[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What? I paid you a compliment. I'd like to be able to see things in such a way. It must be exciting to believe that making a mark in a certain place on a ballot will bring about world harmony, or that "the will of the righteous will overcome", but it just isn't practical. Wouldn't it be nice if the main human motivator was mutual benefit and kindness, instead of fear and jealousy?

How long did it take for blacks to receive equal treatment in this country? Sorry, but it's going to take more than legislation and scowls from the liberal elite to change 100s of years of bigotry.

I'm fully aware that it's not going to happen overnight, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to start somewhere. One can keep making statement to the effect that "that's the way it's always been," which is what certain people want to use as an excuse to keep the status quo. Should we go another thousand years before the "time is right" for gays to be included? Ten thousand years? No, we need to start now, and let the course of events, as painful as they may be for some, evolve (sorry, that's one word that sends shivers down conservative spines, as they think about the mythical good times of the past).

[ebuddy]

Forum curiosity;
Of all the civil rights lost by joining the military, why so much concern over this one?

Gym lockers, swimming pools, communal showers and the like are all popular talking points and yet these are segregated, male from female. Why? Why do none of those reasons apply to open homosexuality?

I keep hearing fair, equal, human dignity and the like when none of these things are measurable in quite the way some here would have you believe. From beginning to end the armed services are broken down into levels of importance. You're rarely equal in any meaningful way. Human dignity? One of the most important aspects of basic training is to strip you of some of that dignity. Of course it's unfair.

Would it also not be unfair to a heterosexual man who wishes not to shower or barrack with a homosexual? Why do the rights of basic human nature, the same nature that would have us segregate restrooms in the overwhelming majority of public establishments world-wide, not prevail?

I know... next you'll say the only ones bothered by it are the fringe, 5-10% poster children of backwoods, hick-town rednecks. 5-10%... interesting figure. Society has designed a type of chivalry that while acknowledged as the norm in a world overwhelmingly comprised of "rarely talk at all in public restrooms" has become the new minority. A minority it is okay to disenfranchise. The armed services apparently disagree.

To say something is unfair is practically meaningless.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Forum curiosity;
Of all the civil rights lost by joining the military, why so much concern over this one?

Got stuck near the bottom of the last page:

Originally Posted by subego 

I think you're completely missing his point, which is a legit question.

When you join the military, since you give up the right to tell someone who orders you to do something suicidal to "go **** off", why get all bundled about giving up the right to disclose your sexuality?

The answer goes back to ebuddy's basic point. A lot of this discussion has centered around fairness, equality, and whether things are PC.

Well, here's something un-PC, that the (American) military doesn't like to talk about, but understands it is true nonetheless: getting laid improves morale.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Honey, you're evading the question, and it's doing nothing to help your case.

I've answered all the questions given to me. I know it's sad when people don't answer them the way you want to them, but them's the breaks.

The fact is, anyone can use your body at any time for sexual gratification without your consent, regardless of your state of undress.

Using your logic, rape should be legal because "anyone can use your body at any time for sexual gratification without your consent, regardless of your state of undress". If someone thinks about you and jerks off and there's nothing you can do to stop that, then there should be no regulations against them further invading your rights by just forcing you to go ahead and have sex with them. After all, they are already using your body for sexual gratification without your consent anyways, right?

You can't stop someone from doing what they choose to with their mind, but you can stop people from violating you in ways you can control - like stopping rapes and peeping toms. There is a line in the sand that's drawn regarding these types of things, and it usually drawn at the point where touching or being in the presence of one's naked self without consent occurs. I'm sorry if you feel that we are all free to do whatever we want in search of sexual gratification, regardless of whose rights we trample.

There is zero difference between a gay man on the beach finding your tanned body in a pair of swim trunks attractive, and a gay man in a communal shower anywhere - army, YMCA, etc - finding your body with a visible penis attractive.

There's a HUGE difference. It's the same one that a woman would find between a man looking at her on the beach in a bathing suit, and that guy peeping through the window of her hotel bathroom to look at her naked body. In one instance, you are given the opportunity to present yourself in a manner that you feel free in consenting to. In the other, you don't.

People who take advantage of the fact that there is such a small percentage of homosexuals in the world that most straight people don't worry much about it happening (since it normally doesn't) in same-sex facilities (done so in order to try and prevent invasions of privacy in the first place) , go ahead and violate the privacy of those they choose to share the private space with are pretty much scum.

The only difference is that your johnson is hanging out, and if a gay man is going to be attracted to you, he absolutely does not require a dick shot in order to do so.

Same as the male/female example. "Hey babe, no reason not to let me look at your boobs, I just saw you in the bathing suit!" Right?

Being physically attracted to anyone is using their physical body for your sexual gratification, pleasure, or enjoyment.

Not their NAKED physical body. That's the area where people have personal control over. People aren't allowed to view your NAKED body without permission and use it for their sexual gratification. It's just that simple. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because of that.

Whether or not you are disgusted at the idea that a gay man might find your penis attractive (and, seriously, does anyone find a dick attractive?

It's not "disgust". I'd view no differently if it were a woman involved who I had no interest in romantically. I know it's easier to ignore common sense logic and a practical application of normal, healthy standards when you can just TRY and chalk this up to some kind of irrational fear, but it's simply not the case. You are barking up the wrong tree, and your woofing isn't doing anything but waking up the neighbors.

Your stubbornness in order to stand by your baseless argument is absolutely appalling.

I've explained my basis. You've yet to explain why the standard in question is okay for keeping men out of women's locker rooms, but not homosexual men out of straight men's locker rooms.

Also, I find it absofrickinglutely hilarious that you claim to ask permission before finding a woman's body parts attractive.

Not my claim. I make sure I have consent before I look at their NAKED body. Otherwise, I'm probably looking at time in jail. I need no permission to find them attractive.

That's just stupid, and you know it.

The silly argument you've created for me, that I've never forwarded, based on a refusal to accept the fact that there are standards in which we don't have the right to violate people's naked bodies, is VERY stupid indeed. I agree.

Do you look at a topless woman on the beach with a toned body and perfect breasts and find her completely neutral until you go up to her and ask her permission to find her breasts sexually attractive? You might not get a boner from it, but I doubt that you're going to look at her tits and think "huh. boobs. boring." until she gives her explicit permission for you to instead think "OMG BOOBIES!!!!one!1!!eleventyone!!".

Dude..either you haven't read a single post I've made or you really aren't smart enough to comprehend anything that's being discussed. Really. I've explained this numerous times. You are arguing in circles.

I realize I'm going around in circles at this point...

Ironic that I wrote my comment above before even reading your admission that you indeed ARE going around in circles. Concession accepted!

....so enjoy your homophobia, but please do the United States a favor and don't allow it to cloud your judgment come voting time.

I have no irrational fears. At least none that aren't shared by women everywhere when they've found out that someone has violated their rights to privacy and watched them naked without their consent. What phobia are those ladies accused of having due to their exercising their rights?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm fully aware that it's not going to happen overnight, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to start somewhere. One can keep making statement to the effect that "that's the way it's always been," which is what certain people want to use as an excuse to keep the status quo. Should we go another thousand years before the "time is right" for gays to be included? Ten thousand years? No, we need to start now, and let the course of events, as painful as they may be for some, evolve (sorry, that's one word that sends shivers down conservative spines, as they think about the mythical good times of the past).

