[Doofy]

Huh huh - you said "rebuttals".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt.

I don't they're worried about that as much as they're worried that the men in the American are so undisciplined that they will be rendered ineffective at the thought that a homosexual fellow soldier might see them naked.

Or, maybe they're worried that the men of the American military will catch the gay virus and will become a bunch of fems.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt.

That's not it at all. The point is, I've never met anyone in the UK military who isn't a hardcore homophobe. Kinda goes with the turf (you know, killing people for a living). Now, say to these blokes that there's going to be gay folks showering with them they're going to think twice about joining up in the first place.
Folks like Karl will state how they think that it's a good thing that the military is modernising its outlook and attracting different sorts. 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.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Or, maybe they're worried that the men of the American military will catch the gay virus and will become a bunch of fems.

"Become"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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.

Then you shouldn't have any worries. If they don't want to fight, I'm sure they won't join the military.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then you shouldn't have any worries.

I'm not worried.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Maybe outside of the military, but men acting on their sexual impulses inside the military - heterosexually or homosexually - are not tolerated. I'd say that this is how it is in any modern military, including those that permit openly homosexual individuals to join.

I also think that, along with people considering gay male sex more "yucky" than gay female sex, men may find their masculinity and manliness threatened by the idea of another man being sexually attracted to them. There is much more of a stigma against being a gay male compared to being a gay female.

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt. I'd guess that gay males are just like everyone else - they're not attracted to every single person they come across, and they're more than capable of controlling themselves when necessary.

Unless unwanted buttsecks has been a problem in countries where gays are permitted in the military, I don't really think it's much of an issue.

Exactly right!

In addition to what you wrote, what kills me is why this is even an issue - just address the shower situation and call it a day, problem solved.

I don't understand what the big deal is.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's not it at all. The point is, I've never met anyone in the UK military who isn't a hardcore homophobe. Kinda goes with the turf (you know, killing people for a living). Now, say to these blokes that there's going to be gay folks showering with them they're going to think twice about joining up in the first place.
Folks like Karl will state how they think that it's a good thing that the military is modernising its outlook and attracting different sorts. 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.

Once again, you don't get it. "Flamboyant" men (now there's a typical over generalization, on purpose, I'm sure) have been fighting in the military, effectively, since there have been military forces. Just because you didn't know who they were/are, doesn't mean they're suddenly less effective, because you found out who they are. It just shows the silliness of the "logic" that some people attempt to conjure, to futilely support their homophobia and irrational fears. Men (and women) who join the military are already aware that they may be called upon to fight, whether they're gay or not, or known to be gay or not, and this is just one of many points in this pointless discussion that too many don't seem to be able to grasp.

It's about time for another certain individual to come back and reiterate, for the thousandth time, that he doesn't want to give "permission" for a gay man to look at his body, in a communal shower no less. Incredibly silly.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't [think] they're worried about that as much as they're worried that the men in the American are so undisciplined that they will be rendered ineffective at the thought that a homosexual fellow soldier might see them naked.

This is what bothers me so much about this debate. There seems to be an assumption that American soldiers are so poorly trained and lacking in self-discipline that they will be horribly distracted at the thought of homosexuals in the military, let alone with the actual presence of homosexuals in the military. Such an attitude makes several negative assumptions about our soldiers* which I find objectionable and offensive. I think those who serve and/or join the U.S. military can adapt to the presence of homosexuals. And if an individual is completely unable to adapt to such a change then I would argue that such an inflexible attitude is detrimental to being a member of the U.S. military. (Can you imagine a soldier with the inability to adapt to changing circumstances being caught by a surprise attack? It would be terrible for the military to have soldiers with such inflexibility.)


*
--Male soldiers are completely consumed by their sexual desires like some wild, primitive animal.
(While there is a not insignificant percentage of sexual assault within the military, the problem with these sexual assaults is not their occurrence but rather the military's response to these incidents.)
--Male soldiers cannot behave as professionals when in the presence of the object of their sexual desire.
(So, soldiers cannot shower with the object of their sexual desire or else they would become consumed by their sexual desires and rendered ineffective.)
--American soldiers cannot adapt to change.
(As if the successful addition of blacks and women in the military did not negate this assumption or rapid changes in strategy and tactis brought about by the focus on asymmetrical warfare in the War on Terror.)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Folks like Karl will state how they think that it's a good thing that the military is modernising its outlook and attracting different sorts. 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.

