Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon?

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon? (Page 13)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
It would seem that this is what stupendousman is suggesting? that military leaders are partisan political operatives even though they have the ability to refuse service to the Joint Chiefs if they so desire.

(In other words, stupendousman thinks that someone in the military who reaches the level of a service chief or a joint chief reaches that level because of their political connections/ability and not because of any inherent skill as a military leader.)

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Another clear example of how little stupendousman thinks of the soldiers and leaders of the American military if he thinks that the leaders in the military will place politics over what they think is best for the military and the American people.
It does appear stupendousman thinks poorly of the U.S. military from the soldier in basic training all the way up to the service chiefs. Stupendousman thinking of new recruits as obsessed with sex and thinking of lifelong soldiers at the highest ranks of service as opportunistic political operatives makes you wonder what part of the military he does like or find worthy of respect/admiration?

So, I will echo your question with a slight modification: stupendousman, what do you like about the American military?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No.

I'm pretty sure when a President nominates someone for a major post, they sort of make sure that they are reasonably on the same page as them. I'm guessing that Gates and Mullen didn't get to keep their jobs because they were at odds with the President's goals.

That's really not how things work. It's usually more of a surprise when a President's political appointees don't agree with him. That's the case whether it's a Democrat or Republican.
Bush nominated both these guys. Were they on Bush's page, and switched to Obama's page? Did Mullen believe in repealing DADT when Bush nominated him, and kept his mouth shut, or does he not believe in it now, and is agreeing to damage the military merely to keep his job?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Stupendous hasn't been able to move past people looking at his peepee, while the rest of the world is moving on. It's not about who looks at your junk; it's about treating all who wish to serve the same, and fairly, but he'll keep bringing up his mythical "right of privacy" issue long after the issue's been settled (and it will come to pass that gays will serve openly, without disrupting the cohesion and effectiveness of the military, and without everyone wondering if some one else is looking at their privates (pun intended) in a sexual manner).
Eliminating "DADT" doesn't seek to serve to treat everyone the same.

It gives special rights to gay service members not afforded to straight members.

You can focus on "peepees" all you want. You're never going to win an argument when you yourself are totally focused on genitalia and not the more expansive issues involved.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Another clear example of how little stupendousman thinks of the soldiers and leaders of the American military if he thinks that the leaders in the military will place politics over what they think is best for the military and the American people.

stupendousman, what do you have against the American military?


Politicians will be politicians. If you think that the SEDEF or CJCS aren't politicians, than you are woefully naive.

It doesn't require me to have something "against the American military" in order to point out when people who belong to the military are political appointees.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Bush nominated both these guys. Were they on Bush's page, and switched to Obama's page? Did Mullen believe in repealing DADT when Bush nominated him, and kept his mouth shut, or does he not believe in it now, and is agreeing to damage the military merely to keep his job?
Great question. If repealing DADT is so necessary and what was best for the military, why did they NOW just happen to make a big deal about it after their boss made it publicly know that was a goal of his?

Either they were quiet because they weren't on the same page as Bush and playing politics, or they are making noise now because that's what their current boss wants and playing politics. It's highly unlikely that they just decided this week that this was what they should do. If you think politics plays no role in this, you are kidding yourself.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It gives special rights to gay service members not afforded to straight members.
Do you have a list of these "special rights?"
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 03:48 PM
 
I suspect nothing short of every person in military service going on record as being against DADT would sway ol' stupendous.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Eliminating "DADT" doesn't seek to serve to treat everyone the same.

It gives special rights to gay service members not afforded to straight members.
I agreed with you on previous points, but you're going to need to make an argument for this one, because I don't see how this is true.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post


Politicians will be politicians. If you think that the SEDEF or CJCS aren't politicians, than you are woefully naive.

It doesn't require me to have something "against the American military" in order to point out when people who belong to the military are political appointees.
So you *do* think the SecDef or CJCS are more interested in political advancement than professional service even if it harms the military in the process? Interesting.

Yeah, I'd say you don't think too highly of our military leaders. I for one think that if Secretary Gates or Chairman Mullen had serious reservations about repealing DADT they would make known their reservations, both to the President and to the military organization within which they work.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Either they were quiet because they weren't on the same page as Bush and playing politics, or they are making noise now because that's what their current boss wants and playing politics.
Exactly. This was the question I asked you. Which one is it?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Do you have a list of these "special rights?"
Are straight people segregated during training and certain military operations from those they might become sexually attracted to?

