Obama and the Gay Military...

[gtc]

For now we eat the air, promise-crammed...

Are you sure you are doing it right?

 

[Bill Thompson]

The military exists to kill and destroy. It is not fair. It is not unbiased. It is prejudicial.

If it was not prejudiced, I do not see how they could conduct war.

Individual soldiers have rights only to the extent that their officers decide they have. In boot camp, drill instructors and Petty Officers can legally do anything to you apart from physically striking you, and I understand once they could do that as well.

Black people were integrated not because of public pressure but because of the military's own study on IQ scores. When the found that the average IQ scores of black people in Detroit were higher than the average white person from the south, they decided that integration would be a good thing.

On the surface, it seems wrong and unjust and discriminatory for open gays to be barred from serving in the military.

Sure it is unfair. What has ever been fair about war?

I can think of eighteen reasons why open and active gays should be banned from enlisting in the armed forces.

#1. Tradition. On the aircraft carrier, where ever you went there was someone cleaning. Someone is always scrubbing and polishing and washing some part of the ship. It is this way to this extent because it has been this way for the last 400 years. Why not change this obsessive degree of cleaning on ships? It is because of tradition mostly but it is also because of the ol' saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It has been this way for a long time. It has worked. Why force a change? Only by extreme force would the military change. It is not a democracy. It is a war machine that needs to keep running the way it has.

#2. Questionable Motivation. Human beings are sexual creatures that shy away from anything out of the ordinary. Sex is a huge motivation for why animals do what they do. Human beings are animals. Young men who want to toughen-up and become more worldly often join the military to become more macho but also to serve their country. Women also have admitted to me that they joined the navy to get a husband. So straight men might very well suspect that a gay guy joined the military to be surrounded by man candy. In the fox holes where your life is on the line, you will want to think that the men around you are there for the love of their country, not for their adoration of men. You would want to think that people are focused on the mission and the job and not at all focused on you -- not at all. Someone commented that they resented what they assumed was my using the stereotype that gay men are obsessed and with sex. Gay men are still men and many men are obsessed with sex. But regardless of this, it is still and idea that straight men have. And this is the key issue on this point.

#3 Comfort. Let me ask you something. There are showers where I work. They are not co-ed. Shouldn't they be? Would it be alright to demand that women shower with men? That should be fair, right? That would be the right thing to do in a more prefect and fair world. I think most people would be perfectly OK with it. Oh sure, there might be a few cases where some crazy guy would attack a woman. But then, the law would come into play and deal with those rare situations. But, in reality, women would never allow for men to join them in communal showers. They would feel uncomfortable about the uncontrollable gazing eyes of men. It is exactly the same if you have to shower with a gay guy. In boot camp we all shower in the same room. We did that every day. Even with sensitivity training and instructiion for all the 80 guys in the company to be open-minded and accepting, no straight guy would ever feel 100% comfortable. And Generals have much too much to worry about and think about. If there is any slight addition to the equation, it is not worth it.

#4 Savagery. This is a point I once made and some one decided to break apart my point sentence by sentence and missed the point. I am characterizing all men in combat and I am not talking about a typical combat situation but in every war that has ever been there have been times when civility breaks down and people become something less than civilized human beings.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primitive actions.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.​

Someone made the point that these were contractors and not service men who did this crime. That is minutia. Desperate men in desperate situations act in unthinkable ways. If people think it might very well be the last day they have alive, they change and do things you would never expect.

#5 The Military Needs Rednecks. The military needs young men who are young enough to still feel they are invincible. The military needs people who are braver than they are intelligent. The military needs young people who think in simple terms. These simple terms include thinking in prejudicial and stereotypical terms about what it means to be a man and a hero and accepted by society and even by the opposite sex.

But what is more important is that Rednecks are gung-ho. They are focused and spontaneous and act without wasting time thinking. They need to have their way cleared for them to do the horrible job at hand. Adding homosexual comrades into the equation might have an impact in diminishing the efficiency. It is certainly not out of the question to think it would. It is an addition that they should not have to be concerned with just because it would make a more fair human slaughter machine.

