[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think the fear is that the straight men might catch the gay and become distracted by the gay men, resulting in an army full of fems.

That's what the "straight" men are afraid of.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand this analogy. One generally knows they're stealing, so I don't get the unwitting part.

It's possible that neither will do it with the intent of violating the rights of others. They do it because they have a psychological urge to do so. The purpose isn't to hurt others.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

First you assumed most all our soldiers were slaves to their sex drives and could not function well in the presence of someone they find attractive?

Could not function AS WELL, and in many cases cause their fellow soldiers not to not function as well. Not because they are a "slave", but simply because they are human and have natural human responses. I do indeed think that all soldiers are human.

And now you are claiming that a majority of Americans don't want to be in the presence of homosexuals? Got any other major groups you wish to denigrate while we are at it?

Not my argument AT ALL. Never said that. The majority don't want to live in close quarters where they'd be required to expose their naked bodies to people who might be sexually attracted to them (or might become so) without their permission. As I've stated before, there's a reason why public restrooms, shower facilities and the U.S. Military separates men from women, and it's not because people simply don't want to be in the presence of the opposite sex. It's the same reason homosexuals have been banned from serving.

It is ludicrous to allow in military service individuals with sexual hang-ups such that they are more concerned about the sexual orientation of a fellow soldier than with the duties associated with service. That is what is ludicrous: Thinking someone with such a fixation on the sex lives of others is somehow fit to be a soldier in the U.S. military.

You'll need to get rid of probably the majority of women in the military then. I'm betting if you tell them they have to shower naked with the male soldiers, a good portion of these ladies with "sexual hang-ups" won't volunteer to serve.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could not function AS WELL, and in many cases cause their fellow soldiers not to not function as well. Not because they are a "slave", but simply because they are human and have natural human responses. I do indeed think that all soldiers are human.



Not my argument AT ALL. Never said that. The majority don't want to live in close quarters where they'd be required to expose their naked bodies to people who might be sexually attracted to them (or might become so) without their permission. As I've stated before, there's a reason why public restrooms, shower facilities and the U.S. Military separates men from women, and it's not because people simply don't want to be in the presence of the opposite sex. It's the same reason homosexuals have been banned from serving.



You'll need to get rid of probably the majority of women in the military then. I'm betting if you tell them they have to shower naked with the male soldiers, a good portion of these ladies with "sexual hang-ups" won't volunteer to serve.

mmnngggYOU'RE JUST SCRRD OF PEEPOLE GETTING TEH GAY!!

(among other sophomoric, hit and run arguments as red meat for those with a short attention span)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the military decides that it is important to enforce policy allowing gay soldiers the ability to openly express their uniqueness, they will require everyone to accept them just as they did with blacks and women.

I will reply in full to your post later but I had to address this point right away. Have you actually read the history* of the integration of the U.S. military? The military "leadership" fought vigorously to keep the services from becoming integrated. The military did not decide to require everyone to accept blacks; They were forced to do so by President Truman over the objections of the leaders of all the branches of the military. So, I will ask you again something I asked in my last post

Do you think it was right for President Truman to force the military to integrate racially?
or
Do you think President Truman should have deferred to the military "leadership" and let the military decide when to integrate itself?


*To save you the trouble, here is the link. Oh, and this is the military's own official history, not some outsiders history, so don't bother with accusations of bias.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You'll need to get rid of probably the majority of women in the military then. I'm betting if you tell them they have to shower naked with the male soldiers, a good portion of these ladies with "sexual hang-ups" won't volunteer to serve.

Then we should not allow women into the service if they have "sexual hang-ups" that prevent them from being in close quarters to those who might find them attractive.

The whole point of basic training is to remove all individuality and shape the person into an efficient soldier devoid of any individuality. If we have men and women trying to join the military who are so worried about whether or not someone is sexually attracted to them then they are not really fit for military service.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

mmnngggYOU'RE JUST SCRRD OF PEEPOLE GETTING TEH GAY!!

(among other sophomoric, hit and run arguments as red meat for those with a short attention span)

You say that as if it isn't sophomoric to argue that straight soldiers will get squeamish and lose their fighting ability at the thought of a homosexual in their midst.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

mmnngggYOU'RE JUST SCRRD OF PEEPOLE GETTING TEH GAY!!

(among other sophomoric, hit and run arguments as red meat for those with a short attention span)

You'd like to pretend it's a sophomoric argument, but you know damn well it's one that is often presented by religious groups, when they throw out their ridiculous "gay agenda" sophomoric arguments, telling believing parents that gay teachers, and others, are out to convert their children. The reason people keep bringing up arguments like this is precisely because they absolutely no knowledge of what homosexuality is about, so they grasp at straws (like mental illness), in order to scare the gullible.

