Here goes...a couple of months back, I wrote to my two Arkansas Senators, Mark Pryor & Blanche Lincoln inquiring about their individual stance on the "DADT" policy. I did receive computer generated responses from both. Here is Senator Pryor's response:
Dear Ms. Langley-Higdon,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our country's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the armed forces. I appreciate hearing from you. As you may know, in June of 2010, the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted a compromise amendment by Senator Lieberman that would repeal the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy currently in effect for U.S. military personnel, but only after certification by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that a replacement policy could be implemented without affecting military readiness. Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, announced a working group within the Department of Defense to evaluate the impact and plan for the implementation of a full repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The report is to solicit input from service members at all levels and is scheduled to be completed by December 1, 2010. I believe military input into this decision is crucial. Readiness should be our highest priority in making decisions that affect the military. That's why I must vote against repealing the policy if it comes to a vote before the views of the military have been fully and fairly considered. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as this issue comes before the full Senate. Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you
Sincerely,
Mark Pryor
United States Senate
The letter from Senator Lincoln was re-worded but essentially identical. So, I posted this letter to my FB account in a note and tagged some of my friends who are either IN the military, married to someone in the military, homosexual, political, religious or anybody I thought might be interested in the topic :) Sadly, I forgot about the post and blog entry due to some intense all-nighter "art" making. HOWEVER, today, I found the note again & saw some of the responses it generated. It got pretty ugly. I HONESTLY did NOT mean to cause a brawl...just an exchange of ideas! SO, after gathering opinions from both sides (repeal or don't), here's my take:
I, PERSONALLY, do not believe that homosexuality is a "learned" or "acquired" behavior. It only makes sense to me that a "lifestyle" that can include: public ridicule, potential violence toward the individual and/or their friends and partners, parental disapproval, etc...etc...etc...would not be something someone would "choose." In the same way that I happen to have been born attracted to the opposite sex (men...YUM:), others feel that same, uncontrollable attraction to their own sex. If tomorrow, I woke up in a parallel universe where the social norm was SAME sex coupling, I do NOT think I could be attracted to women just because that is what people "do!" Could you? *I DO think women are very beautiful and can appreciate them for it, but it doesn't make me wanna have sex with them:) lol
Secondly, with regards to gays in the military, I cannot imagine how this is anything other than discrimination based on a popular belief that homosexuals are sex fiends who will undoubtedly rape his/her fellow soldiers in the bunkers nightly? Ok. I am using a bit of hyperbole there, but honestly... It's my understanding that there is NO sex allowed among soldiers in the field, right? (DO correct me if I'm wrong, please!) Therefore, just as the men and women are not allowed to get any, the men could not have sex with one another either (even if they wanted to:) Right? Easy fix. No sex for anybody. Catch a male/female hooking up, you get the same punishment as if a man on man situation was discovered. Am I oversimplifying this? Please understand, I do have SOME understanding of the male mind/body/ego...but, if you put a gay soldier in a tent with a straight soldier, is the straight soldier SO threatened with his own sexuality that he cannot accept the choices of his tent mate (refer to the aforementioned NO SEX FOR ANYBODY policy:) that the soldier cannot eat, sleep, live, FIGHT, AND DIE right beside you?? I honestly hope that the attitudes of a majority our brave soldiers are NOT the stereotypical "Bubba" who cannot co-exist with anybody who isn't all about guns, beer & the USA!!! I don't think they are. I think MANY of those in the military are NOT still hung up on such a non-issue (after all, what does sex have to do with defending our country and freedoms...Freedoms, yeah. I like freedom. I wish each American truly had access to equal liberties. I hope if we can have discussions like this and exchange ideas, we can come to a better understanding of ourselves, our world...EVERYTHING!