I'm just countering the views that "it'll be just fine". It won't. Eventually certain things will turn for the better, but if history has taught us anything, it won't happen without pain.

Gays want into the military while admitting their sexual preference? They need to expect persecution.

PS. Many Conservatives believe in evolution, myself included. It takes more than liberal snobbery to send shivers down my spine.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Let's say that you're on the beach. A gay man notices you laying out on your towel in your swim trunks, and thinks you're the most attractive male specimen he's ever laid eyes on. He goes to bed that night and furiously masturbates while fantasizing about having sex with you

Go on...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Gays want into the military while admitting their sexual preference? They need to expect persecution.

Absolutely they should expect persecution.

But those within the military doing/condoning the persecution of gays should expect punishment for their actions as well. Problem solved.

[shifuimam]

What you're missing is that nudity has little to do with sexual attraction.

As I've already pointed out, being on the beach in swimming attire puts you just as much at risk - if not more, since there isn't a clearly defined code of conduct that is enforced as rigidly as the military - for your body being used for sexual gratification without your consent.

Do you mind when an attractive female is noticeably checking you out, or do you go over to her and reprimand her for using your body without your consent?

Or are you just scared of or disgusted by gay people finding you attractive?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely they should expect persecution.

But those within the military doing/condoning the persecution of gays should expect punishment for their actions as well. Problem solved.

Problem solved? I don't think you realize just how deeply the prejudice goes. They're just now starting to fully come to grips with all races having equal rights in the armed forces (and that's been in the works for generations).

Expect hazing, cover-ups, and even deaths before this is accepted. I personally heard a Brigadier General state that "fags will be the death of the Corps", and with that type of attitude at the top it'll take a while for equality to filter down. I remember the comments made by General Pace, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they mirror the views of vast the majority of the military brass.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What you're missing is that nudity has little to do with sexual attraction.

As I've already pointed out, being on the beach in swimming attire puts you just as much at risk - if not more, since there isn't a clearly defined code of conduct that is enforced as rigidly as the military - for your body being used for sexual gratification without your consent.

Do you mind when an attractive female is noticeably checking you out, or do you go over to her and reprimand her for using your body without your consent?

Or are you just scared of or disgusted by gay people finding you attractive?

Well, to be quite fair, I know a lot of heterosexual men who would feel uncomfortable showering with strange women, even if there could be some form of mutual attraction. That little bit of fabric (swim suit) makes a lot of difference with some people.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Using your logic, rape should be legal because "anyone can use your body at any time for sexual gratification without your consent, regardless of your state of undress". If someone thinks about you and jerks off and there's nothing you can do to stop that, then there should be no regulations against them further invading your rights by just forcing you to go ahead and have sex with them. After all, they are already using your body for sexual gratification without your consent anyways, right?

Really? Are you seriously comparing a gay man in a communal shower to fscking rape?! What the hell, dude.

Rape != showering with a bunch of men.

Fact is, a gay guy in a military shower isn't going to sneak up behind you, lube up, and shove his boner in your asshole. A gay man seeing you in a public shower is no different than a gay man seeing you at the beach. Or the gym. Or the mall. He sees your penis, but I doubt he needs to see your penis in order to use your body for his mental gratification.

You can't stop someone from doing what they choose to with their mind, but you can stop people from violating you in ways you can control - like stopping rapes and peeping toms.

So what you're saying is that homosexual males are so obsessed with Teh Cawk that all they can possibly do in the shower is stare at your penis, right? I mean, that's what you're insinuating - that a gay man in the army is like a creep hiding in the bushes watching you undress before bed.

Oh wait...that's right...a man in the military taking a shower with a bunch of men is taking a shower. He's not in there to ogle your penis, nor is he in there to find a quick lay.

There is a line in the sand that's drawn regarding these types of things, and it usually drawn at the point where touching or being in the presence of one's naked self without consent occurs. I'm sorry if you feel that we are all free to do whatever we want in search of sexual gratification, regardless of whose rights we trample.

Thanks for taking my words out of context, sweets. That so helps your side of the argument.

What do you think will happen in a military shower where a gay man, who has been gay all along, is now known to be gay? Seriously. I want you to explain to me exactly what you think is going to happen.

Will he come up and start grinding against you? Will he stand under the spigot without moving, so mesmerized by your enormous penis that he's lost his train of thought? Will he immediately get an erection at the sight of your naked body?

Homosexuals already exist in the military. Obviously, they can quite well handle taking a shower with a bunch of other men without it turning remotely sexual. So what are you worried about?

It seems to me that you're worried about your penis being seen by a gay man. Since a visual of your genitalia is not necessary for a gay man to be attracted to you, you shouldn't be any more worried than you would be about a gay man seeing you clothed. Or in swim trunks. Or in any situation that doesn't involve your penis being seen.

See, what you're comparing to a steamy big shower room full of men concentrating on getting clean is a situation where a person of either gender is being exposed specifically for pleasure.Taking a shower is not the same as posing nude for an art class. Taking a shower is not the same as performing at a strip club. Taking a shower is not the same as being forced against your will to stand up in front of a bunch of people so that they can masturbate while staring at you.

There's a HUGE difference. It's the same one that a woman would find between a man looking at her on the beach in a bathing suit, and that guy peeping through the window of her hotel bathroom to look at her naked body.

...so you're saying that a gay man in a military shower is only there to stare at penises? Really?

How did I not know this? How have gays in the military gotten along without being found out all this time? I mean, if they're so fixated on penises, how in the world do they ever get clean?

In one instance, you are given the opportunity to present yourself in a manner that you feel free in consenting to. In the other, you don't.

So what's the difference in presenting yourself to a bunch of straight men, or a bunch of straight men and the one-off gay man? Is it because he likes penises, and straight men don't? Does that unequivocally mean that you are at risk in some way?

People who take advantage of the fact that there is such a small percentage of homosexuals in the world that most straight people don't worry much about it happening (since it normally doesn't) in same-sex facilities (done so in order to try and prevent invasions of privacy in the first place) , go ahead and violate the privacy of those they choose to share the private space with are pretty much scum.

Yes, and a gay man who joins the military solely to ogle penises isn't going to make it past boot camp, because his behavior would be absolutely not tolerated, regardless of his sexual orientation.

Same as the male/female example. "Hey babe, no reason not to let me look at your boobs, I just saw you in the bathing suit!" Right?

You're still assuming that a gay man is going to be fixated on your penis. I mean, seriously. How big are you? Do you have one of those micropenises that's like a 1/2" nubbin, or do you have some foot-long dong that would rupture anything it penetrates unless copious amounts of lube are needed? What in the world makes you think that a man taking a shower is going to be that interested in staring at your dick?

Let me lay it out for you like this:

This weekend, my boyfriend and I went over to my best friend's house. He has a hot tub. I ended up taking off my bikini top, because I felt like it. It was nighttime, and I was under all the bubbles in the water. My best friend happened to see my breasts, but you know what? I didn't feel remotely violated, because I knew that he wasn't looking at them for sexual purposes, nor was he specifically staring at them.

A gay man in a military shower is not going to be staring at your penis. Christ. I wish I could get that through your thick skull, because it's kind of disgusting how penis-fixated you are.

