My point was who cares? Apparently some posters actually care.

The point is, somebody - a majority of somebodies - do care and why should they be ignored? Me? I don't particularly care. But I do care that in this issue and others one group is told they must respect another group's beliefs & feelings while at the same time ignoring their own advice. Straight people who don't feel comfortable showering with homosexuals must respect the gays' rights and ignore their feelings. But gays don't have to care about how the heterosexual might feel about it. WHY are the feelings of the gay soldier more important? The same thing with this mosque issue in NY. Everyone must respect peaceful muslims and let them build a mosque near ground zero yet these same muslims couldn't give a shit about the feelings of the people they are offending. WHY are the feelings of the muslims more important? Seems to me in both cases the "victim" is at risk of becoming the bigot.

..........................

Do you really think that the "feelings" of a bigotted majority should prevail? Have you considered that upholding an individual's constitutional or human rights may be a higher purpose?

Are you saying that straight people who are uncomfortable showering with gays are bigots? Where in the US constitution does it give the right of a person of one sexual orientation to shower with those of a different sexual orientation? This is what I'm talking about. You don't even realise that your own statements sound like pure intolerance and bigotry - just in the opposite direction. It reminds me of those people who believe that only white people can be racist. No kidding, they are out there.

"an individual's constitutional or human rights"

Whe're not talking about showering, we're talking about an individual's right to 1. be employed in the proffession of his choice, and 2. to fight for his country alongside his fellow soldiers without having to supress his own identity.

People are allowed to be gay, ya know.

This is not "reverse bigotry" or intolerance at all......perhaps you could define what you mean by bigotry when you apply it to my statements.

You asked the question, "Are you saying that straight people who are uncomfortable showering with gays are bigots?".... most likely. They may pay lip service to being tolerant, but their emotional reaction tells all. If not bigotted, then they are certainly narrow-minded or poorly educated.

"an individual's constitutional or human rights"

Whe're not talking about showering, we're talking about an individual's right to 1. be employed in the proffession of his choice,

That isn't a right. Not by a longshot. If I choose to be a doctor does that mean the gov't must allow me to be a doctor?

Is it a right guaranteed under the NZ Constitution or whatever document you use?

and 2. to fight for his country alongside his fellow soldiers without having to supress his own identity.

I'm pretty sure that being a member of your counry's military also isn't a right.

You asked the question, "Are you saying that straight people who are uncomfortable showering with gays are bigots?".... most likely. They may pay lip service to being tolerant, but their emotional reaction tells all. If not bigotted, then they are certainly narrow-minded or poorly educated.

So now gay people aren't narrow-minded or poorly educated because they don't mind showering with non-gays? I wonder if a gay man would like to shower with a bunch of mean bigots? Or how about take a shower at the Hamas jihadi barracks?

Gay people aren't any more special than non-gay people. Isn't anyone who believes they are exhibitiing signs of bigotry? That is thinking one group is inferior to another?

More practically speaking according to wiki the US military has lost over 13,000 troops discharged under the DADT regulations since 1994. That's a lot of expensively trained personnel to lose because you think they might be sneaking a peek at your willie.

In the UK we lost one Brigadier who resigned when homosexuals were allowed to serve openly in the UK armed forces but otherwise it appears to have been a non-event. All the three forces have recruiting drives at gay pride events. Same sex couples who enter a civil partnership have the same pension and housing rights as straight couples.The Navy and the Army have both conducted civil partnerships ceremonies on ships and in barracks.

'Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall in 2006, Vice Admiral Adrian Johns, the Second Sea Lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly. “That’s an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,” said Vice Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy’s principal personnel officer was responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled “Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.” '

It works in the UK, it works in Israel.

Hmmmmm now in 2 posts Harcourt has called me a BIGOT, Narrow Minded and Poorly Educated all because I find it uncomfortable if I had to shower with a bunch of homosexuals Im actually in Koheestis corner on this one.

The bigoted Majority as you call it should prevail in a democratic society instead of the minority trying to shove it down the bigoted majoritys throat every minute and expecting everyone to be ok with it and then ostrosizing and calling them names when they are not.

