Huh??? It doesn't have to be that way anywhere in our society.... I still don't get your point.

Well, this conversation NEVER was about Gays in the military. There was no debate, because at the very beginning, both sides conceded that gays were in the military. So the only issue was whether gays should be allowed to express their sexuality openly. That's why the debate took the course it took.

Droop is quite right on his statement about this debate. Further, can we drop the whole silly 'showering with other men/women' example? In the Army these days, communal showers are usually found only in basic training. Army barracks, by and large, have gone to the two man room concept with shared bathroom. Hell, I'm in Baghdad on a primitive FOB and our shower trailers have stalls and curtains.
I don't believe that gay men or women spend anymore time checking somebody out in the shower, than straight people do. I'm straight, though.....I could be wrong.
Integration of openly serving gays into the military will and should take time, but it is an avenue that should be travelled.

My bet is you've never spent a year on a Navy ship.

Your statement might be true in your part of the world, but it doesn't make it accurate over the entire military world.

Well that wasn't the intent. Of course I only get to ask the questions in as clear a way as possible - I don't get to steer the debate, nor would I want to.

The last question certainly allowed for the possibility that gays would be allowed to be open as a compromise.

Perhaps a new thread devoted to the question:

Should homosexuals be allowed to be open about their sexuality in the US Mil?

DTOM, I'm not sure if you're in the military now, but rarely are any forward troops privy to seperate showering facilities. Men in the field generally don't even get showers, and frankly when I was in Afghanistan curtains were rare and unheard of. It was usually fed by a water bivet (field shower) and always cold. You COULD sneak in when people weren't around, depending on your schedule...It's not the point really anyway, as it's more of an illustratin of how America (and the world really) handles seperate sexuality.

Find me 100 Marines, both NCO's and Officers alike, and I'd venture to state that 90-95 wouldn't want open homosexuals in their ranks, deployed or stateside. Of course, stateside Marines shower seperately. You might share a bathroom depending on rank and installation, but most soldiers stateside don't shower together.

The ANALOGY shares the same sentiment, however. If you believe that homosexuals should be in the military, you ought to also argue 100% integration of the sexes. Men and women sleeping, shower, and using the same bathroom facilities. After all, men can be professional and sleep/shower/etc with women, right? Why not? Seems silly doesn't it. I don't understand why people don't get this. It's simply culturally unacceptable.

That question doesn't need a new thread - that's what this one is about.

I don't think anybody cares about homosexuals in the military. Frankly, it's none of my business as much as it's nobody's business who I find sexually attractive.

And that's what "Don't Ask, don't tell" policy is about...simply mind your own business. That system has worked.

But now, it's being made somebody's business by explicitly stating who you are attracted to in a legal sense.

Most of us are quite proud of our military service and remember some of the greatest friends in the world we had/have and would die in battle with them anyday. That's an attitude you can only get in a few areas of public service. But to be able to sacrifice your life to protect the guy behind you involves a unitary cohesion most people wouldn't understand. Yet given this, I am called an unprofessional prude because I want to be segregated from women when deployed.

Man doesn't want to shower, sleep, or sit on a toilet next to a gay guy = homophobe
Man doesn't want to shower, sleep, or sit on a toilet next to a woman = unprofessional prude
Woman doesn't want to shower, sleep, or sit on a toilet next to a man = can I assume unprofessional prude, or is there another standard yet to be created?

Droop, I still think there is a logical leap in your reasoning here. Whereas gays are indeed attracted to people of the same sex, that does not imply that they will be attracted to them in the shower facilities (or anywhere else they know such attraction might not be appropriate). If you took a women and stuck her in the men's shower room, would she be aroused....or embarrassed. I think the latter is far far more likely. So, unless you disagree.....wouldn't the same be the case for gays in the men's shower (maybe even more so as male arousal is far harder to hide)?

I'm bringing this up more as a semantic debate point, since it seems like we're probably pretty close to agreement on actual policy.

Vermillion:

Glad to see that you've declared yourself the debate winner, but such is a tad bit premature, yes? Simply recall our prior discussion on the notion that HIV = AIDS. Then consider:

"Getting tested earlier than 3 months may result in an unclear test result, as an infected person may not yet have developed antibodies to HIV. The time between infection and the development of antibodies is called the window period. In the window period people infected with HIV have no antibodies in their blood that can be detected by an HIV test. However, the person may already have high levels of HIV in their blood, sexual fluids or breast milk. HIV can be passed on to another person during the window period even though an HIV test will not show that you are infected with HIV. So it is best to wait for at least three months after the last time you were at risk before taking the test. Some test centres may recommend testing again at 6 months, just to be extra sure."

Tell me, friend, do humans serving in our armed forces risk bleeding all over each other? If so, how do you propose to keep those humans safe during that window period? And please note, well, if you saw the one movie, this isn't a case of TIA [This Is Africa] and so we here in America have certain "risk groups". Male homosexuals are one such risk group. So might I suggest that in addition to anything related to date, that you might also consider this not as a civil rights issue but instead as a human health issue. I didn't introduce the matter prior since, as you well know, I personally do not believe that HIV = AIDS. You, however, do. So even though I cannot justify anyone's exclusion on the basis of the argument that I just made, as I don't believe that HIV = AIDS, you are still stuck in the mire. And, sorry, but not my fault that we've turned our own blood into a biohazard that need be disposed of and handled by you with those gloves as such. Lastly, please note that when the noted "window" closes, the argument just made closes with it. But until then, you and those in the mire with you need fashion some answer to the human health issue created by putting members of a high risk group for HIV = AIDS into the circumstance wherein they might just have to bleed all over somebody.

