[thunderous_funker]

Well, you've painted yourself in a very tiny corner with this reasoning. I'm sure you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one so it makes no point in continuing to beat the same dead horse.

A few years from now when they stop caring about hiring homosexuals in the military and we don't start suddenly losing wars to Guatemala due to our suddenly distracted soldiers, I guess we can reassess who had a more realistic view of the present.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Well, you've painted yourself in a very tiny corner with this reasoning. I'm sure you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one so it makes no point in continuing to beat the same dead horse.

Logical reason does usually pin us down to specifics and doesn't leave a lot of leeway. Given that the facts are on my side, I really don't care what someone might write later on in "history."

A few years from now when they stop caring about hiring homosexuals in the military and we don't start suddenly losing wars to Guatemala due to our suddenly distracted soldiers, I guess we can reassess who had a more realistic view of the present.

People aren't different now than they were, say 200 years ago. The military policy in question has been in place for straight or gay people since pretty much the beginning. The only thing that might change is that some people might give up on doing what's right, to do what's politically expedient. I won't applaud that if it ever happens.

[Wiskedjak]

What "facts" are these of which you speak?

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think most know from personal experience that sexual attraction is a distraction. It doesn't take a mound of research, controls and proven theories to know that if you put an attractive woman in front of a man, his attention is likely going to be on her.

How much of his attention will be on the woman and for how long?
Is there a greater incidence of distractability during basic training than during regular service or is that unknown?
(Because, after basic training men and women serve side-by-side all the time. If women really are as great a distracting as you claim they are they shouldn't the be segregated from the male troops all the time?)

The military is known for studying minute aspects of the performance of its soldiers. Certainly, somewhere there is a study that attempted to assess the level of distraction to be caused by allowing women in the military. So, if you want to speak from evidence and facts--real, quantifiable, empirically obtained facts and not the personal impressions you consider factual--find us some real facts from the military itself.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can tell you this with 100% accuracy that is the case with ME, and I really don't think most other men are that different - unless they are gay.

Whatever may be "the case with [YOU]" is in no way something to be extrapolated to the whole body of men in this country.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do we also have to provide evidence that the sky is blue?

Well, it depends if you are making that claim during a sandstorm in the desert or during the middle of a sunny day or during the night-time or during a blizzard. The sky is blue only under certain conditions and only during certain times of day.


one final comment, asking for evidence of your claims is not outlandish. The U.S. military spends big money on studying the performance and efficiency of its various programs. I have no doubt studies were commissioned before and after women were allowed into the service gauging the likelihood and reality of the effect their presence had on the male soldiers. So, instead of just claiming your personal experience as a logical fact, why don't you come up with some evidence, from the military itself, showing your logical facts to be correct.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Logical reason does usually pin us down to specifics and doesn't leave a lot of leeway. Given that the facts are on my side, I really don't care what someone might write later on in "history."

Please provide us with evidence of the "facts [that] are on [your] side?
(If you are going to invoke the mantle of "logical reason" you should be prepared to be "logical" in explaining your reason. Use of empirical evidence will go a long way towards showing how your "facts" are logical and well-reasoned.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

How much of his attention will be on the woman and for how long?

How much distraction is required during training to negatively effect it's worth?

What happens when someone decides to give in to the temptation the attraction in question causes, and ups the distraction several notches - as always seems to happen?

Without the distraction in question, we don't have to worry about these things, which is why the policy is in place as it is.

Is there a greater incidence of distractability during basic training than during regular service or is that unknown?

I'm pretty sure this can be determined by how people are segregated in the military. While training to kill, people are segregated by sexual attraction. If you are stationed later in a non-life or death setting like an office, there usually is no segregation. If you are on the front lines of battle in a life or death situation, again, people are segregated by sexual attraction. Would you suggest that the military goes to all this trouble and expense for no reason at all?

The military is known for studying minute aspects of the performance of its soldiers. Certainly, somewhere there is a study that attempted to assess the level of distraction to be caused by allowing women in the military. So, if you want to speak from evidence and facts--real, quantifiable, empirically obtained facts and not the personal impressions you consider factual--find us some real facts from the military itself.

I'm sure there is such a study as well, though using plain common sense is all that is necessary to know that people become distracted and have added temptation to fool around when surrounded by those they may become physically attracted to. Are you more or less likely to become horny after viewing pornography? If you are trying to stay celibate, is it a good idea to view pornography? Just another example of how avoiding temptation reduces distraction and likelihood that anyone will act on it.

one final comment, asking for evidence of your claims is not outlandish.

Not outlandish. Ignorant perhaps. Unless you really are challenging the concept that feelings of love and sexual attraction are an added distraction, there's really nothing to provide "evidence" of. If this added distraction exists, then it would not be unreasonable for the military to act in the way it does. Either you believe that people act in the way I described in the link above in regards to "Love" or they don't. As I explained before, this isn't rocket science or something that requires complex theories and research.

The U.S. military spends big money on studying the performance and efficiency of its various programs. I have no doubt studies were commissioned before and after women were allowed into the service gauging the likelihood and reality of the effect their presence had on the male soldiers. So, instead of just claiming your personal experience as a logical fact, why don't you come up with some evidence, from the military itself, showing your logical facts to be correct.

The military does not share with me their research. What I do know is what can be extrapolated from easily observed facts. I know what causes distraction. I know how the military has formed policy. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and get four. Especially when what they currently do adds expense and effort that could be removed if it had no effect.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Logical reason does usually pin us down to specifics and doesn't leave a lot of leeway. Given that the facts are on my side, I really don't care what someone might write later on in "history."

It must be tough to be so lonely, yet so right.

People aren't different now than they were, say 200 years ago. The military policy in question has been in place for straight or gay people since pretty much the beginning. The only thing that might change is that some people might give up on doing what's right, to do what's politically expedient. I won't applaud that if it ever happens.

You're wrong, again. People are different. As we progressed from caves, we became more enlightened, and we stopped believing in many things that were once "facts." That's the part you don't get.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

How much of his attention will be on the woman and for how long?

My understanding (I believe the Israelis did some tests on this) isn't that sexual attraction is the problem, but the cultural indoctrination that men are supposed to protect women. In short form, mixed units had trouble pushing the advance because the men didn't want to put the women at risk.

I support women in combat, but overcoming this seems a very real and tough row to hoe.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It must be tough to be so lonely, yet so right.

