hawkeye10 wrote:
In the military subculture private homosexual behavior can be tolerated, public behavior can not be. America still has a large segment of the population that identifies with the Christian Right, that believes that homosexuality is an abomination.
It does interfere with unit cohesion, it does thus interfere with accomplishing the mission, allowing the political struggle of the gay population to interfere with the mission would be dangerous. After the issue is settled in the wider culture come back and talk to the military, until then they have more important matters to attend to.
I don't remember where I saw this last week, but a new survey just came out that says that the majority of enlisted in the US army are in favor of allowing gays to serve openly, however the vast majority of officers are not. The way I read this is that most enlisted think gays are no big deal (as they serve already) but oficers realize that the change would force the gay issue to suck up a lot of command focus
I can't believe that people who purport to believe in the principles espoused in the constitution advance such ridiculous arguments. If I happen to think that the Christian right is an abomination, does that give me the right to discriminate against them, to not serve them in my restaurant, to not rent them housing or sell them a home or, have them banned from the military.
And the poor phucking officers, they might actually have to do their job. These are the same kind of nonsensical arguments used to provide support for segregation.
In the three years i was in the army, there were always soldiers at any duty station whom we suspected of being gay. It was never a problem. None of us wanted anyone staring at us when we were in the shower, and i don't know that in three years, anyone ever did. I knew of no one who ever alleged that another soldier had come on to him, and in those days when the Women's Army Corps still existed, i knew of no female soldiers who made any such allegations. It just never came up. I completely agree with Joe's assessment that those who obsess about this sort of thing are the ones least likely to be attractive to someone of the same sex who happens to be homosexual.
When i was overseas, i was sitting in the office of the training NCO (who was also the motor pool NCO--that's where we were) one day, i don't recall why i was there, but whatever our business was, we had finished it. We were talking about the service in general. He had done by then three tours in Vietnam, and had served in Japan, Korea and Europe as well. There had recently been an incident of racism, which had upset everyone a great deal, and the general consensus of the enlisted men was that the guy who instigated it was a creep, and that we would "take care of him." It was well known to all the NCOs, and the officers were completely oblivious. That's the way it works best, our job was to take care of that sort of nonsense--in the common expression, we were the ones who would "sweat the small ****" because officers had other things to do.
This guy, by then a 15-year veteran got pretty worked up about the racial incident and he told exactly what philosophy motivated him. He had served with ROK Army detachments, and with the Marines (a foreign force) and the Australians. He said that when the chips were down, he wanted an American in the bunker with him--black (not the term he used, he was an old country boy), white, red, old, young, faggot or straight, he wanted someone he could understand at the most basic level when the chips were down. Being overseas in the service does more than any experience i have ever had to teach you just how much you have in common with everyone, absolutely everyone, from your native culture, because you quickly see how little you have in common with those from alien cultures. Prejudices melt pretty quickly in such a crucible.
Leaving aside the homosexuality of famous soldiers such as Iulius Caesar and Richard Lionheart, i strongly suspect that every army always has "gay" soldiers, and that that is only ever a problem for people who already had a problem created by their own bigotry. And i extend that judgment to every aspect of society.
JTT wrote:I can't believe that people who purport to believe in the principles espoused in the constitution advance such ridiculous arguments. If I happen to think that the Christian right is an abomination, does that give me the right to discriminate against them, to not serve them in my restaurant, to not rent them housing or sell them a home or, have them banned from the military.
And the poor phucking officers, they might actually have to do their job. These are the same kind of nonsensical arguments used to provide support for segregation.
Individual rights don't always take priority over national defense, if that were the case basic training would be called abuse and ended by court order. Likewise, sometimes national defense takes priority over social engineering goals. Remember, that blacks were only let in if they would serve with black units that usually did nothing of importance, and women were only let in if they would agree to serve with women's units and do women's work (nursing). I don't think that such a scheme would fly in 2008 re gays. That being the case, maybe their right to serve openly needs to be denied for the good of the nation.
Lash wrote:JTT wrote:Lash wrote:JTT--
When men and women are segregated into barracks, which group is being deemed second class? Some things are just sensible. I think giving a thought to sexual orientation--at least considering it--in bed assignments is NOT synonymous with some -ism.
Not the same thing at all, Lash. Who do you think would be deemed second class?
