"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Hearing

[Lights]

I didn't see this posted anywhere...

On July 23, 2008, on the anniversary of when Truman made the order to desegregate the United States armed forces many decades ago, there was the first hearing in 15 years on the issue of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that was initiated by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The policy has come under fire from both sides. Liberals are obviously arguing that it should be appealed and a "nondiscrimination" policy put into place and Conservatives arguing that the military should once again be allowed to deny gays and lesbians the right to serve under what amounts to the current law.

Jon Stewart Commentary
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Clips
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Hearing
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

I like the irony that some leaders would rather open up the military to criminals and geriatrics than gays. Apparently someone's sexual orientation has more of an effect on mission performance than their police record or ability to meet physical/mental standards.

[Xtradi]

i understand if they created battalion from criminals. It maybe because some man is still having their mind set on their primary predator instinct and having to like gore and violence. It fits them perfectly.

If you created a battalion full of men, i think gay people will have interesting effect on the moral and also the performance of the battalion.

i wondering if the Spartans elite army have been composed by gay. Kind a weird though.

[SShack]

I have a very personal stake with seeing this ban lifted so that I can be a little more open with my INTJ buddy who is in the Army. Not that we're planning on running around making out all over the place or anything. I mean, we are both NTs! ;)

[pinkroger]

Why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to put themselves in harm's way? Seems like a great way to get more of them killed. I'm all for nondiscrimination in this case.

[Lights]

Why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to put themselves in harm's way? Seems like a great way to get more of them killed. I'm all for nondiscrimination in this case.

Perhaps I have misread that, but it sounds like you are pleased at the thought of homosexuals dying.

[fonmaneal]

Perhaps I have misread that, but it sounds like you are pleased at the thought of homosexuals dying.

I don't think you are wrong.

When I was in, there was a guy in another company who was thought to be gay.
One night, he was hung from a third floor window. He was upsidedown in a sleeping bag. He had "FAG" written on his head.
To the best of my knowledge, he was not.
In combat arms, you must keep your secrets, secret.
You must trust your fellows, because one misstep could kill you all.
There have always been gays, in the military.
They and there trusted brothers(and sisters) surpport them.

If you don't like this, then f*** you!
(Death before dishonor, Airborne Leads The Way! )

[Tabemashoo]

Perhaps I have misread that, but it sounds like you are pleased at the thought of homosexuals dying.

Yes, I can't tell if that's sarcasm or seriousness. :/

As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'm all for it getting lifted. I want to serve my country, but I'm not going to bother if my country won't give me the freedom to do so while being open and honest with myself and others.

[SShack]

It's not sarcasm. After the other thread where pinkroger promoted castration to deal with homosexuality, I've concluded that he's a troll and after a curt response, have put him on ignore.

[Lights]

Ah, well pinkroger is entitled to be bored I guess. After all, respect and decency are luxuries on the internet.





Lights added to this post, 438 minutes and 44 seconds later...

This is turning into a rather historic week for gay rights.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The House today voted 118 to 35 to repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

The measure, which the Senate passed earlier this month, will head to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick, who is expected to sign it into law. The move will clear the way for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts, making it the second state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry regardless of their place of residence.

"I'm glad that we finally did it," said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat, who described the repeal on the House floor as a "question of fairness and … a question of equality."

And the opposed?

The bill has also drawn condemnation from opponents of same-sex marriage, including Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and the state's three other Catholic bishops. O'Malley and the bishops want the 1913 law kept on the books for constitutional, religious, and cultural reasons. They said eliminating the law would infringe on the rights of other states to set their own marriage laws.

[Jgib5328]

I don't think it makes any sense to not include gays in the military, objectively. Personally I wouldn't want it, I guess it'd taint the masculinity of the military.

[SShack]

I don't think it makes any sense to not include gays in the military, objectively. Personally I wouldn't want it, I guess it'd taint the masculinity of the military.

The kind of gay guys drawn to military service are not exactly lacking in the masculinity department. I think actually that's the real subconscious fear about gay men and the military. Once you get too masculine it essentially comes out the other side and becomes really, really, really gay. (See: Any gay porn movie ever made) Once straight guys become conscious of this, it can make them uncomfortable with themselves and that's what causes them to act out on homophobic impulses.

As gay visibility has increased, we haven't really culturally dealt with the impact of it on our perception of what "masculinity" is and the realization that sexuality doesn't necessarily have a role in how masculine or feminine a person is.

We're slowly adapting though. I remember lamenting back in the '90s that I couldn't be friends with a straight guy without people being suspicious of whether he was really straight. I remember being friends with a straight guy in the Navy and my dad warning me that I was going to get him in trouble somehow if we were seen "together."

Now we have things like "bro-mances" as straight guys reclaim their ability to be close friends without getting eyeballed about it. It's a good sign, as silly as it is.

[Jgib5328]

The kind of gay guys drawn to military service are not exactly lacking in the masculinity department. I think actually that's the real subconscious fear about gay men and the military. Once you get too masculine it essentially comes out the other side and becomes really, really, really gay. (See: Any gay porn movie ever made) Once straight guys become conscious of this, it can make them uncomfortable with themselves and that's what causes them to act out on homophobic impulses.

As gay visibility has increased, we haven't really culturally dealt with the impact of it on our perception of what "masculinity" is and the realization that sexuality doesn't necessarily have a role in how masculine or feminine a person is.

We're slowly adapting though. I remember lamenting back in the '90s that I couldn't be friends with a straight guy without people being suspicious of whether he was really straight. I remember being friends with a straight guy in the Navy and my dad warning me that I was going to get him in trouble somehow if we were seen "together."

Now we have things like "bro-mances" as straight guys reclaim their ability to be close friends without getting eyeballed about it. It's a good sign, as silly as it is.

Yeah I mean that's just my biased opinion. I doubt the really effeminate men would join the military, it'd be more of the masculine types. I guess men just have it stuck in their heads that most gay guys are that stereotypically flamboyant guy, wearing hot pink and make-up. It's a really bad mind-frame to have, but we've been culturally conditioned. I honestly don't think it'd be that big of a deal, but pride is a powerful tool, especially that of the most powerful military force ever.

[blueback]

Would it be appropriate to provide seperate living/washing arrangements for gays?

We segregate the two sexes, male and female, because of the sexual attraction/harassment angle. So should we do the same for any group which is sexually attracted to the other?

We couldn't just let the gay guys room with the girls and let the gay girls room with the guys, because then straight people would be sexually attracted to gays of the opposite sex. We couldn't group gay men together because they'd be attracted to each other (same for gay women).

So we'd have to have a group of straight men, a group of straight women, and then individually isolate each gay person. maybe we could pair off a gay man with a gay woman, but we couldn't have two of either in the same living arrangement.

That would get complicated fast. It seems hard to keep a consistent standard.

[Lights]

I don't really see anything wrong with gay guys rooming with straight guys and gay gals rooming with straight gals. People do it in college dorms all the time. I remember back in my own Junior College, there were three LDS men living in a 2 bedroom dorm room with a gay guy and they got along just fine. One of them even shared a bedroom with the gay guy. I imagine in the much more controlled and supervised environment of the military, that they could also probably handle it.

