Gen. Pace weighs in on gays in the military

[Gunthr]

That's okay...I was asking Gunthr. - Curval-

yeahbut, its not quite cricket to answer my question with a question, Curval.  take a stab at it...

[Curval]

Okay...Beforehand, just to be clear, I'm not a proponent of anything other than not labelling gays as immoral and getting all right wing Christian on the subject.

Do I have a problem with transexuals serving openly?  Not really.  If, for example, an openly transexual person saved my son after his legs were blown off while under heavy fire I'd probably want to thank him/her.  Sam would apply if they were openly gay.

[Gunthr]

ok Curval.  I understand that you disagree with the General and I understand why.

regarding transexuals serving openly, you are sort of looking at the subject through a drinking straw, but i understand your view, limited in scope as it is (a scenario in which a tranny saves your son's life) but do you think there could be any downside for the military or personnel in allowing transexuals to openly serve in everyday military life as well as in combat?

what is the common philisophical thread that might lead from gays, to transexuals, and maybe to crossdressers serving openly in the military?

im just asking because im curious. no axe to grind.

[BTW]

Rehab, rehab rehab!:rofl

[Curval]

"what is the common philisophical thread that might lead from gays, to transexuals, and maybe to crossdressers serving openly in the military?"

You are trying to skirt around the issue my friend.  Just spit it out...you are trying to say that allowing one immoral group to enlist opens the door for others.

Why stop there though?

Should someone who openly practices witchcraft be allowed to serve?  How about swingers or wife swappers?  How about young guys who like to sleep with old wrinkly women and who openly admit it?  What about people who freely admit to engaging in scat sex?  Orgies?

The list is endless.

[VOR]

Most of your endless list is permissible behavior when conducted off duty, and what is prohibited gets a blind eye. (Oral sex for example, believe it or not.)

The General stated his opinion about morality, but regulations regarding homosexual behavior within the ranks has less to do with morality than morale.

I wouldn't get discouraged with the idea of turning America into a forward-thinking, progressive country just yet, though. I have spent more time in Equal Opportunity and Consideration of Others training (which includes ideas like don't be mean to gay people) this quarter than I have in the field or on the range.

[Gunthr]

You are trying to skirt around the issue my friend. Just spit it out...you are trying to say that allowing one immoral group to enlist opens the door for others.

no. im trying to understand the basic underlying rationale for allowing gays to serve openly in the military.  if there is a rationale, such as "civil rights" or "equality",  it should be applicable to transexuals and crossdressers shouldn't it?  

(btw i do not believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is immoral because i'm convinced most homos have no control over it, nor do i consider having feelings of gender confusion to be necessarily immoral for the same reason.)

[Chairboy]

I guess the rationale is the same as allowing folks who are jewish or black to openly serve in the military.  To head off the usual 'CHOICE!!!!!!' folks, I'll add that it's the same as allowing Mormons to serve openly.

Your conduct should be the important thing, not your self identity.  If your conduct is inappropriate, it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay or even democrat.

[Gunthr]

glad you brought that up Chairboy.  I have some doubts that the kind of loudly shrill and annoying LGBT people on the left of the political spectrum in this country, who are so obsessed with thier sexuality, would be able to be soldiers first.  and i don't even think they want to.  i think their real goal is to "normalize" what they now term "sexual minorities" - just more pc madness.

and im not sure we can extrapolate the experiences of other countries since the issue seems to have a dependancy on the cultural background of the individual country.

anyway, i see significant differences between racial characteristics, religious characteristics and sexual orientation.

all that said, i think our military will eventually allow gays to serve openly under the confines of  the code of military justice - it will become a supervisory issue.

im just wondering about those trannies and crossdressers.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I have some doubts that the kind of loudly shrill and annoying LGBT people on the left of the political spectrum in this country, who are so obsessed with thier sexuality, would be able to be soldiers first.  and i don't even think they want to.  i think their real goal is to "normalize" what they now term "sexual minorities" - just more pc madness.

Considering the thousands of gays currently serving in the military in secret, I'm not sure your statement is supportable.

Something of note, characterizing all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' is a pretty poor argument, and whether you mean to or not, it dehumanizes the folks you disagree with to make their arguments easier to disregard.

Arguing the issue on facts and its own merits isn't as easy, but the end results are inevitably of higher quality and better representative of the facts.

[Gunthr]

Considering the thousands of gays currently serving in the military in secret, I'm not sure your statement is supportable.

im not referring to the thousands of gays who serve in the military honorably without sharing their sexuality with everyone.   im talking about the shrill and annoying LGBT crowd in the "progressive" left of this country.

 Something of note, characterizing all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' is a pretty poor argument, and whether you mean to or not, it dehumanizes the folks you disagree with to make their arguments easier to disregard.

lol, i did not characterize all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' .   its true that i don't like the shrill and annoying LGBT progressive, liberal, in-your-face group of people, but they are not the only ones who want the military to allow gays to serve openly.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Curval
Okay...Beforehand, just to be clear, I'm not a proponent of anything other than not labelling gays as immoral and getting all right wing Christian on the subject.

As opposed to, say, labeling "right wing Christians"?

Interesting...

As long as you don't bash gays or anything.

[Gunthr]

Chair, are you one who believes that transexuals and crossdressers should be allowed to serve openly in the military?  If so, why?

I'm thinking you are one who believes that anybody who can perform the job should be allowed to, but i don't want to assume....

[Chairboy]

I guess the challenge is figuring out how to enforce the regulations regarding uniforms.  If the uniforms are essentially unisex, then I don't see the problem.  If it's a matter of an occasional woman wearing pants as part of her formal attire or a guy wearing a skirt, it seems to work in Scotland without huge problems.

If I'm missing something, lemme know.

[Eagler]