[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Service in the military is not a civil right. Membership in the armed services is subject to any number of restrictions generally deemed unacceptable and even illegal outside the military.

That said, all men and women of equal ability should be treated by equal rules. One group shouldn't be banned from being able to have sex with their chosen, consenting, partner if it has no harm on others.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That said, all men and women of equal ability should be treated by equal rules. One group shouldn't be banned from being able to have sex with their chosen, consenting, partner if it has no harm on others.

A) men and women are different and their abilities are not equal. It follows that their treatment would apply to their uniqueness.
B) men and women are barracked apart for many reasons. These reasons do not magically disappear contingent upon gender, but simply must be rendered to a policy of "ignorance is bliss" and "TMI man, TMI". There's just no other effective policy. Equal treatment across the board would require serious consideration to either coed barracks overall or a third quartering arrangement. I'm guessing the complexity of this notion is presently outweighing the benefit of open homosexuality in the military.
C) Equal treatment, fairness, civil rights, freedoms... these are all concepts the military may or may not regard. If you've done your homework, you know this going in. Your loss of sexual rights is among the least of the civil rights you lose upon joining. If you're not ready to all, but entirely abandon your lifestyle prior to joining, you're not ready to join. It's as simple as this.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A) men and women are different and their abilities are not equal. It follows that their treatment would apply to their uniqueness.

Agreed, to a degree. Most men are certainly going to be better at some military roles than most women. Having said that, *some* women will be better than *some* men at those same roles. Also, there are some military roles where most men and most women will be equally equally effective. Treatment should be based solely on ability and effectiveness at the role than on whether the soldier (male or female) prefers to have sex with men or women.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Agreed, to a degree. Most men are certainly going to be better at some military roles than most women. Having said that, *some* women will be better than *some* men at those same roles. Also, there are some military roles where most men and most women will be equally equally effective. Treatment should be based solely on ability and effectiveness at the role than on whether the soldier (male or female) prefers to have sex with men or women.

It doesn't matter whether someone prefers to have sex with men or women. I've already given the numbers of them in the military. You can't just walk up to an officer, tell him you're gay and expect to get discharged. It doesn't work that way. It's entirely contingent upon their conduct while active. Again, there are a wealth of civil rights losses upon joining, who you prefer to have sex with the least of them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't matter whether someone prefers to have sex with men or women. I've already given the numbers of them in the military. You can't just walk up to an officer, tell him you're gay and expect to get discharged. It doesn't work that way. It's entirely contingent upon their conduct while active. Again, there are a wealth of civil rights losses upon joining, who you prefer to have sex with the least of them.

What happens to a heterosexual when they choose to have consensual sex with someone of preferred gender while they're active but off-duty?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Civil rights abuses are not a matter of scale. For just one single person to be deprived of their rights is still a terrible thing that we should fight against. Even when we are a part of the majority we should still hold dear and fight for the rights of the minority.

Which is why I opposed open homosexuality in the military.

People should not be deprived of their basic right to privacy so that people can keep from having their sexual choices free from judgement, something that has no real Constitutional protection.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You know, your constant use of the phrase "my body used for sexual gratification" indicates two things:

First off, you have one damn big ego about your body and your appearance. You're making a very generalized assumption that any gay man is going to want to ogle your little man at any opportunity.

I'm assuming 2 things:

1. Most humans enjoy looking at well kept speciments of their prefered gender naked, because it gratifies them sexually.

2. Most people in the military by nature of the service itself, are reasonably physically fit, thereby having attractive bodies.

Which of these two observations do you disagree with?

Secondly, your wording indicates an almost perverse interest in what would happen. People can use anything for sexual gratification - not just penises and vaginas. The plushie subculture of furries find teddy bears to be sexually gratifying. A straight woman might find your hair to be very attractive, although you've not yet indicated that you'd have any issue with a woman "using your body for sexual gratification".

So answer that. Do you have an equal problem with a sexy female member of the military seeing you and later fantasizing about you? Or is that okay, since you might find her equally sexually gratifying?

