[Doofy]

Male homosexuals and straight women are all mentally ill.

'Coz if you don't like the tang and boobies, there's something wrong with you. Period.
Calm down, calm down - that was a joke.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The same way I account for the fact that men are getting caught secretly watching women disrobe every day. Of course, like the issue with gay men secretly in the military, we are talking about a very small percentage of people engaging in this behavior. I'm not for allowing gays in the military, or for straight men to watch a woman disrobe without her permission without there being legal consequences. I'm pretty consistent.

So stupendousman has a irrational fear of gay men.

stupendousman is equating sharing a communal shower with gay men to straight men secretly watching women getting naked through peepholes and video cameras.


You are not allowing gays in the military just for this reason? Because of sharing a communal shower with gay men?

Really?


SOLUTION: Shower stalls with curtains.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So stupendousman has a irrational fear of gay men.

stupendousman is equating sharing a communal shower with gay men to straight men secretly watching women getting naked through peepholes and video cameras.


You are not allowing gays in the military just for this reason? Because of sharing a communal shower with gay men?

Really?


SOLUTION: Shower stalls with curtains.

That incredibly complicated and high tech solution was offered pages ago. I think his response was something about how it's not just showers, but just having attractive guys in the same room with their clothes on will be too distracting to the gays, rendering them incapable of doing their jobs, or something like that.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Again you resort to flagrant logical fallacies and misrepresenting what other people say rather than arguing honestly. Do you really have so little confidence in your position?

And no, white men who do not like showering with black men are most likely racists. It is unlikely they are afraid of anal rape, and if you think I'm wrong I invite you to provide evidence. It hardly seems relevant, though, because I've already provided an almost exact analogue — men showering with women. Why don't we use that as our basis for comparison?

Actually, you are resorting to flagrant logical fallacies.

Using your "exact analogy", men sharing a public restroom with gay men is like men sharing a public restroom with women.

Or men sharing a public restroom with gay men is like secret peepholes and secret cameras recording you when you pee.

Wow, what flagrant logical fallacies.

What's next?

Public restrooms for men, women, and gay people?



You know why we have separate restrooms for men and women? Physiology.

Physiological differences between men and women is the reason why restrooms and showers are split between men and women.

A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina.
Men pee standing up and woman pee sitting down.
Women goes through menstrual cycles and men don't.

Women are more self conscious about their bodies than men do. They don't want to share the same bathroom or shower as men do, because a man has a penis, and they have a vagina and breast.

Women who go through puberty earlier than their peers tend to be more self conscious because their body is going through different changes than their peers, such as growing bigger boobs and growing pubic hair.

Women who go through puberty later than their peers also tend to be more self conscious as well, because they don't have boobs like their peers do.

Women are more comfortable disrobing in front of other women who are more physically like them.

[besson3c]

It's funny, the military will purchase robots, body armor, sophisticated weaponry, all sorts of other stuff and he's worrying about something solved by curtains?

Leave your good reason at the door with this thread.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's funny, the military will purchase robots, body armor, sophisticated weaponry, all sorts of other stuff and he's worrying about something solved by curtains?

Leave your good reason at the door with this thread.

That's the thing.

They want to rationalize their homophobic thinking.

Even if there is a simple solution such as shower stalls and curtains.



They are equating men sharing a communal showering with gay men, to peepholes and secret video cameras recording them while they shower and pee.

If that's not homophobic thinking, I don't know what is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's the thing.

They want to rationalize their homophobic thinking.

Even if there is a simple solution such as shower stalls and curtains.



They are equating men sharing a communal showering with gay men, to peepholes and secret video cameras recording them while they shower and pee.

If that's not homophobic thinking, I don't know what is.

I've been trying to restrain myself from assigning him a label, but it's hard when he is so willing to go page after page with such incredibly feeble and incoherent arguments.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I disagree. A bathroom is still a place where you remove your clothing enough to uncover your genitalia, and most people would like to remove the chances of those who might become aroused by their nudity to do so.

There are further structures inside the bathroom to give you additional privacy so that you don't have to do your business in front of even those of the same sex, because there is an additional desire for civilized people to have an additional level of privacy and not to have strangers watch them go to the bathroom.

These two paragraphs are completely at odds with each other. The further structures inside restrooms “give you additional privacy” so that you don’t have to uncover your genitalia in front of even those of the same sex.

So what nudity is there for others to become aroused by? The nudity that goes on through the wall of the toilet stand? How is that any different from the men’s and women’s shower rooms being separated only by a wall (as is often the case)?

If each cubicle in a restroom is properly separated, so that no one can look in and no one can look out (and most newer restrooms are designed this way), then there’s no way for anyone, regardless of gender, to see your genitalia, unless you choose to uncover them outside the cubicle. As such, it really makes no difference what gender the people outside the door are, any more than it makes a difference whether there are restrooms adjoining the dining hall or the registration office.

You can simply choose not to shower there. You can go somewhere else until the person in question is done. You can enter the shower area after you already know the person in question is gone. There's a bunch of ways to do it that unless the person in question was essentially stalking the other person, they wouldn't have a clue.

I don’t buy that. When you do team practice and everyone finishes at the same time, you don’t have to be stalking someone to notice that they somehow always disappear off somewhere else until you’re gone.

