[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well, for starters because none of the aforementioned entities had the financial clout the homosexual lobby enjoys.

There are far more blacks and women in the population than gays.

Interestingly, opposition to gay marriage is one of those factors that seems to transcend race and party, with majority still in opposition. You must know by now my view on gay marriage so there's no point in trying to address the strawman you've fashioned here. My point is that there is absolutely no reason at all why the military should forge ahead of society on this issue. The military has the best interest of the military at heart and I support that. If you want military policy to change, you'll have to change society first. The military will fall in line.

Opposition is only slightly more, and is changing. All of those issues were once opposed by the majority, but were correctly deemed wrong by a vocal minority, who worked to affect change; so it is with this issue.

I don't really know why you think the military shouldn't lead, but if the military would fall in line regardless, then it really doesn't make any difference if the military leads, and society falls in line. The end result would be the same. Fallacious argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

There are far more blacks and women in the population than gays.

Thanks for affirming my point. My point was not one of per capita representation, my point was the monetary wealth of the lobby.

Opposition is only slightly more, and is changing. All of those issues were once opposed by the majority, but were correctly deemed wrong by a vocal minority, who worked to affect change; so it is with this issue.

... and so it will be with the military. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Americans still oppose gay rights including gay marriage. Again, it is one of those factors that transcends race and party affiliation; all pandering to a constituency that is majority opposed to gay marriage. You can say, "well, it's getting better" and I can say; "yeah, but apparently not good enough".

I don't really know why you think the military shouldn't lead, but if the military would fall in line regardless, then it really doesn't make any difference if the military leads, and society falls in line. The end result would be the same. Fallacious argument.

There's no reason the military should jeopardize a policy that is currently affording them the best of both worlds. We all agree that homosexuals are already serving in the military and yet the military has maintained control over an aspect of their service that might be counter-productive to its own best interest. Again, the military is not tasked with leading the charge on domestic social issues. It is tasked with engineering an environment for optimal productivity. There are demographics at play on this issue and the military has chosen a policy and standing behind it; a policy they feel is in their own best interest. I support their right to continue doing so as long as they deem necessary.

I guess I'll take a fallacious argument over a non-argument wrought with strawmen any day.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Thanks for affirming my point. My point was not one of per capita representation, my point was the monetary wealth of the lobby.


... and so it will be with the military. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Americans still oppose gay rights including gay marriage. Again, it is one of those factors that transcends race and party affiliation; all pandering to a constituency that is majority opposed to gay marriage. You can say, "well, it's getting better" and I can say; "yeah, but apparently not good enough".


There's no reason the military should jeopardize a policy that is currently affording them the best of both worlds. We all agree that homosexuals are already serving in the military and yet the military has maintained control over an aspect of their service that might be counter-productive to its own best interest. Again, the military is not tasked with leading the charge on domestic social issues. It is tasked with engineering an environment for optimal productivity. There are demographics at play on this issue and the military has chosen a policy and standing behind it; a policy they feel is in their own best interest. I support their right to continue doing so as long as they deem necessary.

I guess I'll take a fallacious argument over a non-argument wrought with strawmen any day.

So you seem to think that it is counter productive to have openly homosexual people in the service, and it would be counter-productive to an "optimal" organization to allow them to serve openly. There are quite a few top military leaders who disagree with you, and have called for allowing gays to serve openly . It isn't about the military keeping control over a policy which has served them well; discharging Arabic translators at a time when they are sorely needed just because they're gay (when they've caused no harm) certainly doesn't serve the military well. It's about discrimination against a group of people who have just as much right to make the choices as to what they want to do with their lives as the rest of us, just because they make some uncomfortable and that's wrong. And it will be overcome. That's based on real logic, and not on emotion, which is what some (such as stupendousman) mistake for logic.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"Of all time"? That's a rather bold claim. I suspect the British, Roman, Ottoman and Mongol empires might have some say in the matter.

Do any of them still exist? No, they were defeated and their empires broken up. Case rested.

[subego]

Is this your opinion, or did they teach you this in the Air Force?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Do any of them still exist? No, they were defeated and their empires broken up. Case rested.

After having maintained their power and empires for far longer than the US has existed...

[Dakar V]

This thread really is golden.

[subego]

^^

...and were they really "defeated"?

Think of the all the words Gibbon could have left in the bank if only he had decided to sum it up thusly.

[OldManMac]

As I said, it's only a matter of time.

