We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

US flag

Tomorrow is Veterans Day.

During the past few days I have been writing about the sacrifices made by and heroism exhibited by our veterans—both living and departed.

We often forget, however, that many of the sacrifices made, heroism and patriotism displayed and just plain honorable service to our country is by men and women who at one time were not even permitted to legally serve, and who today can serve their country as long as they “don’t tell.”

I am talking about the more than 12,000 veterans who have been discharged since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was implemented, because they are gay or lesbian.

I am talking about the close to 125,000 veterans who have been discharged since World War II, simply because they are gay or lesbian.

I am talking about the estimated one million veterans in the United States who are gay or lesbian.

I am talking about men and women who have received every military award and decoration from the Purple Heart to the Air Medal for Heroism.

I am talking about Marine Sgt. Eric Alva, who stepped on a landmine the first day of Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost his right leg, broke his left leg and permanently damaged his right arm.

As the Iraq war’s first casualty, he received the Purple Heart along with personal visits from President and Mrs. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. Alva happens to be gay.

I am talking about Purple Heart recipient John McNeill, a World War II veteran who served in combat in the Third Army under General Patton, was captured during the Battle of the Bulge and spent six months as a Prisoner of War. McNeill happens to be gay.

I am talking about Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an 18-year Air Force veteran who flew a total of 88 combat missions over Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq as an F-15 fighter pilot and who received eight Air Medals, one for heroism. Fehrenbach happens to be gay.

I am talking about our Veteran Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who happen to be gay.

The following is for them on this Veterans Day:

The men and women in our armed forces unselfishly sacrifice for our freedom, our rights and our way of life.

It is thus ironic and disgraceful that too many of these very same men and women are denied some of the rights enjoyed by the society they protect.

Fortunately, many “traditions” and prejudices that have contributed to barring our military from serving to their full potential—even from serving—because of race, gender, or sexual orientation have been falling, albeit too slowly.

Gone are the ugly days when black Americans were barred from serving alongside their white brethren in the military. Of course, President Truman’s 1948 executive order to racially integrate the U.S. military did not contain language allowing blacks to serve as long as they kept their race secret. Ridiculous, you say.

Gone are most of the barriers that have prevented women from serving equally alongside their male military counterparts. Again, the policies removing such barriers did not contain language allowing women to perform the new duties as long as they kept their gender secret. Again, how ridiculous…

Ludicrous as the above may seem, that is exactly what “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation requires of certain Americans who want to serve their country. The 1993 legislation allows homosexuals to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. In other words, as long as they deny and betray their dignity— their own being.

The same tired, repudiated canards that have been used to legitimize every other discriminatory policy in the military—negative impact on combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale and discipline—are still being used to justify this remaining vestige of discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the military.

Never mind that no scientific studies or objective logic support such premises.

Never mind that an estimated 65,000 homosexuals are serving honorably—often heroically—in our military.

Never mind that societal views and mores have evolved considerably since 1993.

Never mind that seasoned, fair-minded active duty and retired generals and sergeants strongly dispute such rationalizations, including this retired military officer, father of a wonderful son who happens to be gay.

President Clinton promised during his 1992 campaign to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Because of political realities, he compromised.

President Obama made a similar campaign promise. At a recent human rights event, he renewed his pledge. It is now time, because of American realities, to “uncompromise.”

         

Author: DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

Share This Post On

49 Comments

  1. Perhaps one day the promise will be kept, and all who wish to serve will be allowed to do so as the people they are. The sooner, the better.

    Thank you for reminding us, Dorian.

  2. Yes and we probably have people who practice polygamy, and fetishes of all descriptions serving in the military. Where is their memorial? Do not the polygamists love too?

    There is no such thing as a gay or lesbian. There are only people who do all manner of weird behaviors. Let's just honor all veterans across the board and leave fetish politics and agendas out of it.mmm K?

  3. It's a constant source of amazement to me that gays and lesbians even want to serve, given the way they are treated — inside and outside of the military.

  4. There are only people who do all manner of weird behaviors

    Yeah, like people who deny reality exists because they don't like it.

  5. Sil said, “There are only people who do all manner of weird behaviors.”

    Perhaps we would be better off, or at least a more tolerant culture, had we left our puritanical roots at the doorstep of the 19th century.