If there was sexual misconduct, then there are channels to handle that. And FYI, Gay guys are not necessarily attracted to straight guys, and gay gals are not necessarily attracted to straight gals. I suppose it is possible that the heteros may feel uncomfortable rooming with a gay person, but one has to remember that gays are by far the minority in this situation.

Here is a question for ya...would you mind rooming with a bisexual?

[meanlittlechimp]

Yeah I mean that's just my biased opinion. I doubt the really effeminate men would join the military, it'd be more of the masculine types. I guess men just have it stuck in their heads that most gay guys are that stereotypically flamboyant guy, wearing hot pink and make-up. It's a really bad mind-frame to have, but we've been culturally conditioned. I honestly don't think it'd be that big of a deal, but pride is a powerful tool, especially that of the most powerful military force ever.

Watch this documentary. Will change your mind about effeminate gay men.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's about one of bigger British Crime bosses who is openly gay. Though I doubt he has to deal with much homophobic persecution, since he can have you killed. For those with Netflix accounts - you can view it on instant watch.

[Seppuku Savant]

FYI, Gay guys are not necessarily attracted to straight guys, and gay gals are not necessarily attracted to straight gals. I suppose it is possible that the heteros may feel uncomfortable rooming with a gay person, but one has to remember that gays are by far the minority in this situation.

I find it arrogant when females assume I might hit on them because we are the same gender. Especially if they are unintelligent, unattractive or both. That assumption tells me they believe gay people have no standards. I'd never become interested in someone that wasn't an out lesbian, physically attractive to the majority of society, and successful. All of my past partners were in the upper echelon of desirability on every level.

Also, most of my lesbian friends would never involve themselves with even closeted homosexuals, much less heterosexuals.

I like the irony that some leaders would rather open up the military to criminals and geriatrics than gays.

This is rather disappointing.

[Dreamer]

"In the military you don't have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight"-General Barry Goldwater

[yondyr]

I'm having trouble believing what I'm reading of peoples opinions here. First I think it's sarcasm, then irony then golly, it just might be what they think... and huge disappoinment ensues... at lack of logic, common sense, and just plain human respect.

[blueback]

I'm having trouble believing what I'm reading of peoples opinions here...and huge disappoinment ensues... at lack of logic, common sense, and just plain human respect.
Any other feewings you want to share? What made you think that an INTJ forum was a good place to emote? Did you have a point, or did you just want to talk about yourself?





blueback added to this post, 12 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Gay guys are not necessarily attracted to straight guys, and gay gals are not necessarily attracted to straight gals.
But that wasn't my point. There are plenty of females I'm not attracted to, despite the fact that I'm hetero, but I'm not allowed to room with them. The sexes are seperated because they are, on average, sexually attracted to each other. When you get into a high-intensity evnironment like combat or training, you get a lot of adrenaline and sexual attraction increases. Not to mention that people who live, train and risk their lives together build a certain kind of bond that breaks down the normal barriers between people. The sort of roughhousing that goes on between service members could easily lead to sexual harasssment or assault if it went on between service members of the opposite sex.

So, logically, it seems if the government kept the same room arrangements but knew that gay and straight people were being forced to room together that it would be opening itself up to all sorts of problems. For example, straight service members will often tease each other with gay porn, usually by trying to imply someone had it voluntarily. If an openly gay man got teased that way he could easily bring a sexual harassment suit againts the person who put it there, whereas a straight man would have a hard time bringing that suit. The same can be said if a gay man teased a hetero roommate the same way.

The main reason the sexes are seperated is the sexual attraction angle, so why should that change for homos? If the government allowed homos to serve openly, but forced them to room with people they had the potential to be sexually attracted to, or to be attracted to them, they would be denying them the same protections the heteros got. If, on the other hand, they decide that it's not important that homos are attracted to the people they are rooming with, then why should the hetero males and females room seperately? The only way I can see them being consistent is if everyone rooms together or if everyone is divided based on sexual attraction. Otherwise someone is getting less protection then someone else, which will only cause more problems in the future.

[Lights]

blueback added to this post, 12 minutes and 37 seconds later...


But that wasn't my point. There are plenty of females I'm not attracted to, despite the fact that I'm hetero, but I'm not allowed to room with them. The sexes are seperated because they are, on average, sexually attracted to each other. When you get into a high-intensity evnironment like combat or training, you get a lot of adrenaline and sexual attraction increases. Not to mention that people who live, train and risk their lives together build a certain kind of bond that breaks down the normal barriers between people. The sort of roughhousing that goes on between service members could easily lead to sexual harasssment or assault if it went on between service members of the opposite sex.

As someone who has lived with straight and gay roommates alike, it seems like a nonissue to me. In a man/woman situation, there is a possibility that both parties would be sexually attracted to each other, however in a straight man/gay man situation, it is very unlikely that both members would be attracted to each other. The two situations are not even comparable.

So, logically, it seems if the government kept the same room arrangements but knew that gay and straight people were being forced to room together that it would be opening itself up to all sorts of problems. For example, straight service members will often tease each other with gay porn, usually by trying to imply someone had it voluntarily. If an openly gay man got teased that way he could easily bring a sexual harassment suit againts the person who put it there, whereas a straight man would have a hard time bringing that suit. The same can be said if a gay man teased a hetero roommate the same way.

That is sexual misconduct either way and it should be handled through the appropriate channels which already exist. It is unprofessional to act that way, and so I don't even see why it is a legitimate argument.

The main reason the sexes are seperated is the sexual attraction angle, so why should that change for homos? If the government allowed homos to serve openly, but forced them to room with people they had the potential to be sexually attracted to, or to be attracted to them, they would be denying them the same protections the heteros got. If, on the other hand, they decide that it's not important that homos are attracted to the people they are rooming with, then why should the hetero males and females room seperately? The only way I can see them being consistent is if everyone rooms together or if everyone is divided based on sexual attraction. Otherwise someone is getting less protection then someone else, which will only cause more problems in the future.

As I mentioned before, because
1. Gays are not necessarily attracted to straights.
2. Straights are most likely not attracted to gays.

The difference is that straight men and women actually have a far greater potential of "getting it on" than do a straight man and gay man.

As far as protection, I think you are going to need to provide a legitimate example for me to understand where you are coming from.

I mean, by your logic, why aren't we providing separate locker rooms for straight men, straight women, gay men, and gay women in every gym in the nation? Why not separate bathrooms?

[Danisty]

So, logically, it seems if the government kept the same room arrangements but knew that gay and straight people were being forced to room together that it would be opening itself up to all sorts of problems. For example, straight service members will often tease each other with gay porn, usually by trying to imply someone had it voluntarily. If an openly gay man got teased that way he could easily bring a sexual harassment suit againts the person who put it there, whereas a straight man would have a hard time bringing that suit. The same can be said if a gay man teased a hetero roommate the same way.If someone can't handle a little joking around, they are not cut out for the military in the first place.

[Ytterbium]

Only watched the first clip.

