Gays in the Military

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]I caught a glimpse of an article in the newspaper about a ban on homosexuals in the military. Now, they do have a 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, but it said that it doesn't always work out well. Defenders of the ban say it 'diminishes soldier's honorable service in the military.' Personally, I think it would be stupid to ban gay people from the military. I mean, we have terrorists and war to worry about, we shouldn't be worried about who's gay in the military.

So, what are your views on the subject? Do you agree or disagree about banning gay and lesbian people in the army? [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]These days, when wars are not fought in foxholes but from a distance with computer guided missiles I believe the policy does more harm than good. Apparently Israel of all places, with one of the best militaries in the world, pulls off having gays in the military with zero hitches and since this topic was recently beaten to death on the news cycles more than a week ago, we've concluded. And by we I mean most of society: "Never happening. Not in this lifetime."

So now's your chance to bash American and call us a nation of homo haters. Enjoy the cheap shots.

If you really want to know something recent about gays, ask the census Bureau why they're not going to count gay couples as married in the 2010 census. Well you see while it's legal in CA and MA, it's not legal federally, because of that Protection of Marriage Act. So. How tragic.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Darren]

I wish that I still had my sources for this topic, because it was quite popular for the national debate topic two years ago. But since I don't, I'll do my best to remember what those sources say.

It really is a hard subject to talk about. First of all, there is evidence on both sides of the debate that backs up their arguments. Gays can technically serve in the military. They just can't admit to being gay. But on the other side, like you said, the DADT policy doesn't always work out.

Military officers have said suspicions rise anyway (due to the way certain soldiers act) The DADT policy helps straight soldiers feel more comfortable when they have to sleep or shower next to a potentially gay man. Ignorance is bliss, is their policy. They also say that DADT is a way to protect the gay man because there have been reports of hazing and abuse to soldiers. (under suspicion of their homosexuality) In that case, who do you think the military will discharge? It will be the gay man because no matter how man straight soldiers you discharge, there will always be another prejudice hate monger who wants to beat the crap out of a man just because of his sexual orientation.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, DADT is a loophole to the entire 1st amendment: You have freedom of speech, but you're not guaranteed that right in the military. Gay soldiers feel that to have to "Go back into the closet," so to speak, is a violation of the constitution. And, technically speaking, they're right.

But here's how it is: Right now, we live in a homophobic country and I don't expect it to change any time soon. When you think about it, it's NOT necessary at all for other soldiers to know your sexual orientation. So why make them feel uncomfortable or bring about hate to yourself in the name of free speech. You should be in the military to serve your country. And there are a lot of other ways homosexual men can help their country. If pretending to be straight is too much for them, don't join.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]America would have to be one of the very few developed nations to still have an archaic and backward policy like this.

And, let's face it, that's precisely what it is.

A man (homosexual or otherwise) shouldn't pretend to be anything else, he should just be who he is. And if he's gay, so be it. If other soldiers are somehow offended or uncomfortable about this, then that's just too bad - if something like that makes them uncomfortable, then I'd hate to see how poorly they perform on the field itself (because I'm sure being shot at makes you pretty uncomfortable too).

Women and men serve in the military without issue and there has never really been a concern about relationships developing or anything else. The same rule should apply to gay men, obviously.

If you are a soldier who is professional, well-trained and an expert in your field, you won't let your feelings get in the way of doing your job - this is true of all professionals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

So, this policy really can't be construed or presented in any other way - it's no different from being blatantly racist. It's an archaic, socially backward, draconian policy that feels so unfitting for such a modern nation.

In most other developed nations (like Australia, Israel and any number of others), this isn't even a question nor an issue. Sexuality doesn't even come into discussion - why should it? It's like determining someone's worth for the military based on eye colour or ethnic background; it's totally irrelevant.

What matters is whether or not an individual can do the job they were recruited for. If they can't - for any reason - they should not be in the military. It's as simple as that.[/font]

[quote]They also say that DADT is a way to protect the gay man because there have been reports of hazing and abuse to soldiers. (under suspicion of their homosexuality) In that case, who do you think the military will discharge? It will be the gay man because no matter how man straight soldiers you discharge, there will always be another prejudice hate monger who wants to beat the crap out of a man just because of his sexual orientation.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]What a terrible message the defense forces are sending here. "We can't help that there are bigots among you, so we have to discharge the victims."