Not their NAKED physical body. That's the area where people have personal control over. People aren't allowed to view your NAKED body without permission and use it for their sexual gratification. It's just that simple. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because of that.

I hate to break it to you, but a gay man doesn't need your penis to be attracted to you.

But you know what? Since you're so paranoid about who might see your penis, I'd recommend just avoiding the military altogether, since it's likely that at some point, someone is going to see your penis without your consent. Close quarters have that effect on a group of people, regardless of gender.

Joining the military is not a god-given right. Since you're so paranoid about your penis, I'd recommend wearing a cup at all times, preferably one made of lead so that the gay guy with x-ray eyes can't ogle your testicles.

It's not "disgust". I'd view no differently if it were a woman involved who I had no interest in romantically.

So you're creeped out when a woman is checking you out, unless you definitely have feelings for her?

What a sad life you lead. Personally, I'm flattered whenever a fat geek stares at me in GameStop.

I know it's easier to ignore common sense logic and a practical application of normal, healthy standards when you can just TRY and chalk this up to some kind of irrational fear, but it's simply not the case.

Actually, it is. You appear to be terrified of what might happen if a gay man has an opportunity to be within fifty feet of your exposed penis. You don't have this fear with straight men. For some reason, you are convinced that a gay man is going to be so overtaken by the sight of your willy that he won't have any choice but to masturbate to thoughts of you later on.

You sadden me. You're disgusted by homosexuals, which is clear by how fearful you are of what might happen if you were to be aware of a gay man in a big shower room with you. It's people like that make homosexuals scared of what might happen to them...you know, like their houses and cars getting vandalized by homophobes, or getting beaten to death because a guy in the high school locker room found out you were gay and was scared that you might try to do him in the butt. So instead of learning tolerance, he kills you.

You need to understand that gay people are humans, just like the rest of us. If you found yourself in some remote area where you had to shower with a woman for whatever reason, I doubt you'd rape her. Likewise, a gay man in a room full of men isn't going to stare at you, get an erection because of you, or molest you.

It's like you think homosexuals are subhuman or incapable of controlling their impulses. That kind of intolerance just makes me sick.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, to be quite fair, I know a lot of heterosexual men who would feel uncomfortable showering with strange women, even if there could be some form of mutual attraction. That little bit of fabric (swim suit) makes a lot of difference with some people.

I doubt that many heterosexual men feel all that comfortable showering with a bunch of strange men, even if you're 100% guaranteed they're all straight.

But, like your first foray into a nudist resort, you learn to get over your inhibitions and realize that not everyone is staring at or remotely interested in your privates.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Really? Are you seriously comparing a gay man in a communal shower to fscking rape?! What the hell, dude.

No. I'm comparing a violation of someone's rights regarding their body with a violation of someone's rights regarding their body. If I've got to provide an extreme example in order to point out the lack of logic in your argument, so be it. I see you STILL miss the point. At this stage in the debate, I'm prone to believe it's not without purpose.

So what you're saying is that homosexual males are so obsessed with Teh Cawk that all they can possibly do in the shower is stare at your penis, right? I mean, that's what you're insinuating - that a gay man in the army is like a creep hiding in the bushes watching you undress before bed.

Not a bit necessary to be a violation of my privacy anymore than the average woman would be okay with allowing strange men to shower with them as long as they promised not to stare at their vagina.

What do you think will happen in a military shower where a gay man, who has been gay all along, is now known to be gay? Seriously. I want you to explain to me exactly what you think is going to happen.

If I"m as attractive as I think, he's going to get to see me naked and enjoy it, the same as I would if Jessica Beihl was showering naked right next to me. Of course, if I tried to shower naked next to Jessica without her consent, I'd likely go to prison.

Homosexuals already exist in the military. Obviously, they can quite well handle taking a shower with a bunch of other men without it turning remotely sexual. So what are you worried about?

Perverts and window peepers also "already exist" outside and likely inside of the military and many of them have no problems keeping from engaging in actions which get them caught and cause them problems. I'm not sure though how any of that has any bearing on why we would change the rules to ensure that these people could do what they'd like to do with impunity. Doesn't make any sense.

It seems to me that you're worried about your penis being seen by a gay man.

Correction: Seen by someone who might find me sexually attractive, whom I don't want to have a sexual relationship with. It doesn't matter if it's a "gay man" or a straight woman. That's the case with the majority of all Americans, and why we have rules and regulations which keeps structured same-sex private facilities, private. That's why there are women's changing/bathrooms and men's changing/bathrooms in just about any place that has them for use by the general public.

See, what you're comparing to a steamy big shower room full of men concentrating on getting clean is a situation where a person of either gender is being exposed specifically for pleasure.

It doesn't matter. Either I have the right to consent what happens to my naked body or I don't. No one has a right to force me to show it to someone who might find me sexually attractive without my consent. That's the basis for all the laws which make things like "window peeping" illegal. Again, please replace all your scenarios where it's men/men with men/woman and see if ANYONE takes you the least bit seriously. That's just how whacked your logic is in this case.

So what's the difference in presenting yourself to a bunch of straight men, or a bunch of straight men and the one-off gay man? Is it because he likes penises, and straight men don't? Does that unequivocally mean that you are at risk in some way?

At risk of having my naked body used for sexual gratification without my consent? Most certainly. Logic would seem to demand that be the case.

You're still assuming that a gay man is going to be fixated on your penis.

I asked the question above, and you didn't answer. Which of the following do you think is untrue:

A. People generally like to look at physically fit specimens of their preferred gender naked, because the visual image provides certain sexual gratification.

B. Most people in the military are physically fit due to the nature of the training in question.

Are these reasonable assumptions not reasonable?

This weekend, my boyfriend and I went over to my best friend's house. He has a hot tub. I ended up taking off my bikini top, because I felt like it. It was nighttime, and I was under all the bubbles in the water. My best friend happened to see my breasts, but you know what? I didn't feel remotely violated, because I knew that he wasn't looking at them for sexual purposes, nor was he specifically staring at them.

...or so you assume. Unless you're ugly, never assume a guy won't enjoy looking at your breasts and get some sort of sexual gratification from doing it. It doesn't mean he's going to be wanking under the bubbles, but...well...I'm just not so sure you know all that much about guys...unless your best friend is gay. Or, again, unless you are not very attractive.

Friend or no friend, if an attractive woman gets naked in front of me (with her consent) I WILL ENJOY THE VIEW. That doesn't mean I'm going to get all weird or take it any further than that. But, I PREFER not to share that sort of thing with people I don't choose to be romantic with. I doubt you'd have done the same if you didn't know the person in question VERY well and you were safe in assuming that there was less of a chance (due to the history of friendship) of him wanting to be in a sexual relationship with you. Given the circumstances, you were allowed TO CHOOSE to consent to taking your top off in a way even you said made it hard to see anything. Gays open in the military simply wouldn't allow for that, and I'm pretty sure MOST women wouldn't get naked in front of their non-gay male friends (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that).

So you're creeped out when a woman is checking you out, unless you definitely have feelings for her?

With my clothes on? No. Totally naked? Yes. That's pretty weird.

Actually, it is. You appear to be terrified of what might happen if a gay man has an opportunity to be within fifty feet of your exposed penis.