I don't think we have the problem here. Utilising conscription you just take the one who's fits best for a certain post. They couldn't care less what they think of while masturbating, which social class they're from or their political alignment would be.

In later years the defence forces have tried to become more open and "modern". About many "issues" such as homosexuality. The problem seems to be those who say it can't be done rather than the opposite.
While I underwent my military service, I can't recall it being macho or discrimating against women nor homosexuals.

[blueback]

As someone who has lived with straight and gay roommates alike, it seems like a nonissue to me. In a man/woman situation, there is a possibility that both parties would be sexually attracted to each other, however in a straight man/gay man situation, it is very unlikely that both members would be attracted to each other. The two situations are not even comparable.

Actually, the two situations are directly comparable. I don't care about the one situation you happened to be in, I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of situations that will result from changing the rules. Service members have little choice about who they room with; just because you happened to know a couple people who got along voluntarily doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of people forced to room together will all get along.

You keep saying that it is "unlikely" that having openly gay people room with hetero people will cause a problem. . .but do you have any numbers? Do you have a probability? I doubt you do. Even if you did, I doubt the probability is so low that you can have hundreds of thousands of potential incidents and no actual incident.

What do you think the probability is of a person buying 4 cars, leaving two of them on various highways and two more on their lawn and stopping payments on all of them? Seems pretty far-fetched, right? I know a person who supervised that guy. When you have a million people all doing things it is INEVITABLE that they will do everything, no matter who improbable.

That is sexual misconduct either way and it should be handled through the appropriate channels which already exist. It is unprofessional to act that way, and so I don't even see why it is a legitimate argument.

It's only "misconduct" if it offends you. If everyone thinks it's funny it's not misconduct. It is unprofessional to act a lot of ways which, none the less, people act in regularly. Therefore, claiming that becaus something is unprofessional no one will ever do it is not a legitimate argument.

If people never did unprofessional things many lawyers would be out of business. However, people do unprofessional things regularly, so we have to assume they will continue to do unprofessional things. Predicting the unprofessional actions that will result from a particular rule is perfectly legitimate.

1. Gays are not necessarily attracted to straights.

So? You keep coming back to this and I have yet to understand why it is relevant.

2. Straights are most likely not attracted to gays.

So? What does that have to do with anything? It's too vague to matter.

The difference is that straight men and women actually have a far greater potential of "getting it on" than do a straight man and gay man.

I never said that anyone would actually get to have sex, I just said it was the sexual attraction that caused problems.

As far as protection, I think you are going to need to provide a legitimate example for me to understand where you are coming from.

Women are protected from sexual harassment/assault by being housed seperately from men and, to a lesser extent, the men are protected from the women. That is why why are housed seperately; because each is sexually attracted to the other so if they are housed together any problems resulting are the government's fault. If the government allows gays to serve openly they will have to reevaluate that standard. How are they going to tell men that they have to room with gay men who are sexually attracted to them when they can't room with women who they are sexually attracted to?

If the government keeps the same standard they will have quite a problem applying it consistently. Straight men can all be housed togther. Straight women can all be housed together. Gay men can't be housed with any other men and gay women can't be housed with any other women. You could, theoretically, house a single gay man and a single gay woman together. That is the only way to maintain the same standards. If the government breaks any of those rules they will be opening themselves up to lawsuits by whichever party is being forced to room with people who find them sexually attractive.

Why not separate bathrooms?

Because the government has a higher standard than private organizations. Private organizations can simply make accepting their rules the price of admission. If you refuse to use the shower they provide you just don't come at all. The government, on the other hand, requires that people actually give up some of their rights before they join. That means that people can be ORDERED to do things. That means that the governemnt has to be more careful how it provides for its employees because if they walk away they are breaking a contract and will be prosecuted.

[Ytterbium]

I never experienced any problems during my service. Are American soldiers pumped with steriods and hornier than others?
We lived together with all kinds of people. No matter if somone are gay or female, we shared rooms and showers. No one cares. We had a female in our room and I couldn't care less. Even when we slept in tents, crammed together to keep warm. I never though of eww he might be gay or oh no females. Everyone was just to tired to even consider it. (There were other problems, if someone farted or snored. Solution, they got a lump of wood thrown at them.)
I'm straight and even though I usually to shy to talk to cute girls/women/ladies. I didn't have this problem as a conscript. I didn't see the females there as females but as comrades/companions with a common target. So naturally these were the subjects, how long one marched or how evil a certain captain is. That I had this discussion with a lesbian wasn't something I contemplated about back then.

I don't know why it would be so much different for any other country.

Edit: Deluxe, my 400th post! :cool:

[blueback]

I don't care whether or not any individuals ACTUALLY have a problem rooming with people who are sexually attracted to them. My point was that my government currently segregates people based on the idea that no one should have to room with a person who is sexually attracted to them. Therefore, if gays were allowed to serve openly, the standard would either cause a lot of logistical trouble or would have to be changed.

Stop trying to rebutt my argument with vague morality. I am not making an argument that rests on some personal interpretation of sexuality. My argument is based on the current governmental standard and how it would be severely complicated by allowing gays to serve openly.

At the moment, by pretending that gays don't exist, it is easy to deal with any incidents of a person being forced to room with a person who finds them sexually attractive. The gay lied, they outted themselves by comming on to someone else, they are discharged. End of problem. If, however, gays were allowed to serve openly, that solution would no longer work. If the government made no other change besides allowing gays to serve openly they would, in effect, be ordering people to cohabitate with someone who finds them sexually attractive. That would be a direct contradiction of the current standard which would require either changing the standard or imposing complicated logistical requirements.

[Lights]

Actually, the two situations are directly comparable. I don't care about the one situation you happened to be in, I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of situations that will result from changing the rules. Service members have little choice about who they room with; just because you happened to know a couple people who got along voluntarily doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of people forced to room together will all get along.

Well then we get back to the whole, why should we make anyone in the military be with people they don't like. Why make white supremacists room with blacks, why make fundamentalists Christians room with Muslims, and so forth? And do you honestly believe that our military is so unprofessional that it can't do what 24 other countries have done?

You keep saying that it is "unlikely" that having openly gay people room with hetero people will cause a problem. . .but do you have any numbers? Do you have a probability? I doubt you do. Even if you did, I doubt the probability is so low that you can have hundreds of thousands of potential incidents and no actual incident.

How do you know it will cause a problem? Do you have any numbers? Do you have a probability? I doubt you do. Even if you did, I doubt the probability is high enough to justify the current policy.

Why don't you start by looking at the countries that have allowed gays in their military. Do they have all the conflicts that you are proposing our country is going to have? Do they have to have different housing arrangements for gays and straights? I think you will find that reality is kinda kicking your ass here dude.

What do you think the probability is of a person buying 4 cars, leaving two of them on various highways and two more on their lawn and stopping payments on all of them? Seems pretty far-fetched, right? I know a person who supervised that guy. When you have a million people all doing things it is INEVITABLE that they will do everything, no matter who improbable.

Buying cars is irrelevant to this discussion.