You want a rough man doing it to you? Guess you are the bottom.


Yeah, all gay men are flamboyant. They would run and scream like a girl when they have to fight. Gay men only join the military to look at other naked men.
/sarcasm

[besson3c]

So then, is it better to extend duties and push our existing military to its limits, or just do something about the shower situation, if there is even a situation at all?

Possible shower solutions:

- partitions similar to toilet stalls
- gay dudes shower in the women's shower area after they are done
- some amount of private shower stalls available for whomever wants them

This is not tough.

[ebuddy]

Again, the military is not commissioned to resolve complex social issues. If you want gays to be able to openly serve in the military, you'll likely have to continue to address how they're regarded in society as a whole. Otherwise, it's neither compassionate nor sensible to draft policy without regard for the cultures subject to it. I've not really seen a reason why the military should pioneer this ground.

While I understand the reasons for invoking the service of blacks and women in an argument about gays in the military, I abhor the practice. It's insulting to assume that the plights of gays in society is now, or has ever been, anywhere near the plights of blacks or women that this would somehow make an effective argument. The differences of course, are stark in all imaginable respects.

Unless you believe less than a half of one percent of the 1.5 million currently in service are gay, you must know that there are a great many gays currently serving with honor in our armed forces. You should be proud of them. They are truly the standard of service for all IMO. Why not?

[besson3c]

Also, if soldiers had to choose between having more people in the military, easing the strain on recruitment and making their lives safer by having more qualified people around them (in cases where numbers are low), or having to shower in a private stall in order to prevent gay dudes from looking at them, which do you think they would prefer?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, the military is not commissioned to resolve complex social issues. If you want gays to be able to openly serve in the military, you'll likely have to continue to address how they're regarded in society as a whole. Otherwise, it's neither compassionate nor sensible to draft policy without regard for the cultures subject to it. I've not really seen a reason why the military should pioneer this ground.

While I understand the reasons for invoking the service of blacks and women in an argument about gays in the military, I abhor the practice. It's insulting to assume that the plights of gays in society is now, or has ever been, anywhere near the plights of blacks or women that this would somehow make an effective argument. The differences of course, are stark in all imaginable respects.

Unless you believe less than a half of one percent of the 1.5 million currently in service are gay, you must know that there are a great many gays currently serving with honor in our armed forces. You should be proud of them. They are truly the standard of service for all IMO. Why not?

Blacks, women, hispanics, asians, Republicans, Democrats, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, people that have slept with a loved one, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, vegans, vegetarians, meat eaters, people you just plain old dislike... There are all sorts of culture wars in the military. If you want to stay you need to learn how to get along with people of diverse backgrounds, period.

Whether the plight of gays compares to women or blacks, I don't really see how that matters.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Also, if soldiers had to choose between having more people in the military, easing the strain on recruitment and making their lives safer by having more qualified people around them (in cases where numbers are low), or having to shower in a private stall in order to prevent gay dudes from looking at them, which do you think they would prefer?

This is a good question. I think they would prefer the policy they feel is most effective for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. What if it's DADT?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a good question. I think they would prefer the policy they feel is most effective for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. What if it's DADT?

DADT is better than the anti-gay sentiments we are seeing in here, making homosexuality a non-issue would be even better.

We are all different and have strong convictions, passions, beliefs, whatever... You need to learn how to co-exist with all others in the military, or else it may not be suited for you. The debate about gays does not change this.

[besson3c]

The reason why this is an issue is probably the same reason why gay marriage keeps on being shot down in the states, because of irrational fears and various problems that we have with gay people. As far as I'm concerned, there is no rational argument, or if there is I sure haven't heard it yet.