As I have said before I am NOT against gay people they are welcome to do what they want, my objection comes when that lifestyle is shoved down everyone elses throat and expecting them to accept it as a natural way of life which for them it is however for someone who is deeply religious or even someone that just believes that the lifestyle is not natural and wrong they have just the same right.

A good example is Gays wanting to get married look at that in the US, it was voted down by the people then the courts take over and repeal it only to have the controversy start all over again, the people have voted and spoken but they dont want to listen and it continually gets shoved down there throats until they will have to accept it on the outside but the truth will be they disagree with it on the inside.

It is exactly what Kooesi said reverse bigotry.

More practically speaking according to wiki the US military has lost over 13,000 troops discharged under the DADT regulations since 1994. That's a lot of expensively trained personnel to lose because you think they might be sneaking a peek at your willie.

In the UK we lost one Brigadier who resigned when homosexuals were allowed to serve openly in the UK armed forces but otherwise it appears to have been a non-event. All the three forces have recruiting drives at gay pride events. Same sex couples who enter a civil partnership have the same pension and housing rights as straight couples.The Navy and the Army have both conducted civil partnerships ceremonies on ships and in barracks.

'Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall in 2006, Vice Admiral Adrian Johns, the Second Sea Lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly. "That's an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services," said Vice Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy's principal personnel officer was responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled "Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace." '

It works in the UK, it works in Israel.

As for the 13,000 expelled well that is such a tiny fraction of the number of troops is it even worth speaking about, it also shows just how small of a minority we are speaking about here. You also don't know what these guys were expelled for, was it just because they were Gay or were they engaging in willie peeking in the showers, we just don't know, either way the US Military deemed it appropiate to bin them and kick them out.

I wonder just how many Homosexuals are in the US Military at the moment I bet its a tiny tiny percentage and another example of having it shoved down your throat.

As for the UK you have to watch your mouth there and do not enjoy the freedom of speech as in America

You forgot to mention in the UK you do not have the right to Free speech and are not allowed to speak out against it cause you will be arrested for it and charged with Hate crimes all that is, is suppression.

Actually, FC, I do not see Harcourt calling YOU a bigot. If you think he is calling you a bigot that is your choice, what I do see is him calling a group of people with a certain belief system bigots.

So, lets drop the baiting and have a civil discussion thanks.

Actually, FC, I do not see Harcourt calling YOU a bigot. If you think he is calling you a bigot that is your choice, what I do see is him calling a group of people with a certain belief system bigots.

So, lets drop the baiting and have a civil discussion thanks.

Come on SBK that was not a baiting post it was posted in a good way and NO malicious intent and I was not insulted in any way and in no way was baiting Harcourt

Sometimes I guess posts come over the opposite as intended

Having a brain fart posted the same message again

Some non-baiting information for the discussion:

______________________________________________________

A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.'

______________________________________________________

Remainder of article here: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

"an individual's constitutional or human rights"

Whe're not talking about showering, we're talking about an individual's right to 1. be employed in the proffession of his choice,

That isn't a right. Not by a longshot. If I choose to be a doctor does that mean the gov't must allow me to be a doctor?

Is it a right guaranteed under the NZ Constitution or whatever document you use?

and 2. to fight for his country alongside his fellow soldiers without having to supress his own identity.

I'm pretty sure that being a member of your counry's military also isn't a right.

[

We have The Bill Of Rights. You are quite right.....being in the military isn't a right, nor is any other choice of proffession, however, being denied your choice on the grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation, or religion is a crime against the Human Rights Act. I daresay most Western countries have something simmilar.

Change the scenario of DADT to be about religion....can you see how that would go?

Yet religion is a choice....sexual orientation is not a choice.

Change the scenario of DADT to be about race......can you see how that would go?

Like race and gender, sexual orientation is not a choice and thus has the same protections against discrimination.

That is where I am coming from, and that is why my statementys are not reverse bigotry at all.

To treat differently, gay people, IS to discriminate.

To defend against that discrimination IS NOT reverse bigotry.

Actually, FC, I do not see Harcourt calling YOU a bigot. If you think he is calling you a bigot that is your choice, what I do see is him calling a group of people with a certain belief system bigots.

So, lets drop the baiting and have a civil discussion thanks.

