How are gays/lesbians treated in military medicine?

[poococoon]

From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheGoose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

 

[NavyFP]

From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?

Openly homosexual individuals are precluded from serving in the Armed Forces. They are permitted to serve in the Public Health Service though.

 

[pgg]

From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?

They can't serve openly.

In the Navy, at the medcens I've served at, there were always a few who made no secret of their preference, but it was no big deal as far as I could tell. On the Marine side, I have to assume that any who were present kept their heads way down. Very different culture. It's one thing to play for the other team at a huge med center where there are lots of highly educated, more liberal people who haven't worn a uniform in years, who most days seem to want to pretend they're not in the military at all ... quite another if you're attached to an all male Marine infantry unit.

 

[alpha62]

from what I saw up until 2004, Hostile, man hating lesbians had pretty much taken over the Army Nurse Corps. This made it possible for the spineless male hetero officers to do what they do best; Abdicate and relinquish any and all leadership and responsibly.

The gay males I were serving with were often in the middle of an ongoing, deeply seated homosexual panic, fearing they'd be outed and thus required to pay back all of their schooling.

The gay medics in the line units usually did ok, particularly when they were pushed forward with no avalible women around.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

Are you referring to how doctors treat gay patients or how gay doctors are treated by the establishment or just looking for a general tone of how bad anti-gay discrimination is?

In general, I find the military the last bastion of being able to use the word "gay" as an insult, as in "that's gay" or "he's gay" with no actual implication that something is homosexual in nature, just lame. I frequently see nurses and medics make very disparaging remarks about gays, although it is rare from a doc.

I've had one openly gay patient (had a belt buckle that said ride me from behind or something to that effect) and a few that I suspected, but for the most part the ones that are in stay pretty quiet.

 

[libo1369]

Okay so it has already been covered there is a don't ask don't tell policy. I served in the Marine Infantry for four years and though I never met anyone who was gay (sorry no lesbians in the infantry cause no females) or admitted to it while they were in there was talk of what the reaction would be. The consensus was that what the hell did it matter. I know my platoon and company were a close group of guys and if anyone had "come out of the wall locker" we would have ribbed him and smirked but ultimately would have cared less. It might become uncomfortable for some as their is a lot of smacks on the ass or tight situations. I honestly believe that if someone would have come out and was fastened to a fellow marine practically crotch to crotch while spie rigging one would look at the other and say "dude don't get a hard on" and while to some it may have sounded like fear or hate to a really close knit group of devil dogs it would be a sign of affection and of understanding.

I think that barging in and being openly gay would shock to many narrow minded people but after showing performance and proffessionality most Marines wouldn't bat an eye at it. I have met jarheads that met their first african americans when they join and have no idea what to make of them. They are leary at first but in the end they know it is not about the color or any other difference but about what is inside.

A weird side note I also talked with them for a research project a friend was doing about women in the infantry the biggest problem that my platoon found was that they would feel obliged by some defunct form of chivalry to lighten the load on the woman and hence endanger themselves and the rest of the platoon. It was stated that women could no doubt be infantry but would best be served as their own regiment/battalion where direct contact would not be necessary. There has been studies to show that women in the situations that confront the infantry work better as a team and are just as readily able to carry out all the duties that men can and in some cases exceed them.

Well off the soap box that is my .02

Libo Landry

 

[alpha62]

I've worked with quite a few gay guys in the army. I really didn't have a problem with it. Down range I walk up hooker hill, he goes one street over to his target zone and everybody is happy by curfew.

I do find lesbians in the army to be hostile, clanish, quite humorless, manipulative, and generally annoying. They are a disruptive presence and I've seen them form a posse that generally wrecked morale.

 

[BomberDoc]

I do find lesbians in the army to be hostile, clanish, quite humorless, manipulative, and generally annoying. They are a disruptive presence and I've seen them form a posse that generally wrecked morale.

Disagree here. Replace "lesbians" with "nurses" and you are on target. I have worked with a handful of homosexual men/women while on active duty and their sexual orientation was never an issue. However, being a psycho megalomaniac nurse, regardless of your orientation is a bad thing.

One of the best goddamn techs I ever had was queer as a three dollar bill and was the first person I would want next to me if the commies ever came over the hill.

 

[alpha62]

LESBIANISM

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/goldiemcg/FatLesbians.png

It's not like on the movies

 

[Founder]

There are no such things as fat lesbians. There are no such thing as fat lesbians.

