Obama and the Gay Military...

[Dancing David]

The UK is the size of America's tea cup. The whole country could fit in a smaller US state.

Not really, it is about the same size (roughly) as Illinois.

 

[Dancing David]

I was working with a squadron as an IS. We were attached to the carrier when it was deployed. It was an A6 squadron. I was in active duty from 83-86.

Ever think of the bathroon situation? It is the custom in the US to have men and women to have seperate bathrooms. People are comfortable about this not because of gender but because of who you are exposing yourself too and that is not a condition of gender but who is sexually attracted to you and who you are sexually attracted to. You do not want someone checking you out when you have to expose yourself.

Funny a cultural and social more is now some Law of Nature.

I really find crapping to be the heigth of sexual behavior.

So really, you are attracted to women who are pooping? That is just gross.

 

[Dancing David]

We lived off base for a while and there was one of our roommates who was overly camp and, likewise, everyone understood why and nobody cared. But if he made a pass at someone, he would be booted out. Is that so wrong? The military has rules about who straight people can make advances to, why do the gays get special treatment?

Because if I am hetero I can talk about my wife, if I am gay I get booted for talking about my husband, or even asking for leave to see them in the hospital.

DUH.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Yeah, it is just simple assualt and battery it is not DV, except they do live together so they can get an OP in Illinois.

DUH , gee Bill do you really think that straight room mates never get call for assault and battery. It can be DV as well.

DUH.

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.

And you have zero data and a boatload of your own personal opinion. Might as well call it bigfoot and angels, it makes as much sense and has as much data to support it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some read thing into what I write that which is not there while others don't read what I write at all.

Why then are gay men so different from straight men? You have your position that the military in general and war in particular turn men into sexual animals, and that is why we need to make sure that they are all straight.

You have made the point repeatedly that you consider gay men to be just men in this regard. So it follows logicaly from your statements that this must be what you think, or your thought process is not logical.

 

[Dancing David]

Domestic abuse between couples is much more wide spread and much more serious than fights between roommates. Are you really saying that they equate? Is this what you are saying? Are you saying that they are just as bad?

Are you saying that physical violence is different between people or that there is another emotional component?

 

[Jackalgirl]

If they saw a man who they thought was attractive naked in a shower, I can guarantee you they would check him out.

A good argument for having curtains or doors on the shower stalls (as there are, now, in place). Also, another good argument for having policy against walking around berthing with no clothes on (also in place). Also, an excellent argument for having sexual harassment policies (also in place). Please don't take this as belittling your opinion or experience, because I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm just saying that there are practical ways to afford people with privacy, and to address other people violating that privacy, and that most of them are already in place.

I actually have personal experience on this one. I used to run track in college. There was a gay guy on the team. We were all showering in the locker room and then this dude comes prancing in. I was definitely uncomfortable, but I was not going to worry about it. Then next thing you know, the guy is facing away from everyone in the corner shower with an erection. I grabbed my stuff and got the hell out of there. To be honest, I felt a little violated by this guy.

But how do you know he was reacting to you?

So no, I do not agree with gays being in the military not only for the group shower thing, but also because it would break up unit integrity.

Quad4, gays are already in the military. DADT does not prohibit gays from serving in the military. In those instances in which there are group showers, there are already gays showering with straights. I'm assuming that you're saying that knowing that another person is gay would break up unit integrity, and thusly what you're actually against is gays serving openly (please correct me if I'm wrong; I absolutely do not want to be putting words in your mouth).

Please be advised that the same argument has been used against integrating blacks and women in the military. Vociferously. And yet, here we are, people from multiple ethnic backgrounds, of both genders, generally serving together pretty well. What is your source for your assertion that integrating gays would completely upset the military's ability to accomplish its missions?

I completely and totally understand if you, personally, could not handle it. Were the DADT to be repealed and the military to begin the process of integrating openly gay people, you'd be as unfit for military service as a person unable to handle serving with persons of other ethnicities or of the opposite gender. I don't mean this as an insult. I just mean that the (US) military is an all-volunteer service and if some people just can't handle its requirements, it will move on and enlist (or give commissions to, via the Congress) people who can, just as it did when it integrated blacks, made racial discrimination in general verboten, and integrated women.