Let me re-quote my earlier post: Hell, I'm in Baghdad on a primitive FOB and our shower trailers have stalls and curtains. Yes, I'm still very much in the military. In Iraq, KBR shower trailers are the absolute norm.
I simply think that the argument that the small percentage of gays in the military are going to stake out showers to file away eye candy images for later, or make some sort of pass at a staright guy, is silly. Even if the shower trailers were coed and open to both sexes at the same time, inherent modesty and the virtue of it being a public place, will keep eyes low and the actual time spent naked, to a minimum.
On a training deployment to NTC prior to coming to Iraq, we had males and females in the same sleeping tent, changing clothes in mixed company, and there were no issues.
Humans are sexual beings, but when placed in a public atmosphere, inherent modesty rules the day, not lewd abandon.

Oh great- your best argument is that gays have aids and they might bleed all over the nice, righteous heterosexuals.

Oh man, you pretty much exemplify why this is a civil rights issue akin to the civil rights movement of the racist 50s.

For me there really are only two points to make here.

1) The Majority Rules. Enough said, we all know why

2) Those who VOLUNTARILY join the Armed forces have, I believe, the right to make this decision. The 10K Gays that have been removed from the Military are what percentage of the Overall population of the Military in the same time frame? Uh yea... these Men and women are risking their Lives. In some cases they are giving their ALL. They get to make the rules in this particular subsect of our American society, and I say MORE POWER TO THEM! I am also not going to argue with the Boy Scouts as to who their charter lets in or excludes. If you do not fit the criteria, then you don't fit it. Move on. Life is NOT about forcing every group to YOUR will, what ever that be, I am not going to force my local Sewing circle to go rollerblading because I believe it's the RIGHT thing either! I feel strongly that it is a symptom of our "Politicaly correct " society, which I tend to think is Baloney to begin with. I was never a Cheer leader either, I got over it and moved on. Gays need to do the same.

Just curious; do you think this rule applies in all cases? I mean, do you think that, if 51% of the population makes any kind of rule at all, that this goes beyond any other consideration?

I suppose I should get back to the issue at hand. My own wishy-washy opinion is that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," as flawed a system as it might be, is probably as good as it's going to get.

(And I have no objection to the Boy Scouts, or any other private organization, making whatever rules it likes for membership, no matter how much I might disapprove of those rules, as long as it never gets one penny of government money or uses any government property without paying the same fees as any other private organization.)

CR:

No, the argument is that he might be infected with the HIV and he might bleed all over his fellow male homosexual who has that open wound. Now might I ask why the armed services test all inductees for the HIV? And when you test positive, what happens? You don't get in? Thought so. And the irony here, well, we have the policy partly because some HIV positive soul who was not aware of his HIV positive status had some rather bad reaction to a smallpox vaccination and almost died. Another reason, equally compelling, is to ensure the safety of our blood supply, since we might have to have direct arm to arm transfusions in the field [either that or we use the coconut juice that the Khmer Rouge did, not the white milk, but the juice from the unripe coconut, and I hope to God that you can find a coconut near you, since at least the juice does add volume and otherwise supplies some valuable sugar]. And speaking of safety, well, we do test the civilian blood supply for HIV contamination, yes? Why is that?

The other compelling reason is, as stated, uninfected you has an open wound, infected him takes a round and then bleeds all over your open wound. We've got medical personnel here at home worried about a contaminated needle. Which do you think is worse, being stuck with a contaminated needle or having infected blood applied directly to your open wound? And newsflash for you, my life is worth more than his right to serve. End of story. And if you can't see that, well, then there is simply no point in addressing my remarks to you on a moral basis, since you have no morals worth respecting.

The Federal Court of Australia has otherwise already ruled on this issue in relation to their armed services, and no unlawful discrimination was found [discharge following a positive HIV test, see Commonwealth v. Equal Rights and Opportunity Commission and Anon (1998)]. As the one Justice so aptly put the matter, bleeding safely is an intrinsic requirement of the job. And those others already risking their lives, well, they don't need to risk their lives again because of your contaminated blood. But at least the soldier in that case, as well the EROC, had the good grace to admit that there was the risk of inadvertent transmission of the HIV owing to the HIV positive status of the soldier in question. So to his credit, our gay man in Australia is at least prepared to acknowledge what you are not. And how Orwellian is your thought process? You don't get to dispose of the surgical gloves and that gown as a biohazard and then say that there isn't any risk of HIV transmission when open wound you has blood sprayed all over you when your friend nearby takes a round or two. And bad enough that Major Reno wasn't all there at Little Bighorn after his friend's head splattered all over him, let's not make it any worse by adding to the mix him now having to worry about HIV transmission as well.

Lastly, you might try something other than lame and pathetic allusions to racism to justify your position, unless, of course, Cicero was right, and you have no defense, and so you must now attack me personally. I suppose that my consolation here is Vermillion's tacit agreement that your ad hominem means that I've prevailed in our debate, since our debate isn't about the merits any more but about me. And, sorry, but not otherwise my fault that my first witness is our gay man from Australia who is prepared to acknowledge on the stand that there is a risk of inadvertent transmission of the HIV. Your consolation, if you would have thought with your mind instead of your emotion, is simply that you need only close that window that I wrote of. Then the argument closes with it. So take some chem and biochem classes and then do us all a favor and close the window.

KivrotHaTaavah... I think I speak for all of us when I ask: What the heck are you talking about?

Gays can't openly serve in the military because they might have AIDS, get shot and bleed all over their fellow homosexual soldiers? (Stunned Silence)

That is crazy on so many seperate levels I scarecly know where to begin.

-There are FAR more straight people than gay people infected with AIDS in the general population, so I assume you believe we should ban straights from the military? Or should we just ban bleeding?

