[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@shifuimam
The problem of the critics is not caused by anything factual, they don't like the idea (gay) Sergeant John Doe `fantasizes having gay sex with them' -- which they find repulsive. Hence, plentiful allusions are made with pedophilia, incest and whatnot.

The arguments and objections are really similar to segregation, only that sexual orientations are not as obvious to the naked eye.

Bingo!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@shifuimam
The problem of the critics is not caused by anything factual, they don't like the idea (gay) Sergeant John Doe `fantasizes having gay sex with them' -- which they find repulsive. Hence, plentiful allusions are made with pedophilia, incest and whatnot.

The arguments and objections are really similar to segregation, only that sexual orientations are not as obvious to the naked eye.

Hence my comments about homophobia. There is an underlying and totally unfounded fear that a gay man will necessarily have gay fantasies about straight men they see (naked or not, although the attitude here is that nudity is required for this kind of thing to happen). If it were just a concern, opponents might be more willing to find out if there's any reason to be worried. Instead, it's a flat-out terror of what will happen, which I believe falls under the definition of homophobia.

I'm surprised that nobody's made a Brokeback Mountain reference yet. What's stopping a straight man from swinging for the other team after being around a bunch of naked, physically fit men for so long?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But, we've just been told that soldiers *have no rights*.

I've not told you that. They have rights. They are just restricted as to when and how they use them. They are restricted only in a manner which ensures for creating better killing machines. If it isn't going to make better killers, the military doesn't normally restrict their rights. They aren't putting the restrictions in place just for sh%%s and giggles.

If two people are equally good a being a soldier, it shouldn't matter if one happens to be gay.

..or straight. Great. We are now going to combine the straight, gay, male and female soldiers together, sharing bathrooms, showers and living quarters. I guess that the military was just confused for all those years they kept people who might find another solider sexually appealing, segregated. It just didn't matter. They were just confused. Gotcha.

If they're supposed to "jump on a grenade" when told to do so, they should be able to shower with other men, some of whom might be gay, without getting squeamish.

..and the ladies shouldn't mind if I soap up next to them either. Great! Where do I sign up? You're telling me there's a job I can do that will require me to shower naked with women and get paid. That's a pretty powerful fringe benefit, right there. It should do wonders for recrui.....err....won't the ladies probably not like that so much, seeing how they are apparently emotionally "irrational" when it comes to these things? Might that not negatively effect recruiting? Oh my. Maybe this plan isn't as well thought out as I first thought.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Personally, I think that our culture is far too sexually charged, and we have a problem with equating all nudity with sexual arousal. It's one of the reasons why I think that family nudist resorts are great, because they allow young children to realize that nudity is not exclusively sexual.

You are right. Sometimes you have to get naked for a Doctor.

But, most people don't go to nude resorts because their values DO revolve around the notion that sharing nudity is a special thing done for those who you love and want to be involved with sexually, as far as exposing yourself to people who might find you sexually attractive goes. It has nothing to do with a dislike for homosexuality or any other kind of irrational fear. It's simply a standard used in order to give special meaning to certain behavior. No one says that you have to share that standard, but I think that the law pretty much has supported the idea that this standard of privacy is a basic human right if we choose it.

Your reference to "strange men" is a little flawed as well. These are men that you know, right? I mean, they're other men in your unit or whatever in the military, so you know them and become friends with them (or at least get to know them on a professional level).

Usually, you "know" someone after an extended period of time. You don't "know" them after the first day of basic training and you are forced to shower nude in front of them. Even if you do "know" them, you don't get to choose if you want to be naked in front of them if you decide that they lack the character and respect you wish to have in those you know, to share your naked body with.

So no, it's not the same as some stranger walking in and asking a girl to undress for him. It's much more along the lines of going camping with a bunch of friends or coworkers.

I don't get naked in front of my female co-workers. Even if I were to go camping with them. I'm pretty sure most don't want to see what I've got, even though it's pretty spectacular.

My best friend is a straight male who used to have a crush on me. Yet I'd have no problem changing in front of him (and have, actually), because I know he's not going to suddenly get sexually aroused by it.

You know absolutely nothing about men. I now have a better understanding of why you form the illogical arguments that you do.

Men do not have to get a "boner" when they see a naked woman to enjoy that woman's nakedness in a sexual manner. Sexuality and visible, noticed sexual reaction do not always go hand in hand. I promise I can be aroused by a naked woman without it being "obvious" so to speak. The idea that you think a guy who had a crush on you isn't going to be aroused by seeing you naked is pretty astoundingly naive, as are most of your other arguments.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You're confusing cause, effect, and correlation.

How so? I'm simply telling you what the military has always claimed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@shifuimam
The problem of the critics is not caused by anything factual, they don't like the idea (gay) Sergeant John Doe `fantasizes having gay sex with them' -- which they find repulsive.

When you can't forge a coherent and compelling response to an argument, create a strawman.

I agree, it's much easier to do that.

I gave facts. I explained them. I showed where the logic is flawed. In return, we get "nuh-uh, you just don't like gays!"

Thanks for playing. You get no box of Turtle Wax car polish.

[Salty]

Two things:
I know several gay service men here in Canada, most of them have no problem with the people they work with and are in general well liked. Fact is if anything they just get teased by the straight guys who get a kick out of thinking that they want to have sex with them when in actual fact they don't.