The answer is "yes."

Would gay people have to be put through the same type of segregation?

The answer is "no."

If gay people have the right to serve in a way that straight people are not, then they are being given special rights.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
So you *do* think the SecDef or CJCS are more interested in political advancement than professional service even if it harms the military in the process? Interesting.
I think that they are interested in keeping their jobs. It's human nature to survive. As I've already shown, it's pretty clear that either they kept quiet or piped up in order to appease their boss. I think that speaks volumes.

Yeah, I'd say you don't think too highly of our military leaders. I for one think that if Secretary Gates or Chairman Mullen had serious reservations about repealing DADT they would make known their reservations, both to the President and to the military organization within which they work.
...and vice versa. Could you cite for me where these guys voiced their protest over DADT and requested it's repeal during the Bush administration?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Exactly. This was the question I asked you. Which one is it?
I don't know.

All I know is that it's not surprising for political appointees to do what they believe is expected of them to keep their jobs. One way or another, these guys have engaged in that behavior.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 11:00 PM
 
I don't understand how the American military can possibly function when it's leaders are only focused on climbing political ladders and it's followers are so easily disabled at the thought of people seeing their peepees.

All the terrorists need to win are X-Ray glasses and political opportunities.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are straight people segregated during training and certain military operations from those they might become sexually attracted to?

The answer is "yes."

Would gay people have to be put through the same type of segregation?

The answer is "no."

If gay people have the right to serve in a way that straight people are not, then they are being given special rights.
Keep grabbing at straws; the facts are that cultural changes are occurring, and as I've stated here before, most younger people don't care whether someone's gay, whether they're in the military or not. As I've also said before, your consistent focus on turning this into a sexual issue says a lot more about you than you should tell us.

http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-...-the-military/
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are straight people segregated during training and certain military operations from those they might become sexually attracted to?

The answer is "yes."

Would gay people have to be put through the same type of segregation?

The answer is "no."

If gay people have the right to serve in a way that straight people are not, then they are being given special rights.
Using your twisted logic.

Why can't you 'choose' to be gay while serving in the military. That way you can look at naked guys everyday and get the same special rights as gay men.


Besides, if you segregate gay guys from straight men, the gay guys will still have these 'special rights'. I mean, gay men are men after-all and have male body parts. Gay guys will still be sexually attracted to other gay men.

Damn. Gay guys are so lucky. They always get these 'special rights'.

Maybe we can blind them? We can't have gay guys look at other naked men without their consent.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Feb 4, 2010 at 03:06 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't understand....
You really just needed to stop there.

Understood.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 4, 2010 at 07:52 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Keep grabbing at straws..
...keep seeing straws in your sleep.

...the facts are that cultural changes are occurring, and as I've stated here before, most younger people don't care whether someone's gay, whether they're in the military or not.
The fact is that for the most part, human nature doesn't change. Our rights to privacy haven't changed, and I really have no reason to believe that you know or speak for the majority of "younger people" these days.

Your response did nothing to refute my claim that a small minority of people would be getting special rights. "Younger people" are just as sexually attracted to, and enjoy being around, the gender they find attractive. I don't think there's been anything culturally that's changed that. These are the people that straight soldiers would be segregated from, but homosexual soldiers would be granted access to.

As I've also said before, your consistent focus on turning this into a sexual issue says a lot more about you than you should tell us.
There's absolutely no rational way to turn a discussion of sexual orientation away from a "sexual issue". It's a "sexual issue" by default. Do you see the base word "sex" in "sexual orientation?" It's kind of hard to ignore unless you really aren't interested in examining exactly what we are talking about.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 08:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

The fact is that for the most part, human nature doesn't change. Our rights to privacy haven't changed, and I really have no reason to believe that you know or speak for the majority of "younger people" these days.
The fact is, human nature does change. Two hundred years ago, there would be no public venue where children would be exposed to barely dressed males and females, and topless, and nude, beaches would have resulted in arrest. The porn industry is the biggest single commercial industry on the web. Walk into any supermarket and look at the tabloids, and you'll see pictures of barely dressed people on the cover. I have no reason to believe that you know or speak for the majority of any given group these days. People today don't make as big a deal about it, except of course for those who are insecure in their beliefs, and therefore have to make an attempt to stop others from viewing what they've decided is wrong for society. You're wrong, and your high and mighty pronouncements that you know what the majority wants have been proven wrong for quite some time now.