It is. I'm willing to sacrifice, though.

You're wrong, again. People are different. As we progressed from caves, we became more enlightened, and we stopped believing in many things that were once "facts." That's the part you don't get.

Human nature hasn't changed. People still uncontrollably find themselves sexually attracted (and distracted) by their preferred gender (mostly opposite sex). That's the basis of the segregation done by the military, is part of basic human nature, and until human nature changes there's really no rational reason to change the policies in question.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding (I believe the Israelis did some tests on this) isn't that sexual attraction is the problem, but the cultural indoctrination that men are supposed to protect women. In short form, mixed units had trouble pushing the advance because the men didn't want to put the women at risk.

I support women in combat, but overcoming this seems a very real and tough row to hoe.

@stupendousman,

Here you go. One anecdotal example of research evidence pointing to concerns about commingling men and women in the military. And this evidence points to something other than sexual attraction being the biggest source of difficulty. I'm sure if you try you can find some research that points to the U.S. military's own efforts at establishing the level of distractedness caused by women in the military. Because right now all you have are conclusions that you then say justify your premises. So, how about you get some evidence to support your assertions* and then let the evidence lead to or support your conclusions.

*regarding the negative aspects of allowing the sexes to commingle during basic training in the U.S. military

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The military does not share with me their research.

There is this thing called the World Wide Web and a search tool called Google to find items on the World Wide Web. Look into it and maybe you can find some of this information.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What I do know is what can be extrapolated from easily observed facts.

What are these "easily observed facts"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I know what causes distraction.

OK. Please tell us "what causes distractions" among soldiers in basic training in the U.S. military?
(I hope you plan to discuss ALL the types of distractions that a soldier is subject to because there are lots of others things to distract a soldier in addition to someone they find sexually attractive.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I know how the military has formed policy.

Do you? You have said several times already--and once in the post of yours to which I am replying--that "the military does not share with [you] their research". So, are you or are you not familiar with the research that goes into shaping and forming military policy in the U.S.?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and get four.

But it did take a couple geniuses to put one and one together and get two.
In other words, just because a premise is easily explainable in no way means it is not necessary to prove correct the conclusions obtained from the simple premise.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Especially when what they currently do adds expense and effort that could be removed if it had no effect.

Another example of starting with a conclusion (the military's actions to separate the sexes during basic training "add expense and effort") so the military's actions must have some effect.


All of this is to say that your premises and assertions need a lot more than glib, off-handed explanations to be taken serious as a basis for debate. Here is the very first link that comes up in Google when one performs a search on "military cohesion".
UC Davis, Department of Psychology - Unit Cohesion and the Military Mission
And it is related to the topic of homosexuals serving in the military and studies done to assess the effect of allowing openly gay individuals to join and serve in the military. So, do some searching and find us the evidence to back your "obvious" assertions and conclusions. (Well, do some research if you want your points to be taken as serious arguments in a debate and not just as well-crafted, vaguely objective opinions.)

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is. I'm willing to sacrifice, though.



Human nature hasn't changed. People still uncontrollably find themselves sexually attracted (and distracted) by their preferred gender (mostly opposite sex). That's the basis of the segregation done by the military, is part of basic human nature, and until human nature changes there's really no rational reason to change the policies in question.

Your opinion is duly noted.

You are making more out of this than there really is, especially considering that the homosexual population in America is somewhere less than 5%. It isn't surprising, of course that you, and others, make more out this than need be, as gays are an easy target when one needs to focus on something else besides the real problems the world faces.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And this evidence points to something other than sexual attraction being the biggest source of difficulty.

Not to mention the homosexuals currently serving seem able to cope with the constant distraction.

[subego]

To expand a little on that, I'm not claiming the situations are exactly analogous, just we can extrapolate from the fact a bunch of people have coped, it is within the realm of the possible for others to do so as well.

Whether it's worth the cost to deal with those issues WRT mixed units, versus eliminating them entirely as we do now, is a separate question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Nice misdirection. Totally different set of goalposts.

I don't know any statistics on how military people feel about gay marriage, you may be right. But there's a pretty big difference between the right to marry and the right to apply for a job.

RIght, but there's also a pretty big difference between the rights of civilians and the rights of soldiers.

I work in the semiconductor field and about 85% of my coworkers are ex-military and republican. By and large, they are a pretty tolerant bunch. And most of them were well aware of the fact that they worked with homosexuals and don't seem to have thought much about it one way or the other.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Unless you truly believe less than half of 1% of the people currently serving in the military are gay, there are a great many gays serving in the US military; heterosexuals aware of them without thinking much about it one way or the other.

If there are those who truly believe there are no gays amongst them in the military, what good would come of a policy alerting them to the fact that there is? What if the number of those that believe this outnumber homosexuals?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If there are those who truly believe there are no gays amongst them in the military, what good would come of a policy alerting them to the fact that there is? What if the number of those that believe this outnumber homosexuals?

It would depend on the value of the people who believe that.

If they truly believe there aren't gays amongst them, I think we can safely say these aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[dcmacdaddy]

To follow on to the exchange between ebuddy and subego, I find it interesting that those who oppose allowing homosexuals to join the military are quite aware of the fact that there are currently homosexuals serving in the military. So, we can all acknowledge that some homosexuals managed to sneak through the military's screening process to keep them out* and are now actively serving.

My question is do those who oppose allowing homosexuals to join the military (stupendousman, ebuddy, CRASH, et al) favor having the military seek out and remove from service those homosexual currently serving in the military or should the military just say "Ahh, a few snuck in. We'll leave them be"?

In other words, are you acceptable of the small number of homosexuals secretly serving in the military or do you want the military to work to make itself free of any and all homosexual soldiers?



*Anyone know the specifics of the screening process used to filter out homosexuals before they become new recruits? Is there a question on the recruitment form or during the ASVAB that asks if the recruit is homosexual?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It would depend on the value of the people who believe that.

If they truly believe there aren't gays amongst them, I think we can safely say these aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

As long as they can kill people and blow stuff up, I don't see why they need to be the sharpest knives in the drawer nor is there anything to suggest the homosexuals vying for a position in the US Armed forces are any more intelligent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

My question is do those who oppose allowing homosexuals to join the military (stupendousman, ebuddy, CRASH, et al) favor having the military seek out and remove from service those homosexual currently serving in the military or should the military just say "Ahh, a few snuck in. We'll leave them be"?
In other words, are you acceptable of the small number of homosexuals secretly serving in the military or do you want the military to work to make itself free of any and all homosexual soldiers?