-The debate is about gays OPENLY serving. Even if your absurd 1980s steriotype about AIDS-ridden gays were based in reality, gays ALREADY serve in the military. Unless you have some crackpot study which shows that openly admitting homosexuality to a superior officer = having AIDS?

-The very BEST your argument could be used for, is insisting that all recruits submit to an AIDS test when they join the military. Oh WAIT, they already Do! So what is your point exactly?

Is this another attempt to convert yet another debate into an argument about your personal belief that HIV does not cause AIDS and that the entire world's medical experts are all involved in a massive fraudulant conspiracy?


And while we are on the topic of fraud, you bizarrely chose to call me out by name, TWICE, making up comments about what I've said, namely: That I've already declared victory in this debate (Complete fiction I did not such thing, nor even close) and that I gave my 'tacit agreement' to you wimnning this debate (Complete fiction, I did no such thing, or even close). Whats with the calling me out and making up things? Or are you just seeing me everywhere now? Do I talk you when you are alone in your room at night? You know you can get that treated: Oh right, I forgot, you believe there is no such thing as mental illness and all Psychiatrists and Psychologists in the world are involved in a massive fraudulent conspiracy.

Even your irrelevant evidence is completely Fraudulent. In the HIV testing decision taken by Australia in 1998, we have no idea if the man in question was gay or straight, his sexuality was specifically protected to preserve the impartiality of the ruling. Or are you just assuming that, since he had HIV, he MUST be gay? That case also had NOTHING to do with gays in the military, and was about the Australian military policy of testing for HIV and hepatitis B and C, and excluding potential recruits who tested positive for any of them.


ANYwyas, back to the actual debate at hand:





Well Aevans is just wrong (shown below), and Danae, even if you are correct about majority rule (wich I disagree with) that argument falls on the side of allowing open gays in the military.

As has already been stated in this thread:
A Zogby poll of soldiers actively serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 demonstrated the following:
"WASHINGTON, DC -- A new poll from Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center reveals that U.S. military personnel are increasingly comfortable serving with openly gay colleagues. The poll, released today, reveals that 73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units."

The military that some here are fighting so hard to protect seems fine with allowing gays to serve openly, by quite a substantial majority. Does the majority still rule?



Then there is the last open question in this debate, which has been bandied about for several pages now: We can't allow gays to openly serve in the military because we don't allow men to bunk with women. I adressed that before, allow me to address it again in more detail. The essential argument here is that the genders are separated based on sexuality, and not gender. I have stated before that I reject this assertion: genders are separated based on GENDER, not on sexuality. I simply reject the assertion that men showering with openly gay men would be exactly the same as men showering with women.

Now, in response to my posting that last time, I was asked to demonstrate this statement, a very reasonable request in such a forum (for most people, anyways). OK, so here goes.


In Human society, men and women are always, and I mean always separated on the basis of gender with no regard for sexuality. This is the common reality in every facet of life. Every High school gym, fitness centre, workplace, home, public building, auditorium, sports arena, bar and restaurant: every civilian facility in the first world, and I mean every one, seperates the sexes based on gender, not sexuality. in Not ONE will you find seperate facilities for gay men or gay women. But what about places where men and women are confined for long periods with little privacy? same thing. Every oil rig, research station, prison, ship at sea, every militia compound, fire station, truck stop, every one of these separates the sexes based on gender, and not sexuality, every one. Even gay bars have two and only two bathrooms, men only and women only.

So on what do you base the assertion that sexes are separated according to sexuality? Do you have any evidence for this at all?

In the militaries of 13 different countries including Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, France Portugal, Spain, ROK, Japan and Israel, homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, and they share gender based facilities, not sexuality based. Are those nations all wrong or crazy? Are they deluded in their perception of the sexes? In Canada, the exact same problems were predicted by conservatives in that country as are being predicted now. And when homosexuals were allowed to serve openly (according to a survey done by the United States GAO): In Canada, where problems in these areas were predicted, military officials said none had materialized since the revocation of the
policy banning homosexuals."

Are they just foolishly mistaken about how and why society differentiated between the sexes?


But there's more. IF, as some suggest, the ONLY reason we separate the sexes is based on open awareness of sexual interest (since apparently sexual interest when unspecific, the situation supposedly going on now, is fine) then why not set gay men to shower with women? The women there don't need to worry about the men looking at them with sexual desire, and according to some here, open awareness of sexual desire is the ONLY reason we separate the sexes? Right?


Frankly, there is in human society NO evidence that separatuon of the sexes is based on sexuality, and vast evidence that it is based on gender. there is also plenty of evidence, both in the ENTIRE WORLD and in the militaries of other countries, that homosexuals and straights showering together causes no problems. In the olympics, the sexes shower annd have facilities based on gender, not sexuality. I fully accept that an occasioanl athlete might feel a bit uncomfortable showering in a room with a homoseual, especially if they have never done it before. But does ANYBODY ever claim that showering with homosexuals would affect the athlete's performance in the olympics?


One of the common questions is about the guy who feels uncomfortable showering with women, does that make him a 'heterophobe'. No of course it doesn't, nor for that matter does the man uncomfortable with showering with gays automatically make him a homophobe, nor does the man afraid of showering with blacks automatically a racist. Lots of people are uncomfortable showering in public with people of their own gender, that soesn't make them a... er... I don't know what you would call that... same-sex-but-not-gayophobe? In the military, you are expected, in fact, you are FORCED to overcome all these little niggling uncomfortabilities. People who feel them initialy are not necessarily 'phobic'.