They can choose to go straight home without showering, of course. Some people do do that. But unless you can come up with some kind of evidence why any significant number of people do this specifically because they’re uncomfortable showering around gay people, I don’t buy it. There are plenty of other reasons why one might go straight home instead of showering; I’d consider discomfort at the prospect of showering with gay people rather far down on the list of most likely reasons.

Because very infrequently showering with close friends who happen to be morally flexible isn't really a very good measuring stick for what the majority would do the majority of the time.

I still don’t see what frequency has to do with it. Showering with close friends would not be much of a measuring stick regardless of frequency, exactly because they’re close friends.

Showering with a varying array of semi-acquaintances is a fairly good measuring stick, regardless of frequency. My communal showering habits fall into the second category. I know the people I have team practice with, at least some of them, but we’re not exactly friends. Just regular ‘sports buddies’.

Like ebuddy explained, I like the vast majority, avoid showering in public unless it's the only reasonable option, and then I try to be discreet. I've never knowingly showered in front of a woman who I was not romantically involved with or a gay man.

In other words, while none of us has any evidence (because none exists) as to how ‘most people’ feel about showering with gay people, you have even less experience-based or anecdote-based ‘pointers’ (for lack of a better word) to support your theory than I do mine.

I've never knowingly showered in front of a woman who I was not romantically involved with

Including gay women (who you should have no problem with, since they’re not potentially attracted to you)?

[besson3c]

But what if the gay people secretly install peep holes or tiny cameras in the curtains, or maybe invent some sort of chemical that will break down the plastic in the curtains so that it is see-through?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

They want to rationalize their homophobic thinking.

You claim I'm homophobic despite the fact that I have expressed no fear or antipathy whatsoever toward homosexuals. What a surprise: more ad hominems! I would advise you to quit using slurs rather than logic before you get yourself banned. Personal attack infractions are worth a very large amount of points.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

They are equating men sharing a communal showering with gay men, to peepholes and secret video cameras recording them while they shower and pee.

If that's not homophobic thinking, I don't know what is.

Equating somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent to somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent is hardly homophobic thinking. I'm not saying it's the gay men's fault — they don't have a choice in the matter either — but it is the same kind of violation. It is generally accepted in our society that we have a right not to be subjected to that sort of thing, so working from that axiom, I have to agree that people in the military have a legitimate complaint. If you have some logic (rather than insults) that shows where I'm mistaken, feel free to proffer it.

[Oisín]

Equating somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent to somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent is hardly homophobic thinking.

Equating A taking a shower in the same communal shower as B to A lusting over B, on the other hand, does not ring quite right with me at least.

Chances are very small (though I’ll admit it is possible) that a peep hole was made or used with anything other in mind than knowingly watching others in a secretive way for sexual pleasure.

Showering in a communal shower, on the other hand, implies no desire to watch others in a secretive way or lusting over them. It can be used to that end, yes; but the chances are a hell of a lot slimmer than for peep holes.

[Chuckit]

The chances of both are approximately 100% given a large enough period of time and a reasonable number of people.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what my intent is when I'm seeing you as long as there's a reasonable chance I might be turned on. Even if I installed a camera in the bathroom of a woman I wasn't remotely attracted to, I think she would probably still feel violated to know a man was watching her naked.

(Incidentally, since I'm not sure people get where I'm coming from: I keep going back to men and women as a point of reference because it's a more or less cognate situation and it eliminates any chance of my arguments being based on my feelings about gay rights in general. I'm trying to approach this from a perspective of logic.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You don't think that if a genetic link to homosexuality were found, the overwhelming majority of parents of homosexual children wouldn't want it "treated"?

No, I don't. I think an "overwhelming majority of parents of [genetically] homosexual children" would be more than happy to have a healthy, functioning gay child rather than a) no child at all or b) a homosexual child that has been "fixed" to become straight.

Of course, this line of reasoning--namely that you think parents of homosexual children would want them treated for their homosexuality--just confirms my suspicions that you are still arguing from the perspective of homosexuality=mental/physical flaw.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course you'll put this in white text and you'll keep repeating it because you absolutely, positively must first compartmentalize arguments. While it is fairly apparent where I stand on this issue, you will not be satisfied until you're able to box it into an argument that suits you. Weird thing is, I can't possibly fathom how this line of questioning helps your point.

Actually, it has NOT been "fairly apparent where [you] stand on this issue", at least in this particular thread--because you have been arguing from a variety of other standpoints other than your own.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Tell me, what good does it do you or your argument if I were to say; "homosexuality is a mental illness."?

Well, for starters, it gives you legitimacy in the debate. It lets your debating partners and opponents know where you truly stand and gives you some credibility with them for openly and honestly expressing your opinion on the matter. (You've seen where I have come out and stated unequivocally in active, declarative sentences my views on this issue. Don't you feel you have a much better sense of my stance because I have done so?)

Plus, we can avoid all these other secondary arguments and get right to the heart of the matter, knowing you still see homosexuality as an illness. Is it safe to assume then that your opposition to homosexuals in the military is because you view their illness/disorder as incompatible with military service? that the illness/disorder of homosexuality makes it impossible for someone to be an effective soldier? What if the military decides to let homosexuals serve openly in the military? Will you still be opposed to it because you view homosexuals as having an illness or will you support it because the military leaders support it?