If we're talking about segregating people in groups that shower together, it IS the same thing. This is why men and women are separate. People with different orientations complicate it a bit. I don't think your injection of classism belongs here.
I don't crave every woman's parts just because I'm heterosexual. You make it sound like people who are gay have no self restraint, that they are simply sex fiends.
I knew you'd say this. This is why I stipulated that I didn't anticipate nightly rapings. I merely said I'd be uncomfy living in that situation. It would be the same if men were showering with me.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that your parts have been craved numerous times already unless you've never been to a public swimming pool, gym, etc.
I am very happy to be in possession of crave-inducing parts, but I don't take showers with people who are oriented to crave me parts...unless I mean business.
Let me put it this way, Lash. People shouldn't be made to feel, let alone be, second class citizens based on their sexual preference. There are laws in place that protect you, the general you, from sexual assault and even from unwanted sexual advances.
Why should it be, how can it be in this day and age, that peoples' personal biases about homosexuals seems to be the deciding factor as to whether or not they suffer legal discrimination.
Let's revisit the arguments of racial segregationists. I'm sure that you could get a number of them to agree on why certain racial groups shouldn't share tents, showers, movie theaters, water fountains, ... .
Really, are they any different? You still never answered my question;
Who do
you think would be treated as second class citizens?
Read up on the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments and the 24th and 25th Infantry Regiments some time, and tell us all about how and where black units served.
I'm sure the same kind of bullshit arguments were advanced in 1948, when Truman desegregated the armed forces. People like Omar Bradley dragged their heels, and most of the army was still segregated when the Korean War started. Heavy combat casualties ended that sh*t right quick.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Individual rights don't always take priority over national defense, if that were the case basic training would be called abuse and ended by court order.
While the USA has been in many wars/illegal invasions, it has rarely been in the position of needing any national defence. What you meant to say was national offence.
JTT wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:
Individual rights don't always take priority over national defense, if that were the case basic training would be called abuse and ended by court order.
While the USA has been in many wars/illegal invasions, it has rarely been in the position of needing any national defence. What you meant to say was national offence.
If you want to talk about America's historic use of military force how bout you start another thread for it??
I can't speak for gay men but normal gay women do not become aroused by merely by showering with other women. I have been "aroused" in these situations but because of some signal that there was an attraction. I doubt that gay men routinely beocme aroused just by seeing other naked men in the shower. There are no gay men who post at A2K
so I guess that is subject to conjecture.
hawkeye10 wrote:dlowan wrote:
WHAT position...except some nonsensical meanderings about "ecosystems"
Oh please reason out how gays "flaunting their homosexual behaviour" is
a. Likely. Do you flaunt your heterosexual behaviour at work? If s, is it "dangerous"? (Well, for you it may well be, given your ideas about the okness of **** kids and raping. but I digress....I speak of normal people.) Is it dangerous for all the gays who are already in the military to have people flaunting their heterosexuality (except where pathetically inadequate men feel the need to flaunt it by being grossly homophobic?)
b. How....even IF they did...it would mess dangerously with the ecosystem?
In the military subculture private homosexual behavior can be tolerated, public behavior can not be. America still has a large segment of the population that identifies with the Christian Right, that believes that homosexuality is an abomination. This might or might not change, but for now the military is not the place to conduct this struggle. It does interfere with unit cohesion, it does thus interfere with accomplishing the mission, allowing the political struggle of the gay population to interfere with the mission would be dangerous. After the issue is settled in the wider culture come back and talk to the military, until then they have more important matters to attend to.
I don't remember where I saw this last week, but a new survey just came out that says that the majority of enlisted in the US army are in favor of allowing gays to serve openly, however the vast majority of officers are not. The way I read this is that most enlisted think gays are no big deal (as they serve already) but oficers realize that the change would force the gay issue to suck up a lot of command focus
Diddums.
The same crap was said about integrating races.
I guess we just have to teach soldiers to kill people, march, not **** in the middle of the barracks if they were brung up wrong, and stop being homophobic, just as they had to stop lynching niggers.
I feel their pain.
Roxxxanne wrote:I can't speak for gay men but normal gay women do not become aroused by merely by showering with other women. I have been "aroused" in these situations but because of some signal that there was an attraction. I doubt that gay men routinely beocme aroused just by seeing other naked men in the shower. There are no gay men who post at A2K
so I guess that is subject to conjecture.