I would have a problem with her seeing me naked, unless it was based on us mutually consenting to a close, physical relationship. I already stated that I prefer to give consent to even sexy women to see me naked, based on the notion that the beauty of a person's naked body is a gift one can give someone special. If every woman (or gay man) gets to see it, then it's not so special and it violates my basic rights to privacy.

Do you look at a woman in a low-cut top and find her breasts to be sexually gratifying, or have you mastered your mind to the point where you can look at Anna Kournikova and not be remotely attracted or turned on by her body?

I'm assuming that if a woman wears clothing that accentuates her breasts, that she wants them to be looked at and is giving consent. If while wearing that low-cut top, she goes into a bathroom and takes off the top, I don't think I should have the right to go in and look at her breasts without her consent. When we go out in public in a mixed sex setting, where you have no reason to believe that there are not people in view who might find you sexually attractive, you wear whatever you consent to being seen in. That's where your analogy fails.

If you have, then I applaud you. If you haven't, however, then you are no different than a gay male finding you attractive.

I never said I had a problem with gay men finding me attractive. In fact, I've said I have no problem with that. Despite my lack of concern, I still will refuse to allow them to look at me naked because that kind of attention is unwanted and unnecessary. Again, it's the question about what should require consent and what shouldn't. I think most people believe that you should be able to consent to allow someone who might find you sexually attractive see you naked. Otherwise, there would be mixed sex showers galore, and there ain't!z

The issue is that a homosexual faces dishonorable discharge from the military if they are found to be engaging in homosexual acts while off duty. This is completely unfair.

Absent a draft, no one is forcing them to be in the military, where it is inconsistent with military training and unit cohesiveness for people to be bunked together with those who might find them sexually desirable. As it's been stated, there is no "civil right" to be allowed to serve in the military or even to not have your sexual choices free from judgement.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Stupendousman, it's possible that a gay guy could be aroused just by your sparkling personality without ever seeing your hot naked body.

That's usually the case, yes.

While that does flatter me, I usually chose not to go the next step and allow them to see me naked, since that's my right as per Constitutional protections regarding personal privacy. That "next level" is an area which I'm not interested in sharing with them because I'm not a tease, and I choose to only share that with people I have an interest in romantically.

You'd better not talk to anybody, just in case they happen to go home to gratify themselves to the thought of you.

That's the burden of being being beautiful and having a lot of personal charisma. I'm just glad that there are legal protections in place to make sure that I don't have to share my naked body with all those people. That would be quite odd and tiring. I don't think that I should have to give up that right just because I might belong to a branch of military service. Especially when they already segregate the sexes to avoid having additional sexual stimulus and distractions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What happens to a heterosexual when they choose to have consensual sex with someone of preferred gender while they're active but off-duty?

Depends on what kind of sex you have and who you have it with. The restrictions on sexual conduct remain whether you're on or off duty.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Service in the military is not a civil right. ... If you're not ready to abandon most of your civil liberties and your overall lifestyle in general to enlist in the military, you're not ready for the military. It is what it is. Take it or leave it. There's little room for naive, ideological hubris with regard to this issue IMO. Nothing is this black and white, particularly military service.

Funny, isn't that the exact same argument I was making before in regards to your ridiculous claim that using communal showers in the military with a gay man would violate your right to privacy? At that point you seemed to be quite sure that one did not have to abandon civil liberties to enlist in the military. Glad to see that you've come around to my way of thinking.

Besides, I was responding to your explicit claim that since there are only very few gays in the military, the number of people having their civil rights violated by the don't ask, don't tell policy are so small as to be meaningless. If anyone here is claiming that military service is a civil right it's you; I am claiming only that all people have a right to be judged on their merit and treated accordingly, rather than on whether or not the nature of their existence is offensive to some haughty few.

My claim rests on well established concepts of equality and human dignity. Yours seems to rest on some poorly defined, and heretofore unrecognized right to not be thought of in certain ways by certain people.

[Edit: it appears that in coming back to this conversation after several hours away I made a mistake of identity with this post. However I think the basic princple of it stands regardless so I'm leaving it as is.]

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is why I opposed open homosexuality in the military.

People should not be deprived of their basic right to privacy so that people can keep from having their sexual choices free from judgement, something that has no real Constitutional protection.