    I'll tell you my weird behaviors if you'll tell me yours. :-)

  6. Ahhh.,once again the gist of the point sails right over the tops of your heads. Heteros also engage in weird sexual behaviors, hence the reason I purposely chose the word “fetish politics”. Only some but not all of fetish sexual behavior is included in the words “gay and lesbian”. My aim was to once again demonstrate that they lack a unique cohesive binding element to their “minority” that they want so desperately to make, to get rights to marry, to make what they do a condoned and normalized behavior, to thereby, through social imprinting, make a new element to mainstream culture to which more and more youngsters can aspire to as the generations roll on.

    We are talking about a behavior. A behavior. A behavior. And monkeys like us should look very very strongly at behaviors we agree to normalize via whatever means. In this case via marriage. We are socially-learning animals. Each generation mimics the one before it whether or not they want to cop to it. Speak about working within the bounds of reality. Before you take off your shoes and start throwing them at me, take a course in social anthropology and get back to me. Puritan religion has nada to do with it.

    There will always be the two branches of “gay” and “lesbian” to the much larger tree called “sexual fetish behavior”. You don't see me denying that here and I challenge you to wade through any of my posts and quote me where I said my idea was to stamp them out. There will always be gay and lesbian fetishes. Just remember that in the end, most young people will aspire to emulate that which they see around them as socially normalized. Just remember that and nothing else if it makes it easier to see my point.

    And in case any of you are tempted to use what I've said against me again I will reiterate that this thread should be about generically remembering all veterans and veteran's day shouldn't be a platform for the currently-loudest two branches of the fetish tree to promote their marriage/normalizing agenda.

  7. “Each generation mimics the one before it whether or not they want to cop to it”

    Just as so many generations have mimicked the one before them in discriminating, persecuting, hating because of race, color, religion—you name it…

  8. Sil said: Before you take off your shoes and start throwing them at me, take a course in social anthropology and get back to me.

    Ahh, yes, once again we can rely on the vast knowledge of Dr Sil, our resident expert when it comes to psychology. How about this; we can all discuss social anthropology with you when you're willing to honestly discuss psychology with us. Perhaps we can start with how you justify giving the finger to the APA and their stance on human sexuality. I've also noticed how you no longer choose to hang so closely on to that Pfaus article you bandied around here for so long…perhaps you can give us an update on his work? Here's his website if you want to get started.

    Thank you for your post Dorian, and for all of the others you have put together concerning all veterans, not just the ones Sil wants to label as “normal”.

  9. “And monkeys like us should look very very strongly at behaviors we agree to normalize via whatever means”

    I believe we are talking about human beings who have served their country honorably, many with distinctionand heroically.

    Perhaps we can set social anthropology aside for one day and just honor these men and women regardless of their sexual orientation.

    Thank you

    And I agree, “this thread should be about generically remembering all veterans and veteran's day” and shouldn't be a platform for promoting an anti homosexual agenda.

  10. Sil -

    First, I agree about honoring all veterans.

    Second , we simply disagree. That generations emulate that which is socially normalized doesn't change my view. Let them seek out and choose for themselves. I just don't have a problem with someone so inclined choosing homosexuality, and see no reason whatever to ostracize them, or deny them loving marital relationships if that is the choice they make. If we were to deny marriage rights to anyone who we didnt want emulated, we wouldn't stop with homosexuals. I don't want people emulating white supremicists (yeah, I know I'll be accused of false equivilency – hate that phrase), but should we deny marriage rights to white supremicists so they can't raise children in their beliefs or be emulated as socially normal?

    And, you are correct that heterosexuals also engage in practices that fall within a minority of social convention. Let them lead their lives as well. My line in the sand is “consenting adults”. That includes consenting to marriage. But, I'm a libertine so what would you expect?

    Bottom line: even if everything you say in your comment is correct, it does not justify ostricizing and discriminating against gays.

  11. I think you're also talking about my buddy [name redacted for obvious reasons] who's in Iraq right now as a leutenant, an Arabic translator, who leads his men bravely each day. He happens to be gay.

    You're also talking about my friend [name also redacted] who was honorably discharged for the injuries incurred after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004; he carried his comrade and his severed arm to safety in Afghanistan and got his face beaten with the butt of the gun during a house raid in Iraq, leaving him deaf and nearly blind on one side (but still incredibly handsom). He also happens to be gay.