If you truly believe in freedom in this country like many Republicans say they do, this extends to all law abiding US citizens, including the freedom to join the military without having to hide a part of who and what you are. Otherwise, STFU about freedom if your version of freedom does not include social issues such as this one.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

DADT is better than the anti-gay sentiments we are seeing in here

Nobody is making anti-gay statements in here. People are just stating the facts. Stop with the usual lib histrionics.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nobody is making anti-gay statements in here. People are just stating the facts. Stop with the usual lib histrionics.

Never mind.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Blacks, women, hispanics, asians, Republicans, Democrats, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, people that have slept with a loved one, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, vegans, vegetarians, meat eaters, people you just plain old dislike... There are all sorts of culture wars in the military. If you want to stay you need to learn how to get along with people of diverse backgrounds, period.

Right, so veggies can join the military then? Demand specific MREs?

Ummm. Ok.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, so veggies can join the military then? Demand specific MREs?

Ummm. Ok.

There are vegetarian MREs: Meal, Ready-to-Eat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Blacks, women, hispanics, asians, Republicans, Democrats, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, people that have slept with a loved one, people you just plain old dislike... There are all sorts of culture wars in the military. If you want to stay you need to learn how to get along with people of diverse backgrounds, period.

Right and there's nothing to suggest that thousands of gays and straights aren't currently doing so in the armed forces. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of our resident service people here on MacNN knew a soldier was gay.

Whether the plight of gays compares to women or blacks, I don't really see how that matters.

Of course it matters, that's why it's brought up repeatedly in regards to acceptance of homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that as a society, we've come to understand race and gender a great deal more than we understand homosexuality and as a collective have placed race and gender on an entirely different plane in terms of rights. This isn't the military's problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right and there's nothing to suggest that thousands of gays and straights aren't currently doing so in the armed forces. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of our resident service people here on MacNN knew a soldier was gay.


Of course it matters, that's why it's brought up repeatedly in regards to acceptance of homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that as a society, we've come to understand race and gender a great deal more than we understand homosexuality and as a collective have placed race and gender on an entirely different plane in terms of rights. This isn't the military's problem.

Oh, I see your point. I thought you were referring to the plight in a historical context.

Yes, we are more accepting of women and blacks now than we are of gays, but there is also no better time to change this than now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are vegetarian MREs

I know there are. If you think you're going to get a veggie one off your government when it comes to chow time simply because you ask for it, you're having a laugh.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Oh, I see your point. I thought you were referring to the plight in a historical context.

I'm referring to it in both its historical context and its biological context. In all imaginable respects.

Yes, we are more accepting of women and blacks now than we are of gays, but there is also no better time to change this than now.

There's no reason this should start with the military.

Worse; what if most believe homosexuality has more a mental component than genetic, why would they be compelled to make concessions for it? As painful as this message is to hear for some, it is the point of contention IMO.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Maybe outside of the military, but men acting on their sexual impulses inside the military - heterosexually or homosexually - are not tolerated. I'd say that this is how it is in any modern military, including those that permit openly homosexual individuals to join.

I don't disagree. The point is that heterosexual men and women have their ability to act on their impulses taken away - that's one driving human force that they don't really have to consider. Though, if given the opportunity to act, a man will normally do so more often than a women. It's likely because there are greater real world consequences for women than for men.

[quote]I also think that, along with people considering gay male sex more "yucky" than gay female sex, men may find their masculinity and manliness threatened by the idea of another man being sexually attracted to them. There is much more of a stigma against being a gay male compared to being a gay female.[quote]

There may be some of that.

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt.

I think what's more amusing is the idea that you have to be "anti-gay people" in order to oppose some of the nonsensical structural, cultural and societal changes some people wish to impose. Also, as I stated - I'm a man. I know how a good portion of the male population reacts. I've seen the studies that show the percentage of the time men are thinking about sex as compared to women. Unless gay men's sex drive is less than straight men's this isn't the case of someone just misunderstanding what is going on or irrationally judging people based on personal fear. I'm not assuming anything about gay men that I don't assume about myself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no reason this should start with the military.

I gave you reasons, including an increase in numbers, a greater pool of worthy soldiers to draw from, easing strain on existing platoons stationed overseas, etc.

Worse; what if most believe homosexuality has more a mental component than genetic, why would they be compelled to make concessions for it? As painful as this message is to hear for some, it is the point of contention IMO.

