Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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

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

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon? (Page 6)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I don't think there are many on here advocating for allowing homosexuals in the military to rectify some perceived "societal injustice". Myself and many others are advocating for allowing homosexuals in the military so we can have the best possible military in this country. But, we cannot have the best possible military in this country if people are not allowed to join, or are kicked out after joining, for reasons un-related to their ability to fire a gun or drive a tank or be a leader or fly a plane.
I've not seen any information to suggest allowing openly gay people to serve somehow improves our ability to wield a gun, drive a tank, or be a leader, or fly a plane? Can you give me any idea why acknowledging someone's gender preferences helps in the above?


Again, you seem to be attaching a desire for societal change to an issue that has nothing to do with societal change and everything to do with maximising our military's abilities. If there was something about homosexuality that made them inherently unable to fight* I would be all for denying homosexuals the right to join our military, but I am aware of nothing that makes a homosexual inherently unable to fight and/or serve in the military apart from how others would feel in the presence of homosexuals.
Until someone can quantify why allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military will improve military fitness, there's no reason this is an issue other than its importance to you as a social cause.
ebuddy
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Nothing. The problem is that homosexuals aren't "best qualified" to serve in a military that is designed to train men and women in a way that reduces distraction, sources of potential discipline problems and friction that might cause less cohesive military units.
When the military was all white there were those who said that allowing in blacks would cause a distraction and/or lower morale. The feared results did not occur.
When the military was all male there were those who said that allowing in women would cause a distraction and/or lower morale. The feared results did not occur.

Those are the same arguments being made today in regards to homosexuality. The arguments don't work.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If you are black and in the military, is there anything which would make your training different than the white guy?
Nope.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There is with someone who is gay. Your analogy doesn't fit.
FALSE! My argument does fit. Training how to fire a gun is the same whether or not you are white, black, gay, or female.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Homosexuals are currently 100% incapable of going through the same military training without the same ability for those doing training to ensure the focus, lack of distraction and potential for friction and discipline problems that they do in regards to sexual activity with heterosexual soldiers.
Sure they are. Again your argument is based on the premise that our soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and cannot function as soldiers if even in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No one is stupid enough to believe that a man surrounded by those he might want to have sex with is as focused and disciplined to not act on his desires as one who is denied the ability to be around those who he might like to hook up with.
ENOUGH!

I am really sick of your arguments based on the assumptions that our soldiers our slaves to their passions and cannot function if in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive. Our soldiers are WAY MORE THAN CAPABLE of being professional and disciplined than that and I wish you would stop demeaning them in this way. Seriously. Please. Stop putting down our soldiers all the time in this way. It is really offensive. They are much more capable than you give them credit.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:47 AM
 
Wow, you are far too agitated over this thread, dcmacdaddy. Is open acceptance of gays in the military really that important to you? Perhaps as a straight guy I don't get it (note I'm not assuming anything about your sexuality), but it seems like a pretty trivial concern that is low in rank in comparison to many of our other national concerns.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 11, 2010 at 08:54 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are there any aspects of essential military training with the candidate can not comply with?
Really. Homosexuals have a inherent inability to succeed in training to be a soldier? The existing number of gay soldiers we have (and know about) would seem to prove false this argument.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Unless you get people to be able to prove factually that there would be no difference in training if you bunked and showered the men and women (straight or gay) together and got that sort of thing passed, At that point, everyone would be on the same level playing field. I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon because it would likely have some really bad results in a number of ways. If you can't discriminate against the tiny minority that can't serve the same way as everyone else, then you have to give everyone else the same level playing field in regards to distraction, temptation and the ability to train with those who you might find sexually attractive.
I have said already I think that ALL soldiers, male and female, gay and straight, should bunk and shower together. And you agreed with me.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jan 11, 2010 at 08:57 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Wow, you are far too agitated over this thread, dcmacdaddy. Is open acceptance of gays in the military really that important to you?
Glad to know you can see my posts again.


As for me being agitated, did you read my post and see where I expressed agitation? It was not with stupendousman's arguments about "open acceptance of gays in the military" but his highly disrespectful assumptions about our soldiers and their ability to function without being slaves to their sexual desires. His attitude that our soldiers become completely unable to function in the presence of someone they might find attractive is what gets me agitated. And it's not really agitation but rather offense at the way he demeans our soldiers (and their sheer ability to be soldiers) with his charges. Stupendousman is unfairly critical of our soldiers and their ability to be soldiers. That's what gets me agitated/offended.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Glad to know you can see my posts again.
Well, I selectively unblock you, but I'm happy you're happy about that.