I'm a fairly conservative person but I don't see the problem with sexual orientation. It's not like being a homosexual man or woman makes that person any less able to do their job. I've never really understood that. You hear stuff like "there's nothing wrong with being gay as long as they do their job" but how is that any different than saying there is nothing wrong with them being Christian, or Jewish, or black, or Asian as long as they do their job?

 

[alpha62]

Like most soldiers, it's the monkey-shines they pull on their off time that's the problem.

And since you are an officer, their off duty headaches, quickly become your 24 hour a day migraine.

It looks like everybody on this board is doing their damnest to find the softest, rear area job they can to get the ADSO monkey off their back... well.. that's where 99% of this distruptive ,mariginal society, borderline crap goes on. It's a political football that eventually gets medicalized and again, it falls into your lap.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

There are no such things as fat lesbians. There are no such thing as fat lesbians.

I'm a fairly conservative person but I don't see the problem with sexual orientation. It's not like being a homosexual man or woman makes that person any less able to do their job. I've never really understood that. You hear stuff like "there's nothing wrong with being gay as long as they do their job" but how is that any different than saying there is nothing wrong with them being Christian, or Jewish, or black, or Asian as long as they do their job?

How about "there is nothing wrong with being alcoholic, pedophilic, kleptophilic, adulterous, addicted to gambling or having terroristic tendencies as long as they do their job?"

The issue with homosexuality (as opposed to race/gender/religion etc) is that a certain portion of society views it as being morally wrong. Lumping sexual orientation into the same category as race is inappropriate to them. Disagree? Consider these questions: Why is it wrong to be polygamous? How about have sex with goats? How about have sex with children? Sure, you'll say that the goats and children don't give their consent. But what if all you did was use fake, blow-up kids and goats and watch animated child porn? Would it be okay then? Would you be okay working next to a guy who was always watching animated child porn while waiting for the next patient to come in? What if he were a pediatrician? Would it be all right if he didn't bring it to work, and just watched it at home?

There are a lot of people in the USA that haven't yet bought into the "company line" that people don't choose their sexual orientation. That assertion is far from proven. It seems to me that any "gay gene" would have long ago been eliminated from our species via natural selection. Perhaps a bisexuality gene, if it somehow made the person have MORE sex with members of the opposite sex could endure....but one that made you homosexual? It just begs reason, even when you take into account partial expression, other genetic oddities, and the effects of environment.

Everyone has their faults, and I can't say whether adultery is worse than homosexuality, but there might just be a reason that nearly all (all?) the world's major religions preach against homosexuality (as they do adultery).

Now I've had friends, neighbors, supervising attendings and family members that were gay and they never bothered me at all. But I have also had friends and attendings that were alcoholics who didn't bother me at all either. You've got to be careful with moral relativism. When nothing is wrong, everything MUST be right.

P.S. I've met fat lesbians.

 

[pgg]

Oh Christ, I can hardly believe an educated human being could possibly be this obtuse.

How about "there is nothing wrong with being alcoholic, pedophilic, kleptophilic, adulterous, addicted to gambling or having terroristic tendencies as long as they do their job?"

Alcoholics have lost control of their drinking and put others at risk. Pedophiles exploit and abuse children. Kleptos harm the people they steal from. Adulterers are dishonest and harm the people they cheat on. It's harder to argue that gambling addicts harm others, but terrorists kill people.

Gay people do ... what? Gross things with other gay people in the privacy of their own homes?

The issue with homosexuality (as opposed to race/gender/religion etc) is that a certain portion of society views it as being morally wrong.

Generally speaking, the same certain portion of society used to say that black people were too stupid, dirty, ignorant, untrustworthy, lazy, and shifty to use the same drinking fountain as whites, or serve alongside whites in the military.

Consider these questions: Why is it wrong to be polygamous?

I would argue that it's not, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult.

How about have sex with goats? How about have sex with children? Sure, you'll say that the goats and children don't give their consent.

That's exactly what I'd say.

But what if all you did was use fake, blow-up kids and goats and watch animated child porn? Would it be okay then?

I'd say that falls in the category of stomach-turning free speech, and that it deserves 1st Amendment protection. (We don't need the 1st Amendment to protect popular speech; it's there specifically to protect offensive speech. If you want to read Mein Kampf to pigeons in the park or draw nasty cartoons in your basement, that's up to you.)

Would you be okay working next to a guy who was always watching animated child porn while waiting for the next patient to come in? What if he were a pediatrician? Would it be all right if he didn't bring it to work, and just watched it at home?