Second thing:
I'm gay, I shower with guys at the gym all the time, should I have to go to a separate gay gym? Or can I just use the YMCA which is walking distance from my apartment? Btw I don't really check out other guys in the shower, most of the time I can barely see anything without my glasses on, and half the time it's not so great looking old guys.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and the ladies shouldn't mind if I soap up next to them either. Great! Where do I sign up? You're telling me there's a job I can do that will require me to shower naked with women and get paid. That's a pretty powerful fringe benefit, right there. It should do wonders for recrui.....err....won't the ladies probably not like that so much, seeing how they are apparently emotionally "irrational" when it comes to these things? Might that not negatively effect recruiting? Oh my. Maybe this plan isn't as well thought out as I first thought.

Let's say that such a job existed, and this job entailed going to Africa and fighting at the front lines in a bloody civil war going on somewhere.

Why would you sign up? Would it be to fight for the freedom of the people in that African country, or would it be to see a bunch of girls naked?

Not only that, but after two or three days in a row, don't you think the novelty of the situation would wear off? Within a fairly short time, you'd probably be a hell of a lot more concerned with your job than getting a view of some breasts.

Beyond that, would the showering situation be a reason at all for following such a career path?

Do you sincerely believe that one of the reasons a gay man would want to enlist in the military (which is inherently different from any other career option) is so that he might have the chance of showering in a room with other men?

Gay guys go to the YMCA to ogle naked guys. They don't join the military to do it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How so? I'm simply telling you what the military has always claimed.

I'm saying that the military's successful track record of suppressing people's certain individual rights and expectations in the name of creating a more cohesive group dynamic cuts both ways. You can claim that what we have now works fine and so it's not worth rocking the boat. However, for someone who feels that it is important that homosexuals be able to serve openly (for whatever the reason), the argument that it would be prohibitively disruptive just doesn't hold up. What you're talking about there are people's individual reactions to some unpleasant situation, and the military has successfully been telling people to put up with individual discomfort in the name of the group for millennia. Unless you want to argue that showering next to a gay guy is significantly more uncomfortable than running into machine gun fire.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Two things:
I know several gay service men here in Canada, most of them have no problem with the people they work with and are in general well liked. Fact is if anything they just get teased by the straight guys who get a kick out of thinking that they want to have sex with them when in actual fact they don't.

Well, you know, all gay guys are sexually attracted to all men all the time, amirite? I mean, homosexuals are just so disgustingly sexually charged all the time that they're instantly attracted to any not-ugly male they see.

Right?

Second thing:
I'm gay, I shower with guys at the gym all the time, should I have to go to a separate gay gym? Or can I just use the YMCA which is walking distance from my apartment? Btw I don't really check out other guys in the shower, most of the time I can barely see anything without my glasses on, and half the time it's not so great looking old guys.

Ah, but remember, all the guys in the military are sexually stunning. And stupendousman is convinced he's the most arousing of all.

What is the general environment in the shower at your local Y? What's the general routine for most of the men there? Do they spend much time looking around, or do they just get the sweat off, get dressed, and leave?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What you're talking about there are people's individual reactions to some unpleasant situation, and the military has successfully been telling people to put up with individual discomfort in the name of the group for millennia. Unless you want to argue that showering next to a gay guy is significantly more uncomfortable than running into machine gun fire.

Obviously. The off-chance that a gay man will be aroused by a brief view of a straight man's penis is far more terrifying than your tank getting blown to pieces by an enemy's howitzer.

Anyhow, if three men in a group of sixty are uncomfortable with a gay guy in their unit, that's obviously enough of a reason to completely prohibit homosexuals from ever serving in the military, if their homosexuality is "found out".

I've also noticed that nobody here is bringing up homosexual women in the military. It seems like every single time someone brings up an anti-homosexual argument, it's focused on gay men, and, more specifically, what gay men do with their penises.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I've also noticed that nobody here is bringing up homosexual women in the military. It seems like every single time someone brings up an anti-homosexual argument, it's focused on gay men, and, more specifically, what gay men do with their penises.

That's because lesbians are hot, and we assume that women who are forced to bunk, shower, etc. together end up having sex with each other all the time anyway.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Let's say that such a job existed, and this job entailed going to Africa and fighting at the front lines in a bloody civil war going on somewhere.

Why would you sign up? Would it be to fight for the freedom of the people in that African country, or would it be to see a bunch of girls naked?

I'd say both would be pretty compelling reasons. Fight for freedom along-side naked babes? I've had dreams that go something like that.

Not only that, but after two or three days in a row, don't you think the novelty of the situation would wear off? Within a fairly short time, you'd probably be a hell of a lot more concerned with your job than getting a view of some breasts.

Maybe. I don't know. So you think that women should no longer get the option of separate bathroom facilities, because the "novelty" of them having their privacy respected would probably "wear off". At what point exactly do women no longer care if men are looking at their naked bodies? Seriously, it's such a "no big deal" that we should make the streets "clothing optional". Offices too. Maybe skimpy panties for sanitary reasons - but I think I like where you're going with this!

Do you sincerely believe that one of the reasons a gay man would want to enlist in the military (which is inherently different from any other career option) is so that he might have the chance of showering in a room with other men?

Not JUST for that. I can only speak as a straight man, and if I were weighing my options and one of the "pros" of the job was getting paid while looking at physically fit young women naked, that would be a pretty compelling "pro" in helping me decide all things being equal.

Gay guys go to the YMCA to ogle naked guys. They don't join the military to do it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm saying that the military's successful track record of suppressing people's certain individual rights and expectations in the name of creating a more cohesive group dynamic cuts both ways. You can claim that what we have now works fine and so it's not worth rocking the boat. However, for someone who feels that it is important that homosexuals be able to serve openly (for whatever the reason), the argument that it would be prohibitively disruptive just doesn't hold up.