You're disingenuous, and you know it, but you keep trying anyway, as you have nothing of substance.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Then we should not allow women into the service if they have "sexual hang-ups" that prevent them from being in close quarters to those who might find them attractive.

You are purposefully trying to simplify things to the point where the pertinent elements of my argument aren't even addressed.

It's not just being "in close quarters to those who might find them attractive."

It's having to live in arrangement designed to produce camaraderie and cohesiveness among those who don't have any sexual attraction to each other in a way that violates what most believe to be some of the most basic rights to privacy.

Most people don't think that not wanting those who might be sexually attracted to you to look at your naked body without your permission as a "sexual hang-up." It's the norm. It's less likely that people want others to view their nakedness who don't request it. That's why our culture and legal institutions have devised standards based on this standard.

In order for your standard to exist, we've got to classify normal behavior and emotions as "hang-ups" and ignore proven methods of military training which have shown to have worked over the years. Not exactly a rock solid basis to make a change.

The whole point of basic training is to remove all individuality and shape the person into an efficient soldier devoid of any individuality. If we have men and women trying to join the military who are so worried about whether or not someone is sexually attracted to them then they are not really fit for military service.

Totally false. You don't have to have "individuality" to be afforded basic rights. You can't deny soldiers food if they've misbehaved. You can't torture them. You can't find them guilty of a crime without representation, and you likely can't force them to give up basic rights to privacy over their body. If you want to argue that you can, again - you've going to lose a lot more women in the military than you would EVER gain in regard to gay soldiers. That doesn't really sound like a rational plan given that it's hard enough to attract good soldiers to risk their lives as it is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You say that as if it isn't sophomoric to argue that straight soldiers will get squeamish and lose their fighting ability at the thought of a homosexual in their midst.

Not just "in their midst," but actively violating their basic rights to privacy.

I don't really care if the lady or guy sitting next to me in the office thinks I'm hot. That's something that I'm sure is beyond their control.

I'm just not going to add to their frustration and office tension by doing something that would invite them to look at my naked body. I can't help what others imagine, but I do have control over my body by having the basic right to either not become infolved with them sexually or allow them to view my naked body.

I have the right to control the situation in that way. Otherwise, the person in question would be facing jail time if they chose to deny me that right. People wanting to allow unfettered access to the military to homosexuals are pretty much telling people that they should freely give up some of their most basic rights so that people who can't comply with current military training can partake as well.

BIG difference than just being "in their midst."

[dcmacdaddy]

@ebuddy,

Just for the sake of clarification, you have a history on these forums of suggesting that homosexuality is a mental flaw and/or illness. But back on page 7--I quoted the relevant passage below--you said that you think homosexuality is a choice. Is that really your new opinion on the matter? That homosexuality is a choice?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Some homosexuals choose to be gay, some gays choose to be straight, then gay, then straight again. Some gays are just gay. Most empirical evidence suggests homosexuality (not unlike heterosexuality) is psycho social in nature and is more likely the product of nurturing and other stimuli during upbringing as are the factors for a wealth of varying psychological conditions.

[dcmacdaddy]

And for the sake or argument, I will outline my stance on homosexuality as best as I can.


I, dcmacdaddy, do not think homosexuality is a choice.
I, dcmacdaddy, think the development of homosexuality is due primarily to genetics with a much smaller secondary influence coming from socialization.
I, dcmacdaddy, think that most homosexuals are born and not made through psyscho-social influence or socialization (or the lack thereof).
I, dcmacdaddy, see homosexuality as an identity primarily established at birth but shaped through childhood by non-genetic factors.
THEREFORE
All my arguments in this matter are from the assumption that a homosexual is "born that way" just like a person is born with a specific sex and racial identity. So, I see being homosexual as just another facet of a person's ingrained identity like their sex or race. Thus, I believe the military should treat homosexuality just like they treat race or sex/gender, as a non-issue.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I, dcmacdaddy, think that most homosexuals are born

I, Oisín, know with absolute certainty that all homo-, bi-, and heterosexuals are born.

[The Final Dakar]

I wonder how our current soldiers are able to sleep at night, knowing that teh gays might very well be among them, secretly yearning for their junk.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not just "in their midst," but actively violating their basic rights to privacy.

I don't really care if the lady or guy sitting next to me in the office thinks I'm hot. That's something that I'm sure is beyond their control.

I'm just not going to add to their frustration and office tension by doing something that would invite them to look at my naked body. I can't help what others imagine, but I do have control over my body by having the basic right to either not become infolved with them sexually or allow them to view my naked body.

I have the right to control the situation in that way. Otherwise, the person in question would be facing jail time if they chose to deny me that right. People wanting to allow unfettered access to the military to homosexuals are pretty much telling people that they should freely give up some of their most basic rights so that people who can't comply with current military training can partake as well.

BIG difference than just being "in their midst."

