Well then why do we have separate billets for females and males? We have separate billets and shower installations for them, but we cant make any more showers? Buildings I know have a price tag on them, but we already make female and male barracks right? Does being homosexual have something to do with why we cant make more showering installations and barracks?

I just don’t understand is all. You talk about plight as if its a fancy term, well it probably does not matter to you as much because if you wanted to you can join the military and you don’t have to worry about being discriminated against, because your not a homosexual right? So its easier I guess for you to take light of the situation, probably more so because of some reason, which I don’t understand, homosexuality is discriminated against. If its because of a showering issue, well, we can make more showering facilities to accommodate them, we already do to accommodate issues around sexuality as it stands. I mean you would not force a female to shower with a male or bunk with one right? So they make buildings and designate them as male or femals for the most part, but we cant do this for homosexuality in the military? I mean if the crux of the issue is you might have to shower with one, well then, bamf! Problems disappeared right?

Something or rather someone is missing from this debate.

I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed that in the over 150 posts in this thread there has not been one from a self-described homosexual or a female (not until Jaime weighed in with an caution).

While the absence of women and openly gay posters does not invalidate the debate, it certainly skews it to a heterosexual male perspective.

I'm not complaining. The military is made up of and draws in primarily heterosexual males. But I am wondering why this subject seemingly holds so little interest to the female and gay membership of .

Forgive the cheesiness of quoting a movie (or paraphrasing it as best I can), but I believe Sgt. Hartmann said it best "I don't look down on N******, K****, W*** or G*******, here you are all equally worthless."

The point being that accommodation of separation breeds, and possibly even encourages bias, and possibly even discrimination. If you have constant reminders in daily life that the person next to you (assuming that person is "different") is in need of different treatment then you instill and re-enforce the belief that that person isn't as able as you. Well, no two people are exactly as able, so there will always be some sort of difference - that's realistic, to make issue out of accentuating that difference with out-of-the-ordinary treatment is bias. As much as I don't want to dive into hypothetical situations I'll toss one out there to help illustrate the concept. Imagine for a second if the military was organized much like a public school system (well the one that I experienced anyway), in the public schools I went to we had several classes in each grade, and each class had kids of comparable ability, so at the one end was the achievers and on the other end was the unachievers (to be polite). So if you had a military unit of achievers (let's exclude special forces here) and along come the unachievers into the battle, it is understood that the "A" team needs to look out for the "D" team. And how does everyone know this, because the "A"s and the "D"s have been separated from the start. If the "A"s and the "D"s are integrated there is no difference based on being part of a "group" (which is discrimination) there are only individual differences, which there will always be (unless we start breeding clone soldiers like in Star Wars). The difference between the "A" and "D" example and the gay/straight question, is that no one has yet to show empirically that being gay makes you a "D".

I'll even toss you an example from my own experience. I've worked in 2 different lines of work that are heavily male dominated - aircraft technician and railroad electrician & machinist. There are women in the fields and let me tell you as a matter of fact, there are always some guys who feel the need to help the women wether they need it or not. Maybe it's the male ego thing, maybe they think they can get some action off the gals, maybe they think the gals NEED the help. Well it does the gals no good to have someone doing their work for them, they don't get the experience that would bring them up to the level of the men, and the guys should be paying attention to their own work. I've even seen cases where the women become dependant on the men, either unwilling or unable to do or comprehend the work. If the guys started seeing the gals as equals then there would just be the normal sort of learning curve for new people and the occasional times where someone does need help because of a particularly difficult situation.

People had said that this sort of "coddling" of the "weaker" sex already goes on, again, that is based on bias due to prejudicial notions based on group identification, - stereotyping.

One of the most profound things I've heard (to me anyway) coming out of this prolonged military engagement we are currently embroiled in, is the idea of the guilt felt by those who are returning home, about having to leave their compatriots. I see that as one person giving another a value equal to, if not greater than, that of their own. It brings to mind the (sorry - cheesy movie reference pt. 2) idea of the heroic soldier who throws himself on the grenade to save his buddies. Do you think that a homophobic soldier would do the same to save the lives of fellow soldiers who are openly gay? I think that the phobic, the racist, the bigoted, the biased, the prejudicial, the sexist, the hater and the separatist is incapable of tearing themselves away from their system of "caste" thinking because to think of other people as equals diminishes how they think about themselves, how their ego allows them to consider themselves better than others.

So to summarize, I do think that segregation breeds and encourages bias and discrimination.

And since I'm wearing away the keyboard I think I'll toss another thought out there. I think there is a segment of the military population that doesn't want gays to be allowed to be out for fear of how it would effect the "image" of the institution. They don't want the services to be quite literally like the Village People's "In The Navy", they don't want the stigma associated with a perceived "gay" organization, they don't want to fend off remarks like "don't drop the soap", they view their service as making them better than those of who haven't served. Should the services get a reputation for being a "gay free-for-all" then they would find themselves the ones being ostracized, the ones being discriminated against, the ones feeling the effects of bias and bigotry based on their association with having served in a "gay" organization, or at least that is what they fear.

Then there is another segment that just doesn't want to see the "bad" people suceed, because this just proves that their bigotry was unfounded, so by denying them the opportunity they can continue to cloud the debate with their unfounded arguments - to that I say TUSKEGEE AIRMEN.