Hell I remember the first time I played Rugby (I'm second row forward) i was uncomfortable binding onto the prop in the scrum bu putting my hand between his legs from behind and reaching up and grabbing his waistband. I got used to it. So did the men first forced to shower with Blacks, so did the men showering with gays in militaries around the world, so do men showering with gays in every single sector of public and civilian society. So will the men in the US military. Unless somebody here can actually JUSTIFY or give evidence or reasoning why it would be COMPLETELY different in the US military of course: otherwise it's just an assertion, and an assertion already disproven by the military polling results I posted above.

However, people who are 'uncomfortable' showering with specific openly gay men (as opposed to showering with unspecific gay men -the status quo), AND who then feel that their feelings of mild Discomfort justify kicking thousands of military men OUT of the military... well, thats a bit more open to question now isn't it?

As always... you have no understanding of the situation, and are obviously the champion of something you know little or nothing about.

The poll, found here, does not ever state that ANY troops believe that homosexuals should be allowed in their units.

Also, did you look at the study? It's hilarious. They polled the whopping 545 soldiers, and the margin for error was +/- 4.3%. It also included over 71% white people. Who on earth did they poll? The military is about 45%+ minority.

The funniest thing is that the quote you posted does not include this from the survey...


Know what the answer was? Only 26% said they agree. Seriously.

My statement was and always has been that someone in a forward unit, in a combat arms role, will have a 100% different perspective. Someone in the Airforce, even in war time, very well may not have to sleep, eat, or shower in close quarters. A Marine in a forward base typically will sleep shoulder to shoulder, etc with his men.

Your statements act as if the fitness center in your local canadian town is a good example. The frank nature of this beast is that you truly DON'T UNDERSTAND, as I'd be surprised if you've been camping much less sleeping in pup tent within inches of other men.

It's a matter of morale, a matter of culture, and frankly the statistics are easily understood and interpreted. Why? Here are some more interesting stats from the study:


Any ideas why????
WOMEN ARE NOT IN FORWARD COMBAT ROLES...and the Army/Marines are the most likely to have to deal with these situations. wow. Surprise surprise.

I could go on and on with the information in this poll... but don't really need to. It's like a Librarian telling us about what plumbers should do, when she doesn't even know what a pipe wrench looks like. It's absurd. People in the US that support gays in the military obviously are rarely veterans and/or are generally homosexual and/or have close ties to homosexuality.

Vermillion, read the study and get back with us. I'm sure that you'll stop posting this Zogby information as it's pretty clear cut that there ARE NOT a majority ... not even close... of combat arms units that are interested in homosexuals in their ranks.

Really?? I'm an Infantry Senior NCO, serving in a light Infantry Brigade, in Baghdad, in wartime. I don't have a 100% different perspective. Doesn't that render your statement false?



You may have to reconcile your thoughts with the female MP's that see more action on a day to day basis than all of my Infantrymen. And my unit isn't alone with this situation.


I refer you to my earlier statement. Am I now gay? Don't tell my wife......
I don't advocate an overnight transition, but it's one that will come about sooner or later anyway. If someone able and capable of serving wishes to, I could care less about their sexual orientation. The sexual deviance of some of my straight soldiers worries me more.......

The Majority DOES rule. 51% is a Majority and granted there will be nearly 1 of every 2 people that do not like it. I have to say with all honesty and a certain amount of tongue in cheek: Suck it up Princess. This is a Republic, and we all as continuing citizens, agree to be bound by the rules of the society we live in. Just one of those is Majority rules.

That being said, I do NOT believe that argument makes the case for openly Gay personal in the Military. It makes the case ONLY that the Military should make its OWN rules inside its own society that govern issues like this. These Men and Women are making sacrifices that you and I can not even begin to relate to. Trying to shove MY or YOUR opinions down their throats, forcing rules of a society that in large part DOES NOT WORK FOR THEM, is beyond arrogant. Its also Ignorant. Ungrateful, perhaps dangerous, and a dozen other things I can't possibly think of.

Our Military Men and Women are incredibly intelligent, educated, highly trained people. They are fighting for our freedom, the freedom of the Iraqi people. I trust them to make their OWN decisions on the matter. What ever that choice may be. They are FAR more qualified to make it than any Civvy.

You had me right up to the "they're fighting for our freedoms part". If they are, then their doing a pretty bad job at it since we seem to lose more freedoms everyday (Patriot Acts, wiretapping, etc).

Fighting for Iraqi freedom? Maybe. Fighting for our freedom? Nuh-ugh. It's a sexy soundbite, but has no basis in reality.

But in terms of the topic we're discussing, I think something can be said for the premise of not forcing societal values on a group that do not have those same rights. Our military service-people are governed by a different set of standards and laws. If you're going to force societal compliance on them, then don't stop with a hot button topic - do it all the way.

I think you had a decent point in there somewhere. It's the soundbites from our leading propagandists (Rush, Hannity, et al) I could live without.

I think what she meant was that in general our military fights to protect our freedoms. This has always been said of our military, even before any of the Iraq wars.

This battle right now is specifically fighting for Iraqi freedoms. But as a whole the US military is there to protect the freedoms of the United States. It's not really a sound bite, but an accurate description of the job of the US military.

When in doubt, launch into your post with a childish person attack 'as always'. Right Aevans?



Not sure what your point about the number polled was, basic statistics tells you that is a sufficient sample group. Guess that would make you wrong. Oh, and the military is 45% minority? Really?

Because a 2004 Cnesus of Americas Military population found that 65% of enlisted men were white and 83% of officers were right. guess that makes you wrong again.



Really?

How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your unit’s overall
morale?

72% state either no impact or positive impact on morale.

Would you have still joined the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve
openly?

Yes: 77%
No: 10%
Not sure: 13%




Yes, though you MIGHT want to add (if you were making any effort at being unbiased) that a full 37% of respondants answered that they did not know or were unsure.