So if, in the very few times that you have to take communal open showers, homosexuals were segregated to a separate room, you would have absolutely no problem with gays in the military, right? Because it seems like your only real concern is that they'll see your enormous manhood and be aroused and distracted by the very sight of it. If they can't see it directly, it's not a problem. So you shouldn't have any issue with gays in the military outside of showering, right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So if, in the very few times that you have to take communal open showers, homosexuals were segregated to a separate room, you would have absolutely no problem with gays in the military, right?

A. Soldiers are housed and live in a manner specifically designed to make them better soldiers.

B. The way soldiers are housed and live involve issues of privacy above and beyond just showers.

Should a woman not care that a man she has no close, romantic interest in is sleeping next to her, and can watch her get in and out of her underwear every day? Become attracted to her and watch her while she sleeps?

The whole thing is pretty creepy if you ask me, and creepy is the standard you guys want to set.

[shifuimam]

Actually, YOU sound creepy.

I have male friends who I am entirely unattracted to, yet I've spent the night at their homes for whatever reason. I don't think they've ever been inclined to watch me while I sleep.

That's creepy no matter who's doing it.

You seem to think that gay guys are raging sexually-overcharged beasts or something.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. Soldiers are housed and live in a manner specifically designed to make them better soldiers.

B. The way soldiers are housed and live involve issues of privacy above and beyond just showers.

Should a woman not care that a man she has no close, romantic interest in is sleeping next to her, and can watch her get in and out of her underwear every day? Become attracted to her and watch her while she sleeps?

The whole thing is pretty creepy if you ask me, and creepy is the standard you guys want to set.

You want to hear creepy, I'll give you creepy.

"Should a woman not care that a man she has no close, romantic interest in is sleeping next to her, and can watch her get in and out of her underwear every day? Become attracted to her and watch her while she sleeps?"

"watching her while she sleeps?" How do you come up with these scenarios? Do you spend your free time contemplating ways in which men can ogle women?

More important, do you really think soldiers going through basic training are going to be just sitting around having all sorts of free time and some of them will spend that time ogling others as they sleep? Really? I guess I will just add this to the list of other negative statements you express about our soldiers. Man, you really don't like our soldiers do you.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I wonder how our current soldiers are able to sleep at night, knowing that teh gays might very well be among them, secretly yearning for their junk.

You mean the gay sleeper cell that might jump and attack a sleeping soldier?

Or was it the gay mafia?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. Soldiers are housed and live in a manner specifically designed to make them better soldiers.

B. The way soldiers are housed and live involve issues of privacy above and beyond just showers.

Should a woman not care that a man she has no close, romantic interest in is sleeping next to her, and can watch her get in and out of her underwear every day? Become attracted to her and watch her while she sleeps?

The whole thing is pretty creepy if you ask me, and creepy is the standard you guys want to set.

You keep showing us, time after time after time, how hung up on sexual issues you are, and how much you make of an issue that isn't one for people who are secure in their gender identity. You really should see someone about your fears.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

. . . gay guys are raging sexually-overcharged beasts or something.

Yep. That says it all.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Yep. That says it all.

No…

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

…guys are raging sexually-overcharged beasts or something.

…but that does.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

@ebuddy,

Just for the sake of clarification, you have a history on these forums of suggesting that homosexuality is a mental flaw and/or illness. But back on page 7--I quoted the relevant passage below--you said that you think homosexuality is a choice. Is that really your new opinion on the matter? That homosexuality is a choice?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Some homosexuals choose to be gay, some gays choose to be straight, then gay, then straight again. Some gays are just gay. Most empirical evidence suggests homosexuality (not unlike heterosexuality) is psycho social in nature and is more likely the product of nurturing and other stimuli during upbringing as are the factors for a wealth of varying psychological conditions.

If this thread is going to be your foray into psycho analysis and I'm fortunate enough to be your guinea pig, please at least collect all the data. Watch for key words and phrases like "some", or "empirical evidence", "not unlike heterosexuality", "psycho social", "stimuli", "upbringing", and "various psychological conditions". I have less time for your good points with so many straw men to address.

There is no gay gene dcmacdaddy. There just isn't. There is in fact very little at all to suggest homosexuality is genetic and there is even less of anything reliable as a determinant or predictor. It's nothing more than a political hot-potato. I pop in to simply cite that the bulk of the empirical evidence we have regarding human sexuality is its psycho social, environmental component, and it's as if I've lit a powder keg. The reaction to this has been fascinating. If any good science comes from such a politically charged subject, it'll be a miracle.