Those who harass, attack or bully another officer for any reason should be punished. Even if that means punishing dozens of people. Why? Because it's [i]right[/i], not because it's convenient or inconvenient.

The idea, then, should be that no matter what another person's views, they would be discouraged from acting on them because they know it's wrong and they know they will face punishment.

This concept would surely be applied in any other circumstance, whether it's racial or religious vilification. That there's still a double-standard is truly haunting, from an outsider's point of view.[/font]

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]I saw a news clip on TV yesterday about this. And on the clip, it said that something like 75% (or more, was it 80%?) of Americans feel that the DADT policy should be changed to allow gays to openly serve in the military, up from 45% who felt that way when the law was enacted in 1993.

I remember that Clinton, at the time, tried to push for a policy that allowed gays to openly serve, and was met with a lot of resistance, and the DADT policy became sort of a "compromise" between the two camps, so to speak.

It's a shame that this even has to BE an issue, and I think the policy should be removed, and that gay people should not have to hide their identity in the military.

Hmm... I wonder what Obama's position on this is (considering he's my choice in the fall).[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]Another thing about homophobia is insecurities. Some men/women are insecure about themselves so they decide to take it out on people. I personally went through that before I came out. I became a jerk to my friends because I was taking out my problems on them. I mean, people would say they didn't want me near them because they thought I was going to rape them. Honestly saying a gay person is going to rape you because they're standing behind you is dumb. Well if that was true, wouldn't that mean the same for straight men standing behind women or something along those lines?

You have the right to be uncomfortable changing or showering next to a gay person, but mocking them, beating them for it is taking it too far. I mean, if you're showering next to a gay man, and you're straight, they will respect that. I have straight friends, some I find attractive but I'd never hit on them.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Darren]

I'm not certain about this because it's all from my personal experience.

Military people tend to have a certain mentality. They're trained with it. It's what they know. It's like a brotherhood. They joke with each other, they joke about family, about gay people, about women they'd like to sleep with...

Somewhat similar to a stereotypical high school jock only 10 times worse. It's the pig side of the male personality. And even if they don't agree with abusing (physically or verbally) they can't help it. It's what they were taught, and it's what everyone else is doing. (I know, this is starting to sound more and more like high school)

I can't rationalize why they're like that, and I'm personally against DADT, but when you talk about changing it, you bring on a whole lot of crap that no one really deals with it.

First of all, there's the issue of the military mentality. It's impossible to avoid when you get that many guys together and put guns in their hands. It only has to be brought up once, and they'll have a field day making fun of gays or whatever else is on their mind. But the big one is the excuse of religion. It will always be brought up as an obstacle to cross, and truth be told, it's one that the government refuse to cross.

The most we can hope for is that once america becomes more understanding, (look at where the gay marriage stance is as a good meter of when that occurs) that it will be lifted. Bottom line: It's wrong, but there's nothing we can do to change people's mind. We can't program brains (Well, I can, but not on such a massive scale. :animesmil) so we have to wait.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]We can't program people's brains, that's true. By the same token, we can't enforce restrictions on the victims of biggotry and harassment for this reason.

I mean, to make a more extreme example, it's sort of like saying "You'll never remove the glass ceiling, so women should just never apply for management roles". You know what I mean?

Taking action and setting a standard is definitely the tougher route. But it's the [i]right[/i] route.

I mean, I understand that a big bunch of guys have stupid jokes and all the rest. Sure, there's a "military mentality".

But there is often an argument that people's feelings or mentality circumvent their training, especially on the battlefield.

I don't really accept that though. I think that if you are a trained professional, then no amount of personal feelings should affect your ability to conduct your job. And if they do, you shouldn't be in that job in the first place.

So, I don't think the issue is about "changing minds" or forcing people to think differently. Generally people won't change their biases or intolerances simply because someone tells them to.