Oh, and while we are at it, some other things you have been wrong about:

In your current unit, how often do you take showers privately, such as in a single-stall
shower rather than an open group shower?

Almost Always Privately 49%
Usually Privately 22%
About Half and Half 17%
Usually Group Showers 5%


Now, were I a pertty or shallow person, i would make some sort of comment here about how, 'as always [b]aevans you have no understanding of the situation and know little or nothing about it', as shown by your repeated errors of fact. But That would be childish and deliberately insulting, not to mention against the rules.




Absurder and absurder. Was fitness center the limit of my point? No it was one out of about 18 examples. Why on earth would you pretend that it wasn't? What possible benefit could there be to your argument to make up such an obvious falsehood?

As for your 'certainty' I've never been camping, let alone camping with other men, that goes beyond insulting and into the absoutely surreal. Who the heck are you to speak with authority on ANY aspect of my life, let alone if, when, with whom and in what situations I have been camping? In what imaginary world can you make a statement speaking with authority regarding how often I venture into the wilderness, the number of men I have been camping with, and the relative distance between us when we slept? Are you deliberately trying to destroy any shreds of credibility you might have here?


I presented a well argued and well evidenced post, as polite and civil as i could manage, and the best answer you could summon up was this deliberately insulting drivel? I admit, its still not as bad as 'gays can't serve because they all have aids and straights might get it', but its close...




Yes, that my fault, I wasn't clear in my statement. I agree that in a democratic state the majority rules, my comment was not meant to dispute that fact, it was meant to say that this should not ALWAYS be the case. Frankly the argument of 'majority support' is always a weak one because one could easily point to a LOT of other controvercial topics which also have majority support, and suddenly many people would find themselves abandoning the value of majoritarian decision making.




Am i to presume you feel exactly the same way about how President truman FORCED (against their will) the military to accept black recruits? They were certainly unhappy about having that forced down their throats...

Question for the group at large:

Is it possible that MAYBE there is another aspect to this debate beyond the 'group shower?' This is sooooo silly.

If you want my opinion the rejection of gays in the military has NOTHING to do with soldiers feeling uncomfortable in the shower and EVERYTHING to do with gays being seen as weak and unpatriotic (liberal). I could be wrong.

Whatever the case, can we please talk about something other than the shower? what a lame discussion.

have to completely agree with you Vermillion... man that knock to the head has us agreeing on a topic. You should really see a specialist

Wrong... and wrong again.


Ugh... according to this link, 42.6% were black, hispanic, or women alone. This doesn't address Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Asians, etc, etc.



This never directly asks if homosexuals should be allowed. It doesn't ever directly ask the question. Why??? Because Zogby knows what the answer is.



I get aggravated because you don't read the posts, but rather argue semantically about something you obviously do not understand.

Break out these stats, it's really AGREEING with me.

If 22% are taking showers with the same sex, that probably correlates to what I've been saying all along. People NOT in forward combat roles usually have more privacy. I've said that numerous times. These aren't the issue. I also believe that if you read the stats I provided and the arguments on why the Army and Marines are more concerned, you'd get the point.

Two points you cannot refute with factual information (backed by links):

1. Units in combat arms roles, particularly forward units, are far less likely to want homosexuals in their ranks.
2. There is no proof of a soldier serving successfully in a combat arms role in a forward area.

This leads me to the same statement that you have NOT been able to argue. It is NOT feasible, nor is it beneficial, to attempt to put homosexuals in combat arms units that have the capacity to be in forward units. If there could be seperate accomodations, it might be feasible.... but my sincere apprehension is that would lead to full integration and the breakdown of cohesion in units. Homosexuals in the US already claim discrimination for just about anything, I could only imagine if there were 'seperate' terms for their military service.

If it should not ALWAYS be the case, where do you draw the line?? At what point on which topic? I disagree with this statement because it is the first steps toward Socialism. "We are going to take things from you for the common good" said Hillary. Not on my watch! Majority rules is meant to make sure that no MINORITY got control of the Nation, ie ROYALTY. Its worked well for 200+ years, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Obviously its worked, people WANT to come to the United States! In DROVES, we are the bastion of freedom, the light that gives hope to millions of people. Majority rules is part of that creation.


People talk about the Patriot Act and the loss of freedom it has cost us. To this I say, WHAT FREEDOMS? I mean really, are you prevented from going to the store and buying what you want? Are you denied your Freedom of speech? Are you still allowed to make stupid choices in your investment portfolio? Heck yea. As far as I am concerned, these "Losses" or our freedoms are the Left Wing's talking points, a fallacy sewn of whole cloth. When settlers were fighting the British for their freedom, they voluntarily gave up their freedom of movement in order to better attack the enemy as a whole. They gave up their freedom of dissent as they followed their leaders into battle often costing them everything they ever owned and everything their families ever created. What freedoms have YOU lost? What freedoms have ANY of us lost in reality? Oh someone MIGHT be recording which numbers you call on your cell phone? BIG DEAL! So WHAT!? The Right to Privacy? You lose that the moment you ioen the curtains in your house, ANYONE can look in. What freedoms have ANY of us lost? Really?

What the heck are you talking about?

The source YOU listed, the one you linked to does not give those numbers at ALL.

Total Active Duty for the Regular Army:
White: 61%

Officers:
White 75%

In case you get confused, thats the Race/ethnicity by gender chart on page 4. You would be better off if you didn't misrepresent your own links. Not, of course that this has anything do do with the Zogby survey...

The national Guard is even more white: Total Active duty:
74% white

Officers
83% white



No Aevans, you personally believe that YOU know what the answer is, and you have taken to presenting your personal unevidenced bvelief as fact. Don't presume to tell other people what their opinions are. You made yourself look silly enough doing that in your last post.