When did I say I was opposed to homosexuals joining the military? I said I'm in favor of whatever the majority of military leadership believes is the most effective policy for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. If they believe it's DADT, I'm for DADT. If they believe it's repealing DADT, I'm for repealing DADT as I said from the beginning.

Couple of things here;
Your question does not make a lot of sense to me in light of the fact that you'd have to repeal "Don't Ask..." to even perform the "seeking out of gays" for removal.

Secondly, I've mentioned repeatedly that gay soldiers able to place their sexual preferences below their desire to serve in the military are the standard by which all other soldiers should be gauged. It would be asinine IMO to endeavor a mass-identification and removal of gay people that are serving in the most honorable ways imaginable; the ones playing by the rules.

What I want to know from gay activists and those behind the gay agenda, like dcmacdaddy, (see how frustrating that is?) is;

• There are a great many ineligible for service in the armed forces for any number of reasons, why is homosexuality your cause du jour?
• What is it the majority of gays are capable of that .003% per year aren't capable of?
• Why wouldn't soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual preferences be the standard?
• If the majority of society does not generally regard homosexual "rights", why should this justice start with the military? It seems logical to me that those unable to place their personal sexual preferences below their desire to serve in the military would serve themselves and society more effectively trying to influence civilian hearts and minds.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Is there a question on the recruitment form or during the ASVAB that asks if the recruit is homosexual?

You mean, like, flaming?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As long as they can kill people and blow stuff up, I don't see why they need to be the sharpest knives in the drawer nor is there anything to suggest the homosexuals vying for a position in the US Armed forces are any more intelligent.

If you'll allow me to carry through on the analogy: the sharper you are, the better you'll cut. Also, I'm not saying homosexuals are any more intelligent, I'm saying those who think homosexuals don't serve in the military are dumb.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a great many ineligible for service in the armed forces for any number of reasons

Sexual orientation, in and of itself, has no bearing on one's suitability as a soldier.

I can't think of any other examples of something which has no bearing on a person's suitability as a soldier that makes them ineligible for service.

Therefore, you either have an example I haven't thought of, you do think sexual orientation has a bearing on one's suitability as a soldier, or I'm not getting your point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is it the majority of gays are capable of that .003% per year aren't capable of?

I'm dense, and don't really understand this question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why wouldn't soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual preferences be the standard?

In theory, if this is applied equally across the board, I think it's a good idea. In practice, I think the two are hard to separate. My understanding is, and I say this in all seriousness, a soldier who is getting laid performs better as a soldier.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the majority of society does not generally regard homosexual "rights", why should this justice start with the military? It seems logical to me that those unable to place their personal sexual preferences below their desire to serve in the military would serve themselves and society more effectively trying to influence civilian hearts and minds.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

why is homosexuality your cause du jour?

I think we agree this shouldn't be a decision made for reasons of social justice, but for reasons of what's best for the military, and I propose allowing homosexuals to serve openly is what's best for the military.

Firstly, I'm skeptical of the military's own analysis. One has to assume inertia is going to play a role in their conclusion, though whether it's to a significant degree is debatable. More concretely, it's not like the military wanted the transition from the ban on homosexuals to DADT 17 years ago, and they had plenty of analysis that supported their position back then. I haven't seen any evidence that transition ultimately reduced our effectiveness, so they're batting 0 for 1.

As for the actual changes that would occur:

1) The homosexuals who serve now would perform better, because having sex wouldn't threaten their livelihood.

2) More homosexuals would enlist because of the above.

3) Hardcore homophobes would take a hike, and wouldn't enlist in the future.


Number 3 is no big loss IME. People with attitude problems don't make good soldiers, despite any superior talent for killing they may possess.

[Kerrigan]

A lot of people don't get how harsh the law is.

The law could be eased up considerably without disrupting the underlying premise.

The law could be changed from a complete ban on homosexuality, to something more lenient. IE, allowing soldiers to be homosexual in their private, off-base lives, whilst still requiring them to keep secret about it to the military.

This maintains the delicate balance that is the spirit of DADT, while allowing gays to do what they wish in their private lives without fear of being hunted down, humiliated, and fired.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a great many ineligible for service in the armed forces for any number of reasons, why is homosexuality your cause du jour?

What are the inherent limitations with homosexuals that prevents them rom running, firing a weapon, or taking/giving orders?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why wouldn't soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual preferences be the standard?

I don't know? I agree with you. I think concern for service should trump concern for sexual desires among our military.
That's why I want to know why you support the military's policies of preferring heterosexuals? The very fact that the military refuses admissions to homosexuals shows that the military as a whole is more concerned for sexual preferences than service.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the majority of society does not generally regard homosexual "rights", why should this justice start with the military?

Again, this is not about "justice". This is about having the best qualified citizens to serve in our armed forces. And I will say it again, I agree with you that the best qualified citizens to join the military are those willing to place their concern for service over their concern for their sexual desires. So, the best qualified citizens to become soldiers are those citizens concerned more for service than their sexual orientation. You know, like those heterosexual citizens who care more about service as a soldier than whether or not there are homosexuals in their unit. Or those homosexual citizens who care more about service as a soldier than whether or not there are heterosexuals in their unit.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It seems logical to me that those unable to place their personal sexual preferences below their desire to serve in the military would serve themselves and society more effectively trying to influence civilian hearts and minds.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Why do you mean by "personal sexual preferences"? Are suggesting that homosexuals choose to be gay? If so, then tell me when you chose to be heterosexual. (Since sexual desire is a fundamental trait of all humanity you can't argue--not logically anyway--that one group of humans chooses the object of their sexual desire without having that same assertion apply to all groups of humans as sexual desire is a universal trait. So, if you think homosexuality is a "personal sexual preference" tell us when you chose heterosexuality as your "personal sexual preference".)