Of course, all of these questions would go away--and sadly, so would most of the debate--if you just came out with a list of direct, declarative sentences in the active voice outlining all facets of your stance on homosexuals in the military. Are you willing to do that, to come up with a basic list of 3 or 4 statements that can encapsulate all your nuanced opinions on this matter?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The chances of both are approximately 100% given a large enough period of time and a reasonable number of people.

I didn’t mean chances that it would ever happen. I meant that out of, say, a hundred instances of both, a far higher percentage of the former than the latter will be based in sexual desire.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what my intent is when I'm seeing you as long as there's a reasonable chance I might be turned on. Even if I installed a camera in the bathroom of a woman I wasn't remotely attracted to, I think she would probably still feel violated to know a man was watching her naked.

I’m pretty sure she’d feel violated if it were a straight woman with no attractions to her, too. If you installed a camera in my bathroom or bedroom, I’d feel violated, too—whether I ever had my clothes off or not. A bathroom or bedroom (or any other similar place) is a place of absolute privacy. Anyone watching you in those places is violating your right to privacy, regardless of their gender or sexuality, or whether or not you ever take off your clothes.

Communal showers are places of limited (or conditional) privacy. When you get naked there, it’s expected that someone will probably see you naked. And the fact that some of these people are potentially attracted to you(r gender) is part of the deal that you can either take or leave.

Moreover—and this might just be me—if someone put up a camera in the communal showers, I wouldn’t really care, ’cause there, I’m already aware of and prepared for the fact that taking off my clothes will reveal my body to others that I have not personally invited in. Whether those others happen to be standing five feet away on the other side of the room, or sitting behind a computer screen really doesn’t make much of a difference to me. Then again, I don’t really care if someone ‘abuses’ me for their own sexual desires by looking at me when I’m not in private. As long as they don’t expect me to have to acknowledge or participate in their ‘abuse’, it doesn’t harm or bother me.

When I’m in private, that’s a different matter. But I’m not in private when taking a shower in a communal shower.

[Chuckit]

I know a lot of women who are more OK with a woman watching them naked than a man. I'm not talking old women, either — I'm talking chicks in their 30s, 20s, even teens. Like, if you installed a camera in a bathroom they went to, they would want to know men weren't on the other side.

Personally, I wouldn't care either.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You claim I'm homophobic despite the fact that I have expressed no fear or antipathy whatsoever toward homosexuals. What a surprise: more ad hominems! I would advise you to quit using slurs rather than logic before you get yourself banned. Personal attack infractions are worth a very large amount of points.


Equating somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent to somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent is hardly homophobic thinking. I'm not saying it's the gay men's fault — they don't have a choice in the matter either — but it is the same kind of violation. It is generally accepted in our society that we have a right not to be subjected to that sort of thing, so working from that axiom, I have to agree that people in the military have a legitimate complaint. If you have some logic (rather than insults) that shows where I'm mistaken, feel free to proffer it.

You are saying I'm violating someone's right, if I lust over their body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent?

In high school, I spend every school day lusting over a few female classmates and fantasizing about them being naked. I don't have the right to lust over their body without their consent?

Hell, I even drew naked pictures of them since my focus was figure drawing in art class.

I can't lust over a girl at the beach? The shopping mall? At the club? I can't lust over a girl unless I get her consent?


Seriously?


I'm not gay. But from my understand, gay men would rather lust over a well dress, clean cut handsome looking man than a hairy naked dude taking a piss or taking a shower.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I know a lot of women who are more OK with a woman watching them naked than a man.

I do, too. I also know that at least some of those women (perhaps many, perhaps not so many—I don’t know, since it’s not exactly a common topic of conversation) are not concerned by whether that woman is gay, straight, or bi.

Like, if you installed a camera in a bathroom they went to, they would want to know men weren't on the other side.

I’m not sure I’ve ever had that come up in a conversation specifically; but extrapolating from general opinions on private space and the above, I’d say I know far more women who wouldn’t use the bathroom at all unless they were absolutely certain the camera was turned off or somehow rendered unusable/non-transmitting.

And I’d agree with them.

I'm not gay. But from my understand, gay men would rather lust over a well dress, clean cut handsome looking man than a hairy naked dude taking a piss or taking a shower.

Suum cuique and all that, but for this particular gay man, you’re quite right.

[Doofy]

So, Oisín me old fruit. A question.
Would you intentionally join the army?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are saying I'm violating someone's right, if I lust over their body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent?

No, I'm not saying that. There are no general protections against people being lusted over in our society. It's a different story in a Sharia society, but Americans specifically care about naked people more than clothed people.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I can lust over a girl at the beach? The shopping mall? At the club? I can't lust over a girl unless I get her consent?

Yes, yes, yes and sure you can.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm not gay. But from my understand, gay men would rather lust over a well dress, clean cut handsome looking man than a hairy naked dude taking a piss or taking a shower.