Finally, PLEASE know that this is ALL about love, growth and learning. I do not judge my friends based on even MAJOR moral/political/legal issues. Some of my favorite people (including my husband) have COMPLETELY opposite views on many of my deeply felt personal commandments. I hope we can use this as a way for us ALL to learn a little more about ourselves, our world and each other!! (OK, that last line sounded like a Hallmark or something...I am NOT a dork. Well, yeah...I am, but I'm fun, too!! Hang around and find out!! ;)
Ok...why are there NO comments here??:) Do you just need an example of what one looks like? k. there. done. WRITE!:)
ReplyDeleteTamaraLH, would it change your mind if there was a sound military reason to prevent homosexuals in the military? An example of what I mean by that is, only people with perfect vision can be fighter pilots or women not being allowed to serve in combat. If there were a reason on that level would that change your mind?
ReplyDeletePhysical disabilities like color blindness, flat feet, etc etc (insert doctor's note here:) are NOT the same, to me, as one's sexual preference. Again, I do not see how "being" homosexual is against any rule. You cannot always change who you are; however, you CAN use restraint/self-discipline/NORMALITY and abide by regulations that are in place when you apply for/accept a job position (in ANY field). Yes, I realize the battlefield is different than a corner office, but there are rules at almost everyone's job they must follow rather they like it or not.
ReplyDeleteI admit I have never been IN the military, never been CLOSE to anyone in the military, and therefore do not have the "first hand" knowledge many people do, but I'm hoping to hear CONTRADICTORY ideas. In THIS way, after learning more about the issue, I hope to either confirm my current belief about DADT or decide through hearing other facts and stories that it's still a good idea:)
I think changing DADT will take some adjustments - which may be what the other comment was regarding. However, as for any long-term concerns...they get scratched out as far as I can see.
ReplyDeleteCarol
I definitely agree, Carol. I didn't mean to imply it would be "easy" or "quick.":) Sorry if that's how it came across! lol HOWEVER, in the end, all progress takes time. And, in case I wasn't clear, I think the repeal of DADT is PROGRESSIVE (not in a that horrible "liberal" way a lot of people like to use as it's synonym:)but, in a POSITIVE, forward thinking kinda way. *although, i DEFINITELY think liberal and positive can be used simultaneously on many occassions:) GUILTY!
ReplyDeleteI wish Kris would respond to my last comment so I could go into what HE thinks (we've had the debate for hours:) He doesn't agree with us, Carol. lol SURPRISE!! Thanx for posting, girl...POST MORE and spread the word!! (make Shaila do it!!:)
Alright, Tamara, this is a subject I know about, as I was in the military for eight years. I am related to homosexuals, and have no bigotry towards them personally. Their life decisions are theirs, although I don't agree with them and choose not to live their lifestyle. To live the lifestyle of a homosexual is a choice, just like living the lifestyle of an alcoholic or a drug addict is a choice, or just like the choice to be married, or to be a parent. Some of those choices aren't good for family relationships and cause ridicule, but people still choose those lifestyles. The same as people choose not to live those lifestyles. We all make choices based on impulses. They are more attracted to their same sex. I may be more attracted to killing someone than talking with them, but I make the choice to not kill them.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it is my personal experience that the vast majority of soldiers in the military are conservative Christians. That is because we feel strongly enough about protecting the constitution of this great nation to give our lives for the principles found therein. In combat, the mental state of the soldier is just as, if not more, important that the physical aspect of fighting. The fear/s that "straight" soldiers have, for the most part, are unjustified. But, you have to remember that the vast majority of them are anywhere from the ages of 18-25, and that during those ages testerone is running rampant. That, combined with the training received, is what creates the warriors that they are.
In combat, your battle buddy is your life line. They are there to help watch out for you, and for you to watch out for them. If there is no trust there, no camraderie, then you both die. We know how younger men (18-25 years old) can be, and most often are. They would not be willing to trust, or build camraderie with, someone that was a homosexual for fear that they might be seen as one by their fellow soldiers. Now, take that angst and place a weapon in the hands of the "straight" soldier in that situation. You would have more deaths caused by friendly fire, as well as a higher suicide rate, which is already high among combat veterans. You would also have, sorry to say, numerous potential rape cases on your hands, not by the homosexuals as perpetrators, but as victims. This is why there is a no sex clause during combat for male and female partners as well, as the number of reported rapes go up, and it takes a lot of time to investigate, especially in a combat zone.
