away with it. I would guess that those countries as a whole were more tolerant of homosexuals before they allowed them to openly serve in the military. The US is definitely lagging behind the rest of the world in gay rights issues. Look to the US military's past in dealing with blacks and women. There are still discrimination problems in nearly every unit because people are still intolerant of others. Every base has equal opportunity offices to ensure that all races, religions, and sexes are treated equally. There is still yearly training on how not to be discriminating based on those characteristics and women and minorities have been integrated into the military for decades. To think that there won't be major issues incorporating homosexuals into our military is naive in my opinion. Can it be done? Yes. But there are going to be growing pains.

Of course. We'll know the answers when it happens.

carbonmotion

Sep 27, 2007, 02:17 PM

As a straight male from the midwest let me say this... federal legalization of gay marriage and legitimization of gays in the military are long overdue. Shame on us for allowing a people to be discriminated for this long. These two issues to should changed tomorrow, if not today. The end.

pseudobrit

Sep 27, 2007, 06:06 PM

There is a deep rooted hatred/fear of homosexuals in our culture and in our military. Maybe the people who can't get past it shouldn't be allowed to be in our military anyway, but there will be problems.

Used to be the same problem with racial integration. Why doesn't the military kick out bigots instead?

carbonmotion

Sep 27, 2007, 10:37 PM

Used to be the same problem with racial integration. Why doesn't the military kick out bigots instead?

A big part of social change is to change the hearts and minds of those bigots or failing that the hearts and minds of their kids... sometimes you can only make a little change in every generation, but eventually, you'll get to a day where the offensive ideologies are all gone.

adrianblaine

Sep 28, 2007, 01:18 AM

A big part of social change is to change the hearts and minds of those bigots or failing that the hearts and minds of their kids... sometimes you can only make a little change in every generation, but eventually, you'll get to a day where the offensive ideologies are all gone.

Unfortunately, history seems to repeat itself and there will be always one more thing to get over. This may show my cynicism, but I don't see a future when everyone will get a long. I don't believe in giving up either, but regardless of any religious view or otherwise, the world will either evolve into a utopia, or we will continue to see people always trying to be top dog by any means. Is there a third option? Some parts of the world are somewhat of a hybrid of the two, but can it stay that way indefinitely? I see it having to go one way or the other.

CalBoy

Sep 28, 2007, 01:37 AM

This could start a trend. Bush could speak at Tehran U :p
Maybe they could hold him until the end of his term so we don't have to deal with him:p

I said myself it wasn't on the same level, however, it is still discrimination. Is there another word for it? Picky?
It's a bit different. The outward appearance of cashiers/workers can reflect on the atmosphere of the store. A homosexual soldier isn't going to fight any differently than a heterosexual soldier, so it's a moot question on the part of the military.

Used to be the same problem with racial integration. Why doesn't the military kick out bigots instead?
Bigots ought to be educated and reformed, not "kicked out." And, I hate to say this (because I disagree with the central tennant of anti-gay movements), but they are entitled to have their opinions. As long as they don't discriminate in the course of carrying out their responsibilites, it's ok. Now, it's probably hard for them to remain unbiased when they carry out their responsiblities in the military, and those people ought to be watched and managed closely.

A big part of social change is to change the hearts and minds of those bigots or failing that the hearts and minds of their kids... sometimes you can only make a little change in every generation, but eventually, you'll get to a day where the offensive ideologies are all gone.
Agreed. Interestingly, there was a Newsweek article about this a year or two ago about this very concept. According to the article, most(a vast majority) of today's students are supporters of gay rights, including marriage and adoption, so within twenty years, this debate will likely be over.

Unfortunately, history seems to repeat itself and there will be always one more thing to get over. This may show my cynicism, but I don't see a future when everyone will get a long. I don't believe in giving up either, but regardless of any religious view or otherwise, the world will either evolve into a utopia, or we will continue to see people always trying to be top dog by any means. Is there a third option? Some parts of the world are somewhat of a hybrid of the two, but can it stay that way indefinitely? I see it having to go one way or the other.
This is true to a certain degree. As humans, we don't learn very well. However, there is a certain value in taking more time to resolve issues like gay rights. By spending more time on the issue, better ideas come about, and society learns to adjust better. However, it's been pretty long for this particular debate, and I think there is no longer any reason to delay equal rights in the military for homesexual soldiers.

solvs

Sep 28, 2007, 02:52 AM

I said myself it wasn't on the same level, however, it is still discrimination. Is there another word for it? Picky?
I don't know, standards? It isn't discriminating, because you weren't born with piercings or tattoos, and can shave. We have this at my job too. I don't like it, but we have to be respectful of our clients. It's a different case when it comes to race or sexuality. We can't show off religious symbols either, but also can't be fired for our beliefs, so that goes both ways.

We also have to wear nice clothes, so I guess what you were talking about would count more like a dress code.

The straight people will have a difficult time accepting the homosexual soldiers and they will not be able to focus on their mission.
Not according to recent polls. Most of them don't care. Or at least, say they don't care, knowing they shouldn't care. Even if amongst themselves they say they do. Most of those released for homosexual activity were translators and such, so it really didn't matter that much for that argument since they weren't in active combat missions.

Used to be the same problem with racial integration. Why doesn't the military kick out bigots instead?
Because sadly, there are so many of them. We kinda need them. But better to leave them in, as said above, so they're forced to deal with it first hand. Eventually, it won't be as big of a deal, and they won't care as much. If more of them don't care, the ones who do will be in the minority and afraid to speak out against it, instead of the current system where those who are pro homosexuality, or are gay themselves, feel like they have to keep quiet.