I don't see the point of this either. If you are attracted to people of the opposite sex you are gay, no matter how this came about.

Why does it seem like you are more inclined to maintain the status quo here as opposed to being open minded about change?

[besson3c]

I think what's more amusing is the idea that you have to be "anti-gay people" in order to oppose some of the nonsensical structural, cultural and societal changes some people wish to impose. Also, as I stated - I'm a man. I know how a good portion of the male population reacts. I've seen the studies that show the percentage of the time men are thinking about sex as compared to women. Unless gay men's sex drive is less than straight men's this isn't the case of someone just misunderstanding what is going on or irrationally judging people based on personal fear. I'm not assuming anything about gay men that I don't assume about myself.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Men with high sex drives have to deal with this on and off duty. Sexual fantasy does not cease when people are not around, even if they are miles away. While on duty these gay men will have to deal with their impulses the same way they always have on or off duty.

In the heat of a battle or some sort of dangerous mission where there is gunfire, for instance, and the soldiers have to perform as trained and be at the top of their game do you really think that the gay soldiers will be thinking about having butt sex? Sexual fantasy and impulse happens mostly during our idle time, and like I said, it is something that all people have to deal with regardless. Some sexual fantasies or lusting of gay men in their idle time does not impact their performance or the safety of others whatsoever.

Let me ask you, are you opposed to gay marriage?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I gave you reasons, including an increase in numbers, a greater pool of worthy soldiers to draw from, easing strain on existing platoons stationed overseas, etc.

There's nothing to suggest that those reasons will have any more positive an impact on the military than current policy.

I don't see the point of this either. If you are attracted to people of the opposite sex you are gay, no matter how this came about.

Incorrect for several reasons. Suffice it to say, this does not begin to address the manner in which people come to tolerance. I'm sorry you can't see this, there's really little more I could say here.

Why does it seem like you are more inclined to maintain the status quo here as opposed to being open minded about change?

I'm perfectly well open to change, but I'm not the arbiter of what is and is not good for the military. My point was simply that if military leadership believes it would be good for the military, I believe it'd be good for the military. My tolerance for homosexuality does matter to them. They are not commissioned to resolve complex social issues for me, you, or anyone else.

There are any number of reasons why one is regulated in the military and there are any number of reasons why one would be discharged, why not attach a societal injustice to them all and require the military keep up? In other words, of all the potentially disenfranchised in the military, why is homosexuality your cause du jour?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't see the point of this either. If you are attracted to people of the opposite sex you are gay, no matter how this came about.

Actually, if you are attracted to people of the opposite sex you are, by definition, not gay, no matter how this came about.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's nothing to suggest that those reasons will have any more positive an impact on the military than current policy.

Why wouldn't it? It would send a signal that the military is not the exclusive domain of people that look and think a certain way, not just in the realm of homosexuality but overall. This would improve our global image, draw people in, etc. You cannot have true diversity in the military if this excludes a significant population of people.

Incorrect for several reasons. Suffice it to say, this does not begin to address the manner in which people come to tolerance. I'm sorry you can't see this, there's really little more I could say here.

Oh, so your point is that the people that think that gayness is just a mental state will be thinking that gay people should just stop being gay?

There are probably people in the military that think that eating baby carrots make them gay, that the moon landing was a hoax, and whatever else. You can't control thought, but we should not reward these particular thoughts just because they exist.

I'm perfectly well open to change, but I'm not the arbiter of what is and is not good for the military. My point was simply that if military leadership believes it would be good for the military, I believe it'd be good for the military. My tolerance for homosexuality does matter to them. They are not commissioned to resolve complex social issues for me, you, or anyone else.

There are any number of reasons why one is regulated in the military and there are any number of reasons why one would be discharged, why not attach a societal injustice to them all and require the military keep up? In other words, of all the potentially disenfranchised in the military, why is homosexuality your cause du jour?

Maybe political pressures and general homophobia impact the decisions of military leadership? The way to bring about change is to start changing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Actually, if you are attracted to people of the opposite sex you are, by definition, not gay, no matter how this came about.