Weakness is something that no soldier wants to display. Ever. While physically the homosexuals could and do pass everything that the "straight" soldier endures, their homosexuality would be taken by others as a sign of weakness. Being a woman in the military has the same stigma, but for different reasons. Those reasons have to do with the female physical fitness test having lower requirements, in some cases by almost half, as the men's physical fitness tests. Not to mention that for the most part, women are just not as strong as men are. That's genetics, not bigotry.
I hope this helps give you some insight. Later.
Thanks for posting, Mike:)
ReplyDeleteOk...here goes.
I think we have sorta the same idea about homosexuality in general, but I had to clear one thing. You said homosexuality is a CHOICE. But, did you mean the ACT is a choice? Not the "feeling/desire/sexuality??" If so, we are on the same page. I think acting OUT in a homosexual capacity should be forbidden and punishable just the way that heterosexual sex is prohibited under military operations. Or, did you mean you DON'T think someone's sexuality is something they're born with the same way I was born as a heterosexual?:)
That's outta the way:)
The other points ARE the arguments I have heard from some actual soldiers and/or soldier families. As I believe I posted in the original blog, sexual acts should not be considered any different than any of the other "conditions and restrictions" set forth by the military upon recruitment, in my opinion. If guys fight, anger issues? (another one of the stereotypical, but possible) concerns in that (18-25) yr old population...they are punished. Even though, it is somehow within their "nature" to be more aggressive, etc it is NOT an excuse for misconduct. So, soldiers fighting get punished, right? If they get caught in a sex act (man or woman with man or woman:) they are punished.
I DO also realize that there are certain considerations you must make in order to make the military a place where these 18-25 yr olds will feel comfortable enough to join & fight to defend our country...(as you mentioned, physical capability differences between women and men, etc.)*I think that's becoming more and more questionable, too, tho:) BUT if GI Jane is as capable or MORE SO than GI Joe and wants the job? I say, SIGN HER UP!!
Finally, I understand that it will take time & will be an adjustment, but I honestly thought we'd come farther than this about equality and acceptance and differences. Different is only that...different. Doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. (Like many of the outfits I see people wearing on TV:) And LIKE those weird clothes, I don't think in REALITY having homosexuals in the military is going to hurt anyone. If it does, it will MOST likely be the homosexual, right? So, hopefully they have enough life experience in the real world and enough sense about the military that they would NOT go around like prissy little girls or blasting their Cher CDs? I'm making light, of course, but again I just wish we could give people in general a little more credit once in a while. If a gay wants to join the military, knows the dangers that could come upon them if they tell their bunkmates and is STILL harmed, it is a shame and sickening; however, that is a risk they should at least have the RIGHT to take.
I sort of understand your point about camaraderie & defending one another to the death. I say "sort of," because I don't want to assume I can understand something I have never experienced:) I see how that is an issue, but I also can't believe it's not something that can be overcome. Maybe that's a new point for this argument? :) Thanks again for posting...Come back for more! This is heavy, tho. I think the next post is gonna be on ART or something:)
Tamara, to clear up any misconceptions:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I know you are a left wing liberal and that is your right and priveledge as an American. I have fought and defended your rights to be so. That being said, I am not. I am a right wing conservative with a different belief system than that one which you have. I firmly believe in what I find in my bible and my constitution. Bible first, then the constitution. As such, in the first book of the bible, Genesis, I find where God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for the evil of the persons that dwelt therein. (Sodom, as in where the word Sodomy came from.) According to the bible, these cities were destroyed largely in part to them running rampant with homosexuality. The bible clearly states that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It also clearly states that it is a sin for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman. I believe that God is a God of love, and that these sins can be forgiven. As far as the desires, I believe PERSONALLY that Satan implants those thoughts and desires into the mind of certain people, and that those people dwell on those thoughts and desires until the act on them. The mind is the battlefield that Satan wars on.
Once again, they are personal beliefs. And just as I can't change yours, you can't change mine. But I would die today to defend your right to your beliefs and opinions. However wrong I might feel they are :)
Enough!! I am sick and tired of military people telling me that they have "fought and defended my rights." BULLSHIT. All the wars since WWII have been to protect the interests of corporations. Please explain how the slaughter of 3 million Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans has "defended my rights."