As to your statement about "trying to influence civilian hearts and minds" I am stumped as well. What does this have to do with having homosexuals serve in the military? As you said, and as I have agreed with, this issue is about having a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". We need a military where soldiers don't care about the sexual desires of their fellow soldiers. So how does having a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]" require influencing "civilian hearts and minds"? I work from the assumption that our civilians want the best possible soldiers in our military and that our civilians are already in favor of a military where soldiers are "concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". Are you trying to suggest that our civilian population doesn't want this? Or that our civilian population is interested more in a military where personal sexual desires are more important than a soldier's duty? I don't see how "trying to influence civilian hearts and minds" is necessary when it comes to our civilians wanting a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". I just assume that is a given on our part.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sexual orientation, in and of itself, has no bearing on one's suitability as a soldier.

I have asked this question a number of times and received no answers as to what makes homosexuals less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders. Do you know of any traits associated with homosexuality--I don't know, like a high incidence of arthritis or deafness--that would make homosexuals in general less likely to be able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders?

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we agree this shouldn't be a decision made for reasons of social justice, but for reasons of what's best for the military, and I propose allowing homosexuals to serve openly is what's best for the military.

I agree completely. Having the best possible soldiers in our military is the reason to support removing DADT. Heck, because of DADT the U.S. military had to kick out a large number of Arab-language specialists while we were fighting a war in an Arab-speaking country. That right there goes to show that DADT is a detriment to our military ability if it forces the military to remove needed soldiers for reasons un-related to the quality of their service.

And that's what it comes down to at the end of the day, what do we need in our citizens to insure we have the best possible soldiers serving in our military? I feel confident that the ability to run, jump, fire a weapon, and take/give orders is more important than whom a person finds sexually attractive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I have asked this question a number of times and received no answers as to what makes homosexuals less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders.

Particularly if you believe homosexuality to be a *choice*. I could see someone arguing that homosexual males might be genetically inclined to be more passive than heterosexual males, but unfortunately that argument is unavailable to Conservatives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What are the inherent limitations with homosexuals that prevents them rom running, firing a weapon, or taking/giving orders?

Absolutely nothing as evidenced by the number of them currently serving. Again, unless you think less than .003% of the people currently serving in the military are gay. Because of this, I can't possibly imagine why military leadership would be concerned about a policy that admits open gays unless they're concerned this could have a net, negative impact on recruiting, unit cohesion, and morale. (notice there are larger implications than simply "running","firing a weapon", and "taking/giving orders")

I don't know? I agree with you. I think concern for service should trump concern for sexual desires among our military.
That's why I want to know why you support the military's policies of preferring heterosexuals? The very fact that the military refuses admissions to homosexuals shows that the military as a whole is more concerned for sexual preferences than service.

When faced with a complex social issue that is not going to be solved by the military they seem to prefer silence. I trust their judgments as the ones with their careers and lives on the line.

I've been reading your posts and it seems to me that you're unable to accept the possibility that having openly gay soldiers in the military could adversely affect recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale. You've said that you're angered by others' suggestions of homophobic, undisciplined soldiers while basically making the claim of its leadership; who I trust is more in touch with their most important goals than you.

It's impossible to explain this any more clearly. Currently, you have .003% of the total number of people serving in the military getting honorable discharges for homosexuality. If repealing DADT results in a greater than .003% impact on the total number of people serving in the military, it is a net negative. I trust the military leadership has weighed these odds and concluded that they'd rather not upset the policy.

Again, this is not about "justice". This is about having the best qualified citizens to serve in our armed forces. And I will say it again, I agree with you that the best qualified citizens to join the military are those willing to place their concern for service over their concern for their sexual desires. So, the best qualified citizens to become soldiers are those citizens concerned more for service than their sexual orientation. You know, like those heterosexual citizens who care more about service as a soldier than whether or not there are homosexuals in their unit. Or those homosexual citizens who care more about service as a soldier than whether or not there are heterosexuals in their unit.

I don't see why having openly gay service members somehow augments the quality of service members overall.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Why do you mean by "personal sexual preferences"? Are suggesting that homosexuals choose to be gay? If so, then tell me when you chose to be heterosexual. (Since sexual desire is a fundamental trait of all humanity you can't argue--not logically anyway--that one group of humans chooses the object of their sexual desire without having that same assertion apply to all groups of humans as sexual desire is a universal trait. So, if you think homosexuality is a "personal sexual preference" tell us when you chose heterosexuality as your "personal sexual preference".)

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. What are you trying to say, that homosexuality is genetic?

As to your statement about "trying to influence civilian hearts and minds" I am stumped as well. What does this have to do with having homosexuals serve in the military? As you said, and as I have agreed with, this issue is about having a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". We need a military where soldiers don't care about the sexual desires of their fellow soldiers. So how does having a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]" require influencing "civilian hearts and minds"? I work from the assumption that our civilians want the best possible soldiers in our military and that our civilians are already in favor of a military where soldiers are "concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". Are you trying to suggest that our civilian population doesn't want this? Or that our civilian population is interested more in a military where personal sexual desires are more important than a soldier's duty? I don't see how "trying to influence civilian hearts and minds" is necessary when it comes to our civilians wanting a military full of "soldiers concerned more for service in the military than their personal sexual [desires]". I just assume that is a given on our part.

Well... first of all it is merely an opinion as gays are more than welcome to serve in the military as far as I'm concerned. The good news for me is that I'm not held accountable for measurements of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale. I merely support whatever it is the military leadership feels best meets the criteria they're held accountable for.

Civilians seem to be concerned about gays getting married and do not believe they are worthy of this concession or consideration. You can say it's a perception problem. If most of society believes homosexuality is a mental disorder for example, they will not be as inclined to grant these concessions or considerations. The solution to this problem does not begin with the military, but at home with the majority of the country.

I don't think society as a whole is too concerned about whether or not gays can serve openly in the military to be quite honest with you.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's impossible to explain this any more clearly. Currently, you have .003% of the total number of people serving in the military getting honorable discharges for homosexuality. If repealing DADT results in a greater than .003% impact on the total number of people serving in the military, it is a net negative.

How would repealing DADT "results in a greater than .003% impact on the total number of people serving in the military"? Are you suggesting that if DADT is repealed then we will have less citizens signing up to become soldiers because they won't want to serve with openly gay soldiers?

And if that is what you are suggesting, why is that a bad thing? Why would anyone want a military comprised of individuals who won't serve with all their fellow citizens but will only serve with those fellow citizens who belong to the perceived "right group" (be it sexual, racial, ethnic, socio-economic, whatever). There was a time when being in the "right group" for military service meant you had to be a white male. Do you think our military was improved with the addition of racial minorities and women? I certainly do. And I think it will be improved with the addition of openly homosexual soldiers serving alongside their openly heterosexual soldiers.