Obviously that guy's right to watch porn doesn't extend to the point where he forces me to watch it with him in the cubicle we share - this quite clearly falls under existing and reasonable laws against sexual harassment in the workplace. If he wants to watch sick cartoons or listen to Rush Limbaugh at home, it's none of my business - nor is it the state's business.

There are a lot of people in the USA that haven't yet bought into the "company line" that people don't choose their sexual orientation. That assertion is far from proven.

There are a lot of people in the USA that haven't yet bought into the "company line" that blacks shouldn't have to sit in the back of the bus. They're just as ignorant and bigoted as you.

It seems to me that any "gay gene" would have long ago been eliminated from our species via natural selection. Perhaps a bisexuality gene, if it somehow made the person have MORE sex with members of the opposite sex could endure....but one that made you homosexual? It just begs reason, even when you take into account partial expression, other genetic oddities, and the effects of environment.

So you don't understand something, so you declare it to be impossible. That's the kind of sentiment I expect from the Flat Earth Society and the 9/11 Truthers, not an educated physician and trained scientist. There are many plausible reasons why a "gay gene" wouldn't fall victim to natural selection and get wiped out.

One obvious explanation, off the top of my head, would be that the "really likes chicks" gene might make a woman a lesbian, but might make a man extra motivated to have a bunch of kids with a bunch of chicks ... passing the "really likes chicks" gene on to a lot of kids (including daughters).

Everyone has their faults, and I can't say whether adultery is worse than homosexuality, but there might just be a reason that nearly all (all?) the world's major religions preach against homosexuality (as they do adultery).

Let's not let this devolve into a discussion of all the patently absurd things that many religions preach.

Now I've had friends, neighbors, supervising attendings and family members that were gay and they never bothered me at all. But I have also had friends and attendings that were alcoholics who didn't bother me at all either. You've got to be careful with moral relativism. When nothing is wrong, everything MUST be right.

Those of us who argue that homosexuality isn't morally wrong aren't claiming that NOTHING is. This is unrelated to the question of whether or not they can choose to be gay or not.

50 years from now, your kind will be written of in the same paragraph as historical embarrassments like Gov. Wallace.

 

[TheGoose]

i have a feeling that this thread is going down a treacherous road but i have to give respect to you, pgg, for bringing an educated, reasoned, and logical response to that post

 

[BlueIsis]

PGG - An eloquent response to an attitude I expect here in TN, but had sincerely hoped went away as one moved in more educated circles.

 

[notdeadyet]

PGG - An eloquent response to an attitude I expect here in TN, but had sincerely hoped went away as one moved in more educated circles.

Ditto. Nice response, pgg. Well thought out and right on the money.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

Oh Christ, I can hardly believe an educated human being could possibly be this obtuse.

Generally speaking, the same certain portion of society used to say that black people were too stupid, dirty, ignorant, untrustworthy, lazy, and shifty to use the same drinking fountain as whites, or serve alongside whites in the military.

That's the kind of sentiment I expect from the Flat Earth Society and the 9/11 Truthers, not an educated physician and trained scientist.

There are a lot of people in the USA that haven't yet bought into the "company line" that blacks shouldn't have to sit in the back of the bus. They're just as ignorant and bigoted as you.

50 years from now, your kind will be written of in the same paragraph as historical embarrassments like Gov. Wallace.

Let's skip the ridiculous insults and generalizing, it only makes you look bad.

Alcoholics have lost control of their drinking and put others at risk. Pedophiles exploit and abuse children. Kleptos harm the people they steal from. Adulterers are dishonest and harm the people they cheat on. It's harder to argue that gambling addicts harm others, but terrorists kill people.

People who sympathize with terrorists or have terrorist tendencies don't actually harm anyone. Alcoholics don't necessarily harm anyone besides themselves (obviously there are exceptions.) Many couples have decided to have lovers on the side rather than remain faithful. The activity is still adultery, but it appears that everyone consents. Okay with you I presume? Pick your own activity that you view as immoral and you'll see that there is usually a way to be involved in it that doesn't harm anyone besides the one(s) involved in it.

Those of us who argue that homosexuality isn't morally wrong aren't claiming that NOTHING is. This is unrelated to the question of whether or not they can choose to be gay or not.