In my considerable experience of sharing homes with both genders, there is nothing like intimate knowledge of a person's habits to act as a passion killer!
I shared with men who left my female friends gasping.....and I was considered pretty damn fine by my housemate's male friends.
However.....there was no problem with resisting each other in house! Showers or no.
As to passion that survives proximity.......gay folk have dealt with that for millenia in the military (when expressing it happened to be seen as unacceptable...fashions have varied in this regard).
It's the insecure, troglodyte straight folk who scare me...and any sensible gay I have ever met.
As for the nuts who think gay folk are gonna be made wild by their "bits" (
)
a. They've seen better
b Don't you Americans go to camp, away to "college" etc and share rooms? I am sorry to have to tell you this, but, if you have done this, and other group living/sleeping experiences.....your "bits" have already been seen by any number of gay people.....and they didn't lose control over you.
Sorry..your "bits" are eminently resistable.
JTT wrote:Lash wrote:JTT wrote:Lash wrote:JTT--
When men and women are segregated into barracks, which group is being deemed second class? Some things are just sensible. I think giving a thought to sexual orientation--at least considering it--in bed assignments is NOT synonymous with some -ism.
Not the same thing at all, Lash. Who do you think would be deemed second class?
If we're talking about segregating people in groups that shower together, it IS the same thing. This is why men and women are separate. People with different orientations complicate it a bit. I don't think your injection of classism belongs here.
I don't crave every woman's parts just because I'm heterosexual. You make it sound like people who are gay have no self restraint, that they are simply sex fiends.
I knew you'd say this. This is why I stipulated that I didn't anticipate nightly rapings. I merely said I'd be uncomfy living in that situation. It would be the same if men were showering with me.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that your parts have been craved numerous times already unless you've never been to a public swimming pool, gym, etc.
I am very happy to be in possession of crave-inducing parts, but I don't take showers with people who are oriented to crave me parts...unless I mean business.
Let me put it this way, Lash. People shouldn't be made to feel, let alone be, second class citizens based on their sexual preference.
I agree completely.
There are laws in place that protect you, the general you, from sexual assault and even from unwanted sexual advances.
I know. I'm just standing by the truth of the fact that I would be just as uncomfortable living and doing naked things in front of a man (who I only knew in a barracks situation) as I would a women whose sexual orientation was toward me. This is why men and women are segregated--and I think it applies to people with same sex orientation as well. I haven't espoused any solution to this--just stating the fact.
Why should it be, how can it be in this day and age, that peoples' personal biases about homosexuals seems to be the deciding factor as to whether or not they suffer legal discrimination.
I am certainly not biased against homosexuals. I think it's interesting that even a comment about feeling uncomfortable in this particular situation must be reflexively lumped in with bias and such. I also wouldn't approve of any type of discrimination.
Let's revisit the arguments of racial segregationists. I'm sure that you could get a number of them to agree on why certain racial groups shouldn't share tents, showers, movie theaters, water fountains, ... .
I didn't suggest cramming homos together. this is rather tortured to try to score a point. It's completely off topic per what we were discussing. If I had suggested segregating all homos together, you'd certainly have a point--(and I would have lost my mind).
Really, are they any different? You still never answered my question;
Who do
you think would be treated as second class citizens?
In what scenario?
JTT-- I just re-read one of my responses to you, and I can see how it may appear that I suggested homo segregation. I was pointing out that the current men/women segregation exists because of privacy issues--and that those issues also exist with same sex orientation people.
I'm not sure if this has been discussed anywhere on the forum but a shooting at a Knoxville TN Unitarian Universalist church has left two dead and at least 7 others transferred to a local hospital, some with critical injuries.
The church had recently begun advertising itself as a "Welcoming" church to the LGBTQ community.
News articles are sketchy as to motive -- the latest one I could find was from Sunday evening
here and a blog site with additional information/comments
here. I am not familiar with this blog or it's following.
I tend to dismiss over generalizations of "liberal" and "conservative" and post this except only because it is part of his apparent motive.
Quote:At a press conference this morning, Police Chief Sterling Owen revealed, among other items, that Adkisson cited as his motivation "Lack of being able to obtain job, frustration, stated hatred for the liberal movement." Adkisson also reportedly admitted that he had been planning the attack for at least a week and "chose this church intentionally," because "he was targeting liberals in general, and gays."