So, let me ask you this. Do you, ebuddy, want citizens in our military who won't serve with all their fellow citizens? I certainly don't. I want citizens in our military that a) reflect all aspects of this country's great diversity and b) respect and appreciate that great diversity we have in this country.

I, dcmacdaddy, DO NOT want citizens joining our military if they are unwilling to serve with ALL their fellow
citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or socio-economic status.

I, dcmacdaddy, DO NOT want citizens joining our military if they are unwilling to serve with a fellow citizen
because of that citizens race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or socio-economic status.

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. What are you trying to say, that homosexuality is genetic?

Sexual identity is as much genetic as it is psycho-social. And we can start yet another thread on that topic if needed with everyone throwing all the relevant talking points and scientific studies and psychological studies. But I want to try and stick to the topic at hands. So, seeing as how you asserted your belief that sexuality can be a choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

SOME Civilians seem to be concerned about gays getting married and SOME do not believe they are worthy of this concession or consideration.

Careful with your grammar. You left out a couple modifiers there.

[dcmacdaddy]

I don't want this question to get lost in the mess of words in my reply above, so I am asking it again.

Do you, ebuddy, want citizens in our military who won't serve willingly with all their fellow citizens?


My reply to this question is as follows: Certainly not! I want citizens in our military that a) reflect all aspects of this country's great diversity and b) respect and appreciate that great diversity we have in this country.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I don't want this question to get lost in the mess of words in my reply above, so I am asking it again.

Do you, ebuddy, want citizens in our military who won't serve willingly with all their fellow citizens?

I'll respond to your first post later.

I, ebuddy, well-versed in the art of logic and of sober mind acknowledge that diversity means more than a singular social issue or what is important to me. It is understandable that some will have a vested interest in issues important to them, but those interests may be at odds with the interests of the US armed forces; in careful consideration of the whole of its membership as it serves to accomplish the fundamental goals of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale.

My reply to this question is as follows: Certainly not! I want citizens in our military that a) reflect all aspects of this country's great diversity and b) respect and appreciate that great diversity we have in this country.

Like I said, for you it is about social justice. I've already responded to this line of reasoning several times.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll respond to your first post later.

I, ebuddy, well-versed in the art of logic and of sober mind acknowledge that diversity means more than a singular social issue or what is important to me. It is understandable that some will have a vested interest in issues important to them, but those interests may be at odds with the interests of the US armed forces; in careful consideration of the whole of its membership as it serves to accomplish the fundamental goals of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale.

Nice dodge. I asked a simple straight-forward question with a simple straight-forward answer and I get a paragraph of equivocation. You might want to edit your post to take out the part about you being "well-versed in the art of logic" if you can't answer a simple question with a simple declarative statement. I am afraid of what you really think if you have to be so evasive about such a simple question.

Did you really mean it when you said that the military should be full of citizens who place interest in their military service above interest in their sexual identity? Because, I am starting to doubt it with your evasive reply above. Any individuals currently serving who would have a problem serving with openly homosexual soldiers do NOT meet your criteria of a soldier being more concerned about service than sexuality. Those soldiers who would be bothered by serving with an openly homosexual soldier are right now showing how their concern is more about sexuality--and not even their own sexuality but the sexuality of a fellow soldier--than their service. So, I would be more than happy to see these types of soldiers get pushed out of the service so that the military will be full of citizen-soldiers not caring one whit about the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers and totally focused on being the best possible soldier.


As for your comment about social justice, what does social justice have to do with wanting to have a military comprised of our best possible soldiers regardless of their racial, sexual, gender, or religious identities? You keep mentioning social justice and I have no idea how that relates to maximising the efficacy of our military service. I see social justice as having NOTHING to do with allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. Just like I see a citizen's racial, sexual, gender, or religious identity has absolutely NOTHING to do with their ability to be a soldier. (Except in the case of religious beliefs that require pacifism.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Any individuals currently serving who would have a problem serving with openly homosexual soldiers do NOT meet your criteria of a soldier being more concerned about service than sexuality. Those soldiers who would be bothered by serving with an openly homosexual soldier are right now showing how their concern is more about sexuality--and not even their own sexuality but the sexuality of a fellow soldier--than their service. So, I would be more than happy to see these types of soldiers get pushed out of the service so that the military will be full of citizen-soldiers not caring one whit about the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers and totally focused on being the best possible soldier.

And you wonder why I push this issue? Your answer is right here in this paragraph. Right now we have soldiers serving in the U.S. military who would a) have chosen not to serve or b) serve poorly if they were made to serve alongside of an openly homosexual soldier. Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think it is good if a soldier is spending more time concerned about another soldier's sexuality than on the task of being a soldier? I don't. I think that kind of person should not be allowed to serve in the military. I don't want those types of citizens--those who would be more focused on the sexuality of a fellow soldier than on the duties of being a soldier--allowed to serve in our military forces.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I don't want this question to get lost in the mess of words in my reply above, so I am asking it again.

Do you, ebuddy, want citizens in our military who won't serve willingly with all their fellow citizens?


My reply to this question is as follows: Certainly not! I want citizens in our military that a) reflect all aspects of this country's great diversity and b) respect and appreciate that great diversity we have in this country.

The military's job is to protect liberalism, not reflect it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The military's job is to protect liberalism, not reflect it.

Do you think the U.S. military is incapable of reflecting liberalism at the same time it protects it?


<edited to add>
How much liberalism (in the military) is too much?
Should the U.S. military not have been opened up to women?
Should the U.S. military not have been opened up to non-whites?
Is there a point at which insufficient liberalism will be a detriment to the U.S. military?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The military's job is to protect liberalism, not reflect it.

And, in order to protect it, the military has to understand and reflect it.

[stupendousman]

There's no way to keep out every dishonest person who wants in. The assumption, based on the fact that these folks are small minorities, is that the guy standing next to you isn't causing a distraction...if they aren't. Let it be known that you are a thief, a liar or have any other thing in your character which makes you likely to violate someone else's rights, then that becomes a distraction.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I have asked this question a number of times and received no answers as to what makes homosexuals less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders.