I already covered that and was accused of "stereotyping". I"ll remind all of you that stereotypes are often based in reality.



I never heard of this football player since I don't cruise "outsports.com"... but then again, I don't get dressed up in leather outfits and pose for pictures in myspace either. But who am I to judge?

Since there is more than one poster who wants to see me "broken in half", I'll remind the violence-prone-hate-filled posters in here that "I support gay rights" for civilians. But, anyone with half a brain knows that there are occupations that attract more gay people than others. That fact is self-evident to anyone with any PRACTICAL knowledge. Making such a statement is "homophobic and bigoted drivel"? That's laughable. That's just an other-the-top mis-characterization of my statement and something I find typical from the left.

I'll say it for the record once again, I could personally CARE LESS who is gay and who is not. The only sex life I'm interested in is MINE.

But, on the other hand, I can certainly see the reasoning behind our military leaders when it comes to this issue. And THEY are the ones responsible for making sure our troops are the best they can be, not some PC left-wing-social-engineering meddlers who have already demonstrated in other ways that they abhor our military and/or even want the US to lose our current war and reject the projection of our military in GENERAL. The military is the antithesis of "do your own thing". It's a strict authoritarian organization with it's own code of justice and without many of the concepts of "rights" that we enjoy in civilian life. When you sign up for the military, you sign AWAY many of those rights.

The fact of the matter is that very, very few gay guys line up to serve in the military. If the military suddenly decided that it was ok for them to do so, and thus, introduce the dynamic of men and women showering and living together, I STILL don't think they would be lining up at recruiting offices.

Vermillion claims that 3% of the overall population is gay. I think that's a gross overestimation, but let's just say that is correct.

Of the overall population of the USA, how many actually volunteer? And *who* are these people? When polled, US military servicemen tend to prefer our President George W. Bush by almost a 75-25% margin. Therefore, the military is overwhelmingly *conservative* in their makeup.

We're talking about a subset within a subset. People who feel so strongly about their patriotic duty that they're willing to sign up when a war is going on and there is no draft.

What they do in Europe is of no consequence here. I've read reports that the current US troops don't WANT European troops in Iraq to muck up the works. As they put it, they are "old, fat, and lazy". The military in Europe is NOT a serious fighting force. Instead, it's just another outlet for the social welfare state.

There have been plenty of polls taken of gays and their political preferences. Gays tend to vote, overwhelmingly, for the liberal democratic candidates. So we're talking about cultural differences in additional to "preference" issues. Odds are that you'll find a good representation of gays at an anti-military rally.... but not many who wish to be on the other side of that debate.

Therefore, when you work the math, it isn't 3% of all military recruits who are gay, it's a FRACTION of that percentage because the people who sign up for military service are not representative of the population as a whole.

My guess is that we're talking about 0.1% or so. 1 out of every 1,000 recruits at the most. Maybe even FEWER.

So, when we put the question in perspective, it really becomes, "should we override the judgment of the military leaders who have experience in this matter and introduce the same dynamic as co-ed showers and co-ed living arrangements in order to placate 1 out of every 1,000 recruits?".

The debate about gays in the military is not about those serving the military. It's about political correctness. It's about the left's social agenda. It's really a non-issue when you get down to the reality of the situation.

I once read a quote that said, "Half of all statistics are made up on the spot." THIS post is a perfect example of that theory put into practice.

"Very, very few gay guys line up to serve in the military." How do we know this to be so? We don't. lordhelmet just says it is. Of course, by the same logic, very, very few straight guys line up to serve in the military as well.

"When polled US military servicemen tend to prefer our President George W. Bush by almost a 75-25% margin. Therefore, the military is overwhelmingly *conservative* in their makeup." Okay, once again no actual poll is referenced but even if the troops to prefer President George W. Bush (To what? Prostate cancer? Reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond? Who knows?) does that mean they are "overwhelmingly conservative?" Maybe they're just "leaning" conservative or "slightly" conservative or not conservative at all because the correlation between the two points was totally created out of thin air.

"There have been plenty of polls taken of gays and their political preferences. Gays tend to vote, overwhelmingly, for the liberal democratic candidates. So we're talking about cultural differences in additional to "preference" issues. Odds are that you'll find a good representation of gays at an anti-military rally.... but not many who wish to be on the other side of that debate."

Ah, more anti-gay slander and not a verifiable poll anywhere to be seen. "Gays tend to vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democratic candidates?" Including Log Cabin Republicans, lordhelmet? That wouldn't be a "cultural difference" as much as a political difference, but since you pretty much pulled that whole line of thought out of nowhere, let's not quibble over it. And how you know there's a "good representation of gays at an anti-military rally" only God knows.

"Therefore, when you work the math..." it doesn't add up at all. What kind of math is this? It's not even remedial math! It's numbers tortured and created out of one man's overheated and somewhat homophobic imagination. It doesn't add up to a hill o' beans.

I'd love to debate the facts with lordhelmet but this post is woefully short of any. Plenty of opinion trying to pass itself off as fact though.

I'd say the burden of proof is on your side, nighttimer.