Come on SBK that was not a baiting post it was posted in a good way and NO malicious intent and I was not insulted in any way and in no way was baiting Harcourt

Sometimes I guess posts come over the opposite as intended

I didn't feel it was baiting, for one thing because I could read the good natured tone, and for another thing because FC has a history of good manners, especially with dialogue with me.

Some non-baiting information for the discussion:

______________________________________________________

A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.'

______________________________________________________

Remainder of article here: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

So take away the lesbians and bisexuals that leaves you with about 1% gay males?

Some non-baiting information for the discussion:

______________________________________________________

A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.'

______________________________________________________

Remainder of article here: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

So take away the lesbians and bisexuals that leaves you with about 1% gay males?

So it would seem. Much ado about nothing.

Some non-baiting information for the discussion:

______________________________________________________

A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.'

______________________________________________________

Remainder of article here: http://gaylife.about.../population.htm

So take away the lesbians and bisexuals that leaves you with about 1% gay males?

So it would seem. Much ado about nothing.

I have no source, nor tangible experience, but I am somewhat sceptical about the conclusion that only 1% of men are gay. One in a hundred?

Obviously there will be social factors that affect how many gay men are present at any given time, but if I consider work places, social places, and normal day to day living places (the supermarket for instance), I am sure that the figure is more than that.

Why is it the same people who think when a straight person wants to join the military they are doing so out of economic hardship (e.g. the poor inner city kids) or stupidity (e.g. the dumb redneck) but when a gay person wants to join they do so because it's their human right to fight for his/her country (e.g. the enlightened intellectual)?

By the same token - but another thread - why is it the same people who think belief in God is equated to believing in fairy tales but when Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero they have the right to practice their religion where they please?

Why is it the same people who think when a straight person wants to join the military they are doing so out of economic hardship (e.g. the poor inner city kids) or stupidity (e.g. the dumb redneck) but when a gay person wants to join they do so because it's their human right to fight for his/her country (e.g. the enlightened intellectual)?

By the same token - but another thread - why is it the same people who think belief in God is equated to believing in fairy tales but when Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero they have the right to practice their religion where they please?

You're missing the point(s).

Poor inner city gays and redneck gays have as much right to join too.

By the same token, deluded fairy tale believers of whatever denomination have the right to practice their religion wherever they want.

Or don't they?

Why is it the same people who think when a straight person wants to join the military they are doing so out of economic hardship (e.g. the poor inner city kids) or stupidity (e.g. the dumb redneck) but when a gay person wants to join they do so because it's their human right to fight for his/her country (e.g. the enlightened intellectual)?

By the same token - but another thread - why is it the same people who think belief in God is equated to believing in fairy tales but when Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero they have the right to practice their religion where they please?

You're missing the point(s).

Poor inner city gays and redneck gays have as much right to join too.

By the same token, deluded fairy tale believers of whatever denomination have the right to practice their religion wherever they want.

Or don't they?

It's my point so I'm not missing it, I'm making it.

The people I am talking about are not doubting the RIGHT of the poor & uneducated to join the military, they are saying that they are not joining out of free will as much as necessity because their opportunities are limited by their lack of intelligence and economic status. Whereas when gays want to join, they do so out of some sort of more noble reasons and want to exercise their human rights to defend their country.

Why is it the same people who think when a straight person wants to join the military they are doing so out of economic hardship (e.g. the poor inner city kids) or stupidity (e.g. the dumb redneck) but when a gay person wants to join they do so because it's their human right to fight for his/her country (e.g. the enlightened intellectual)?

By the same token - but another thread - why is it the same people who think belief in God is equated to believing in fairy tales but when Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero they have the right to practice their religion where they please?

You're missing the point(s).

Poor inner city gays and redneck gays have as much right to join too.

By the same token, deluded fairy tale believers of whatever denomination have the right to practice their religion wherever they want.

Or don't they?

It's my point so I'm not missing it, I'm making it.

The people I am talking about are not doubting the RIGHT of the poor & uneducated to join the military, they are saying that they are not joining out of free will as much as necessity because their opportunities are limited by their lack of intelligence and economic status. Whereas when gays want to join, they do so out of some sort of more noble reasons and want to exercise their human rights to defend their country.

The two things are disconnected in the context of this debate.