ReplyDeleteI also like the way that you cherry pick your bible verses. In the same book that talks about men lying with men as an abomination, there are also pronouncements about not mixing flax with wool, not yoking two different animals to plow a field, not eating animals that don't have a cloven hoof and chew a cud, etc., etc., etc. How many of these do you follow? Aren't you afraid you're going to burn in hell because you have a ham and cheese sandwich (2 dietary laws broken - eating pork, and mixing meat and milk).
Of the 26 countries that make up NATO, 22 allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to openly be part of the military. Of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, 3 allow gays to openly serve in the military (UK, Russia, and France).
The BEST army in the world (IDF) has allowed gays to serve openly since 1993. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”
Mike - did you choose to be heterosexual?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of choice...every major association that has studied homosexuality agrees that it is NOT a choice. There are many studies about WHY it's not a choice, but they all know it's not a choice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbpu6ne5-cQ
In terms of Biblical principle...an abounding amount of theologists and Biblical scholars have looked at the verses that are typically used against homosexuality and most agree that they're not directly relevant. For example...the verse that Mike used is noted in another part of the Bible. That part says that it is because of the attitude of people (not any sex acts) that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. Yes, sodomy comes from Sodom, but that's human translation - not an exact connection. The other verses used tend to speak of ritual uncleanliness, etc.
Thirdly, the ideas that have created DADT and other anti-gay concepts create a circular issue that must be broken. What I mean by that is that people like Mike feel that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed because of what might happen because of the way homosexuals are perceived. However, that perception stems from beliefs and laws such as DADT that perpetuate the idea that being gay is unacceptable. Thus, a vicious cycle.
This cycle can only end with education - like education that I'm not a murderer or drug addict. Mike may not have said that, but he equated me with such. Yet, in terms of Christianity, we probably believe similarly and worship similarly.
Finally...
You're right, Mike. I'm not going to change your mind - even if I showed you study after study or provided vast amounts of information from Christian leaders, scholars, and theologists. None of that would change. But, hopefully,
you will be willing to take 9 minutes and 50 seconds to watch the following video and recognize that even if you don't *FEEL* hate...sharing words that others find hateful or hurtful causes damage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTXjG9UMxvc
My response to the S&M (hmmm...is that where S&M comes from?:) lol j/k
ReplyDeleteThere are MANY, MANY scholars, theologians, academics...who think the translation of the Bible (I'm not even sure how many there are, admittedly:)...POINT BEING: many of these STUDIED, EDUCATED and even FAITHFUL minds are in agreement that if you go back to the original Hebrew and the culture/society at the time, The Bible is perceived to be "misconstrued" or "wrongly translated" among Christians. The societal norm at the time, and basic "rules" of the city were "Always be hospitable." According to these scholars, the reason for the destruction of S & M was NOT because of rampant homosexuality. The destruction was the result of major conflict in the city about a family being "inhospitable" to someone... (I won't bore you here with all the details now, but I'll be happy to look it up if you're interested!:)
Oh, and MIKE!! I thought I was gonna lose it when I read the first part of your post,"First off, I know you are a left wing liberal and that is your right and priveledge as an American." I was shocked to hear you use such strict and black/white language! I AM, or at least do consider myself, mostly to the left and socially liberal; HOWEVER, to classify someone in such a manner (so cut and dry & in a discussion like this...where MY HONEST HOPE is that we can LEARN from one another by hearing personal stories we may NOT have thought about before making certain firm decisions on issues such as this). I would THINK that my manner and attempt at "moderation" in the debate/argument, although it's obvious what my INITIAL response is, would prove that I do deserve the respect and courtesy with which I am trying to show all of YOU that do not feel the same as I do. It is also to help ME make an "informed" decision before I set my mind as a "left wing liberal" that this is the right approach. If you read one of my previous blogs about the situation in The Gulf, I think you will see that I state basically the same thing. My initial reaction to offshore moratorium? OF COURSE! DUH!! Then, a friend of mine from the area posted about jobs, lives, families, etc etc etc that I hadn't considered thoughtfully until she mentioned it. It's not ONLY a huge environmental issue for the country/world it is affecting the livelihoods of all those living there in ways I hadn't thought of before...So, I thought about it. Still haven't figured out the answer, but I'm not all "BAN DRILLING!!!" Situations are ALWAYS more complicated than we know but we CERTAINLY don't mind shouting about what should be done (although we don't know all the facts:)