Oops

[besson3c]

Speaking of being an arbiter of what is good and not for the military, why is it that Republicans generally have very little positive things to say about Obama's handling of the wars despite the fact that his military commanders seem to be full support of his strategies, or at least this is what they say publicly?

Either his military commanders really are in support of his policies, in which case Republicans who want to pick and choose which military policy they wish to support originating from the military commanders in terms of how this impacts their party should perhaps STFU, or else our military commanders are not actually non-partisan?

Just some thoughts, I apologize for the digression. The same goes with Democratic foreign policy criticism under Bush.

[Kerrigan]

I just want to point out something that is not really related to DADT. The British military is incapable of waging any type of war, even against small South American countries. British troops in Iraq are poorly equipped, poorly trained, perform poorly both in conventional warfare and in counter insurgency warfare, and as a result are relegated by their American commanding officers to relatively safe zones, while their US counterparts do the heavy lifting in implementing new counter insurgency and urban warfare tactics. To compare the US military to the UK military is a joke.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm referring to it in both its historical context and its biological context. In all imaginable respects.


There's no reason this should start with the military.

Worse; what if most believe homosexuality has more a mental component than genetic, why would they be compelled to make concessions for it? As painful as this message is to hear for some, it is the point of contention IMO.

Most people once believed the world was flat, and that bloodletting was acceptable for curing illnesses, and that black people were property, and that women belonged in the home, and shouldn't work or vote, and that the races shouldn't intermingle, and on and on. Come to think of it, there are still people who believe some of those fallacies, and will take their beliefs with them to their dying day. There are a fair number of people today who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Sometimes you just can't fix ignorance. Pointing out what most believe lends little, if any, credence to a discussion. The assumption that it's right just because a lot of people believe it only shows a reliance on previous ignorance.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking of being an arbiter of what is good and not for the military, why is it that Republicans generally have very little positive things to say about Obama's handling of the wars despite the fact that his military commanders seem to be full support of his strategies, or at least this is what they say publicly?

Actually, you got a good point.

Obama had been handling the war situations much better than many Republicans expected.

That said, he really hasn't changed policy that much; it's pretty much were Bush left of.
Curious enough, he is much more "pragmatic" in that area than in other (like Health Care). He accepts that for foreign policy, there is nice campaign talk, and then there is reality.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think what's more amusing is the idea that you have to be "anti-gay people" in order to oppose some of the nonsensical structural, cultural and societal changes some people wish to impose.

What is "nonsensical" about wanting the military to accept the best qualified citizens as soldiers? Or do you think the military should accept only the best qualified heterosexual citizens as soldiers?


Because to me, it seems comical, almost absurd, to suggest that an immutable characteristic like sexual orientation in any way effects a citizen's ability to wield a weapon or drive a tank or lead others or fly a plane or peel potatoes in the mess hall.

--Is there something in homosexuality that makes a citizen inherently unable to handle or fire a gun?
(Is there a physical impediment with homosexuality that causes gays to have deformed hands thus rendering them unable to hold and/or fire a weapon?)
--Is there something in homosexuality that makes a citizen inherently unable to learn how to drive a tank?
(Is there a cognitive impediment with homosexuality that causes gays to be unable to learn new material, like how to drive a tank?)
--Is there something in homosexuality that makes a citizen inherently unable to possess a strong, dominant personality suitable to leadership?
(Is there a correlation between homosexuality and passiveness? Do homosexuals have a predominantly passive personality that makes them unable/unfit to lead? And, even if they did, would such a trait as passiveness prevent a homosexual citizen from becoming a good subordinate, a follower instead of a leader?)
--Is there something in homosexuality that makes a citizen inherently unable to learn how to fly a plane?
(Is there a correlation between homosexuality and fear of heights, or between homosexuality and poor vision, such that gays are unable to fly or jump out of airplanes?)


We've seen now how there is nothing inherently incompatible between being black and being in the military or being a woman and being in the military--There is nothing inherent to being black or being a woman that makes a citizen any less able to fire a gun, drive a tank, or fly a plane--so why should there be something inherently incompatible between being gay and being in the military?