A little less than ten years ago, there was no city or state government that allowed civil unions. Gay equality is the single fastest growing initiative in this country's history, because human nature does change; people just don't care, because more of them are beginning to realize that having a gay married couple next door to them doesn't threaten their marriage, and their kids won't be "converted," (as if you can somehow turn a straight person into a gay one), and their bunk mate in a dormitory isn't going to molest them. It just doesn't matter, except to people who just seem utterly incapable of letting go of the past. It's quite obvious which camp you belong to.

I deal with the public, in large numbers, on a daily basis, and if people were so concerned about them being looked at in a sexual way, whether they're gay or straight, we'd be dressing a lot differently than we do, and that's a fact you can take to the bank.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Feb 4, 2010 at 08:40 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are straight people segregated during training and certain military operations from those they might become sexually attracted to?

The answer is "yes."

Would gay people have to be put through the same type of segregation?

The answer is "no."

If gay people have the right to serve in a way that straight people are not, then they are being given special rights.
You're still not explaining what special rights are given to gays — you're just saying that the military leaders are not spending time or resources on segregating them. That's a far cry from the idea that, for example, gays have a right to look at attractive members of their own sex. Moreover, the separation between men and women in many military operations has little to do with concern for privacy.

You're also failing to describe how this is different, in terms of the rights gays possess, from the status quo. Gays are already put in this situation, so dismantling the "don't ask, don't tell" rule would have zero effect on this.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
The fact is, human nature does change.
Fact is, it doesn't. Culture changes. Society changes. Morals even change. The instinctual responses which make us human do not change.

You are confusing societal norms and practices with basic human nature.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
You're still not explaining what special rights are given to gays — you're just saying that the military leaders are not spending time or resources on segregating them.
Straight people are forced to segregate away from those who they very likely could become sexually attracted to. Gay people would be given the right not to have to do that.

I like to be around women. I find them attractive and stimulating on many levels. If you take away my right to be around women, you are forcing me to live with an inconvenience I'd rather not have to deal with. It's the type of inconvenience gay people would not be forced to endure.

That's a far cry from the idea that, for example, gays have a right to look at attractive members of their own sex. Moreover, the separation between men and women in many military operations has little to do with concern for privacy.
It has a lot to do with it, though you are correct that it isn't the only reason for it.

You're also failing to describe how this is different, in terms of the rights gays possess, from the status quo. Gays are already put in this situation, so dismantling the "don't ask, don't tell" rule would have zero effect on this.
Gays should NOT be put into this situation. The old policy gave tacit permission for inequality and is wrong and any new policy would probably take away the "tacit" and simply endorse unfair treatment of straight soldiers.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Fact is, it doesn't. Culture changes. Society changes. Morals even change. The instinctual responses which make us human do not change.

You are confusing societal norms and practices with basic human nature.
Whether or not human nature has changed, you haven't shown that this would require it to do so.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Whether or not human nature has changed, you haven't shown that this would require it to do so.
Sexual drive is part of human nature.

It's something that's inborn that isn't something that you can just turn off.

That's one of the reasons why the military segregates people the way they do. It's a variable they really have no control over.

My argument isn't that this would change human nature. It's that the reasoning and rationale behind sexual segregation in the military doesn't go away just because culture may change in some small way for a period of time. Making things politically correct won't change human nature.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As I've already shown, it's pretty clear that either they kept quiet or piped up in order to appease their boss.
Maintaining the status quo until you're in a position to do something about it isn't generally considered a reason to invalidate one's opinion, while actively damaging the institution you belong to just to keep your job, is.

You're arguing Mullen's opinion is invalid, because he did one of the above things, but you don't know which one?

     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Sexual drive is part of human nature.

It's something that's inborn that isn't something that you can just turn off.

That's one of the reasons why the military segregates people the way they do. It's a variable they really have no control over.