I'd also like to point out that rape is rampant against female military service personnel, but that doesn't mean we stop women from serving. It would be better to deal with the real issue that causes it. Which we don't. Which is why it's a problem.

imac/cheese

Sep 28, 2007, 08:59 AM

Not according to recent polls. Most of them don't care. Or at least, say they don't care, knowing they shouldn't care. Even if amongst themselves they say they do. Most of those released for homosexual activity were translators and such, so it really didn't matter that much for that argument since they weren't in active combat missions.

I will admit that I have not seen any pols on the subject and I worked in a male dominated career field where machoism was rampant. My opinions have been based on what I saw and my informal surveys. I would say that many of those I talked with would have responded differently if asked on an official survey, depending on the perceived anonymity of the survey.

But I will dispute the fact that translators are not in combat situations. Many of the convoys and work teams that have to go "outside the wire" in Iraq require a translator in order to get the job done. A formal boss told me of projects he was working on to remodel the Iraq police stations to make them suitable offices again and they would take a bunch of engineers with a translator to kick all the squatters out of the poilce stations. Often they would encounter resistance. The military will often team a translator with a unit likely to see combat. In today's military there is no such thing as a non-combat job. I have seen finance officers, civil engineers, contracting officers, protocol officers, etc all used in ways that they were likely to see combat.

Because sadly, there are so many of them. We kinda need them. But better to leave them in, as said above, so they're forced to deal with it first hand. Eventually, it won't be as big of a deal, and they won't care as much. If more of them don't care, the ones who do will be in the minority and afraid to speak out against it, instead of the current system where those who are pro homosexuality, or are gay themselves, feel like they have to keep quiet.

You are right that there are so many of them and we do need them. If we got rid of all the bigots, our military would be a lot smaller. It is also very difficult to catch them. Their supervisors might not have any idea of their feeligns and many of the victims are afraid to report due to various repercussions from others in the units or even their own bosses. How many times have we seen stories in the news about higher level military officials protecting those that have done something wrong.

I'd also like to point out that rape is rampant against female military service personnel, but that doesn't mean we stop women from serving. It would be better to deal with the real issue that causes it. Which we don't. Which is why it's a problem.

Good Point!

adrianblaine

Sep 28, 2007, 12:07 PM

It's a bit different. The outward appearance of cashiers/workers can reflect on the atmosphere of the store. A homosexual soldier isn't going to fight any differently than a heterosexual soldier, so it's a moot question on the part of the military.

I don't know, standards? It isn't discriminating, because you weren't born with piercings or tattoos, and can shave. We have this at my job too. I don't like it, but we have to be respectful of our clients. It's a different case when it comes to race or sexuality. We can't show off religious symbols either, but also can't be fired for our beliefs, so that goes both ways.

We also have to wear nice clothes, so I guess what you were talking about would count more like a dress code.

I understand both of your comments. Maybe I have always viewed the word differently then. To me it still feels like discrimination because some people are prejudice towards people with tattoos or lots of piercings. But yes, I still will agree that it is much different with choices vs. how you were born.

imac/cheese

Sep 28, 2007, 12:32 PM

I understand both of your comments. Maybe I have always viewed the word differently then. To me it still feels like discrimination because some people are prejudice towards people with tattoos or lots of piercings. But yes, I still will agree that it is much different with choices vs. how you were born.

I see it more of a business practice to ensure your employees look "presentable" to the public. In my customers are a little uncomfortable with a cashier that has facial piercings and visable tattoos, I would rather hire someone with a more "clean cut" appearance so my customers have a better shopping experience in my store and return to make future purchases. This can only go so far though. You could argue that in some areas of the country with certain stores, your customers might feel more comfortable with white cashiers instead of black cashiers so you don't hire any black cashiers. That of course has crossed the line.

Which brings up an excellent debate of where is the line.... What about places like American Eagle which has been accused of only hiring attractive employees because they believe it helps them sell more clothes. Can they get away with it if they call them cashiers/models? What about places like GNC Nutrition centers hiring overweight employees? I remember I was in a GNC store once looking at Atkins low carb bars and the cashier stated to me, "Those Atkins bars a great. Low carb is the way to go to lose weight." Of course she was about 50 lbs overweight.

This is off topic from the original thread. I'll start a new one here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4254082#post4254082

CalBoy

Sep 28, 2007, 12:56 PM

I understand both of your comments. Maybe I have always viewed the word differently then. To me it still feels like discrimination because some people are prejudice towards people with tattoos or lots of piercings. But yes, I still will agree that it is much different with choices vs. how you were born.

It is a form of discrimination. The only thing is that it is an acceptable form of discriminiation. If you think about it, we discriminate everyday in our lives; there's nothing wrong with it. What most of us do when we discriminate is look for qualities/attributes that we feel are important to the relevant task/situation. For example, when I go to the supermarket, I look for the cashier that seems to be in a hurry because those cashiers are typically faster at scanning/bagging. I would do something similar with my doctor. If I found that my doctor smoked, I would call into question his ability to follow sound medical advice(even though he would still be a great doctor), and hence, would not be enthused to go see him again. Both are examples of discriminiation that is acceptable simply because it helps us arrive at an important conclusion. Neither discriminates over a non-issue like sex, orientation, or race.