That is your asserted version of what you wish those stas meant, there is NOTHING in them at all that confirm it. You put your personalised spin on them all you want (again), but thats all it is. Don't keep repeating I 'have no idea what I'm talking about' when all you present is inaccurate numbers, personalised -wish-list versions of what you would like to read into charts, and bizarre declarations about the campion habits of people you have never met.




What stats you provided? I see the stats you got wrong in this last post, and I see stats you made up off the top of your head about marines earlier on: perhaps you could direct me at the stats you apparently provided that evidence your assertions?



Complete assertion. hey, here's an idea, rather than challenging others to prove your wild asertions false, why don't YOU actually try and support it with some evidence? Do you have ANYTHING at all that would lend this assertion any credence? Or shall we treat it with the same amused skepticism as your assertions about my camping habits?



You are correct, I can't prove that: largely because it makes no sense whatsoever. Work on that.




Oh Come ON aevans, is it so hard for you to debate this issue seriously without the fiction and the grandstanding? I argued that EXTENSIVELY in quite a long post a page ago, challenging all the wild assertions you just put forward, especially regarding the total lack of need for 'seperate accomodations', yet ANOTHER of the wild, unfounded assertions you have done nothing to substantiate. The fact that you chose to deliberately ignore the bulk of that post, choosing instead to engage in ad homunum insults and assertions about my camping habits, is YOUR problem, not mine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, given that you have slightly wandered away from the topic, and didn't answer my question, I don't want to tackle this too much for fear of dragging things further away, BUT...

I mean, do you want me to list you all the times the wil of the majority was overturned for the good of all? can you tell me where the will of the 'majority' rested in the following cases: abolition of slavery, votes for women, blacks in the military, and so on.

If you are so in favour of the universality of the majority, then I assume you are:
-Pro-abortion
-Pro-gun control
-Pro-Kyoto accord
-Anti-Iraq war
-Anti Bush jr.
-Pro Bill Clinton
-pro-socialised medicine
-Anti drilling in ANWAR

All things favoured by the MAJORITY (if at times a slim majority) in the US. Do you accept the perfect truth of the majority in all those cases?



Well, thats well crafted rhetoric, but in reality the people coming in droves are coming throm third world or impoverished nations. In fact in terms of canada at least (net immigration vs. emmigration) more Americans are leaving then canadians entering... besides, majority rules, by which i assume you mean democracy, long predates the United states...




Well,its getting too far off topic to deal with that little diatribe, suffice to say I suspect many a police state used quite the same arguments to justify their intrusions. Frankly the right to privacy is not something to be lightly dismissed, and the growth in power of the government is hardly something to be brushed aside in such a glib manner.

So- your main objection to homosexuals will bring thier aids virus to the military- why-you okay with heteros haveing aids in the military>? what is exactly your point in bringing HIV into the debate at all?

Again, it is very hard Hobbes to defend something I am not saying. A Gay may or may not be aroused, as you say if the arousal is extreme we would all likely know if it is a male. So a woman, may or may not be aroused, an they may or may not be sexually attracted. I wouldn't know, and you wouldn't know. But sexual attraction does not equal arousal. Usually aas you pass puberty it may take a touch or two for most of us to go from "looks good"... to "oh god, looks so good."

However, Gay men are sexually attracted to men, with or without clothes on. And I never thought I implied anything else. My point is isn't when they are sexually attracted to a man, but that an individual may not want to stand nude in front of men who are sexually attracted to men.




1. Please, you don't need to brag about how much money the Army and Airforce has to spend on shower dividers...lol Every body in the other services already know.

2. Why has this debate continuously.... CONTINUOUSLY.... been strawmen after strawman.



You're not the first... you won't be the last person to say how silly a non-argument is. OF COURSE.. saying gays are going to stalk out showers is silly.

Also when you are out there do you allow the women privacy to change their underwear??? Or do you sit right there and hold a conversation while she puts on her bra and panties??? Answer that...

That is what do you call it? Oh, another straw man- you see- whenever a man, gay or straight, or a female, gay or straight "change thier panties"- everyone gives them a moment of privacy- even when there is no privacy. It is part of social conditioning- like large families that live together choose not to hear the adults having sex, or pooping, or whatever.

What DTOM and myself have experianced is this-

1) We have served with women in forward positions, that made segregation impossible.
2) We dealt with it like professionals.

If squeamish straights can't stand to serve with gays- it should be those straights that are tossed out on thier ears- same as when Truman forced the army to integrate races as well.

Soldiers will do as they are ordered and trained to, and if they don't- they are simply not good soldiers (of course- within reason- you don't participate in a holocaust, for instance)-

Daytonrocker- I respect you just about as much as anyone on this board- and you would be one of the folks that I like to meet in person- you are a moral person that stands by your morality, even when your party is in power- that garners respect- but, I am not meaning to insult- but ya, you are a bit prudish I am afraid, at the least.

That doesn't make you evil or bad- it is just kind of, well, for lack of a better word- quaint. I am kinda suprised though- you being a "rocker" and all Haven't met too many musicians that are afraid to get nekkid in front of a leering audience, when challenged.

But the bottom line is- with the exception of possible recruitment= there is NO logical argument in this debate, and, Kivrotorah has illustrated nicely about how bad we need legislation to protect gays from the majority- the dude's main complaint, after all, is that they will bleed thier aid's blood all over good troops.

No one challenges the fact seriously of integrated racially troops, or women in combat (because they already are, Aevens- I am really suprised that you don't realize this already? Women are dying in combat right now, they just aren't allowed to go out killin' with the SF, and that is about it) - and the same argument is being put over and over into this debate, the same one used against women and minorities.