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-west-...rads-come-out/

Thirty-eight West Point graduates came out of the closet Tuesday, announcing the formation of an organization to fight the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

A long list of retired generals and admirals also support repeal - including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili and Colin Powell.

Even former Sen. Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who sponsored DADT, now says it is time to abolish the ban.

A 1993 study by the RAND corporation as well as a 1989 study by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center and the Navy’s 1957 Crittenden report support allowing gays to serve.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

As I said, it's only a matter of time.

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-west-...rads-come-out/

Thirty-eight West Point graduates came out of the closet Tuesday, announcing the formation of an organization to fight the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

A long list of retired generals and admirals also support repeal - including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili and Colin Powell.

Even former Sen. Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who sponsored DADT, now says it is time to abolish the ban.

A 1993 study by the RAND corporation as well as a 1989 study by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center and the Navy’s 1957 Crittenden report support allowing gays to serve.

Homosexuals, Democrats, Liberals and institutes and reports which where pretty much already geared toward solving a non-military goal of "fairness" (as defined by the left - nothing about war is "fair") over efficiency (the DPSRC has in fact "fairness" as part of it's mission statement), support ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission.

Gotcha. Not sure what's "news" there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

So you seem to think that it is counter productive to have openly homosexual people in the service, and it would be counter-productive to an "optimal" organization to allow them to serve openly. There are quite a few top military leaders who disagree with you, and have called for allowing gays to serve openly . It isn't about the military keeping control over a policy which has served them well; discharging Arabic translators at a time when they are sorely needed just because they're gay (when they've caused no harm) certainly doesn't serve the military well. It's about discrimination against a group of people who have just as much right to make the choices as to what they want to do with their lives as the rest of us, just because they make some uncomfortable and that's wrong. And it will be overcome. That's based on real logic, and not on emotion, which is what some (such as stupendousman) mistake for logic.

I never said it was counterproductive. I've stated that it seems to me the military has already determined that their open service is counterproductive. I think it is fairly apparent that the military is looking out for its own best interest. You mention the Arabic translators, but what of a recent 2008 Military Times poll of active duty personnel that reveals most active-duty service members oppose ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

According to that poll, approximately 58% oppose efforts to repeal the 1993 law. This is unchanged in similar surveys going back to 2005. According to a report in the Military Times, Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion at Fort Eustis, Va., said he is very concerned about the policy being repealed. “I think a lot of people are,” Lacy said. “In the field environment, you’re in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you’re already at a high stress level.”

Elaine Donnelly, the founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, which favors the ban on gays, says of the poll; almost one in 10 said they would definitely leave, plus an additional 14 percent who said they would consider leaving. Losses anywhere close to these numbers would virtually destroy the volunteer force.” She breaks the numbers down...

A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10 percent) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active duty Marine Corps (200,000).
If an additional 14 percent decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active duty Army (more than 545,000).
“Estimates of losses in active duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10 percent) and 323,000 (23 percent),” warns Donnelly.

[OldManMac]

Let 'em leave. Maybe we could build a military where people aren't fantasizing about being raped by a member of their own sex. I think it's rather unlikely they'd leave anyway. They joined the military for a reason, and I doubt that the issue of a fellow service member's sexuality was a consideration when they signed up. If it was, they have no business being in the service anyway. If I go to work for a company that offers same-sex benefits, I can't later complain to my supervisors that they have a bunch of homosexuals working there.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Homosexuals, Democrats, Liberals and institutes and reports which where pretty much already geared toward solving a non-military goal of "fairness" (as defined by the left - nothing about war is "fair") over efficiency (the DPSRC has in fact "fairness" as part of it's mission statement), support ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission.

Gotcha. Not sure what's "news" there.

Strawman. Homosexuals have served forever, and are just as focused on their mission as straights. They were in the foxholes in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and VietNam, and they're in the armored carriers and the platoons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere else where we're meddling in other people's business. Many of them gave their lives so you could be here today, to give your ill formed opinion, and expose your irrational fears.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Strawman. Homosexuals have served forever, and are just as focused on their mission as straights.

So, again...you support the removal of gender separated bathroom facilities due to the fact that men have served forever and would be just as focused on their mission with a naked woman standing next to them? I mean, that's the logic you are using. You are saying that just because people have chosen to violate the privacy of others via fraud and because of that they've gotten the benefit of NOT being separated from the gender they find sexually attractive when everyone else does NOT get that, that makes everything okay? Right.....