Rather, the point is to say that no matter what you believe or think, you [i]must[/i] behave like a professional rather than a high schooler delivering a hazing. This is true of nearly all professions - the military should be no different, especially when it is already considered to be such a disciplined service.

The military often boasts about its expert skills and discipline, yet it is happenly to openly shun discipline and professionalism when suitable. That double standard inherently weakens the military's symbolic position in society, surely.

And, again, America is unique with this policy. If other developed nations can progress past this point, so can America.

I'm sure there are homophobes in the Australian and British militaries as well. It's not as though they have none. It's just that they don't punish the victims of wrongdoing.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]America would have to be one of the very few developed nations to still have an archaic and backward policy like this.

And, let's face it, that's precisely what it is.[/font][/QUOTE]James, lets face it. Not everyone agrees with that. I'm not saying I don't, I'm just saying that to a lot of people, it's not backwards or archaic.[quote name='James;818236][font=franklin gothic medium]A man (homosexual or otherwise) shouldn't pretend to be anything else, he should just be who he is. And if he's gay, so be it. If other soldiers are somehow offended or uncomfortable about this, then that's just too bad - if something like that makes them uncomfortable, then I'd hate to see how poorly they perform on the field itself (because I'm sure being shot at makes you pretty uncomfortable too).[/font][/QUOTE]It's not so simple. Like women getting the right to vote, you can't just wave your hand and say, too bad. It takes time for people to accept and get use to that kind of change or at the very least accept it. After all women were once considered too stupid to understand politics well enough to vote.[quote name='James;818236][font=franklin gothic medium']Women and men serve in the military without issue and there has never really been a concern about relationships developing or anything else. The same rule should apply to gay men, obviously.[/font][/quote]That wasn't always true though. Women, at least in America, had to fight for the right to serve in the same capacity as men do. It's accepted now, but it didn't use to be.[QUOTE=James'][font=franklin gothic medium]If you are a soldier who is professional, well-trained and an expert in your field, you won't let your feelings get in the way of doing your job - this is true of all professionals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

So, this policy really can't be construed or presented in any other way - it's no different from being blatantly racist. It's an archaic, socially backward, draconian policy that feels so unfitting for such a modern nation.[/font][/QUOTE]I agree with the first part but not the second. Only that modern or not, rights for gays over here is something that is slowly being fought for. It use to be a lot stricter so even though it's got it's issues, it is slowly moving towards acceptance, even if that move is painfully slow. Personally I have no issues with them serving since I think that's a dumb reason to exempt someone from the military.[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]In most other developed nations (like Australia, Israel and any number of others), this isn't even a question nor an issue. Sexuality doesn't even come into discussion - why should it? It's like determining someone's worth for the military based on eye colour or ethnic background; it's totally irrelevant.

What matters is whether or not an individual can do the job they were recruited for. If they can't - for any reason - they should not be in the military. It's as simple as that.[/font][/QUOTE]Like I said, that's not how a lot of people see it though and it's not that easy to get someone to see it differently. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]What a terrible message the defense forces are sending here. "We can't help that there are bigots among you, so we have to discharge the victims."

Those who harass, attack or bully another officer for any reason should be punished. Even if that means punishing dozens of people. Why? Because it's [i]right[/i], not because it's convenient or inconvenient.

The idea, then, should be that no matter what another person's views, they would be discouraged from acting on them because they know it's wrong and they know they will face punishment.

This concept would surely be applied in any other circumstance, whether it's racial or religious vilification. That there's still a double-standard is truly haunting, from an outsider's point of view.[/font][/QUOTE]Well even if it's stupid, until they have the power to go after those who would harm them, they are doing them a favor by kicking them out. Not much of one, but until the stance against gays change what else can they do? I'd rather they do that than stand by and let them get beaten up.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[quote]James, lets face it. Not everyone agrees with that. I'm not saying I don't, I'm just saying that to a lot of people, it's not backwards or archaic.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]People don't have to agree with it, but I think that by any objective it's clearly archaic and/or backwards.