If there is any evidence to support claims that a homosexual person is inherently, because of their sexual orientation, less capable of being a soldier than a heterosexual person by all means show it to me. If you said that homosexuals had a higher incidence of flat feet, or a heart murmur, or severely impaired vision than their heterosexual counterparts, you would have a valid argument to justify not allowing homosexuals to serve. (I would fully support such an argument to deny homosexuals membership in the military as I want our military to contain the best citizens of this country.) But I am not aware of anything inherently limiting in homosexuality that makes a person physically or mentally unable to become a soldier.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are any number of reasons why one is regulated in the military and there are any number of reasons why one would be discharged,

Correct.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

why not attach a societal injustice to them all and require the military keep up?

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.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In other words, of all the potentially disenfranchised in the military, why is homosexuality your cause du jour?

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.
*Say if homosexuality corresponded with severe arthritis of the hands, such that a homosexual person was almost guaranteed to be unable to properly hold and fire a gun. Now that would be a good reason to deny homosexuals the ability to join the military. And that would be a reason I would fully, 100%, without a doubt, support for denying homosexuals the right to join the military.


PS: Out of curiosity, what other groups do you know of that are disenfranchised from being in the military based on an immutable trait un-related to the ability to handle/fire a weapon?
(Again, if you have information that shows there is something in homosexuality that makes a person inherently unable to handle/fire a weapon, by all means share it with us. I would certainly reconsider my stance on this issue if there was evidence that homosexuals are physically flawed in some way that prevents them from fulfilling the key duty of a soldier, namely to be able to fire a weapon when called upon to do so.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

PS: Out of curiosity, what other groups do you know of are disenfranchised from being in the military based on an immutable trait un-related to the ability to handle/fire a weapon?

Radical muslim clerics ?

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Radical muslim clerics ?

-t

So, being a radical muslim cleric is an inherent trait from birth? that someone is born a radical Muslim cleric and is physically or mentally unable to fulfill the duties of being a soldier? Because, I don't see anything to do with being born Muslim that makes a person inherently incompatible with being a U.S. soldier.

What IS incompatible with being a U.S. soldier is a person of the Islamic faith in the military deciding that their highest goal is not to uphold the Constitution above all else. But again, such an incompatibility is not limited to Islam as evidenced by the fundamentalist Christian ministers in the Air Force chaplain service, accused of proselytizing non-Christian U.S. soldiers to convert to fundamentalist (evangelical) Christianity.
(You know, members of the U.S. military seeking to impose their specific faith on other members of the military in direct contravention to the Constitution's 1st Amendment. I think these ministers in the Air Force should be removed from office because they think their highest goal is related to their faith and not to uphold the Constitution above all else.)

[dcmacdaddy]

In a more general sense, I would like to ask what are the requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military? I want to examine these list of requirements to see if there is anything in them that would automatically disqualify a homosexual person from service in the military.
(If someone wants to post the service-specific requirements, that would be great. If not, I will look them up, and post them, tomorrow when I have more time.)


What are the physical requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?
What are the mental/cognitive requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?
What are the psychological requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, being a radical muslim cleric is an inherent trait from birth? that someone is born a radical Muslim cleric and is physically or mentally unable to fulfill the duties of being a soldier? Because, I don't see anything to do with being born Muslim that makes a person inherently incompatible with being a U.S. soldier.

Don't get worked up.

You didn't specify that those people were supposed to be born into a "group", rather than the people making certain choices that would limit them from dutifully being a soldier in the US military.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Don't get worked up.

You didn't specify that those people were supposed to be born into a "group", rather than the people making certain choices that would limit them from dutifully being a soldier in the US military.

-t

All throughout my post I used the term inherent to describe the traits of what may or may not make an individual capable of being a soldier. The term "inherent", when referring to something like race, gender, or sexual orientation, is something is used to mean "from birth". Hence my off-hand reply asking if you thought people were born being radical Muslims.