The military knows who applies for the jobs there and who doesn't. They know that gays represent a very small minority and they also know that they'd have to deal with a new dynamic at a time when recruits minds should be focused on MORE IMPORTANT issues.

If gays don't vote overwhelmingly for democrat politicians, then why do they CATER to them? Why do they consider them to be an "important voting block"? What's next from you? Do you want me to prove that blacks overwhelming support democrats too?

The fact of the matter is that the population doesn't line up equally for all jobs. Do a survey of the NBA and see who's there? There are demographic groups that are underrepresented. Not many Asians in that crowd outside of a 7 ft. tall genetic freak from China. And gays? Well there was ONE guy who came out. Out of how many?

Engineering? That tends to attract a certain "type" of individual too. I recently went to my son's orientation class at a major big 10 university and saw a lot of kids who looked like (and acted like) him. I counted exactly 1 African American kid among the 350 or so. Does that mean that engineering school discriminates against blacks or does that mean that they are interested in other things? I think the latter. On the other hand, I have personal friends involved with the theater including several actors who've been on film, TV, Broadway, and touring Broadway productions. One woman I know told me that the game with the single women is to figure out who the few guys are who are NOT gay in a typical production since competition for their attention can be fierce. These are THEIR impressions, not mine. They work in that field, I don't. And ask my wife about the guys who've done her hair over the years. I can't think of many straight-conservative-republicans she's been a client of.

It doesn't take a "report", a "study", or "proven statistics" to point out the obvious.

The fact of the matter is that military service just has never been that popular among gays. If you an prove otherwise, please do so.

As I stated, the burden of proof is on those advocating change and trying to force the military to do something against their better judgment.

Lordhelmet, and I say this with the most respect possible, PLEASE stop making things up off the top of your head. PLEASE.

Had you done even a SECOND of research on this topic, you would realise that the accepted estimated number of gays in the military at the moment is 65,000, which comes to just over 4% of the total military. This number was determined by the 2000 US census, and has been ACCEPTED AS GENUINE by the pentagon. All you had to do was type into Google and you would have known this, instead you just made up the number "0.1% or less" off the top of your head, annihilating your own credibility, such as it was.

Your entire post is based around 'trust the military, trust the military', well to you I say: trust the military. THEY have accepted that an estimated 65,000 gays are currently serving in the military according to a scientific census. Or do you only 'trust the military' when it fits your personal opinion?

Even if you DIDN'T know that number, even basic research or knowledge on this matter would reveal that since 'DADT' came into place, over 10,000 gay soldiers have been discharged from the military, obviously destroying your invented "0.1% or less" figure, and thats just the ones DISCHARGED.


In fact, considering your instance on only accepting the mostfar-right estimates of the number of gays in the general mpopulation, this would mean gays are OVER_represented in the military, exactly the opposite of your wild assertions.


Speaking of you inventing statistics on the spot, your claim of the military "75% to 25% Republican is false as well, as even a brief google search would tell you. In fact as of the most recent poll, the numbers are 49% republican, 28% democrat and 22% independent or undeclared. PLEASE stop making statistics up off the top of your head.




OK, I'm going to say this as delicately as possible, as I do not wish to offend: let us just say that your years of posting on this board have amply demonstrated that your opinion of 'obvious' and 'common sense' generally shares little reflection to reality. Regardless of that, in yours or in Anyone else's case, it most certainly does not form an argument nor evidence.

The Pentagon has already accepted how many gays there are in the military, based on a scientific census, and they completely disagree with your assertions. I trust now you will take your own advice and 'trust the military', and you will be retracting your invented statistics with an apology? Or is that too much to hope for?




Speaking of you making things up...

What report is this? It certainly disagrees with Jane's defence and the results of the US military's own wargames. The French military is in fact one of the most effective and well equipped militaries in the world (who'd have thought?), the Canadian special forces still routinely defeat US special forces in wargames, and have the best snipers in the worls, the navy sears routinely send its best troops to train with the elite German SEK-M (Spezialisierte Einsatzkräfte Marine) the best naval diving specops in the world, and so on. Of course if you did even the tiniest bit of research on the topic as opposed to just making everything up, you would know this.



I asked you this before, and you never answered: how do you account for the 76% of the serving military that wants open ngays to be able to serve? Don't you 'trust the military'? They seem to ahve made their opinion VERY clear, why are you ignoring it?


Droop was very right about one thing: (BTW droop, I'll respond to your post shotly)


We would all be better off (and have a much better chance of keeping this thread open) if we ignored the unsurprising comments from LH and went back to debating the actual issue.

This is from the guy that tells us to quit taking a controversial stance because it's already been resolved and it's time to move on?

Seriously, Vermillion...I think we all could learn a little better way of debating hot topics and neither you or I are exceptions.

But please, answer my question: I don't want to bunk next to, take a shower with, or take a crap next to women. Does that make me a heterophobe?

All your arguments relate directly to this point. Please explain yourself instead of telling us how and what to debate.

Actually, it does take a report or a study or proven statistics to support an argument lordhelmet otherwise everybody would be like you and just bumping their gums and giving us your opinion and your feelings and your thoughts. That's all well and good, but unfortunately near impossible to debate.