Heh, I'm sure there's nothing most gay men hate more than watching a fit, well-built guy in the prime of his life lather up. Sounds excruciating.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, I'm not saying that. There are no general protections against people being lusted over in our society. It's a different story in a Sharia society, but Americans specifically care about naked people more than clothed people.


Yes, yes, yes and sure you can.


Heh, I'm sure there's nothing most gay men hate more than watching a fit, well-built guy in the prime of his life lather up. Sounds excruciating.

You are trying to rationalize keeping gays out of the military by narrowing and focusing your argument on one specific argument you think you might have a valid reason.


Your argument has been defeated multiple times.

Shower stalls with curtains easily nulls your narrowly focus argument.



I can use your same narrowly focus argument and demand separate restrooms and showers for men, women, and gay people in all public places and businesses such as parks, beaches, restaurants, gym, and so forth.

Because I would just equate having gay men share the same restroom and shower with straight men, is the same as secret peepholes and secret video cameras.

It's the same false equivalency use to deny gay couples from getting married, because it's somehow equivalent to allowing marriage between human and animal.

You are engaging in the same intellectual dishonesty as those who want to deny gay marriages by making those false equivalency.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are trying to rationalize keeping gays out of the military by narrowing and focusing your argument on one specific argument you think you might have a valid reason.


Your argument has been defeated multiple times.

Shower stalls with curtains easily nulls your narrowly focus argument.

You're telling me that shower stalls with curtains are commonly used to create bathrooms where men and women are grouped together in the US? Source or I call BS.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's the same false equivalency use to deny gay couples from getting married, because it's somehow equivalent to allowing marriage between human and animal.

No, that's nonsense, and people who say that can never give a good reason why the two are cognate except that both happen to go against their system of morals. That's the opposite of what I'm doing here. I'm arguing against what I would personally like to see happen because I can't logically support going through with it at the moment.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are engaging in the same intellectual dishonesty as those who want to deny gay marriages by making those false equivalency.

Why do you say so? What ulterior motive have I shown beyond an interest in logic and reason?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're telling me that shower stalls with curtains are commonly used to create bathrooms where men and women are grouped together in the US? Source or I call BS.

You're telling me that it's common to have separate restrooms and showers for women, men, and gay people? Source or I call BS.


You never lived in a college dormitory?

There are shower stalls and curtains in them.

Guess what? The are gay men in the men's bathroom.

Guess what? No big deal.

[Chuckit]

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm drawing a logical analogy and it's evidently flying over your head.

[bbales]

I was just on Jake Tapper's Twitter page and he had a link about his ABC news report, plus said something about how he would pledge "this year" to ask Congress to repeat DADT. Then later he said note that that's not the same as repealing it this year. Jake Tapper (jaketapper) on Twitter

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm drawing a logical analogy and it's evidently flying over your head.

@hyteckit,

Chuckit is correct in this little side argument. No information you have presented to him has been the least bit logical. You need to come up with a rational, logically defensible statement and then argue for it. So far, you have put forth a bunch of premises that are not sound logically or are personal opinions offered up as subjective fact. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to offer clear, succinct, measured statements that can be defended from a logically argumentative standpoint.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm drawing a logical analogy and it's evidently flying over your head.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your argument.

Your so called "logical analogy" are just false equivalences back up by some mythical right to privacy from people lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent.

Show me existing laws that protect public citizens from others lusting over their bodies whether it is naked, half-naked, or otherwise.

Is this some thought crime law we don't know about?

If there was such a mythical right, wouldn't there be a public outrage or a public demand for separate restrooms for men, women, and gay people in all facets of public life such as at schools, at churches, at parks, at beaches, at a sport stadium, at restaurants and so forth?

No? Because there isn't such a mythical public right to privacy from others lusting over your body without your consent, whether your body is naked, half-naked, or otherwise.



Men sharing communal shower or a public restroom with possibly gay men is like men sharing a shower or public restroom with women?

No it's not. A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina. Men pee standing up and women pee sitting down. Obvious physiological difference between a man and a woman. What's the physical differences between a man and a gay man? I can easily tell if a person is a man or woman if their are naked. Can you honestly tell me you can tell if a man is gay or not just by looking at their naked bodies?



Men sharing communal shower or a public restroom is like having a secret peephole or secret camera? How so?

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you use a public restroom or communal shower, you can't expect no one in the restroom or shower won't look at your junk. However, you do have a reasonable expectation that others not in the restroom or shower, aren't looking at your junk. A secret peephole or secret camera violates this reasonable expectation of privacy. A gay guy looking at your junk while sharing the same communal shower does not violate this right.

There are laws against secret peepholes and secret cameras in restrooms and showers. Are there laws against guys looking at my junk while I take a piss in a public restroom or taking a shower in a communal shower? Can I tackle the guy and charge him with a crime for looking at my penis while I piss or take a shower?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your argument.

Your so called "logical analogy" are just false equivalences back up by some mythical right to privacy from people lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent.

Unbelievable. You claim to understand my argument, then in the very next sentence repeat something that I already told you was not part of my argument at all. To wit:

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are saying I'm violating someone's right, if I lust over their body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent?