Rednecks typically are not tollerant of homosexuals. Rednecks typically avoid gays. The gay population I have heard is only ten percent in San Francisco but they are visible and vocal. I believe it is because of this that I have never heard of a popular country and western bar in San Francisco (well, it might be of a different genre) and there are no truck pulls or monster truck rallies.

#6 Chivalry. When I lived in Austin about 5 years ago there was a local story that was getting a lot of attention and discussion. A police woman was killed in an accident and it was her own male partner that was at fault. In the policeman's mind chivalry had overruled all his training and male instinct ruled out over rational thought.

What had happened is this. The male officer was in the driver's seat behind a stopped but running squad car. The suspect was outside and to the left. The female officer was outside on the right side of the car. The suspect suddenly made a motion that he was going to run behind the squad car toward the female officer. The male officer did not have time to think or access the situation. He instinctively wanted to move the car between the two to protect his partner. He would not have done this if his partner was a man. It was chivalry. He had no idea that she was in the middle of moving toward the suspect apprehend him. Thus, she was run over and killed.

For days talk shows and commentators were suggesting that the laws be changed because of the male instinct, chivalry, that seemed to be the root cause of the tragedy. Many people were thinking that men and women should not be paired and serving as partners in dangerous situations on the police force.​

Now, I know what you might be thinking. But human sexuality is a complex thing. No two people have the same distinct likes and dislikes and attractions. But there are very fem gay men and there are some otherwise straight men who are to a degree bisexual and would act to protect a fem gay man because on some level they think the he-she is somewhat just as delicate as a she. Do you remember the movie “A Dog Day's Afternoon”? It is based on a true story. Some men think that all that is needed in a he-she is an operation.

Flaming morons have used the fact that women now serve in the military now to suggest that my argument that gays should not be in the military for similar reasons is null and void. Just because it is now done does not make it correct. Besides, I still think that it is such that horrible mistakes in judgment are not likely. If so, this should change. And the argument that women serve in harms way is non sequitur.

Additionally, if chivalry plays a role in someone deciding who lives in dies, it would be another tragic event and the deciding serviceman would have a hard time explaining his actions to the families of the dead servicemen.

#7 Directions of the Heart. The flip side of chivalry is directions of the heart. Rather than being equal brothers-in-arms, the scales can be tipped if a gay man falls in love with another man in combat. Just as a woman would favor a man who she was in love with, a gay man would instinctively single out a man he had fallen in love with. And we have biased decisions being made similar to the last example.

#8, Camaraderie. There is a bond that is greater and more powerful than brotherhood. It is camaraderie. It is often said that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. I know, it is from the bible, but, at the same time, the scribe who penned the book of John knew what he was talking about. It is something that you have to feel and if you don't feel it, you cannot understand it by reading mere words. If you have never been on a war ship or in a tank or on a submarine, you cannot understand what it is like. You have a sense of being an individual but but you also have a sense of being a part of a greater group that is bound together tightly. That tight bond is camaraderie. After living together full time you get to know people deeply to their soul and they know you deeply to your soul. You cannot hide secrets. If you don't get it, just think of The Borg on the TV show “Star Trek The Next Generation”. You are all so much alike you would give your live for your buddies because they would give their life for you. It is a collective you are bound together and that bond is very strong.

When I served on the USS Kennedy there was a guy who worked with us in the office who seemed to be having difficulty getting along and fitting in. I felt kind of sorry for him. I did not know much later after he was flown off the ship unexpectedly (to me) what was really going on.

He reported for work each day but on the last few days he was not assigned any jobs and he seemed to be sulking a lot. He told me that he had gotten into a fight. He said a redneck was beating him up because he was black. I did not have any reason to doubt him. So I believed him.

After he was gone I found out the truth. It was not because he was black, It was because he had made a pass at the guy and the guy turned to pound his face in. First sailors and then marines came to stop the situation.

The bond of camaraderie was broken. There are 6 thousand men on the aircraft carrier. It is a lot like a floating city. The black guy was in a part of the ship he wasn't supposed to be in because he was there to meet up with someone but for some reason they did not connect. This is why the story of what happened did not get to me. It did not involve anyone I worked with, except for the black guy. The administrators were to keep it quiet but, after the fact, everyone was talking about it. In my opinion, he had to leave. He had to leave because the camaraderie had been broken. The trust the harassed victim had in his fellow servicemen had been broken. You live together 24 hours a day. You sleep in absurdly tight quarters stacked in bunks three high and they are arranged alternating from shoulder length apart and touching with a thin metal barrier. You shower together, you eat together, you are like Siamese twins. But it is OK because of the camaraderie. No one is supposed to be interested in you sexually. That would break the camaraderie. That would make the unit dysfunctional.