ACK. I'm drained now:) lol
I hope you will all continue to post. If you MUST "fight," please at least continue to state your position. Don't just run away. Hold your ground! I WILL defend people on either side if I think it's getting outta hand. (cont) characters limited:) proceed to next post! lol
0MG! I just accidentally deleted a half hour's worth of typing about Sodom & Gomorrah cuz the post was too long, and i was trying to cut/paste into two! crap!! lol
ReplyDeleteI'll try again, but it probably won't be as AWESOME as it was before! hahaha
To Mike:
First, I was shocked to see you calling me a "left winged liberal" in your comment. I THOUGHT I was about to have to go off! lol HOWEVER, being the calm, reasonable person I am, I thought about it first, and decided just to let ya know...You've been really supportive of me in the past with issues that are very close to you even though you didn't necessarily believe in the same thing. I've been really happy to know I still have open minded friends on the other side!:) But, to classify me as a "leftie liberal" is so black/white, cut/dry...and it's not that simple. I hope you were being flip, as I often am, but I say so when I do so nobody gets the wrong idea:) You labeled yourself, too, which of course takes any kinda of "sting" out of being stereotyped, but I think you did yourself a disservice, too. From our discussions in the past, I find you to be a god fearing, conservative dude who has been through the search for enlightenment, and you found it in The Bible & Jesus Christ.
(cont) please work!!! lol
...(Mike,cont:) I know you are strong in your faith & I am happy for you, of course, and glad you found your TRUTH. I've been down the Christianity highway before (you know where I grew up...wasn't really an option:) I can't find whatever answers I'm seeking there. At least not now...so, I'm looking into all types of things to either find a religious/philosophical/spiritual path that helps me find my "inner peace." Isn't that what we're all looking for? Right now, my "lifepath" of choice is referred to as "Zen." It's a combo of anything I come across that helps me improve myself, my world, or the way I treat others. I am TRYING desperately to be "more open" to things that I would have immediately dismissed in the passed. By simply taking a couple of moments to THOUGHTFULLY consider a decision as small as a response to this post, I feel better. Rather than brush you off, like I have done in the past, I DO want to try to hear your thoughts and see how they jibe with mine. Maybe they will, maybe they won't...that's not the point. And, in the end, it doesn't matter to ME if we can't agree on politics, religion, military or much else as long as we can agree to disagree...you can STILL be my friend and teach me to play guitar:) (as far as I'M concerned, that is:)
ReplyDeleteSorry for all the (cont) but i DON'T wanna waste another 30 mins if i screw up:) lol!!! PLEASE CONT...
(...cont to S&M:)
(...cont S&M)
ReplyDeleteNow, about Sodom & Gomorrah,
There are MANY scholars, theologists, academics, and even BELIEVERS who say that if you revert to the original Hebrew, the story of S & M is misconstrued based on numerous translations & cultural/religious/societal norms at the time, the destruction of S & M was NOT due to rampant homosexuality. These aforementioned, learned people say that the words in The Bible (in Hebrew) which lead to the popularly held belief that homosexuality WAS the basis for it's destruction, are well...wrong:) I don't wanna bore you with the whole story, but i WILL look it up if you're interested. Basically, it's thought that it is FAR more likely, considering known conditions/
societal norms/etc of the time, that the destruction started with a commotion over being "inhospitable" which was unacceptable at the time in S & M. And, Marshall already laid down the other part about men lying with men, etc...and meat/cheese...blah blah. SO, I'm just saying, I tend to believe that with all the translations (and those who authorized/compiled them) who KNOWS what has been "lost in translation"???:) And it is SO very true that you can pick & choose which verses to follow and which to dismiss based on one's personal comfort/devotion level.
(Marshall, you WERE a bit "crude" in your comment to Mike's post.) Personally, I try to not call names or have a shouting match...PLUS, for me at least, it's always WAY more convincing/civilized to respond with wit...not hate or anger. Definitely makes you look like the "bigger person" in any situation.