There is no expert that endeavors to identify a biological component for human sexuality who ignores the psycho-social, environmental component. Everything from the differences between the way a man and woman hold a child to how they motivate or encourage children; it has all been well documented. Notice at this point I do not differentiate hetero from homo, but of course you immediately compartmentalized my arguments into the ones you're more comfortable addressing. HOMO BAD HETERO GOOD

I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice. In fact, I've even cited examples of conditions no one would choose and closed the contentious sentence you copy-pasted above with "some gays are just gay". I am not arguing from any moral position and I think this is really getting to you and OldMan. It seems when I don't give you a good enough launch point to your soapbox, you resort to these peculiar public professions.

The only way we have to identify a homosexual for certain is if they tell us. Many would not tell us, but would tell us the opposite, then get married and as if by magic- they're heterosexual. When did they choose to be gay dc? There are others who would publicly claim they were gay, then straight. When did they choose to be gay? There are bi-sexuals, when did they choose both? Do you really care about such things? Really? Why does the military with all measure of regulations on sexual expression have to allow for "openly" anything? Is there any particular reason why this should be a goal of the military? Ironic to me is you're so focused on point-by-point hot buttons that you're not getting the overall message.

This is not about Presidential Orders for racial integration because gays are already serving in the military. I happen to believe "Don't Ask Don't Tell" while flawed, is a reasonable response to a still, complex issue. I've been very honest in saying throughout that it's not about whether or not I want gays in the military, I'm simply saying I'm not accountable for meeting the needs of it. I trust that there are any number of careful considerations to ensure on balance, current policy is a benefit to them in a time of numerous commitments and two wars. For this reason, I defer to the expertise of military leadership over the opinionated. As much as you want it to be a detestable argument, it's just not.

This expertise includes the Commander in Chief BTW.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice.

Does the sentence "some homosexuals choose to be gay" ring a bell? Notice the word choose there? I am pretty sure using the word choose implies a choice is being made.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is not about Presidential Orders for racial integration because gays are already serving in the military.

Sure it is. Blacks were "already serving in the military" when it was forcible integrated. They were simply serving in segregated units. Now we have homosexuals serving but segregated by expression. They cannot, must not express their sexual identity in the same way their heterosexual peers can do. When a U.S. President orders the military to integrate homosexuals openly into the military they will no longer be segregated by expression. Just like what happened with the racial integration of the military.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I happen to believe "Don't Ask Don't Tell" while flawed, is a reasonable response to a still, complex issue.

I do not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've been very honest in saying throughout that it's not about whether or not I want gays in the military, I'm simply saying I'm not accountable for meeting the needs of it. I trust that there are any number of careful considerations to ensure on balance, current policy is a benefit to them in a time of numerous commitments and two wars.

Kinda like how current policy was a benefit to the military after WWII when we were occupying both Japan and Germany yet the military managed to survive forcible integration.

Speaking of this topic, I have asked you twice now if you thought President Truman did the right thing when he forced integration of the military. So, do you? Do you think President Truman did the right thing by forcing integration of the military? Or do you think President Truman should have deferred to military leaders and their "careful considerations to ensure on balance, current policy is a benefit to them [the military] in a time of numerous commitments and two [occupations]"?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For this reason, I defer to the expertise of military leadership over the opinionated.

So, would you have deferred to "the expertise of military leadership over the" President when it came to integration of the military after WWII? Would you have deferred to the expertise of the military and let them keep the armed forced segregated until "the expertise of military leadership" decided it was appropriate to integrate the military?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Does the sentence "some homosexuals choose to be gay" ring a bell? Notice the word choose there? I am pretty sure using the word choose implies a choice is being made.

Actually, I've always found ebuddy to be rather fair minded on this topic. Personally, I have no doubt that *some* homosexuals *do* choose to be gay.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no gay gene dcmacdaddy. There just isn't. There is in fact very little at all to suggest homosexuality is genetic and there is even less of anything reliable as a determinant or predictor.

And you know this how?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Does the sentence "some homosexuals choose to be gay" ring a bell? Notice the word choose there? I am pretty sure using the word choose implies a choice is being made.

I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice. In fact, I've even cited examples of conditions no one would choose and closed the contentious sentence you copy-pasted above with "some gays are just gay". I'm pretty sure you're trying to extract an argument out of nothing because you have nothing.

Sure it is. Blacks were "already serving in the military" when it was forcible integrated. They were simply serving in segregated units. Now we have homosexuals serving but segregated by expression. They cannot, must not express their sexual identity in the same way their heterosexual peers can do. When a U.S. President orders the military to integrate homosexuals openly into the military they will no longer be segregated by expression. Just like what happened with the racial integration of the military.

Why does the military with all measure of regulations on sexual expression have to allow for "openly" sexual anything? Is there any particular reason why this should be a goal of the military? Forced integration of expression is immeasurable, unreasonable, nonsensical, and has little to nothing to do with the goals of the military.

