Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, what is it about gay men that scares you so much? ETA: Is it anything to do with this? ...

I am not scared.

So I did not click on your link

 

[Bill Thompson]

I did. I explained that I (I'm a woman, in case this is not clear) had served in a combat zone and had been placed in situations that could result in me being involved in combat (to whit, defending the ship with an M-60 or a .50 cal). I explained that there were no procedures in place, and no expectation, for me or any other woman to somehow be sheltered should the ship come under attack. I also explained that it's not unusual, nowadays, for women to be involved in combat action.

This is a summary. You may wish to review my previous posts. If you desire any other clarification, you have only to ask.

Do you share showers and restrooms? If not, why not?

 

[Sledge]

So why all this problem with gay men seeing your penis? If you're been in the military, you've presumably showered with other men who've seen it.

 

[GreyICE]

Let me be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. Police are not called to domestic disturbance calls where two straight men or two straight women live.

Of course now that I have entirely refuted your position, you retreat to an earlier post, where you hope that your position remains unrefuted.

It's laughable. The police are regularly called to disturbances between two straight men. It's called a 'fight' and it happens very frequently. You may, of course, note that these are not domestic disturbances, but in noting this you must also note the thing the primary distinction between a domestic disturbance between two gay men and a non-domestic disturbance between two straight men is whether or not they are gay, thus rendering your entire line of argument meaningless.

Which, honestly, is something that happens a lot. Does it bother you that so many of your arguments mean nothing?

You missed the boat. I did not say they were rational. I did not say that they were even logical. You see, they are not rational because we are not talking about a corporation. We are not talking about a company that produces a product or service.

In fact, let me say this, if you have not been in the military, I do not think you can possibly understand any of this. It is like a man arguing about women's reproductive rights. You don't get it.

They SEEM to be emotionally charged babble because you are taking the view of having homosexuals in a common work-place. You don't get it.

I also never said that they were "good" reasons. But they are reasons. And at least for now, they are reasons why it ain't gonna happen.

Ah, of course. I do not get it, because of course I disagree with you. Nevermind that I have cited studies that contradict your supposed facts, I have cited reasons and explanations why your so-called logic is wrong, I have demonstrated how your reasoning is faulty and flawed.

These flaws, these pieces of stupid reasoning, this illogical and emotionally charged argument all vanish. Why? Because the poster, GreyICE, who demonstrated all these flaws in your logic, dislikes illogical, emotional posters who fail to analyze their postion or think about things.

Of course. From the Timmy school of logic, because you poor dumb blind kid sure plays mean pinball.

Maybe this would be more impressive if you hadn't challenged me to disprove what you felt was your strongest point. And maybe this would be more impressive if you hadn't ignored my convincing rebuttal of your so-called strongest point, and decided to retreat to an earlier post where I hadn't totally demolished your pathetic position.

No, it'd be an equally pathetic position at an earlier point and time, because its lack of logic and stupidity are not qualities that rely solely on me to point out, they are qualities inherent in your so-called reasoning.

 

[Sledge]

I am not scared.

So I did not click on your link

So you're scared of my link as well? Good grief, the thought of seeing gay men must terrify you.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Another point I'd like to add, Bill, is something that other people have pointed out:

It is not illegal for gays to serve in the military, which seems to be what you are stating is the case (or should be). Military recruiters can't ask (and therefore you don't have to enlist or accept a commission under false pretenses), your chain of command can't ask without initiating an actual investigation, and you can't tell (by either overtly saying that you're gay, or by engaging in homosexual behavior (homosexual acts*, trying to marry a member of the same biological sex).

*As defined by the relevant code (10 U.S.C. § 654):

(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).

So there are already gays who are honestly serving in the military (in that they did not have to lie during enlistment or in the acceptance of their commission), and the situation which you apparently fear will result in the collapse of the military (i.e., members staring at other members' members) has potentally already happened (and, indeed, the potential for this has been happening since the first days of the military). And we still seem to be working pretty well.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Do you share showers and restrooms? If not, why not?

I already explained how the showers and toilets work in USS McFAUL. I also described a co-gender bathroom in HMAS ANZAC, which worked pretty well IMO. Again, please review my previous posts to learn why the point you are trying to make is totally moot.

In case this isn't clear to you (or you don't feel like reading the posts in question), let me reiterate: the shower setup in McFAUL (and ANZAC's Chiefs' head) did not require anyone to share the shower (or toilet) with anyone else.