 

[Rasmus]

But how do you know he was reacting to you?

The first questions that should be asked are: How did you know he was gay in the first place? and how do you know he was reacting to anything or anyone in the room at the time?

Seriously, someone was thought of as gay in college and had an erection? That's not proof of anything very much, is it?

 

[zooterkin]

Not really, it is about the same size (roughly) as Illinois.

It's also completely irrelevant. More relevant would be the population, which is just under a quarter of that of the US. Still not very relevant, though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah I hope the policy stays in place...I would not be too comfortable showering next to a gay dude. Just like a woman wouldn't be comfortable having a guy shower next to her checking her out all the time.

See you jumped here from checking someone out, which will always happen irregardless of their state of dress, to learing at them. I try to talk to womens cases with out regard to if they are wearing a low cut top, but that might just be me.

 

[GreyICE]

You have not refuted my comments. I don't even know whose comments you think you are refuting but they are not mine. For example, you said that I said that "The military needs savage rednecks". Taking my words out of context and putting them in a blender and arguing against whatever comes out is not refuting anything I have said.

How about your lovely point 18? It appears to be unmentionable now. Oh I'm sorry, the best you can do is to pick one single sentence and pick at it like a scab over the ugly wound of your arguments. All you will do is let the pus out.

I respond to your point 18 in its entirety. You ranked that as among your strongest points, and it was utter tripe. I see not at all how I am taking you out of context (such a laughable charge - you dodge quoting my posts entire, but seem to happily toss it the charge of 'out of context' around) by responding to you directly.

 

[Nosi]

What has that got to do with my question?

Smaller countries have smaller organizations: fewer citizens. That means a smaller military, which the very size means more plasticity.

 

[Nosi]

And the problem is? Sikhs have an interesting historical relationship with the British military. We allowed them to keep their turbans and beards and they killed off whoever we asked them to (mostly various annoyances around the indian sub continent). It appears to have been a sucessful relationship and there is no reason to pretend it didn't happen now.

I did not state there was a problem. You quoted an answer I made to someone else's question or post.

As for the Queen's guards. The two guards were the first of their unit, regiment, something; memory is fogged on the BBC story. They were a first of some sort, and the BBC was reporting on it.

 

[zooterkin]

I did not state there was a problem. You quoted an answer I made to someone else's question or post.

You're right, it was Arcade22 who seemed to have a problem with turbans.

As for the Queen's guards. The two guards were the first of their unit, regiment, something; memory is fogged on the BBC story. They were a first of some sort, and the BBC was reporting on it.

This story?

 

[Bill Thompson]

GreyIce, if that is your real name (just kidding), you have not refuted anything.

The fact that you find one historical record that differs from what I have first-hand knowledge of doesn't change the conclusion. It would not matter if the military really was forced into integration. Two important facts remain. First of all, they had to be shown that it would work in order to change. And secondly, for the most part, they believe that it was they who enacted the change, and not the civilian world.

You take a sentence out of an entire paragraph that I write and build a case around it while overlooking my point. You reiterated that I said "it would be better if everyone had the same gender and orientation". That statement taken alone is nuts and an easy target. That is not what I said in the proper context. You have to read and understand what I write before you can claim that you have refuted my statements.

You also claim that I have said that the military wants savage rednecks. I still think that is hilarious. It is easy to argue with someone when you are free to invent you own imaginary detractor from bits and pieces of what they say.

Your claim that fights are just as much a problem for society and is just as bad and widespread as domestic abuse simply is not true and your insistence that it is does not reflect favorably on you. You go as far is to pull up bits and pieces of on the Internet and even someone who has ridden along on a squad car has chimed in. Most domestic abuse goes unreported. And I have read reports from the local police station that shows how serious the problem is. Stricter laws have to be passed in some states and woman shelters are filled to capacity across the country.