In all seriousness, it's a policy of deliberate discrimination. It's open, it's transparently discriminatory and it contradicts a number of other laws (i.e. I doubt it would be okay for a company or any other government organization to harbor such a policy).

In these situations it's all too easy to say "well that's the way it is" or "there are people who agree with it". But I think in this case, it's a cop out. And I think it was probably a cop out in other situations where the government actively discriminated against a group of people.[/font]

[quote]It's not so simple. Like women getting the right to vote, you can't just wave your hand and say, too bad. It takes time for people to accept and get use to that kind of change or at the very least accept it. After all women were once considered too stupid to understand politics well enough to vote.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's true, but that misses my point.

One day, women got the vote. Do you think on that day everyone in America agreed? Of course not. It is possible than even a large amount of people did not agree.

But that did not stop the law from being enacted. Fairness and equality did prevail, even if not everyone was ready for it.[/font]

[quote]That wasn't always true though. Women, at least in America, had to fight for the right to serve in the same capacity as men do. It's accepted now, but it didn't use to be.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Right, it didn't used to be. But it is now. That's my point.

At some stage, things need to change for the better. Holding back change based on the weak assertion that "some people just won't be able to stop hazing/harassing because it's part of military culture" is surely unacceptable.

Also, we are talking about here and now, where we exist in a society that does have a variety of protections and rights.

If you say, for instance, that an employer can't discriminate against a person based on their sexuality, how can you selectively apply that?

This reminds me of a quote from Animal Farm:[quote]

[i]"All animals are created equal.

But some are more equal than others."[/i][/quote][/font]

[quote]I agree with the first part but not the second. Only that modern or not, rights for gays over here is something that is slowly being fought for. It use to be a lot stricter so even though it's got it's issues, it is slowly moving towards acceptance, even if that move is painfully slow. Personally I have no issues with them serving since I think that's a dumb reason to exempt someone from the military.[[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's good that we agree on the core point, I guess. But there's a bigger issue that we don't agree on (at least, it seems to me).

I do understand that change can take time. However, if a law exists that is blatantly unjust and retrograde, it should be identified as such. Softening our approach because "change takes time" ultimately doesn't help (in my view).

I've compared this kind of discrimination to other forms and I think that this helps to put the situation into stark view.

I might say that it took a long time for women to get the vote, but that shouldn't soften the idea that barring women from voting was blatantly wrong.[/font]

[quote]Like I said, that's not how a lot of people see it though and it's not that easy to get someone to see it differently.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]And that's a definite problem. How is it being tackled though? Is it being tackled at all? Do military commanders [i]care[/i] that they are regularly punishing the victim and not the criminal?

I don't believe for a second that one day everything will change and people will stop discriminating against other people.

However, that is a separate issue from what is legal and constitutional. The law should be there to protect everyone, including minorities. It should not take into account systemic cultures of testosterone-fueled harassment.

We should also not wait until everyone's views have changed before we amend the law. Otherwise, the law would never be just.

I mean, there are still plenty of people out there who are highly racist. If we waited for everyone to become tolerant, we would never protect everyone among us.

Sometimes the interests of fairness and justice must come first, even if there are people who stubbornly wish to uphold some some outmoded view that it's perfectly okay to foster a culture of silence and harassment.[/font]

[quote]Well even if it's stupid, until they have the power to go after those who would harm them, they are doing them a favor by kicking them out. Not much of one, but until the stance against gays change what else can they do? I'd rather they do that than stand by and let them get beaten up.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's their choice? Either end their career because they are the victim of prejudice, or stand by and let them get beaten up?

There's a third option there: investigate the matter, find the attacker and punish them appropriately.

I know that the third option may not currently exist, but my argument is that it [i]should[/i] and that it's unacceptable for it [i]not[/i] to exist.

That there is not a stronger outcry about this disappoints me greatly.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote]People don't have to agree with it, but I think that by any objective it's clearly archaic and/or backwards.

In all seriousness, it's a policy of deliberate discrimination. It's open, it's transparently discriminatory and it contradicts a number of other laws (i.e. I doubt it would be okay for a company or any other government organization to harbor such a policy).