My argument isn't that this would change human nature. It's that the reasoning and rationale behind sexual segregation in the military doesn't go away just because culture may change in some small way for a period of time. Making things politically correct won't change human nature.
I'm not convinced that the reasoning and rationale behind military segregation is based on immutable human nature. Sex drive is part of human nature, but is the need to be separate from potential sex partners also part of it? Heck, much of military discipline goes against things that could more appropriately be called "human nature" (e.g. the need for personal freedom and the need for safety).
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 05:11 PM
 
A person who can't control their desires and/or actions wouldn't make it in the military anyways.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
A person who can't control their desires and/or actions wouldn't make it in the military anyways.
What better reason is there to take one of the hardest to control element (which is a part of basic human nature) out of the mix to ensure that more people will be able to "make it" successfully?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maintaining the status quo until you're in a position to do something about it isn't generally considered a reason to invalidate one's opinion, while actively damaging the institution you belong to just to keep your job, is.
If these guys really thought that DADT was in need of being removed, and didn't pipe up and make it known during the Bush administration., then that's exactly what they were doing. Could you please cite for me where they did this?

You're arguing Mullen's opinion is invalid, because he did one of the above things, but you don't know which one?

Not that his opinion is invalid, but that it's not surprising given the facts. He's a politician. He will do what is politically expedient. Past precedent shows that.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I'm not convinced that the reasoning and rationale behind military segregation is based on immutable human nature. Sex drive is part of human nature, but is the need to be separate from potential sex partners also part of it?
In order to control that aspect of human nature so it doesn't present itself as an unnecessary distraction? I think so. The military seeks to control all aspects of a soldier's life during training, so that it can focus the soldier on the one element of human nature it needs the soldier to have in order to be effective; survival. It can control sexual drive so it removes temptations and distractions caused by it.

Regardless of how or why, the fact remains that the military apparently still values segregation, as I didn't hear either Gates or Mullen explain that they were going to look into stopping that practice as well. They just said essentially that they thought it might be a good idea to give gay soldiers these special rights to be exempt from normal training requirements
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What better reason is there to take one of the hardest to control element (which is a part of basic human nature) out of the mix to ensure that more people will be able to "make it" successfully?
Because, then all you'd need to incapacitate a straight male American military is a bunch of pretty women. It's better to teach them to control their raging hormones than to remove the object of temptation.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
stupendousman is basically arguing that women should not be allowed in the military.

Women are a distraction to men in the military and having segregated restrooms for men and women "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Because, then all you'd need to incapacitate a straight male American military is a bunch of pretty women. It's better to teach them to control their raging hormones than to remove the object of temptation.
They do both at the same time. They remove the temptation, then teach them self control and obedience.

Do you suppose that it would be a bad idea to help a fat guy diet and learn self control over food by having donuts at the Weight Watchers meetings? No, I don't think you would.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
stupendousman is basically arguing that women should not be allowed in the military.
No, I'm basically not. Otherwise, I would have made that argument.

Women are a distraction to men in the military and having segregated restrooms for men and women "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality."
Do they separate men from women in training and other scenarios when in service? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, then it's already been determined that the military overwhelmingly agrees with my stance. Otherwise, they'd take the eaiser, cheaper course and do away with segregation totally and not have to simply give gays special rights unfairly.

Let me know when that happens, or when the guys in charge start being consistent and telling everyone that they think that would be a good idea as well.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, I'm basically not. Otherwise, I would have made that argument.
You did make the argument. I just replace gays with women as the subject. Your argument remains the same.

Women are a distraction to straight men.

Having segregated restrooms for men and women "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality."

You know, kinda like having shower stalls "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality."


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Do they separate men from women in training and other scenarios when in service? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, then it's already been determined that the military overwhelmingly agrees with my stance. Otherwise, they'd take the eaiser, cheaper course and do away with segregation totally and not have to simply give gays special rights unfairly.

Let me know when that happens, or when the guys in charge start being consistent and telling everyone that they think that would be a good idea as well.
ANSWER: Install shower stalls and curtains.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 08:00 PM
 
And now for something completely different . . .

Here is The Onion's take on this issue.

"Allowing gays to serve openly in the Army is a long overdue reform, but it must be
accompanied by an assurance that heterosexuals will be able to serve openly in the Navy."
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You did make the argument. I just replace gays with women as the subject. Your argument remains the same.

Women are a distraction to straight men.
It's clear that either you don't understand the argument, or you are again simply trying to distract from the argument.

Gays and women are not the same in how we can deal with the removal of the "distraction." We can easily segregate women from men and the matter is taken care of. No need to remove them. We can't reasonably separate and segregate the small minority of people who are gay in the same way, therefore there is a significant and important difference which would rationally mean you would treat that situation differently.

With women, you don't have to change the way we train, nor do you have to deal with the distraction since the sexes are easily segregated. That's the solution we've used for pretty much forever.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's clear that either you don't understand the argument, or you are again simply trying to distract from the argument.