I, and a lot of experts, disagree.

What you're talking about there are people's individual reactions to some unpleasant situation, and the military has successfully been telling people to put up with individual discomfort in the name of the group for millennia. Unless you want to argue that showering next to a gay guy is significantly more uncomfortable than running into machine gun fire.

"Running into machine gun fire" is often times required to get the job of KILLING done. Being forced to get naked in front of people who find you sexually attractive IS NOT by any stretch of the imagination. We've been going to war without this requirement pretty much since the beginning of service, and as you well know, adding homosexuals will not likely make an individual's job of killing easier or more proficient.

You are trying to use the rationale the military uses to restrict rights in order to save lives to restrict rights so that people can be able to violate the privacy of others in a way that is distracting and takes focus off of their mission - the very same thing the military has specifically fought AGAINST when planning living arrangements amongst heterosexual men and women. If there was no compelling reason to separate men and women, then they would not do it. It's more expensive, and a less efficient use of resources.

The reason that homosexuals have been banned uses the same rationale the military has used in their decision to invest in the more expensive, less efficient living conditions regarding straight males and females. Logically, you've got to dismiss that rationale in order to make your argument logical. Again, are you saying that women have no logical or rational reason why they require separate bathing conditions away from strange men?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I've also noticed that nobody here is bringing up homosexual women in the military. It seems like every single time someone brings up an anti-homosexual argument, it's focused on gay men, and, more specifically, what gay men do with their penises.

That's funny!

You are the one that keeps bringing up penises and what happens to them.

What someone does with their penis isn't the basis of my argument.

Whether the people in question are male or female, straight or gay is irrelevant to my argument.

I've made that clear, but yet we still get the same lame strawmen when you start grasping at well...straws to make a point that doesn't make any sense.

Congratulations.

[Chuckit]

As stupendousman is implying, if you want to get rid of the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule, your first step should be to eliminate any recognition of gender. Any social argument for separating men and women would apply just as well to separating gays from straights.

At the moment, society is not in a place where most women are comfortable with the idea of men watching them nude all the time. That's just where we are. I think you'll get rid of that bias much more quickly than you'll get rid of men's discomfort at being similarly exposed to gay men.

[Shaddim]

Many of us long for the days of Starship Troopers-style openness, we just aren't there yet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I reject the notion by many that this issue exists exclusively as the result of homophobia. I think I did a pretty good job of illustrating why the notion does not hold up. Again, I trust the military has the military's best interest at heart. Others are arguing in the best interest of homosexuals and while I can appreciate the perspective, I don't see why the military has to forge ahead of society. I want the military to focus on the best interest of the military. After all, it's not a civil right to join.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I am just pointing out that it IS a fact.

It's wrong, I agree, but it WILL lead to more people getting beat up and more people being court-martialed. In other words, more headaches in force-readiness for the military. Yes, they will get prosecuted, but that is a VERY small comfort to someone laid up in the hospital.

All you social engineers need to keep that in mind.

Most people in this thread are arguing this from the point of view of rights. I think I've made it clear that I am not, and completely hear the argument you are both making.

On the other hand, I haven't been trying to shoot down the people arguing from the rights point of view, because when using your mechanism to judge whether allowing homosexuals in the military, I don't come to the same conclusion as you do. FWIW, though I may have missed a post, I haven't seen either of you make an argument that could be considered homophobic, or be used as evidence of such.

Again, I agree with, and understand your reasoning. This is a math problem. On one side you have considerations like: how many people in the military are gay, how much will their operational effectiveness increase if they are allowed to get their freak on, how many new recruits will join because of the relaxed policy? On the other you have: how many people will get hazed, beaten, or killed, How many people will leave because they're homophobes, how many people will leave who aren't homophobes, but can't deal with the shower thing, how do you deal with the military's somewhat institutionalized attitude towards homosexuals? Other considerations are things like: what would be the total impact on operational effectiveness not just immediately, but during the period of transition (which needs to be given an estimated length), and in the future? I'm sure I missed a bajillion others.

Considering the way you're being argued against, I can understand why neither of you have gone into further details. This your invitation. I think it would (at least ultimately) increase the overall effectiveness of the military to allow the homosexuals within its ranks to be more open with their sexuality. I completely agree the military is doing exactly what it thinks is in its best interests, though I wish to note that best interests do not immunize one from inertia.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

At the moment, society is not in a place where most women are comfortable with the idea of men watching them nude all the time.

He's also saying that most straight men are not comfortable with the idea of gay men seeing them nude.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

On the other hand, I haven't been trying to shoot down the people arguing from the rights point of view, because when using your mechanism to judge whether allowing homosexuals in the military, I don't come to the same conclusion as you do. FWIW, though I may have missed a post, I haven't seen either of you make an argument that could be considered homophobic, or be used as evidence of such.

I appreciate that subego. It gets tiring arguing against people that have nothing, but insults in their bag of replies. In most cases they're not even responding to my points. They're just popping in, throwing the insult out the window, and driving off.

Considering the way you're being argued against, I can understand why neither of you have gone into further details. This your invitation. I think it would (at least ultimately) increase the overall effectiveness of the military to allow the homosexuals within its ranks to be more open with their sexuality. I completely agree the military is doing exactly what it thinks is in its best interests, though I wish to note that best interests do not immunize one from inertia.