It's only "misconduct" if it offends you. If everyone thinks it's funny it's not misconduct. It is unprofessional to act a lot of ways which, none the less, people act in regularly. Therefore, claiming that becaus something is unprofessional no one will ever do it is not a legitimate argument.

I think that would be your definition of misconduct. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is pretty clear on what constitutes misconduct, and a violation of standards, discipline, or good order, regardless of whether there is offense, could easily be drawn from the example you suggested.

If people never did unprofessional things many lawyers would be out of business. However, people do unprofessional things regularly, so we have to assume they will continue to do unprofessional things. Predicting the unprofessional actions that will result from a particular rule is perfectly legitimate.

It's our military's duty to be professional. Arguing that allowing gays in the military would not allow our servicemen and women to be unprofessional is ludicrous.

What about working with other militarys that allow gays to serve? Is it perfectly legitimate for our military to have unprofessional actions when they are forced to serve alongside foreign gay soldiers?

So? You keep coming back to this and I have yet to understand why it is relevant.

So? What does that have to do with anything? It's too vague to matter.

It's relevant because you are trying to compare two incomparable situations. Men and women are primarily separated based on gender, not sexual attraction. And even if that was the case, whereas women and men have the potential to have mutual attraction, that doesn't exist between gays and straights. The situations are logically incomparable.

I never said that anyone would actually get to have sex, I just said it was the sexual attraction that caused problems.

How? You have yet to provide one relevant example of how rooming with someone who has the potential to be attracted to you when you don't have an attraction to them can cause problems.

Women are protected from sexual harassment/assault by being housed seperately from men and, to a lesser extent, the men are protected from the women. That is why why are housed seperately; because each is sexually attracted to the other so if they are housed together any problems resulting are the government's fault. If the government allows gays to serve openly they will have to reevaluate that standard. How are they going to tell men that they have to room with gay men who are sexually attracted to them when they can't room with women who they are sexually attracted to?

If the government keeps the same standard they will have quite a problem applying it consistently. Straight men can all be housed togther. Straight women can all be housed together. Gay men can't be housed with any other men and gay women can't be housed with any other women. You could, theoretically, house a single gay man and a single gay woman together. That is the only way to maintain the same standards. If the government breaks any of those rules they will be opening themselves up to lawsuits by whichever party is being forced to room with people who find them sexually attractive.

As I said before, women and men are not a comparable example to straights rooming with gays. There is not the same potential for mutual attraction, nor is there the same potential for sexual misconduct. Your argument has no basis, because you are making the illogical assumption that sexual attraction alone is the issue of why men and women are separated. Men and women are primarily separated based on gender, not sexual attraction. That is why we say we separate "men" and "women" not "heterosexuals".

[blueback]

Your argument has no basis, because you are making the illogical assumption that sexual attraction alone is the issue of why men and women are separated. Men and women are primarily separated based on gender, not sexual attraction. That is why we say we separate "men" and "women" not "heterosexuals".

Men and women are separated based on sexual attraction. I'd like to throw a "duh" in there too, because your assertion that the segregation is arbitrarily based on sex, and not on sexual attraction, is absurd.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Sexual tensions and sex-based favoritism in intimate settings destroys cohesion whether it involves opposite- or same-sex attraction,” reports Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis. “If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals.”

The colleges say these claims only mask irrational prejudice. University administrators insist troops in mortal combat should be able to handle the tension of living in mixed quarters.

But it turns out that college kids living in dorms and frat houses, threatened by such dangers as beer kegs and basketball games, are quite a different matter.

Tufts, for example, in the same year it joined the lawsuit against the military, established “The Rainbow House,” a college residence for gay students that, according to its mission statement, “exists to provide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students and allies a housing option where their sexual orientation will not be an issue of conflict.” Carl Sciortino, the house manager, explained the difficulties gay students face in mixed living quarters: “Students in the past have found themselves having a major crush on their straight roommate, and that’s a really uncomfortable situation,” he told The Boston Globe. “There are roommate issues where homophobia becomes a major problem.”

In fact, the situation is so dire that colleges nationwide are establishing separate barracks for gays, not only as a haven from homophobic sophomores, but also to guard against emotional troubles gay students face in mixed living quarters...

...The universities had argued that the military’s ban on open homosexuality served no useful purpose, and was unrelated to the objectives of unit cohesion and privacy. Yet, as colleges themselves start sparing students the discomfort and sexual tension that mixed housing creates, they seem to be making much the opposite point"


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“The reason for banning cohabitation is to avoid sexual tension,” Lauren Krywanczyk, SM ’06, who identifies herself as “queer,” said. But “as far as sexual tension goes, for queer students [the current policy] worsens it because we aren’t able to choose the gender of the students we live with...

...The administration has not been supportive of the cohabitation campaign.Trachtenberg has expressed her personal disapproval of co-ed housing, citing problems such as sexual harassment...

...As an administrative policy, I have grave concerns about being able to implement it in a way that would be successful,” Sledge added, “There’re too many divided opinions and not a clear-enough consensus...

...Calhoun experimented with co-ed housing under Dean Eustace Theodore, PC ’63, in the 1970s, Sledge said. “[Theodore] said it was just a disaster—almost always, tensions arose among the people involved. Ambiguity arose about the nature of people’s relationships, and it became too complex to negotiate friendships when romance was a possibility,” Sledge said. “They had to stop doing it, not because of any moralistic or ethical reason, but because it was too impractical to administer”

[meanlittlechimp]

I don't care whether or not any individuals ACTUALLY have a problem rooming with people who are sexually attracted to them. My point was that my government currently segregates people based on the idea that no one should have to room with a person who is sexually attracted to them.

I think it might have more to do with the potential for rape and harassment that straight men would potentially inflict on women. I don't see that as much of an issue with gay men rooming with straight men, however. If anything, the gay men would be more likely to be harassed or have their rights violated from prejudice from the rednecks in the military who found out.

Gay men have been serving in every military in the history of civilization, and I don't think it led to issues. In fact, historically, there were probably significantly MORE gay men who have served in the past. They also don't segregrate gays in single sex dorm rooms in universities or prisons, so I don't see why they would in the military.

The bottom line is that a good percentage of that people that join the military, tend to be the type, who are homophobic; and they just don't like having fags in the military.

Perhaps I have misread that, but it sounds like you are pleased at the thought of homosexuals dying.

He's strangely abhorred by homosexual sex and their practictioners (and thinks they should be castrated), while necrophilia turns him on. Go figure.

[Lights]

Men and women are separated based on sexual attraction. I'd like to throw a "duh" in there too, because your assertion that the segregation is arbitrarily based on sex, and not on sexual attraction, is absurd.

I said gender, not sex, and I think you are the one who is being rather absurd here. You still don't get the simple logic that comparing the situation of men and women to the situation of straights and gays is idiotic. If you don't have the capacity to understand something as simple as that, then I'm not going to waste my time discussing it with you. I've provided 2 perfectly legitimate reasons why it is asinine to compare those situations, and you simply choose to ignore them because it doesn't bode well for your argument to seriously consider how your logic is flawed.