You realize that there is absolutely no logic in this statement whatsoever, don't you? What you're saying is not that you're afraid of this supposed violation of your rights (which I still contend does not exist under any reasonable conception of rights), but that you're afraid of knowing about this supposed violation of rights. You're perfectly happy to have gay guys oggling you and masturbating to the image of your naked body, just so long as you don't know about it. In otherwords, your very own argument defeats itself: you are illustrating that you have no concern for your privacy.

Furthermore, the argument for a Constitutional right to privacy, whether it includes the fanciful machinations of the depraved homosexual mind or not, is on rather shaky ground being established largely through Roe v. Wade. The very same Roe v. Wade that most people who would prefer to see gays barred from the military want to see overturned. So really you have a choice: do you want gays serving in the military or do you want to outlaw abortion? According to your arguments, they are mutually incompatible goals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Funny, isn't that the exact same argument I was making before in regards to your ridiculous claim that using communal showers in the military with a gay man would violate your right to privacy? At that point you seemed to be quite sure that one did not have to abandon civil liberties to enlist in the military. Glad to see that you've come around to my way of thinking.

Nice

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You realize that there is absolutely no logic in this statement whatsoever, don't you?

No. Neither do I realize that up is down, right is left, and green is blue.

What you're saying is not that you're afraid of this supposed violation of your rights (which I still contend does not exist under any reasonable conception of rights), but that you're afraid of knowing about this supposed violation of rights.

Not "afraid of knowing". I just think that it's better for there to be an assumption of privacy due to people having to walk a very thin line behavior-wise when we are talking about something that there's maybe about a .50 of ever happening. It's much better for unit cohesion if there is a situation where you have a small percent chance of something happening, and then since the rules require secrecy, people not knowing if something actually happened or not. Ignorance is bliss. I'm willing to accept it as "middle ground" i guess. Truthfully, gays shouldn't be allowed in the military.

You're perfectly happy to have gay guys oggling you and masturbating to the image of your naked body, just so long as you don't know about it.

Actually, no. But being the charitable guy I am, I think that would be the limit of my tolerance for such behavior if it meant have a better ability to kick enemy @sses.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a homosexual checks out his fellow soldier's package and no one knows he's done it, or has a desire to do it, is likely to cause problems with group cohesion and morale? Not likely. Remember, it's not about what's politically correct - it's about what gets the job done with minimal distraction. We essentially have the same situation with "don't ask, don't tell" as we've always had in regards to invasions of privacy, only now gays can serve if they can overcome their desires for the same sex and keep their focus on their job. I know that sounds harsh, but this isn't Disneyland - it's life or death and soldiers shouldn't have to be distracted by this kind of stuff when they are busy learning to kill.

In otherwords, your very own argument defeats itself: you are illustrating that you have no concern for your privacy.

I'm not going to start a fight with a guy who has been watching my wife undress if I don't know he's been doing it. I don't want him to do it, but my wife is really hot so I assume that people might try. If you tell me which one has actually tried, I'm going to bust him in the nose and things will get ugly. It's better for general peace keeping if anyone succeeds can do it without my knowledge, because if I find out someone has succeeded, there will be hell to pay. There is no lack of concern for privacy if I'm willing to conceed that people will want to look at my wife naked, and that some might do it and get away with it. I'd be giving up my right to privacy if I KNEW someone was doing it and I did nothing.

Furthermore, the argument for a Constitutional right to privacy, whether it includes the fanciful machinations of the depraved homosexual mind or not, is on rather shaky ground being established largely through Roe v. Wade.

If RvW is on "shaky ground", that's for another thread.

The very same Roe v. Wade that most people who would prefer to see gays barred from the military want to see overturned. So really you have a choice: do you want gays serving in the military or do you want to outlaw abortion? According to your arguments, they are mutually incompatible goals.

I don't want to "outlaw abortion". Though, not because your theory about the two things being "mutually incompatible". It can be argued that once a new life is involved, there is a diminishing of the "right" in question. Even the court said that in RvW. That's why they left open restrictions on abortions in the third trimester.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... only now gays can serve if they can overcome their desires for the same sex and keep their focus on their job. I know that sounds harsh, but this isn't Disneyland - it's life or death and soldiers shouldn't have to be distracted by this kind of stuff when they are busy learning to kill.