Rebutted ad infinitum. I don't care if it's a gay man, straight woman, or confused dog who gets off on naked men. The gender of the person in question is irrelevant. Please refrain from falling back on this lame attempt at shifting the argument in the future, or simply refrain from arguing less you lose more credibility.

You sadden me. You're disgusted by homosexuals, which is clear by how fearful you are of what might happen if you were to be aware of a gay man in a big shower room with you. It's people like that make homosexuals scared of what might happen to them...you know, like their houses and cars getting vandalized by homophobes, or getting beaten to death because a guy in the high school locker room found out you were gay and was scared that you might try to do him in the butt. So instead of learning tolerance, he kills you.

Whah? Wake me when you come up with an argument that actually addresses one of my points instead of trying to project your own irrational unease with traditional morals on me in regards to people's sexual preferences. I don't have a problem with homosexuals in general. You clearly have an irrational problem with people who prefer to abide by long held standards regarding nudity.

It's like you think homosexuals are subhuman or incapable of controlling their impulses. That kind of intolerance just makes me sick.

You were sick to start with.

I think that homosexuals ARE JUST LIKE ME, hence why I believe what I do. I believe that a homosexual man in a room full of naked men will react EXACTLY like a heterosexual man would react in a room full of naked woman, and that's why woman RIGHTLY insist that they be given separate private bathing/bathroom/changing quarters away from men. The fact is, you seem to think that homosexuals are somehow above it all, or because you yourself could adhere to some standard of respect that EVERYONE in a similar circumstance could do the same. You are simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on all accounts.

Sorry.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I doubt that many heterosexual men feel all that comfortable showering with a bunch of strange men, even if you're 100% guaranteed they're all straight.

But, like your first foray into a nudist resort, you learn to get over your inhibitions and realize that not everyone is staring at or remotely interested in your privates.

Some people don't frequent such places (I have), and they don't want to.

Personally, I don't care at all being nude around anyone. Being a RHPS cast member for 3 years will do that to you.

[(s)macintosh]

"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." - Leonard Matlovich

It amazes me that a person's sexuality has any bearing on who they are or what they're able to accomplish.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." - Leonard Matlovich

It amazes me that a person's sexuality has any bearing on who they are or what they're able to accomplish.

I find it curious why anyone cares about another person's sexuality. Personally, I find it to be just about the least important aspect of a person's life.


Jim: "So, what did you stick it into today?"
Ed: "Couch cushion."
Jim: "Nice."

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I find it curious why anyone cares about another person's sexuality. Personally, I find it to be just about the least important aspect of a person's life.

Aside from trying to find a date, I mostly agree. If people cared about it less and trusted queer men and women to act like adults, only punishing/discharging them when they overstepped certain obvious boundaries, I might have been able to take advantage of a rather nice offer to attend the Defense Language Institute after three years of studying Chinese in high school. Instead I decided against the offer fairly quickly; I have no problem staying quiet on the job but the chance of being screwed because the wrong someone saw me kiss my boyfriend on the weekend wasn't very appealing.

[stupendousman]

The thing you guys keep ignoring is that they don't care about JUST the sexuality of the gay people. Their goal is to eliminate any type of sexual distraction - even from the straight people. After a couple of centuries of experience, they've determined that the best thing for a strong, focused military is to remove the one thing that will drive people to irrational behavior more than anything else (other than maybe greed) - sexual attraction.

They can do this most effectively by segregating males and females for about 98% of all soldiers. Homosexuals throw a wrench into the works since they can not meet the same criteria as the rest of the soldiers and allowing them to serve without any type of restriction would be giving them an unfair advantage over all of the rest of the soliders, creating morale issues.

It's akin to deciding that 2 percent of the guys on the battlefield get to go live with the gals, and the gals have to tolerate them showering with them in close quarters and sleeping next to them. No, the military knows this is a bad thing and does NOT do this because they know that the invasion of the women's privacy will be a serious morale issue and more than likely the close quartered living arrangements will result in unwanted romantic activity lessening the laser-sharp focus the soldiers need in order to become killing machines.

It's not because gay people are "icky" or because somebody has an irrational fear of them. There are rational, factual reasons why for pretty much the entire history of the US Military homosexuals have been banned from serving, and it has nothing to do with distaste for their sexual practices.

People want to ignore this because it makes their agenda of having homosexual behavior be considered equal to that of heterosexuals, in a populace that as a majority thinks it's immoral, more difficult. If it can be shown that the sexual desires of some cause them difficulty in life due to their being unable to perform the same way as others in a rational, factual way, it makes it harder to convince people - many of whom have their minds made up anyways. That's why there's such passion to get this type of thing changed in this instance when there isn't for other human conditions which cause restrictions on serving (handicaps, etc.)

Personally, I think that the only priority should be on what makes the military stronger and more focused. I think that there are rational reasons why excluding a very small percentage of potential soldiers who would cause problems with moral and focus, not to be allowed to serve. Otherwise, your first priority is simply an agenda to be served without consideration for the duty at hand. Not exactly a smart thing when dealing with life and death matters. If you want to engage in social experiments on your own, in areas that might not cause me to face death or risk to myself, you're free to do so. Leave the military alone. If it ain't broke.....

[Wiskedjak]

Wow ... that post totally contradicts all of your previous "gay people are icky, I don't want them fantasizing about me" posts in this thread.

If the military wants to eliminate any type of sexual distraction, why don't they just ban heteros from having sex in the same way they've banned homos from having sex?

[Cipher13]

So much homophobia, it's ridiculous.

Gay, straight, whatever... I don't see how it's anyones business what your sexual orientation is.

I'd have no greater problem showering with a gay dude than a straight dude. Either way, it's not gonna happen.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wow ... that post totally contradicts all of your previous "gay people are icky, I don't want them fantasizing about me" posts in this thread.

If the military wants to eliminate any type of sexual distraction, why don't they just ban heteros from having sex in the same way they've banned homos from having sex?

Well, I guess the difference would be left to "handy-work" if you know what I'm sayin'. Since oral sex and sodomy are both in conflict with regulations on sexual conduct regardless of your sexual orientation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Got stuck near the bottom of the last page:

So... the answer is the military acknowledges the importance of getting laid? I don't get it. The military is not telling a homosexual they can't get laid. Heteros are likewise restricted to who they can have sex with and how. Also, there seems to be the misperception that you can just walk up to an officer, tell him/her you're gay and expect them to let you go. It doesn't work that way.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Here's a news-flash: soldiers have rights. Congrats, you now have a clue.

No they most certainly do not. Freedom of speech, expression, travel... the list is as endless as the regulations you live under in the military. You sign them away regardless of what a recruiter might tell you. Your "hit and run" post is probably as good an illustration of an inability to address a contrarian view as any you'll see, but then your cluelessness isn't really newsworthy.

I can picture one of the numerous moronic rants on the horrors of the Iraq war from atop a footlocker going over real well with your command in Fallujah. You'll be screaming; "BUT I HAVE RIGHTS DAMMIT!!!" all the way to prison.

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The thing you guys keep ignoring is that they don't care about JUST the sexuality of the gay people. Their goal is to eliminate any type of sexual distraction - even from the straight people. After a couple of centuries of experience, they've determined that the best thing for a strong, focused military is to remove the one thing that will drive people to irrational behavior more than anything else (other than maybe greed) - sexual attraction.