If you want to make an argument that "sexual tension" breaks down cohesion, then fine, but considering how many veterans I have heard say they simply don't care, many of whom have returned from serving in Iraq, I'm inclined to believe them over an article from 2000.

[blueback]

All right. I am going to procced as slowly as I can.

...comparing the situation of men and women to the situation of straights and gays is idiotic.

The situations are different when taken as a whole. However, on the specific aspect under discussion, they are very similar. The only two things we care about are the person's sex and their sexuality.

1) There are two kinds of people, X and Y
2) There are two kinds of sexualities, 1 and 2
3) Every person is either X1, X2, Y1, or Y2
4) X1's are attracted to Y's, X2's are attracted to X's, Y1's are attracted to X's, and Y2's are attracted to Y's
5) The government currently recognizes only the difference between X and Y
6) The government segregates X's and Y's because they are sexually attracted to each other and the government can't be responsible for forcing someone to live with a person who is sexually attracted to them.
7) The government doesn't segregate based on 1 or 2 because it doesn't acknowledge the distinction
8) If the government were to acknowledge the distinction between 1's and 2's it would suddenly have a problem with the way it segregates people
9) Based on the old reason for segregating the letters, the 2's can't room with their own letter because that is who they are attracted to and they can't room with the other letter because that is who is attracted to them
10) The only way for the government to acknowledge the distinction between the numbers is to isolate all the 2's or to remove segregation entirely. If it does anything else it will be applying a standard inconsistently and will have a hard time defending itself from litigation

I've provided 2 perfectly legitimate reasons why it is asinine to compare those situations, and you simply choose to ignore them because it doesn't bode well for your argument to seriously consider how your logic is flawed.

Well, you have provided two reasons, but I have debated their legitimacy and no one has backed you up. You haven't even been able to cite any other sources which agree with you.

I, on the other hand, have provided two citations of university administrators grappling with this exact problem. Even the schools which want the military to open up to gays find that the policy is much more difficult to implement than it is to call for. The simple fact is that to be consistent they have to make some very hard choices. When an administration provides housing, especially compulsory housing, it is responsible for everything that goes on there. That means that everyone there has to be provided with the same level of protection/freedoms.

Did you not read those articles?
...
If you want to make an argument that "sexual tension" breaks down cohesion,

. . .really?

I never made that argument. In fact I have already clearly stated that I never made that argument. I actually devoted most of a post to making sure that people who arrived at this debate with presuppositions didn't misinterpret my argument.

Since you probably won't scroll to find it, here is what I said: Stop trying to rebutt my argument with vague morality. I am not making an argument that rests on some personal interpretation of sexuality. My argument is based on the current governmental standard and how it would be severely complicated by allowing gays to serve openly.

At the moment, by pretending that gays don't exist, it is easy to deal with any incidents of a person being forced to room with a person who finds them sexually attractive. The gay lied, they outted themselves by comming on to someone else, they are discharged. End of problem. If, however, gays were allowed to serve openly, that solution would no longer work. If the government made no other change besides allowing gays to serve openly they would, in effect, be ordering people to cohabitate with someone who finds them sexually attractive. That would be a direct contradiction of the current standard which would require either changing the standard or imposing complicated logistical requirements.

then fine, but considering how many veterans I have heard say they simply don't care, many of whom have returned from serving in Iraq, I'm inclined to believe them over an article from 2000.

Oh, so you did read. . .and managed to miss the entire point.

I'll try to express this very carefully. . .

My argument has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anyone's opinion on homosexuality, morale, or unit cohesion. I am VERY CONFIDENT that the vast majority of service persons can live with people they are sexually attracted to without causing an incident. I am well aware of the HISTORICAL SUPPORT for allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

However, there is still the question of consistency. IF the government KNOWINGLY orders a person to live with another person who might find them sexually attractive, and then there is an incident, the government is at fault. Sure, the person who couldn't control their sexuality is responsible, but the government is responsible for structuring the situation such that it could happen more easily. In this discussion, if a man is forced to room with a gay man who ultimately causes an incident, then it is because the government didn't provide the man with the same protection it provides all the women who are not forced to room with straight men.

Please not that I'm not trying to induce homophobia by implying that a gay man might rape a straight man. I didn't specify the sexuality of the victim and I didn't specify the nature of the incident. Also, the example would work perfectly well if you replaced the men in the example with women of corresponding sexualities.

[Lights]

The situations are different when taken as a whole. However, on the specific aspect under discussion, they are very similar. The only two things we care about are the person's sex and their sexuality.

Wrong. You are taking the situation out of context by specifying the only reason men and women are segregated is because of the potential of sexual attraction. As I have said before, you are wrong because...

1. Men and Women are separated based on gender, not just the potential for sexual attraction.
2. Gays and straights do not have the same "sexual attraction" potential as men and women because straights are not attracted to gays, and gays are not necessarily attracted to straights.

1) There are two kinds of people, X and Y
2) There are two kinds of sexualities, 1 and 2
3) Every person is either X1, X2, Y1, or Y2
4) X1's are attracted to Y's, X2's are attracted to X's, Y1's are attracted to X's, and Y2's are attracted to Y's
5) The government currently recognizes only the difference between X and Y
6) The government segregates X's and Y's because they are sexually attracted to each other and the government can't be responsible for forcing someone to live with a person who is sexually attracted to them. False: the government separates X and Y because first, they are different genders, and second, because they may have a sexual attraction to each other.
7) The government doesn't segregate based on 1 or 2 because it doesn't acknowledge the distinction
8) If the government were to acknowledge the distinction between 1's and 2's it would suddenly have a problem with the way it segregates people
9) Based on the old reason for segregating the letters, the 2's can't room with their own letter because that is who they are attracted to and they can't room with the other letter because that is who is attracted to them False: it assumes that that gays would be attracted to straights.
10) The only way for the government to acknowledge the distinction between the numbers is to isolate all the 2's or to remove segregation entirely. If it does anything else it will be applying a standard inconsistently and will have a hard time defending itself from litigation False: this conclusion was reached with 2 false premises and therefore is void.

I, on the other hand, have provided two citations of university administrators grappling with this exact problem. Even the schools which want the military to open up to gays find that the policy is much more difficult to implement than it is to call for. The simple fact is that to be consistent they have to make some very hard choices. When an administration provides housing, especially compulsory housing, it is responsible for everything that goes on there. That means that everyone there has to be provided with the same level of protection/freedoms.

Find an article that isn't half a decade old and we will talk.

Nevermind, I am not going to engage in a back and forth with you. Your logic is wrong, you don't the capacity to understand why, and I have no interest in further wasting my time.

