Gays In The Military

[PatriceA]

I put “I don’t know”. Mainly because of some of the job descriptions in the military, having a gay military member could potentially have a negative affect on the psyche of the unit and put the lives of the unit in danger. But then there are some job descriptions that if someone is gay wouldn’t affect the unit at all. I don’t think it a black and white issue, not yet, not when the civilian society can’t even get this issue right sometimes. The military should not be used as a social experiment.

 

[sedonaman]

What is your point? All this is, is a quote. It is usually helpful to add a bit of your own reason for citing it.
…

You are the one who brought up military history as a justification for your argument:

…To think that soldiers cannot function properly next to a gay comrade is fly in the face of the experience of all the rest of us and of military history.
…

According to General Washington’s orders, clearly, military history has not indicated that the ranks see homosexuals in their midst as contributing to the “proper function” of the rest.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Is comfortableness in a shower the criteria for military policy? It would be pretty low on my list.

How about duty, loyalty, and ability to follow commands and support the team? Marksmanship? Strength? Endurance? Ability to learn? Strategic analytical ability?

Use a towel in the shower. Be demur, polite. It’s no big deal.

Um… yes. It’s the same reason why it took so long to allow women on submarines. There was extremely close quarters, and it’s not an environment to put women and men that might have sexual attractions to each other.

Furthermore… have you ever taken a shower with a towel on? You’re acting as if this isn’t a big deal, showering in front of people that might find your body sexually appealing, but it is. Furthermore, there are more issues involved than just this one.

 

[larkin31]

Um… yes. It’s the same reason why it took so long to allow women on submarines. There was extremely close quarters, and it’s not an environment to put women and men that might have sexual attractions to each other.

Furthermore… have you ever taken a shower with a towel on? You’re acting as if this isn’t a big deal, showering in front of people that might find your body sexually appealing, but it is. Furthermore, there are more issues involved than just this one.

Submarine policy should not drive policy for the entire military. Are you claiming that there has never been a gay man on a submarine? We are not arguing about women here.

What other “issues”? If so, name them.

 

[larkin31]

You are the one who brought up military history as a justification for your argument:
According to General Washington’s orders, clearly, military history has not indicated that the ranks see homosexuals in their midst as contributing to the “proper function” of the rest.

Court marshalling a man for sodomy is not the same as saying that the military did not allow gays within their ranks. Thus my point about court marshalling heteros for sexual misconduct, also.

 

[PatriceA]

Submarine policy should not drive policy for the entire military. Are you claiming that there has never been a gay man on a submarine? We are not arguing about women here.

What other “issues”? If so, name them.

But in a sense we are talking about women. We’re talking about anyone that would have a sexual attraction to the people in the situation. If the military recognizes that the attraction between a man and a woman is a problem, those same problems exist when its a man or woman attracted to the same sex.

 

[larkin31]

I put “I don’t know”. Mainly because of some of the job descriptions in the military, having a gay military member could potentially have a negative affect on the psyche of the unit and put the lives of the unit in danger. But then there are some job descriptions that if someone is gay wouldn’t affect the unit at all. I don’t think it a black and white issue, not yet, not when the civilian society can’t even get this issue right sometimes. The military should not be used as a social experiment.

What “social experiement”? The rest of the country is long used to living and working and accepting gays. They have been in our families, our schools, our businesses, and our churches. This is nothing new. Which “experiment” do you mean?

 

[larkin31]

But in a sense we are talking about women. We’re talking about anyone that would have a sexual attraction to the people in the situation. If the military recognizes that the attraction between a man and a woman is a problem, those same problems exist when its a man or woman attracted to the same sex.

“Attraction” is not the problem. Sexual misconduct is the problem, and the military has always addressed it.

I find the fear of being in the presence of gays for fear of being the object of attention to be neurotic and unreasonable. Gays are not attracted to straights of the same gender any more than straights are attracted to gays of the opposite gender. They may be physically appealing (a superficial judgment easy to control), but there is no deeper compelling attraction.

Do young persons in the military want to jump the bones of every person they find “attractive”? Do the heteros want to do this?

 

[bmadamsberry]

Submarine policy should not drive policy for the entire military. Are you claiming that there has never been a gay man on a submarine? We are not arguing about women here.

What other “issues”? If so, name them.

Again, I must apologize. I forget sometimes that not everyone has been schooled in philosophy.