They can do this most effectively by segregating males and females for about 98% of all soldiers. Homosexuals throw a wrench into the works since they can not meet the same criteria as the rest of the soldiers and allowing them to serve without any type of restriction would be giving them an unfair advantage over all of the rest of the soliders, creating morale issues.

It's akin to deciding that 2 percent of the guys on the battlefield get to go live with the gals, and the gals have to tolerate them showering with them in close quarters and sleeping next to them. No, the military knows this is a bad thing and does NOT do this because they know that the invasion of the women's privacy will be a serious morale issue and more than likely the close quartered living arrangements will result in unwanted romantic activity lessening the laser-sharp focus the soldiers need in order to become killing machines.

It's not because gay people are "icky" or because somebody has an irrational fear of them. There are rational, factual reasons why for pretty much the entire history of the US Military homosexuals have been banned from serving, and it has nothing to do with distaste for their sexual practices.

People want to ignore this because it makes their agenda of having homosexual behavior be considered equal to that of heterosexuals, in a populace that as a majority thinks it's immoral, more difficult. If it can be shown that the sexual desires of some cause them difficulty in life due to their being unable to perform the same way as others in a rational, factual way, it makes it harder to convince people - many of whom have their minds made up anyways. That's why there's such passion to get this type of thing changed in this instance when there isn't for other human conditions which cause restrictions on serving (handicaps, etc.)

Personally, I think that the only priority should be on what makes the military stronger and more focused. I think that there are rational reasons why excluding a very small percentage of potential soldiers who would cause problems with moral and focus, not to be allowed to serve. Otherwise, your first priority is simply an agenda to be served without consideration for the duty at hand. Not exactly a smart thing when dealing with life and death matters. If you want to engage in social experiments on your own, in areas that might not cause me to face death or risk to myself, you're free to do so. Leave the military alone. If it ain't broke.....

Do you have any evidence that this is a major distraction, or would remain so after a reasonable period of time? There are quite a lot of countries that do allow gays to serve and be open, at least in their personal off-duty life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...litary_service

There are cultural differences, yes, but with the wide range of countries that allow gays to serve I think there is a fair amount of evidence that either it doesn't really cause that much of a problem or most soldiers get used to it over time. I doubt Israel, for example, would adopt a policy that interferes with the discipline and morale of their armed forces as a whole.

[ebuddy]

Still waiting...

- Of all the civil rights you lose by joining the military, why so much concern over this one?

- Assuming the demographic of enlisted military is consistent with society; there are anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000 homosexuals serving in the armed forces, yet less than 1,000 of them are being released for volunteering their sexual orientation. What civil rights travesty are we fighting against here again?

- What is it this fraction of 1% is unable to do that the overwhelming majority of gays in the military must be doing that they are not being released?

- Why is it assumed that lifestyle choices are protected in the military when just about every aspect of military life is to break you from them?

- Why should a volunteer military be more concerned for your sexual identity than your identity as a soldier in the US armed forces?

- Would you support coed barracks and bathroom facilities in the military?
- Would you support unisex restrooms as the norm in society?
- Would you join a gym that only had unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers? * While a great many might say; "HELL YES!", a little introspect might be in order as to why and how that reason serves any purpose other than your own. Does it also acknowledge the rights of the vast majority who wouldn't. Yes, I'm talking to you as you'd likely be the only ones who'd actually answer this question. For the rest of us, common sense prevails with an; "of course not".

- How is it that none of the reasons for segregating male from female in the overwhelming majority of public establishments world-wide apply to open homosexuality in the military?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still waiting...

- Of all the civil rights you lose by joining the military, why so much concern over this one?

You mean the right to have a romantic relationship with another consenting adult?

The problem here is that a homosexual member of the military faces dishonorable discharge if they're caught engaging in any homosexual acts while off duty. The wording needs to be changed.

- Assuming the demographic of enlisted military is consistent with society; there are anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000 homosexuals serving in the armed forces, yet less than 1,000 of them are being released for volunteering their sexual orientation. What civil rights travesty are we fighting against here again?

- Why is it assumed that lifestyle choices are protected in the military when just about every aspect of military life is to break you from them?

Being in the military is not designed to turn you into a soulless robot. Were that the case, heterosexual relationships would also be banned.

- Why should a volunteer military be more concerned for your sexual identity than your identity as a soldier in the US armed forces?

Good question. Why do they care? So far, the only reason I'm seeing is to pacify homophobes who are a paranoid about who might see their penis.

Your sexual orientation should have no bearing on your eligibility to serve in your country's military.

- How is it that none of the reasons for segregating male from female in the overwhelming majority of public establishments world-wide apply to open homosexuality in the military?

How would you suggest fixing that? Should we have a third public restroom that says "homosexuals only"?

Do you suppose that segregated restrooms are more a traditional thing than a necessity these days? I've used a men's restroom before. It wasn't a big deal, and there were dudes in there at the time. I think the "modesty" one might believe is provided by a one-sex bathroom isn't really there...it's not like you're going to the bathroom in front of a bunch of people.

Of course, mens' rooms are always disgusting compared to ladies' rooms. You guys can't seem to reliably keep all your pee in the toilet.

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still waiting...

- Of all the civil rights you lose by joining the military, why so much concern over this one?

- Assuming the demographic of enlisted military is consistent with society; there are anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000 homosexuals serving in the armed forces, yet less than 1,000 of them are being released for volunteering their sexual orientation. What civil rights travesty are we fighting against here again?

- What is it this fraction of 1% is unable to do that the overwhelming majority of gays in the military must be doing that they are not being released?

This is one of the problems of the current policy; enforcement is random and unpredictable. I feel that allowing gays to serve without forcing them into the closet in their private lives is the answer.

I'm not sure which numbers you're using, but according to Wikipedia there are 1,447,350 members on active duty - probably not spot on but close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ates#Personnel

If 2% of people are gay, you have 28,947 possibly gay members of the military. That's not an easy percentage to pin down, but I think most would agree that's a middle to lower bound. I'm not sure where you get 150,000 to 250,000; I certainly wish that percentage of the population was open for me to date but if you're counting active duty only that requires >10% of the population be gay. If you count the entire military I think it's still a higher than realistic percentage.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Why is it assumed that lifestyle choices are protected in the military when just about every aspect of military life is to break you from them?

Straight soldiers are not expected to hide their partner's existence, scrub their facebook account in the off chance a superior happens across it, or tell their friends to lie for them. It may not happen to every gay soldier but it does happen to hundreds a year. I don't think many of us want to be out and loud on duty; we'd just prefer to have the same rights off duty that other soldiers do.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Why should a volunteer military be more concerned for your sexual identity than your identity as a soldier in the US armed forces?

Exactly what I believe. It's not asking for special treatment, it's asking to be allowed to serve in the military.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Would you support coed barracks and bathroom facilities in the military?
- Would you support unisex restrooms as the norm in society?
- Would you join a gym that only had unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers? * While a great many might say; "HELL YES!", a little introspect might be in order as to why and how that reason serves any purpose other than your own. Does it also acknowledge the rights of the vast majority who wouldn't. Yes, I'm talking to you as you'd likely be the only ones who'd actually answer this question. For the rest of us, common sense prevails with an; "of course not".