Speaking of this topic, I have asked you twice now if you thought President Truman did the right thing when he forced integration of the military. So, do you? Do you think President Truman did the right thing by forcing integration of the military? Or do you think President Truman should have deferred to military leaders and their "careful considerations to ensure on balance, current policy is a benefit to them [the military] in a time of numerous commitments and two [occupations]"?

You seem to fashion yourself some champion of racial progress dc, tell me; have you asked any blacks for example how they feel about gay rights?

I have every reason to believe at that point in US history, a significant portion of military leadership was acting out of racism. For this reason I support Truman's order. Truman's order did not mandate the open expression of anything however, it was about integrating those of a different skin color and proven military prowess. Had Truman risked losing his bid for reelection, there's no doubt in my mind he would've maintained the status quo. I believe what set the tone for the success of this policy is the proven capabilities of the Tuskegee airmen. Blacks and women weren't granted anything, they earned it in spite of a complete inability to participate in the political process. I would also argue that integration likely resulted in less bureaucracy, less administration, less infrastructure, less expense, and more effective a policy overall for the military. I have absolutely no reason to believe allowing for the open expression of anything in the military would have the same net-gain and I would have vehemently opposed a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy regarding race and gender.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Actually, YOU sound creepy.

I have male friends who I am entirely unattracted to, yet I've spent the night at their homes for whatever reason. I don't think they've ever been inclined to watch me while I sleep.

That's creepy no matter who's doing it.

I'm sure that's the case. What would happen if the male friends didn't know you were gay, and you DID end up finding yourself attracted to them (or they just didn't know you were attracted to th em)? Do you think you'd be violating their rights to privacy in any way?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

"watching her while she sleeps?" How do you come up with these scenarios? Do you spend your free time contemplating ways in which men can ogle women?

I really don't think I need to "come up with" any scenarios. I've spent my life watching attractive women become offended by men ogling them, and men not being able to control their compulsion to do so. I know that I myself sometimes have a difficult time not staring at attractive women in my midst. It's normal to watch to take an extended amount of time to appreciate beautiful things. That's not an abnormal response.

But, sometimes that can cause some pretty clear violations of privacy and is why people aren't normally forced to sleep in close quarters with those that might find them sexually attractive.

More important, do you really think soldiers going through basic training are going to be just sitting around having all sorts of free time and some of them will spend that time ogling others as they sleep? Really? I guess I will just add this to the list of other negative statements you express about our soldiers. Man, you really don't like our soldiers do you.

Soldiers are human. I am a human. I don't hold soldiers to a standard higher or lesser than that I hold myself. I know that if a beautiful woman I found attractive was sleeping next to me, I might be inclined to reflexively stare at her when I didn't think she was aware, inadvertently invading her privacy. That's why in the real world, I try to avoid sleeping in close quarters to women who I might find attractive, who don't have the same feelings. I think most Americans do the same. Really, these aren't odd standards. The standards you are asking everyone to accept are the ones that can be shown to be odd.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice. In fact, I've even cited examples of conditions no one would choose and closed the contentious sentence you copy-pasted above with "some gays are just gay". I'm pretty sure you're trying to extract an argument out of nothing because you have nothing.

You keep saying you do not think homosexuality is a choice but then we have your words that say otherwise.
You can't say "Some homosexuals choose to be gay" and then follow up with "I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice" without being either ignorant (which I know you are not), a hypocrite (which I hope you are not), or insincere and inconsistent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why does the military with all measure of regulations on sexual expression have to allow for "openly" sexual anything? Is there any particular reason why this should be a goal of the military?

It's not about the sexuality; It's about the identity. Just like a person's sex or skin color is a fundamental aspect of identity, so is their sexual orientation. As such, I don't think the military should be limiting admission to its ranks on the basis of a fundamental aspect of a person's identity.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice. In fact, I've even cited examples of conditions no one would choose and closed the contentious sentence you copy-pasted above with "some gays are just gay". I'm pretty sure you're trying to extract an argument out of nothing because you have nothing.

You keep saying you do not think homosexuality is a choice but then we have your words that say otherwise.
You can't say "Some homosexuals choose to be gay" and then follow up with "I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice" without being either ignorant (which I know you are not), a hypocrite (which I hope you are not), or insincere and inconsistent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seem to fashion yourself some champion of racial progress dc, tell me; have you asked any blacks for example how they feel about gay rights?

What gives you the idea that I fashion myself "some champion of racial progress"?
And what do the feelings of blacks concerning gay rights have anything to do with allowing homosexuals in the military?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have every reason to believe at that point in US history, a significant portion of military leadership was acting out of racism. For this reason I support Truman's order. Truman's order did not mandate the open expression of anything however, it was about integrating those of a different skin color and proven military prowess.