Why don't you stick to these arguments: 1) Homosexuality is either moral or immoral. How does a person decide what is right and wrong? You can rely on conscience, opinions of those around you, some old book, or direct revelation from a supreme being of some type. 2) People can choose to "be gay" or not. First, what does "be gay" mean? Does it mean to feel some attraction to somebody of the same sex? That would suggest that someone who thinks about killing someone else is guilty of "be murderer." Obviously few of us would find fault with someone who thought about either thing occasionally or for short periods of time. Does "be gay" actually mean to have homosexual sex? Seems to me that's a pretty obvious choice just as much as someone chooses to kill someone or not. Not saying those two "sins" are equivalent in nature, just using something dramatic and obvious to make a point.

So you don't understand something, so you declare it to be impossible.

Perhaps YOU don't understand something, and so cannot understand how there might actually be activities you thought were moral that are actually immoral? Be careful in assuming you know more about a subject than another. Again, a gross generalization.

There are many plausible reasons why a "gay gene" wouldn't fall victim to natural selection and get wiped out.

Zero data on the subject, so any argument about it wouldn't make much headway. Fascinating area of research however.

Let's not let this devolve into a discussion of all the patently absurd things that many religions preach.

Nor into a discussion of the truths that all religions preach. Heaven forbid. Is there universal truth? Is there right and wrong? Or is it all morally relativistic feel-good philosophy that you believe in?

Those of us who argue that homosexuality isn't morally wrong aren't claiming that NOTHING is. This is unrelated to the question of whether or not they can choose to be gay or not.

There are really two different arguments here being blended together:
1) Is it wrong to perform homosexual acts?
2) Should it be illegal or have any relevance to military service?

Very, very different. Don't assume that those who would answer yes to the first will also answer yes to the second.

 

[pgg]

ActiveDutyMD,

Although I was replying to you, the main reason I posted wasn't to try to change your mind - in the end, you'll either figure it out and change it yourself, or you won't. The OP asked a question about how gays are treated in the military, and I wanted to let him know in a concrete, unequivocal manner that not everyone involved in military medicine shares your views.

A big problem is that people who don't want gays in the military tend to be much more vocal than the rest of us. This creates the illusion that people who disguise their hatred and fear of gays with that tired old "separate but equal" argument actually outnumber the people who realize that don't-ask-don't-tell is is just another flavor of racism.

There are really two different arguments here being blended together:
1) Is it wrong to perform homosexual acts?
2) Should it be illegal or have any relevance to military service?

Very, very different. Don't assume that those who would answer yes to the first will also answer yes to the second.

Yes, those are different questions. But what you're implying is that it's OK to believe gays are bad, morally corrupt people provided you're willing to grudgingly tolerate their presence at the post office, or teaching your kids in public schools, or serving in the military. This is no more defensible a position than believing black people are inferior, however you try to disguise it in the context of morality, personal opinion, or religion.

That's the point - even if you're OK with them serving in the military, once you've declared them to be morally flawed because they're gay, you're a bigot, and no more deserving of respect than guys like Gov Wallace, who also took a "moral" and "symbolic" stand against desegregation before stepping aside and grudgingly tolerating the presence of black people at the Univ of Alabama.

 

[BigNavyPedsGuy]

Yes, those are different questions. But what you're implying is that it's OK to believe gays are bad, morally corrupt people provided you're willing to grudgingly tolerate their presence at the post office, or teaching your kids in public schools, or serving in the military. This is no more defensible a position than believing black people are inferior, however you try to disguise it in the context of morality, personal opinion, or religion.

That's the point - even if you're OK with them serving in the military, once you've declared them to be morally flawed because they're gay, you're a bigot, and no more deserving of respect than guys like Gov Wallace, who also took a "moral" and "symbolic" stand against desegregation before stepping aside and grudgingly tolerating the presence of black people at the Univ of Alabama.

I think there's a middle ground between you two: One can think that homosexuality is a choice. They can also think that their religion is pretty clear about that choice being right or wrong. But that doesn't mean that the guy who disagrees with you can't work with you and be good at their job.

Example; I am a Christian, I pray regularly, I don't get drunk etc . . . Does that mean that the people that I work with are less than me because they don't pray, or they get drunk every Friday night? Do I think it is unacceptable to work with them? Of course not! They are not Christians, they don't live by the same set of rules I do. Do I try and reach out to my friends and let them see why I believe what I believe? Sure (in a non-domineering way). But you can go down the list of my previously mentioned friends and not a one of them would say that I'm an intolerant bigot. I just make different choices than they make.

NOTE: I did not personally define my views on homosexuality here. Please don't act like I did and flame me unnecessarily.