The burden of proof is on YOUR side if you're going to jump into this debate at this late date, throw in drive-by stats that come from nowhere and then expect to be taken seriously. I think droop224 predicted accurately what your "contribution" to this thread would be pretty accurately. Lots of smoke and little else.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But if you don't believe in it enough to try and support, don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.



No, the burden of proof is upon you as seem to act as if you know so much about the inner-workings of the armed forces. That would qualify as something as a minor miracle from someone who never spent a day in the uniform of the armed services and all his military knowledge seems to come from repeated viewings of Patton.

Are you agreeing with LH then? Do you stand in defence of his invented numbers and classification of all gays as effeminate hairstylists? I am no angel on this board to be sure, nor are you, but I think the difference between the debate so far and the comments above is obvious. Besides, the comments regarding LH and his stance wasn't even from me, it was from Droop, I was just agreeing with him. I take it by this odd aside of yours you do NOT agree and want to debate the valuable things you believe LH is bringing to this thread.

I have no desire to take up thread-space by debating debating. If you want to stand up and defend Lordhelmet's assertions, then do so, in the thread. Either way, don't pretend indignation because I committed the crime of agreeing with another poster (with one sentence out of a 1.5 page post) that his comments were likely to drag down the debate. If you want to get faux-hostile and pretend thats me telling you how and what to debate, thats your right I suppose, but don't imagine it has any credibility.


As to your question, I'm going to completely ignore it, and answer the same question when it was posed by Droop above, but in a far more civil manner.




Now thats not true and you know it. People certainly made those arguments; you just need to look at the first two pages of the thread to see them. I'll quote you actual posts if you like. Now, to your credit, you never made any such arguments, but others did.



Except now we go back to my original rebuttal: this is already happening. You are not going to be made to shower with a man who finds straight men attractive, you ALREADY DO. The ONLY thing that has changed is your awareness of the specifics. For most people in the military, that’s not a problem at all according to their polls.

And frankly, for most of the rest, I would suggest the fear is exactly the same as 1960s people afraid to shower with Blacks. They did not think they were going to be 'turned black', they were afraid because it was unknown, different than what they were used to. Given that we have proven there is NO actual tangible problem (by the fact that gays and straights currently shower together) then those scared straight men are equally afraid of myths. They might 'turn gay', or the gay man might hit on them or try and touch them in the shower.

I ask you two counter questions:
-If a straight man in the military went and complained that he did not want to shower naked with the other men in a group, because he was uncomfortable being around other naked straight men and was afraid of them looking at his privates (which you will agree is a not unreasonable and not uncommon concern) what do you think the CO would tell him?
-If a straight man in the military went and complained that he did not want to shower naked with the other men in a group, because he knew 4% of the military was closeted gays, and that meant statistically there would be gay men in the shower maybe checking him out, What do you think the CO would tell him?

In both cases: "Deal with it, buck it up, you're in the military now, etc". Now explain to me how that is ANY different. Explain to me how the discomfort supposedly felt by the man in your scenario is ANY less valid or different from the discomfort of the men in those two scenarios, and why the response of the CO should be any different.



You are correct, there is that big practical difference between discrimination against Blacks and gays, but my answer is: so what? So gays have the ability to hide who they are and escape detection. That is supposed to make that form of discrimination acceptable? The shallowness of that argument is dead obvious. You know who else can 'hide' in the regular population? Jews! I bet blacks in the slavery era would LOVE to have the ability of Jews to hide their identity. Does that make anti-Semitic discrimination more acceptable? Your argument doesn’t even make basic sense.

Yes, Blacks are incapable of hiding in the general population, while gays are. That is a fact, but it isn't an argument at all.



Ah, the last remaining argument, oft repeated.

Well, to be frank, I simply reject your assertion that allowing gays to shower with straights would be the same as allowing men to shower with women. You assert it is exactly the same thing, and I reject that completely. You can assert 'they are exactly the same', but that it just that, an assertion, and I submit there are enormous differences. There are a LOT of reasons why male and females tend to be separated, one cannot pretend the equation is the same. One of the main ones is perceptions of power and the desire of women to be separated. Frankly, if one could PROVE that intergender showering and bunking could be accomplished without ANY difficulty (as can be done with gays and straights showering together) AND if the women all wanted to shower in one mixed environment, (as is occurring with homosexuals) then i think you would find a lot of opposition to the idea would vanish.

Worse, as I said earlier, the argument loses a LOT of its validity when you realise that gays and straights ALREADY shower together, without ANY problem; thus denuding your supposedly 'exact' comparison of much of its value.

Across the world there are nations who have allowed openly gay men to serve, and yet still segregate the genders in terms of showering and bunking. Are they all hypocrites, or have they realised that the two situations are NOT the same as you assert?

But tell you what, allow me to propose this suggestion, to deal with your remaining concerns. Install dividers in part of the shower, as exist in most locker rooms and changing rooms these days, so that the minority of scared straight men can go shower without the fear that a specific gay man might look at their butt. That would be a reasonable solution IF the problem you assert ever actually exists at all. Frankly I suspect if open gays were allowed to serve, your asserted problems would simply dissapear in short order.