Gays and women are not the same in how we can deal with the removal of the "distraction." We can easily segregate women from men and the matter is taken care of. No need to remove them. We can't reasonably separate and segregate the small minority of people who are gay in the same way, therefore there is a significant and important difference which would rationally mean you would treat that situation differently.

With women, you don't have to change the way we train, nor do you have to deal with the distraction since the sexes are easily segregated. That's the solution we've used for pretty much forever.
Yes. We can easily segregate women from men, just as easily as installing shower stalls and curtains.

But we wouldn't want to segregate women from the men by having separate restrooms, because just like having shower stalls and curtains, that would "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's clear that either you don't understand the argument, or you are again simply trying to distract from the argument.

Gays and women are not the same in how we can deal with the removal of the "distraction." We can easily segregate women from men and the matter is taken care of. No need to remove them. We can't reasonably separate and segregate the small minority of people who are gay in the same way, therefore there is a significant and important difference which would rationally mean you would treat that situation differently.

With women, you don't have to change the way we train, nor do you have to deal with the distraction since the sexes are easily segregated. That's the solution we've used for pretty much forever.

Curtains or shower stalls.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Curtains or shower stalls.
... isn't the panacea for integrating sexual expression in the military nor the sole consideration of it.

A drill sergeant lays into you, is he doing this because you're gay? Time to bring in the notebooks and the investigations and the paperwork, and the admin, and even more non-contributory overhead. If military leadership is on board (and it seems they are to an increasing degree), then so be it. All I can say is that they'd better lobby the government for a substantial allotment of money to cover the inevitable administrative burden they're entertaining here. Opposition to the industrial military complex makes for strange bedfellows. (no pun)

Make no mistake, after a year of "studies" on the implications of such a policy, they'll be asking for a lot of money and... they'll get it.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 02:13 PM
 
Finally, a decent argument (ebuddy's)!

If a drill sergeant lays into you, how do you know he/she is not doing this because of your gender? Because you are Black? Hispanic? Asian? Jewish? Because you have particular political opinions? Because you are besson3c?

There are any number of reasons a drill sergeant can lay into you.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A drill sergeant lays into you, is he doing this because you're gay? Time to bring in the notebooks and the investigations and the paperwork, and the admin, and even more non-contributory overhead. If military leadership is on board (and it seems they are to an increasing degree), then so be it. All I can say is that they'd better lobby the government for a substantial allotment of money to cover the inevitable administrative burden they're entertaining here.
There are, already, systems in place within the military to address issues of improper conduct on the part of those in positions of power/authority abusing said power/authority over their subordinates. So, there will be no need for "a substantial allotment of money to cover the inevitable administrative burden" from allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. (Nor will there be an "inevitable administrative burden" in the first place.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Finally, a decent argument (ebuddy's)!

If a drill sergeant lays into you, how do you know he/she is not doing this because of your gender? Because you are Black? Hispanic? Asian? Jewish? Because you have particular political opinions? Because you are besson3c?

There are any number of reasons a drill sergeant can lay into you.
Absolutely. And apart from race or gender (and soon sexual orientation) there are few matters in which a drill sergeant can't "lay into you" without a reason. Which is part of the point. The dehumanizing aspect of basic training is really more of a de-individualizing treatment as a former civilian with an individual identity gets transformed into a new soldier with a collective identity of a soldier where being part of the group is WAY, WAY more important than any other aspect of one's identity.



As an aside, there was an article in the news a month or two ago about the Army's new chief drill sergeant (the one who oversees training/development of all other Army drill sergeant). And the soldier in this role is a black women. You think she is going to allow her trainees to lay into someone because of their race or gender ? I think not. I think, that if she permits any emphasis on race/gender/religion/sexual orientation, it is to highlight it and say "That doesn't mean squat" when it comes to being a soldier. In other words, to reinforce the notion that what someone might think makes them special is in fact not special. All in the service of stripping away that personal identity and replacing it with a collective identity.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM. Reason: fixed an error dealing with pronouns.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yes. We can easily segregate women from men, just as easily as installing shower stalls and curtains.
Installing shower stalls and curtains does not serve to segregate those who might be sexually attracted. That's the reason why they don't bunk men and women together during training, but just give them shower stalls and curtains, which would be much easier logistically and probably cheaper. Your solution doesn't really solve the problem at all.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 05:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Installing shower stalls and curtains does not serve to segregate those who might be sexually attracted. That's the reason why they don't bunk men and women together during training, but just give them shower stalls and curtains, which would be much easier logistically and probably cheaper. Your solution doesn't really solve the problem at all.
Gender integrated training seems to exist since the 1970s.