 

[pgg]

I don't think there's much more to be gained from continuing this thread. Yes, one can think homosexuality is a choice. One can also think that evolution is bunk, that the atomic theory of matter is "just a theory", or that the moon landings were faked. The fact that everyone is free to believe any of these things doesn't make them defensible beliefs.

Suffice it to say that I won't pretend to respect the beliefs of a KKK member who wears a hood to the weekend rally but come Monday is polite to the black guy in the next cubicle ...

... and I won't pretend to respect the beliefs of a person who decries gays as immoral flawed people, even if they're civil to them in the workplace.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I think there's a middle ground between you two: One can think that homosexuality is a choice. They can also think that their religion is pretty clear about that choice being right or wrong. But that doesn't mean that the guy who disagrees with you can't work with you and be good at their job.

How's that middle ground? I thought that was the side I was arguing.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

Suffice it to say that I won't pretend to respect the beliefs of a KKK member who wears a hood to the weekend rally but come Monday is polite to the black guy in the next cubicle ...

... and I won't pretend to respect the beliefs of a person who decries gays as immoral flawed people, even if they're civil to them in the workplace.

Suggesting there is no difference between someone who believes homosexuality is a choice and the killers of Matthew Shephard is a pretty stupid way to end an argument, but that's essentially what you're saying here as you walk out the door.

You choose to view homosexuality as an in-born quality of a person. I do not. I can tolerate you having that view. You cannot do the same. You rail against any who dare defy you, comparing them to some of history's worst without any rational argument. Who is the intolerant bigot? There may be some parallels between the civil rights movement and the current gay rights movement, but I, for one, think they deal with very separate issues.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. In fact, I'm not even asking you to respect my beliefs. I could really care less how you feel about me and what I think. And I agree that there is little reason to continue this dialog between the two of us, as I doubt either of us would end up changing our opinions. So I guess here is where we agree to disagree.

 

[BigNavyPedsGuy]

How about "there is nothing wrong with being alcoholic, pedophilic, kleptophilic, adulterous, addicted to gambling or having terroristic tendencies as long as they do their job?"

And

"I think there's a middle ground between you two: One can think that homosexuality is a choice. They can also think that their religion is pretty clear about that choice being right or wrong. But that doesn't mean that the guy who disagrees with you can't work with you and be good at their job."

are not the same argument

 

[pgg]

Suggesting there is no difference between someone who believes homosexuality is a choice and the killers of Matthew Shephard is a pretty stupid way to end an argument, but that's essentially what you're saying here as you walk out the door.

No. Don't distort my arguments.

I pointed out the close parallels in the thinking of racists and homophobes. Believing that black people are inferior and that gay people are inferior are two sides of the same coin. At the heart both stem from misplaced contempt for someone born different. I made no comparison between murderers and people who believe being gay is a choice - only between people who are racists, and people who believe gays are flawed human beings.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. In fact, I'm not even asking you to respect my beliefs. I could really care less how you feel about me and what I think. And I agree that there is little reason to continue this dialog between the two of us, as I doubt either of us would end up changing our opinions. So I guess here is where we agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[narcusprince]

ActiveDutyMD,

Although I was replying to you, the main reason I posted wasn't to try to change your mind - in the end, you'll either figure it out and change it yourself, or you won't. The OP asked a question about how gays are treated in the military, and I wanted to let him know in a concrete, unequivocal manner that not everyone involved in military medicine shares your views.

A big problem is that people who don't want gays in the military tend to be much more vocal than the rest of us. This creates the illusion that people who disguise their hatred and fear of gays with that tired old "separate but equal" argument actually outnumber the people who realize that don't-ask-don't-tell is is just another flavor of racism.



Yes, those are different questions. But what you're implying is that it's OK to believe gays are bad, morally corrupt people provided you're willing to grudgingly tolerate their presence at the post office, or teaching your kids in public schools, or serving in the military. This is no more defensible a position than believing black people are inferior, however you try to disguise it in the context of morality, personal opinion, or religion.

That's the point - even if you're OK with them serving in the military, once you've declared them to be morally flawed because they're gay, you're a bigot, and no more deserving of respect than guys like Gov Wallace, who also took a "moral" and "symbolic" stand against desegregation before stepping aside and grudgingly tolerating the presence of black people at the Univ of Alabama.