No, I'm not saying that. There are no general protections against people being lusted over in our society. It's a different story in a Sharia society, but Americans specifically care about naked people more than clothed people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No, I don't. I think an "overwhelming majority of parents of [genetically] homosexual children" would be more than happy to have a healthy, functioning gay child rather than a) no child at all...

Of course not, but then I don't see a reason why this (for the sake of argument) treatment would be assumed fatal.

... or b) a homosexual child that has been "fixed" to become straight.

Depends on our advancement and the cost of such things quite frankly, but I don't like the idea myself. I'd rather simply enjoy my life regardless of the sexual proclivities of my fellow man without tweaking anything. After all, it wasn't that long ago I had to diagnose my own problematic gall bladder. Everyone doesn't see things how I see things however. To me, it's merely a matter of expediency and efficiency. I believe the leadership in the military have the best idea of military culture and I trust their judgement on the most effective environment for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. I know gays are serving, I know they are serving honorably, and I know that only .003% of "them" are being honorably discharged a year. This means the majority of gays (notice I didn't say soldiers altogether) are able to serve without issue. What issues you ask? Bureaucracy for starters; lots of it and a lot of admin to process it.

Besides, if there's a focus of concern in the military at all right now it had better start with the fact that 1 female student in 7 are victims of sexual assault as found in a survey of three campuses, released by the Defense Department in 2005.

Of course, this line of reasoning--namely that you think parents of homosexual children would want them treated for their homosexuality--just confirms my suspicions that you are still arguing from the perspective of homosexuality=mental/physical flaw.

You're first telling me what perspective I'm arguing from because of course you have to. This way, instead of addressing any of the numerous points I've raised here, you get to argue a much simpler premise. I see the exact same thing happening to Chuckit in this thread. It's not acceptable to lean even remotely indifferent to this issue, they must all champion it like you. Those who do not must immediately be labeled and addressed by their label. On the list of important things, this just doesn't rank as highly on my list. Genuinely curious, who do you think you are?

Here's the proclamation:
Whether or not I believe homosexuality is a mental or physical flaw is of absolutely no consequence to my view on DADT. There are a great many soldiers, all with a wealth of physical variables and/or secrets; that serve our military with dignity every day. If military leadership believes the open expression of one's sexuality is important for the achievement of their primary goals of recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion; I'm all for it.

Otherwise, maybe I should assume anyone arguing against this is simply arguing from another perspective and as such, is immovable in their views. We can see how productive that is. In a red-meat moment, I could call people gynophobes.

Actually, it has NOT been "fairly apparent where [you] stand on this issue", at least in this particular thread--because you have been arguing from a variety of other standpoints other than your own.

What are you talking about? This is a thread about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and you want my clinical opinion on homosexuality? I'm not any more qualified to answer that than you. What I can tell you is that almost all documentation you'll find on homosexuality recognizes a psycho-social/environmental component. You seem to insist on using the term "illness" and I suppose if you must...

Well, for starters, it gives you legitimacy in the debate. It lets your debating partners and opponents know where you truly stand and gives you some credibility with them for openly and honestly expressing your opinion on the matter. (You've seen where I have come out and stated unequivocally in active, declarative sentences my views on this issue. Don't you feel you have a much better sense of my stance because I have done so?)

Yes I have seen where you've come out and stated unequivocally in active, declarative sentences your views on this issue, but I don't think it gave your arguments any particular legitimacy or credibility.

Plus, we can avoid all these other secondary arguments and get right to the heart of the matter, knowing you still see homosexuality as an illness.

Again with identify, label, and address label. Why do you insist on a clinical opinion from me?

Is it safe to assume then that your opposition to homosexuals in the military is...

I have an opposition to homosexuals in the military? Really? Again? egadz man.

... because you view their illness/disorder as incompatible with military service? that the illness/disorder of homosexuality makes it impossible for someone to be an effective soldier? What if the military decides to let homosexuals serve openly in the military? Will you still be opposed to it because you view homosexuals as having an illness or will you support it because the military leaders support it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think it is a good idea to repeal DADT if the majority of military leadership believes it is a good idea. I think they have the best idea of military culture and I trust their judgement on the most effective environment for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion.

I've addressed how I regard homosexuals currently serving in our armed forces and it has been nothing, but respectful. I offered what I feel to be good, sound judgement, but because it does not champion your cause du jour; you must identify it, label it, and address the label. Personally? I'd rather the military focus on the pesky little problem of assault against women. Any particular reason why your cause should have greater consideration than this that it would consume so much of these forums and your activism?

Of course, all of these questions would go away--and sadly, so would most of the debate--if you just came out with a list of direct, declarative sentences in the active voice outlining all facets of your stance on homosexuals in the military. Are you willing to do that, to come up with a basic list of 3 or 4 statements that can encapsulate all your nuanced opinions on this matter?

I made a very declarative statement in the first place. I've been repeating this same message throughout and yet you insist I'm being somehow mysterious. You insist on making this about "illness" for nothing more than the fact that I don't champion your cause du jour. The silliest thing of all is that you can't establish how my perspective would be any more important to my arguments than yours anyway. I'm sorry to disappoint dc.