As for me being agitated, did you read my post and see where I expressed agitation? It was not with stupendousman's arguments about "open acceptance of gays in the military" but his highly disrespectful assumptions about our soldiers and their ability to function without being slaves to their sexual desires. His attitude that our soldiers become completely unable to function in the presence of someone they might find attractive is what gets me agitated. And it's not really agitation but rather offense at the way he demeans our soldiers (and their sheer ability to be soldiers) with his charges. Stupendousman is unfairly critical of our soldiers and their ability to be soldiers. That's what gets me agitated/offended.
Okay, you're passionate about this issue. Do you think it's something like a civil right that's being violated?

As for soldiers having a more difficult time serving because they may be attracted to fellow soldiers, I can see both sides of the argument. I doubt such an issue would crop up all that much in the heat of battle when it would really count because at that point I doubt anyone's libido is functioning as it would normally.

On the other hand, I can speak from personal experience about sexual attraction causing problems. I may have mentioned around here my experience of going to a job interview one time and being completely smitten by the woman interviewing me. She should have been a SUPER model or a Fox News anchor - she was smoking hot. And it made interviewing more difficult because it was hard not to concentrate on her beauty - it impaired my ability to think. Now based on that experience, I can see how some could be hesistant to introduce potentially more sexual components into the military equation.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 11, 2010 at 09:27 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:36 AM
 
I think gays can serve with distinction and should be allowed to serve. DADT is destructive to both the individual and the military because it compel's deceit. Deceit opens up the possibility of blackmail, which would be damaging to both the individual, the military and national security. The military can compel compliance, discipline but to what effect. Here's is an example how much the military would have to overcome. I'm not surprised the military does not want to deal with it.
YouTube - Those aren't pillows.
Enjoy!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
But when push comes to shove, I don't want a flamboyant man defending me - I want a rough man doing it. The job is about fighting and, like it or lump it, flamboyant men don't fight - it really is this simple: You need the exact opposite of "puffs" in the military.
Since when are all gays flamboyant? And what about butches, they should fit right in the military!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
When the military was all white there were those who said that allowing in blacks would cause a distraction and/or lower morale. The feared results did not occur.
...because of an immutable and arbitrary visual physical attribute - the color of the skin. Not at all the same as the difference between men and women, or gay and straight. It doesn't matter what these folks LOOK like, it's what they (due to nature) are compelled to do. Action, not a simple visual que.

When the military was all male there were those who said that allowing in women would cause a distraction and/or lower morale. The feared results did not occur.

Those are the same arguments being made today in regards to homosexuality. The arguments don't work.
Because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Both are round. Bother are fruit. But neither are the same. The same is the case with racial issues revolving around the visual color of one's skin and sexual/gender issues which involve human nature which compels us to act.

NO ONE is allowed to train in a manner where they are in close quarters with those they might be sexually attracted to, with reason. Not just gay people, but straight people too, and this has always been the case. This isn't the same as eliminating just SOME people who can comply with training and service every other way other than a visual physical attribute. EVERYONE who joins the military has to endure this part of service. The problem is that there is no way to effectively do this with gay people much the same way it's pretty hard to teach a blind man how to drive a tank and target enemies.

FALSE! My argument does fit. Training how to fire a gun is the same whether or not you are white, black, gay, or female.
Not in combat conditions with a team of soldiers. The army has always required those that train for this type of service have to be free from the temptation and distraction sexual attraction causes. Gay people can't really do that. Again, you will have to first get over the hump of refuting that all these years keeping men and women separate did nothing extra in preparing soldiers. I've yet to really see a credible argument in this area, probably because most people know what happens when men and women co-mingle in close quarters, whether they initially plan on it happening or not.

Sure they are. Again your argument is based on the premise that our soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and cannot function as soldiers if even in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.

I am really sick of your arguments based on the assumptions that our soldiers our slaves to their passions and cannot function if in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.
They can function - just without the same focus and discipline as they can without the distraction of sexual attraction, which is why men and women have always been separated.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Really. Homosexuals have a inherent inability to succeed in training to be a soldier? The existing number of gay soldiers we have (and know about) would seem to prove false this argument.
We really don't know how well the existing gay soldiers do or don't perform as compared to others. The numbers are so small, and this sort of thing isn't kept track of so it's quite possible that a greater percentage die due to a lesser degree of discipline or focus. We just don't know.