Edited to add: insofar as I might feel strange if I were sharing a shower with a person who I know might find me attractive (in other words, someone I know to be gay and not in an active exclusive relationship), the possibility of this situation creating issues are emeliorated by two things:

1) In the operational fleet (again, DDGs specifically, since I haven't served on any other platform yet), showers are designed for singular, exclusive use (as are the toilets). Any situation in which this could be a problem is easily solved by the installation of booths or sidewalls, curtains, and doors, and by holding to the already existing regulations which don't allow you to strut around berthing buck naked.

2) I do not automatically assume that anyone attracted to my gender would be attracted to me. Nor do I assume that homosexual persons are somehow driven by their homosexuality to act on any attraction they might feel. Therefore, the possibility that someone could be attracted to me is not particularly threatening. It might be weird, but I can handle weird.

Note: we had group showers in boot camp (all females). I did not have time to worry whether any of the other females were lesbians. Some might have been, for all I know. But I doubt they would have had time to check me out since we had all of three minutes to shower. If I knew that any of them were lesbians, it would not bother me. Because, again, we had all of three minutes to shower and, generally, were being screamed at by an RDC (Recruit Division Commander) the whole time, so we were all somewhat distracted. It would bother me if I were in a shared shower and someone overtly expressed something sexual to me. But that, then, falls under the sexual harassment policy.

 

[linusrichard]

Let me be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. Police are not called to domestic disturbance calls where two straight men or two straight women live.

Of course now that I have entirely refuted your position, you retreat to an earlier post, where you hope that your position remains unrefuted.

It's laughable. The police are regularly called to disturbances between two straight men. It's called a 'fight' and it happens very frequently. You may, of course, note that these are not domestic disturbances, but in noting this you must also note the thing the primary distinction between a domestic disturbance between two gay men and a non-domestic disturbance between two straight men is whether or not they are gay, thus rendering your entire line of argument meaningless.

Eh, he's wronger than you think. I don't know about other states, but in my state (and I find it hard to believe only in my state), domestic violence includes roommates, so not only is he wrong about police not being sent to violence between two straight men or straight women, he's even wrong about them not being "domestic disturbance calls." I did a summer at a prosecutor's office, and I saw DV of pretty much every flavor: husband on wife, boyfriend on girlfriend, girlfriend on boyfriend, exboyfriend on exgirlfriend, exgirlfriend on exgirlfriend, boyfriend on boyfriend, straight male roommate on straight male roommate, daughter on mother, son on mother, brother on sister, sister on brother, and that's just the ones I remember. (Parent on child could technically be DV, but it's not charged that way because it's charged as child abuse.)

 

[quarky]

I don't like to watch guys make out. I'm glad they don't do it in public much. If they did it in uniform, with guns, it might be even worse for me to be forced to watch.
That's my homophobic confession.
I don't know why, but I like seeing girls kiss in public, which also rarely happens. I'd enjoy that less if they had guns.


Btw, does anyone have a handle on the Army's approach to bi-sexuals?
They exist.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I wonder if part of the problem is the inherent inequality that occurs because persons of the same gender in shared living/bathing quarters might possibly get to see something that might tittilate them (e.g., a naked person of the same gender, assuming that it is the sight of a bare body that actually tittilates him or her), whereas if you're straight, that opportunity is denied to you (in America, where the living quarters are segregated by sex)?

 

[quarky]

interesting point, Jackagirl.

 

[GreyICE]

Btw, does anyone have a handle on the Army's approach to bi-sexuals?
They exist.

Yes. You can avoid a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell ejection by proving you have an interest in the opposite gender in certain cases. So mainly, their approach is that bisexuals don't exist.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Let me talk about where “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” came from. As I understand it, Bill Clinton promised to lift the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military when he was campaigning for president. His beliefs changed once he became president and he saw the living conditions on an aircraft carrier where men sleep in crowded confines surrounded by each other. He thought then that his campaign promise would not be functional for the military and he invented “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” as a compromise.

Years after I got out of the Navy, I heard from someone who just got out of service that women and men serve together on aircraft carriers. He told stories of things that he walked in on when a couple figured no one was in a certain passageway or storage area late at night. I don’t know if he was exaggerating but the stories he told painted a picture of the lowest fraternity party rather than a military ship.

When I grew up there was a friend in the neighborhood who went to a private, all-boys high school. He said that it was necessary to get the kind of education that would lead to a better college and a better life. He was right. The SAT test scores from Christian Brothers High School were way above any other public or private schools. I don’t think there are any all-men colleges but I have heard that women who attend all-women college outperform women at other colleges scholastically.

Sexuality is a distraction. It does not matter if it is an attraction or a repulsion. Human beings have sexual urges that take away from discipline and focus. It does not matter that other countries are integrated. That argument is non sequitur. I imagine that they are integrated because of public pressure and a need for recruitment. It makes the job much more enjoyable if both genders are around. That does not mean that it is better. It is a trade-off. Something is taken away. If we have too much distraction in the military we might be sacrificing our security if we came up with a more determined and focused foe.