Perhaps *everyone* serving in the military, heteros and homos alike, should be required to overcome their desires for sex so that they can keep their focus on their job? As you say, it isn't Disneyland.

[lpkmckenna]

We've had gays in the Canadian military for more than a decade. It's worked out fine. Ignore the fringe right and their opinions - arguing with them about it is more futile than arguing with the Amish about bare ankles and calculators.

[Shaddim]

Canada still has a military?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Canada still has a military?

0.5 outta 10 troll-points.

[Kerrigan]

As an anecdote, I have a few friends who are enlisted infantry "grunts" and they are not homophobic in the slightest. So I'm holding out hope that the world is a more tolerant place than some would make it seem.

[Shaddim]

So, let me see if I understand. You want the best heartbreakers and life takers, but they damned well better be PC and down with everyone's civil rights? In an ideal world, that would be the case, but you're not going to change generations of military promoted prejudice against gays just by opening the closet door. There's going to be some very rough hazing and verbal abuse. Few people will be able to handle it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps *everyone* serving in the military, heteros and homos alike, should be required to overcome their desires for sex so that they can keep their focus on their job? As you say, it isn't Disneyland.

I actually think that IS the goal of the military. Again, why is it that males and females are segregated in baracks?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

As an anecdote, I have a few friends who are enlisted infantry "grunts" and they are not homophobic in the slightest. So I'm holding out hope that the world is a more tolerant place than some would make it seem.

I'm not "homophobic" in the slightest either. I love all my gay friends.

I just don't want them looking at me naked without my consent, just like I don't want the same of my female friends who I am uninterested romantically. It's a question of decorum, morality and just a good common sense approach to unwanted attention - and my right due to the guarantee of privacy the Constitution provides.

You may not choose to exercise your rights or share my widely held standards regarding nudity - especially since doing so might make it easier to push a left-wing, anti-traditional morality agenda which has nothing to do with making a better Army. I think most people will pass on that sort of nonsense though, and it has little to do with irrational fears.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

and it has little to do with irrational fears.

Your unsupportable opinion is duly noted.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, let me see if I understand. You want the best heartbreakers and life takers, but they damned well better be PC and down with everyone's civil rights? In an ideal world, that would be the case, but you're not going to change generations of military promoted prejudice against gays just by opening the closet door. There's going to be some very rough hazing and verbal abuse. Few people will be able to handle it.

Nonsense. None of that happened in Canada, and it won't happen in the States, either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Funny, isn't that the exact same argument I was making before in regards to your ridiculous claim that using communal showers in the military with a gay man would violate your right to privacy? At that point you seemed to be quite sure that one did not have to abandon civil liberties to enlist in the military. Glad to see that you've come around to my way of thinking.

I have no clue what you're talking about here. Not only are you addressing the wrong poster as I never claimed using communal showers in the military with a gay man would violate my right to privacy; I've said there are reasons why men and women do not barrack together and have been asking why none of those reasons would apply to a situation of open homosexuality. I've still not got an answer.

It seems so many are bent on being all fair and equitable, they've not given the prospect more than 2.5 seconds of thought.

Besides, I was responding to your explicit claim that since there are only very few gays in the military, the number of people having their civil rights violated by the don't ask, don't tell policy are so small as to be meaningless. If anyone here is claiming that military service is a civil right it's you; I am claiming only that all people have a right to be judged on their merit and treated accordingly, rather than on whether or not the nature of their existence is offensive to some haughty few.

As long as recruitment is important, I'm guessing these issues will be a consideration whether you like it or not. As far as service in the military goes, I was the first to claim that it's not a civil right so again... I have no idea what you're talking about. What I've said is that the military will make accommodations for individuals, but as soon as those accommodations outweigh the benefit of that individuals' service, they will likely not regard those individuals. Again, it's as simple as this.

While we're at it though, would you support coed barracks with communal showers?
*leaving way too much room here for our resident third graders I know. Waits for it...

My claim rests on well established concepts of equality and human dignity. Yours seems to rest on some poorly defined, and heretofore unrecognized right to not be thought of in certain ways by certain people.