What we due know is that the "brass" have always thought it better to keep the temptation potential sexual attraction brings out of training for service. That's regardless of if you are straight or gay. They do it for a reason, and that's not because they think that one form of sex is "ickier" than another.

I have said already I think that ALL soldiers, male and female, gay and straight, should bunk and shower together. And you agreed with me.
No, I agreed that such an argument was logically consistent and that I wouldn't have a problem with it on that basis. The idea that gays shouldn't have restrictions but men and woman should is logically inconsistent being that for the most part the reasons why restrict men and woman, straight and gay are the same.

When you convince the rest of the country (and those in charge) that male and female soldiers should shower and live in close quarters together and that would have no effect on focus and discipline, let me know. Seeing how I don't think that will happen (because of the loss of focus and discipline), I don't think there's a basis for your flawed, but logically consistent argument.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
The idea that gays shouldn't have restrictions but men and woman should
Hey, what are we, chopped liver?!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Hey, what are we, chopped liver?!
SPACE ALIENS!!!!

Seriously, I meant STRAIGHT men and women.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Hey, what are we, chopped liver?!
What's your point ?

There are cultures where chopped liver is a delicacy.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We really don't know how well the existing gay soldiers do or don't perform as compared to others.
Let me guess, the fact that they are thinking about penises all day rather than boobs and vaginas presents some sort of question as to whether they'd perform as well?

Their gayness has *zero* impact over their performance, period, just like my having brown hair wouldn't have impact over my performance. If you disagree, then maybe their height, gender, religion, level of education, and health might impact their performance too? Should we discriminate this way too?

Do you realize how easy your arguments are to shoot down? Are you MacGeek? Do you own a sword?


What we due know is that the "brass" have always thought it better to keep the temptation potential sexual attraction brings out of training for service. That's regardless of if you are straight or gay. They do it for a reason, and that's not because they think that one form of sex is "ickier" than another.
So should the military ban hot women from joining?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post


Not in combat conditions with a team of soldiers. The army has always required those that train for this type of service have to be free from the temptation and distraction sexual attraction causes. Gay people can't really do that.

Sure they are. Again your argument is based on the premise that our soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and cannot function as soldiers if even in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.



They can function - just without the same focus and discipline as they can without the distraction of sexual attraction, which is why men and women have always been separated.
Once again, you keep showing how your argument falls flat, simply because you make assumptions that have been proven to be false, via a long history of gays actually serving, and fighting, in every military since the dawn of man. It's the only tired argument you have, so you keep repeating it, hoping that eventually it will actually stick, and you'll hook a few more gullible people, such as yourself, into accepting your assumptions as fact. Read this slowly, as you seem to not grasp things too quickly: gays have been serving effectively in the military, including in fighting units, without getting a hard-on over the guy next to them in the fox-hole. I know you find this hard to believe, but it really is true. Gays are serving today in the U. S. Armed Forces, and they're doing just fine, thank you. Where gays are allowed in foreign military forces, I can assure you that they don't constantly walk around with boners! Really. I mean Really!

All you're managing to do here is show us what sexual hang-ups you have, with your constant references to male-male sexual attraction. It seems to be a focus for you, and perhaps you should talk to someone about that issue, as the military is doing just fine with gays in it, as we speak, and the only people who make an issue out of it are the ones it shouldn't affect in the first place.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
the military is doing just fine with gays in it, as we speak
</thread>

If the military is doing just fine right now, then there's no need to change anything. Sorted.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We really don't know how well the existing gay soldiers do or don't perform as compared to others.
Why would a homosexual soldier perform differently from a heterosexual soldier?

The numbers are so small, and this sort of thing isn't kept track of so it's quite possible that a greater percentage die due to a lesser degree of discipline or focus. We just don't know.
I'm sorry, but through this entire thread you've been telling us about easily heterosexual soldiers can lose their discipline and focus, simply by the *thought* that a gay guy might see their pee-pee.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Why would a homosexual soldier perform differently from a heterosexual soldier?


I'm sorry, but through this entire thread you've been telling us about easily heterosexual soldiers can lose their discipline and focus, simply by the *thought* that a gay guy might see their pee-pee.
That's his brand of "logic" at work.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 09:58 PM
 
I'm just curious about what he thinks would cause homosexuals to perform differently if he doesn't think there is anything genetically different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Let me guess, the fact that they are thinking about penises all day rather than boobs and vaginas presents some sort of question as to whether they'd perform as well?
A soldier is less likely to think about boobs and vagines all day, or be distracted by them, if they aren't surrounding him - even all soapy and steamy in the shower.