I asked a while ago if somebody could explain to me exactly what was so different between Americans and Canadians, British, Spanish, Israelis, Japanese and all the other nations who have allowed open gays to serve without problems, and without complaints. Could somebody explain to me WHY the US is so different, or HOW Americans are so different that what worked flawlessly in those nations could not work here?

If the only answer is more common homophobia among the population, then is this something that the military should cater to, especially at the risk of its own efficiency?



Sorry, you are completely mistaken. If that is the case, why do they force everyone to shower in a common area at all? The discomfort is far more than just training for war, a huge part of military training (and this is hardly a secret, its openly stated in most training manuals) is to break down barriers and walls between the men: to eliminate preconceptions or fears which might impede their working together as a unit of soldiers. Its meant to break down the barriers of the racist, the bigot, the upper-class snob, the intellectual, the rural boy who looks down on city types, the tall the short, issues of race or accent or regionalism or politics. One of the Primary roles of the military is to force its recruits to overcome the very feelings of discomfort you are so afraid of. The man beside you MUST be a squadmate and fellow soldier FIRST, before he is black, or rich, or educated, or southern, or Democrat.

A Huge part of the training is forcing men to work together, depend on each other, forcing them into close proximity, sharing space, food, showers, facilities, no privacy, forcing men to see each other as soldiers. If a CO sees a trooper who seems slightly racist, he puts him in a squad with more blacks. They don't CATER to discomfort and phobia, they deliberately try and break them down.

We have already heard on this thread how anti-homosexuality discrimination in the military is a recent thing, hardly ancient tradition and hardly justifiable that way.


So NOW you need to explain to me how a military program DEDICATED to destroying feelings of discomfort and barriers between squadmates should reverse this policy and cater to them now?

I’ve been lurking in this thread off and on, and I have to say I’ve run the gamut of say whaaaaa??? incredulousness and head shaking to OMFG, that is freaking hilarious!! I’m amazed at how many of you guys are obsessed with group showers and whether someone is checking you out. Um, do guys check each other out in the shower a lot? Is it a “am I adequate” fear? Lordy, however do sports teams deal? I never cease to be amazed at the obsession/fear men have about their twig and berries. Sheesh. There's always going to be big twigs and little twigs, and some twigs will be bigger than yours or smaller than yours. Get over it. Nobody cares but you.

Amazingly enough, I’ve been in the locker room and showers at the gym with a bunch of naked women, and never felt like I was going to be attacked by a raving lesbo. And I never noticed anyone “checking me out”, nor was I “checking them out”. If a guy is that insecure about his sexuality, or is that shy about being nude in front of others, maybe joining an organization that is going to force him to live in extremely close quarters with others of his own gender isn’t a wise choice.

When it comes right down to it, who would you rather have covering you in battle - the crack shot gay man, or the straight guy who can’t hit a barn door with a bazooka?

1 - Should gays be allowed in the US Military? Why or why not?

They’re already there, and have been since time immemorial, whether in the open or not. This whole craziness about the lustful gay man wanting to jump a straight man’s bones is just fantasy. Why a gay man would want to join the most quintessential homophobic organization is beyond me, but hey, if they want to serve their country, they should be allowed to.

* Shalikashvili is the Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the Pentagon adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy


Ohhhh, yes, I can hardly control myself!
(nice visual!!!)

Droop, I think this is actually where the disagreement is. I think some here feel like yourself that this discomfort is in fact based on reality, whereas the others would say it is based on perception, just as it was with the blacks in your analogy. I know your arguments, and the counter arguments have also been copiously presented here. I can't argue your logic that perception is reality, other than to say that perception can change. Note that the feelings towards blacks in the military have essentially disappeared. While your argument to that would be that that particular issue was based on myth, not reality--I would counter that the very same thing might be said about this issue in a similar time frame. If you went back and looked at arguments against blacks serving in integrated fashion, they would be very similar--and those making them would similarly claim that they were fact at the time, don't you think?



Is it, though? Hard to say, since homosexuality has only really become an issue recently, whereas separation based on gender has been around much longer. Given that, the status quo would rest with gender based separation, and it would have to be shown that it is currently based on sexuality. In fact, I think your arguments would be more for a change towards sexuality based separation, than towards arguing that that was in fact what it was based on. Clearly, if segration were in fact based on sexuality--we wouldn't need to be having this debate, would we?



An excellent point, which I tend to agree with (which is why I have stated that perhaps currently DADT is indeed the best policy). This is the only argument I can see that might make current military brass side with the DADT policy that isn't politically based, or have to do with recruitment. If you consider the number of people currently serving who might have an issue with allowing openly gay soldiers, vs. the number of gays who have an issue with not being able to be open... I suspect the numbers are in favor of the straigh guys. So, it then becomes simple pragmatism...which decision causes the least amount of issues. Clearly, DADT.

I feel that integration would flip that coin, it would make the situations that accentuate the diffenece between the sexes the exceptional, and the ability to look past gender the norm.



I am of the belief that one of the key dynamics behind sexuality is the aspect of the repression of it. Take for example the days of yester-year when it was considered lasivious for a woman to wear a dress that allowed her legs to be shown or a top that showed her arms or had a neckline that wasn't all the way up to her neck. I don't doubt that back in those days if a woman lifted her dress to her knees to climb into a carriage, or to step over a puddle a casual male observer might become sexually aroused. Since those days we've graduated to the one piece bathing suit, then the bikini, the skirt, the miniskirt, the micro-mini and even "daisy dukes". Despite the still respectable sales numbers of the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, how many people do you think are sexually aroused by those photos to any significant extent. How much more aroused do you think a person of the victorian period would be? The difference in the two is my point.