#9 The Great Unknown. Human sexuality is a complicated thing and it is tied into our psyche and our culture. I have heard that other countries are tolerant of homosexuals serving in their military. But that is a different culture. We cannot use another nation as a model as to what would happen in our military. I can think of lots of reasons why we should not try it (I am listing them here) and won't know for certain unless we try it. But it is not worth the risk.

#10 Concept of Valor. I know that this is going to anger activists, because they will think I am talking in absolutes. You cannot paint people with a wide brush but it has been my experience that the concept of valor is a masculine trait. I am not saying women as a whole do not understand the concept of valor. Many do. But, the majority of women would not lay down her life for another woman or even a man. Some would I am sure. Now I am also not saying that all homosexual men think like women but a lot of them, I imagine would. It is a mixed bag, I know. But there are some men who are transexual and think like women and I am sure many lack a concept of valor.

#11 Nature. Nature is an interesting concept. How would you define something as being natural? How would you define something as being “unnatural”. To me, the word “unnatural” does not make any sense. If something exists, it is natural. I challenge anyone to tell me of something that is unnatural – as in it exists outside of nature.

In this definition, homosexuality is natural. In fact, it exists in other species as well.

Well, homophobia is natural too. Someone made a big deal when I mentioned that all straight men are homophobic to a degree. They challenged me to show some sort of study. They missed the proverbial boat. So come back to shore so I can clarify. I am not saying that all straight men are prejudiced or intolerant of homosexuals. I am just saying that they would prefer, in an ideal situation, not to have to be concerned with them. For example, I support gay marriage because, frankly, I just don't care. It is not part of my world. It does not influence me. But this is different. By saying it is OK for open gay men to be in the military, you are forcing straight men to live, sleep, eat and shower with them. Regardless of what they will say, on a visceral level, most of them will not be OK with that. That is nature.

#12 Mathematics. I think the reason why it might be accepted for homosexuals to serve in other countries and not in the United States is because of mathematics. Middle, mainstream America is intolerant and prejudicial to homosexuals. So is the bible belt. Because of this, the gay culture seems to be pushed to only a handful of cities and districts in the United States. I believe that there are much more men and women who might choose NOT to serve in the military if gays are accepted than the number of gays and tolerant men in women who would join. So I think it is simple mathematics. The military has more to loose by accepting open gays than it has to gain.

#13 The US History. I know, I know, “We hold these truths to be self evident... all men are created equal” but the truth still remains that this country was founded by religious outcasts. We were founded by basically religious extremists who were probably thought of by their original nations as nut jobs. These extremists were very anti-homosexual in their theology.

It did not vanish or diminish over time. The two major religions born in the United States, Mormonism and Scientology were and are extremely anti-homosexual.

This undercurrent is still alive today. The United States stands out among the other industrialized nations. Most major industrialized nations are largely secular. Among the major industrialized nations, only the United States remains mostly religious in nature and culture.

#14 Extreme Prejudice. In order to function efficiently, the United States has to execute operation under extreme prejudice. You cannot rationally expect to shoe-horn a concept of radical tolerance into the most brutal and intolerant of institutions.

#15 The Question of Dedication It is not being a homosexual that the military dislikes. It is action on it. The two people who I knew of who (I later leaned were homosexual) got kicked out because they acted on it. With this in mind, I think that if there was a draft, claiming to be homosexual might not be reasons for them turning you away. In stead they might ask you just to not act on it for the term of your enlistment or service.

That is not as absurd as it might sound to some people. When you sign your name on the many triplicate forms you are legally and physically handing your live over to the military's hands. You are swearing absolute dedication to them.

This dedication is clearer in some jobs than in others. Let me give you one example. In the Navy Seal training, they give the people who show up for training a bell. All they have to do is ring the bell at any time during the training and you are moved to another job. They only want people with absolute dedication. For the first week, the physical drills are 24 hours a day without sleep.