The main arguments for gender segregated training are:

1. Difference in physical strength and endurance between men and women. Same reason why most sports are segregated between men and women. It's not because they are afraid basketball players might have sex during the season or training.

2. Women in the military getting pregnant. What are the chances of the gay man in the military getting pregnant from having sex with another man?

3. Sexual Harassment. Men sexually harassing women. I doubt there we be many gay guys sexually harassing other men.


They use to have a "No Talk, No Touch" policy between men and women members.

Defense.gov News Article: Panel Urges Same-sex Small Basic Training Units

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/Historian...d%20gender.pdf

Perceived differences between men and women in physical strength and endurance were most influential in shaping the debate surrounding basic training in mixed-gender units.
.....
Close behind physical fitness standards as the most debated issues concerning the role of women in the military were marriage, preg- nancy, and parenthood.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Gender integrated training seems to exist since the 1970s.
Please cite where there's ever been, except maybe on some small experimental basis, gender integrated basic training.

The main arguments for gender segregated training are:

1. Difference in physical strength and endurance between men and women. Same reason why most sports are segregated between men and women. It's not because they are afraid basketball players might have sex during the season or training.
I agree that for sports, women are expected to have a different standard. It's assumed that they aren't equal to men in a lot of aspects and in general couldn't really compete with men. But, if they are both on the battlefield, the enemy isn't going to pause and not kill the female because she can't as effectively kill them as their male counterparts could. Unless the argument is that women aren't equal to men in their ability to kill the enemy (which would limit their service), I doubt that this would be the primary concern. Even if it is, you yourself concede below that there are other more pressing reasons.....

2. Women in the military getting pregnant. What are the chances of the gay man in the military getting pregnant from having sex with another man?
None, but that assumes that the only distraction or reduction in fighting effectiveness that comes from soldiers having sex with each other at a time they are supposed to be focused on killing, is if a pregnancy occurs. There's really no reason to set the bar that high given all the other negative effects this can have on readiness and military focus.

Besides, isn't it the argument here that soldiers are supposed to be able to control their sex drives around those they are attracted to, or they won't be good soldiers? There shouldn't ever be a pregnancy if it's against military rules, right? Really, how many times has that argument been made here already?

3. Sexual Harassment. Men sexually harassing women. I doubt there we be many gay guys sexually harassing other men.
Why? What makes gay men so special that they have control over their sexuality above and beyond what the average straight man has? I think this "concern" has epic fail written all over it. The incident for sexual harassment likely increases the same amount when you put people together who have potential for sexual attraction, regardless of sexual orientation. That's one of the reasons why the military segregates. They don't want sex to be an issue at all.

The link you gave was a report where the military essentially said that basic training should be kept same-sex and for them not to do away with male/female segregation. I'm not sure how that helps your case. While there are limits put on male/female service, I don't think anyone is under the impression that once the soldiers are trained to kill, that they are stopped from interacting with females totally. I don't think anyone is making that argument.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Installing shower stalls and curtains does not serve to segregate those who might be sexually attracted. That's the reason why they don't bunk men and women together during training, but just give them shower stalls and curtains, which would be much easier logistically and probably cheaper. Your solution doesn't really solve the problem at all.
Sure it does. If you can't see the person you are sexually attracted to while they are showering (and un-clothed) then you can't be distracted by them.

And your point about segregation of men from women is valid. I have been advocating all along for removal of sex segregation from the military. Put in shower stalls and curtains and make everyone use the same facilities.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What makes gay men so special that they have control over their sexuality above and beyond what the average straight man has?
Gay men do not have an extra-ordinary control over their sexuality. Gay men can control acting on their sexual desires just as easily as straight men can. That is the whole point of this line of reasoning, to show that all soldiers can control their sexuality in order to be a good soldier.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The incident for sexual harassment likely increases the same amount when you put people together who have potential for sexual attraction, regardless of sexual orientation. That's one of the reasons why the military segregates. They don't want sex to be an issue at all.
If the military didn't want "sex to be an issue at all" then we would have still an all-male military. So your line of reasoning is, as usual, bereft of most logic.