- How is it that none of the reasons for segregating male from female in the overwhelming majority of public establishments world-wide apply to open homosexuality in the military?

If there was a logical reason (efficiency, saving space, etc.) and it was shown to not cause more problems than it solved then yes, it might be worth looking at unisex facilities in the military. However unlike unisex facilities, which as far as I know have not been tried on a wide scale, many other countries allow gays to serve and have not had major problems, in some cases for well over a decade.

I do not believe unisex facilities are appropriate in most civilian contexts, however - the discipline required in the military does not exist and you'd have a much higher chance of major problems - the biggest probably being men mixing with women in low traffic restrooms and showers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You mean the right to have a romantic relationship with another consenting adult?

No as this right is heavily regulated among heterosexuals as well. Who, what, when, where, and how are all regulated. This includes, hush... adultery.
Again, why so much concern over this one civil right when there are so many more rights in both numbers and profundity, lost by joining?

The problem here is that a homosexual member of the military faces dishonorable discharge if they're caught engaging in any homosexual acts while off duty. The wording needs to be changed.

They may or may not. It depends on what you're calling "homosexual acts". There are many "heterosexual acts" that will get you a dishonorable discharge. For the record, most discharges under "don't ask don't tell" are not dishonorable however.

Being in the military is not designed to turn you into a soulless robot. Were that the case, heterosexual relationships would also be banned.

"Soulless", maybe not. Robot indeed. They are most definitely interested in robots who do what they're told, when they're told, without question or hesitation. They are told when to wake up, when to exercise, when to eat, when to be relaxed, when to be urgent, and the list goes on... In fact, during bootcamp or AIT, they are so much in favor of "robots" that no sex of any kind is allowed. Zilch. Heterosexual relationships are in fact banned.

Good question. Why do they care? So far, the only reason I'm seeing is to pacify homophobes who are a paranoid about who might see their penis.

Would you say little walls between urinals in a men's restroom is due strictly to homophobia? (or potential misfire in which case I'd much rather they take the wall all the way to the floor. ) Is this why men and women generally have separate facilities as standard fare world-wide? Because of heterophobia? Why do you insist on marginalizing men who've been raised up in a society that bolsters this type of chivalry from day one by calling them "homophobes"?

Is a man with gay friends, able to hug them, go to parades with them in a show of solidarity, take a drag from their cigarette, work with them, and support their right to wed really a homophobe just because he's not comfortable showering with them? I always love kneejerk indictments like these from people trying to argue the perspective of "tolerance".

Your sexual orientation should have no bearing on your eligibility to serve in your country's military.

It doesn't and it hasn't for centuries. Don't ask don't tell is akin to "ignorance is bliss" and in this sense, it works.

How would you suggest fixing that? Should we have a third public restroom that says "homosexuals only"?

If you repeal "don't ask, don't tell", I see little else by means of consistently acknowledging the very regulations the military has imposed on heterosexuals.

Do you suppose that segregated restrooms are more a traditional thing than a necessity these days? I've used a men's restroom before. It wasn't a big deal, and there were dudes in there at the time. I think the "modesty" one might believe is provided by a one-sex bathroom isn't really there...it's not like you're going to the bathroom in front of a bunch of people.

I don't know to be honest, but I'm guessing there's a modicum of socially-bolstered modesty at play here. A type of modesty the military has been effectively able to accommodate. This issue however, is not one that can be accommodated. It must be managed to and is in conflict with the regulations imposed on the remaining 90-95% of the heterosexual military community. I'm comfortable with the armed service's ability to acknowledge what they can and cannot accommodate for the best possible outcome as the best military force on the globe. Still, why should we assume homosexuals are somehow more disciplined than heterosexuals that they can barrack together?

I appreciate your contribution shifuiman as I generally do, but you must know that you really didn't address any of the questions I posed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Meneldil 

This is one of the problems of the current policy; enforcement is random and unpredictable. I feel that allowing gays to serve without forcing them into the closet in their private lives is the answer.

There's nothing to suggest they must remain closeted or they will be kicked out. You really believe no one knows the remaining 200+ thousand gays serving in the military are gay? (10% figure, half that for a 5% figure and you're still over 100,000) Again, you can't just walk up to an officer, tell him/her you're gay, and expect to get immediately released.

I'm not sure which numbers you're using, but according to Wikipedia there are 1,447,350 members on active duty - probably not spot on but close enough.

I'm using figures of both active and reserves as any and all can be active at any time and there's nothing to suggest this is an "active military only" phenomena.

If 2% of people are gay, you have 28,947 possibly gay members of the military. That's not an easy percentage to pin down, but I think most would agree that's a middle to lower bound. I'm not sure where you get 150,000 to 250,000; I certainly wish that percentage of the population was open for me to date but if you're counting active duty only that requires >10% of the population be gay. If you count the entire military I think it's still a higher than realistic percentage.

Why would you assume this is only an issue for active military and not for reserves?

Straight soldiers are not expected to hide their partner's existence, scrub their facebook account in the off chance a superior happens across it, or tell their friends to lie for them. It may not happen to every gay soldier but it does happen to hundreds a year. I don't think many of us want to be out and loud on duty; we'd just prefer to have the same rights off duty that other soldiers do.

... but you don't and interestingly, heterosexuals don't have the rights you seem to think they do. There could be any number of factors on one's facebook account that will cause problems for them. Must they all be considered, closeted heterosexuals?

Exactly what I believe. It's not asking for special treatment, it's asking to be allowed to serve in the military.

You're already allowed to serve in the military. The question to anyone considering joining the military is; "are you willing to give up most if not all of your civil liberties to join?" If the answer is no, it is no. No one is forcing you to serve your country in this manner. I don't disparage anyone's fight for gays in the military, but I will question the sense in it.

If there was a logical reason (efficiency, saving space, etc.) and it was shown to not cause more problems than it solved then yes, it might be worth looking at unisex facilities in the military. However unlike unisex facilities, which as far as I know have not been tried on a wide scale, many other countries allow gays to serve and have not had major problems, in some cases for well over a decade.

I would argue that they are not as large, complex, or effective as our military. You'll likely disagree and I'd be willing to look at any information to the contrary.

I do not believe unisex facilities are appropriate in most civilian contexts, however - the discipline required in the military does not exist and you'd have a much higher chance of major problems - the biggest probably being men mixing with women in low traffic restrooms and showers.

I appreciate your ideological integrity here Meneldil, but the fact of the matter is that these problems do exist in the military as well. The military has made accommodations available for just this reason. There's no reason to conclude that homosexuals are somehow more disciplined than heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that their service in the military under current policy requires them to be more disciplined than heterosexuals and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. They signed on for it, acknowledging the civil rights infringement inherent in that decision, not unlike heterosexuals. Your sexual freedom is arguably among the least important of the rights you lose by joining.

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's nothing to suggest they must remain closeted or they will be kicked out. You really believe no one knows the remaining 200+ thousand gays serving in the military are gay? (10% figure, half that for a 5% figure and you're still over 100,000) Again, you can't just walk up to an officer, tell him/her you're gay, and expect to get immediately released.

I'm using figures of both active and reserves as any and all can be active at any time and there's nothing to suggest this is an "active military only" phenomena.

Why would you assume this is only an issue for active military and not for reserves?