The inner city slum dweller gay can not join as readily as the inner city slum dweller hetero. Why?

Why is it the same people who think when a straight person wants to join the military they are doing so out of economic hardship (e.g. the poor inner city kids) or stupidity (e.g. the dumb redneck) but when a gay person wants to join they do so because it's their human right to fight for his/her country (e.g. the enlightened intellectual)?

By the same token - but another thread - why is it the same people who think belief in God is equated to believing in fairy tales but when Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero they have the right to practice their religion where they please?

You're missing the point(s).

Poor inner city gays and redneck gays have as much right to join too.

By the same token, deluded fairy tale believers of whatever denomination have the right to practice their religion wherever they want.

Or don't they?

It's my point so I'm not missing it, I'm making it.

The people I am talking about are not doubting the RIGHT of the poor & uneducated to join the military, they are saying that they are not joining out of free will as much as necessity because their opportunities are limited by their lack of intelligence and economic status. Whereas when gays want to join, they do so out of some sort of more noble reasons and want to exercise their human rights to defend their country.

The two things are disconnected in the context of this debate.

The inner city slum dweller gay can not join as readily as the inner city slum dweller hetero. Why?

He can Join he just cant say I AM GAY

It's my point so I'm not missing it, I'm making it.

:clap2:

He can Join he just cant say I AM GAY

Why not????

He can Join he just cant say I AM GAY

Why not????

As far as I understand - and the military types who were actually in a fighting military can correct me - bootcamp is not only about training, but breaking the recruit down to nothing, taking away the individuality, making them all the same (same haircut, same clothes, etc) then building them back up from that nothing into a well-trained, cohesive fighting unit. The whole "I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it!" mantra defeats this purpose. DADT, enables gays to serve without compromising the process.

He can Join he just cant say I AM GAY

Why not????

As far as I understand - and the military types who were actually in a fighting military can correct me - bootcamp is not only about training, but breaking the recruit down to nothing, taking away the individuality, making them all the same (same haircut, same clothes, etc) then building them back up from that nothing into a well-trained, cohesive fighting unit. The whole "I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it!" mantra defeats this purpose. DADT, enables gays to serve without compromising the process.

You quite pointedly (and perhaps pointlessly) preclude me (and others from countries with non-"fighting military" from being able to give a valid response. I wonder why?

He can Join he just cant say I AM GAY

Why not????

As far as I understand - and the military types who were actually in a fighting military can correct me - bootcamp is not only about training, but breaking the recruit down to nothing, taking away the individuality, making them all the same (same haircut, same clothes, etc) then building them back up from that nothing into a well-trained, cohesive fighting unit. The whole "I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it!" mantra defeats this purpose. DADT, enables gays to serve without compromising the process.

You quite pointedly (and perhaps pointlessly) preclude me (and others from countries with non-"fighting military" from being able to give a valid response. I wonder why?

Not pointlessly at all. Your militaries aren't real militaries in the traditional sense. You don't really fight on a whole, and you aren't needed for any serious defense (you're welcome). They are closer to regular gov't office jobs with cool uniforms and guns that are never fired.

As for the UK & Israel are concerned, tiny Israel shares borders with real enemies who openly want their destruction and are out-numbered by something like 25-1. They don't have a choice to exclude people and everyone knows that their enemies hate Jews and Gays alike so they are all in the same boat. In the UK, I don't know if they have openly gay soldiers all over the military (frontline in the mountains of Afghanistan as well as support personnel). But just because something might work in the UK doesn't mean it would work everywhere.

Not pointlessly at all. Your militaries aren't real militaries in the traditional sense. You don't really fight on a whole, and you aren't needed for any serious defense (you're welcome). They are closer to regular gov't office jobs with cool uniforms and guns that are never fired.

As for the UK & Israel are concerned, tiny Israel shares borders with real enemies who openly want their destruction and are out-numbered by something like 25-1. They don't have a choice to exclude people and everyone knows that their enemies hate Jews and Gays alike so they are all in the same boat. In the UK, I don't know if they have openly gay soldiers all over the military (frontline in the mountains of Afghanistan as well as support personnel). But just because something might work in the UK doesn't mean it would work everywhere.