PGG
First off I would like to say I agree that no one should be discriminated based upon, race, sexuality, gender. However, I could never see the plight of homosexual legitimacy as being equal with racial discrimination. I believe that someone can be gay and work in the same environment as a straight person without the straight person ever knowing that they are gay. Its their "choice" to inform people of their sexuality. However you cannot hide your race from people. Your comparing apples to oranges. Being a physician and minority I always was asked in the hospitals if I was an orderly versus being a medical student. I was always looked at as a minorahire even though my scores were on par with my classmates. I cannot tell you the times I was written off by a resident through no fault of my own other than what I can surmise as racism. Even when I carried the same patients answered the calls and scored better than my classmates their was always something missing. I wish I could just leave race in the closet.

 

[pgg]

To be honset, pgg, you haven't exactly presented overwhelming evidence for your case that homosexuality is an inborn trait.

That's true. But arguing this point is like arguing about evolution with creationists. There isn't "proof" ... there never will be "proof" ... and even a preponderance of evidence will always be rebutted with "it's not proof" ...

It's also true that ActiveDutyMD hasn't presented any evidence that homosexuality is harmful, or why it's bad - just the bald assertion that some people think it's immoral, and that he himself isn't sure if it's any better or worse than lying & cheating (adultery). This, in and of itself, is a claim borne of prejudice, and it can't be reasonably defended.

Also, as you point out here ...

To be honest, the "it's inborn" argument of homosexuality has always seemed to me to be the left's version of creation theory: an attempt to short circut an argument by not discussing scientific evidence and theories. The sad thing is that it seems like the left have a perfectly reasonable argument to make without resorting to any of that: that the love between two consensual adults isn't necessarily bad just because it's learned behavior. But instead the debate just degenerates into people yelling at eachother.

... you're absolutely right. From a moral perspective, whether or not it's inborn ought to be irrelevant.

I do have to disagree with your statement that the 'left' isn't saying this, though. The argument "love between two consensual adults" is made over and over, usually before someone on the 'right' side brings up the assertion (unsupported by evidence, I might add) that being gay is a choice. At which point, the discussion (like this thread) gets derailed into a debate over inborn vs not-inborn, when the real issue is that the anti-gay side simply favors discrimination against a group of people who are different than they are.

Being a physician and minority I always was asked in the hospitals if I was an orderly versus being a medical student. I was always looked at as a minorahire even though my scores were on par with my classmates. I cannot tell you the times I was written off by a resident through no fault of my own other than what I can surmise as racism. Even when I carried the same patients answered the calls and scored better than my classmates their was always something missing. I wish I could just leave race in the closet.

I hope you got none of that vibe from our department.

Religion is a choice, and one that could be easily concealed. Prohibiting Jews from openly serving in the military wouldn't be tolerated. No one should have to conceal what they are or what they believe in order to be treated fairly or allowed to serve their country.

 

[pgg]

You've accused your colleages who disagree with you of being hopelessly irrational, but you've never even attempted to give them a chance to be rational. Your first response was full of nasty names and accusations, without any real attempt to present your arguments and evidence. That's not only not helpful, it makes it your side look irrational and billigerant by association. This goes for any arguement, not just the one that you're currently having.

I did not compare gays to terrorists, child molesters, and thieves. Nor did I declare that it was reasonable to view gay people as morally inferior. I didn't even bring up the inflammatory issue of "gay genetics" ...

Look ... as you pointed out, better than I did, whether or not gayness is inborn is barely relevant to the question of whether or not they are immoral people, and whether or not they should be subject to discrimination.

You're correct - I could have made a better argument and I should have been more civil.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I would agree with points 2 an 3. I'm sure (or at least very hopeful), that ADMD would agree with points 2 and 3. Where I think you're disagreeing is point number 1.

Of course. And I think there are many issues out there where two reasonable people can disagree. I simply dislike being called "racist" or "homophobe" for having a different stance on an issue.

I have no more "fear" of a gay person than a smoker. As a physician, I'm not easily grossed out, but I find nothing particularly "gross" about homosexual behavior. And I certainly don't mind people who are different than I am.

But I do believe that some things are wrong and some things are right. Swingers clubs? Bad. Homosexual sex? Bad. Smoking? Bad. Telling little white lies? Bad. I don't expect everyone's list of what's good and what's bad to mirror mine. As a free society, we simply try to allow others to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't impede on the right of anyone else to do what they want. But just because something is allowed, or even popular, doesn't make it right.

 

[alpha62]

I'll admit it; there is something about a butched out lesbian trying to give me an order that provokes a visceral response in me I can't explain.