Same with a gay soldier and penises.

Maybe I can illustrate the phenomena in question another way: do you become more or less hungry after seeing a TV commercial featuring delicious food?

Their gayness has *zero* impact over their performance, period, just like my having brown hair wouldn't have impact over my performance. If you disagree, then maybe their height, gender, religion, level of education, and health might impact their performance too? Should we discriminate this way too?
We already do discriminate in ways based on some of the things you've listed. How exactly does a soldier enter into service an officer? I believe it's education.

So should the military ban hot women from joining?
If as part of the mechanism for forming a cohesive, unified military unit that hot woman is often disrobing in front of her fellow male soldiers, then the answer is "yes." We really need to keep the soldiers focused on killing, and not loving.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm just curious about what he thinks would cause homosexuals to perform differently if he doesn't think there is anything genetically different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I think his logic is as follows.

PREMISES
--Humans are raging, sex-crazed maniacs who cannot control their sexual desires and must act on them if in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.
--Soldiers, especially male soldiers, are super-raging, super-sex-crazed maniacs who cannot even think about controlling their sexual desires if in the presence of someone they find sexually attractive.

SO,

CONCLUSIONS
--Soldiers, under extreme discipline and self-control in every other part of their military life, somehow lose all ability to function as disciplined, self-controled fighters when it comes to matter of sexual attraction.
--A soldier's lack of discipline and self-control is due to sexual temptation thus everything must be done to prevent soldiers from experiencing the slightest bit of sexual temptation.
--To avoid sexual temptation,
----male heterosexual soldiers must not be allowed to be around female soldiers.
----male homosexual soldiers must not be allowed to even exist around male soldiers.
--U.S. soldiers are not mature enough or responsible enough so they must be protected from their own instincts and impulses.

That about sums up the logic of stupendousman and others in this matter.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Once again, you keep showing how your argument falls flat, simply because you make assumptions that have been proven to be false, via a long history of gays actually serving, and fighting, in every military since the dawn of man.
There's a long history of people killing other people. That doesn't mean we should endorse murder. There's simply no real barometer on the success or failure of gay soldiers as compared to straight ones. NONE. There's been no real effort I know of in any form of research to back that up. I already explained this, yet it is brought up as a rebuttal again. If you want to do it a third time, I suggest you provide the evidence and research that shows that gay soldiers have been as effective and efficient killers as straight soldiers.

YOU are the one assuming that just because someone has secretly served, that their service has been on par with those who did not have the same distractions. I don't know either way. What I do know is that those who have long term experience training soldiers have always claimed that they would have a higher degree of success by removing sexual attraction from the equation when it comes to training efficient killers.

All you're managing to do here is show us what sexual hang-ups you have, with your constant references to male-male sexual attraction. It seems to be a focus for you, and perhaps you should talk to someone about that issue, as the military is doing just fine with gays in it, as we speak, and the only people who make an issue out of it are the ones it shouldn't affect in the first place.


Get back to us when you can form actual arguments...one's I haven't already rebutted.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm just curious about what he thinks would cause homosexuals to perform differently if he doesn't think there is anything genetically different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
If you are trying to concentrate on a difficult problem, would you do better or worse if someone was standing in front of you yelling and waving their arms?

AGAIN, the military separates the sexes for a reason. Not because one is inferior to the other. It's because all of the complex issues that revolve around sexual attraction and impulses are a distraction and temptation that is not desired while trying to create a focused and efficient cohesive military unit. The only thing different about homosexuals is that there is absolutely NO way to effectively train them the same way you do straight males and females.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There's simply no real barometer on the success or failure of gay soldiers as compared to straight ones. NONE.
Actually, there's some rather well documented histories on the successes of homosexual soldiers.


evangelical.us
http://www.evangelical.us/homosexual...-the-same.html
At one time in Sparta the men were 100% homosexual.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2010, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What I do know is that those who have long term experience training soldiers have always claimed that they would have a higher degree of success by removing sexual attraction from the equation when it comes to training efficient killers.
Yes, they have always claimed that. But, do they ("those who have long term experience training soldiers") have evidence to back up these claims? Do you have evidence from the various branches of the U.S. military showing how segregation of the sexes makes for a better, more efficient fighter/killer?