You have your imagination and your ideology to drive your opinions and beliefs. I have my own personal life experience. In three years of active service I came across some pretty pathetic, abusive and horrible people. And yet there was only one time that I came close to getting in a real physical fight with someone. After boot camp, there came our A-School. What A-School we went too depended on what job you signed up for. In a class of 30 we had only one girl.

There were two guys in the class that was close to this girl. One guy was married and the other guy was me. He was jealous and he told me to step outside. I thought he was kidding. He wasn't. When I realized he was serious I just shrugged him off. I wasn't going to fight him. The fact remains that that was the only time I got close to being in a fight while I was in the military.

From where do your opinions come from? We all would like the world to be better and fairer. We would all like to live on a more accepting and less prejudiced world. The Unite States military is a poor choice for a battle ground to fight for equality for gay, transsexual and transgender individuals. You are dealing with individuals who often lack no other career or social options. You are dealing with a mixed bag. You are also dealing with people who are very young. Adolescents and young men often not only cannot imagine how a man can be attracted to another man; they cannot imagine even how a woman can be attracted to a man. A homosexual might as well have dropped out of the sky from another planet to these people. It is human nature to shy away from and even be revolted by something that is hard to understand.

I think my example about the performance of all-boy and all-girl school is evidence that cannot be refuted. It is pretty concrete. Parents send their kids to these institutions because they know they will get a superior education because their kids will perform their studies in a disciplined, focused environment. They are right. The military is not supposed to be a college frat party. An education is important. So is the performance of our military! It is to keep us all safe!

Let's cut to the chase. Please answer these three questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? And what does this belief do for you?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why then are gay men so different from straight men?

Some are chicks with dicks.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Because if I am hetero I can talk about my wife, if I am gay I get booted for talking about my husband, or even asking for leave to see them in the hospital.

DUH.

It isn't like a job. You cannot equate the civilian world to the military world. A company that forced everyone, men or women, straight or gay to shower together would probably buckle under law suits.

 

[Nosi]

Not really, it is about the same size (roughly) as Illinois.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some are chicks with dicks.

No that is transexuals, gay men are distinct from transexuals and the comparison shows your ignorance.

 

[GreyICE]

GreyIce, if that is your real name (just kidding), you have not refuted anything.

The fact that you find one historical record that differs from what I have first-hand knowledge of doesn't change the conclusion. It would not matter if the military really was forced into integration. Two important facts remain. First of all, they had to be shown that it would work in order to change. And secondly, for the most part, they believe that it was they who enacted the change, and not the civilian world.

But that's not it at all! They were NOT SHOWN that it would work! The evidence they used to conclude it would work was BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION insufficient to show them that it would work!

That was the entire point of the link! They concluded it would work on the basis of ideology, of the beliefs of many senior personnel, because of the evidence of other countries, but they were not shown that!

How can you miss the point this badly? How? It is not possible. It is simply impossible. You are writing, and writing, and writing, but you are not attempting to think.

You take a sentence out of an entire paragraph that I write and build a case around it while overlooking my point. You reiterated that I said "it would be better if everyone had the same gender and orientation". That statement taken alone is nuts and an easy target. That is not what I said in the proper context. You have to read and understand what I write before you can claim that you have refuted my statements.

You also claim that I have said that the military wants savage rednecks. I still think that is hilarious. It is easy to argue with someone when you are free to invent you own imaginary detractor from bits and pieces of what they say.

I don't now how else to put it. The modern military discourages both savagery and acting without thinking. Thoughtless actions and savagery are both things that get people killed on a modern battlefield.

And you tout them as virtues. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Am I supposed to consider this an argument? I think I am not.