Your entire rant is founded from a kneejerk reaction to someone else, strawmen, and naivete. There is nothing well established about equality and human dignity in the military. Military life and civilian life are two different things. You know this right? Don't give me this nonsense about your concern for human dignity and equal rights. Of all the civil rights you lose by enlisting, why are you so bent out of shape on this singular issue?

Having read the multiple instances of verbal abuse and the like from drill sergeants, I'm guessing your equality and human dignity is likely second to the bottom on their list of important messages for you.

[Edit: it appears that in coming back to this conversation after several hours away I made a mistake of identity with this post. However I think the basic princple of it stands regardless so I'm leaving it as is.]

Of course, I'd expect no less for you than to stand firm behind a mistake.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Nonsense. None of that happened in Canada, and it won't happen in the States, either.

Yeah... riiiight. I can tell you there's a vast difference in demeanor and intensity. If there is open homosexuality in the US military there will be abuse and violence, especially in the Marines and Army.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah... riiiight. I can tell you there's a vast difference in demeanor and intensity. If there is open homosexuality in the US military there will be abuse and violence, especially in the Marines and Army.

That's what court marshals are for. Charge and discharge the neanderthals, not the gays.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's what court marshals are for. Charge and discharge the neanderthals, not the gays.

Sorry, but if you drum all the neanderthals out of the military you'd lose a large percentage of the military.

At this point in time it just isn't going to work.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At this point in time it just isn't going to work.

That's really what you're hoping for, I'm sure, but you're wrong. What's amazing is that, as conservative as most military leaders generally are, even they realize that it's time to get past people's ridiculous hang ups.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...ask.dont.tell/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...Dont-ask_N.htm

[Wiskedjak]

To those afraid that a gay guy might see them naked ... do you ever go to the gym or public swimming pools?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The military is interested in unit cohesion, morale, and in building the best teams of people to kill the enemy and blow shxx up.

To me, it looks as if your argument overvalues the (relatively) small part of the military that does the killing, and (severely) undervalues the genuine core of the military, who are the people which get the killers food, ammo, and gasoline.

There's no such thing as too many qualified people doing this. Every qualified body counts.

At the least, running out of gas in the middle of the desert with people trying to kill you tends to dampen morale.

[shifuimam]

Stupendousman, you still haven't answered the million dollar question, unless I missed it somewhere.

When you look at a beautiful woman, clothed or not, what do you think? Do you find yourself attracted to her? Might you even fantasize about her for a moment?

Is this not, in your own words, "using someone's body for sexual gratification without their consent"?

How is this any different from the possibility of a homosexual man noticing you and thinking you're attractive? Why is it only wrong for a gay man to do that when your penis happens to be visible? If you have a problem with any gay man being attracted to you, as this seems to be your definition of sexual gratification, I'm not sure how you can tolerate going out in public, or how you deal with a hot girl checking you out. After all, she's just using your body without your consent for her own sexual gratification, right?

[Wiskedjak]

Questions for Stupendous man:
- Can you look at a beautiful woman without being attracted to her?
- If sex distracts homosexuals from doing their job in the military, isn't it also a distraction for heterosexuals?
- Have you ever been to a gym or swimming pool with common change rooms?

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

you still haven't answered the million dollar question

Because it's in American dollars?






Thanks. Try the veal.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Stupendousman, you still haven't answered the million dollar question, unless I missed it somewhere.

When you look at a beautiful woman, clothed or not, what do you think? Do you find yourself attracted to her? Might you even fantasize about her for a moment?

Is this not, in your own words, "using someone's body for sexual gratification without their consent"?

How is this any different from the possibility of a homosexual man noticing you and thinking you're attractive? Why is it only wrong for a gay man to do that when your penis happens to be visible? If you have a problem with any gay man being attracted to you, as this seems to be your definition of sexual gratification, I'm not sure how you can tolerate going out in public, or how you deal with a hot girl checking you out. After all, she's just using your body without your consent for her own sexual gratification, right?