Gay's men do not have gay sex. I was shocked to hear and later lean to be true that in the Mormon church, gay men who admit to being attracted to other men are condition to act heterosexual. They are in a sense brain washed and coerced into marrying woman and having kids. If it is possible under extreme religious brainwashing and cohesion that a gay man can submit to living a life of a straight man to please Elohim, then it is not so absurd to ask a gay man not to act on his urges for the few years he is in the military and at leas on duty. Not doing so calls into question his dedication to the military and his dismissal is not out of the realm of acceptance for the military.

For the most part, astronauts have been military servicemen. I heard of a blogger who wondered what it was like to have sex in weightlessness and he spent a lot of time interviewing and asking various NASA officials. He wondered, with all the months that both men and women have been in orbit, how many times have people had sex. To me, it is no surprise that the answer is zero. Good people in the military are have that kind of dedication.

#16 The AIDS Scare. In the movie, Apollo 13, one of the single astronauts who had sex with a female astronaut groupie before the mission had contracted syphilis. Since the three men were urinating in a shared air-tight bag-like thing, another astronaut contracted syphilis. Now, I know that it is not possible for AIDS to be contracted in such a way. I also know that these astronauts situation was rare and most military men are not going to be peeing in an air-tight bag. But they they are constantly and regularly called upon to give blood. During the Lebanese Peace Keeping mission, I was called upon a number of times to donate blood.

Now, I know that straight people can get AIDS and I know that gay activists are going to insist that this is an unfair reason to bar gays from the military. But you know that gays engage in riskier activities for getting AIDS. And you also know that the fear alone, rational or not, is a factor. You will never know for sure if the gay solder let his guard down during leave and engaged in risky behavior. And you will never know for sure if he has AIDS or not. And you never know if and when he will be needed to donate blood.

#17 The Definition of Homosexuality. The actual word, homosexual, is derived from loving the same gender. So why would a man who is sexually attracted to other men agree to shoot and bomb predominately other men. I know the desire to serve your country, but wouldn't a homosexual of sound mind and conscious choose some other means of serving his country? Wouldn't a rational person choose some other career that would be more tasteful (for lack of a better word). A straight man would feel uneasy going on a bombing run if he knew that the overwhelming majority of causalities would be women. What does it say about the character of a gay man who would not be bothered in killing men? This definition of what it means to be a homosexual does not fit well in what would be called upon such a man in time of war.

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable.

 

[zooterkin]

You are Jan Moir, and I claim my five pounds...

 

[Bill Thompson]

You are Jan Moir, and I claim my five pounds...

Nope. But Google says this person writes for a living. So I will take your mistake as a compliment.
In fact, I have read “award-winning journalist Jan Moir”

So since you are wrong. What do I get?

And, by the way, this IS a first draft that I am going to post in my own blog, so no copying. I just want to see what the detractors are going to say here first so I can polish it up a bit.

I thought of a nineteenth reason.

#19 Homosexuals are the Work of Satan. Everyone knows that when our heavenly father created the earth, two of his sons, Jesus and Lucifer disagreed about how the souls in heaven should be tested on Earth and those who sided with Lucifer were sent to Earth to roam the planet eternally as demons who possess us and leas us astray. This satanic influence should be repelled from the noble men and woman of the armed forces.

I make this post for one reason and one reason alone. It is because I want to give people who I can predict will take my posts out of context. Yes, am just joking about the above paragraph. But I did think of a 19th reason. I will post it below.

 

[Aitch]

#18 It Would Be A Gift to Our Enemies. The final reason (for now – I will add more as I think of them) is that allowing open gays in the military would be a gift and a great recruitment tool for our radical Islamic enemies. In war, we are supposed to all be willing to make sacrifices. Banning Gays from serving in the military can be one of these sacrifices. It is not unreasonable.

As opposed to allowing Jews/blacks/women/whatever to serve in the forces?
Or having pork/shellfish/whatever on the menu?
Or generally not being whatever 'our' enemies are in the first place?

 

[GreyICE]

The military exists to kill and destroy. It is not fair. It is not unbiased. It is prejudicial.