Sexual identity is as fundamental to a person as their racial identity. I see no difference between the components of a person's identity as it relates to race, gender, or sexual orientation. (Heck, I said that above in the most explicit manner possible.) And for that reason I will state that "I have every reason to believe at [this] point in US history, a significant portion of military leadership [is] acting out of [fear of the unknown]".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Blacks and women weren't granted anything, they earned it in spite of a complete inability to participate in the political process.

Blacks and women were granted the ability to fully participate in the military instead of a partial participation that limited their productivity and contribution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would also argue that integration likely resulted in less bureaucracy, less administration, less infrastructure, less expense, and more effective a policy overall for the military.

Hmm, you think removing DADT would result in "less bureaucracy, less administration, less infrastructure, less expense, and more effective a policy overall for the military"? I do.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have absolutely no reason to believe allowing for the open expression of anything in the military would have the same net-gain and I would have vehemently opposed a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy regarding race and gender.

Well, I will say it again. I view sexual orientation as a fundamental component of a person's identity no different than their race or gender. As such, I see no reason for the military to use a fundamental component of a person's identity as a means to restrict their participation in the military.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Soldiers are human. I am a human. I don't hold soldiers to a standard higher or lesser than that I hold myself.

Well, there's your problem then. Soldiers are held to a higher standard of conduct than individuals.
And they are held to that higher standard by the military itself.

Soldiers are expected to suppress a whole host of personal desires--whether it be related to sex, food, sleeping arrangements, clothing style, personal grooming, and hair styles--for the benefit of the military as a whole. The military expecting its soldiers to suppress their sexual desires for the good of the service--as ebuddy stated, to put concern for service over concern for sexual desires--so the examples you give are insignificant and rather pointless.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sure that's the case. What would happen if the male friends didn't know you were gay, and you DID end up finding yourself attracted to them (or they just didn't know you were attracted to th em)? Do you think you'd be violating their rights to privacy in any way?

This post makes very little sense to me. Why would shif end up being attracted to any of her male friends if she were gay?!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

This post makes very little sense to me. Why would shif end up being attracted to any of her male friends if she were gay?!

Of course it doesn't make any sense. Stupendous keeps regurgitating the same old argument about some mythical right to not be looked when you're naked in a military shower, if the person looking happens to be gay. It's okay to have a straight guy look at his penis, because that apparently doesn't violate his "rights," but not a gay one.

[Oisín]

No, I mean it didn’t make sense in any way, even according to his own arguments. Why would a lesbian be attracted to men in the first place? Wouldn’t she be more likely to “violat[e] their rights to privacy” if she weren’t gay? I don’t get it.

[The Final Dakar]

He obviously doesn't realize she's a girl. I mean, would any of you be surprised if that got past him?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sure that's the case. What would happen if the male friends didn't know you were gay, and you DID end up finding yourself attracted to them (or they just didn't know you were attracted to th em)? Do you think you'd be violating their rights to privacy in any way?

Wait. You're actually insinuating that if I were a male, had male friends who didn't know I was gay, and found myself attracted to them, this would be a violation of their "right to privacy"?

Are you ****ing KIDDING ME?

In what universe does your right to privacy include being allowed to dictate who and who isn't attracted to you? How does a man being attracted to you, as a man, affect you in any way? Unless he's trying to stick it in your butt or is being constantly distracted by what I am assuming must be a body that belongs in the Louvre, given how paranoid you are of men being attracted to you, I don't understand what the problem is.

Then again, maybe I do. You strike me as the kind of person who is terrified that some day you're going to be forced to acknowledge some kind of deep-hidden sexual attraction for men, which will violently conflict with your disgust and hatred for gay men (just men; you seem to have no problem with lesbians).

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've spent my life watching attractive women become offended by men ogling them,

You're right. I get offended by someone who stares at me incessantly, because it's creepy. Do you really think that's actually what happens in the military? That the few hours of sleep you're granted by your incredibly strict schedule will be spent staring at another man while he sleeps, thinking about what you want to do to him?

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, you are really perverted inside, aren't you?

and men not being able to control their compulsion to do so.

Unsurprisingly, men who are incapable of controlling their compulsions (of any kind - women, alcohol, pornography, etc.) don't generally last very long in the military.

I know that I myself sometimes have a difficult time not staring at attractive women in my midst.

That's because you are one sick ****.

I spend the majority of my time around men. I'm a female in IT, and I'm a pretty damn attractive one at that. Since I college, I have spent the majority of my existence around men.

And none of these men spend their time staring at women. This is not because I don't notice. I really notice this kind of stuff, and I smack my best friend when he does it (which isn't all that often). There are certainly certain kinds of men who spend all their free time ogling women (or men), but those men aren't really the type to join the military.

Do you actually know any gay people who aren't giant whores, or is your entire perception of the gay male population of the world driven by porn and an ingrained sense of hatred that you're unwilling to let go of?