Nothing any more than any other soldier who has something in their character which would likely cause them to unwittingly violate the rights of others. What would make a soldier who would steal from his fellow soldiers less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders? Should someone with multiple theft felonies be allowed to serve if they promise to try and keep it a secret? I'm mean, it's quite possible that they can't help the fact that they have a compulsion to steal, but can kill the enemy and "cope" with taking other's belongings and not get caught. Shouldn't we repeal all of the prohibitions against allowing people with serious criminal records into the military if they've done their time?

You are asking the wrong questions.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's no way to keep out every dishonest person who wants in. The assumption, based on the fact that these folks are small minorities, is that the guy standing next to you isn't causing a distraction...if they aren't. Let it be known that you are a thief, a liar or have any other thing in your character which makes you likely to violate someone else's rights, then that becomes a distraction.

See my posts above. I DON'T WANT citizens serving in the military that will view homosexuality as a "distraction". They will not be good soldiers. As ebuddy said, we need soldiers willing to "place their concern for service over their concern for their sexual [desires]". So, a citizen thinking about joining the military that is so focused on the issue of sexuality--and someone else's sexuality at that--is not really fit to be a soldier as they cannot make service their first priority.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nothing any more than any other soldier who has something in their character which would likely cause them to unwittingly violate the rights of others. What would make a soldier who would steal from his fellow soldiers less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders? Should someone with multiple theft felonies be allowed to serve if they promise to try and keep it a secret? I'm mean, it's quite possible that they can't help the fact that they have a compulsion to steal, but can kill the enemy and "cope" with taking other's belongings and not get caught. Shouldn't we repeal all of the prohibitions against allowing people with serious criminal records into the military if they've done their time?

Ahh, I see now. Homosexuality is a "character flaw" that makes a person unfit for military service. Gotcha!

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are asking the wrong questions.

No, I think I am asking the right questions. The questions that reveal your true opinion of homosexuals as inherently flawed individuals, as similar in nature to criminals, and as a never-ending "distraction" to straight individuals.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

See my posts above. I DON'T WANT citizens serving in the military that will view homosexuality as a "distraction". They will not be good soldiers.

How does being distracted by gross privacy violations not make you a good soldier exactly? I'm pretty sure there are probably more potential soldiers - male and female, who don't want their privacy violated by being in military close quarters with those who might be sexually attracted to them than there are gays who want to serve.

It would seem ludicrous to request that those people not be soldiers (or not be able to be good good soldiers) because of their desires, but that the much smaller class who would be violating the normal privacy bounds of others AND would be given added distractions (their own potential sexual attraction) would be able to, and have their desired be given preference.

As ebuddy said, we need soldiers willing to "place their concern for service over their concern for their sexual [desires]".

There's an easy way to assure this, and the U.S. military has always done so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nice dodge. I asked a simple straight-forward question with a simple straight-forward answer and I get a paragraph of equivocation. You might want to edit your post to take out the part about you being "well-versed in the art of logic" if you can't answer a simple question with a simple declarative statement. I am afraid of what you really think if you have to be so evasive about such a simple question.

Here's the question;

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Do you, ebuddy, want citizens in our military who won't serve willingly with all their fellow citizens?

It is an asinine question that has absolutely no bearing on human nature or any measurable aspect of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale. Diversity means there are any number of people that may or may not have a problem with other people. You cannot force acceptance any more than you can force heterosexuality. DADT is a policy that claims all are welcome to serve in the US armed forces. Your personal sexual preference is not something they're going to ask you about nor is it anything they want you to tell them. The military creates an environment it feels best meets all of the goals for which it is commissioned. The military is not commissioned with facilitating an environment that allows you to express your individuality. If expressing your individuality and uniqueness is this important to you, the military is likely not going to suit you well.

You are not a citizen in the military. It is a volunteer military that has decided to handle a complex social issue it is not commissioned to resolve by implementing a policy it feels best meets its goals of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale.

Did you really mean it when you said that the military should be full of citizens who place interest in their military service above interest in their sexual identity? Because, I am starting to doubt it with your evasive reply above.

My reply was not evasive at all. It was as clear and succinct as it could possibly be. The problem here is you don't like the answer.

Any individuals currently serving who would have a problem serving with openly homosexual soldiers do NOT meet your criteria of a soldier being more concerned about service than sexuality.

Correct, but again I'm not accountable for meeting recruitment numbers and maintaining unit cohesion and morale. They are not commissioned to resolve my cause du jour. This is why I defer to their expertise.

Speaking of dodging questions, you're disgusted by the notion that our soldiers are undisciplined homophobes, what of the military leadership? Do you want military leadership that is not concerned primarily with recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale? Why would they support DADT?

Those soldiers who would be bothered by serving with an openly homosexual soldier are right now showing how their concern is more about sexuality--and not even their own sexuality but the sexuality of a fellow soldier--than their service. So, I would be more than happy to see these types of soldiers get pushed out of the service so that the military will be full of citizen-soldiers not caring one whit about the sexual orientation of their fellow soldiers and totally focused on being the best possible soldier.

What is with this citizen-soldier stuff? You understand the difference between civilian and soldier right? So... you're assuming that those who would refuse to serve with someone else are being allowed to remain in the military? I say no. I say military leadership merely supports a policy it feels best meets their goals of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale. Right now gays are serving with honor in our armed forces. You want them to be able to be openly gay and serve in the military when this may or may not have anything to do with creating a more fit, qualified unit. The military is not responsible for providing the venue for individual expression.

As for your comment about social justice, what does social justice have to do with wanting to have a military comprised of our best possible soldiers regardless of their racial, sexual, gender, or religious identities?

Because there are any number of sexual proclivities the military would rather consider TMI. It is not saying "you're not welcome", it is saying we are not outfitted to accommodate the wealth of sexual proclivities that may or may not exist; we won't ask you and we'd rather you not tell us. Just because homosexuality is your cause du jour does not mean acknowledging gender identities and preferences is conducive to a more qualfied, fit unit.

You keep mentioning social justice and I have no idea how that relates to maximising the efficacy of our military service. I see social justice as having NOTHING to do with allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. Just like I see a citizen's racial, sexual, gender, or religious identity has absolutely NOTHING to do with their ability to be a soldier. (Except in the case of religious beliefs that require pacifism.)