If it was not prejudiced, I do not see how they could conduct war.

Individual soldiers have rights only to the extent that their officers decide they have. In boot camp, drill instructors and Petty Officers can legally do anything to you apart from physically striking you, and I understand once they could do that as well.

Black people were integrated not because of public pressure but because of the military's own study on IQ scores. When the found that the average IQ scores of black people in Detroit were higher than the average white person from the south, they decided that integration would be a good thing.

Lets actually stop dead for a second here. Because it's hilarious how far we've diverged from reality already. The army did indeed engage in science. It wasn't IQ tests. In the face of social pressure, they decided to review the performance of their 'black divisions.' It was unarguably pitiful. Terrible. I hate to break it to you, Bill Thompson, but if you had been alive back then, you'd have been ranting about how the black troops couldn't hold a candle to the white ones, and you should boot them all out of the army. It's actual scientific evidence that black people can't do as well in combat as white people, something that you don't have for gays (A more enlightened view, of course, might focus on the black units lack of training, poor supplies, and the hesitation of commanders to use them in combat as reasons that they lacked combat performance of other units, but you're not even going that deeply, so I'm not letting you off the hook).

In fact the army's decision to racially desegregate was caused mostly by prevailing social pressures, and was an ideological decision. The armed forces were mostly of the opinion that the black units were held back by their white counterparts, which was the reason for their underperformance - but that's not scientific at all. That's just trusting our soldiers. Bill Thompson has heard many opinions from soldiers in this thread, he has disregarded all of them. I don't see how the eivdence passes Bill Thompson's standards for desegregation.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-05.htm

On the surface, it seems wrong and unjust and discriminatory for open gays to be barred from serving in the military.

Sure it is unfair. What has ever been fair about war?

I can think of eighteen reasons why open and active gays should be banned from enlisting in the armed forces.

And, here. we. go.

Eighteen of the most emotion-laden, illogical reasons I have ever seen for anything. It's clear you put lots of time into this. It's less clear that the origins are logical, so much as justified illogic.

You say that tradition is a good reason. Bull. Tradition isn't even why we clean our ships so thoroughly. It's because bored marines with lots of time on their hands in close quarters is the sort of situation where bad things happen. Useless make-work is much better than bored people with military training and time on their hands. So clean the ship. Again and again and again. The military has looked at every one of their traditions, and if they're counterproductive, they're gone. This will just be one more counterproductive tradition that no longer happens.

You suggest that gay men might be joining because they want to look at hot soldiers. Right. This seems as likely as a straight guy joining because he thought guys in uniform get lots of pussy. And as relevant.

You say that you can't be comfortable in a shower with 80 guys if one is gay. In a shower with 80 guys, there's a 99.91% chance that at least one is gay. You've showered with a gay man. You're still here.

You say that the military needs savages and ignorant rednecks. I say you do not give credit to our troops. The military is full of brighter than average people for their background - those who want a way out of the 'typical way of life' that they're used to. Those are exactly the most likely to reject stereotypes. Give our military the credit they are due.

You state that emotions and valor, that love and devotion might get in the way of the military. I state that that is a consequence of having soldiers in the military. Soldiers may have friends, and enemies. They might have people they hate and people they like. They might be valorous, or even flinch in the face of enemy fire. They might or might not bond well with eachother. This is a consequence of having a military full of humans. These are not things unique to homosexuals.

We fall back on fear mongering. AIDS, the idea that our enemy will hate us more, the idea that gays in the military will infect others. That gay men can't be dedicated. That the military is just too prejudiced, it would collapse under the strain. That our military would be crippled, our soldiers disease-ridden, our enemy empowered. To this, I say 'yeah, right.' It's the worst sort of hysterical fear-mongering, and anyone who agrees with it should be ashamed of themselves.

Eighteen points? I count maybe 8 if you remove the duplication. I count 0 if you remove the ones that don't make sense.

 

[Bill Thompson]

As opposed to allowing Jews/blacks/women/whatever to serve in the forces?
Or having pork/shellfish/whatever on the menu?
Or generally not being whatever 'our' enemies are in the first place?