In these situations it's all too easy to say "well that's the way it is" or "there are people who agree with it". But I think in this case, it's a cop out. And I think it was probably a cop out in other situations where the government actively discriminated against a group of people.[/quote]That won?t fly with people who?s religious beliefs tell them that it?s wrong. So you can?t say [I]that by any objective it?s archaic or backwards[/I]. It?s not seen that way and that?s part of what I?m trying to get at. Does it mean they are right? I don?t think so. I?m not saying that?s the way it is, I?m saying [I]?that makes it difficult to change?[/I]. That?s not a cop out, that?s seeing the truth for what it is. It?s a problem that isn?t so easily solved.[quote] That's true, but that misses my point.

One day, women got the vote. Do you think on that day everyone in America agreed? Of course not. It is possible than even a large amount of people did not agree.

But that did not stop the law from being enacted. Fairness and equality did prevail, even if not everyone was ready for it.[/quote]They still had a majority agreeing in order for it to happen. Naturally people weren?t happy, but my point is that we are not to that step yet. We don?t have a majority to put an end to it. No matter how much I may want it to end; I can?t force the people in my government to simply pass the laws. Even if I think we are ready for the change, we still have to get past the silly bickering over recognizing marriage among other things. [quote] Right, it didn't used to be. But it is now. That's my point.

At some stage, things need to change for the better. Holding back change based on the weak assertion that "some people just won't be able to stop hazing/harassing because it's part of military culture" is surely unacceptable.

Also, we are talking about here and now, where we exist in a society that does have a variety of protections and rights.

If you say, for instance, that an employer can't discriminate against a person based on their sexuality, how can you selectively apply that?

This reminds me of a quote from Animal Farm:[/quote]I think I didn?t explain my point clearly enough. No one is holding back, I?m saying that a lot of people simply do not see it that way period. The numbers of people who do is climbing, but it?s not enough to make a real difference yet. Again no one his holding back, it?s a matter of not having the power to make that change. I?ve certain tried by voting against anything that is discriminatory towards gays and voting for anything that removes that discrimination. There?s only so much you can do you know.[quote] It's good that we agree on the core point, I guess. But there's a bigger issue that we don't agree on (at least, it seems to me).

I do understand that change can take time. However, if a law exists that is blatantly unjust and retrograde, it should be identified as such. Softening our approach because "change takes time" ultimately doesn't help (in my view).

I've compared this kind of discrimination to other forms and I think that this helps to put the situation into stark view.

I might say that it took a long time for women to get the vote, but that shouldn't soften the idea that barring women from voting was blatantly wrong.[/quote]Like I?ve been saying, right or wrong is a matter of opinion. Hell, I know people who still think women shouldn?t vote, they?re just in the minority now so it?s no longer an issue. I think the issue towards gays is wrong, but a good chunk of the US does not. It doesn?t stop me from trying to change their opinion, but I still can?t force them to change.[quote] That's their choice? Either end their career because they are the victim of prejudice, or stand by and let them get beaten up?

There's a third option there: investigate the matter, find the attacker and punish them appropriately.

I know that the third option may not currently exist, but my argument is that it should and that it's unacceptable for it not to exist.

That there is not a stronger outcry about this disappoints me greatly.[/quote]You think there isn?t? It use to be pretty much an unspoken rule that one acted like there isn?t a problem. The fact that even if the action is something I don?t agree with is actually happening, tells me that the issue is no longer being shoved under the carpet. Yes the action is far from correct, but my point was that they are at least no longer turning a blind eye anymore. It?s not the kind of progress I want to see, but you have to start somewhere.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Sara]

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']What a terrible message the defense forces are sending here. "We can't help that there are bigots among you, so we have to discharge the victims."t no matter what another person's views, they would be discouraged from acting on them because they know it's wrong and they know they will face punishment.[/font][/quote][font=trebuchet ms]I've noticed that victim-blaming is common in any situation where the perpetrator is a straight white male and the victim is not. Clearly, no matter what evidence points to the contrary, the victim was [i]asking for it[/i] in some way, so the straight white male isn't [i]actually[/i] at fault. It's a very common mentality that unfortunately rears its head even in the arena of court and law.