What does a personal sexual preference have to do with race and gender? You see it as a cause of social justice and you want the military to facilitate an environment you feel better reflects diversity and the acknowledgement of any number of social anomalies you think should be legitimized. This is not the purpose of the US armed forces. They are not responsible for providing you an outlet to express your individuality and uniqueness. Your wishes may or may not be at odds with the US armed forces' primary goals. It seems, at present they are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nothing any more than any other soldier who has something in their character which would likely cause them to unwittingly violate the rights of others. What would make a soldier who would steal from his fellow soldiers less able to run, jump, fire a weapon, or take orders?

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

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How does being distracted by gross privacy violations not make you a good soldier exactly? I'm pretty sure there are probably more potential soldiers - male and female, who don't want their privacy violated by being in military close quarters with those who might be sexually attracted to them than there are gays who want to serve.

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? 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?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It would seem ludicrous to request that those people not be soldiers (or not be able to be good good soldiers) because of their desires, but that the much smaller class who would be violating the normal privacy bounds of others AND would be given added distractions (their own potential sexual attraction) would be able to, and have their desired be given preference.

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.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is an asinine question that has absolutely no bearing on human nature or any measurable aspect of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale.

There is NOTHING asinine about my question. If someone won't join the military because they don't want to be around homosexuals that reflects an attitude where personal desires trumps duties of service. And I--and you, as I borrowed the idea from you. Thanks--don't want individuals joining the military if they can't put the duties of service ahead of their sexual desires. And what would it do to unit cohesion and morale if the military accepted individuals so willing to be unaccepting of one of their fellow soldiers? You think having someone in the military who won't work with "them" (where "them" in this case is homosexuals) is good for unit cohesion and morale? I don't. How can having someone in the service who wants to pick and choose with whom they associate be good for unit cohesion and morale? It can't.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Diversity means there are any number of people that may or may not have a problem with other people. You cannot force acceptance any more than you can force heterosexuality.

So, you think the military is not currently forcing acceptance of differences among its soldiers? So, is it safe to say you think there are no white soldiers in the military that don't like serving with black or hispanic soldiers? And, is it safe to say you think there are no male soldiers serving in the military that don't like serving with females? Or that everyone in the U.S. military loves everyone else and the military doesn't have to do anything to try and get soldiers from different groups to get along?
::shakes head:: That's a pretty outlandish claim to suggest that the military doesn't force acceptance of differences among its soldiers.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The military creates an environment it feels best meets all of the goals for which it is commissioned.

Like the old military "environment" that didn't allow blacks or other minorities to serve with whites or that allowed women to serve in very minor roles? Is that the kind of environment that "best meets all of the goals for which [the military] is commissioned"?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The military is not commissioned with facilitating an environment that allows you to express your individuality.

Correct.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If expressing your individuality and uniqueness is this important to you, the military is likely not going to suit you well.

You mean like all those heterosexual soldiers "expressing [their] individuality"; Is the military not going to suit them well because it won't allow them to "express [their] individuality" as heterosexuals? (You know the military has STRICT rules about fraternization among soldiers which are intended to keep soldiers focused on their duties and not on sex. Don't you?)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Correct, but again I'm not accountable for meeting recruitment numbers and maintaining unit cohesion and morale. They are not commissioned to resolve my cause du jour. This is why I defer to their expertise.

Ahh, you mean like the unit cohesion where the military forces individuals from different racial, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds to come together and accept one another as fellow soldiers, as equals, for the good of the unit and the service as a whole?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Speaking of dodging questions, you're disgusted* by the notion that our soldiers are undisciplined homophobes, what of the military leadership? Do you want military leadership that is not concerned primarily with recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale?

No. In fact, I think our military leadership does a pretty good job bringing together citizens from all over the country with all sorts of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and socio-economic differences and turning them into soldiers, forcing them to work together for the good of the military. That's why I don't see there being a problem allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Homosexuals will just be another part of the military mosaic whereby citizens of varying backgrounds are brought together and molded into a working military unit through actual or forced acceptance of one another's differences. Although I do think our military leadership is too cautious and conservative and averse to change to ever choose to allow homosexuals to serve openly. So the acceptance of homosexuals in the military will probably be forced by an executive order. Just like when Truman issued an executive order forcing the racial integration of the military against the wishes of the leaders of all the major branches of the service. Do you think this was wrong for Truman? Do you think Truman should have deferred to the military leaders and allowed for the continuation of a segregated military until the military leaders decided it was time to integrate?
*And what had me disgusted was not the implication that our soldiers are homophobes but rather the outright statements by stupendousman than our soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and unable to function properly as soldiers if in the presence of someone they find attractive. You don't that kind of disparagement of our soldiers disgusting?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What does a personal sexual preference have to do with race and gender?

Still working from the stance that sexuality is a choice, eh? Well then, tell us when you chose to be heterosexual? I have asked this three or four times now and you have yet to answer the question. So, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You see it as a cause of social justice and you want the military to facilitate an environment you feel better reflects diversity and the acknowledgement of any number of social anomalies you think should be legitimized.

You keep repeating that I am advocating my stance for reasons of social justice and I will keep telling you I am not. And what is a "social anomaly" and how does it relate to homosexuals serving openly in the military?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is not the purpose of the US armed forces. They are not responsible for providing you an outlet to express your individuality and uniqueness.

Oh, absolutely. I agree completely. This is why the military brings together citizens from all over the country, and from a wide variety of racial, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds and forces them into units where they serve with one another whether or not they want to. The military's whole purpose is to turn citizens with individuality and uniqueness into soldiers lacking individuality and uniqueness. I couldn't agree more.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Still working from the stance that sexuality is a choice, eh? Well then, tell us when you chose to be heterosexual? I have asked this three or four times now and you have yet to answer the question. So, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

eBuddy has indicated in the past that he leans toward the explanation of homosexuality a mental illness.

[hyteckit]

I choose to be heterosexual because I love looking at naked women. Well, attractive women anyway.

[hyteckit]

What's the argument again?

Who is a distraction to whom?

Gay men is a distraction to straight men?

Or is men a distraction to gay men?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Still working from the stance that sexuality is a choice, eh? Well then, tell us when you chose to be heterosexual? I have asked this three or four times now and you have yet to answer the question. So, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

eBuddy has indicated in the past that he leans toward the explanation of homosexuality a mental illness.

I know that. I just like seeing how long it takes him to get so exasperated he comes out with the "Homos are teh mental" statement. Usually it takes him 15-25 posts in a thread before he breaks down and admits he thinks homosexuality is a mental flaw/illness. Which is fine. He becomes disingenuous though when he makes statements like this from back on page 2 of this thread.