I won't speak for macrobat, but I think I've gone into more detail than most seem capable of addressing as it is. Here's to trying again;
- Some here are so myopic on equal rights (a noble goal to be certain) they're not considering that the military may not be. In fact, no one has offered any reason why our military should be more open to homosexuality than society seems willing. Why should the armed forces pioneer new social ground for the homosexual? Trend-setting domestic social justice is not what the military is tasked to do.
- A social norm exists in which we are kept insulated from one another. A kind of deeply ingrained chivalry or modesty bolstered by centuries of cultural practice. We have separate bathrooms men and women (I guess this is heterophobia), each toilet stall is separated by a wall and even most urinals are separated by a wall. It is not only so in the US, but a cultural norm globally. It's very much a part of most of us. I can't possibly imagine how one could insist that none of the reasons that apply to this cultural norm would apply to open homosexuality. Most people won't even try to address this. They just throw "homophobe" out the window and drive off. Shifuiman tried to address it by saying she thinks children ought to be brought out to nudist beaches so they don't have this archaic modesty imprisoning them. (I'm taking liberty with shifuiman's verbiage) All this did for me was illustrate the wealth of diverse opinions here, but I think even shifuiman would admit she's in the fringe minority with that view. This doesn't mean she's wrong, but it behooves the military to weigh the options, pick a policy, and stand behind it. This is the policy they've chosen. That's just the way it is.
- I too would like equal rights, but I think all things must be tempered with common sense. Gays serve in the military, this much we know. They've served faithfully and aggressively alongside heterosexuals and are every bit as fit and capable of serving the armed forces. This is not the question. If it were, the answer would be obvious; ignorance is bliss. The question is does the benefit of their service outweigh the complexities they pose under a more open policy. I'm guessing the powers that be have decided it does not. I'd rather an all-volunteer military continue to do what it believes it must to maintain solid recruiting, unit cohesion, and optimal morale. I understand why many would be tempted to focus their attention on the rights of a minority and I appreciate their sentiment. I think they hold this view with the best interest of the minority at heart. However, I'd rather the military continue to focus on the best interest of the military. It is not a civil right to join. If your sexual identity is more important to you than your identity as a soldier in the armed forces, they're likely not interested in your service.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I, and a lot of experts, disagree.

"Running into machine gun fire" is often times required to get the job of KILLING done. Being forced to get naked in front of people who find you sexually attractive IS NOT by any stretch of the imagination. We've been going to war without this requirement pretty much since the beginning of service, and as you well know, adding homosexuals will not likely make an individual's job of killing easier or more proficient.

You are trying to use the rationale the military uses to restrict rights in order to save lives to restrict rights so that people can be able to violate the privacy of others in a way that is distracting and takes focus off of their mission - the very same thing the military has specifically fought AGAINST when planning living arrangements amongst heterosexual men and women. If there was no compelling reason to separate men and women, then they would not do it. It's more expensive, and a less efficient use of resources.

The reason that homosexuals have been banned uses the same rationale the military has used in their decision to invest in the more expensive, less efficient living conditions regarding straight males and females. Logically, you've got to dismiss that rationale in order to make your argument logical. Again, are you saying that women have no logical or rational reason why they require separate bathing conditions away from strange men?

Disagree with what? That the military in fact performs a great deal of social engineering on its own for the purposes of group cohesion? That's what we're talking here. There is plenty that the military does to further this goal that does NOT have anything directly to do with killing (for example, haircuts). I'm not arguing for a rationale. I'm saying your rationale cuts both ways, so you should take it out of your toolkit (haven't you figured out yet that I'm mostly just here to point out BS?)

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I won't speak for macrobat, but I think I've gone into more detail than most seem capable of addressing as it is. Here's to trying again;

Since I can sometimes take awhile to respond, I at least wanted to say my post should have said something along the lines of "I've probably missed a ton of examples" rather than "I can understand why neither of you have gone into further details".

I very much appreciate you taking the time to consolidate your arguments for me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He's also saying that most straight men are not comfortable with the idea of gay men seeing them nude.

Most people aren't comfortable with other people who might find them sexually attractive seeing them nude when they aren't interested in them equally.

It has little to do with "straight" or "gay". That's the fallacy that people fighting current policy keep trying to introduce, and keep failing at.

Speaking of the "future", did anyone catch last week's BSG? Starbuck taking a squat in the un-stalled head while talking to her fellow male officer?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Disagree with what? That the military in fact performs a great deal of social engineering on its own for the purposes of group cohesion? That's what we're talking here. There is plenty that the military does to further this goal that does NOT have anything directly to do with killing (for example, haircuts).

Forcing people to get naked in front of those who might be sexually attracted to them does nothing to further foster "group cohesion." In fact, it can quite clearly be seen to do just the opposite.

I'm not arguing for a rationale. I'm saying your rationale cuts both ways, so you should take it out of your toolkit (haven't you figured out yet that I'm mostly just here to point out BS?)

The problem is that it needs to cut ALL ways. That includes straight males/females. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, and likewise neither is an abolition of "don't ask, don't tell" without major disruptions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forcing people to get naked in front of those who might be sexually attracted to them does nothing to further foster "group cohesion." In fact, it can quite clearly be seen to do just the opposite.

The problem is that it needs to cut ALL ways. That includes straight males/females. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, and likewise neither is an abolition of "don't ask, don't tell" without major disruptions.

Perhaps at first, in the same way that people who don't enjoy being told how to live their life in other ways probably find the military unbearable. However, assuming the military could successfully habituate people to the practice, it would simply be another aspect of military life that de-emphasizes the privileges of the individual in order to foster a different mindset. We're arguing in circles now, which speaks to my point. Your personal discomfort may in fact be the input, as it were, rather than the output.