Okay:

1. I’m not saying that submarine policy should drive all policy. It’s called “an example”.
2. I have never said that there has never been a gay man on a submarine. You are missing the ENTIRE POINT. It is not whether or not a gay man is on there, it is whether or not OTHER PEOPLE KNOW. I, as a man, do not want to shower with a gay man or a woman. I, as a man, do not want to live in close quarters with a gay man or a woman. If I DO NOT KNOW that the person is homosexual, then it cannot bother me.
3. Yes, we are not arguing about women here. However, it is again called an “example”. The whole submarine thing could also be thought of as an “analogy”.
4. Well, I’ve given two problems: showering, close & intimate quarters of submarines. I can continue with more than two, if you want. I hope you say no not because I don’t have more examples, but rather because it’s just a basic exercise in practical thought and application.

 

[PatriceA]

“Attraction” is not the problem. Sexual misconduct is the problem, and the military has always addressed it.

I find the fear of being in the presence of gays for fear of being the object of attention to be neurotic and unreasonable. Gays are not attracted to straights of the same gender any more than straights are attracted to gays of the opposite gender. They may be physically appealing (a superficial judgment easy to control), but there is no deeper compelling attraction.

Do young persons in the military want to jump the bones of every person they find “attractive”? Do the heteros want to do this?

If “attraction” is not the problem, then let’s not have male and female quarters anymore. Let every adult, gay or straight, live, sleep and shower together.

 

[bmadamsberry]

“Attraction” is not the problem. Sexual misconduct is the problem, and the military has always addressed it.

I find the fear of being in the presence of gays for fear of being the object of attention to be neurotic and unreasonable. Gays are not attracted to straights of the same gender any more than straights are attracted to gays of the opposite gender. They may be physically appealing (a superficial judgment easy to control), but there is no deeper compelling attraction.

Do young persons in the military want to jump the bones of every person they find “attractive”? Do the heteros want to do this?

Both are a problem. Are you saying that you would not be uncomfortable with showering with me if I found you attractive?

In reference to your young persons in the military and jumping bones: Not everyone. That is why I said might continuously.

 

[larkin31]

Again, I must apologize. I forget sometimes that not everyone has been schooled in philosophy.

Okay:

1. I’m not saying that submarine policy should drive all policy. It’s called “an example”.
2. I have never said that there has never been a gay man on a submarine. You are missing the ENTIRE POINT. It is not whether or not a gay man is on there, it is whether or not OTHER PEOPLE KNOW. I, as a man, do not want to shower with a gay man or a woman. I, as a man, do not want to live in close quarters with a gay man or a woman. If I DO NOT KNOW that the person is homosexual, then it cannot bother me.
3. Yes, we are not arguing about women here. However, it is again called an “example”. The whole submarine thing could also be thought of as an “analogy”.
4. Well, I’ve given two problems: showering, close & intimate quarters of submarines. I can continue with more than two, if you want. I hope you say no not because I don’t have more examples, but rather because it’s just a basic exercise in practical thought and application.

Your examples are too narrow and unpersuasive. Please don’t get snooty about your approach; we all understand your line of reasoning. Clearly, I am suggesting that your examples have limited persuasiveness.

We are discussing the broad policy toward the military, so your examples need broad applicability. Even the fact that you would not be comfortable in those situations is not very persuasive, for the same reasons I have given above. “Uncomfortableness” is not even a strong reason for ANY military policy.

 

[larkin31]

Both are a problem. Are you saying that you would not be uncomfortable with showering with me if I found you attractive?

In reference to your young persons in the military and jumping bones: Not everyone. That is why I said might continuously.

??

No, do discomfort.

Why do we keep focusing on the shower and nudity? How many really care? How often can public nudity NOT be avoided?

 

[anns82]

May I say, then, that because I have never been pregnant, and can never become pregnant (I am a guy) that my opinion is off in regards to abortion? The assumption made earlier was that, because someone was not in the military, they would vote yes. Whereas someone that was in the military would vote no.

My point is that life in the military is very different from life in the free society in which we live, and many do not realize the differences. This is not to say that civilians do not have the right to have an opinion, but we should not shut out the voices of those in the military who will be directly effected - as is essentially being done by repealing DADT before the study is published this December. It would be just as wrong as saying only men are allowed to publicly have an opinion on abortion.

Also, thank you jbowler for clarifying about not being allowed to publicly protest in uniform, but it is still different from civilian world in that they are not allowed to organize to protest as we see with unions and special interest groups. To the rest of the country, those who are a part of the military are whitewashed into the occasional groups of conservative protesters. They do not organize to have their voices heard the way other people are free to do. The only way civilians are actually able to find out what the military thinks is through the study, which is not even being taken into consideration. There is something incredibly wrong with that.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Your examples are too narrow and unpersuasive. Please don’t get snooty about your approach; we all understand your line of reasoning. Clearly, I am suggesting that your examples have limited persuasiveness.