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. What are you trying to say, that homosexuality is genetic?

So, he has a history of saying homosexuality is a mental flaw/deficiency/shortcoming/illness but then proceeds--for the sake of argument I suppose--to say that homosexuality is/can be a choice. Of course, if his opinion has changed and now he really does think that homosexuality is a choice he *will* have to explain when he chose heterosexuality because sexuality is a universal human trait such that if one group is seen as choosing their sexuality then all groups must choose their sexuality. Otherwise he has to argue that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. (And then we're back to the old "Homos are teh Mental" argument.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

There is NOTHING asinine about my question. If someone won't join the military because they don't want to be around homosexuals that reflects an attitude where personal desires trumps duties of service. And I--and you, as I borrowed the idea from you. Thanks--don't want individuals joining the military if they can't put the duties of service ahead of their sexual desires. And what would it do to unit cohesion and morale if the military accepted individuals so willing to be unaccepting of one of their fellow soldiers? You think having someone in the military who won't work with "them" (where "them" in this case is homosexuals) is good for unit cohesion and morale? I don't. How can having someone in the service who wants to pick and choose with whom they associate be good for unit cohesion and morale? It can't.

I don't know, I've not served in the military and am not familiar enough with the culture to tell you how, why, or if openly gay soldiers are a hinderance to recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale over just gay soldiers or heteros who don't want to serve with them. This is why I defer to military leadership.

So, you think the military is not currently forcing acceptance of differences among its soldiers? So, is it safe to say you think there are no white soldiers in the military that don't like serving with black or hispanic soldiers? And, is it safe to say you think there are no male soldiers serving in the military that don't like serving with females? Or that everyone in the U.S. military loves everyone else and the military doesn't have to do anything to try and get soldiers from different groups to get along?
::shakes head:: That's a pretty outlandish claim to suggest that the military doesn't force acceptance of differences among its soldiers.

Oh, I would never suggest this. 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. A President may push to have a policy enacted in the military and place this on the list of issues from which voters will choose. Military leadership found a net-gain to having women and blacks in service and drafted their policies around what they felt best for the goals of the military. After all, blacks had been serving openly in the military since the first drop of blood had ever been shed on this soil. You will find with women for example, that it is somewhat a "separate, but equal" set of policies that really wouldn't fly in the civilian labor market, but... civilians and soldiers are two different things. The military is not commissioned to mirror or shape the culture of the US.

Like the old military "environment" that didn't allow blacks or other minorities to serve with whites or that allowed women to serve in very minor roles? Is that the kind of environment that "best meets all of the goals for which [the military] is commissioned"?

Not like this environment at all. Before women were able to serve in the armed forces, they weren't in the armed forces. Gays are currently serving in the armed forces. The military is not commissioned to provide an outlet for you to express your individuality and uniqueness.

You mean like all those heterosexual soldiers "expressing [their] individuality"; Is the military not going to suit them well because it won't allow them to "express [their] individuality" as heterosexuals? (You know the military has STRICT rules about fraternization among soldiers which are intended to keep soldiers focused on their duties and not on sex. Don't you?)

Yes. This is how I know that the policies that require administration and enforcement are calculated to best accommodate the goals of the military.

Ahh, you mean like the unit cohesion where the military forces individuals from different racial, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds to come together and accept one another as fellow soldiers, as equals, for the good of the unit and the service as a whole?

I would've opposed a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy regarding blacks and women. There are gays currently serving in the military. I don't know that providing gays a venue for expressing their individuality and uniqueness is going to do anything for the military that they would seek to change current policy. The military is not commissioned to lead your social charge, they are interested in policies that facilitate the achievement of their goals.

So the acceptance of homosexuals in the military will probably be forced by an executive order. Just like when Truman issued an executive order forcing the racial integration of the military against the wishes of the leaders of all the major branches of the service. Do you think this was wrong for Truman? Do you think Truman should have deferred to the military leaders and allowed for the continuation of a segregated military until the military leaders decided it was time to integrate?

Have you asked any black people or soldiers how they feel about gay rights or gays in the military? I mean, you seem to care about them an awful lot, but are you even curious what they think? What, are you just smarter than those who disagree with you; starting with Pres Obama?

I would not support a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy regarding those of other races or genders and if this makes no sense to you, ask yourself why you keep equating homosexuality with race and gender. If there was any doubt as to the incredible contribution of blacks, it was finally the Tuskegee airmen that would see the end of racial segregation in the military. This would lead to Truman's order, but Truman's order was not drafted to allow for the open expression of anything. If this had meant certain political defeat for Truman one year before his bid for a second term, any politician interested in maintaining office would've maintained the status quo. Blacks and women weren't granted rights, they fought for and won them in spite of their inability to vote and/or otherwise participate in the process.

Still working from the stance that sexuality is a choice, eh?

Still in "compartmentalize" phase with my arguments eh?

Well then, tell us when you chose to be heterosexual? I have asked this three or four times now and you have yet to answer the question. So, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Gosh, do I get breakfast later? With all due respect, this is a meaningless line of reasoning because of course there are any number of stimuli we've encountered throughout our upbringing that comprise a wealth of proclivities. For all I know I saw my first breast, thought for a moment, and to this day think "sustenance". We don't generally put an exact date on such things. An alcoholic may recall his first drink, but I don't know that he's aware of the first day he wanted one @ 6:00am. He certainly didn't choose to have an alcohol problem.

You keep repeating that I am advocating my stance for reasons of social justice and I will keep telling you I am not. And what is a "social anomaly" and how does it relate to homosexuals serving openly in the military?

If gays are currently serving in the military, you're asking for something else. Something the military is not commissioned to be concerned with, cannot measure, cannot administer, and something they cannot resolve.

The military's whole purpose is to turn citizens with individuality and uniqueness into soldiers lacking individuality and uniqueness. I couldn't agree more.

i.e Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

There is no doubt in my mind that at this point in US history, I'm willing to give the leadership of the US armed forces most concerned with those things that will ensure success for them both professionally and militarily through two wars and numerous commitments, more credence than I'm willing to give an ideologue.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's the argument again?

Who is a distraction to whom?

Gay men is a distraction to straight men?

Or is men a distraction to gay men?

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.