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Let 'em leave. Maybe we could build a military where people aren't fantasizing about being raped by a member of their own sex. I think it's rather unlikely they'd leave anyway. They joined the military for a reason, and I doubt that the issue of a fellow service member's sexuality was a consideration when they signed up. If it was, they have no business being in the service anyway. If I go to work for a company that offers same-sex benefits, I can't later complain to my supervisors that they have a bunch of homosexuals working there.

Let's go ahead a do away with those useless standards of gender separated bathing/sleeping quarters as well. Women who don't like showering with men can just leave. Maybe we could build a military where people aren't fantasizing about being raped by a member of the opposite sex. I think it's rather unlikely they'd leave anyway. They joined the military for a reason, and I doubt that the issue of a fellow service member's gender was a consideration when they signed up. If it was, they have no business being in the service anyway. Sounds like a modest proposal!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Let 'em leave. Maybe we could build a military where people aren't fantasizing about being raped by a member of their own sex. I think it's rather unlikely they'd leave anyway. They joined the military for a reason, and I doubt that the issue of a fellow service member's sexuality was a consideration when they signed up. If it was, they have no business being in the service anyway. If I go to work for a company that offers same-sex benefits, I can't later complain to my supervisors that they have a bunch of homosexuals working there.

A nice a thought as this might be, it's impractical. That's the problem. Your argument lives purely in the world of fantasy. We can't just let most of our military personnel leave because they aren't cool-headed paragons of open-minded virtue — surely, you must see that. That's not the purpose of the military. If the military only took really great guys with no obvious character flaws or wrong mindsets, the United States wouldn't exist.

If you want gays to live openly the military, you first have to change the world. You can't take a shortcut.

[OldManMac]

No one, least of all I, said anything about removing gender separated bathrooms! You keep bringing up your sexual fantasies (apparently). You're projecting scenarios that don't exist, and trying to fool us with your brand of "logic," which also doesn't exist. Get over it; there are much more important things in life to worry about, besides you feeling "violated" because some guy next to you in the shower may be thinking about your package! Good grief, man; get a grip!

Now it's your turn to tell me that you never said any of this stuff! Unbelievable!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you want gays to live openly the military, you first have to change the world. You can't take a shortcut.

That's just a convenient excuse people who are afraid of change use. If we wanted women to vote, we'd first have to change the world. If we wanted blacks to be free, we'd first have to change the world. If we want black children to go to white schools, if we wanted whites and blacks to intermarry, we'd first have to change the world, blah, blah, blah.

You have to take the first step, otherwise it's empty rhetoric (a lot of which has been posted here).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Do any of them still exist? No, they were defeated and their empires broken up. Case rested.

So, all we need is a country that's never been defeated and still exists for it to be more successful militarily than the US?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you want gays to live openly the military, you first have to change the world. You can't take a shortcut.

Ah, but the world is already changing. What you *really* need to do is stop the people who are actively trying to *stop and reverse* that change.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one, least of all I, said anything about removing gender separated bathrooms!

Exactly my point. For some reason, you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny.

You keep bringing up your sexual fantasies (apparently).

Not me. I was repeating what someone else said. Did you not read the post I replied to?

You're projecting scenarios that don't exist, and trying to fool us with your brand of "logic," which also doesn't exist. Get over it; there are much more important things in life to worry about, besides you feeling "violated" because some guy next to you in the shower may be thinking about your package! Good grief, man; get a grip!

The "scenarios" don't exist because you are applying a double standard. One in which straight women deserve a right to privacy from having their naked bodies viewed by straight men, but straight men do not deserve the same right in regards to gay men when the same rationale can be used for both. If women in the former deserve the right, then men in the latter logically do as well.

Now it's your turn to tell me that you never said any of this stuff! Unbelievable!

It's apparently never too soon to create a strawman. Nice!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's just a convenient excuse people who are afraid of change use. If we wanted women to vote, we'd first have to change the world. If we wanted blacks to be free, we'd first have to change the world. If we want black children to go to white schools, if we wanted whites and blacks to intermarry, we'd first have to change the world, blah, blah, blah.

You have to take the first step, otherwise it's empty rhetoric (a lot of which has been posted here).

These are not examples of the military pioneering new social ground. These are examples of civilians pioneering new social ground for themselves. This is important in a society supposedly founded on equality. There's nothing about the military founded in equality nor is there any reason an all-volunteer military should be more concerned for the plight of the homosexual than their own best interests.

When you've got some, 53+% of society opposed to gay marriage it hardly makes sense to point at the travesty of injustice in the military. Particularly when there are many, arguably more profound rights you forego to serve. Why so much concern over this one right OldManMac?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Originally Posted by OldManMac

No one, least of all I, said anything about removing gender separated bathrooms!