This was just me picking the most simple number. On the link I posted there are a few ways to count, for example, and in some cases (the civilian column) I don't think I should include that for this argument (but I'm not entirely sure). In any event, regardless of percentage, I don't feel like 1,000 is an insignificant number.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but you don't and interestingly, heterosexuals don't have the rights you seem to think they do. There could be any number of factors on one's facebook account that will cause problems for them. Must they all be considered, closeted heterosexuals?

You're already allowed to serve in the military. The question to anyone considering joining the military is; "are you willing to give up most if not all of your civil liberties to join?" If the answer is no, it is no. No one is forcing you to serve your country in this manner. I don't disparage anyone's fight for gays in the military, but I will question the sense in it.

The thing is being gay and engaging in an otherwise legal relationship or possibly even talking about it is the odd one out, the thing that applies to only one group of people based on something they can't change (that I know of, enlighten me if you can think of another). Drug use, sleeping with a person married to someone else, committing robbery, going AWOL - all of those could get anyone reprimanded or discharged. Dating someone and posting pictures kissing your boyfriend can get one group discharged, but not the other (assuming all other rules are followed).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would argue that they are not as large, complex, or effective as our military. You'll likely disagree and I'd be willing to look at any information to the contrary.

<cheap shot>Well, there is France...</cheap shot>

Seriously though, I think Israel is a fair example. I can't see many people arguing they aren't effective. In some ways I think they might be closer to the US than most European countries on the level of religious objections to homosexuality, though I can't provide any figures, that's just an impression from reading I've done. Their military is probably one of the most constantly ready in the world today, and they have allowed gays to serve since '93, according to Wikipedia.

The other large militaries from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_armed_forces - hard to draw any conclusions here; I'd hazard a guess that the US is superior on a even number basis due to technology and perhaps organization. In size terms, we're at the top of the list with several fairly unique countries - the highest populations, followed by fairly conservative states, and then a bunch of actual/virtual dictatorships and so on. If you look at the top ten,

PRC - Homosexuality is legal, homosexuals are technically banned from service. No reasonable way to measure this policy - being openly gay in China is not common outside of the biggest cities (and even then fairly rare except within the gay community itself). I know several gay former and current members of the PLA, but all are/were closeted during service.

USA - What we're discussing.

India - Homosexual behavior is illegal.

Russia - Homosexuals allowed to serve (according to wikipedia, any during wartime and "well-adjusted" during peacetime - this requires more reading, sounds fairly wacky - wouldn't be surprised if well-adjusted means celibate).

North Korea - Homosexual behavior is illegal.

South Korea - Probably most similar to the US - I believe the ban is fairly recent, and the reasons given are similar to those in the US. Situation is a lot more f***ed up there, as service is compulsory. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea

Pakistan, Iran, Egypt - homosexual behavior illegal in all.

Vietnam - seems to be banned, not sure yet.

Not a lot of solid conclusions there, though I feel Israel is a pretty strong argument for my view. South Korea went the US way, but the situation for gays there is considerably more screwed up than in the US and society is more conservative in general.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate your ideological integrity here Meneldil, but the fact of the matter is that these problems do exist in the military as well. The military has made accommodations available for just this reason. There's no reason to conclude that homosexuals are somehow more disciplined than heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that their service in the military under current policy requires them to be more disciplined than heterosexuals and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. They signed on for it, acknowledging the civil rights infringement inherent in that decision, not unlike heterosexuals. Your sexual freedom is arguably among the least important of the rights you lose by joining.

You're right, rape, assault, harassment, etc. all exist in the army as well. I just feel that banning gays because something might happen, or that we worry troops might lose focus/morale is an unreasonable policy given the number of countries where it has not caused major problems.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The military is not telling a homosexual they can't get laid.

So long as they get laid with a government approved partner. Personally, if there are *any* restrictions by the military on sexual activity, *everybody* in the military should be forbidden from all forms of sexual activity. I don't understand the point of these piecemeal restrictions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

the answer is the military acknowledges the importance of getting laid?

The (American) military doesn't acknowledge the importance of getting laid, at least openly.

But they're certainly aware. The armies that conquered the world did so with a wagon train of whores behind them.

[lpkmckenna]

Me: "Soldiers have rights."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No they most certainly do not. Freedom of speech, expression, travel... the list is as endless as the regulations you live under in the military. You sign them away regardless of what a recruiter might tell you. Your "hit and run" post is probably as good an illustration of an inability to address a contrarian view as any you'll see, but then your cluelessness isn't really newsworthy.

I can picture one of the numerous moronic rants on the horrors of the Iraq war from atop a footlocker going over real well with your command in Fallujah. You'll be screaming; "BUT I HAVE RIGHTS DAMMIT!!!" all the way to prison.

I'm in the military. We have rights. The enforcement of soldiers' rights keeps thousands of military lawyers employed. There are special obligations and restrictions, but that's like any job. If you work at Apple, you can't discuss Apple's secrets - same thing. The only difference is we have a special judicial system for managing violations. Of course, many professions have special forums for violations of the rules: lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. If a lawyer back-talks a judge, he gets fined, just like a soldier back-talking a superior. But only an idiot thinks lawyers have no freedom of speech.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Me: "Soldiers have rights."

I'm in the military. We have rights.

Wrong country, wrong military.

Not sure how it is in the land of Canadia, but if you're in the US military the gov't owns your ass (and the rest of you too). They tell you to jump on a live grenade you'd better hop to it.

[lpkmckenna]

I guess everyone forgot how to use Google.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wow ... that post totally contradicts all of your previous "gay people are icky, I don't want them fantasizing about me" posts in this thread.

Please quote a single one where I expressed that. You have a very vivid imagination.

If the military wants to eliminate any type of sexual distraction, why don't they just ban heteros from having sex in the same way they've banned homos from having sex?

You mean by segregating them away from the gender that causes them to be sexually stimulated? Oh, they already do that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You mean by segregating them away from the gender that causes them to be sexually stimulated? Oh, they already do that.

Are heteros members of the military dishonorably discharged if they have sex with someone from a gender of their choice?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Meneldil 

PRC - Homosexuality is legal, homosexuals are technically banned from service. No reasonable way to measure this policy - being openly gay in China is not common outside of the biggest cities (and even then fairly rare except within the gay community itself). I know several gay former and current members of the PLA, but all are/were closeted during service.

India - Homosexual behavior is illegal.

North Korea - Homosexual behavior is illegal.

Pakistan, Iran, Egypt - homosexual behavior illegal in all.

Vietnam - seems to be banned, not sure yet.

Vietnam bans all open homosexuality AFAIK, so that would include the military too. Like SHOOT YOUR ASS ban, not "come back later."

Are we noticing a trend here?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Please quote a single one where I expressed that. You have a very vivid imagination..

so, now you're ok with a gay guy fantasing about you?

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Vietnam bans all open homosexuality AFAIK, so that would include the military too. Like SHOOT YOUR ASS ban, not "come back later."

Are we noticing a trend here?

It's not illegal, and as far as I can tell is not officially banned in the military. Of course the situation there is crap for people who come out.

A trend towards what? To generalize:

India's ban is a colonial leftover; of course it has supporters holding it in place, but without the British I'm not sure it would have been outlawed in the first place.