    There are others I know, but none so dearly loved as those above, who will be getting the bulk of my thoughts tomorrow, along with both of my Grandpas (not gay — obviously).

  12. Roro80:

    Thank you for putting faces (albeit names redacted) to the service, sacrifice and heroism of our gay service members.

    While some may argue as to whether homosexuality is “acquired' or has genetic links, I don't think anyone can argue that these men and women have as much love for their country and are willing and ready to sacrifice for their country equally to any “straight” person.

    Thank you for mentioning them and thanks to them for their service.

  13. Well, if people just want to argue about related issues, it's time to trump this argumenting. The lib Dems once again made fools of themselves and were counterproductive. Attached to the recent defense bill was a broader political agenda item that was more controversial than what they could and should have done, had they had any brains and desire to be practical and truly effective, and pertinent to this subject.

    They attached, to defense legislation, “hate crime” legislation (a form of reverse discrimination and granting of privilege).

    What they obviously could and should have done, that was truly (and honesty) associated with defense legislation, was instead used that legislative effort to officially and specifically end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (by replacing it with legislation conforming to a preferred position on this matter). Realistic in scope and approach, pertinent to defense (i.e., not a stunt in the way “hate crimes” obviously and greatly was), much less controversial.

    Oh, well. The problem, thanks to them, still exists currently. “Congratulations,” Demmies.

  14. It's so hard to find a way to say “f you” politely. I'll keep looking.

  15. Yeah well we put veteran pilot, Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, Purple Heart, Flying Ace, and U.S. Congressman Lieutenant Randall H. Cunningham in PRISON for his post service behavior. We would not accept his criminal behavior in or out of the military regardless of how exemplary his service. We did nothing to help Medal of Honor winner Ira Hays with his service drunken behavior and that behavior killed him. We did not accept or excuse his drunkenness while he was in uniform either.

    It dose not matter whom they are, we cannot accept open deviant behavior, sexual or not. What’s next, transgender or transsexual males wearing female military uniforms because they are capable of honorable service dressed that way?

    Sexual deviance is not something to be honored or put into the same context of those we honor. It’s not even something to be recognized. There are male and female human beings for biological sexual procreation. People whom “think” they are somehow different are not normal and we should not be recognizing abnormalities as normal just for these deluded people’s convenience. This does not mean that we should hate them, but it does mean that we should not patronize and enable their delusion.

    That’s just about as kind as I can say it, but I mean what I say.

  16. –[And I agree, "this thread should be about generically remembering all veterans and veteran's day" and shouldn't be a platform for promoting an anti homosexual agenda]–

    ….Or a pro homosexual agenda either.

  17. –[Bottom line: even if everything you say in your comment is correct, it does not justify ostricizing and discriminating against gays]–

    Sorry, it is still legal to do so in several states, within the U.S. Military and other contexts. Discrimination is not universally illegal or universally undesirable.

  18. Describing yourself Kathy?

    Are you suggesting that we accept as normal the human abnormalities that we have no certain answer for?

  19. Well as long as “your friends” kept their mouths shut and other orifices while serving then there is no problem. If their intent is to serve then serve. Everybody has to sacrifice in order to serve and I am just boo-hooing that some have to sacrifice their open sexual deviance to contribute.

  20. FT said, ” Discrimination is not universally illegal or universally undesirable.”

    To the extent that it is not, those of us who believe in equality and justice still have work to do. Please feel free to open your mind and join us.

  21. It's not possible to “emulate” attraction, Silhouette — any kind of attraction. You're attracted to whom you're attracted. You either are or you aren't. It's not a matter of mind.

  22. Funny, I was about to ask the same of you.

    I'm not discriminated against when someone flaunts their sexual deviance in my face? You think it rational for me to grant them the right to do so out of, “open minded objectivity”?

    There are two sides to every issue and I’m telling you that the other side to this issue is far worse than you think.

  23. Well if I was attracted to a woodpile I'd consider that it was abnormal. Not try to force the world to accept my abnormality as normal.

  24. FT said, “I'm not discriminated against when someone flaunts their sexual deviance in my face? You think it rational for me to grant them the right to do so out of, “open minded objectivity”?”

    Answer: Yes.

    Explanation: I do not regard any sexual preference to be deviant as long as it involves consenting adults. Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality constantly in public and on the airwaves. Why is flaunting sexuality offensive only if done by a homosexual?