Exactly my point. For some reason, you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny.

Actually, several people, including myself, have already demolished this strawman by saying that yes: unisex bathrooms would be just fine by us.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, several people, including myself, have already demolished this strawman by saying that yes: unisex bathrooms would be just fine by us.

So it's your belief that unisex bathrooms and forced co-ed naked showering would pose no threat to recruiting, morale or focus?

..and, given the fact that the poster I replied to specifically said that "no one" is asking for this, it can't be a strawman. I was arguing based on his assertion.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These are not examples of the military pioneering new social ground. These are examples of civilians pioneering new social ground for themselves. This is important in a society supposedly founded on equality. There's nothing about the military founded in equality nor is there any reason an all-volunteer military should be more concerned for the plight of the homosexual than their own best interests.

You're making it sound as if the military's best interests are served by excluding homosexuals, which isn't true. They've served just as admirably as straights since the beginning of militaries.

When you've got some, 53+% of society opposed to gay marriage it hardly makes sense to point at the travesty of injustice in the military. Particularly when there are many, arguably more profound rights you forego to serve.

It makes sense to point out all injustice. I know that those who are opposed to gays don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is.

Why so much concern over this one right OldManMac?

One could just as easily ask why this one right isn't rightfully granted? I have a gay daughter, who harms no one, and has no "agenda," other than to live her life in peace, with her partner. She can't legally marry, and they are denied many of the benefits that other couples receive, simply because the state, which is partially a construct of often ignorant people, erects barriers that others don't face.

There's been a lot of discussion here over this issue, many times. Some of it pretends to use logic in order to defend indefensible points, and it has been presented by people who have other far more serious issues to worry about than what other people do with their lives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, several people, including myself, have already demolished this strawman by saying that yes: unisex bathrooms would be just fine by us.

That doesn't demolish "strawmen" of any sort nonhuman. First of all, I'd be willing to bet there is a small minority of people who would be fine with just about anything. Secondly, people can say anything they want. When the possibility becomes a reality, you might see things differently. Not to marginalize an internet forum statement or anything, but anyone can say anything.

None of these points means it is in the military's best interest to regard your opinion as anything other than a fringe exception to the norm.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That doesn't demolish "strawmen" of any sort nonhuman. First of all, I'd be willing to bet there is a small minority of people who would be fine with just about anything. Secondly, people can say anything they want. When the possibility becomes a reality, you might see things differently. Not to marginalize an internet forum statement or anything, but anyone can say anything.

None of these points means it is in the military's best interest to regard your opinion as anything other than a fringe exception to the norm.

It does, in fact. You said, 'you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny'. That is patently false, in addition to being your own pointless complication to the issue. You're conflating different issues and heaping on more and more 'objectionable' content (to you, at least) in order to try and discredit those of us who see no problem. If that's not a strawman argument, I don't know what is.

As is your even more ludicrous attempt to dismiss our position by saying that words on the internet don't matter. If our words on the internet don't matter than neither do yours. Either we accept these posts at face value, or there's no reason to even bother trying to have a conversation. Congratulations, you've just demolished the import of thousands of years of correspondence.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It does, in fact. You said, 'you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny'. That is patently false, in addition to being your own pointless complication to the issue.

I was referring to those who either where giving this doubled standard or refused to answer. It is not "false" in regards to those people who did this.

You're conflating different issues and heaping on more and more 'objectionable' content (to you, at least) in order to try and discredit those of us who see no problem. If that's not a strawman argument, I don't know what is.

I pointed out how this "objectionable" content required the use of the same rationale for allowance as that which is being argued. People where arguing that it was okay to violate a straight man's rights in a certain way, but intolerable to do the same to a woman or that she had a right that the man did not, which is inconsistent and logically fallacious. Pointing out logical inconsistencies by using analogies isn't a "strawman" by any standard.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I was referring to those who either where giving this doubled standard or refused to answer. It is not "false" in regards to those people who did this.

They probably 'refused' to answer because it's a pointless, irrelevant strawman...

I pointed out how this "objectionable" content required the use of the same rationale for allowance as that which is being argued. People where arguing that it was okay to violate a straight man's rights in a certain way, but intolerable to do the same to a woman or that she had a right that the man did not, which is inconsistent and logically fallacious. Pointing out logical inconsistencies by using analogies isn't a "strawman" by any standard.