Your claim that fights are just as much a problem for society and is just as bad and widespread as domestic abuse simply is not true and your insistence that it is does not reflect favorably on you. You go as far is to pull up bits and pieces of on the Internet and even someone who has ridden along on a squad car has chimed in. Most domestic abuse goes unreported. And I have read reports from the local police station that shows how serious the problem is. Stricter laws have to be passed in some states and woman shelters are filled to capacity across the country.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Domestic violence is a huge problem, but I am unsure of what that brings to the table in terms of gays in the military. My point on the fighting was that the military has both experience and regulations in place to deal with members of the military who engage in fighting - whether gay or straight.

These procedures, rules, and laws will work fine on gay people.

Now you have conflated this into an entire bit of insanity whereby I deny the domestic violence problem in the United States, and you suppose that I am to take youj seriously while you run off on rants like this?

You have your imagination and your ideology to drive your opinions and beliefs. I have my own personal life experience. In three years of active service I came across some pretty pathetic, abusive and horrible people. And yet there was only one time that I came close to getting in a real physical fight with someone. After boot camp, there came our A-School. What A-School we went too depended on what job you signed up for. In a class of 30 we had only one girl.

There were two guys in the class that was close to this girl. One guy was married and the other guy was me. He was jealous and he told me to step outside. I thought he was kidding. He wasn't. When I realized he was serious I just shrugged him off. I wasn't going to fight him. The fact remains that that was the only time I got close to being in a fight while I was in the military.

From where do your opinions come from? We all would like the world to be better and fairer. We would all like to live on a more accepting and less prejudiced world. The Unite States military is a poor choice for a battle ground to fight for equality for gay, transsexual and transgender individuals. You are dealing with individuals who often lack no other career or social options. You are dealing with a mixed bag. You are also dealing with people who are very young. Adolescents and young men often not only cannot imagine how a man can be attracted to another man; they cannot imagine even how a woman can be attracted to a man. A homosexual might as well have dropped out of the sky from another planet to these people. It is human nature to shy away from and even be revolted by something that is hard to understand.

I apologize, but your grasp of statistics is unbelievably poor. If we declare that during a child's entire process of childhood he will meet only 80 other children (a laughably small number) there is a 99.91% chance one was gay. For children with a slightly larger class, the percentage rises, well, I would say dramatically (and it is dramatic) but you probably wouldn't appreciate the difference between one in 10,000 and one in 10 million.

Every single person in America has met and dealt with gay people. It is a normal part of everyday life.

I assure you, you may think that gay people are from another planet, but in the military, in your daily life, you have met many gay people. This is statistics, this is a fact. You dealt with them, I am sure. You held the door for them, you laughed and joked with them, you thanked them when they bagged your groceries, you worked alongside them in your office to accomplish projects. You have done it.

And you know the amazing thing? It was just like dealing with any other human being. If you think long enough, you may discover a reason for this.

I think my example about the performance of all-boy and all-girl school is evidence that cannot be refuted. It is pretty concrete. Parents send their kids to these institutions because they know they will get a superior education because their kids will perform their studies in a disciplined, focused environment. They are right. The military is not supposed to be a college frat party. An education is important. So is the performance of our military! It is to keep us all safe!

I think comparing puberty to the most certainly adult people who join the military is a bit of a joke.

But lets turn this around, Bill Thompson. Children are not as relevant as adults. So perhaps you can cite studies that show that workplace performance declines when women entered the workforce, that the average performance of an all-male or all-female office is superior to that of a mixed-gender office. Come now. You have all the Muslim world to draw from, with their wonderful view of women. Surely the superior performance of their operations without them has been noted, yes?

Am I about to earn myself another threat of violence? That was so cute.

Let's cut to the chase. Please answer these three questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? And what does this belief do for you?

If you wish to summarize my life philosophy, here it is:

I believe in problems, and I believe problems have solutions. I believe this because my observation of all situations shows that though there may be tradeoffs, there may be adjustment, and there may be other effects, when one encounters a problem, it can be analyzed, broken into discrete parts, and solved. This belief enables me to deal with all situations in a rational, logical manner, and has been invaluable to me in all of my life.

If you want my statement of faith, there it is: Problems have solutions.

I would turn these around at you now. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? And what does it do for you?