[bonniescotland]

"Homosexual conduct can be anything: a hug, holding hands, kissing, etc. "

If that's what the law says, it's certainly rather vague! I mean if a member of my own sex (say a friend) kissed me on the cheek does that count as homosexual behaviour, or does it only count if I enjoyed it! I guess everyone who's ever been to a New Year's party is disqualified!

Also what about people who have had homosexual acts commited on them without their consent, e.g. same sex sexual abuse? They have indulged in homosexual acts (even if it was by force) so are they now considered gay?

Rules need to be clearer.

Also think it's kind of ridiculous that gays aren't allowed into military, what's the worst that can happen they'll look at another same sex person in the shower and think he's cute. Honestly even people who aren't gay sometimes like to have a perve on same sex to see what "their equipment" looks like.

Re women serving in military yes they could be caught and raped etc, but you know in every war women are raped, so personally I think they are better protected having a job in the army (least that way they have a gun) then sitting at home while hubby, father, brother all off to war and just waiting alone like sitting ducks till invaders comes and gang rapes them.

Mind you having said that I don't really believe in war, military etc, defending your country is one thing, but I don't believe in invading other's countries, e.g. Iraq war, but I'm Australian and we aren't very militaristic here, in fact I'd say from the beginning of that war about 80% of Aussies were against it, though we kept voting for the same stupid govt who was for it. (I didn't vote for them though). Turns out we were right as the war has turned out to be a complete and tragic waste of lives. Think countries should spend more money on other areas such as health and education so young men have more options than going off to be canon fodder.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Perhaps at first, in the same way that people who don't enjoy being told how to live their life in other ways probably find the military unbearable. However, assuming the military could successfully habituate people to the practice, it would simply be another aspect of military life that de-emphasizes the privileges of the individual in order to foster a different mindset.

The point is that the military generally doesn't "habituate" people to do things which rescinds rights unless it's going to make them a more proficient killer and defender of their country. Forcing them to give up their right to privacy and allowing for the additional distraction to soldiers who would be bunked with those they likely find sexually attractive actually makes things worse, rather than better.

We're arguing in circles now, which speaks to my point. Your personal discomfort may in fact be the input, as it were, rather than the output.

It has more to do with my rights, rather than my discomfort. The same as the gals who don't want strange guys showering with them.

[SpaceMonkey]

Again, circles.

[bonniescotland]

Someone once told me (not sure if it's true) that many many centuries ago the Persian army (now known as Iran) encouraged male homosexuality because they figured that guys would fight more for their fellow solder if they were in love with them! This could just be an urban myth though (I must google it!), also in todays Iran I would imagine that being gay would be a death sentence perhaps?

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by bonniescotland 

Someone once told me (not sure if it's true) that many many centuries ago the Persian army (now known as Iran) encouraged male homosexuality because they figured that guys would fight more for their fellow solder if they were in love with them! This could just be an urban myth though (I must google it!), also in todays Iran I would imagine that being gay would be a death sentence perhaps?

I don't what the Persians did, but the Greeks practiced pederasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederas...ancient_Greece

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He's also saying that most straight men are not comfortable with the idea of gay men seeing them nude.

Yes, in the same way that women don't want straight men seeing them nude. Do you think women should be chastised and called androphobic for feeling that way? Are you going to try to force women to sleep and shower with strange men even if they're not comfortable doing so?

I really think this is close to the heart of the issue, and you hurt your own argument by not wanting to pay attention to it. I'm totally in favor of gay rights, but this is a reasonable objection.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, circles.

Stop turning left and steer straight, and you'll stop going in circles.

Here's how the argument goes.

Claim: Gays in the military
Counter: Counterproductive and violates rights
Claim: Nope, just fear
Counter: Same as female/male standard
Claim: It's just fear of gays - people can be trained to give up their rights
Counter: Should women have to do the same?
Claim: Doesn't matter. It's just fear.
Counter: So women are expressing irrational fear if they don't want men watching them nude?
Claim: Gay man aren't getting boners doing it.
Counter: Straight men don't necessarily either.
Claim: But gays should have rights.
Counter: Rights that violate my rights and makes for the very distractions the military has always sought to avoid?
Claim: It's just fear, and you can be trained to allow yourself to be violated.
Counter: So why don't women have to abide by the same standards you want straight men to have to use?
Claim: Straight guys don't like gay people.

It's pretty hard to get anywhere in an argument when the same two or three logically defeated claims keeps getting thrown back into the ring when there's no real rational explanation for why the military should change it's standards.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, in the same way that women don't want straight men seeing them nude. Do you think women should be chastised and called androphobic for feeling that way?

The situation is markedly different: they're already showering together and have been for centuries. In case of women, this is obviously different. The problem is all in the head of some guys à la `ignorance is bliss.' It's their imagination that goes wild. Even if somebody is wrongfully accused of being gay, their imagination goes wild and they get nervous when they drop the soap. It's not about behavior or being gay or so, it's about the imagination of some of their fellow soldiers that runs wild.

And yes, the other part is that many are repulsed by the thought of two men having sex. (Two women having sex seems to be a different story.) It's not necessarily about the other guys serving as objects of desire and tanks are nothing but meals on wheels, but rather just the mere idea.

Even if you wanted to change the situation, there is no way to separate gays and straight guys -- at least in no way that would be constitutional.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you going to try to force women to sleep and shower with strange men even if they're not comfortable doing so?