[besson3c]

Guys, we already solved this problem with curtains. Anyone care to summarize the remainder of this thread so I don't have to read all of this?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What are you talking about? This is a thread about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and you want my clinical opinion on homosexuality? I'm not any more qualified to answer that than you. What I can tell you is that almost all documentation you'll find on homosexuality recognizes a psycho-social/environmental component. You seem to insist on using the term "illness" and I suppose if you must...

You have, in fact, stated in other threads here, that you believe "lean towards homosexuality as a mental illness." Now, when you're asked about it, you suddenly dodge the issue, telling us that, suddenly, you're no more qualified to answer than anyone else. Once again, you made a declarative statement that "there is no gay gene, there just isn't," then in another breath you tell us you're not qualified to give a clinical opinion on homosexuality.

Again with identify, label, and address label. Why do you insist on a clinical opinion from me?

Because you've given us your opinion in the past, as I stated above, and now, when it's convenient, you make the absurd statement that it's not germane to this DADT issue. You're being disingenuous.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Unbelievable. You claim to understand my argument, then in the very next sentence repeat something that I already told you was not part of my argument at all. To wit:

Really?

You even admitted you were "equating somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent to somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent" as "same kind of violation".

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...1/#post3930900

Your exact words:

"Equating somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent to somebody lusting over your naked body without your consent is hardly homophobic thinking. I'm not saying it's the gay men's fault — they don't have a choice in the matter either — but it is the same kind of violation."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So stupendousman has a irrational fear of gay men.

...and Billy Goats. Surely you got that out of my explanation as well?

stupendousman is equating sharing a communal shower with gay men to straight men secretly watching women getting naked through peepholes and video cameras.

AGAIN WITH THE STRAWMEN!!!????

I"m equating having a man who is secretly gay choose to shower with a man who likely assumes there's no reason to think that someone can see them naked, who might find him sexually attractive.....

...to a woman who is also in a situation where she likely assumes there's no reason to think that someone can see them naked who might find him sexually attractive.....

SOLUTION: Shower stalls with curtains.

...and private bedrooms...and changing areas...and any other area where you might find yourself in less than a bathrobe.

Oh, you say to do all that would pretty much ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality? Oh, yeah, you'd be right.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's the thing.

They want to rationalize their homophobic thinking.

You are the only one engaging in logical fallacies to protect your own preconceived notions in regards to things that obviously cause you fear, that shouldn't.

They are equating men sharing a communal showering with gay men, to peepholes and secret video cameras recording them while they shower and pee.

If that's not homophobic thinking, I don't know what is.

You are right. You don't know what is. You can't even get the arguments right, so you can hardly be one to credibly judge motives and emotions.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

These two paragraphs are completely at odds with each other. The further structures inside restrooms “give you additional privacy” so that you don’t have to uncover your genitalia in front of even those of the same sex.

Not at odds, complimentary.

So what nudity is there for others to become aroused by? The nudity that goes on through the wall of the toilet stand? How is that any different from the men’s and women’s shower rooms being separated only by a wall (as is often the case)?

Often times I adjust my clothing in ways that might expose areas I'd rather have covered inside a bathroom, but outside a stall. It's also often times the case that bathrooms are used to change clothes in private - again, outside a stall. It's also common to accidentally open a stall door where someone has their private parts exposed, None of this is really a concern since we have segregated bathrooms.

I don’t buy that. When you do team practice and everyone finishes at the same time, you don’t have to be stalking someone to notice that they somehow always disappear off somewhere else until you’re gone.

Yeah..you pretty much do. If you've got say, 20 guys and you aren't focusing on getting yourself clean and out of the shower, but instead making a head count to observe who is in the shower with you naked and who isn't, you are pretty much engaging in some creepy behavior and that's precisely a reason why people prefer to have their privacy.

In other words, while none of us has any evidence (because none exists) as to how ‘most people’ feel about showering with gay people, you have even less experience-based or anecdote-based ‘pointers’ (for lack of a better word) to support your theory than I do mine.

I know how society has formed it's laws and customs. I know that we as a society have always adhered to customs that have segregated the normal sexual orientations (male heterosexuality and female heterosexuality) in ways that limits unwanted exposure of our bodies to the other side. All you can point to is that some of the people around you might know you are gay, and might have showered in the same facility as you.

Including gay women (who you should have no problem with, since they’re not potentially attracted to you)?

Theoretically, no. Though, I probably wouldn't want to chance it. I've turned gay women straight before (well...one, anyways - but that's another story).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oh, you say to do all that would pretty much ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality? Oh, yeah, you'd be right.

Well, I'm glad your argument is reduce to men showering with other naked man as a requirement because it's part of the "methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit without individuality".

More rationalizing on your part. But you haven't explain how showering naked together is part of the training.

If showering naked with each other is so important as part of the "methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit", why aren't military women required to shower with military men?

What's next? Washing and lathering each other's naked back and butt part of the training too?


In the military you are taught to count on each other and trust each other. Don't Ask, Don't Tell does the opposite. It tells gay soldiers to lie to other soldiers out of fear that they might get kicked out of the military. This is the very reason why gay men in the army argue as the reason to repeal DADT. DADT goes against military training and what they are taught.