HAHA I just realized I sound like I'm giving etiquette lessons or something!! Sorry, I'm no expert on this and I'm NOT trying to condescend or "regulate" this blog...not by ANY means. Say what you think!! That's what I want for this...an honest exchange of ideas that we can HOPEFULLY learn from. That's just a little "me to you" kinda thing, cuz we're buds & you know where I'm coming from. That goes for EVERYBODY, btw...(you're just the only one that kinda "went off" a little on the blog, Marshall...so far! you KNOW what happened already on FB:) lol
FINAL THOUGHT: (In my best Jerry Springer immitation:)
Mike, I TOTALLY support you in your beliefs as you have so sweetly supported me in mine in the past. BUT, for ME...you're not coming at me with the right facts or statistics to prove your case, because it's all based on "God." And we both know I had conflict about THAT, too:) (wow, i'm just conflicted about everything! it's what happens when you try to be more "open minded":) Sensory overload! lol
Facts are, as I see it, there is "SUPPOSE" to be a separation of church and state for VERY, VERY good reasons. Therefore, to base a military regulation due to religious pressures is completely AGAINST what the country you fight for and proudly defend stands for. To say church and state aren't in bed together (pun intended:) in ALL branches of the government would be absurd, but that doesn't make it right for other things and not right here...in my opinion...still...BUT, I AM still thinking about the only thing that DOES concern me about it...Can the military function at ALL if all the 18-25 yr olds won't sign up 'cause they don't want a gay bunk mate?? I dunno. I still WANT SO BADLY to believe that we've progressed beyond that "macho/testosterone" crap (sorry if I leave the ladies outta this, but they seem to have less difficulty...maybe it's because they aren't in the trenches? dunno...gathering data still:)
So, I think I'm TRYING to understand the other side. And, that's all I can do, right? Try! That's a lot more than some:) Thanks guys!! Keep posting!:)
(...last cont:)
If i haven't addressed something, please ask. Call me out!! I can take it!! If I'm wrong, I can admit it...if I find evidence to my satisfaction:)
ReplyDeleteLove you guys! Thanks for participating & helping with MY search for inner peace and tolerance!! :)
Tamara, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. That notion is a fiction created by an activist supreme court. The Constitution simply prohibits Congress from passing laws that favor religion. It would be a stretch to say that not allowing gay/lesbian persons to serve in the military favors one religion over another. I know Christians and atheists (and I am sure there are Jews and Muslims) who are both in favor and against.
ReplyDeleteDon't Ask Don't Tell has been a joke since it was put in place. It was a weak attempt by President Clinton to appease both sides, to say he did something without actually doing anything . . . typical politician crap. Clearly, Don't Ask Don't Tell needs to be changed. The question then becomes, changed to what?
There are arguments to be made on both sides from all different perspectives. However, the only correct answer is that if the leaders of our military (the greatest military in the history of the world) decides that homosexuals openly serving will tangibly impede our ability to prosecute war and defend our nation, then it should not be allowed.