Why do you equate looking with sex?
(Edit: Or do you mean that women bunk with men, sleeping with is ambiguous?)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The situation is markedly different: they're already showering together and have been for centuries.

For centuries, homosexuals have been forbidden from serving. Therefore, if it happened it was due to a violation of the laws and fraudulent behavior by those doing it. Men have secretly watched women disrobe for centuries as well. Should the prohibitions against this be removed since it's probably going to happen anyways?

Strike one.

In case of women, this is obviously different. The problem is all in the head of some guys à la `ignorance is bliss.' It's their imagination that goes wild. Even if somebody is wrongfully accused of being gay, their imagination goes wild and they get nervous when they drop the soap. It's not about behavior or being gay or so, it's about the imagination of some of their fellow soldiers that runs wild.

That's like you saying that if a woman knows she's being spied on in the shower by a man, she shouldn't have a problem with it because there are likely times it has happened and she didn't know about it. When you KNOW someone is violating your rights, you act. If you can't be sure, the rational thing is not to worry about it since there's nothing that can be done. Your argument relies on the notion that people's rights should be removed because some people have already violated them without getting called on it. Does not compute.

Strike two.

[And yes, the other part is that many are repulsed by the thought of two men having sex. (Two women having sex seems to be a different story.) It's not necessarily about the other guys serving as objects of desire and tanks are nothing but meals on wheels, but rather just the mere idea.

It has nothing do with the "thought" of anyone having sex. Sorry to disappoint you.

Strike Three.

Even if you wanted to change the situation, there is no way to separate gays and straight guys -- at least in no way that would be constitutional.

It's been done for centuries - except for when a homosexual has lied and broken the law - much like the guy cutting a peep hole in the showers does. We don't get rid of laws just because some people choose to violate them. That does nothing to further support people's rights to privacy

..you've already struck out.

Why do you equate looking with sex?

For the same reason Hugh Hefner is a millionaire.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The situation is markedly different: they're already showering together and have been for centuries. In case of women, this is obviously different. The problem is all in the head of some guys à la `ignorance is bliss.' It's their imagination that goes wild. Even if somebody is wrongfully accused of being gay, their imagination goes wild and they get nervous when they drop the soap. It's not about behavior or being gay or so, it's about the imagination of some of their fellow soldiers that runs wild.

Okay, but the problem is you need the service of the majority of people who aren't comfortable in this position. You can pretend that people should be more accepting, but they're simply not. What then? Answer; adhere to current policy because it works. After all, the fact that they're already showering together and have been for centuries is proof the policy works. Right now the military enjoys the best of both worlds. Why should they want to change that?

If after such time homosexuals have forged additional rights for themselves and general acceptance throughout society as a whole including the right to marry, the military will be caught in a conundrum. In conflict with the current state of social order, they will eventually relent. Right now, there's no reason why they should have to forge this new social ground with anything other than their own best interest at heart.

Still, the more I hear about how repulsed the heterosexual community is of gays the more it sounds like a projection. Makes me wonder how truly accepting of gays the accusers are.

[nonhuman]

Just for the hell of it, I'll restate my position as clearly as possible:

Assuming that there is a right to privacy (which I agree there is), I don't believe that it necessarily extends to soldiers when they are on duty (except inasmuch as is explicity stated by the relevant contracts and rules). Further, I don't believe that whether or not your privacy is violated is dependent on the state of mind of the person doing the supposed violating; in other words, I find the argument that it's ok to be seen naked by another man, but not if they're aroused by it to be, on it's face, absurd. If the argument is to be a rights based one, then it must take into consideration that our right to freedom of thought is inviolable. This is true both in practical terms (it's impossible to know what someone is thinking) and moral (even if we could know with certainty what someone is thinking, thoughts are not and should not be a crime). This is why I find the violation of rights involved in denying homosexuals the right to serve to be more egregious than the hypothetical violation if they're allowed to serve (which, as I've stated, I don't believe exists in the first place): the question is between the right to bodily privacy or mental.

So, the question is whether we a) impinge upon the modesty of straight soldiers, or b) accuse gay soldiers of thought crimes and prosecute. I don't see how anyone can possibly argue that option b is more defensible.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, but the problem is you need the service of the majority of people who aren't comfortable in this position. You can pretend that people should be more accepting, but they're simply not. What then? Answer; adhere to current policy because it works. After all, the fact that they're already showering together and have been for centuries is proof the policy works. Right now the military enjoys the best of both worlds. Why should they want to change that?

Again, tradition is not a justification. And yes, the current tradition already is social engineering.
The similarity to the treatment of other (similarly sized) minorities come to mind: acceptance only comes from exposure. You argue that it is forced and I say so what? It took tanks to forcefully open college campuses to blacks. There was vigorous opposition. Now, it's nothing special. It's not the best of both worlds at all, it's selective enforcement of rules at best.

Yes, there will be people who will fight this, but this does not make it a wrong cause or a wrong course. The implication is simple: if you are not able to serve with people from minorities or with women, you're not fit for service.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If after such time homosexuals have forged additional rights for themselves and general acceptance throughout society as a whole including the right to marry, the military will be caught in a conundrum.

In some states, gays may enter civil unions, so at least in these states, the problem already exists.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still, the more I hear about how repulsed the heterosexual community is of gays the more it sounds like a projection. Makes me wonder how truly accepting of gays the accusers are.

If you want to tell me something, please say what you mean directly.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's funny!

You are the one that keeps bringing up penises and what happens to them.

What someone does with their penis isn't the basis of my argument.

