Comments on: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…. http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dont-ask-dont-tell News & Commentary About All Things Baptist Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:32:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: posttinebraelux http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-250 posttinebraelux Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-250 Big Daddy,<br/>Your comparison of an open gay policy in the military to segregation of public facilities is faulty as well. The examples cited by Paul all involve the legitimate infringement of others' rights (the rights of other drivers not to be on the road with blind people due to the inherent risk of injury. There is no legitimate infringement of rights involved with desegregation of public facilities. Should I have the right not to use a restroom which has been used by someone of a different sexual preference, race, nationality, or religious affiliation? Absolutely. Should the government require segregation of facilities based only on the prejudices of the majority? Never. There must be a legitimate threat (in my opinion) for the government to impose discriminatory mandates (juvenile intoxication and voting, blind drivers and pilots, etc.).<br/><br/>Sincerely,<br/><br/>PTL Big Daddy,
Your comparison of an open gay policy in the military to segregation of public facilities is faulty as well. The examples cited by Paul all involve the legitimate infringement of others’ rights (the rights of other drivers not to be on the road with blind people due to the inherent risk of injury. There is no legitimate infringement of rights involved with desegregation of public facilities. Should I have the right not to use a restroom which has been used by someone of a different sexual preference, race, nationality, or religious affiliation? Absolutely. Should the government require segregation of facilities based only on the prejudices of the majority? Never. There must be a legitimate threat (in my opinion) for the government to impose discriminatory mandates (juvenile intoxication and voting, blind drivers and pilots, etc.).

Sincerely,

PTL

]]> By: posttinebraelux http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-249 posttinebraelux Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:44:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-249 Big Daddy,<br/>Your logic in the statement, "I'd rather have uptight men be paranoid of gay-stares than discriminate against a rather large group of people." is faulty. First, you are making the assumption that all men (or women for that matter) who do not welcome untowards advances by homosexuals are 'uptight men'. Second, you are making the assumption that sexual harrassment (which includes - in my opinion - lascivious stares/actions by gays toward heterosexuals) is less offensive than discrimination. Finally, you are assuming that 'uptight men' comprise a smaller group than gays who want to: (a) be in the military and (b) be open about their sexual preference. <br/>Is the issue a difficult one? Absolutely. Do we sacrifice the rights of the heterosexuals (the rights not to be ogled and otherwise made to feel uncomfortable in their environs) for the rights of gays (the right to be open about one's sexual preference while being involved in our nation's military)? I just don't think that's just or prudent. Do we sacrifice the rights of gays for the rights of heterosexuals? Not 'per-se', but rather, with a 'don't ask - don't tell' policy. Again, it may not be the Utopian solution desired by gays, but it is, in my opinion, the most acceptable. <br/><br/>Sincerely,<br/><br/>PTL Big Daddy,
Your logic in the statement, “I’d rather have uptight men be paranoid of gay-stares than discriminate against a rather large group of people.” is faulty. First, you are making the assumption that all men (or women for that matter) who do not welcome untowards advances by homosexuals are ‘uptight men’. Second, you are making the assumption that sexual harrassment (which includes – in my opinion – lascivious stares/actions by gays toward heterosexuals) is less offensive than discrimination. Finally, you are assuming that ‘uptight men’ comprise a smaller group than gays who want to: (a) be in the military and (b) be open about their sexual preference.
Is the issue a difficult one? Absolutely. Do we sacrifice the rights of the heterosexuals (the rights not to be ogled and otherwise made to feel uncomfortable in their environs) for the rights of gays (the right to be open about one’s sexual preference while being involved in our nation’s military)? I just don’t think that’s just or prudent. Do we sacrifice the rights of gays for the rights of heterosexuals? Not ‘per-se’, but rather, with a ‘don’t ask – don’t tell’ policy. Again, it may not be the Utopian solution desired by gays, but it is, in my opinion, the most acceptable.

Sincerely,

PTL

]]> By: Big Daddy Weave http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-248 Big Daddy Weave Thu, 28 Sep 2006 03:35:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-248 Paul,<br/><br/>Your "blind people can't fly planes" snippet made me laugh.<br/><br/>Would you use that same line of reasoning to support the segregation of public facilities? I wonder.<br/><br/>I respect the opinion from posttinebraelux. But discrimination is discrimination. Watch the video below. It's humorous but hits the nail on the head. I'd rather have uptight men be paranoid of gay-stares than discriminate against a rather large group of people. Paul,

Your “blind people can’t fly planes” snippet made me laugh.

Would you use that same line of reasoning to support the segregation of public facilities? I wonder.