NOT ONE person here has formulated a really good argument- outside recruiting- on this entire thread about why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military.

Now- why they would WANT to go in, well, that is another thread topic.

Really, please explain why??



I have served with women too were we were in the same comm van.... That's why I KNOW, when someone is blowing smoke trying to earn debate points.

You have never showered with women nude under the military. You, nor DTOM have never used the same bathroom as a female at the same time, unless it was VERY irregular. You have never been in a hooch walking around in your underwear, with women walking around in their underwear.

You and DTOM have showered nude with other men with no curtains or stalls, you have urinated in horse style urinals with other men beside you, you have walked around your hooch in you underwear cracking jokes but the most hilarious things while in the military.

In 95 I took group showers in boot camp..... no curtains... no girls
In 96 shower at weapons training... no curtains no girls.
In 97 field showers in Korea.... no curtains, no girls... oh but women and men had to use the same field showers... they had different times... (anybody care to explain why the women were given a smaller slot of time to get into the shower)
In 98 there was a exercise in hawaii... plenty of women... but in the field showers, guess what?? no curtains.. no girls.

And you dang right you were professionals... because in Boot camp, every male is taught you better be careful when engaging with females. Watch what you say, watch how you act... keep it professional.



CR all I can say to that is GOOD and I agree. No one has made a good argument on why Gays should not be allowed in, and I don't think many have tried.

P.S.



WEll, I wasn't surprised though... were you. We've seen enough people debate to know who are on the fringes of.... let's just say fringes... but I told everyone here that with the entry of LH everyone would start attacking the much easier arguments and for the modst part that is what I saw happen. So you can take on "oh the Homo is going to bleed to me" or you can strawman my argument with "Oh the gay guy is stalking the showers trying to sneak a peek penis's" or you can address my argument:

CR:

Did you read my first re HIV? I wrote that I personally do not believe that HIV = AIDS, so I would not have any basis for doing any excluding on the stated basis. But those of you who do believe that HIV = AIDS must take your belief into account when you put people into a situation where body fluids might be exchanged/shared. I would presume that you would be in favor of testing all, and not only at time of induction, but at periodic intervals thereafter. Your other concern ought to be that there is this window period where the HIV positive soul can test "negative" but can pass on or transmit the HIV to other souls. And, again, sorry, but it is not my fault that here in the US, HIV = AIDS is largely confined to certain high risk groups, to wit, male homosexuals, IV drug users, and hemophiliacs. Now back to my main point, again, I am not worried about HIV = AIDS, as I regard the HIV as a harmless passenger virus and so the gay man who is HIV positive is free to bleed all over me. But those of you who believe that HIV = AIDS need understand the implications of your belief and act accordingly. As I once related to someone here, nice to have a theory, but even better to have a consistent theory and to otherwise understand and account for the implications of your theory. And so, again, if you believe that HIV = AIDS, then you need ask yourself why you are in favor of creating the circumstance wherein inadvertent transmission of the HIV is possible. Think of your recent court experience, as both the driving while the license is suspended soul and the one fond of perpetrating the sexual assault were both most likely arrested at some point along the way. Have you been arrested lately? The man asks you whether you've got a needle in your pockets, and the man will otherwise search you with gloves on. Before HIV = AIDS, such was not the circumstance. We have the question and the gloves precisely because someone decided that if one believes that HIV = AIDS, then one need eliminate as much of the risk of inadvertent transmission of the HIV as the circumstance reasonably permits, and so you get your question and he/she the gloves. And how do we know that the soul driving with the suspended license, and also the soul who doesn't respect the person of others, aren't both IV drug users with a contaminated needle in her/his pocket? We don't know and so we ask everybody, do you have a needle or anything else that's sharp in your pockets, and we then search with the gloves on. Why should that not apply here? Please, a clear invitation, state the facts on which you conclude that we don't need account for the possible inadvertent transmission of the HIV in the circumstance of our armed services, while we do such an accounting with respect to doctors, nurses, the man, etc. I'll be waiting.

Sorry, before you answer, note what I said, the trained cops don't just ask about needles, but about anything sharp, and they do so because they might be HIV positive and not know it and they'd like to not bleed on anybody else. Sorry, I'll also be waiting for your statement of the defense for the City in that lawsuit where the HIV positive cop did bleed all over somebody and thereby transmitted the HIV, and pity of it all, the City knew that she was HIV positive at the time. And, remember, that blood in the doctor's office, at the hospital, and in the main station is treated as a biohazard, so if this isn't a strict liability case, it's awful darn close. So please, what is the City's defense? That her right to be a street cop outweighs my right to live? Why subject me to a known risk of harm when you could eliminate that risk, well, excepting that window, the risk is eliminated with the assignment to duty of HIV negative souls, so why wasn't that measure undertaken? Your only answer is that I must die for your "no discrimination" policy. In other terms, why is the unknown risk being rejected in favor of the known risk, when the price that might become due and owing is a human life?



droop:

Please see my above remarks, and then, as I invited CR, please provide the facts upon which you base your conclusion that cops, nurses, and doctors ought to be treated better in this respect than G.I. Jane. And by the way, how do the cops, nurses, and doctors treat the known HIV positive soul, is it any different than the treatment of known HIV negative you and me? Or are they worrying about that window when we don't know [so none of us can ever truly say that we are indeed HIV negative, since the window means that we don't know our present status]? Lastly, for you and nearly all the rest, sorry, but I'd rather he check you out in the shower and then me too, and comment rather directly and openly to us on our perceived attributes, or lack of the same, than have him die because you didn't care about possible inadvertent transmission of a pathogen that you consider lethal. And you are actually the homophobe, since who really cares what he says when he checks us out? You gonna be any less of a man if that happens? Your motto appears to be, he can be gay but not in front of me, right? That's what you said, right? He can check, but he can't get gay on you [as it were]. I don't care how openly gay he is, that's his business, and having no tact or grace is having no tact or grace and nothing more, less, or other, but I do I care that he, I, and you don't pose a risk of inadvertently transmitting what some believe is a lethal pathogen. Or do you wish to add more panels to that certain quilt?