No one is arguing that it's ok to violate a straight man's rights. We're arguing that your conception of rights here is severely twisted and has no basis in logic or fact.

[Doofy]

Cackpipe cosmonauts, semen demons, uphill gardeners, fudgepackers, trump pushers, those who 'bat from the pavilion end' and 'take the other bus' to get there.

Also known as gentlemen's gentlemen, friends of dorothy, bhatti boys, men who prefer the company of men, **** stabbers, pink pantella puffers, queens, queers, arse bandits, winnet nibblers, brown spunk dumpsters, turd burglers, anal astronauts, beefers brown hatters, tunnel testers, buttock bashers, heemasexes, spleen squeezers, puffs, poofs, pooves, poo pushers, rear gunners (one who fires his Lamb Cannon into another chap's bomb bay), pillow biters, players of the pink obo or skin flute, chutney ferrets, mincers, Cavalry Officers and so on.

How do you spot them? Well, if someone squeezes past you in a crowded pub and says to you 'let me just push this stool in', you know to clamp your arsecheeks tight.

How do you deal with them? Mince thoroughly and sell as luxury cat food to the rich and famous. Sir Elton is in particular demand for moggies belonging to Saudi princes.

The Female variety are variously known as:

Bean flickers, lesbos, clamjousters, diesel dykes, ladies who drink from the furry cup, tennis fans, women on a meat-free diet, carpet munchers, diners at the Y, ladies in comfortable shoes and so on. There are the fat ugly CAT boot wearing butch dykes and the more favourable and thoroughly acceptable fit ones with big busters (lipstick lesbians).

Now, that's from a page about flamboyant blokes on the unofficial-but-main UK army wiki.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Cack-pipe_commando

Think you stand a chance of getting those blokes to become a little more politically correct?

[nonhuman]

'Political correnctness' is for liberal ponces.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They probably 'refused' to answer because it's a pointless, irrelevant strawman...

Only to someone who does not believe there should be any standards at all in regard gender/sex separation, inlcuding co-ed showering. If someone is being consistent, and that's what they believe, they should state it. There were others that took a inconsistent view though.

No one is arguing that it's ok to violate a straight man's rights. We're arguing that your conception of rights here is severely twisted and has no basis in logic or fact.

I'm arguing that if a woman has a right to not share a shower with a man, then a man has the right not to shower with a homosexual man. You can't protect one and not the other and be treating people equally since these rights are based on the same premise. If you can point out how that is "twisted logic", I'd be glad to see it.

[nonhuman]

Stop beating around the bush to avoid stating the plain fact that I have been nothing but open and consistent about my position on this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Think you stand a chance of getting those blokes to become a little more politically correct?

I wish Americans could come up with 230 word lists of pejoratives for gay sex where 229 of them aren't clipped MacNN censor, and include terms such as "pavilion" and "chap".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Stop beating around the bush to avoid stating the plain fact that I have been nothing but open and consistent about my position on this.

Maybe I missed a post somewhere in the eight pages of the thread, so you can tell me to look back a couple if I've missed the answer, but I haven't seen it yet:

Do you argue with equal zeal for women to be forced to quarter with men?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're making it sound as if the military's best interests are served by excluding homosexuals, which isn't true. They've served just as admirably as straights since the beginning of militaries.

Yes, very true and it had absolutely nothing to do with their right to openly express their homosexuality. Right? I mean, unless you have some evidence that the homosexuals quietly serving their country are somehow less admirable since 1993. As it stands the military has deemed that open homosexuality is enough of a potential detriment to recruiting, unit cohesion, and morale that they've opted to maintain the current policy. They've determined their current policy is in their best interest just as they've decided on a host of other things including uniforms, weaponry, vehicles...

It makes sense to point out all injustice. I know that those who are opposed to gays don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is.

If that's what it is, then why the hell are you spending so much time with me? Wouldn't your time be better spent rearranging your sock drawer? The truth is even you're honest enough to acknowledge that I'm not opposed to gays. I support their right to wed and all the rights that accompany it up to and including estates inheritance, hospital visitation, and a wealth of other basic rights. You're simply missing the ball by a mile here.

Your point is something akin to calling for the illegalization of alcohol in bars while alcohol is legal virtually everywhere else. Because you basically have no argument, you resort to assuming they must hate gays, oppose gays, or that they must be homophobic. I mean, far be it from me to give you the ol' 101 here. Read what you and those who agree with you are saying. This is a text book stress reaction to not having a more suitable response.