Think about your first sexual encounter with any of your previous partners, would it be fair to say that you were nervous, anxious, a bit self consious about your body, a bit uncertain about what behavior would be acceptable and what might drive the other person away? Is it fair to say that of those relationships that lasted a while, those fears and anxieties diminshed, that you felt comfortable to walk around naked together, that perhaps you didn't engage in sexual intercourse (or even become sexually aroused) every time you showered together?



I think that dynamic goes on constantly, everywhere, everyday the only difference being that the shower is the only place that heteros haven't found (or been forced) ways to cope with it is "in the shower".



Yes, the military is far behind the curve on that issue. That is not to say that I don't think it should be. Obviously the whole rank system is designed to show to all that there is a system of inequality. The trick is that rank establishes a system of inequality based on achievement, not inate being, which "phobias", racism, sexism ect. do. And I acknowledge the human condition which makes decerning the difference in the two difficult. But that is something that I feel training can instill, and make understood. I see it as a matter of conduct to a large extent, it is no more acceptable for a male soldier of any rank, position, or sexual orientation to walk up to a female soldier of any rank, position or sexual orientation and slap her on the rump and say "good morning toots" than it would be for a male soldier of any rank, position, or sexual orientation to walk up to another male soldier of any rank, position or sexual orientation and slap him on the rump and say "good morning stud". The military has many rules and regulations regarding conduct and behavior which just about all follow no matter how much they might want to do otherwise, I don't see why this can't be one of those.

A thought on a slightly off tangent, I think it would be appropriate for segregation of the sexes during basic training, so that raw recruits are exposed to and given time to adapt to and cope with this different way of living and thinking. Assuming that you graduate, then you enter the integrated forces, and if you have to go through basic more than once to get this concept into your skull then so be it. I'm sure once (and if) it happens people will know that this is to be expected of them even before they join up.

Your point is a good one. Men and women are separated for a good reason. Introducing gays introduces the same dynamic. The military has a difficult job to begin with. Why make it harder just to satisfy the social engineering fetishes of a very small, but very vocal minority?

I won't address vermilion's repeated and never ending attempts to censor and belittle me. I have chosen to ignore his comments because they are posted from a position of weakness, not strength. He's trying to goad me into a war and I'm just not going to take the bait. To bad for him.

And this guy?



Sorry, but the advocates of letting gays unfettered access to the US military have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is NOT on the side of those advocating the status quo. We ALREADY know the status quo "works". The burden of proof is on the side advocating radical change to our conservative military establishment. It's no big deal they say. No? Well PROVE it then!!. The answer isn't that "they are already there" and then hype of a set of unprovable numbers and then attempt to stifle dissent which, come to think of it is the left's typical mode of "debate" from global warming to racial issues to economics, social security reform, you name it.

Once again a devoted liberal poster claims that an American cannot comment on "military" related issues if one hasn't "spent a day in combat" just as the same poster claimed that people who "aren't black" can't comment on so-called "racial" issues.

I've seen nothing in this thread that resembles "proof" that our military would not be compromised by this radical change. And I'm highly suspect of the fact that this "reform" is being championed by people who hold an almost zealous anti-US-military stance on nearly every issue. Our country's military doesn't need "help" by those currently undermining their brave efforts in Iraq.

As I pointed out, one does not have a RIGHT to serve in the US armed forces. But, give the 9th circuit court of appeals enough time and the right case and I'm sure they'll invent one.

Well to prove it as you might want would to be engaging is liberal acts of "social engineering", personally I always thought it was just desiring America to fulfill its constitution. Speaking of social engineering, I am glad our forefathers cared enough to undertake such liberal endeavors actually. I guess though that the constitution, even as worded, is to be acted upon subjectivity to fit desires, such as some people can have equality and not others. Can you show me in the constitution where the federal government has the power to discriminate against homosexuals? I would also like to know, if you do find something, how that something works to allow such discrimination to take place. I guess school vouchers are not some devious act of social engineering though, or maybe its something else, something you like therefore its good, like the wheel, or beating rocks together to make a spark for fire.

Going from your logic, why do some people get to serve in the military and not others? More to the point, why should homosexuals be barred from the military? I just want to hear your logic for it.

Yes, I have noticed you cutting and running from my posts all over the place, you claim it is my 'belittling you', though I hardly need comment on the frequency of your ad hominum attacks. Regardless, I suppose avoiding dealing with the facts and evidence presented does allow you to continue repeating the same assertions, and prtending they had not already been defeated. Much like in myth, how an ostrich tries to escape from predators.

People cite facts, figures, provide proof and thoughoughly defeat your wild assertions, and you ignore the posts as if they had not been written, insulting others while pretending to be the poor martyr targeted by those who would attack you. And you state I am working from a position of weakness?


Sadly, as you have refused to adress a SINGLE tangible point, I don't really have much to work with. I shall assume you accept each of the arguments I made and evidenced in my last rather lengthy post.