Let's just say this. If you believe that your "right to privacy" (whatever in the bloody hell that even means) includes being allowed to dictate who is and who isn't attracted to you, buy yourself a man-sized burqa or never leave your house again. And for ****'s sake, don't join the military. Leave that to men who are capable of controlling themselves while they're working to protect and serve our country.

The level of ignorance, hatred, and utter perversion that you display makes me want to vomit on your face.

And your tiny little penis.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He obviously doesn't realize she's a girl. I mean, would any of you be surprised if that got past him?

Ah.

That simple, yet fully explanatory, option didn’t even occur to me.

Duh.

[hyteckit]

If we repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", gay soldiers will start staring at sleeping males soldiers at night.

Holy cr*p. No one should sleep on airplanes or buses. Those creepy gay guys would stare at you while you sleep. That's how gay guys turn you gay.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You're right. I get offended by someone who stares at me incessantly, because it's creepy.

Exactly. Stupendousman doesn’t seem to realise the difference between ‘looking’ and ‘staring/ogling’.

If I’m in a communal shower (after gym, badminton practice, swimming, whatever) and there’s a very good-looking guy showering there as well, I’m obviously going to be more inclined to look at him than at the balding, fat octogenarian on the other side (no offence to balding, fat octogenarians). It’s a perfectly natural and ubiquitous human reaction to glance appraisingly at people (or things—it doesn’t have to be sexually motivated, it’s all about aesthetics) we find beautiful or attractive in some way. That doesn’t mean I in any way violate his privacy by entering his personal sphere or do anything that has any kind of effect on him, whatsoever.

If I’m talking to the person showering next to me, I’m very likely to be looking at him, too. Does that then not violate their right to privacy, as long as I don’t find him sexually attractive? And what about if I think he’s sort of okay-looking, but not exactly attractive? Or if I think he’s hot, but a complete moron, and am therefore not actually attracted (other than in a purely physical way) to him?

The way I see it, if you knowingly put yourself in a place where you’re likely to have to be around other people, you’ll have to accept that being appraised based on your physical appearance is going to happen, by more or less everyone. There’s nothing invasive about it, it’s part of everyday life, and it happens everywhere, whether you happen to be naked or not, or sleeping or not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Ah.

That simple, yet fully explanatory, option didn’t even occur to me.

Duh.

That's because gays are genetically inferior.

I'm sorry. "Teh gays."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

This post makes very little sense to me. Why would shif end up being attracted to any of her male friends if she were gay?!

Sorry. I got the sexes wrong. I thought shif was male.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, there's your problem then. Soldiers are held to a higher standard of conduct than individuals.
And they are held to that higher standard by the military itself.

Not for their humanity. They are held to a higher standard in that the rules they are required to follow are normally more strict than those of the regular populace, but those in charge assume they have the same flaws that regular human beings have and adjust accordingly. One way they do that is in how they segregate the soliders.

[shifuimam]

Maybe they just segregate the bathrooms because of the unfortunate fact that your average male can never seem to keep his bathroom area clean. Apparently getting ALL your pee in the toilet is just that hard.

[Oisín]

Stup, let me ask you this:

What makes attention to someone’s body based on sexual attraction different from any other kind of attention?

Say someone has some kind of physical abnormality, like having three nipples, extraordinarily large birthmarks or scars, extreme hair growth, etc.—or even something medical, like a colostomy (obviously not very likely to be encountered in the military). They would be very likely to be stared at in the showers, too—much more so than ‘regular’ people by gay people, and I see no reason why this staring should be any less of an intrusion into their personal space than being looked at by someone who may or may not be sexually attracted to you.

Should they not be allowed in the military, either?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Wait. You're actually insinuating that if I were a male, had male friends who didn't know I was gay, and found myself attracted to them, this would be a violation of their "right to privacy"?

Are you ****ing KIDDING ME?

If that was the case and you could freely watch them in the nude, while they where sleeping, in their underwear...uh, yeah. It's really not any different than looking through peepholes to do the same.

I think you know that your question doesn't really address the core issue that we are discussing, in regards to privacy, so I'm not going to argue further.

In what universe does your right to privacy include being allowed to dictate who and who isn't attracted to you?

I never asked to be able to, or give anyone else the power to do so. That's what's known as a "straw man."

How does a man being attracted to you, as a man, affect you in any way? Unless he's trying to stick it in your butt or is being constantly distracted by what I am assuming must be a body that belongs in the Louvre, given how paranoid you are of men being attracted to you, I don't understand what the problem is.

I've already explained it. I can't stop people from being attracted to me. It happens naturally. What I can stop is the ability of people who might be attracted to me to use my body for their own sexual gratification whether that be via direct physical touching or through looking at my naked body for their arousal. Someone doesn't need to sexually assault me in order for them to have taken unlawful advantage of me for their sexual gratification. You want to make it perfectly legal to do so while in the military.