Needless to say, this is extremely disturbing. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the church membership, and the community at large.
JPB wrote:I'm not sure if this has been discussed anywhere on the forum but a shooting at a Knoxville TN Unitarian Universalist church has left two dead and at least 7 others transferred to a local hospital, some with critical injuries.
The church had recently begun advertising itself as a "Welcoming" church to the LGBTQ community.
News articles are sketchy as to motive -- the latest one I could find was from Sunday evening
here and a blog site with additional information/comments
here. I am not familiar with this blog or it's following.
I tend to dismiss over generalizations of "liberal" and "conservative" and post this except only because it is part of his apparent motive.
Quote:At a press conference this morning, Police Chief Sterling Owen revealed, among other items, that Adkisson cited as his motivation "Lack of being able to obtain job, frustration, stated hatred for the liberal movement." Adkisson also reportedly admitted that he had been planning the attack for at least a week and "chose this church intentionally," because "he was targeting liberals in general, and gays."
Needless to say, this is extremely disturbing. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the church membership, and the community at large.
It's a huge mistake to extrapolate the insanity of crazed individuals to larger, very loosely associated groups.
Not too hard, I bet to find an insane miscreant who justifies his or her crimes by the ostensible evil of conservatism.
Crazy people are crazy and trying to draw a logical connection from their craziness to contemporary issues is...crazy.
Roxxxanne wrote:I can't speak for gay men but normal gay women do not become aroused by merely by showering with other women. I have been "aroused" in these situations but because of some signal that there was an attraction. I doubt that gay men routinely beocme aroused just by seeing other naked men in the shower. There are no gay men who post at A2K
so I guess that is subject to conjecture.
Homo-superior once again.
A heterosexual man showers with an attractive woman and becomes aroused: What a pig!
A homosexual man would never become aroused showering with a naked and attractive man. Not only are gay men normal, they are super-normal!
I'm no expert on what arouses women, but I would imagine that if it is normal for heterosexual women to be aroused by the sight of an attractive naked male then it is normal for a homosexual woman to be aroused by the sight of an attractive naked woman.
Of course this silly argument ignores the fact that people who enter a public place naked have a right to a sense of security. It is ignorant of them to imagine that they can shower nekkid as a jay bird without someone leering at them. The bigots!
This argument is ridiculous.
JTT and his fellows would hardly be advocating the notion that the segregation of heterosexual men and women in terms of co-habitation is ignorant and bigoted.
The hell with ignorant and bigoted women! Who are they to whine about showering with folks who might lust after them.
This is the argument that it is not enough for minorities to have equal rights they must have exceptional rights.
Worse than ignorance.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's a huge mistake to extrapolate the insanity of crazed individuals to larger, very loosely associated groups.
But it's not at all difficult to understand how the insanity inherent in this larger, very loosely associated group could easily influence an individual already at the tipping point to carry out its "mandate".
JTT wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's a huge mistake to extrapolate the insanity of crazed individuals to larger, very loosely associated groups.
But it's not at all difficult to understand how the insanity inherent in this larger, very loosely associated group could easily influence an individual already at the tipping point to carry out its "mandate".
And only the most narrow of minds would blame the very loosely associated group for the actions of the person who has moved beyond the tipping point.
The sort of narrow mind that would suggest that groups of an opinion other than its own is "inherently insane."
You make this too easy JTT.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:JTT wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's a huge mistake to extrapolate the insanity of crazed individuals to larger, very loosely associated groups.
But it's not at all difficult to understand how the insanity inherent in this larger, very loosely associated group could easily influence an individual already at the tipping point to carry out its "mandate".
And only the most narrow of minds would blame the very loosely associated group for the actions of the person who has moved beyond the tipping point.
The sort of narrow mind that would suggest that groups of an opinion other than its own is "inherently insane."
You make this too easy JTT.
You have to read more carefully, Finn. I didn't say that the group, as a whole, was insane. I said, "the insanity inherent in this larger, very loosely associated group". Jerry"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals" Falwell, Pat "let's assassinate Chavez" Robertson, ...