Mr. Blogger II:
ReplyDelete#1- The idea of separation of church & state IS in our constitution...as part of the 1st Amendment. FYI (via Wikipedia:) "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government." Although it is not EXPLICITLY stated in those words, it is definitely implied AND the concept is NOT a new idea by any means. One of the first notable figures to recognize this "wall of separation" as it was called by some of our own founding fathers (Jefferson & Madison, etc) was John Locke (whom I was forced to study FAR too extensively for my own liking in college as a history major:) I'm sure the name is familiar to most familiar with western philosophies. Anyway, although it is not implicitly stated as "separation of church & state" it is clear from other writings of the framers of the Bill of Rights that a separation of church and state (or "wall of separation") is crucial in every society. Of course, as you would guess a philosopher might, Locke (as well as Jefferson, Madison, John Tyler, and others). If reference to your statement about this "fiction created by an activist supreme court," well...yes. The Supreme Court HAS taken several measures over our history to interpret the 1st amendment to uphold that separation, which I feel was VERY INTENTIONAL on the part of the authors of The Bill of Rights, but is that NOT what the judiciary branch of our government does?? Don't they pretty much "define" what the constitution says? It's kinda their job to keep all that stuff in CHECK (as in checks & balances), no? Congress writes the laws. The Supreme Court interprets and enforces those laws...Or am I wrong? (This is basic junior high civics, isn't it? Shout out to MR JAMERSON AT BARTON, BTW:)lol (...cont)
#2-I somewhat agree with you on the DADT/Clinton statement; however, although it may have been "weak" it WAS a step in the right direction. If you recall, before DADT was enacted, homosexuals had to outright LIE about their sexuality if asked & could not freely express any acknowledgement of a "partner" etc for fear of violence AND/OR being kicked out of the military (maybe court martialed , even? not positive on that one. Correct if wrong, please:)DADT was a baby step in a long road, but obviously one that was needed if we are to progress ANY further in this ridiculous war of sexuality when there's a REAL war (or 3) going on at the same time. I really thought we were more "evolved" than our ancestors the caveman, but in cases like these, it makes ya wonder...If ANYBODY cannot control their surging hormones in ANY situation, there's something wrong. Self-control, self-discipline & STRICT regimens are things a life in the military demand anyway, right?? So, why is it difficult to believe that a homosexual's sexual urges cannot be controlled in the same way his other "desires" or "wants" that are against regulations are? Just like he has to shine his boots or do crisp hospital corners on his bunk (YES, I'VE ONLY SEEN IT IN MOVIES:) lol A homosexual soldier would have to follow all the SAME rules as the others...homo or hetero. The only answer I can devise lies in Mike's comments (from an actual soldier's perspective. It's fear. These big, burly, brave soldiers apparently fear being butt raped more than enemy shells.
ReplyDeleteI think that kinda summed it up for now:) I'll end on that. RESPOND!! Thanks!!
I made a promise to post on this subject so here is my fulfillment of that. It will be my one and
ReplyDeleteonly on this subject...just buisy doing work around the house in lack of time.
First off i don't understand that people don't know what the DADT really is or does, besides listening to the ''talking heads'' or hearing from ''friend''. Read the thing first before making assumptions. The DADT does more than just ''let gays serve'', it also protects. It forbids ANY ranked enlisted member from searching their background. And also is an avenue to which gays, when harrassed file grevience which go straight to top of chain of command....now that said....
What is gay = homosexual...What is straight = heterosexual. Get that ''SEXUAL'' . It is a sexual preference...which both have no buisness IMO out in the open when doing any job or profession [unless you do porn, and that's another subect] Open sexuality leads to harassment on both oreintations, gay and straight. The military, is a job, which should have NO FORM of sexual expression of either type. Hetero or otherwise. So no one should know, ask, inform, be curious or ect. ABOUT ANYONE.
Ok...in military they keep attracting sexes [m/f] seperate in showering ect. So must they adjust for same sex attractants?
Whoever used Russia and France as a reference in letting gay members serve open or ''known'' is real weak and proved my point of protection. Look up the stats on pravda about gays in russian military forced into gay prostitution and raped as well. They have no form of protection. As far as France..those pacificists will be rolled by anybody who tries.
I have no problem with gays serving, lets get that out. Anyone who serves their country has my respect. But sexuality should be kept out of the job on both sides. So, repeal it...don't repeal it, it doesn't matter. Because most of the people [which are usually progressives] screaming repeal repeal repeal...would never sign up and put their life on the line anyway....and will find something else to scream about
Sex should stay more into the private realm of individuals. Also, I think people should focus on themselves a little more, than everyone else. Focus on some personal morals, yes which most gays have more than some straights. Except for ones like rosie o'd who made a wedding as a joke...this hurts any movement
And remember it's not fear...there is such thing as the first amendment and ''freedom of association''
For anyone to use the nations of Europe as an example for us to follow for anything needs to read the last 150 years of history. Those countries for the most part must depend on the USA to defend them...why else do we have the amount of troops in Europe.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality cannot be birthright..
It has to be a learned lifestyle from someone. And the old Testament is not the end of the story ..See Romans 1:21-27