- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?
From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?
From your experience, for those who have attended USUHS and the other place (USPS?), how are gays/lesbians treated in the field?
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.
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.
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.
Ditto. Nice response, pgg. Well thought out and right on the money.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.
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.
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.
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.
So you don't understand something, so you declare it to be impossible.
There are many plausible reasons why a "gay gene" wouldn't fall victim to natural selection and get wiped out.
Let's not let this devolve into a discussion of all the patently absurd things that many religions preach.
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.
ActiveDutyMD said: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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
PGGActiveDutyMD,
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.
To be honset, pgg, you haven't exactly presented overwhelming evidence for your case that homosexuality is an inborn trait.
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.
narcusprince said: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.
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 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.
Interesting.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".
Cute, but actually has nothing to do with what I mentioned.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.
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.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
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.
(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).
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:
Yet saying you are gay can get you kicked out. Sounds like the idea that only gay sex is a no-no is wrong.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.
PGGThat'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.