[hyteckit]

Posted on 7/24/2007

By someone who was in the military and is not a homophobe. He doesn't spend time thinking, worrying, and fearing about the possibility gay guys looking at his junk.


DADT and the shower.

Stephen Benjamin: The Shower Factor

A strong advocate of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Mr. Brauchler's sole argument for the law is based on privacy. In cruder terms, Mr. Brauchler is worried that gays are obsessed with looking at other people's junk.
.....

I don't see a legitimate reason to turn away the service of patriotic Americans because it might make a few people uncomfortable. Besides, after basic training, most military members have private shower stalls. In boot camp the last thing I was worried about was checking someone out. Eighty men had about 10 minutes total to complete the showering process -- not exactly enough time to get yourself clean nevermind worry about getting a good look at another person's equipment.

.........

Proponents of the gay ban can dress up their arguments with phrases like unit cohesion, military readiness, and morale to justify the ouster of 11,000 gays. In reality, for all their rhetoric, the only thing this policy comes down to is the animus harbored by an ever-shrinking number of service members and the fear that we're looking at them in the showers.

It's absurd that we even have to discuss this issue. It's even more absurd that as the Army desperately searches for recruits, this Congress and president cling to a failed policy that harms our nation.

Especially when plastic dividers are cheap.

[hyteckit]

Support for openly gay men and lesbian women in the military.

Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members

LIberals - 86% support
Moderates - 77% support
Conservatives - 58% support

National adults - 69% support

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, I'm glad your argument is reduce to men showering with other naked man as a requirement ....

Argument...fail...again.

Really hyteckit, you aren't worth the effort.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Posted on 7/24/2007

By someone who was in the military and is not a homophobe. He doesn't spend time thinking, worrying, and fearing about the possibility gay guys looking at his junk.


DADT and the shower.

Stephen Benjamin: The Shower Factor

Wow. Some evidence.

How much do you want to bet that I can find a woman who also would say that they wouldn't mind showering andbunking with men or having them look at her naked everyday to be able to do her job?

How do I know that it would be easy? Because there are women whose job currently is precisely that!

You'll really have to do better.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Argument...fail...again.

Really hyteckit, you aren't worth the effort.

Why don't you explain to us how having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit."

You are not making valid arguments.

Merely rationalize some fear of gay men.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow. Some evidence.

How much do you want to bet that I can find a woman who also would say that they wouldn't mind showering andbunking with men or having them look at her naked everyday to be able to do her job?

How do I know that it would be easy? Because there are women whose job currently is precisely that!

You'll really have to do better.

Flagrant logical fallacies.

Why do you and Chuckit have to resort to false equivalence.

Why don't you make a valid analogy.

Gay men sharing a communal shower with straight men is equivalent to.....
Gay women sharing a communal shower with straight women.

You know, a gay man and a straight man both have a penis.
A gay woman and a straight woman both have a vagina.

How many women live in fear that other women is the same communal shower might be gay? How many women actually care if they are bunking with a gay women or have a female roommate who is gay?

I bet very few women would even care if the other women in the same communal shower are gay or straight. In the single digits percentage wise.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You have, in fact, stated in other threads here, that you believe "lean towards homosexuality as a mental illness." Now, when you're asked about it, you suddenly dodge the issue, telling us that, suddenly, you're no more qualified to answer than anyone else. Once again, you made a declarative statement that "there is no gay gene, there just isn't," then in another breath you tell us you're not qualified to give a clinical opinion on homosexuality.

There isn't a gay gene. While we may continue to look for one, none have been identified. There's no reason why at this point I should assume there is one and bash others over the head for not buying off on my optimism when there's a wealth of documentation on the psycho-social/environmental components of human sexuality. I'm tired of people bastardizing science for their cause du jour.

Because you've given us your opinion in the past, as I stated above, and now, when it's convenient, you make the absurd statement that it's not germane to this DADT issue. You're being disingenuous.

Not at all. When I've referred to illness in the context of homosexuality or gay rights, it is to illustrate why I don't think it has enjoyed near the support of racial or gender equality among the populace. I've long maintained that this is at the core of acknowledging the condition in the context of rights. I've claimed repeatedly that those who insist on a genetic component to homosexuality will argue from their perspective. What I'm asking dc to tell me now is how one perspective is less virtuous as a foundation for discourse than the other.

I've merely decided there's no need for me to refer to anomalous sexual orientation due to psycho-social/environmental factors as an "illness". Why? It is not for me to define and it's not productive. It gives people with their own presuppositions something other than the sound logic I provide on this issue a way out of having to address my points. I submit this thread as exhibit A of the problem.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Support for openly gay men and lesbian women in the military.

Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members

LIberals - 86% support
Moderates - 77% support
Conservatives - 58% support

National adults - 69% support

I wouldn't be surprised at a shift, but I don't take as credible about a 25% shift in opinion over only about 10 years.

This is the same Gallup that ginned up a huge (and false) weighting factor this past election in order to show Obama with well over a 10 point lead at one point. It tried to credibly claim that there would be over double the record turnout of Democrats this past election (which has no basis in fact or historical precedence). The truth ended up that there was no such advantage and as the election got closer, Gallup had to adjust their numbers in order to not look so stupid when their faux predictions didn't come true.