It's strange for me to read this thread, especially SunfallE's replies. I grew up in a Christian school environment where the attititudes she's describing were not only common, but part of the curriculum. I had one teacher in particular whom I respected greatly in every aspect but this?and it was [i]hard[/i] to hold onto the idea that, despite all "evidence" and instruction to the contrary, legalised discrimination was wrong. When I went away to college, the realisation that other people [i]weren't all homophobic[/i] was fresh air to an almost suffocated belief.

Two years ago, my state voted "yes" on an amendment that stated: [quote] "Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"[/quote]This essentially means that [b]not only is gay marriage forbidden[/b] by the Wisconsin constitution, but also that [b]the fallback second choice of civil unions is not an option[/b]. I realise that this isn't immediately relevant to the discussion of the military, but it's an example of how widespread and deeply rooted homophobia is (in my home state, and probably many others).

It blows my mind that equal rights for [i]living, breathing, tax-paying members of society[/i] have to be legislated... and that said legislation frequently fails?or stubbornly trudges backward, progress be damned.[/font]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Aberinkula'][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]Another thing about homophobia is insecurities. Some men/women are insecure about themselves so they decide to take it out on people. I personally went through that before I came out. I became a jerk to my friends because I was taking out my problems on them. I mean, people would say they didn't want me near them because they thought I was going to rape them. Honestly saying a gay person is going to rape you because they're standing behind you is dumb. Well if that was true, wouldn't that mean the same for straight men standing behind women or something along those lines?

You have the right to be uncomfortable changing or showering next to a gay person, but mocking them, beating them for it is taking it too far. I mean, if you're showering next to a gay man, and you're straight, they will respect that. I have straight friends, some I find attractive but I'd never hit on them.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You're homosexual? Wow, go you! I absolutely [B][I]hate[/I][/B] it when people are such jerks about a person's sexuality! To put it in short, I agree with all of the above.:animesmil

It just annoys me that when we have a WAR going on, we're still worrying about any soldiers being gay. Doesn't that sort of seem...I dunno, a bit immature? I know that they're trying to keep the soldiers comfortable, but I'm sure it isn't so comfy being in a war zone, and they're sweating about gays?! WTF?!

[James]

[quote]That won?t fly with people who?s religious beliefs tell them that it?s wrong. So you can?t say that by any objective it?s archaic or backwards. It?s not seen that way and that?s part of what I?m trying to get at. Does it mean they are right? I don?t think so. I?m not saying that?s the way it is, I?m saying ?that makes it difficult to change?. That?s not a cop out, that?s seeing the truth for what it is. It?s a problem that isn?t so easily solved.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It may not fly with people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds, but that isn't really the point I don't think.

The law is there to provide equality to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality and so on.

There's an objective and important reason for having the law drafted in this manner; it means that no single group can discriminate against another [i]regardless[/i] of their reasoning.

So, while people may justify their intolerance on a religious basis, that is still largely irrelevant. Again, nobody is saying that this is about a sea change in personal belief; rather, it is about recognizing the rights of a minority.[/font]

[quote]They still had a majority agreeing in order for it to happen. Naturally people weren?t happy, but my point is that we are not to that step yet. We don?t have a majority to put an end to it. No matter how much I may want it to end; I can?t force the people in my government to simply pass the laws. Even if I think we are ready for the change, we still have to get past the silly bickering over recognizing marriage among other things.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's all very true. But with that said, we should not be afraid to identify a blatantly unjust law or practice when we see one.

To give you an extreme example, the majority of a country may want to totally persecute a particular race of people - that doesn't make it right, nor does it justify institutionalized racism.

The reason that this is still relevant in America is because the US already has specific laws banning the discrimination of minorities in the work place (and in other areas). So there is an immediate conflict in that sense.

The majority may not be comfortable with gay people (although I think there are national polls to dispute that), but that still misses the point: America already has anti-discrimination laws in place. And it has these for obvious reasons. To simply ignore them in one particular area of government is self-contradictory and, at worst, a deliberate practice of discrimination by government.