I don't know if it's a result of my upbringing, my working environment, my indoctrination sequence, or just good old fashioned bigotry. Is it natural or is it learned? I don't know, but I suspect it evolved alongside the gag reflex that is triggered with the introduction of a penis being inserted into one's mouth, and god put it there for a reason, i.e. it just ain't natural.

I do know that the taxpayers invested millions in my training over the years and I was the guy who should have been sent to Iraq. That did not happen, because I got out before the big game kicked off.

I grew disillusioned with this social experiment called a fighting force, I resigned and the aforementioned rationale was a major influence in my decision to leave.

I'm sure everybody got what they wanted. The lesbians are pursuing a career, the lifers are bending over marking time to retirement putting up with it, and somebody more enlightened than myself gets to pull my tour in Iraq as well as his own.

It's true, you really deserve what ever you are willing to tolerate.

 

[notdeadyet]

DoD POLICY

 Congress has determined homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service

 Homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct

 Homosexual conduct is the focus of the DoD policy

 Bi-sexual conduct is treated the same way as homosexual conduct

Interesting.

Tired- does the DoD policy every specify what is "homosexual conduct"? This doesn't specifically mention homosexual sex. If this is all that's mentioned, it's pretty open. "Homosexual conduct" might mean homosexual sex to me, but to someone else, what's to say that stereotypical gay speaking style/body posturing isn't "homosexual conduct".

 

[alpha62]

Interesting.

Tired- does the DoD policy every specify what is "homosexual conduct"? This doesn't specifically mention homosexual sex. If this is all that's mentioned, it's pretty open. "Homosexual conduct" might mean homosexual sex to me, but to someone else, what's to say that stereotypical gay speaking style/body posturing isn't "homosexual conduct".

If you're having difficulty defining "homosexual conduct" apart from "homosexual sex" let me help you out......

This is homosexual conduct.

http://photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-32.jpg

the upside to this would be stationing these guys in the military district of Washington D.C. as they'd probably be the only GIs not kvetching about pulling parade duty every weekend.

But then again, dammit, now it seems as if this is homosexual posturing now also...


http://snarkster.com/2005/10/mr-sulu-is-gay-warp-factor-nine/

 

[notdeadyet]

If you're having difficulty defining "homosexual conduct" apart from "homosexual sex" let me help you out......

Cute, but actually has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

Someone mentioned that only homosexual sex is outlawed by the military. But if "homosexual conduct" isn't specified anywhere, it leaves it wide open to interpretation. You could make the argument that wearing a pink triangle button out of uniform is "homosexual conduct" which isn't sexual in nature. Or, like I said in my post, "homosexual conduct" could be anyone with mannerisms that their CO interprets to be "gay".

Just curious if this DoD directive ever specifies if it is actually homosexual sex that is agains the rules. What's been posted so far doesn't necessarily indicate that.

 

[alpha62]

Cute, but actually has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

Someone mentioned that only homosexual sex is outlawed by the military. But if "homosexual conduct" isn't specified anywhere, it leaves it wide open to interpretation. You could make the argument that wearing a pink triangle button out of uniform is "homosexual conduct" which isn't sexual in nature. Or, like I said in my post, "homosexual conduct" could be anyone with mannerisms that their CO interprets to be "gay".

Just curious if this DoD directive ever specifies if it is actually homosexual sex that is agains the rules. What's been posted so far doesn't necessarily indicate that.

yeah, I was kidding, but I agree, there should be rigid (no pun intended) guidelines. I know this whole industry of sexual harrassment has made a code of conduct out this. e.g. staring at female soldier longer than 3 seconds is harrassment.

If they can break down the rules of heterosexual conduct with specific examples, they ought to do the same for gays. But then again, the command likes it vague so they can exercise summary punishment that will accomidate their own personality defects and lack of leadership ability at the time of their choosing

 

[notdeadyet]

If they can break down the rules of heterosexual conduct with specific examples, they ought to do the same for gays. But then again, the command likes it vague so they can exercise summary punishment that will accomidate their own personality defects and lack of leadership ability at the time of their choosing

That makes sense. I suppose if you're the one writing the rules, the more vague you write them, the more flexibility you have when you apply them.

 

[dentalOH]

Cute, but actually has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

Someone mentioned that only homosexual sex is outlawed by the military. But if "homosexual conduct" isn't specified anywhere, it leaves it wide open to interpretation. You could make the argument that wearing a pink triangle button out of uniform is "homosexual conduct" which isn't sexual in nature. Or, like I said in my post, "homosexual conduct" could be anyone with mannerisms that their CO interprets to be "gay".