[Ytterbium]

At the moment, by pretending that gays don't exist, it is easy to deal with any incidents of a person being forced to room with a person who finds them sexually attractive. The gay lied, they outted themselves by comming on to someone else, they are discharged. End of problem. If, however, gays were allowed to serve openly, that solution would no longer work. If the government made no other change besides allowing gays to serve openly they would, in effect, be ordering people to cohabitate with someone who finds them sexually attractive. That would be a direct contradiction of the current standard which would require either changing the standard or imposing complicated logistical requirements.If someone does anything stupid whether it's sexual or not they're going to get punished for it one way or another. It's not like it's only gays doing bad things or is it? Will the sky turn dark and the world fall apart if someones says they're gay? I don't think so, they'll probably be just as good/bad as anyone else, gay or not. I don't know if being a gay is a crime in the states, but exclude them just because that is just silly. It's like to stone the woman and not the male that raped her.

However, there is still the question of consistency. IF the government KNOWINGLY orders a person to live with another person who might find them sexually attractive, and then there is an incident, the government is at fault. Sure, the person who couldn't control their sexuality is responsible, but the government is responsible for structuring the situation such that it could happen more easily. In this discussion, if a man is forced to room with a gay man who ultimately causes an incident, then it is because the government didn't provide the man with the same protection it provides all the women who are not forced to room with straight men.I wonder if it actually best for everyone to live together. It takes away that hormone filled 10 year old boy at a summer camp issue. Peeking at the women etc. If people lived together they'll see women also eat, sleep and does number two like everyone else. This includes gay people aswell. If you going to have the gays separeted, they will be a turn on for eachother. How would that work? Let them all live together as that would be the easiest way to handle it.

I can't recall that argument in the gun laws thread. :laugh:

[blueback]

Wrong. You are taking the situation out of context by specifying the only reason men and women are segregated is because of the potential of sexual attraction.

I'm still not getting why you think that the gender segragation is arbitrary. Men and women aren't segragated because one group likes blue and the other likes pink. They are segragated because each group wants to sex up the other group. This isn't a grade school treehouse. The government doesn't put up "no girls allowed" signs. No one thinks that the opposite sex has cooties. Men want to have sex with women and women want to have sex with men. The government can't give the impression it is endorsing extra-marital sex in the facilities it provides, so it segragates the sexes. The segragation is based on sexuality.

The segragation is not based on the fact that one group is called girls and one group is called guys. No one cares what gender someone is. The military still technically prohibits women from serving on the front lines, but they effectively don't care because they don't make much of an effort to keep them off the front lines. Even then, women aren't forbidden from getting shot at because they are women, but becaues the men might take it harder if they see a woman with her guts spilled out than a man. Again, the segragation is not based simply on gender.

Group bathrooms, say at a gym, are segragated because the sexes don't mind being seen naked by members of their own sex. It is a privacy thing. Again, it is not simply because one group is male and the other is female, it is because the interaction between the two when you put them together is undesirable.

2. Gays and straights do not have the same "sexual attraction" potential as men and women because straights are not attracted to gays, and gays are not necessarily attracted to straights.

Yeah. . .this idea is pretty weak too. Sexual attraction, no matter who's it is, has very little to do with the opinion of the other person. I have absolutely no trouble being sexually attracted to women who don't find me sexually attractive and I have a friend who has a lot of women sexually attracted to him that he is not sexually attracted to in return. I've been hit on by gay guys before and even made friends with one of them. It was no different from fending off the friendly advances of a girl who got a crush on me.

For someone who claims to be so open-minded you apparently don't get out much. There is a well known phenomenon where people of one sex try to "convert" people of the sex they are sexually attracted to. Women go to gay bars and try to get gay guys to sleep with them. Gay men try to get straight men to "experiment." Sexual attraction isn't based on whether or not it is reciprocated.

Unless I'm wrong. Do you have some sort of support for the idea that there is a significant difference between the sexual attraction straight males feel for straight females and gay females? I know it wouldn't matter to me. Would a gay guy who crushed on a guy, but found out he was straight, suddenly lose all sexual attraction? I don't think you can support that idea at all.

Find an article that isn't half a decade old and we will talk.

No. You can't dismiss my argument by pretending that the support I have is "too old." This isn't an issue with an expiration date. The argument I made is simple logic; it doesn't have anything to do with the date. I didn't make a single argument that depends on time.

If you REALLY wanted to talk you would have made the slight effort required to back up your own argument. As it stands now, I have supported my argument, you haven't supported yours. Just try googling your argument and see if ANYONE backs you up. I think that the reason you haven't yet is that you can't find any sources which say anything in support of your argument.





blueback added to this post, 6 minutes and 41 seconds later...


If someone does anything stupid whether it's sexual or not they're going to get punished for it one way or another.

congratulations on stating the obvious. I never said anything which contradicts this.

It's not like it's only gays doing bad things or is it? Will the sky turn dark and the world fall apart if someones says they're gay?

Did you read anything more than the very last post? I already explained, in detail, that my argument has nothing to do with a personal interpretation of sexuality.

I don't know if being a gay is a crime in the states, but exclude them just because that is just silly. It's like to stone the woman and not the male that raped her.

You're making emotional appeals because you either skipped reading my argument or don't understand it.

At the moment, gays are not excluded from serving in the military. No one has told gays that they cannot serve. What they cannot do is serve if they are openly gay. It is a subtle distinction, I know, but that is why it was made in the first place. The idea that the military "can't handle" openly gay service members is absurd. But, just like giving blacks equal rights, change takes time. Change will come in small increments because you have to gradually wear down resistance.

It takes away that hormone filled 10 year old boy at a summer camp issue.

America has a strong undercurrent of conservative religious values in its culture. We regulate nudity much more heavily than many other countries of equal standing in the world. Good, bad, whatever. That's the way it is.

However, that has nothing to do with my argument.

If you going to have the gays separeted, they will be a turn on for eachother. How would that work? Let them all live together as that would be the easiest way to handle it.

I already covered that. . .but thanks for not keeping up at all.

[Ytterbium]

congratulations on stating the obvious. I never said anything which contradicts this.You wrote it wouldn't work that way if people were openly gay. I stated it would work perfectly fine. You're supposed to be judged and punished by the faults one commited. Not any group or wing the person belongs to. Instead people are judged in the very beginning without any chance to prove that they can do it.
The problem lies within the society, it's nothing wrong with the gays. As I'm sure you think too.

Did you read anything more than the very last post? I already explained, in detail, that my argument has nothing to do with a personal interpretation of sexuality.Yes I know, have I written something else? But you're still against it. You say it will never work and so on. I say the problem lies in those whom say it don't work. As they aren't willing to find any solutions to it, because it just won't work. Thus ignoring it completly or even work against it.

You're making emotional appeals because you either skipped reading my argument or don't understand it.

At the moment, gays are not excluded from serving in the military. No one has told gays that they cannot serve. What they cannot do is serve if they are openly gay. It is a subtle distinction, I know, but that is why it was made in the first place. The idea that the military "can't handle" openly gay service members is absurd. But, just like giving blacks equal rights, change takes time. Change will come in small increments because you have to gradually wear down resistance.I drew a parallel, there's no emotion in that.
So are you saying it needs time and you "delay" the process by saying it won't work? Stating the obvious stand point of the population is one thing. The other thing is to find a solution for this. Where lies the problem? Why's there a problem? Which are the ways to solve these problems?