If a government can have anti-discrimination laws on the books yet simultaneously discriminate against a group in the military...does that not cast doubt on the validity of the laws in the first place?[/font]

[quote]I think I didn?t explain my point clearly enough. No one is holding back, I?m saying that a lot of people simply do not see it that way period. The numbers of people who do is climbing, but it?s not enough to make a real difference yet. Again no one his holding back, it?s a matter of not having the power to make that change. I?ve certain tried by voting against anything that is discriminatory towards gays and voting for anything that removes that discrimination. There?s only so much you can do you know.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that political will is what's required. Politicians themselves have a duty to ensure that law is both fair and just as well as consistent.

Also, even if the majority of people are happy to allow their government to actively discriminate against a group of its own citizens, [i]that still doesn't make it acceptable[/i]. I know you aren't saying that it is, but part of my luxury as a free citizen is to point out a totally unjust and contradictory law where one exists.

Even people who dislike homosexual people for whatever reason should still be outraged by the idea that their government does not provide the equal protections that it advertises.

It goes beyond being a "gay issue" and becomes a question of principle. In other words, you either have a society that supports equal rights for all or you don't.[/font]

[quote]Like I?ve been saying, right or wrong is a matter of opinion. Hell, I know people who still think women shouldn?t vote, they?re just in the minority now so it?s no longer an issue. I think the issue towards gays is wrong, but a good chunk of the US does not. It doesn?t stop me from trying to change their opinion, but I still can?t force them to change.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The thing is though, it's not just a matter of opinion.

As I said earlier, it comes back to the way America's legal system and constitution has been established. America can never claim to be a country of civil rights if its government actively practices discrimination based on prejudice.

If governments only ever legislated simply on polling or public opinion, I can't even imagine how that might turn the country into a complete basket case. This is why we elect public officials - to debate these issues and to take decisions that reflect fairness for all.

A large part of that involves protections for minorities. If "majority rule" always applied, then every single bill would go to a referendum. There's a clear reason why this isn't the case.

If "the majority" were able to dictate every bill or act, minorities would never have reasonable protection or equal rights under the law.

Part of the greatness of democracy and the democratic tradition of countries like America is that the "least among you" are protected and their rights enshrined.[/font]

[quote]You think there isn?t? It use to be pretty much an unspoken rule that one acted like there isn?t a problem. The fact that even if the action is something I don?t agree with is actually happening, tells me that the issue is no longer being shoved under the carpet. Yes the action is far from correct, but my point was that they are at least no longer turning a blind eye anymore. It?s not the kind of progress I want to see, but you have to start somewhere.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it isn't reflected here, but I do think it's reflected in broader society to some degree.

This situation also reminds me of the situation in the justice system, whereby everybody has the right to an attorney.

You might look at someone who is a murderer or a rapist or whatever - the most horrible person in the world. And the majority of people might want to hang him or her on the spot.

But part of the [i]beauty[/i] of a power balance and equal rights is that this person [i]still[/i] deserves a fair trial just like everybody else. This is what civilized society is all about.

There's a reason why mob mentality is not the order of the day in a large, modern democracy. Countries who continue to pander to this mentality (despite its obvious contradictions) can only do themselves further harm, I think.[/font]

[quote]I've noticed that victim-blaming is common in any situation where the perpetrator is a straight white male and the victim is not. Clearly, no matter what evidence points to the contrary, the victim was asking for it in some way, so the straight white male isn't actually at fault. It's a very common mentality that unfortunately rears its head even in the arena of court and law.

It's strange for me to read this thread, especially SunfallE's replies. I grew up in a Christian school environment where the attititudes she's describing were not only common, but part of the curriculum. I had one teacher in particular whom I respected greatly in every aspect but this?and it was hard to hold onto the idea that, despite all "evidence" and instruction to the contrary, legalised discrimination was wrong. When I went away to college, the realisation that other people weren't all homophobic was fresh air to an almost suffocated belief.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you have expressed this far better than I have.

I am trying to explain this division between personal belief and equal protections for all - the fundamental rights for all citizens. There is definitely a difference.