You were saying.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:JTT wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:I have no problem with a gay man or woman serving their country while being open about their sexuality. Their blood is as precious as a straight soldier's, and I don't think they should be required to deny an important part of their identities if they are going to potentially sacrifice all for their nation.
However, I also can understand why straight men and women in the military might be uncomfortable with sharing close living quarters with homosexuals.
It's this type of ignorance that has caused the situation to be perpetuated. And it is ignorance. What you're saying is let the ignorant hold sway when it comes to choosing to bunk in with other minority groups.
Ignorance? What ignorance?
Obviously you want to have it both ways: Homosexuals are "normal" and no different than heterosexuals EXCEPT that they can control their normal sexual urges better than heterosexuals. This is an argument for homo-superior.
Ha!
I advance no such position, Finn. I merely stated that people should not be discriminated against simply because of uniformed opinions.
I couldn't possibly know, when the test was done, who would come out ahead on the "get aroused" scale, and, neither could you. So why raise such a facetious argument.
There still are people who don't feel comfortable having certain ethnic groups around them. Should we make allowances for their opinions?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I doubt there are too many people arguing that we should require female soldiers to bunk and shower with male soldiers (or the reverse), so why should heterosexual soldiers be required to bunk and shower with homosexuals?
Of course the majority of gay soldiers are not going to jump the bones of someone of their same sex while in the showers, but the same can be said of heterosexual soldiers required to co-habitat with soldiers of the opposite sex. Never-the-less, I can clearly imagine the hue and cry that would be heard across the nation if the military required women to co-habitat with men.
I know that if I found myself showering with a bunch of women I would become aroused. I also know I wouldn't assault or harass these women, but I doubt that would make them feel very comfortable.
A large school of red herrings, Finn.
How so JTT? Easy to pronounce - now defend.
Discussed above. Do you consider that's it's right for the staff of A2K to ban you because something about you, the way you write, the constant change of avatars, [just examples, they actually endear you to me] makes me uncomfortable.
How could it be that mere opinions should be deciding factors in whether a person can keep their job, their livelihood, their dignity, their ... ?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Why should it be any different for heterosexuals co-habitating with homosexuals? If the argument is that homosexuality is "normal" than we should expect the same "normal" responses from gays that we would from straights.
It's not right to elevate the rights and sensibilities of gays over straights.
What's simply not right is what you allowed at the outset. Homosexuals are not second class citizens yet you continue to pander to the ideas of the ignorant.
Be specific if you can.
What I've underlined, below, is pretty specific, but you want more. Okay.
How could it be that mere opinions about what one "feels" will happen should be deciding factors in whether a person can keep their job, their livelihood, their dignity, their ... ?
I'm sure that there were a heap of idiotic things stated by segregationists as reason against integration. Yeah, let's do protect the "sensibilities" of those who would discriminate. Makes perfect sense to me.
You are making no sense.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military, but also allow straight men and women the option to be segregated.
Seems like a fair and simple solution. Can we agree upon it?
Absolutely, the history of segregation shows us that it is just the ticket to solve these probelms.
So you are arguing that we should force heterosexual men and women to co-habitate with gay men and women.
What utter nonsense fueled by ideological nonsense.
I'm not the one forcing them to do this. It's the US military that has forced this situation, backed by, what else, idiotic politicians.
A heterosexual woman should not only be prohibited from expressing a desire not to shower with a woman who is likely to see her as a sex object, she should be castigated as ignorant and bigoted.
Apparently only heterosexual males can be pigs. Interesting.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes this subject difficult to discuss rationally.
You might like to ignore sexuality in consideration of issues around sexual orientation but that is worse than ignorant, it is willfully idiotic.
[/color]
What were your reasons for justifying "whites only" drinking fountains, segregated lunch counters, schools, movie theaters, ... ?
Quote:A heterosexual woman should not only be prohibited from expressing a desire not to shower with a woman who is likely to see her as a sex object, she should be castigated as ignorant and bigoted.
Apparently only heterosexual males can be pigs. Interesting.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes this subject difficult to discuss rationally.
It is certainly impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic with someone who is so sexualy immatureand unenlightened that he would assume that people get aroused by mere nudity that lacks sexual intention. I attract far more leering from men on the street while clothed than I do in najed in the shower with gay women. I love threads like this because it exposes the sexual ignorance and inhibition of many here.(Mostly conservative men)