I respect the opinion from posttinebraelux. But discrimination is discrimination. Watch the video below. It’s humorous but hits the nail on the head. I’d rather have uptight men be paranoid of gay-stares than discriminate against a rather large group of people.

]]> By: Paul http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-244 Paul Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:04:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-244 "I don't know about you - but government-sanctioned discrimination doesn't settle too well with me."<br/><br/>If you look at the law, you will see it is thick with 'government-sanctioned discrimination'. Teenagers can't drink, kids can't vote, blind people can't fly planes or drive cars. <br/><br/>It isn't enough to cry "discrimination," you have to look at the nature of the discrimination and ask if it is reasonable. Posttinebraelux mentioned just a few reasons why it is a reasonable action for the military to not have open, practicing homosexuals in its ranks. “I don’t know about you – but government-sanctioned discrimination doesn’t settle too well with me.”

If you look at the law, you will see it is thick with ‘government-sanctioned discrimination’. Teenagers can’t drink, kids can’t vote, blind people can’t fly planes or drive cars.

It isn’t enough to cry “discrimination,” you have to look at the nature of the discrimination and ask if it is reasonable. Posttinebraelux mentioned just a few reasons why it is a reasonable action for the military to not have open, practicing homosexuals in its ranks.

]]> By: posttinebraelux http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-237 posttinebraelux Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:25:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-237 Big Daddy,<br/><br/>I like your site; I, too, am curious where the "Joshua Convergence" will head. I also agree with you, in general, about governmental discrimination based on sexual preference. In most cases, it should not be the government's business what a person's sexual persuasion is - especially with respect to hiring/firing practices. In the military, however, I believe that not only are the rights of the gay members at stake, but the rights 'straight' members as well. Because of the 'close quarters' nature of the military's sleeping, dressing, bathing, and other facilities, I believe it is quite understandable that 'straight' enlistees would - and in most cases are - uncomfortable being the object of unwanted sexual attention. It's akin, I think, to having women bathing, dressing, and sleeping 'with' heterosexual men - even though there may be a 'hand's off' directive, the ogling and suggestive behaviours would be enough to create an uncomfortable environment. One possible solution would be to 'seperate' gay men/women from straight men/women and have seperate sleeping, bathing, etc. quarters for each group. The only problem with this situation, however, is that - if I was gay I think I'd enjoy being in the 'straight' quarters so that I could 'get my fill' of ogling the straight guys. In which case, we're back to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. It's not perfect, but I think - in this situation - it's the best answer we've got.<br/><br/>Sincerely,<br/><br/>Posttinebraelux Big Daddy,

I like your site; I, too, am curious where the “Joshua Convergence” will head. I also agree with you, in general, about governmental discrimination based on sexual preference. In most cases, it should not be the government’s business what a person’s sexual persuasion is – especially with respect to hiring/firing practices. In the military, however, I believe that not only are the rights of the gay members at stake, but the rights ‘straight’ members as well. Because of the ‘close quarters’ nature of the military’s sleeping, dressing, bathing, and other facilities, I believe it is quite understandable that ‘straight’ enlistees would – and in most cases are – uncomfortable being the object of unwanted sexual attention. It’s akin, I think, to having women bathing, dressing, and sleeping ‘with’ heterosexual men – even though there may be a ‘hand’s off’ directive, the ogling and suggestive behaviours would be enough to create an uncomfortable environment. One possible solution would be to ‘seperate’ gay men/women from straight men/women and have seperate sleeping, bathing, etc. quarters for each group. The only problem with this situation, however, is that – if I was gay I think I’d enjoy being in the ‘straight’ quarters so that I could ‘get my fill’ of ogling the straight guys. In which case, we’re back to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. It’s not perfect, but I think – in this situation – it’s the best answer we’ve got.

Sincerely,

Posttinebraelux

]]> By: Big Daddy Weave http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-229 Big Daddy Weave Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:01:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-229 Check out Matt's site. <br/><br/>He has a list of all the tv channels, state news sources, and national media outlets who covered the story. <br/><br/>It also seems that the Greensboro-Triad area has ALOT of bloggers who have mentioned the event as well. Check out Matt’s site.

He has a list of all the tv channels, state news sources, and national media outlets who covered the story.

It also seems that the Greensboro-Triad area has ALOT of bloggers who have mentioned the event as well.

]]> By: A. Lin http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/09/dont-ask-dont-tell.html#comment-228 A. Lin Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:14:00 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=83#comment-228 I live an hour away from Greensboro, and this is the first I have heard about this. Thanks for posting it. I live an hour away from Greensboro, and this is the first I have heard about this. Thanks for posting it.

]]>