Just like you asked OldMacMac to provide evidence showing that closeted homosexual soldiers in the military functioned as well as open heterosexual soldiers, where is your evidence that sexual attraction is a detriment to the proper training of a soldier?

You asked OldManMac for evidence to support his claim so I am asking you for evidence to support your claim (that eliminating causes of sexual attraction in soldiers improves their ability to be better fighters/killers). Surely there must be reports from the various service academies confirming that elimination of sexual attraction among troops improves their fighting/killing ability. (Hint: The Army War College is the best place to start to find these type of reports for the U.S. military.)

If for some reason you can't find reports from the U.S. military showing how elimination of sexual attraction improves fighting/killing ability then surely you will find reports from some of the other countries in the world showing how the effectiveness of their soldiers declined after they allowed homosexuals to serve openly in their armed forces. If you look back 2 or 3 pages you will see a list of 30 other nations that allow homosexuals in the military. So, you ought to be able to find reports from at least 20-25 of these countries showing how their military fighting abilities have been diminished after they allowed homosexuals to serve in their military. This ought to be a slam-dunk point for you to prove with data.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jan 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A soldier is less likely to think about boobs and vagines all day, or be distracted by them, if they aren't surrounding him - even all soapy and steamy in the shower.

Same with a gay soldier and penises.

Maybe I can illustrate the phenomena in question another way: do you become more or less hungry after seeing a TV commercial featuring delicious food?

There is no time to think about penises and vaginas when you are fighting for your life, agreed?

The problem is not what soldiers think about in their idle time, they can think about whatever they want. Sexual fantasy knows no real proximity - you can work yourself up thinking about some hot person whether they are in your face or hundreds of miles away. As long as people do not act on their sexual desires, in their idle time they can do whatever they want: jack off, read nudie magazines, invent robots to have sex with, put their dicks in a hole in the wall, nothing, all of this, whatever... Who cares? After all, off duty stuff does not impact their performance.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Actually, there's some rather well documented histories on the successes of homosexual soldiers.

Wow..that's some really compelling scientific research!


100% of the men gay? I guess we'll never know if heterosexual Spartans, trained the same way without the gay sex, could have been even better fighters. Or if whatever odd genetic mutation turned all their men into homosexuals might have also turned them into superhuman fighters.

Whatever that force is...it doesn't seem to exist in American DNA and that's what we are currently dealing with.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Yes, they have always claimed that. But, do they ("those who have long term experience training soldiers") have evidence to back up these claims? Do you have evidence from the various branches of the U.S. military showing how segregation of the sexes makes for a better, more efficient fighter/killer?
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. 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. Really, are we going to take the argument that far into the absurd in order to find some reason to change something that really isn't broke (how we currently train soldiers)?

Do we also have to provide evidence that the sky is blue?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is no time to think about penises and vaginas when you are fighting for your life, agreed?

The problem is not what soldiers think about in their idle time, they can think about whatever they want. Sexual fantasy knows no real proximity - you can work yourself up thinking about some hot person whether they are in your face or hundreds of miles away.
True, but again you are ignoring the fact that proximity DOES provide added temptation and distraction. Just like my food analogy, hunger knows no real proximity either. You can think about eating good food and be hungry wherever you are. If you are dieting though, it helps if you aren't seeing Pizza Hut commercials and going to places where delicious fatty foods are being served. The proximity of the temptation does make it harder to focus on your goals and stay on track.

Your argument is no different than saying that putting a pizza in front of a 500 lb. man who hasn't had lunch isn't going to make him feel any more hungry than if there was no food, or reminders of food, anywhere around. It simply isn't a credible line of reasoning.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
100% of the men gay?
Yep. It was illegal to not be a homosexual pedophile in Sparta.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I guess we'll never know if heterosexual Spartans, trained the same way without the gay sex, could have been even better fighters. Or if whatever odd genetic mutation turned all their men into homosexuals might have also turned them into superhuman fighters.
I rather think that it was nothing to do with gayness. More like the fact that Spartan society was completely geared up towards fighting and eradicated those who weren't up to chuff. For example, newborn babies were drowned in wine and the ones which looked sickly after this ordeal were thrown into a local volcano.
Via these practices, Sparta essentially bred itself out of existence.