One could just as easily ask why this one right isn't rightfully granted? I have a gay daughter, who harms no one, and has no "agenda," other than to live her life in peace, with her partner. She can't legally marry, and they are denied many of the benefits that other couples receive, simply because the state, which is partially a construct of often ignorant people, erects barriers that others don't face.

I understand and appreciate that you have a personal stake in this, but your daughter's problem is not a culture facilitated by the military. The purpose of the military is not to pioneer new social ground for your daughter. It is to ensure good recruiting numbers, unit cohesion, and productive morale for the remaining 90 to 95% of society who would like to serve. They've found this to be in their best interest as they know they currently have homosexuals in service and they maintain control of the implications, whatever they feel those may be. They are beholden to more than what OldManMac thinks is fair and equitable. You don't have to like it, but it is so. Should I assume you oppose the military?

There's been a lot of discussion here over this issue, many times. Some of it pretends to use logic in order to defend indefensible points, and it has been presented by people who have other far more serious issues to worry about than what other people do with their lives.

I personally couldn't give a rat's a$$ what other people do with their lives. If the military must decide between what it deems is in its best interest for recruiting, unit cohesion, and morale or what OldManMac thinks should be the degree of tolerance in society; I'm choosing in favor of the military. Why? Because they currently have heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, those with foot fetishes, and those fantasizing about sheep all serving and I couldn't care less what they do with their lives. The military is currently exercising the control they made you aware of when you volunteered your service. A degree of control they obviously feel is in their best interest to maintain.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It does, in fact. You said, 'you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny'. That is patently false, in addition to being your own pointless complication to the issue. You're conflating different issues and heaping on more and more 'objectionable' content (to you, at least) in order to try and discredit those of us who see no problem. If that's not a strawman argument, I don't know what is.

First of all I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Calm down and maybe give this another go. In the meantime, I'll do the best I can to address this "complicated", "conflated", and shamelessly extraneous rant.

*As an aside, I'd like to see where I said "you guys seem to have a seriously flawed double standard that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny."

My point is very simply that the military is not concerned in the least with what you have no problem with. I made this point to both you and shifuiman who claimed that she felt children should be brought onto nude beaches to overcome their cultural sensitivities. Again, the military is not concerned with what nonhuman and shifuiman feel should be the cultural standard. It is not. If you respond to me from a cafe, chances are good that you are clothed. Why? Because there are laws against being in public nude. It is the norm to be clothed. You don't have to like it, but it is so. It is likewise the norm to provide separate facilities for male and female for reasons that I can't imagine would not include open homosexuality.

One more time; the military is functioning within the reality that they are intimately exposed to on a daily basis. If anyone is conflating issues and complicating matters it is you nonhuman. I've been as honest, upfront, forthright, and clear as I can possibly be on this issue.

As is your even more ludicrous attempt to dismiss our position by saying that words on the internet don't matter. If our words on the internet don't matter than neither do yours. Either we accept these posts at face value, or there's no reason to even bother trying to have a conversation. Congratulations, you've just demolished the import of thousands of years of correspondence.

Pardon me. Apparently I'm not being as clear as you require. Suffice it to say that it is easy to simply claim; "I'm all for unisex bathrooms" until you're in the throws of a violent episode of crap on tap when someone you're attracted to walks in the door. While you're sitting there wondering how long it is you have to wait for them to leave so you can get off the can, you just remember that your forum friend gave you the go-ahead on the whole modesty thing. It's okay nonhuman. There's nothing criminal about being human.

Still, some people might not be as loose (no pun intended) as you nonhuman and I think you'll find that anyone interested in catering to the majority of the populace will do what they can to accommodate it. They'll do so out of more concern for themselves than your concern for societal progress.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I personally couldn't give a rat's a$$ what other people do with their lives. If the military must decide between what it deems is in its best interest for recruiting, unit cohesion, and morale or what OldManMac thinks should be the degree of tolerance in society; I'm choosing in favor of the military. Why? Because they currently have heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, those with foot fetishes, and those fantasizing about sheep all serving and I couldn't care less what they do with their lives. The military is currently exercising the control they made you aware of when you volunteered your service. A degree of control they obviously feel is in their best interest to maintain.

i notice you never bring up anything about military leaders, including Colin Powell and many high ranking officers, calling for DADT to be repealed. That's because they realize that the old arguments about unit cohesion and morale being affected by gays is bunk. You keep thinking like it's yesterday, and the rest of the country, including the military will awaken to tomorrow.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Stop beating around the bush to avoid stating the plain fact that I have been nothing but open and consistent about my position on this.