Then again, maybe I do. You strike me as the kind of person who is terrified that some day you're going to be forced to acknowledge some kind of deep-hidden sexual attraction for men, which will violently conflict with your disgust and hatred for gay men (just men; you seem to have no problem with lesbians).

I have no disgust or hatred for anyone. I've based my arguments and opinions on reasonable standards and the idea that everyone should have the same rights to privacy. Kidding aside, I've had men who were attracted to me, and I don't have a problem with it as long as they aren't secretly looking at me naked, because I don't chose to share that with people who are attracted to me who I don't have the same feelings for, like most every other person on the planet.

You're right. I get offended by someone who stares at me incessantly, because it's creepy. Do you really think that's actually what happens in the military? That the few hours of sleep you're granted by your incredibly strict schedule will be spent staring at another man while he sleeps, thinking about what you want to do to him?

I've already explained what would happen if I were put in the same circumstances. I really don't think it would be a good idea to keep me focused to allow that sort of thing. I don't hold these people to any standards I don't hold myself to.

I spend the majority of my time around men. I'm a female in IT, and I'm a pretty damn attractive one at that. Since I college, I have spent the majority of my existence around men.

And none of these men spend their time staring at women. This is not because I don't notice. I really notice this kind of stuff, and I smack my best friend when he does it (which isn't all that often).

None of these men do it, but your friend gets caught doing it.

Gotcha!

ps. Most men have spent their life looking at women and most try to do it in ways that isn't offensive and doesn't creep them out. Just because you don't notice something that someone has practiced hiding for years doesn't mean it's not going on. Seriously.

There are certainly certain kinds of men who spend all their free time ogling women (or men), but those men aren't really the type to join the military.

You don't know a lot of soldiers, do you?

Do you actually know any gay people who aren't giant whores, or is your entire perception of the gay male population of the world driven by porn and an ingrained sense of hatred that you're unwilling to let go of?

Most of the gay people I know aren't really any different then I am. They like sex, don't have a lot of control over who they find attractive (it's psychological), and sometimes choose to act on it. Sometimes they choose not for a number of reasons.

You are wrongly assuming my stand is based on the notion that gay people are more sexual or somehow different in how they respond to sexual or romantic stimulus. I assure it it's based on assuming that gay people are JUST like me. I know what a distraction sex and the psychological effects attraction can cause can be because I've had to deal with it, and know most everyone else has had to as well.

The military knows too and that's why even men and women are separated. No one is holding gays to any greater or lesser standard, EXCEPT for the fact that their natural inclinations make it impossible to segregate them the same way they do with the vast majority of all other human beings.

Let's just say this. If you believe that your "right to privacy" (whatever in the bloody hell that even means) includes being allowed to dictate who is and who isn't attracted to you...

Strawman.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The level of ignorance, hatred, and utter perversion that you display makes me want to vomit on your face.

And your tiny little penis.

I hearby nominate this as the Ironic Quote Of The Day!™

All in favor.....

[Oisín]

Someone doesn't need to sexually assault me in order for them to have taken unlawful advantage of me for their sexual gratification.

Someone also doesn’t have to see you naked to take advantage of you for their sexual gratification.

[shifuimam]

You keep using the same tired and completely invalid argument over and over.

Are you okay with someone using your body for personal sexual gratification at the beach?

What about your penis makes it so special compared to the rest of your body? In fact, I suspect that anyone attracted to you - man or woman - is basing that attraction on the rest of your body - toned abs, a nice tan, strong muscles, etc, not your hairy nutsack and flaccid member. Is it okay for someone to gain sexual gratification from you in a swimsuit?

Why are you so convinced that a man will gain sexual gratification from you while showering? Are you really *that* attractive? Are you sure that gay men are all that frequently attracted to straight men - especially someone as utterly hateful of homosexuals as you are?

Do you stare at people while they sleep? Do you ever sleep in public (airplane, park, beach, train, bus, etc)? Why is that okay?

You seem to be all too easily projecting onto every man on the planet your own disgusting perverted sick **** tendencies (e.g. staring at people while they sleep, ogling women constantly, masturbating in your mind to what you see around you aka "sexual gratification"). You're creepy. Not all men are creepy. including gay guys.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Someone also doesn’t have to see you naked to take advantage of you for their sexual gratification.

No, but stupendousman is so ****ing terrified of gay people that he's worried that a gay man seeing his penis will immediately turn him gay.

I should probably leave this thread before I get myself temp-banned for pointing out what a perverted little homophobe stupendousman actually is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If that was the case and you could freely watch them in the nude, while they where sleeping, in their underwear...uh, yeah. It's really not any different than looking through peepholes to do the same.

Doesn't this make the military's current policy one of forcing homosexual soldiers to violate other soldiers' privacy?