    Good luck with that woodpile. Watch out for splinters :-)

  25. FT -

    Forfot to tag my response to you as a reply. See above in thread.

  26. No, you are arguing semantics. I am talking about real harm.

    If a homosexual has the “right” to wear women’s clothing at work because they are recognized constitutionally, then they would, in effect, have the right to damage a business at will by offending away clients.

    What about hate crimes? If a homosexual male rapes a male that is not homosexual, is that not a hate crime?

    There are many of these scenarios that can easily be construed as descriptions of real harm. So I don’t think you are seriously considering the repercussions of your, “oh so open minded” , stance.

    You cannot argue semantics and expect people to accept it as objectivity.

  27. No, FT, I am not arguing semantics. Heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality is a reality not semantics, and other than sexual preference, there is no difference if homosexuals do it, or bi-sexuals, or multi-sexuals, or exhibitionists.

    But, on to the substance. I believe you are old enough, as I am, to remember similar arguments being made about African Americans. “I'd hire a black, but if I did it would damage my business by offending customers.” Can't tell you how many times I heard that one growing up.

    As for hate crimes, I've made it clear many times on TMV that I oppose hate crime legislation as a violation of freedom of thought, speech and expression, though many have made strong arguments against me on that.

    As for rape. Simple. Rape is rape, whether heterosexual or homosexual and should be dealt with to the maximum extent provided for by law.

    Are there repercussions to justice and equality? Sure. Women get elected to offices they could once never even vote for. Someone of mixed race becomes President of the United States. And, some people believe to this day that affirmative action denies them opportunity because they are white, and people who used to have the privilege of sitting at the front of the bus now have to take whatever seat is available. You posit an assumption, that justice and equality have repercussions. My response is, yes they do, and they are worth it.

  28. Father Time,

    You have mixed so many issues together (homosexuality, discrimination, rape, hate crimes) that it's almost impossible to have a conversation with you.

    Whether you want to accept homosexuality as good or bad or moral or immoral or normal or abnormal is up to you. It seems pretty obvious that no one here is going to change your mind on that, and frankly, I'm less concerned about whatever personal beliefs people hold than I am about what people believe to be the role of government.

    In a free society, people ought to have the right to life their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. People should be able to take part in whatever activities they wish, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. Whether they do so openly or not is beside the point. It's a matter of respecting other people's rights.

    If a homosexual person were to rape a heterosexual person, that would be wrong–not because the aggressor was homosexual–but because the aggressor raped another person. Whether such an act constitutes a hate crime or not is beside the point.

    If a homosexual couple were to have sex on your front lawn, that would be wrong–not because there's anything wrong with homosexuality–but because that couple trespassed onto your property.

    You say that you are talking about real harm, but I am not hearing anything in your arguments pointing out what is so harmful about homosexuality or about allowing homosexuality. I think the whole “homosexuality is harmful” argument is some trumped up argument made by people who are using the word “harm” in a manner that is inconsistent with its definition. No one is being “harmed” by homosexuality in and of itself. What I think is really happening is that some people are just really uncomfortable or repulsed about the idea of homosexuality. But that does not constitute harm.

    The whole point of Dorian's post, as I understand it, was to point out that thousands of gay and lesbian individuals have served in the military in spite of our government's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” law, and further, that many of those gays and lesbian individuals have made sacrifices for their country, in spite of the fact that some of their own countrymen (and women) do not want them serving.

    I gather from his post that Dorian does not support our government's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” law, which is in line with what I think. I think that law is based more on fear and misperceptions and very little on logic or rational thought. If the argument is that allowing gay and lesbian individuals serve in the military is going to harm the military in any way, I'd like to hear facts and data to support such an allegation and not simply opinions and hypothetical scenarios.

  29. “Well as long as “your friends” kept their mouths shut and other orifices while serving then there is no problem. If their intent is to serve then serve.”

    You mean, like all the hetero folks do? Have heterosexuals ever been in danger of losing their jobs because they talked about their wives or the stripper they went out with last night? Or the sex worker they frequent? Um…no.

  30. Gay men do not wear women's clothing.

  31. “The whole point of Dorian's post, as I understand it, was to point out that thousands of gay and lesbian individuals have served in the military in spite of our government's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” law, and further, that many of those gays and lesbian individuals have made sacrifices for their country, in spite of the fact that some of their own countrymen (and women) do not want them serving.”