I never said you specifically have been inconsistent. When it was clear that you were making a consistent argument, I then asked (and was not answered) the following question:

"So it's your belief that unisex bathrooms and forced co-ed naked showering would pose no threat to recruiting, morale or focus?"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

i notice you never bring up anything about military leaders, including Colin Powell and many high ranking officers, calling for DADT to be repealed. That's because they realize that the old arguments about unit cohesion and morale being affected by gays is bunk. You keep thinking like it's yesterday, and the rest of the country, including the military will awaken to tomorrow.

C'mon OldManMac. I notice you didn't bring up any examples of top military brass (the majority of them per almost any poll and/or survey you'll find) that oppose gays openly serving in the military. That's because they realize that the majority demographic of those serving share their sentiment regarding homosexuals openly serving in the military. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's right for the military right now. If you want to change society, change society. It hardly does any good to start with an entity kept isolated from it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon OldManMac. I notice you didn't bring up any examples of top military brass (the majority of them per almost any poll and/or survey you'll find) that oppose gays openly serving in the military. That's because they realize that the majority demographic of those serving share their sentiment regarding homosexuals openly serving in the military. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's right for the military right now. If you want to change society, change society. It hardly does any good to start with an entity kept isolated from it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...ask.dont.tell/

Change is change, no matter where it starts. People are people, no matter whether they're in the military or in a cubicle at GM, and the cohesion of either unit won't be destroyed by allowing gays to be in the foxhole or the cubicle. Unfortunately, you seem to think that this has to do with machines, which the military attempts to make out of humans, but it's still about people. The military can get people to perform certain acts, but thankfully they haven't figured out a way to control thoughts and emotions. Get ready for it; it's going to happen. It may not happen as soon as I would like, but it's going to happen a lot sooner than you would like. I know that you've said that you support gay rights, as concerns legal benefits available to civilians, but you don't support gay rights until you support the right of all gays to have the same rights.

It really is that simple.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...ask.dont.tell/

Change is change, no matter where it starts. People are people, no matter whether they're in the military or in a cubicle at GM, and the cohesion of either unit won't be destroyed by allowing gays to be in the foxhole or the cubicle.

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately, you seem to think that this has to do with machines, which the military attempts to make out of humans, but it's still about people.

To the degree that it can be and still create machines out of people, sure.

The military can get people to perform certain acts, but thankfully they haven't figured out a way to control thoughts and emotions.

Right, including a type of modesty bolstered by majority cultural practice for hundreds of years throughout the entire globe.

Get ready for it; it's going to happen.

It is not something I have to prepare for. It is something the military must prepare for. Obama himself according to your link has said that as president, he would seek to repeal "don't ask-don't tell," but not by signing an executive order. Why?

- "At some point, you've got to make a decision that that's the right thing to do, but you always want to make sure that you are doing it in a way that maintains our core mission in our military."

- Scholarly data (again, per your link) shows there are approximately 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces.

- Elaine Donnelly, the founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, which favors the ban on gays, says "almost one in 10 said they would definitely leave, plus an additional 14 percent who said they would consider leaving. Losses anywhere close to these numbers would virtually destroy the volunteer force.”

- “Estimates of losses in active duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10 percent) and 323,000 (23 percent),” warns Donnelly. She says "alone" because this has no regard for the potential decrease in new recruits.

Those core missions outlined by Obama are those I've been repeating since I first posted in this thread. Is Obama likewise a homophobe? Does he not support gay rights? Those interested in the most effective policy outcome for the military are putting the military first by weighing the very numbers not only provided by me, but by you. As it should be.

It may not happen as soon as I would like, but it's going to happen a lot sooner than you would like. I know that you've said that you support gay rights, as concerns legal benefits available to civilians, but you don't support gay rights until you support the right of all gays to have the same rights.

Couple of points I need to take issue with;
- How do you know how soon "I'd like it to be"? With regard to the readiness and effectiveness of the military, I'd like it to be just as soon as it is in the military's best interest for it to be. On this, Obama and I agree.

- I support gay rights as much as I support freedom of speech, dissent, freedom of expression, dress, freedom of travel, protections against search and seizure, privacy and any other host of freedoms hampered by the regulations of a volunteer military in the interest of unit cohesion, optimal morale, and recruiting. Regulations drafted with the best interest of the military in mind and not OldManMac's desire for societal progress. All consistent and contingent upon your signature to agree to the terms of service in the armed forces.

It really is that simple.