Legalized discrimination is a worrying thing in any country that professes to be truly free. That it is not a more concerning issue for many people is, in itself, a big worry.[/font]

[quote]It blows my mind that equal rights for living, breathing, tax-paying members of society have to be legislated... and that said legislation frequently fails?or stubbornly trudges backward, progress be damned.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Me too. It is so strange because America in many ways is such an advanced country.

And yet most Americans do not seem to understand the world they live in - by that I mean, the idea that the rest of the western world has progressed well beyond this point. To us, the situation in America is kind of a bizarre curiosity - at best, it's weird and amusing. At worst, it's downright scary.

I am very much a supporter of America in general (and I often find myself defending America to her own citizens!)

Yet, on this issue, America does not live up to its [i]own[/i] standard. That should be of concern to all Americans, whether or not they themselves have a prejudice one way or the other.[/font]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]No no no, I'm not gay per se, just mostly homosexual. I still like girls, just I choose not to date any, or have sex with any girls. I'm bi, but I"m more gay than straight.... get what I mean? So I identify myself as homosexual.

America is a great country as a whole, but the US is just ignorant to this type of thing. It's almost like people here are trying to make it seem like homosexuality doesn't exist >.<, someday we will catch up, there's no doubt about that.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

The problem James is that those politicians who push the laws through, are themselves against making the slate more balanced and equal for gays. Part of the biggest problem is getting officials elected into office who actually will pass laws allowing marriage among other things, let alone end the ban in the military.

It's a constant fight to keep those kind of people out of office. Saying religion should be seperate and putting someone in office who won't vote or pass laws based on their religious beliefs is two different things altogether.

It's a real pain in the butt to deal with this kind of BS, but we do. The fact that these guys get away with passing laws to ban gay marriage irritates me to no end. I fight it whenever I can, but like Beth was saying... whether or not it's wrong, it's not something those of us who disagree can just instantly fix.

It doesn't mean we won't quit trying though.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I don't have a problem with them serving, but I don't see that policy changing anytime soon. Raiha's snarky comment about calling us homo haters hits a little to close to home when you consider that states are scrambling to deny gays the right to get married.

It's kind of sad to watch really. People being such cowards and intolerant. The thing about laws protecting minorities is they still had a majority of the politicians behind passing the laws to do so. In this case, sadly the majority of politicians are narrow minded idiots who are threatened by the idea that someone who is gay is actually normal.

Look at the idiocy I get to have fun dealing with when I'm finally old enough to vote! XP[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Darren]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]In this case, sadly the majority of politicians are narrow minded idiots who are threatened by the idea that someone who is gay is actually normal. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
I don't think most politicians can even think for themselves. I think they're just trying to protect their job. And if they think they have the majority's backing (which in this case, I would say they do) then they would be all for it if it meant another term in office.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Aberinkula'][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="1"]So, what are your views on the subject? Do you agree or disagree about banning gay and lesbian people in the army? [/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I don't agree with or consider gay/lesbian tendencies acceptable, though that's for religious reasons and a different topic altogether. However, I also don't agree with banning since that's a form of discrimination in my opinion.

Plus my same religious upbringing also says you have to make your own choices so to a certain extent, it's not my place to tell people they can't serve because of their sexual preferences. >_>

My opinion is not widely held though, at least not among those I know in the same faith. Also, it's not outright said, but it is expected that one vote against rights for gays and lesbians whenever something comes up on the ballot.

I don't agree with that though since that's no different than voting against someone's religion as well. [/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]My opinion is not widely held though, at least not among those I know in the same faith. Also, it's not outright said, but it is expected that one vote against rights for gays and lesbians whenever something comes up on the ballot.

I don't agree with that though since that's no different than voting against someone's religion as well. [/FONT][/QUOTE]That's one of many reasons why I left that faith in the first place. Those [I]behind the scene expectations[/I] got really old. The whole idea is for religion and government to be seperate and that just doesn't sit well with me at all. It's not seperate if they are dictating to you how you should think and how you should vote... but that's another topic really so I'll not go any further into it.