    Thanks for your coments, nicrivera.

    My post is intended, this Veterans Day, to thank gay and lesbian veterans for their service service to our country, along with other veterans I have recognized and thanked in previous posts.

    And, yes, part of my thanks to them is to do my small part in trying to ensure that those young men and women who in the future want to serve their country, and who happen to be homosexual, can do so with dignity and without the shame, humiliation and worse that present “Don't ask, Don't tell” legislation requires them to endure.

    If some of our readers object to this, that is their prerogative. (Some are doing such in a rational, dignified manner, some are not. But that's their right, too) As it is my right to continue to espouse what I believe is right.

    Thanks again,

    Dorian

  32. “Gay men do not wear women's clothing.”

    Well, some do…and so do some heterosexual men. Whatever revs your engine.

    Best to all on Veteran's Day. Thanks to all who have served.

  33. As for hate crimes, I've made it clear many times on TMV that I oppose hate crime legislation as a violation of freedom of thought, speech and expression, though many have made strong arguments against me on that.

    Exactly.

    Some people here are trying to use the hate crimes legislation issue to bolster their arguments in favor of restricting the types of activities that gay and lesbian individuals should and should not be able to do. This is a complete red herring.

    Like, tidbits, I have also argued time and time again against hate crimes legislation on the basis that such legislation criminalizes thought and expression. I personally have no problem with homosexuality. If others do, that's their problem. I have no desire to have the government force such individuals to accept homosexuality.

    I have pointed out time and time again, that my belief that homosexual individuals ought to be able to live their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties of others. Since homosexuality, gay marriage, and gays serving in the military doesn't infringe on anyone else's lives, liberties, or property, I see no reason for there to be laws against such things.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with tryng to force others to accept homosexuality as being good or criminalizing anti-gay thoughts. All of this “gay agenda” rhetoric is just fear mongering. One cannot simply assume that just because some people support gays being allowed to marry or join the military, that they support every conceivable law that is thought to sympathetic to gays. This is blanket a generalization. People cannot keep using the hate crimes legislation issue as some kind of trump card to make arguments against positions that have nothing to do with hate crimes legislation.

  34. thank you Dorian for the care given and honor noted. And thank you for your service too on this Veteran's Day.

    dr.e

  35. lol

    Get real.

  36. Heterosexual is normal. Homosexual is abnormal. Abnormalities do not rise to ANY level of equality that would require additional constitutional guarantees. Why do you want to have the legal right to freak people out and drive them away?

  37. Flaunting that which is normal is not “Flaunting”. Displays of sexual deviance is flaunting. You are arguing semantics while trying to get around the fact that you are arguing semantics.

    Sexual proclivity does not rise to the nobility of racial equality. Whom with and how you have sex is a choice. It is an impossibility for one to chose one's race before birth. Therefore race must be protected by the constitution to prevent unfair discrimination. Homosexuality is a deviant choice to perform abnormal sexual behavior. It is also a described psychological addiction associated with self destructive sub-cultural phenomena. How people discriminate against homosexuality is irrelevant, as long as basic constitutional protections afforded all people are observed., but discrimination is allowed by law largely throughout the United Sttates.

    Regarding rape, if violently attacking a homosexual for being homosexual is a hate crime, then a violent attack against a heterosexual for being heterosexual is also a hate crime. It’s not as simple as “rape is rape”, the law covering this was just signed by the president. If a heterosexual refuses to have sex with a homosexual and is raped for the refusal than a hate crime has been committed and must be prosecuted as such against the homosexual.

    The first part of your last paragraph is irrelevant because universal suffrage is out of context. The rest of your paragraph is bizarre and irrelevant to any post that I made.

  38. You are incorrect. It's not “whether I”, it is what the law reads.

    Basically, it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals for differing reason largely across the United States.

    However after a veteran leaves the military, don't ask don't tell become irrelevent. Your point is moot.

    It's not a matter of “allowing homosexuality”, it's a matter of giving homosexuals equal rights as homosexuals beyond what all of us all ready have guaranteed in the constitution. Then you could not protect yourself, business, or, find any public place that that could be legally free from homosexual behavior and sub-culture. You can throw someone out of your restaurant for playing loud music, but not a homosexual wearing pink hot pants, roller skates, and, behaving like a gay pride parade freak show. This offensive behavior would then be protected under the law. As it is now, the restaurant owner can discriminate this behavior off his/her business property open to the public. Homosexuals would thus have the same protections as race. IMO that would be wrong and causes harm.