We are discussing the broad policy toward the military, so your examples need broad applicability. Even the fact that you would not be comfortable in those situations is not very persuasive, for the same reasons I have given above. “Uncomfortableness” is not even a strong reason for ANY military policy.

Mkay, so in an unsnooty answer, here it is:

Are you saying that it would be fine for us to shower together if you knew I was sexually attracted to you? If not, then I can easily say that that many in the military might be uncomfortable with it. It’s about dignity, then. The fact that I have a right to not have to shower with people that might find me sexually appealing. It’s more than uncomfortableness. Would you say that dignity, which would reasonably be violated in this case (the case of a homosexual in the shower with me finding me sexually appealing).

But, maybe dignity isn’t a good military policy either.

 

[hosemonkey]

Open “Gays” in the military and women in the military are bad news. Both groups in the military require accomodations that are onerous, inconvenient, costly and disruptive to the mission. The military got sucked into depending on women because young men choose not to serve their country and because the government bowed to the Liberals in abolishing the draft, young men no longer had any incentive to volunteer. Now the military has to spend time and effort to provide for the needs of women and their children in order to fill the ranks that should be filled by young men. And now we want to create another special interest group that we must pander to? Women in combat? Women on submarines? What’s next? The combat hairdresser’s platoon? The Airborne flower arranging battalion? Feh! Makes me wanna barf. Dump the women, bring back the draft for every able-bodied male with no exemptions and no deferments. Two years, full stop.

 

[bmadamsberry]

??

No, do discomfort.

Why do we keep focusing on the shower and nudity? How many really care? How often can public nudity NOT be avoided?

REALLY? How many actually care? I would say most people put in that position. Maybe, however, you would be fine showering with someone that finds you sexually appealing. Many would not find it an okay thing. Why should they be forced into that situation?

 

[sedonaman]

Open “Gays” in the military and women in the military are bad news. …

In an earlier post, I accused liberals of using homosexuals to weaken the U.S. military in order to weaken the whole country vis-à-vis the world. But what about homosexuals themselves? What do they gain? Over forty years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the homosexual liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sex partners. The military will be another one of those spaces. Imagine if heterosexuals joined the military for the main purpose of locating sex partners, and you can see how undisciplined it would be. And why is discipline so important? As Rush says, “the military exists to break things and kill people.” But what things and what people loom large in this mission, for there is a thing called the Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC], the aim of which is to limit death and destruction as much as possible, especially to non-combatants and non-war related property. The U.S. has agreed to this treaty; and in addition, every time a stray American bullet so much as chips a piece of plaster off the dome of some holy rock or other, the press has a field day. When and where to start “breaking things and killing people” has to be commenced after careful planning, as does when to stop. Coincidentally, the LOAC requires legitimate combatants to be under a responsible chain of command. None of this would work if the effort were charged to people whose main purpose is to locate their next sex partner, heterosexual or otherwise.

This issue is also not about their so-called “rights” or “fairness” either. Whether military service is a “right” in the usual sense of a negative right is one thing, but what is meant here is that homosexuals want your very soul. It’s not something I dreamed up, but it is what they have finally admitted.

We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources – the homosexual agenda. … back in August [2008], my jaw hit the floor when I read a column [John] Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.

“Finally, ‘Straight Talk’ From the Homosexual Agenda”
by Austin Nimocks
Oct. 20, 2008

Paraphrasing what has been observed about another social issue:

Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of homosexuality from the idea of sodomy, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows but is afraid to admit they know, that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize homosexual behavior as anything but a disorder would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. Decisions extending open “rights” to homosexuals do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.

 

[larkin31]

REALLY? How many actually care? I would say most people put in that position. Maybe, however, you would be fine showering with someone that finds you sexually appealing. Many would not find it an okay thing. Why should they be forced into that situation?

Life has its challenges. Service is voluntary.

 

[ERose]

Is comfortableness in a shower the criteria for military policy? It would be pretty low on my list.

How about duty, loyalty, and ability to follow commands and support the team? Marksmanship? Strength? Endurance? Ability to learn? Strategic analytical ability?

Use a towel in the shower. Be demur, polite. It’s no big deal.

Then I guess you are a proponent of having both men and women mixed in the squad bays, barracks, showers, etc.