 

[zooterkin]

Let me talk about where “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” came from. As I understand it, Bill Clinton promised to lift the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military when he was campaigning for president. His beliefs changed once he became president and he saw the living conditions on an aircraft carrier where men sleep in crowded confines surrounded by each other. He thought then that his campaign promise would not be functional for the military and he invented “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” as a compromise.

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Originally Posted by GreyICE
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson
Let me be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. Police are not called to domestic disturbance calls where two straight men or two straight women live.

Of course now that I have entirely refuted your position, you retreat to an earlier post, where you hope that your position remains unrefuted.

I don't think you have refuted any of my positions.

Have you ever had a dream you thought was so real that you did not know it was a dream? The Matrix has you. You are blinded by your ideology. You made some comment that some of my points were copies of other ones. How do you know if that is true or you just did not read them well?

We will see how your logic stands up when I test it outside this forum where you can make knee-jerk posts without really thinking about it or taking into consideration that you might be wrong.

It's laughable. The police are regularly called to disturbances between two straight men. It's called a 'fight' and it happens very frequently.

Dude, there are no shelters that a beaten roommate has to be taken to because of a fight. Your ideology blinds you.

You may, of course, note that these are not domestic disturbances, but in noting this you must also note the thing the primary distinction between a domestic disturbance between two gay men and a non-domestic disturbance between two straight men is whether or not they are gay, thus rendering your entire line of argument meaningless.

Eh, he's wronger than you think. I don't know about other states, but in my state (and I find it hard to believe only in my state), domestic violence includes roommates, so not only is he wrong about police not being sent to violence between two straight men or straight women, he's even wrong about them not being "domestic disturbance calls." I did a summer at a prosecutor's office, and I saw DV of pretty much every flavor: husband on wife, boyfriend on girlfriend, girlfriend on boyfriend, exboyfriend on exgirlfriend, exgirlfriend on exgirlfriend, boyfriend on boyfriend, straight male roommate on straight male roommate, daughter on mother, son on mother, brother on sister, sister on brother, and that's just the ones I remember. (Parent on child could technically be DV, but it's not charged that way because it's charged as child abuse.)

Nice try. Fights are never as brutal as spousal beatings. And I saw a report than in San Francisco that there are the same number of cases between straight couples as gay couples. They made no special note that fights between straight rommmates were as bad.

And I hope you did not miss this.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you have a reference for this?

I remember when it happened and I remember Clinton talking about it later in an interview. I wonder how best to google it. Some presidental records or something? I made clear that this was my memory. I did not look it up online.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I am not scared.

So I did not click on your link

So you're scared of my link as well? Good grief, the thought of seeing gay men must terrify you.

You don't make any sense. As far as you know, I might be gay. I just don't want to waste my time.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Another point I'd like to add, Bill, is something that other people have pointed out:

It is not illegal for gays to serve in the military

Yeah, I know. One of the guys we lived with whem we moved off base, we all thought, had to be gay.

But if you read my earlier post about a guy I knew who got booted off the aircraft carrier for making a pass at a guy, I think that was the right move. A line was crossed and the bond of camaraderie was broken.

I notice that people seem to be missing my best points and attacking the weaker points. That is interesting.

Wouldn't the same thing happen to a guy if he grabbed a woman's ass? Shouldn't it? We don't need people flirting and making passes on a war ship, I think. But that is just me. If you agree, wouldn't you also agree that people should keep their sexuality to themself? That sounds like "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" to me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't get this either. The only way I can make sense of it is if you assume that the phrase "being openly gay" somehow equals engaging in explicit sexual behavior (meatgazing, making passes, etc).

Because he knows that heterosexual men can not be arround women with out explicit sexual behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Eh, he's wronger than you think. I don't know about other states, but in my state (and I find it hard to believe only in my state), domestic violence includes roommates, so not only is he wrong about police not being sent to violence between two straight men or straight women, he's even wrong about them not being "domestic disturbance calls." I did a summer at a prosecutor's office, and I saw DV of pretty much every flavor: husband on wife, boyfriend on girlfriend, girlfriend on boyfriend, exboyfriend on exgirlfriend, exgirlfriend on exgirlfriend, boyfriend on boyfriend, straight male roommate on straight male roommate, daughter on mother, son on mother, brother on sister, sister on brother, and that's just the ones I remember. (Parent on child could technically be DV, but it's not charged that way because it's charged as child abuse.)

Some anti gay marriage laws have made dometic violence charges exclusive to married people.