Actually, it is. The only difference between a gay man seeing you on the beach, and a gay man seeing you in a military shower, is whether or not your penis is directly visible. All other body parts are equally visible. As I pointed out like two pages ago, the only difference is whether or not your penis is hanging out, and a gay man doesn't need to see your penis to be attracted to you (thereby using your body for sexual gratification without your consent).

Your response was that the difference is that your penis is visible. It is the issue at hand, because it's the only actual difference between this situation and any situation where 90% of your body is publicly visible.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For centuries, homosexuals have been forbidden from serving. Therefore, if it happened it was due to a violation of the laws and fraudulent behavior by those doing it. Men have secretly watched women disrobe for centuries as well. Should the prohibitions against this be removed since it's probably going to happen anyways?

There's a big difference between a bunch of men in a shower and a woman undressing with the blinds closed in the privacy of her bedroom.

A bunch of men in a communal shower are going to realize that someone in there might be gay. While this might make them uncomfortable, the task at hand (showering) takes priority over the possibility that a gay man might be internally aroused at the sight of their penis.

A woman undressing in her bedroom, on the other hand, is not under the assumption that there's a chance someone is watching her.

It's like saying that someone consciously ingesting the date-rape drug is the same as someone unknowingly consuming it due to someone secretly spiking their drink. In one case, you know what the situation is. In the other, you're completely unaware - two very, very different things.

It has nothing do with the "thought" of anyone having sex. Sorry to disappoint you.

So if it has nothing to do with the thoughts going on in the head of the gay man, then what's the problem? The only way he can "use your body for sexual gratification without your consent" (in the context of a military situation) is in his head. So if his thoughts are irrelevant, I'm not sure why you still have a problem with it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Stop turning left and steer straight, and you'll stop going in circles.

Here's how the argument goes.

Claim: Gays in the military
Counter: Counterproductive and violates rights
Claim: Nope, just fear
Counter: Same as female/male standard
Claim: It's just fear of gays - people can be trained to give up their rights
Counter: Should women have to do the same?
Claim: Doesn't matter. It's just fear.
Counter: So women are expressing irrational fear if they don't want men watching them nude?
Claim: Gay man aren't getting boners doing it.
Counter: Straight men don't necessarily either.
Claim: But gays should have rights.
Counter: Rights that violate my rights and makes for the very distractions the military has always sought to avoid?
Claim: It's just fear, and you can be trained to allow yourself to be violated.
Counter: So why don't women have to abide by the same standards you want straight men to have to use?
Claim: Straight guys don't like gay people.

It's pretty hard to get anywhere in an argument when the same two or three logically defeated claims keeps getting thrown back into the ring when there's no real rational explanation for why the military should change it's standards.

I don't think "logically defeated claim" means what you think it means. If you go back to my re-entry into this conversation, my point was that while some people argue that the military is not a place for social experimentation, the fact is that the military performs social engineering all the time, and so the argument that open homosexuality in the military makes people uncomfortable is not sufficient on its own. So far you have argued from the position that open homosexuality should not be tolerated because it would be too much of a distraction. Neither of these points are logically at odds. That's why we're in a circle.

I would volunteer to be the PWL's full-time "argument cop," but I think it would only drive me mad.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It has nothing do with the "thought" of anyone having sex. Sorry to disappoint you.

That's what you've been arguing all along, that it does, when you state that your rights are violated when a homosexual male checks you out in the shower, and uses that image to pleasure himself. Your inconsistency keeps popping up here, and you are the one who claims to be an expert in logic.

Of course, you're going to come back with some statement to the effect that that's not what you're saying, wrapping it up in your fantasy of what logic entails, but you struck out long ago.

Someday gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, and the world won't end, just like it didn't end when blacks could marry whites, or when a Catholic became President, or when gays in Mass. could marry, or when black children could go to white childrens' schools. You, and any of a number of others, are grasping at straws, trying to cloak your arguments in flowery oratory to make them seem more logical, but you can't, and won't, "win" this one, just like others have lost their battles to stay out of other people's lives, and fix their own instead.

And I know that my unsupportable opinion is duly noted (that's to save you the time of posting your usual "logical" response).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Actually, it is. The only difference between a gay man seeing you on the beach, and a gay man seeing you in a military shower, is whether or not your penis is directly visible.

Actually, more than just your penis is exposed, but I digress. Yes, my argument is based on nudity, which often times includes penises. But it doesn't matter if that nudity involves a penis or any other "private" part of your body you choose not to expose. My argument isn't gender specific. It can be any combination of body parts and those who find sexual stimulation in those parts.

All other body parts are equally visible. As I pointed out like two pages ago, the only difference is whether or not your penis is hanging out, and a gay man doesn't need to see your penis to be attracted to you (thereby using your body for sexual gratification without your consent).

I can't stop people from looking at my body in public and finding me sexually attractive. I can stop people from looking at my NAKED body and using it for their personal sexual gratification. That is my right. It's the same right women use to keep men from spying on them in public showers despite the fact that they may have just stepped off a beach where they were wearing a skimpy bathing suit.

Your response was that the difference is that your penis is visible. It is the issue at hand, because it's the only actual difference between this situation and any situation where 90% of your body is publicly visible.

See above. I choose not to have any of the parts of my body that I cover with a bathing suit exposed to strangers, and I only expose the other parts when I choose.

There's a big difference between a bunch of men in a shower and a woman undressing with the blinds closed in the privacy of her bedroom.

A bunch of men in a communal shower are going to realize that someone in there might be gay. While this might make them uncomfortable, the task at hand (showering) takes priority over the possibility that a gay man might be internally aroused at the sight of their penis.