Shhh, you don't want to let on that his logic is inconsistent. Anyone, at any time, can use "someone's body for sexual gratification without their consent". His logic simply assumes that all gay men would use his body for sexual gratification if they were to see him un-clothed. This attitude smacks of tremendous arrogance and ignorance (for assuming that all gay men will always be thinking about sex with other men all the time and that gay men can't see an attractive man without wanting him in a sexual manner). But really, if he ever looks at another woman's body in a sexual manner he is using her "body for sexual gratification without [her] consent". So, unless he comes on here and states that he never looks at an attractive woman's body his argument regarding gay men possibly looking at his body is the height of hypocrisy.


<speculation mode>
If I had to venture a guess as to stupendousman's underlying assumptions, it is that he thinks heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal and therefore it is normal for him to be attracted to an attractive woman and normal for an attractive woman to be attracted to him. Of course, if this is his line of reasoning, he is confusing normal with normative. Heterosexuality is normative---the more common occurrence of sexuality among humans--but it is not normal as in a standard from which other forms of sexuality are considered deviant forms of sexuality.
</speculation mode>

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Questions for Stupendous man:
- If sex distracts homosexuals from doing their job in the military, isn't it also a distraction for heterosexuals?

EXCELLENT question.

If possible gay-on-straight sexual behavior is a distraction for soldiers, then how does straight-on-straight sexual behavior not also serve as a distraction for soldiers? And if straight-on-straight sexual behavior is a distraction for soldiers, why should the possibility of gay-on-straight sexual behavior (or even gay-on-gay sexual behavior) be considered as a reason to forbid homosexuals from serving in the military? why should the military seek to keep gays out because of the possibility of gay-on-straight sexual behavior and not similarly try to keep straights out as well? The logic of his argument ("gay-on-straight sexual behavior is a distraction for soldiers") is not consistent for all forms of sexual behavior.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because it's in American dollars?






Thanks. Try the veal.

*rimshot*

I'd nearly bet money that stupendous man is going to ignore the questions posed by myself and Wiskedjak. There's no possible answer that would allow him to continue his argument, unless he can legitimately say that he is never physically attracted to another person without their explicit consent, which would be a feat worth noting, if you ask me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's really what you're hoping for, I'm sure, but you're wrong. What's amazing is that, as conservative as most military leaders generally are, even they realize that it's time to get past people's ridiculous hang ups.

Where you previously under the impression that there are no ultra-liberal "military leaders", most of which aren't dealing with "front line" issues, in the ranks who have been promoted exactly because of their leftward politial leanings?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Stupendousman, you still haven't answered the million dollar question, unless I missed it somewhere.

When you look at a beautiful woman, clothed or not, what do you think? Do you find yourself attracted to her? Might you even fantasize about her for a moment?

It is possible.

Is this not, in your own words, "using someone's body for sexual gratification without their consent"?

Not their naked body. Not unless they consent. The best I can do is try to use my imagination in that case. People have the right to consent regarding that sort of thing. I'm not going to get sexually excited by looking at her bare breasts unless she consents, or I risk going to jail by violating her rights to privacy.

You really are dealing with "apples to oranges" here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Questions for Stupendous man:
- Can you look at a beautiful woman without being attracted to her?

Yes, sort of. If she's "beautiful", then she's by definition "attractive" which means a normal person would be attracted to them. I'm guessing you are meaning something more like finding their presence sexually stimulating. It would be very difficult if she was standing next to me and she was all soaped up and naked, not to find that sexually stimulating, IMO. That's a distraction I wouldn't need if I were in the military.

- If sex distracts homosexuals from doing their job in the military, isn't it also a distraction for heterosexuals?

There's a reason why men and women are not put in barracks together. It's the same reason that until recently, there was a zero tolerance policy regarding homosexuality. It's because they don't want ANYONE to be distracted by sexual attraction. Male, female, straight or gay

- Have you ever been to a gym or swimming pool with common change rooms?

Yes. I've already explained that, and how it differs from the situation we are discussing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's really what you're hoping for, I'm sure, but you're wrong.

I'm sorry, but you're a fool. A delightful fool with visions of a wondrous future right around the corner, and I can admit that I'm jealous. I'd like nothing more than for there to be equal rights for everyone. Unfortunately, I'm a realist and I see how people are.