Oh, and they were nowhere near as hard as the film makes out. More like 2,000 men taking out 20,000 in a small pass - nothing that a couple of thousand Millwall fans couldn't handle.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 07:25 AM
 
People make it sound like going to work in the military is being on the front lines of a battle. The vast majority of people in the military have boring jobs and sexual tension is probably not going to matter much. And huge swaths of the military perform their jobs in close proximity of civilians who aren't screened for their sexual preferences or gender. To suggest that the perils of sexual tension in the workplace will be unleashed by ending discrimination against homosexuals is pretty silly.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Actually, there's some rather well documented histories on the successes of homosexual soldiers.
Did you read the article? It wasn't homosexuality Wiskedjak, it was pedophilia.

So the obvious conclusion from this logic is that we should not only repeal DADT, but we should also allow under-aged boys to join the military under the tutelage of their gay male, adult trainer-lovers. Hey, good luck with that!
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
People make it sound like going to work in the military is being on the front lines of a battle. The vast majority of people in the military have boring jobs and sexual tension is probably not going to matter much.
At some point, all of those people might be asked to go to the front lines of battle. They don't accept people to "work in the military" without being sure that they could do this successfully. People are denied the right to "work in the military" for a whole host of reasons, when it's clear that they either can't proficiently serve after training or pass the requirements of battle training in the first place.

People who can't or won't meet these requirements can find jobs in other areas of the government if they choose.

And huge swaths of the military perform their jobs in close proximity of civilians who aren't screened for their sexual preferences or gender. To suggest that the perils of sexual tension in the workplace will be unleashed by ending discrimination against homosexuals is pretty silly.
The military are trained for their worse case scenario - killing enemies. To suggest that the perils of sexual tension while training to be a killer is of no account, pretty much flies in the face of everything we know about how sexual tension works.

You don't pay closer attention to tasks at hand with increased sexual tension - you pay less attention. It makes no sense to create an atmosphere where you are being trained to survive battles to the death in a way that decreases focus on the task at hand, just to satisfy the wishes of a very tiny portion of the population who can not qualify for the training in question. This is a method that has worked for quite a long time. Until the primary mission of basic military training isn't to kill the other guy before he kills you and your unit, it really doesn't matter what you might end up doing later in your military career.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:04 AM
 
You really think all the radar techs and diesel mechanics are headed to foxholes any time soon? Yes, I realize that the letter of the law would require them to do so, but if we ever get to that point, you and I will be in the streets with whatever weapons we can get our hands on too, so the point is moot. The modern military is primarily staffed with professionals who perform jobs that have zero to do with their ability to kill other humans. In the event of Armageddon requiring them to drop their computer mice or metric spanners and take up arms, they will probably welcome any and all willing participants to the fray--even that guy in arse-less chaps.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
You really think all the radar techs and diesel mechanics are headed to foxholes any time soon? Yes, I realize that the letter of the law would require them to do so, but if we ever get to that point, you and I will be in the streets with whatever weapons we can get our hands on too, so the point is moot. The modern military is primarily staffed with professionals who perform jobs that have zero to do with their ability to kill other humans. In the event of Armageddon requiring them to drop their computer mice or metric spanners and take up arms, they will probably welcome any and all willing participants to the fray--even that guy in arse-less chaps.
If the overwhelming majority of people in the US aren't even willing to grant gays the right to marry, why should the military be expected to pioneer new ground for social justice? If your gender preference is more important to you than your service in the US armed forces, you'd likely fare much better among civilians, changing hearts and minds.
ebuddy
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If the overwhelming majority of people in the US aren't even willing to grant gays the right to marry, why should the military be expected to pioneer new ground for social justice? If your gender preference is more important to you than your service in the US armed forces, you'd likely fare much better among civilians, changing hearts and minds.
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.

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.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
You really think all the radar techs and diesel mechanics are headed to foxholes any time soon?
A mate of mine is in the Royal Signals. He was on the back of the first Landie going into Kosovo. Those "radar techs" and other comms folks are kind of essential in the battlefield to prep the comms relays so that the battle can be waged successfully.

And of course, those battlefield relay stations require power. Usually provided by generators which are looked after by "diesel mechanics".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
You really think all the radar techs and diesel mechanics are headed to foxholes any time soon?
Are you not aware of the fact that these positions often time require those performing these jobs to be located in the field of battle? You don't have to be in a "fox hole" to find yourself having to defend your life from an enemy.

I'd suggest you tell a radar tech or diesel mechanic stationed in Afghanistan that they have nothing to fear from direct enemy attack and see how they respond.