One of the fundamental aspects of military training is that recruits are expected to put aside most ordinary concerns and desires to become a better soldier. You argue from the assumption that this is not possible when it comes to matters of sexual desire (at least for male soldiers). Whereas those of us with a little more respect for the military assume that our soldiers are capable of putting aside most ordinary concerns and desires, including their sexual desires, to be a better soldier.

I think on this point we will always disagree. You will always think our soldiers are not capable of setting aside their desires for the duty to their service; Myself and others will always think our soldiers are capable of setting aside their desires for the duty to their service.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Please cite where there's ever been, except maybe on some small experimental basis, gender integrated basic training.
I don't think you bother to read the links I've posted.

There have been gender integrated basic training since the 1970s. Gender integrated basic training exist in the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

Gender integrated basic training exist in Fort Sill, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Jackson, and Fort Hood for instance.

http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11854262

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I agree that for sports, women are expected to have a different standard. It's assumed that they aren't equal to men in a lot of aspects and in general couldn't really compete with men. But, if they are both on the battlefield, the enemy isn't going to pause and not kill the female because she can't as effectively kill them as their male counterparts could. Unless the argument is that women aren't equal to men in their ability to kill the enemy (which would limit their service), I doubt that this would be the primary concern. Even if it is, you yourself concede below that there are other more pressing reasons.....
Did you miss the whole part where the training might be cater to women differently than men because of physical differences?

What's your argument again?

Women shouldn't be in the military?

We should have gender integrated basic training?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
None, but that assumes that the only distraction or reduction in fighting effectiveness that comes from soldiers having sex with each other at a time they are supposed to be focused on killing, is if a pregnancy occurs. There's really no reason to set the bar that high given all the other negative effects this can have on readiness and military focus.

Besides, isn't it the argument here that soldiers are supposed to be able to control their sex drives around those they are attracted to, or they won't be good soldiers? There shouldn't ever be a pregnancy if it's against military rules, right? Really, how many times has that argument been made here already?
Again. Not sure what your argument is.

Having sex is a problem? Then so is eating, sleeping, peeing, and taking a dump.

Soldiers who are on active duty can't go home during Christmas and have sex with their wives? Because their wives are a distraction during a time when they are supposed to be focused on killing?

Female soldiers getting pregnant is the problem. If they are pregnant, they are not physically fit to fight.


Reduction in fighting effectiveness because they have sex?

The Spartans engage in gay sex and they are awesome fighters.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

Why? What makes gay men so special that they have control over their sexuality above and beyond what the average straight man has? I think this "concern" has epic fail written all over it. The incident for sexual harassment likely increases the same amount when you put people together who have potential for sexual attraction, regardless of sexual orientation. That's one of the reasons why the military segregates. They don't want sex to be an issue at all.
Haha...

Epic fail on your part.

There are gay men in the military now. Is sexual harassment a problem right now?

No?

Think man. Think.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

The link you gave was a report where the military essentially said that basic training should be kept same-sex and for them not to do away with male/female segregation. I'm not sure how that helps your case. While there are limits put on male/female service, I don't think anyone is under the impression that once the soldiers are trained to kill, that they are stopped from interacting with females totally. I don't think anyone is making that argument.
Why don't you read the documents. Tell me how the potential problems with women/men integration training apply to gay men. How does a gay man get pregnant when having sex with other men? Tell me how gay men are physically different from straight men. Tell me how the problems with male/female integration applies to integrating gay men with straight men.

You know what. It doesn't. That was the point.

1. Gay men don't get pregnant.
2. Gay men are physically the same as straight men.
3. Gay men don't have a habit of sexually harassing straight men in the military, since there are many gay men in the military currently.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Feb 8, 2010 at 09:06 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Sure it does. If you can't see the person you are sexually attracted to while they are showering (and un-clothed) then you can't be distracted by them.
So you only become sexually attracted to people if you can watch them naked first?

It must be tough for you to find dates.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Gay men do not have an extra-ordinary control over their sexuality. Gay men can control acting on their sexual desires just as easily as straight men can. That is the whole point of this line of reasoning, to show that all soldiers can control their sexuality in order to be a good soldier.
Then there shouldn't be the concern about "sexual harassment" that was suggested above.

If the military didn't want "sex to be an issue at all" then we would have still an all-male military. So your line of reasoning is, as usual, bereft of most logic.
It isn't really an issue at the most important times. That's when men and women are segregated.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,