Women in a communal shower are going to realize that there may be peepholes or cameras set up so guys can watch them naked. Just because it's a possibility with a small percent chance of happening, doesn't mean that people are giving up their rights not to have it done. Until it happens and someone is caught doing it, there's little one can do. On the other hand if you KNOW someone is in the shower with you who finds your gender sexually attractive, you can act to protect your rights.

It's like saying that someone consciously ingesting the date-rape drug is the same as someone unknowingly consuming it due to someone secretly spiking their drink. In one case, you know what the situation is. In the other, you're completely unaware - two very, very different things.

You are unintentionally making the case for "don't ask, don't tell". When we don't know for sure something is happening, we can't really act. When we do know, we can. Neither is any less of a violation.

So if it has nothing to do with the thoughts going on in the head of the gay man, then what's the problem?

It has nothing to do with the thoughts of the person being violated and whether or not he approves or disapproves of what the person doing the violating likes to do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't think "logically defeated claim" means what you think it means. If you go back to my re-entry into this conversation, my point was that while some people argue that the military is not a place for social experimentation, the fact is that the military performs social engineering all the time, and so the argument that open homosexuality in the military makes people uncomfortable is not sufficient on its own.

Social "engineering", not experimentation. They have already pretty much figured out how to make a person a good soldier via social engineering. That bit of manipulation pretty much uses methods which are precisely THE OPPOSITE of what would be the case with homosexuals open in the military in many important ways.

The fact that the "social experiment" in question goes against the precise methods used for centuries to focus soldiers, takes away their rights AND makes people uncomfortable is more than a sufficient reason not to make any changes.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's what you've been arguing all along, that it does, when you state that your rights are violated when a homosexual male checks you out in the shower, and uses that image to pleasure himself. Your inconsistency keeps popping up here, and you are the one who claims to be an expert in logic.

Please do try and follow the debate. Taking snippets of an out of context rebuttal won't help your argument. Here is the paragraph I responded to which is not included in your response:

[And yes, the other part is that many are repulsed by the thought of two men having sex. (Two women having sex seems to be a different story.) It's not necessarily about the other guys serving as objects of desire and tanks are nothing but meals on wheels, but rather just the mere idea.

As you can see, my statement was that my desire for a respect for privacy really has nothing to do with whether or not I might be "repulsed by the thought of two men having sex". One does not have to be repulsed by such a "thought" in order to still wish not to expose themselves in ways that would allow others to take sexual advantage of them. I take the same exceptions regardless of whether it would be in front of a man or woman who might find me sexually attractive, but I have no interest in them in that manner. I don't have to be "repulsed" by them or their preferred sexual practices for that to be the case. That's simply a strawman.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Social "engineering", not experimentation. They have already pretty much figured out how to make a person a good soldier via social engineering. That bit of manipulation pretty much uses methods which are precisely THE OPPOSITE of what would be the case with homosexuals open in the military in many important ways.

The fact that the "social experiment" in question goes against the precise methods used for centuries to focus soldiers, takes away their rights AND makes people uncomfortable is more than a sufficient reason not to make any changes.

Again, you're conflating too many aspects of the logical chain here, and just bringing us back to the starting point. What you are talking about are possible effects, not methods. The method (exposing soldiers to a negative stimulus in order to desensitize them to its effects) is already a common practice, so let's get that out of the way first. The overarching question is: what is the goal? The answer to this question will depend on where you sit. Depending on that answer, you can evaluate whether the possible effects have an overwhelming impact that make the goal not worth pursuing. This answer will also vary. What I'm saying is that when you are evaluating that question, you can't discount that the military has a vast amount of experience in psychologically conditioning soldiers, which may or may not mitigate some of the possible effects. That is all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by bonniescotland 

Someone once told me (not sure if it's true) that many many centuries ago the Persian army (now known as Iran) encouraged male homosexuality because they figured that guys would fight more for their fellow solder if they were in love with them! This could just be an urban myth though (I must google it!), also in todays Iran I would imagine that being gay would be a death sentence perhaps?

As to how the ancient Greeks and Persians viewed homosexuality, IIUC When Alexander conquered Persia, he claimed one of King Darius' eunuch consorts for himself.

[Macrobat]

Please explain how citing the practices of militaries that were part of now-failed governmental entites has anything to do with this? or exactly how it helps your argument, since none of them exist any more.

[subego]

Because of the enormous (and still unprecedented IMO) success of the military in question.

I already brought up Alexander (somewhat obliquely) to point out that a modern military is going to be cognsant of the importance of sex (in the case of Alexander's army, mostly with prostitutes) to operational efficiency.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because of the enormous (and still unprecedented IMO) success of the military in question.

I already brought up Alexander (somewhat obliquely) to point out that a modern military is going to be cognsant of the importance of sex (in the case of Alexander's army, mostly with prostitutes) to operational efficiency.

Sorry, but the most successful military of all time IS the US military. 1 "loss" (Vietnam), one tie (Korea, but that was UN-controlled) and all the rest are wins.

[subego]

I'm a little unclear.

Are you arguing purely against my parenthetical aside, or do you think your argument against my parenthetical aside invalidates the rest of my post?

Responding to the former would be a threadjack, and if you want me to respond to the latter, you're going to have to give me more to go on.


Edit: to clarify what I mean by "more to go on", preferably something I can respond to without threadjacking.

[Shaddim]

My position? Open the entire military to coed showers and quarters. If they whine, tell them to grow up.