Really? Who has been inventing numbers off the top of their head in this thread? You, or people who back up their every comment with evidence? Or are you still sticking by your silly "0.1 of a percent or less" comment?

The fact that you invent statements like that, then in the very next post accuse others of 'hyping sets of unprovable numbers' is pretty amusing.




Really? I posted four or five solid reasons in my last post, perhaps you aren't looking very hard.



Ah, recycling the old 'lefties are anti-military and traitors' gem are you? Fictional, deliberately baiting and slanderous. One wonders how you get away with it...



I must make a confession: I promised myself I would not let you bait me with your usual tactics and insults, and for this post I broke that promise. But since you glibly refused to aknowledge a word of my completely factual and evidenced post answering your every comment, then followed it up with wild assertions, insults and claiming the place of the martyr, I had little option. You picked me by name for your attacks, and for your pretentions of martrydom (even though I was just agreeing with what another poster said) so I felt I had some small justification. Nonetheless, I shall endeavour to try not to let you sucessfully bait me again. One wonders how you get away with it.

To help me keep my promise, might I be so bold as as to actually ask you to answer posts on the board as opposed to cutting and running every time anyone defeats your wild assertions?

The person most likely to “stifle dissent” looks at you from the mirror, sir.

As for the status quo “working”, heck, sexual assaults are on the rise in the military. That would be straight men assaulting women. So separating the boys from the girls isn't working out all that well. Are the armed forces taking away a woman's right to join the military? Nope, doesn't seem so.

And you know, it’s funny – I couldn’t find any article, any policy, any indication at all of gay men raping straight men…not even a hint.

Well, to your points.

1. How have I tried to stifle dissent? You and the other dissenters are free under the US constitution to dissent all you want. What you (and other lefties in A-D) apparently have a problem with is when people like me dissent with your dissent. Freedom of speech does NOT mean the freedom to say anything you want and have it unconditionally accepted. That's true for you, it's true for Cindy Sheehan and her ilk, and also for spoiled and sheltered celebrities like the Dixie Chicks.

2. If the experiment to bring women into the armed forces has not succeeded, then perhaps it needs to be rethought. This is another case where social engineers and people with an agenda got involved in military matters. If straight men are assaulting women, then it's a good reason why those men, who are trained to be aggressive, hostile, and to take the initiative as a matter of survival on the battlefield should not be put with women in a cavalier way. We have lost sight of the purpose of the military. Their mission is to destroy the enemy using extreme violence. It's not to be enlightened new age men expressing kindness and understanding toward the female gender not to mention throwing the gay dynamic into the mix. Are the armed forces taking away a women's privilege (there is NO right to join the military) to join the military? Nope.... but perhaps they SHOULD. And I haven't even gotten into the relaxation of physical standards that remains a huge problem with women in the military. On the battlefield, they cannot literally carry their fair share of the burden.

3. And I reiterate, why in the world should the US military give credence to a group of people who are constantly working to undermine their efforts, cut their funding, and thrust unproven and unwise social engineering programs down their throat???? I don't see how it's wise. It's stupid in my view. The national defense of our nation is serious business and shouldn't be treated like a damn encounter group!

Addressing Gordo....



First, one does not have a constitutional "right" to serve in the military. If you can find one, please list it. The constitution is, by nature, a list of restrictions on government. It isn't a document that grants "rights". I see nowhere the clause that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a member of the US military shall not be infringed".... anywhere in the constitution.

Second, where is there a guarantee of "equality"? We are to be held equal under the law. The constitution doesn't say that we must all be deemed equally capable, equally worthy, or even achieve equality of outcomes. What is the concept of equality as you use it and how in the world does it relate to the US constitution?

School vouchers? I don't understand your point there but I understand the concept behind vouchers. That is simply the introduction of competition into a failed system that is based on a union dominated monopoly.

Why do some people get to serve in the military and others don't? Because the process of selecting soldiers is highly.... uh selective. If you're fat, slow, too stupid, and have a background filled with drugs you are OUT. If you aren't the right type psychologically... you are OUT. They have dozens of qualifiers and if we're going to have an ELITE force (which I favor in contrast to the drafting of losers and malcontents as took place in the Vietnam era) it has to be a selective process. Everyone who wants to be a SEAL or a RANGER isn't accepted. That's the fact of life in the military. And gays introduce a dynamic into group cohesion that frankly may be disruptive to small knit group of guys in a combat situation. Is the same true in an office? Nope. I have gay friends. I don't think they should suffer discrimination in civilian life. But military service is something unequal. It's something that requires a selective process. Not everyone is suited for it and for the life it involves.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

American history in regards to war and female roles has proved females can do the job and even become heroes actually.

I still want to know where in the constitution does a federal body have the right to discriminate against homosexuals, being the military is a federal organization after all, does the government have the right to discriminate like it is? ON what grounds and how?


Here is two links about women in the military, there are many or numerous links overall actually.

Link 1
Link 2

You misinterpret my position. I never said an American cannot comment on military related issues if one hasn't spent a day in combat. What I said was what qualifies you to present yourself as possessing some sort of keen and unique insights into the mindset of the military? You haven't served, haven't worn the uniform, yet you feel free to denigrate the service of gays and lesbians who ARE willing to fight for their country.