Just curious if this DoD directive ever specifies if it is actually homosexual sex that is agains the rules. What's been posted so far doesn't necessarily indicate that.

I'm not sure where to find the DoD directive, but Army policy is derived from it. The Army defines homosexual conduct in AR 600-20:

(3) Homosexual conduct. "Homosexual conduct" is a homosexual act, a statement by a Soldier that demonstrates a
propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the solicitation of another to engage in homosexual act or acts, or a
homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.
(a) A "homosexual act" means any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of
the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires and any bodily contact (for example, hand-holding, slow
dancing, or kissing) that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in such
bodily contact.
(b) A "statement by a person that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that effect" means language or
behavior that a reasonable person would believe intends to convey the statement that a person engages in, attempts to
engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. This may include statements such as
"I am a homosexual," "I am gay," "I am a lesbian," "I have a homosexual orientation," and the like.
(c) A "homosexual marriage or attempted marriage" is when a person has married or attempted to marry a person
known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the person involved).

 

[alpha62]

I'm not sure where to find the DoD directive, but Army policy is derived from it. The Army defines homosexual conduct in AR 600-20:

Well, I guess then your leather off duty wardrobe, your Barbra Striesand collection, the rainbow bumpersticker, that cute little lisp, the overconsumption of butch pomade, the butt plug and all the other gear that scream homosexual lifestyle remains safely out of the contraband barrel then I guess.

 

[notdeadyet]

Well, I guess then your leather off duty wardrobe, your Barbra Striesand collection, the rainbow bumpersticker, that cute little lisp, the overconsumption of butch pomade, the butt plug and all the other gear that scream homosexual lifestyle remains safely out of the contraband barrel then I guess.

Yet saying you are gay can get you kicked out. Sounds like the idea that only gay sex is a no-no is wrong.

 

[alpha62]

Yet saying you are gay can get you kicked out. Sounds like the idea that only gay sex is a no-no is wrong.

It really doesn't matter how many regs, how much UCMJ, how many mandatory EO classes you burn a troop with, he'll only follow and produce for a guy he wants to be like.

If you are a swishing little queen or a raging bull ****, or even a straight edge, fast rising heterosexual golden boy... If the troops you lead don't respect you, maybe even fear you, you are dead in the water.

As a former enlisted, I can tell you I've made life positively miserable for officers I didn't respect or admire; and I've also worked my ass off for officers I wanted to be like, learn from, and sometimes fear.

 

[narcusprince]

That's true. But arguing this point is like arguing about evolution with creationists. There isn't "proof" ... there never will be "proof" ... and even a preponderance of evidence will always be rebutted with "it's not proof" ...

It's also true that ActiveDutyMD hasn't presented any evidence that homosexuality is harmful, or why it's bad - just the bald assertion that some people think it's immoral, and that he himself isn't sure if it's any better or worse than lying & cheating (adultery). This, in and of itself, is a claim borne of prejudice, and it can't be reasonably defended.

Also, as you point out here ...



... you're absolutely right. From a moral perspective, whether or not it's inborn ought to be irrelevant.

I do have to disagree with your statement that the 'left' isn't saying this, though. The argument "love between two consensual adults" is made over and over, usually before someone on the 'right' side brings up the assertion (unsupported by evidence, I might add) that being gay is a choice. At which point, the discussion (like this thread) gets derailed into a debate over inborn vs not-inborn, when the real issue is that the anti-gay side simply favors discrimination against a group of people who are different than they are.



I hope you got none of that vibe from our department.

Religion is a choice, and one that could be easily concealed. Prohibiting Jews from openly serving in the military wouldn't be tolerated. No one should have to conceal what they are or what they believe in order to be treated fairly or allowed to serve their country.

PGG
I never felt any problem at your department. Actually the attitude the military has towards race is precisely why I joined up. I like the philosophy that hard work, diligence, and intelligence can advance you in service. I have always felt the military was probably the most color blind organization in the US.

 

[alpha62]

anybody see "Semper Fi" on cable ?

I watched about 5 minutes of an actor doing a monologue dressed up like a Marine in full battle rattle before I just wanted to puke and changed the channel, you know, what people on here have the ablity to do when they don't agree with something, but rarely exercise the right.

Unless I just took it out of context, the whole thing was an insulting, discusting piece about a gay service member getting turned on by a gay Iraqi local.

No wonder people want to kill us, they don't want that crap in their country.