Yes pointlessly because I, or anyone else, can respond anyway. The nature of my country's military has nothing to do with the debate. I suggest that trying to exclude debaters by dint of their nationality will not advance your side of the debate.

You say that Israel is small and surrounded by enemies that are hostile to Jews and gays, giving Israel no choice but to not exclude gays. That may be so, but why is that an argument for saying that openly gay personell should be excluded from other fighting military?

You seem to suggest that because Israel HAS TO include openly gay people, other countries that don't have to, shouldn't.

I don't follow your logic.

Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: "I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn't really hear any homophobic talk--nothing along the lines of 'He shouldn't be serving.'

But when I served in a unit attached to the Israeli Defence Force there was a saying among them that "there is nothing to fear from an army that holds hands" as you can see among most Arab soldiery.

(They are recruited from the small villages and Bedou tents and most have never had contact with anyone outside their immediate relatives - and there is a tradition among Arabs - and Pakistanis - of male hand-holding when out with a friend)

Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: "I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn't really hear any homophobic talk--nothing along the lines of 'He shouldn't be serving.'

But when I served in a unit attached to the Israeli Defence Force there was a saying among them that "there is nothing to fear from an army that holds hands" as you can see among most Arab soldiery.

(They are recruited from the small villages and Bedou tents and most have never had contact with anyone outside their immediate relatives - and there is a tradition among Arabs - and Pakistanis - of male hand-holding when out with a friend)

I think you know that ME, Pakistani, and Indian hand holding has nothing to do with homosexuality....in fact it suggests a lack of homophobia.

Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: "I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn't really hear any homophobic talk--nothing along the lines of 'He shouldn't be serving.'

But when I served in a unit attached to the Israeli Defence Force there was a saying among them that "there is nothing to fear from an army that holds hands" as you can see among most Arab soldiery.

(They are recruited from the small villages and Bedou tents and most have never had contact with anyone outside their immediate relatives - and there is a tradition among Arabs - and Pakistanis - of male hand-holding when out with a friend)

I think you know that ME, Pakistani, and Indian hand holding has nothing to do with homosexuality....in fact it suggests a lack of homophobia.

No homophobia in the ME or Pakistan, they just stone them to death for being gay. :rolleyes:

Said a recently Americanized Israeli soldier: "I had thought Israel was less tolerant than the United States, but when I enlisted, I never witnessed any morale problems caused by homosexuals and didn't really hear any homophobic talk--nothing along the lines of 'He shouldn't be serving.'

But when I served in a unit attached to the Israeli Defence Force there was a saying among them that "there is nothing to fear from an army that holds hands" as you can see among most Arab soldiery.

(They are recruited from the small villages and Bedou tents and most have never had contact with anyone outside their immediate relatives - and there is a tradition among Arabs - and Pakistanis - of male hand-holding when out with a friend)

I think you know that ME, Pakistani, and Indian hand holding has nothing to do with homosexuality....in fact it suggests a lack of homophobia.

No homophobia in the ME or Pakistan, they just stone them to death for being gay. :rolleyes:

Which is irrelevant to what I said in the context of what I said.

When will you stop this incessant goading and anti-Islamic prodding?

But when I served in a unit attached to the Israeli Defence Force there was a saying among them that "there is nothing to fear from an army that holds hands" as you can see among most Arab soldiery.

(They are recruited from the small villages and Bedou tents and most have never had contact with anyone outside their immediate relatives - and there is a tradition among Arabs - and Pakistanis - of male hand-holding when out with a friend)

I think you know that ME, Pakistani, and Indian hand holding has nothing to do with homosexuality....in fact it suggests a lack of homophobia.

No homophobia in the ME or Pakistan, they just stone them to death for being gay. :rolleyes:

Which is irrelevant to what I said in the context of what I said.

When will you stop this incessant goading and anti-Islamic prodding?

My comment was in complete context with what you wrote. Others here can make their own conclusions.

As for "anti-Islamic "prodding" - I live in an Islamic country. I see men holding hands everytime I go to the mall. I work with Muslims. My company - even back in the US - has many Middle Easterners and Muslims - including the owner and most corp execs. If I were as anti-Islamic as you say, I've chosen the wrong region of the world to live in and wrong company to work for (for over 8 years).