Sit and look through your rose-colored windows at the way you want things to be, but I just don't share your delusions. The world will change, but as it's always been, it will be very painful. We haven't reached the darkest parts yet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

To me, it looks as if your argument overvalues the (relatively) small part of the military that does the killing, and (severely) undervalues the genuine core of the military, who are the people which get the killers food, ammo, and gasoline.

They all sign away their civil rights upon joining too and may be called upon to kill on command. I'm still curious why some here are up in arms about this one right.

There's no such thing as too many qualified people doing this. Every qualified body counts.

I don't think anyone is discounting homosexuals' contribution to the armed services as much as discounting the importance of disclosing their sexual preference. Heterosexuals aren't free to express their sexuality the way they want either.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They all sign away their civil rights upon joining too and may be called upon to kill on command.

Here's a news-flash: soldiers have rights. Congrats, you now have a clue.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is possible.



Not their naked body. Not unless they consent. The best I can do is try to use my imagination in that case. People have the right to consent regarding that sort of thing. I'm not going to get sexually excited by looking at her bare breasts unless she consents, or I risk going to jail by violating her rights to privacy.

You really are dealing with "apples to oranges" here.

That is priceless! What are you going to do, walk up to her and ask, "Excuse me, but I couldn't help noticing your bare breasts, and I was wondering if you would mind if I got sexually excited by them? I don't want to risk going to jail for violating your privacy, so if it's all right, I'll masturbate over thinking about your breasts. If not, I'll just walk away."

Comedy gold!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Where you previously under the impression that there are no ultra-liberal "military leaders", most of which aren't dealing with "front line" issues, in the ranks who have been promoted exactly because of their leftward politial leanings?

You obviously don't know much about the military, but that isn't surprising.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm sorry, but you're a fool. A delightful fool with visions of a wondrous future right around the corner, and I can admit that I'm jealous. I'd like nothing more than for there to be equal rights for everyone. Unfortunately, I'm a realist and I see how people are.

Sit and look through your rose-colored windows at the way you want things to be, but I just don't share your delusions. The world will change, but as it's always been, it will be very painful. We haven't reached the darkest parts yet.

Don't be sorry. What you think of me is of no concern to me. I've been on this rock for almost 62 years, and you're not the first fool I've run across either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Here's a news-flash: soldiers have rights. Congrats, you now have a clue.

I think you're completely missing his point, which is a legit question.

When you join the military, since you give up the right to tell someone who orders you to do something suicidal to "go **** off", why get all bundled about giving up the right to disclose your sexuality?

The answer goes back to ebuddy's basic point. A lot of this discussion has centered around fairness, equality, and whether things are PC.

Well, here's something un-PC, that the (American) military doesn't like to talk about, but understands it is true nonetheless: getting laid improves morale.

[Shaddim]

Don't be sorry. What you think of me is of no concern to me. I've been on this rock for almost 62 years, and you're not the first fool I've run across either.

What? I paid you a compliment. I'd like to be able to see things in such a way. It must be exciting to believe that making a mark in a certain place on a ballot will bring about world harmony, or that "the will of the righteous will overcome", but it just isn't practical. Wouldn't it be nice if the main human motivator was mutual benefit and kindness, instead of fear and jealousy?

How long did it take for blacks to receive equal treatment in this country? Sorry, but it's going to take more than legislation and scowls from the liberal elite to change 100s of years of bigotry.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is possible.

Not their naked body. Not unless they consent. The best I can do is try to use my imagination in that case. People have the right to consent regarding that sort of thing. I'm not going to get sexually excited by looking at her bare breasts unless she consents, or I risk going to jail by violating her rights to privacy.

You really are dealing with "apples to oranges" here.

Honey, you're evading the question, and it's doing nothing to help your case.

The fact is, anyone can use your body at any time for sexual gratification without your consent, regardless of your state of undress.

There is zero difference between a gay man on the beach finding your tanned body in a pair of swim trunks attractive, and a gay man in a communal shower anywhere - army, YMCA, etc - finding your body with a visible penis attractive.

The only difference is that your johnson is hanging out, and if a gay man is going to be attracted to you, he absolutely does not require a dick shot in order to do so.