Having said that, I will reiterate what I said in my previous reply: Any U.S. citizen choosing to be a radical/fundamentalist Muslim and placing their religious beliefs above the duty to uphold the Constitution should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. And, in a more general sense, any U.S. citizen choosing to place their religious beliefs above the duty to uphold the Constitution should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. (When we have a Constitution that allows for, or even requires, a specific religion to be promulgated throughout the country than I will rescind my opposition to "U.S. citizen choosing to place their religious beliefs above the duty to uphold the Constitution".)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Having said that, I will reiterate what I said in my previous reply: Any U.S. citizen choosing to be a radical Muslim and placing their religious beliefs above the duty to uphold the Constitution should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. And, in a more general sense, any U.S. citizen choosing to place their religious beliefs above the duty to uphold the Constitution should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

Absolutely

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Huh huh - you said "rebuttals".

Ahhh.. I get it now! Hahah!!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking of being an arbiter of what is good and not for the military, why is it that Republicans generally have very little positive things to say about Obama's handling of the wars despite the fact that his military commanders seem to be full support of his strategies, or at least this is what they say publicly?

While I'm currently registered independent, I'm fairly conservative and I've had good things to say about it generally, so far. Not all good things, but some.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, being a radical muslim cleric is an inherent trait from birth?

Are you saying homosexuality is genetic? I mean, there's absolutely zero information to substantiate the idea, but it seems you're treading down this path of logic anyway. There is no question of the genetics of race or gender. Gender identity or preference does not enjoy the same level of legitimacy and this is not a problem of the military. This is societal.

Otherwise, you are expecting the military to blaze new territory for your ideal of societal justice when it may not be necessary. Again, unless you truly believe less than one half of one percent currently serving in the armed forces are gay, (less than 650 discharged for it annually) there are a great many gay soldiers serving with integrity. Why is this not the standard? Why all of a sudden is your gender preference elevated to such a degree of importance? Is heterosexuality really this integral a part of your identity? Really?

I mean, if the overwhelming majority of society does not feel that gays even have the right to get married, why should the military be compelled to pioneer this societal change in attitudes? That's not what they're commissioned to do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Men with high sex drives have to deal with this on and off duty. Sexual fantasy does not cease when people are not around, even if they are miles away. While on duty these gay men will have to deal with their impulses the same way they always have on or off duty.

That's the point. There are different ways straight men deal with it on and off duty. They have no way of dealing with it on-duty the same ways they could off-duty. There is no distraction or temptation for them to do so either. That's not the case for gay people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is "nonsensical" about wanting the military to accept the best qualified citizens as soldiers?

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.

No one is saying that homosexuals should be banned from serving because gay sex is "icky" or that if you desire it that you are incapable of killing enemies. It's all the other stuff where we are dealing with a very small percentage of the population that would cause us to have to remove what's previously thought to be an essential part of military training.

We've seen now how there is nothing inherently incompatible between being black and being in the military or being a woman and being in the military--There is nothing inherent to being black or being a woman that makes a citizen any less able to fire a gun, drive a tank, or fly a plane--so why should there be something inherently incompatible between being gay and being in the military?

If you are black and in the military, is there anything which would make your training different than the white guy? There is with someone who is gay. Your analogy doesn't fit.

If there is any evidence to support claims that a homosexual person is inherently, because of their sexual orientation, less capable of being a soldier than a heterosexual person by all means show it to me.

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.

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. That's the reason why men and women are separated in military training. It's the reason why black men and women aren't separated during military training.

We are dealing with an incapacity to comply with some basic criteria the military has always deemed necessary for proper military training - as much so as someone born with any kind of disability making them ineligible for serving. A blind man can't serve, even though they could perform some administrative duty. This isn't something where only homosexuals are being singled out - lot's of people can't serve because they aren't capable of training the same as everyone else. Men don't have the right to train with women either - for the same reason why homosexuals have been banned outright.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In a more general sense, I would like to ask what are the requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military? I want to examine these list of requirements to see if there is anything in them that would automatically disqualify a homosexual person from service in the military.
(If someone wants to post the service-specific requirements, that would be great. If not, I will look them up, and post them, tomorrow when I have more time.)


What are the physical requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?
What are the mental/cognitive requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?
What are the psychological requirements to become a soldier in the U.S. military?

Are there any aspects of essential military training with the candidate can not comply with?

See.. that one right there is a fail.

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.