East Asian culture includes a lot of pressure to continue the family line, as well as more pressure to conform than in the US or Western Europe.

Pakistan, Iran, and Egypt are all strongly Islamic countries.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are heteros members of the military dishonorably discharged if they have sex with someone from a gender of their choice?

While in their baracks? Probably.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

so, now you're ok with a gay guy fantasing about you?

Using his imagination to fantasize about me? I could care less. I might even be flattered.

Being forced to disrobe in front of him and having this facilitate his fantasies? No thanks. But, that's the same situation with women whom I have no romantic interest in as well. Nothing "icky" about it. If you'd read my posts, you would already know this.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While in their baracks? Probably.

Can homosexual members of the military have sex with their preferred gender while not in their barracks without being dishonorably discharged?

[Kerrigan]

To answer your question, a member of the military cannot have homosexual sex with anyone at any time in any location. On base, off base, past, present, or "future" (you can be discharged for doing something that leads people to believe you have the propensity to engage in homosexual conduct).

This applies not only to sex, but also to kissing, holding hands, etc. If evidence turns up that you've done this, then you will be discharged. However, under most circumstances you will be given an honorable discharge, since a dishonorable discharge is a very serious thing reserved for rape, coercion, etc.

[Wiskedjak]

that's what I thought. so, really, it's not comparable to any punishments for hetero sex in the military, despite stupendous' attempts to equate the two

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are heteros members of the military dishonorably discharged if they have sex with someone from a gender of their choice?

As I understand it, gays are not dishonorably discharged so I'm guessing neither are heteros.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Me: "Soldiers have rights."

I'm in the military. We have rights. The enforcement of soldiers' rights keeps thousands of military lawyers employed. There are special obligations and restrictions, but that's like any job. If you work at Apple, you can't discuss Apple's secrets - same thing. The only difference is we have a special judicial system for managing violations. Of course, many professions have special forums for violations of the rules: lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. If a lawyer back-talks a judge, he gets fined, just like a soldier back-talking a superior. But only an idiot thinks lawyers have no freedom of speech.

Of course, you don't sleep in quarters supplied by Apple, wear full apparel supplied by Apple, eat, sleep, and live with Apple employees, If your wife is pregnant and you'd like to pop home to see her, Apple will likely allow you to do so much more easily than the military. The military is nothing like any other job. It is a complete lifestyle change. You eat when they tell you, sleep when they tell you, make your bed, prepare and wear your uniform exactly how they tell you, and your entire life may be placed on the line on demand. There is no sex during basic training or AIT and your freedom of movement and other civil rights are severely hampered. Your pay can change without notice. Your contractual agreements can change without consent and the justice you receive falls under a military judicial sect, unlike civilians. Anyone who tries to equate the two is either an idiot or a recruiter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So long as they get laid with a government approved partner. Personally, if there are *any* restrictions by the military on sexual activity, *everybody* in the military should be forbidden from all forms of sexual activity. I don't understand the point of these piecemeal restrictions.

Maybe the military believes it near impossible to engage sex with another man by means other than oral or sodomy; rules that apply equally to all. I'm not in their minds. What I can tell you is that if you're not prepared to relinquish your rights into a complete lifestyle change, the military is not for you. If your sexual identity is more meaningful to you than your service in the armed forces, they likely aren't going to miss you. If the military happens to encourage one sect of people to become more disciplined than the remaining 90-95%, better for the homosexual. They'll have to decide how to elevate the remainder to that level of discipline. Anyone who is gay and interested in joining the military likely knows all of these caveats prior to joining which likely explains the relatively miniscule number of them released under "don't ask, don't tell".

The fact of the matter is that there are differing standards for different people and the rules and regulations governing behavior in the military are designed to create a more self-managed bunch. Those rules and regulations as trivial as they may seem, are critical to a well-organized military unit. If there are reasons why men and women do not barrack together, I can't possibly fathom how none of those reasons apply to open homosexuality. Now, would I hold up signs protesting the military for allowing open homosexuality? Absolutely not. Do I understand the problem many have with the policy? You bet. What I'm defending here is a policy that is relatively recent and supported for very good reason. This is a military that depends entirely upon recruiting. I trust they are acting in the most effective manner to get those numbers. For me it's no more complicated than this.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

that's what I thought. so, really, it's not comparable to any punishments for hetero sex in the military, despite stupendous' attempts to equate the two

My point was that neither were allowed to have any kind of sexual relations while on duty, and that the military's plans where put in place specifically to allow for virtually no chance for distraction via sexual stimulation while on duty.

The inclusion of homosexuals into the populace makes that goal pretty much impossible, unless the homosexuals in question can somehow show that they have zero sex drive or have no interest in sex in the first place. As I stated before, I don't know about you, but I'd have INCREASED sexual stimulation in comparison if I were forced to shower everyday with physically fit specimens of my preferred gender. You don't achieve a goal by purposely doing things that would cause the opposite of your goal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Meneldil 

The thing is being gay and engaging in an otherwise legal relationship or possibly even talking about it is the odd one out, the thing that applies to only one group of people based on something they can't change (that I know of, enlighten me if you can think of another). Drug use, sleeping with a person married to someone else, committing robbery, going AWOL - all of those could get anyone reprimanded or discharged. Dating someone and posting pictures kissing your boyfriend can get one group discharged, but not the other (assuming all other rules are followed).

Any number of physical constraints or inability to meet the minimum requirements from basic or AIT and you'll get booted.

Seriously though, I think Israel is a fair example. I can't see many people arguing they aren't effective. In some ways I think they might be closer to the US than most European countries on the level of religious objections to homosexuality, though I can't provide any figures, that's just an impression from reading I've done. Their military is probably one of the most constantly ready in the world today, and they have allowed gays to serve since '93, according to Wikipedia.

I'd be inclined to agree that Israel is a good example with the exception of mandatory conscription, but they even managed to boot gays under that policy until the 80's. The US is strictly a volunteer force and they must be very protective of their ability to meet recruitment goals. Again, I can only imagine that this is the crux of their decision on "don't ask, don't tell" and it has little to do with being "homophobic" or "gay bashing". In fact, one could argue that it would be patently unfair to barrack a homosexual with a tent full of stone aged barbarians.

Not a lot of solid conclusions there, though I feel Israel is a pretty strong argument for my view. South Korea went the US way, but the situation for gays there is considerably more screwed up than in the US and society is more conservative in general.

I'm not sure I agree that Israel is a good example. IMO, "beggars cannot be choosers" is at play here. You essentially require they sign up for service, it makes little sense to send a bunch of 'em back when they're perfectly healthy and equipped for combat. In fact, we don't send most homosexuals back either. There must be something they're doing that the overwhelming majority of them stay.

You're right, rape, assault, harassment, etc. all exist in the army as well. I just feel that banning gays because something might happen, or that we worry troops might lose focus/morale is an unreasonable policy given the number of countries where it has not caused major problems.

Aside from the popular arguments lodged by proponents of "DADT", I'm guessing it has as much to do with projected losses in recruitment as it does coexistence among those already barracked. Again, there are rules and regulations in this volunteer military and I don't see how you can remain consistent under either "DADT" or as someone else called it, "don't ask, don't care". It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't policy, but I trust the military has the military's best interest at heart. I'd like it to remain that way personally.