HeloDude, on 24 June 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:
So someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex is born that way, but yet someone who is sexually attracted to a child may or may not be born that way? You weaken your argument when you pick and choose 'born that way' for one form of attraction but not for another.
I'm not "picking and choosing". I've just not read enough on the subject of pedophilia to have an informed opinion on whether or not pedophiles are born that way or not. It is substantially different from the question of homosexuality for the following reason. Gay people are attracted to the sexually mature
person of the same gender. Gay guys, like straight women, are attracted to pecks and six packs. Lesbians like big boobs and hour glass figures just like straight guys. Pedophiles on the other hand are sexually attracted to sexually immature people. Regardless of the gender association that is quite a different question. To me it seems a question of someone being sexually attracted to a non-sexual entity. But again I haven't read much specifically on the topic so I won't pontificate on it. It is not an inconsistency to admit ignorance of an unrelated topic.
Commenting on the overall issue, as a conservative libertarian, I don't have a problem with people, who happen to be homosexual, serving in the military as long as it doesn't adversely impact the military's ability to affectively carry out its mission.
Having said this, I have 2 problems with what is currently going on with the military as it relates to the repeal of DAD and they both have to do with the DoD saying one thing and then doing something else.
I don't get the direct relation to the repeal of DADT but that's not really important.
1) The Air Force has said we're all professionals and that it's quite alright for an openly homosexual and an openly non homosexual person of the same gender to share a deployed room with each other, share shower areas together, share toilet areas together, etc, but that we're not professional enough to have women and men share rooms, showers, etc together. Also, last I checked, a male airman can have a male in his room after certain hours but it is still against policy for a male and female to be together after certain hours. Until this is fixed, it's a BS double standard.
I don't disagree. It does seem unfair. If two gay folks in the military are dating, get deployed to the same place at the same time, it would seem they aren't restricted to the same extent as a straight couple. Kind of ironic considering back home it's the reverse thanks to DOMA.
2) Why does the DoD have to single out an entire group based on their sexuality by thanking them specifically for their service, speaking out in support of a certain 'pride' month based on someone's sexuality, etc? I'm fully aware that this all about politics as I'm sure many homosexuals serving do not want anything special or to be singled out, rather, they just want to be left alone. The argument for repeal was that homosexuals should not have to hide their sexuality for fear of discharge, however, homosexuals are now being singled out as a specific group.
I guess this is a matter of perspective. Not long ago I would have agreed. But after seeing some of the still seething homophobia in the military I support the DoD recognizing pride month. Not to single out gay service members, but rather to remind folks that they have been and are continuing to serve with gay peers whether they realize it or not. That reminder can help humanize gay people to ignorant folks who seem to buy into stereotypes. When someone with racist tendencies ends up serving with someone of another race, they can see quite plainly they are Black/Asian/whatever and the stereotype in their mind will start to dissolve. Quite commonly even people who are out, aren't so obviously out to their peers so a homophobic person may not even realize that the guy they fly with all the time who they have a good opinion of is in fact gay. A public reminder of that, I think, can do some good.