We do what we can. Already we disallow alcohol from being consumed or shipped to Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other Islamic places. We also do our best to make sure porn or even any magazines showing women skin from being taken or shipped to these countries.

It would not suprise me if we make more customary chages to try to fit in and thae would include food as well.

What is your arguement? Are you saying the cat is already out of the bag because we allow Jews in our armed forces? Are you serious?

Men are hanged in Iran for being gay and I have hear horror stories in other islamic nation. By mentionig pork and blacks and jews I think you are talking apples and oranges. The degree of repulsion would be amped up if it was known we embraced homosexuality in a way. Common sense would suggest it would be worse if they knew we eat pork.

 

[zooterkin]

Nope. But Google says this person writes for a living. So I will take your mistake as a compliment.
In fact, I have read “award-winning journalist Jan Moir”
and leas us astray. This satanic influence should be repelled from the noble men and woman of the armed forces.

Perhaps you should read this thread and then see if you still see it as a compliment. However, given that what you've posted is as much of an ignorant, homophobic load of bollocks as her piece, though perhaps not quite as insensitve, perhaps you still will.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Lets actually stop dead for a second here. Because it's hilarious how far we've diverged from reality already. The army did indeed engage in science. It wasn't IQ tests. In the face of social pressure, they decided to review the performance of their 'black divisions.' It was unarguably pitiful. Terrible. I hate to break it to you, Bill Thompson, but if you had been alive back then, you'd have been ranting about how the black troops couldn't hold a candle to the white ones, and you should boot them all out of the army.

Let's stop right there because it is halarious how emotionally charged your rant is and how illogical your unfounded ramblings are.

The fact is, I know that the IQ tests were taken because it was my job to know this. I was informed because it was part of my job specificaion to know this sort of history.

Your deciding to attack me personally instead of discuss my points shows me that you are grasping at straws and you choose to attack me because I am saying something you do not want to believe. And not because you think I am wrong.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You say that tradition is a good reason. Bull. Tradition isn't even why we clean our ships so thoroughly. It's because bored marines with lots of time on their hands in close quarters is the sort of situation where bad things happen.

Wow. How would you know?

Here is what I think. I think you are simply lying. You are lying because you assume they were marines doing the cleaning. That is wrong. They were salors. And, yes, it is tradition. It was a tradion started because people at first did it to fight the unknown diseases that seem to only exist at sea. But later it evolved into a punishment for the guys in the bring. And speaking of which, they still do the 3 days bread and water.

I did not say it was a good reason. Now you are saying I am saying things that I do not even say. I said it was a reson.

In fact, it is the same reason why the United States did not adopt the metric system and why whenever there is a new currency, it never seems to catch on.

In our culture, for better or for worse, we Americans for some reason do not like change.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You say that the military needs savages and ignorant rednecks.

That is not what I said. Now, who is the emotionally charged one? You have accused me of saying things that I have not said a number of times. You have also insisted that you have not taken things out of context and then proceed to take something out of context in the very next sentence you write.

 

[Bill Thompson]

#19 Fury. You know the ol' saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? I know that men and women serve together in the military but I still think they do not serve in close confines where emotion erupt and hearts are broken.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and the same is true for homosexual relationships. We can blame love spats for the break up of the band “Culture Club”. The emotionally charged eruptions are well noted by band members who have given interviews about the downward spiral that occurred because Boy George was sleeping with the drummer.

The best way to avoid love spats and broken hearts is to try our best to insure that people who serve together in close confines be the same gender and orientation. Police in San Francisco have reported that the same percent of domestic disturbances occur in straight couples homes as those in lesbian homes as in gay men homes.

 

[GreyICE]

Let's stop right there because it is halarious how emotionally charged your rant is and how illogical your unfounded ramblings are.

The fact is, I know that the IQ tests were taken because it was my job to know this. I was informed because it was part of my job specificaion to know this sort of history.

Your deciding to attack me personally instead of discuss my points shows me that you are grasping at straws and you choose to attack me because I am saying something you do not want to believe. And not because you think I am wrong.

No, I did not attack you personally. I attacked your arguments.

Your arguments are so emotionally charged that you cannot separate criticism of them from criticism of you.