You should be happy the very same people you despise are willing to put their lives on the line to keep you safe. At the very least you could be just a tad grateful for their service as you are unwilling to make a similar commitment yourself.

Accuracy compels me to point out I have never said people who aren't Black can't comment on racial issues. I narrowed that down to you specifically as you have proven time and again your views on race in general, and Black people specifically, are benighted, biased and backward.



Paid for how??? There are thousands of brave (and gay) soldiers whom have paid in full to preserve the freedom you enjoy. How have you defended America with the courage they have displayed? What have you done for the country that has done so much for you, lordhelmet?

Please do... I thought I read through the first two pages and I didn't see many of the arguments you were making. If you quote it I will rescind my statement.



And we go back to my rebuttal to your rebuttal. Knowledge affects our psyche. I refer you to the analogy of a spouse or partner having an affair. The fac that the affair is happening does not cause a person any undo stress. They only feel hurt, betrayed and any other emotions, once they KNOW. Do you acknowledge that knowledge of situation changes our out look.

Again to a shower. If someone were secretly taping people as they showered in the gym, would anyone feel abused or violated?? Yet, if it became known they were taped, all kinds of horrid emotions could come to the front. Why? Nothing changed right?? They weren't being hurt while they were being taped, why should they have all these new emotions with the knowledge of being taped??



Define tangible. In fact Hobbes made a statement I think I'll knock out two birds with one stone.
Hobbes


Let me clarify further. The problems between race were always one of inferiority. Whites thought the Black man inferior, less than Whites. That was and is a myth. So perceptions based on this myth caused the anxiety and a desire to be discriminatory against Blacks

Now I'm in the shower with a open homosexual it is a FACT a FACT that he finds men sexually attractive. Now it may or may not be true that he finds me, the guy next to me, or any guy in the company attractive. But the perception that he finds men sexually attractive is a FACT I submit to you Vermillion, and Hobbes, you cannot be a Gay man, if you don't find men sexually attractive. Would you two agree?

So when i say the fears of a homosexual looking at my nude body in a sexual manner is based on something real and not a myth(which was the case when we speak of race) I speaking from the standpoint that it is REAL, it is a FACT, that Homosexual males find men sexually attractive. IT is real, it is a fact that I am a male. Show me an analogy where this would fit in a race debate on discrimination.

I'll make a declaration that:

All homosexual males are sexually attracted to men.

Do the same for race.



Answer one

Get over it.

Answer two.

Point out the homosexual and give me proof. Otherwise get over it

Counter Question:
If a man went into the females open showers what do you think the CO would say.



In question one the individual is only uncomfortable with himself. In question two, there is no real knowledge of a homosexual being part of the platoon, or squad. In my scenario, there is knowledge... something you are purposefully ignoring. I know you know that knowledge of things changes our perceptions of things.. I've come up with example after example where something could happed with out your knowledge and not affect you until you are knowledgeable of it happaning.

I.E. a spouse having an affair. Vermillion yes or no, can knowlede of events affect our outlook on things??



I'm starting to notice a trend. You ask, I deliver... you "so what" it



It makes it more than bearable. It makes it so that they can live where they have options They can join the military and do 4 year and get all the benefits veterans get. They can do 20 and get all the benefits a retiree gets. It means, they only get discriminated against when they want to put their business on front street. There are degrees of everything in life. And if you can be anything, the level of discrimation you are going through is more than bearable.



Yes blacks would have loved it. Yeah, show me some forms of anti-semitic discrimination you are talking about.



Vermillion do you remeber what you wrote



You had to just concede that "there is that big practical difference between discrimination against Blacks and gays" after I made my argument. To which the best rebuttal you could come back with is... "so what". Now you are saying my argument doesn't make basic sense and that it is not an argument at all I think you need to take some deep breaths.

Ah, the last remaining argument, oft repeated.




I just assert it. You reject it. Why?? And I can tell you the equation is the same. All you are doing is adding fe to male. We are both homosapiens. We are both raised in the same society. We are raised with mores that cause us to feel uncomfortable in situations that deal with our sexuality. Pereption of power have been explained. A women would feel violated in a situation were she felt in power. And what exactly is the reason a women would want to shower separate from a man. Is it due to sexuality?? Why does a women feeling uncomfortable with male sexuality, differ from a man feel uncomfortable with male sexuality directed to him.

Don't just reject, give me something I can just logically tear to peices. You say their are enourmous differences... Name 5... or three.... whatever you can manage.



You just took a shot gun and blew up your own argument. No one no someone is gay. If the military is trying to erradicate divisive issues. Why are you telling them to introduce one??? AS I said the homosexual can be anything but openly gay in the military. So why doesn't he/she worry about being a soldier, and not a homosexual.



No you heard rules were made recently. Tell me when were homosexuals openly in the U.S. military?? You want to put up barriers. You want the military to create a problem to fix a problem. You are the one "So what" what the military member would feel.

And lastly this whole idea of "other countries have no problem" you have NO IDEA. Do you know what it's like to be a homosexualin a unit. Do you know what kind of rift occurs. No.. you know some general say "we have not los our effectiveness" Well, gues what.. their generals.. what do you expect them to say.