America has a strong undercurrent of conservative religious values in its culture. We regulate nudity much more heavily than many other countries of equal standing in the world. Good, bad, whatever. That's the way it is.

However, that has nothing to do with my argument.

I already covered that. . .but thanks for not keeping up at all.Yes it's extremly silly. The process won't go faster by ignoring it. I provided some "solutions" to try out to see if it works. They can use a garrison as an experiment and see how it works. Which they then can evaluate, how it worked. If it were good or bad and why it was like that. There's a lot to win in that, logistics as you said for instance.

[blueback]

You wrote it wouldn't work that way if people were openly gay.

You know why you had to use the words "it" and "that?" Because if you had been more specific you wouldn't have had anything to say.

What I said was that the government's current standard, which is to not force people to room with other people who might find them sexually attractive, would be very difficult to implement if gays were allowed to serve openly.

I didn't say anything remotely related to "the military would break if it had to accept gays."

Where lies the problem? Why's there a problem? Which are the ways to solve these problems?

People are stupid.
People are stupid.
Time and pressure.

There's a lot to win in that, logistics as you said for instance.

If the government wants to keep the same standard and apply it consitently they will have to isolate individual homosexuals. They could, potentiall, let a gay man and a gay woman room together, but other than that all gays would have to room individually. That is why I said there would be a logistical problem.

If the government wants to avoid that problem they could simply give up the current standard that people don't room with those who could find them sexually attractive and make everyone room together.

I suppose they could also simply have everyone room seperately, but that would be an even bigger logistical problem.

I'm pretty sure I've listed these solutions before.

[Karamazov]

If the government wants to keep the same standard and apply it consitently they will have to isolate individual homosexuals. They could, potentiall, let a gay man and a gay woman room together, but other than that all gays would have to room individually. That is why I said there would be a logistical problem.

If the government wants to avoid that problem they could simply give up the current standard that people don't room with those who could find them sexually attractive and make everyone room together.

I suppose they could also simply have everyone room seperately, but that would be an even bigger logistical problem.

I'm pretty sure I've listed these solutions before.

I'm curious. Have countries who allowed gays to openly serve in the military, found a way around this little dilemma concerning the logistics of it all? That you know of I mean.

Just want to hear you're take on this since I understand America's cultural mores so far as sexuality is concerned, but how this issue (or non-issue) was handled internationally.

[blueback]

Not that I've been able to find, and I admit that I've looked, but not very hard.

I found evidence that American universities are having trouble figuring out how to house people of various sexualities in their dormitories.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is an interesting read. The conclusions are not new, but the evidence cited to support them is stimulating.

I figure that there won't be a problem integrating openly gay recruits into the service; it's just a matter of getting over the natural fear of something new. Like you, though, I am curious how the government will resolve the problem I laid out in my argument.

[Karamazov]

I never really considered the practicality of matter until you brought it up, since this debate has always been centered on the supposed "ethics" and "morality" of homosexuals openly serving in the military, potentially harming the Judeo-Christian sensibilities of service men and women. Those advocating gays to serve openly have always pointed to other countries like Israel and the United Kingdom, but never as to how this would come about.


I've seen this, as you've probably have, reasoning being trotted out constantly by military leaders, representatives and politician alike. Other than concerns of unit cohesion, I have yet to hear an argument like yours from anybody.

edit- I thought this was interesting. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Even though countries have sanctioned gays to openly serve in the military, there is are still some issues.

[blueback]

Thank you. It's nice that at least one other person understood what I was trying to say. I think I can go to sleep now ;-)

[Ytterbium]

You know why you had to use the words "it" and "that?" Because if you had been more specific you wouldn't have had anything to say.I don't know how everthing work there in the states. But you wrote it wouldn't work. However it does work and can't be blamed.

What I said was that the government's current standard, which is to not force people to room with other people who might find them sexually attractive, would be very difficult to implement if gays were allowed to serve openly.

I didn't say anything remotely related to "the military would break if it had to accept gays."Ofcourse it is, that's why you abolish that. If someone clearly can't keep their hands where they shouldn't be, they shall not serve at all. Either you can sort them out when they talk to psychologists before they serve. Others may slip through, but will get punished if they'll do anything stupid.
Being forced to sleep in the same room as women or gays. I think that's a small problem compared to what people get forced to do in defence forces. As serving in the US is a "volontary" choice to serve. Why can't the forces lay out some rules or ethics regarding those willing to serve? They can't be so desperate that they just takes anyone and ask them to shut up about what they've done earlier in their lifes?

People are stupid.
People are stupid.
Time and pressure.So it seems. Put some pressure then.

If the government wants to keep the same standard and apply it consitently they will have to isolate individual homosexuals. They could, potentiall, let a gay man and a gay woman room together, but other than that all gays would have to room individually. That is why I said there would be a logistical problem.That's why you need some people with courage and say this is it. Lumping all together.

If the government wants to avoid that problem they could simply give up the current standard that people don't room with those who could find them sexually attractive and make everyone room together.

I suppose they could also simply have everyone room seperately, but that would be an even bigger logistical problem.

I'm pretty sure I've listed these solutions before.So how does the process/progress go then?
Here a muslim women completed her service last year. If that's possible then why can't these things be done in the states.
Yes the culture and conservatism whatever, but it go no further if it stands still stamping.

[Lights]

I think that the reason you haven't yet is that you can't find any sources which say anything in support of your argument.

To the contrary, I just think it is a waste of time to argue the logistics of cohabitation. The UK, Spain, France, and many of the other countries in Europe don't have the logistics problems you are suggesting even though they have gays that openly serve in the military and who are bunked with their straight counterparts. Somebody has already provided a link that demonstrates this. What else do I need to know? It's one thing for you to make malicious insinuations about who is trying to get into whose pants, but it is quite another when the reality is so apparent. Of course, since you are so certain it is an issue, then why not simply provide sources that demonstrate how these other militarys that have allowed gays have had difficulties? And if you can't do that, then please provide sources that demonstrate how the US military is so vastly inferior that it can't do the same?

What is readily observable trumps logistical speculation.

[blueback]

Yeah, I'll do that. I'll keep working on the issue, doing research and whatnot, while you cry into your pillow. Or, you know, you might be enough of a grownup to provide ONE source that supports your argument. . .let alone two like I did.

I really don't understand why you two think that my argument has anything to do with morality. All I have ever said, from the beginning of this debate to now, is that the CURRENT government standard will be much more difficult to implement fairly if gays are allowed to serve openly. Maybe you want gays to be accepted everywhere with open arms, yesterday, and that is blinding you to what I am saying. Maybe you are intentionally misinterpreting me. Maybe you just aren't much good with reading comprehension. . . I don't know.

I don't care enough about your pathetic attempt to argue with me to explain my personal opinion of gays in the military again (cuz I already did). The argument I have presented is pure logic and has nothing to do with morality.

[Lights]

Yeah, I'll do that. I'll keep working on the issue, doing research and whatnot, while you cry into your pillow. Or, you know, you might be enough of a grownup to provide ONE source that supports your argument. . .let alone two like I did.