Check out my link. It's the armed forces explaining the armed forces decision to desegregate to the armed forces in 1965, completely and utterly current to the decision, and involving many of the decision makers who actually carried out that decision. It could not be more relevant.

But because an armed forces study conducted by a committee that included, let me check, 4 generals, among others, is contradicted by your personal anecdote... your anecdote wins?

I think it does not.

Your view of history is objectively wrong.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Perhaps you should read this thread and then see if you still see it as a compliment. However, given that what you've posted is as much of an ignorant, homophobic load of bollocks as her piece, though perhaps not quite as insensitve, perhaps you still will.

Naw, I will just look on the britght side.

 

[Bill Thompson]

No, I did not attack you personally. I attacked your arguments.

You said that if I was born back then I would be a racist. Actually, I am neither a racist nor a homophobic. In fact, I love gay people. I just see how other people are going to react to open gays in the military.

I think you have difficulty seperating the civilian world from the military world.

I think you have difficulty seperating what you think I believe from what I think the american public and culture believes.

 

[GreyICE]

You said that if I was born back then I would be a racist. Actually, I am neither a racist nor a homophobic. In fact, I love gay people. I just see how other people are going to react to open gays in the military.

I think you have difficulty seperating the civilian world from the military world.

I think you have difficulty seperating what you think I believe from what I think the american public and culture believes.

Any intention to see that your view of the decision making process is contradicted by the very people who made the decisions, historically? And that your continued ability to ignore this reflects poorly on you? And that if we applied your logic to the actual facts they were faced with, the outcome would have been very different?

No? Right ho. Carry on.

P.S. The phrase is 'I love gay people. Some of my best friends are gay people.' You forgot the second half.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Perhaps you should read this thread and then see if you still see it as a compliment. However, given that what you've posted is as much of an ignorant, homophobic load of bollocks as her piece, though perhaps not quite as insensitve, perhaps you still will.

Ad hominem. I will choose not to read what this person writes for many reasons. I am not him or her. I think it is a distraction.

It is like someone tells me I sound like Rush Limbaugh just because they want to characterize me. Ad hominem.

He or she is a professional writer. She writes for a living. I choose to think that that is cool enough. I would love to write for a living one day.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Any intention to see that your view of the decision making process is contradicted by the very people who made the decisions, historically? And that your continued ability to ignore this reflects poorly on you? And that if we applied your logic to the actual facts they were faced with, the outcome would have been very different?

How would you know? Were you in the military? I was. I get my information from the horses mouth.

No? Right ho. Carry on.

P.S. The phrase is 'I love gay people. Some of my best friends are gay people.' You forgot the second half.

I just can't get over the stubble. Ew!

Try to understand this. The military does not function like a company that gets paid to make a product. Their miopic view is to win a war. They do not want to add any ingredients to the recipe unless it is a new weapon that can go faster and make a bigger explosion.

I think it is also insane that you are implying I am a racist just because I am telling you what the military once did. First of all, you don't know if I am black or white. What I am saying would be said by either a black man or a white man. And, by the way, eventhough most white people i know are illogical does not mean that most of them are.

 

[Darat]

The military exists to kill and destroy. It is not fair. It is not unbiased. It is prejudicial.

If it was not prejudiced, I do not see how they could conduct war.

Individual soldiers have rights only to the extent that their officers decide they have. In boot camp, drill instructors and Petty Officers can legally do anything to you apart from physically striking you, and I understand once they could do that as well.

Black people were integrated not because of public pressure but because of the military's own study on IQ scores. When the found that the average IQ scores of black people in Detroit were higher than the average white person from the south, they decided that integration would be a good thing.

On the surface, it seems wrong and unjust and discriminatory for open gays to be barred from serving in the military.

Sure it is unfair. What has ever been fair about war?

I can think of eighteen reasons why open and active gays should be banned from enlisting in the armed forces.

...snip...

And to go back to my question to you earlier:

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

...snip....

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

What about all the armed forces in the world were simply being a homosexual no longer bars you from being in the military, for example the UK?

 

[geni]

#19 Fury. You know the ol' saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? I know that men and women serve together in the military but I still think they do not serve in close confines where emotion erupt and hearts are broken.

Swedish navy has women serving on submarines. Let me know if you find a situation with closer confines.