Being physically attracted to anyone is using their physical body for your sexual gratification, pleasure, or enjoyment. Any time that you look at a hot woman and let your eyes linger on her breasts, even if she's wearing a turtleneck sweater, you're using her body for your sexual gratification, and it is absolutely without her consent.

There are already homosexual men and women in the military today. The only issue at hand here is whether or not it should be a violation of military code for a homosexual to engage in any sort of behavior, including off-duty, that could be considered homosexual.

Whether or not you are disgusted at the idea that a gay man might find your penis attractive (and, seriously, does anyone find a dick attractive? Come on, guys...it's one funny-looking appendage) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a gay man should be permitted to be seen in public with his partner and not risk dishonorable discharge from his position in the military.

Your stubbornness in order to stand by your baseless argument is absolutely appalling. When it comes to making laws, we must be objective and logical about them, and the fact is, there is no legitimate reason to not allow homosexuals in the military, since they would be held to the same standards of sexual conduct as everyone else, regardless of sexual orientation...and therefore, as has been pointed out many times already, a man's attraction or distaste for your penis has no bearing on you, as they would be prohibited (just like anyone else) from doing anything about it.

Also, I find it absofrickinglutely hilarious that you claim to ask permission before finding a woman's body parts attractive.

That's just stupid, and you know it. Do you look at a topless woman on the beach with a toned body and perfect breasts and find her completely neutral until you go up to her and ask her permission to find her breasts sexually attractive? You might not get a boner from it, but I doubt that you're going to look at her tits and think "huh. boobs. boring." until she gives her explicit permission for you to instead think "OMG BOOBIES!!!!one!1!!eleventyone!!".

Might I also add that genitalia are not the only things a human can find sexually attractive? My best friend finds a woman's hair and eyes to be extremely attractive. A woman in an ankle-length skirt and a turtleneck could still arouse him, if her hair and eyes were beautiful enough in his eyes. By this alone, your argument that it's being naked that's the problem is completely irrelevant. If you're as attractive as you claim to be (and, given that this is the Internet and you actually do seem to be terrified of homosexuals, I doubt you are), a gay guy is going to find you hot no matter what you're wearing, and will therefore have used your body for his sexual gratification without your consent.

I realize I'm going around in circles at this point, so enjoy your homophobia, but please do the United States a favor and don't allow it to cloud your judgment come voting time.

[shifuimam]

There is something else I'm wondering...what about men who identify as straight but can still find other men sexually attractive? Should such men also be banned from the military?

I'm definitely a straight girl, but I can find some women to be arousing. It doesn't mean I'm a lesbian or even that I'm bisexual...but by your logic, I'm just as bad as the gay men you hate so much.

Also, please do consider this:

Let's say that you're on the beach. A gay man notices you laying out on your towel in your swim trunks, and thinks you're the most attractive male specimen he's ever laid eyes on. He goes to bed that night and furiously masturbates while fantasizing about having sex with you.

Now let's say that you're in the Army. A gay man notices you walking out of the shower, and thinks you're the most attractive male specimen he's ever laid eyes on. He goes to bed that night and furiously masturbates while fantasizing about having sex with you.

Does the first situation seem "okay" or "less bad" than the second? If yes, why? If not, then how in the world can you handle ever going out in public without being fully covered by something similar to a hazmat suit? I mean, any time you go to the beach, go swimming, go to the gym, or mow your lawn in shorts with no shirt, you risk a gay man being attracted to your body. How do you cope with that?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That is priceless! What are you going to do, walk up to her and ask, "Excuse me, but I couldn't help noticing your bare breasts, and I was wondering if you would mind if I got sexually excited by them? I don't want to risk going to jail for violating your privacy, so if it's all right, I'll masturbate over thinking about your breasts. If not, I'll just walk away."

Comedy gold!

Uh..no. That's the point. In the real world, in order to get to see naked, someone you find physically attractive, they've got to consent and normally be in a relationship with you. They just don't get to jump in the shower with you or be allowed to look at you naked. You aren't going to just get to look at their bare breasts because normal standards dictate that people value their right to privacy for their bare body.

Nothing funny about it, really. Unless the part where we all laugh because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT is the punchline.