That's the entire purpose of military training - to prepare you for whatever possible emergency life or death situation might take place. I don't think it's a good idea to downgrade the training and preparation just to allow a tiny percentage of potential soldiers to be admitted who otherwise can't comply. That won't make us have a stronger military.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
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.

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.
What he said!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow..that's some really compelling scientific research!
It would be at least as compelling as your research, if you had presented any. The point is, you have absolutely nothing to suggest that homosexuals would perform any differently on the battlefield than heterosexuals, other than a media-created impression of homosexuals as pansies.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
At some point, all of those people might be asked to go to the front lines of battle. They don't accept people to "work in the military" without being sure that they could do this successfully. People are denied the right to "work in the military" for a whole host of reasons, when it's clear that they either can't proficiently serve after training or pass the requirements of battle training in the first place.

People who can't or won't meet these requirements can find jobs in other areas of the government if they choose.



The military are trained for their worse case scenario - killing enemies. To suggest that the perils of sexual tension while training to be a killer is of no account, pretty much flies in the face of everything we know about how sexual tension works.

You don't pay closer attention to tasks at hand with increased sexual tension - you pay less attention. It makes no sense to create an atmosphere where you are being trained to survive battles to the death in a way that decreases focus on the task at hand, just to satisfy the wishes of a very tiny portion of the population who can not qualify for the training in question. This is a method that has worked for quite a long time. Until the primary mission of basic military training isn't to kill the other guy before he kills you and your unit, it really doesn't matter what you might end up doing later in your military career.
Your usual attempt at deflecting the argument to something else when you have nothing of substance. I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the vast majority of my colleagues in the AF had absolutely no direct involvement with the Vietnam War, and the same case applied in the Army. I lost two high school buddies to the war, but the vast majority of the rest who were in the service never saw action. The military isn't made up exclusively of fighting troops; the majority are support personnel, who rarely, if ever, pick up a weapon during their time.

Keep grasping at straws.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are you not aware of the fact that these positions often time require those performing these jobs to be located in the field of battle? You don't have to be in a "fox hole" to find yourself having to defend your life from an enemy.

I'd suggest you tell a radar tech or diesel mechanic stationed in Afghanistan that they have nothing to fear from direct enemy attack and see how they respond.

That's the entire purpose of military training - to prepare you for whatever possible emergency life or death situation might take place. I don't think it's a good idea to downgrade the training and preparation just to allow a tiny percentage of potential soldiers to be admitted who otherwise can't comply. That won't make us have a stronger military.
Who said anything about downgrading training or preparation? The argument was made that sexual tension in the workplace was going to cause some mysterious reaction which would lessen the ability of military professionals to kill humans.

As farcical as that sounds, I still decided to make the obvious point that the overwhelming majority of military personnel have professions in which their deadly killing power isn't really an issue. And they already have sexual tension in the workplace because they work with women and civilians.

Make whatever case you want for continuing the ban, but let's forget the nonsense that sexual tension will let Al Queda win.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It would be at least as compelling as your research, if you had presented any. The point is, you have absolutely nothing to suggest that homosexuals would perform any differently on the battlefield than heterosexuals, other than a media-created impression of homosexuals as pansies.
Not just pansies...they're pansies who are wholly incapable of controlling their sexual urges. After all, if you're fighting for your life (literally), you're going to be WAY more concerned with what's going on under the fatigues of the guy next to you than what's going on with the tank headed in your direction, amirite?
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
True, but again you are ignoring the fact that proximity DOES provide added temptation and distraction. Just like my food analogy, hunger knows no real proximity either. You can think about eating good food and be hungry wherever you are. If you are dieting though, it helps if you aren't seeing Pizza Hut commercials and going to places where delicious fatty foods are being served. The proximity of the temptation does make it harder to focus on your goals and stay on track.

Your argument is no different than saying that putting a pizza in front of a 500 lb. man who hasn't had lunch isn't going to make him feel any more hungry than if there was no food, or reminders of food, anywhere around. It simply isn't a credible line of reasoning.

You're ignoring my argument that we allow hot women to serve in the military whom would be a distraction for the hetero males... So what?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2010, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You're ignoring my argument that we allow hot women to serve in the military whom would be a distraction for the hetero males... So what?
This fact opinion is worthless w/o pics.