  39. Thanks dr. e. And, of course, please thank your husband, too.

    Dorian

  40. FT -

    I stand by my position and my comments without apology and without qualification.

    Best to you this Veterans Day,

    tidbits

  41. “Why do you want to have the legal right to freak people out and drive them away?”

    In things that might “freak out” and “drive away” a potential soldier, I'm going to put the horrors of war far above the horrors of having a collegue mention his husband or boyfriend. The fact that you're seemingly reversing that order says much more about you than about anyone else. Also — what's with the scare quotes around “your friends”?

  42. Dorian — I didn't realize you were a vet as well. Thanks for your service!

  43. “Dorian — I didn't realize you were a vet as well. Thanks for your service!”

    Twenty worthy and rewarding years…

    Thank you, roro

    Dorian

  44. Ok… I guess I stayed out of this one long enough. I tried to stay out and just read..
    But, alas, I failed….

    “Explanation: I do not regard any sexual preference to be deviant as long as it involves consenting adults. Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality constantly in public and on the airwaves.”

    You hit upon the root of it all. “flaunting sexuality”.
    This would not be as big of an issue if heteros and homos kept their affections in the bedroom.
    The absolute best quote from this entire thread was “fetish politics”

    And since the procreation urge drives against what you have become attracted to. We cannot accept the attraction to same sex as “normal”. I can't, maybe you can.

    But as I maintain…. I refuse to show hatred toward homosexuals. I refuse to condone violence or abuse of any kind toward them. But I also refuse to give legitimacy in accordance to someone's fetish. If people are turned on by “whatever”, I don't care. But many of us are tired of being asked to change our “wicked and uncaring evil” feelings that it is an unnatural act – just as anal sex between heterosexuals is an unnatural act – just as scat or peeing on one another is an unnatural act. These people keep that crap in the bedroom and ask nothing of society. Yet homosexuals want normallization and acceptance.

    No.

  45. Well, JD, we really part ways on sexual issues. But, that's ok. Like I said, whatever revs your engine.

    My view. I don't give a rip what consenting adults do in their sex lives. Sex isn't just for procreation. I think you'd agree that there is intimacy and bonding involved as well, even from the monogomous, heterosexual perspective. From my (admittedly libertine) perspective, sex is fun, enjoyable and, done properly, good exercise.

    Folks flaunt publicly to attract partners, show off their partners or sell everything from ice cream to recreational vehicles. Well, God bless 'em, whatever their orientation. Some of the best times I've ever had didn't involve a bedroom…but that's probably getting close to too much information.

    Thanks for respecting my views. As always, I will do the same toward yours.

  46. I realize “why” people flaunt. But my main beef has been the inappropriate flaunting since the baby-boomers gave us “free love” in the 60s. Sex is not ugly or disgusting – it is a beautiful act between a man and a woman within marriage. It is extremely fun as well as physically healthy. But once it is taken outside of the bedroom (as it is with selling RVs and ice cream) is when it is cheapened. I'll be the first to tell you that the wife and I can get our “freak” on, but the most we do in public is hold hands and perhaps a peck kiss after having not seen one another in a long time. I, too, have witnessed great sex with my wife in other “adventurous” places. I don't mean “only have sex in the bedroom”…. I just mean stop talking about it in public – it's no ones business but the couple.

    That's really all I ask of homosexuals. Every time I turn the TV on, there is a show, or news, or entertainer telling or showing me how homosexuality is the right thing to do, and that if I think the way I do, I'm an oppressive and closed-minded individual. That could not be farther from the truth.

  47. JD -

    Your view represents mainstream thinking about sexuality in the majority American culture. Mine does not. Sexual attitude is probably one of the few areas where most would consider me extremist or at least an outlier from the norm. That's why I don't get into a lot of specifics other than to say that consenting adults can do as they please. Anything beyond that risks making me the guy in the glass house with a bag full of stones.

  48. “That's why I don't get into a lot of specifics other than to say that consenting adults can do as they please. “

    Fair enough, Tidbits. I cannot argue with true Libertarianism. Consistency is a virtue – most times.
    :)

Submit a Comment