This especially true since polling the past ten normally still shows that the majority of Americans actually view homosexuality as immoral (not my stand).

Of course, when you ask people who actually have to serve and deal with the issue, the numbers go way down no matter who does the polling as well. A good majority don't think it's a good idea, and these are the people who have the experience to know and requirement to have their privacy invaded.

http://www.cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/WT070309.pdf
Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’ - Military News, News From Iraq & Afghanistan - Military Times

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why don't you explain to us how having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit."

Do you even know anything about how they train men for the military?

Do you have any idea of the methods used to get them to perform as a single, unthinking, order following unit?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Flagrant logical fallacies.

Why do you and Chuckit have to resort to false equivalence.

Why don't you make a valid analogy.

Gay men sharing a communal shower with straight men is equivalent to.....
Gay women sharing a communal shower with straight women.

hyteckit,

Like I've said, I'm not sure you are worth the effort. You are probably a lost cause. Whether gay or straight, if someone is able to watch someone whose gender they are sexually attracted to naked without their permission, that's a violation of their personal privacy. Why should gay people get a special right to view the nakedness of the gender they are attracted to, without their permission while straight people are forbidden to do so?

I'll tell you why it happens - it's kind of hard to regulate given the unusual nature of homosexuality (as compared to the norm of heterosexuality)

Just because gay people can more easily do this surreptitiously because there's no easy way to keep it from happening, doesn't mean it is right or not a violation of one's rights. It's no different than me putting on a wig and pretending I'm a woman and going into the woman's locker room and watching them undress without their knowledge.

Just because they don't know I'm really a man, does that make it okay for me to go in their while they are naked? Their assumption is going to be that it's statistically unlikely for someone to be in the locker room who isn't a woman, so they have no reason to believe that their privacy is being violated and will undress. It's also statistically unlikely that a gay man will be showering with straight men and watching them naked given that only a very small splinter of the population even are gay.

People don't fear these things because there is only a small statistical chance of it happening. However, if you inform people that this is happening at the very time it happens, I think you'll have a different response to the violations to their privacy in question.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you even know anything about how they train men for the military?

Do you have any idea of the methods used to get them to perform as a single, unthinking, order following unit?

By requiring men to shower with other men? Why leave the women out? Aren't military women part of the unit?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

By requiring men to shower with other men? Why leave the women out? Aren't military women part of the unit?

During military training? No. Basic military training is segregated to eliminate the tensions and distractions sexual attractions normally cause.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

hyteckit,

Like I've said, I'm not sure you are worth the effort. You are probably a lost cause. Whether gay or straight, if someone is able to watch someone whose gender they are sexually attracted to naked without their permission, that's a violation of their personal privacy. Why should gay people get a special right to view the nakedness of the gender they are attracted to, without their permission while straight people are forbidden to do so?

Haha...

What's this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent?

There's no such thing. Stop repeating it.

You can't rationalize absurd arguments by making sh*t up to back up your arguments.

If this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent does exist, we would have public bathrooms for:

straight women
straight men
gay men
gay women

in all facets of public life such as at schools, at churches, at parks, at beaches, at a sport stadium, at restaurants and so forth.


I lived in a college dormitory for 2 years. There is a men's restroom and a women's restroom. No gay restroom, no lesbian restroom. I'm pretty sure there are gay guys using the men's bathroom. Hell, there are females using the men's room, and they are allowed.


There are unisex bathrooms in the US.
Females are allowed to use the men's restroom in many places, when the female restroom is full.


Stop repeating this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent, cause there is no such thing.

You just made that sh*t up to back up your argument.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

During military training? No. Basic military training is segregated to eliminate the tensions and distractions sexual attractions normally cause.

Circular logic? Contradictory arguments?

I think you are rationalizing in circles and making contradictory arguments.

Having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit."

But having separate bathrooms for men, women, and gay men is a good idea? What happen to creating a cohesive fighting unit?

WTF?

Sh*t, stick with one argument.


Again, how does having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit"?

Why don't you explain.

Saying I don't understand military training is just a way for you to deny that you don't know what the hell you are taking about.

Please explain to me why having shower stalls and curtains in military training is a bad idea again?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I wouldn't be surprised at a shift, but I don't take as credible about a 25% shift in opinion over only about 10 years.

This is the same Gallup that ginned up a huge (and false) weighting factor this past election in order to show Obama with well over a 10 point lead at one point. It tried to credibly claim that there would be over double the record turnout of Democrats this past election (which has no basis in fact or historical precedence). The truth ended up that there was no such advantage and as the election got closer, Gallup had to adjust their numbers in order to not look so stupid when their faux predictions didn't come true.

This especially true since polling the past ten normally still shows that the majority of Americans actually view homosexuality as immoral (not my stand).

Of course, when you ask people who actually have to serve and deal with the issue, the numbers go way down no matter who does the polling as well. A good majority don't think it's a good idea, and these are the people who have the experience to know and requirement to have their privacy invaded.

http://www.cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/WT070309.pdf
Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’ - Military News, News From Iraq & Afghanistan - Military Times

Not a single mention of "privacy" in the article from Military Times.

According to the article, 71% have no problems with serving with openly gay men and lesbian women in the military.