I really don't understand why you two think that my argument has anything to do with morality. All I have ever said, from the beginning of this debate to now, is that the CURRENT government standard will be much more difficult to implement fairly if gays are allowed to serve openly. Maybe you want gays to be accepted everywhere with open arms, yesterday, and that is blinding you to what I am saying. Maybe you are intentionally misinterpreting me. Maybe you just aren't much good with reading comprehension. . . I don't know.

I don't care enough about your pathetic attempt to argue with me to explain my personal opinion of gays in the military again (cuz I already did). The argument I have presented is pure logic and has nothing to do with morality.

Why do I have to waste my time googling when I know I am right. If you are so certain that I am wrong then prove it. Stop being such a sore loser. Hell, somebody already provided a link that totally pwned you.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And I dare you to prove where I have ever argued even once with you about the morality of this issue.

[blueback]

Oh, look. The article says that straight service members are comfortable serving with gay service members. . .
...none of the British military's fears - about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness - has come to pass...There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end...

. . .just like I did. . .
The idea that the military "can't handle" openly gay service members is absurd...I am VERY CONFIDENT that the vast majority of service persons can live with people they are sexually attracted to without causing an incident....I didn't say anything remotely related to "the military would break if it had to accept gays."...I figure that there won't be a problem integrating openly gay recruits into the service; it's just a matter of getting over the natural fear of something new


You said. . .
To the contrary, I just think it is a waste of time to argue the logistics of cohabitation...It's one thing for you to make malicious insinuations about who is trying to get into whose pants

All I've been talking about is the logistics. Logistics is the conclusion of my argument. Well, I suppose it would be more accurate to say "legalities," but the logistic problems would be a direct result of however they decide to resolve that inconsistency. You keep trying to cast doubt on my purely logical argument by pulling in unrelated topics to support your conclusion that it is fundamentally "right" for gays to serve openly.

You said. . .
why should we make anyone in the military be with people they don't like. Why make white supremacists room with blacks, why make fundamentalists Christians room with Muslims...Do [other countries] have all the conflicts that you are proposing our country is going to have...whereas women and men have the potential to have mutual attraction, that doesn't exist between gays and straights...The UK, Spain, France, and many of the other countries in Europe...have gays that openly serve...demonstrate how these other militarys that have allowed gays have had difficulties...demonstrate how the US military is so vastly inferior

You haven't use the word 'right,' but the only reason I can think of for going off topic is that you think it is 'right' for gays to serve in the military openly and any argument which appears to slow that down is therefore 'wrong.' You seem to be arguing with what you think my motivations are, rather than the words I'm saying (typing). Why else would you ignore the fact that I agree that there won't be a problem with service members' homophobia, but that I think the problem will be in maintaining a fair administrative system?

[Karamazov]

Why do I have to waste my time googling when I know I am right. If you are so certain that I am wrong then prove it. Stop being such a sore loser. Hell, somebody already provided a link that totally pwned you.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And I dare you to prove where I have ever argued even once with you about the morality of this issue.

I posted that link alluding to how the British seemed to have more or less accepted gays in the military, but not without it's own set of unresolved issues.

However, how they were able to implement this policy without running into the problems addressed by blueback is still not clear, so far as the British military is concerned. I'm looking into this further.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Pretty much dealing with the same problem of logistics.

Even so, since homosexuals still serve in the military anyway, alongside heterosexual servicemen and women, would it really change anything? I'm sure NCO's and above on the chain of command have all known or been in the company of homosexuals, without the need for separate stalls or barracks. Perhaps other countries didn't feel the need to burden themselves with this issue by simply keeping men apart from women, regardless of orientation? If that's the case then this is no longer an issue.

[blueback]

The problem, as that article states, is that no one wants to talk about this stuff. The British military is apparently having a really easy time and they won't even release a statement. It's difficult to find evidence of what is really going on.

[Lights]

All I've been talking about is the logistics. Logistics is the conclusion of my argument. Well, I suppose it would be more accurate to say "legalities," but the logistic problems would be a direct result of however they decide to resolve that inconsistency. You keep trying to cast doubt on my purely logical argument by pulling in unrelated topics to support your conclusion that it is fundamentally "right" for gays to serve openly.

Uh...huh. That is why you said this...

There is a well known phenomenon where people of one sex try to "convert" people of the sex they are sexually attracted to. Women go to gay bars and try to get gay guys to sleep with them. Gay men try to get straight men to "experiment." Sexual attraction isn't based on whether or not it is reciprocated.

If that isn't making malicious speculations and over generalizations of who is trying to get into whose pants, then I don't know what is. Of course, I'm sure since you are arguing this "logically" you have a study to demonstrate that these types of people are the same types who are interested in military service.

You haven't use the word 'right,' but the only reason I can think of for going off topic is that you think it is 'right' for gays to serve in the military openly and any argument which appears to slow that down is therefore 'wrong.' You seem to be arguing with what you think my motivations are, rather than the words I'm saying (typing). Why else would you ignore the fact that I agree that there won't be a problem with service members' homophobia, but that I think the problem will be in maintaining a fair administrative system?

I didn't go off topic. It was in reply to this comment.

Actually, the two situations are directly comparable. I don't care about the one situation you happened to be in, I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of situations that will result from changing the rules. Service members have little choice about who they room with; just because you happened to know a couple people who got along voluntarily doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of people forced to room together will all get along.

You tried to make an argument that only people who get along should be roomed together and I refuted it. Seriously, taking quotes out of context is pretty weak. I'm still waiting for my example of where we ever went into the morality of this issue.





Lights added to this post, 13 minutes and 43 seconds later...

I posted that link alluding to how the British seemed to have more or less accepted gays in the military, but not without it's own set of unresolved issues.

However, how they were able to implement this policy without running into the problems addressed by blueback is still not clear, so far as the British military is concerned. I'm looking into this further.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Pretty much dealing with the same problem of logistics.

Even so, since homosexuals still serve in the military anyway, alongside heterosexual servicemen and women, would it really change anything? I'm sure NCO's and above on the chain of command have all known or been in the company of homosexuals, without the need for separate stalls or barracks. Perhaps other countries didn't feel the need to burden themselves with this issue by simply keeping men apart from women, regardless of orientation? If that's the case then this is no longer an issue.

From what I understand, they just changed the policy without even changing habitation situations. Everywhere I've looked it has said that they didn't face any major issues from doing so. But if you do come across pertinent information either way, then please post it.

[Antares]

Well, addressing the fourth speaker's point about forcing the intolerant bigots to tolerate gays in the military (religious convictions or otherwise), I can only say that religious conviction is the worse possible reason to make any decision regarding people's rights and equality. Your religion doesn't mean crap to anybody else. She thinks that the people who agree with this policy would be forced to leave. I despair the fact that some people can't recognize their own biases (Your biased opinions DON'T matter! Nobody cares!); I'm not hot on homosexuality myself, but I would argue for their rights whenever they are being threatened. Tolerate no dissent? So far her opposition said nothing about forcing the people who don't like gays out of the military. As long as they agree to disagree, I don't see the problem. Straw-men anyone? She's creating a slippery slope as well.