-t
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2010, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It would be at least as compelling as your research, if you had presented any. The point is, you have absolutely nothing to suggest that homosexuals would perform any differently on the battlefield than heterosexuals, other than a media-created impression of homosexuals as pansies.
So, say if someone came to you and said that children shouldn't be allowed to play hand-held video games in classrooms while going over their lessons, because that they'd be less likely to learn the materials - you would also say that there was "nothing to suggest" that would aid in their learning materials unless some kind of research or evidence?

Do you really need data or evidence to concede that added distraction leads to lesser focus and therefore not as effective training? Also, no one has argued that homosexuals are "pansies" or incapable of being tough or killing. That's an outright red herring.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2010, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Your usual attempt at deflecting the argument to something else when you have nothing of substance.
LOL. I directly refuted your claim. I'm not sure how that is "deflecting the argument.". You made an issue out of some people not having to fight, and I pointed out that there was essentially no soldier that was assured of not having to do that.

I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the vast majority of my colleagues in the AF had absolutely no direct involvement with the Vietnam War, and the same case applied in the Army. I lost two high school buddies to the war, but the vast majority of the rest who were in the service never saw action. The military isn't made up exclusively of fighting troops; the majority are support personnel, who rarely, if ever, pick up a weapon during their time.

Keep grasping at straws.
See above. Each and every one of these "support" people could be called into battle. Lots of men and women didn't even want to go to war but were drafted and died. To suggest that people who actually sign up, take the training, and agree to put their life on the line have no compelling reason to be trained to either kill or be killed is silly. They would not make these people go through the expense and effort of military training if there was not the possibiIity that they'd have to use that training.

If you've ever seen the movie "Private Benjamin" with Goldie Hawn...they could create a remake of that movie and put you in the lead role!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2010, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You're ignoring my argument that we allow hot women to serve in the military whom would be a distraction for the hetero males... So what?
There are "hot women" training side by side with the guys in the military? News to me.....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2010, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Not just pansies...they're pansies who are wholly incapable of controlling their sexual urges.
No more than straight men and women who have always been separated from those they might become sexually attracted to. You'll always fail when you try and suggest that homosexuals are somehow being treated differently by choice, when the fact is that there's really no way for them to be treated the same and restricted in the same way straight people are.

After all, if you're fighting for your life (literally), you're going to be WAY more concerned with what's going on under the fatigues of the guy next to you than what's going on with the tank headed in your direction, amirite?
I guarantee you that I can control my sexual urges, but would be suffering from a huge distraction if while being shown how to blow up the tank, there was a very pretty woman standing next to me that I was REALLY attracted to standing. I know this because it happens outside of military service.

Love and sex do weird things to people like almost nothing else. That doesn't change just because you are training to kill. Removing that distraction can only help the cause, and that's what the military brass have done for quite some time.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2010, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker View Post
Who said anything about downgrading training or preparation? The argument was made that sexual tension in the workplace was going to cause some mysterious reaction which would lessen the ability of military professionals to kill humans.
Not so mysterious. The reaction people have when they have amorous feelings for those around them aren't really surprising or unknown.

Love

"Many people feel "weak," faint, butterflies, daydreamy. Whether "strong" or "weak," both seem to refer to being carried away by your feelings. The feelings definitely "look forward" to fulfillment. Desire is not just felt -- it demands, motivates."

That's really not something the military wants to encourage by providing a ready stream of candidates to create these sorts of emotions and feelings.

As farcical as that sounds, I still decided to make the obvious point that the overwhelming majority of military personnel have professions in which their deadly killing power isn't really an issue. And they already have sexual tension in the workplace because they work with women and civilians.

Make whatever case you want for continuing the ban, but let's forget the nonsense that sexual tension will let Al Queda win.
Lack of focused training might, and everyone who joins the military has to have the same training to do any kind of job. If the training isn't necessary, then yes - we should make these jobs non-military and not force them to go through any military/fighting training if that's your argument. Make them regular civil-service jobs and not positions held by soldiers. The fact that is that the type of training in question trains these workers for higher discipline and those in charge feel that's necessary to get all the jobs done.

So, if either changing military training so that they add distractions that cause lack of focus, or do away with the training at all for those who MIGHT not ever find themselves in battle IS "downgrading" training and preparation.

People have already explained though how being assigned a non-battle position doesn't guarantee you won't have to fight. I know someone wasn't assigned front lines and had a support role who almost died and was a prisoner of war for some time. I'm sure you can explain to her and those who did die who were with her how she never needed the training to survive life or death battles she was given because she wasn't ever assigned to fight. Good luck!
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 13, 2010 at 08:31 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,