... and becomes more simple with every argument you present affirming by points.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Elaine Donnelly, the founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, which favors the ban on gays, says "almost one in 10 said they would definitely leave, plus an additional 14 percent who said they would consider leaving. Losses anywhere close to these numbers would virtually destroy the volunteer force.”

- “Estimates of losses in active duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10 percent) and 323,000 (23 percent),” warns Donnelly. She says "alone" because this has no regard for the potential decrease in new recruits.

I think this argument is valid. As I said earlier, I think a lot of this ultimately boils down to a math problem.

What would you say to a counter-proposal that a significant part of this issue can be solved with money? IOW, offsetting losses by recruiting gains made from making the job more economically enticing?

As it stands, I've been appalled for a long time with how little these people get paid. Long before Blackwater, though they bring the issue into focus.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think this argument is valid. As I said earlier, I think a lot of this ultimately boils down to a math problem.

Way back on page 1, someone came out with this rubbish:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In case anyone hadn't noticed, in warfare the side with the hardest, meanest bastards usually wins. And hard, mean bastards generally don't want to shower with flamboyant blokes. It's just that simple.

The UK forces suffered a severe recruiting problem just about the time they allowed flamboyancy into the ranks. Coincidence?

Apparently recruitment is a little higher at the moment because there's nowhere else with job vacancies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Apparently recruitment is a little higher at the moment because there's nowhere else with job vacancies.

I'm not sure how your OP addresses the money issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What would you say to a counter-proposal that a significant part of this issue can be solved with money? IOW, offsetting losses by recruiting gains made from making the job more economically enticing?

To be honest I'm not sure. I don't know that I agree with the premise that it's a job though subego. I haven't looked up reeinlistment figures to verify, but I do know that it's essentially a four-year commitment, not unlike college. To be sure, they both require a great deal of work, but you can't really call them jobs. This is entirely up to you just as you may or may not be employed in education.

As it stands, I've been appalled for a long time with how little these people get paid. Long before Blackwater, though they bring the issue into focus.

I agree with the principle and it's likely I would've agreed more before our current economic woes made the means of putting the principle into practice more scarce. At this point I'm not sure where we'd get it. I might also add that there are a lot of examples of the military experience developing solid careers throughout all aspects of society. For many an opportunity to in the least, build a resume. Not unlike college.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Homosexuals, Democrats, Liberals and institutes and reports which where pretty much already geared toward solving a non-military goal of "fairness" (as defined by the left - nothing about war is "fair") over efficiency (the DPSRC has in fact "fairness" as part of it's mission statement), support ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission.

Gotcha. Not sure what's "news" there.

Huh? "...ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission."

So we should kick out all the non-white people in the military? They're obviously a distraction. And women? Pfft. Gone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be honest I'm not sure. I don't know that I agree with the premise that it's a job though subego.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I don't think I agree with the premise it isn't a job, but regardless of that, I see them as very comparable in the narrow context I'm referring to, namely if you offer more money and benefits, you get more applicants and more qualified applicants. It seems to me this would be the case in almost every situation wherein someone is compensated for providing services.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree with the principle and it's likely I would've agreed more before our current economic woes made the means of putting the principle into practice more scarce.

The current financial crisis is an obvious factor, and the fact it is directly relates to my point. The question isn't "is society ready?" it's "how much will it cost (in both money and problems) and is it worth that cost?" As I've been stressing, this is ultimately a math problem.

Whether it's worth the cost opens up questions of doctrine. I fall more into the deterrence camp, and have always been for throwing bucketloads of money at defense, so I can do the math where it's plausibly worth the cost. If one falls into the Rumsfeld camp, maybe not.

Note that I have no problems with the Rumsfeld doctrine from a technical standpoint. I've said here on more than one occasion I think the man's a genius. I ultimately choose deterrence because I think it better allows for a foreign policy that is, shall we say, walked softly.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure how your OP addresses the money issue.

It doesn't. Which is why I didn't quote the bit of your post where you're asking about it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... support ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission.

Huh ... I guess you've forgotten the centuries old practice of providing soldiers with young boys when women weren't available or encouraging homosexual relationships between soldiers? If anything, homosexuality *is* a centuries old military practice. Really, a conservative position (one resisting change) would be to keep homosexuality in the military to boost the fighting spirit by forming strong bonds between the soldiers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It doesn't. Which is why I didn't quote the bit of your post where you're asking about it.

Well, I believe our conversation on that subject ended the first time with tiny Asian chicks in black pyjamas vs. the charge of the dyke brigade.