The only reason why I otherwise wrote what I wrote in my first post is simply that I'm willing to play into your homophobia if it helps win the war and otherwise keeps people alive. I mean, as the man said in the movie, TIA, and so no apartheid in the foxhole, and I imagine that the same would work with the gay souls, since I'd rather Big Gay Al help keep me alive than be heterosexual. Unfortunately for Big Gay Al, his lifestyle, or should I say, if he is on the receiving end of anal intercourse, call him the bottom, well, all of those micro tears in his anus will allow any pathogen rather easy access to his even more internal spaces [as it were]. That's why he's at risk. And for the perverse world that the plaintiff's personal injury attorney lives in, nothing better than you, Mr. Putative Defendant, ignoring a known risk of harm. Lastly, friend, please have the good grace to not speak of fringes, since only the lunatic fringe that desires to pay a whopping punitive damage award discounts a known and admitted risk of harm [call it, that entire want of care that raises the presumption of a conscious indifference to obligation (here, keeping us all alive and otherwise whole)...].

I feel for the Corps most times, but please don't put the Army on the same extravagance level as the Air Force. The Marines have KBR trailers too BTW.


I'm not sure what the USMC guys do, but as a general rule, we in the Army don't carry on many face to face conversations with other men as they change their undergarments.........it's not polite. Maybe I'm just a new age sensitive guy, but I don't have a problem changing in front of females. I've done it before, and will likely be in a situation to do it again. As I've said before, modesty rules the day, in my experience. If I change in front of a gay man, I'm not worried about feeling uncomfortable..........so I don't see how your argument is somehow less of a strawman argument than anybody else's.



Yes, and we reach a certain level of debate points, we get a toaster from Mike and Jaime. You hold your argument to be true for you, but others cannot feel the same?


To answer the question you hold so dear......You differ because you have a different opinion on the matter. You side with the sexual identity roles that have been placed upon society. You wish to bar homosexuals from serving openly, because you would feel uncomfortable being naked in their company. Doesn't that say more about you, than them?
I can live with the separation of males and females in terms of nakedness. There are far more straight soldiers who may feel sexual tension or somehow violated by that than the amount of gay soldiers. The inherent and ingrained rift between soldiers of different genders is far wider than the rift between soldiers of different sexual orientation, in my opinion. I foresee a day and age when the military, and much of society is unisex in terms bathing and sleeping facilities, it's a natural evolution that has been happening throughout recorded history. Sexual hangups should not prohibit people from serving their country.
Your argument is not based on anything other than feeling uncomfortable, and the established gender segregation roles, which I believe will evolve anyway. How can somebody strawman a strawman??

I agree completely, and one of the most prevalent of these straw men has been the assertion that allowing gays to shower with straights (I mean open gays of course, as gays showering with straights is the status quo) is EXACTLY the same as men showering with women. Its an assertion upon which the main opposition to the integration of open gays seems to be founded, yet with litte foundation.

I, if I may be so bold, addressed this at length last page in a post in which I detailed how in human society there is little to no evidence for the assertion that facilities are separated on the basis of sexuality as opposed to gender. I see no reason to presume that allowing open gays to use straight facilities openly will have any impact, nor SHOULD it have any impact on the separation of showers/ facilities by gender. As far as I am concerned, this has been one of the largest straw men of the debate, an assertion made and never supported, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

As I also pointed out in that post, which you might consider consulting, being uncomfortable is fine, many people are uncomfortable about a lot of things in the military, especially regarding the lack of privacy. But letting your mild discomfort mean that open gays must be KICKED OUT of the military is a bit much...


Kivrot...
I gather that you missed my response to your post, post 214? Unfortunate as it asked a very pertinent question: "What the heck are you talking about?" which could be equally applied to your most recent post. Whgat possible relevance does your conspiracy-laden AIDA commentary have to this thread?

Plentiful evidence to the contrary? What would that be? Your word?

Vermillion, it is neither helpful or constructive for you to continually "rule" on debates as if you've made judgment on an issue and that's the last word on it. Please stop. We welcome your disagreements. But I reject your declaration of judgements.

Your "logic" (I use that term loosely because there isn't any) concludes men and women are segregated because we have opposing genitalia, but the behavior between the two sexes has nothing to do with it. That is absurd. With your "logic", there should be no such thing as sexual harassment. People should be able to sit around in their underwear or no clothes at all in the workplace because the simple act of having no clothes on has nothing to do with sex.

So, if you allow gays to serve openly in the military, should filing sexual harassment charges be eliminated? I mean, if you're going to allow activities that are consistent with this behavior - and will get you fired with cause outside the military - you would have to modify the UCMJ to change the article that states:



Highlight mine. If anybody in the military disagrees with me, I challenge you to walk around naked and see if you don't get an article 15 for displaying "indecency". Right now, it is against military law for men and women to be naked together, so any claims of such are either exaggerated, or an admission of violating military law. To be clear, changing your shirt in front of a man/woman is one thing. But taking a shower with one is another. Allowing this behavior would make the Tailhook incident look like a Disney movie. The number of sexual harassment charges would be staggering.

I don't even know how to answer that. Either you missed the post when I laid it all out or you are choosing to ignore it, I shall assume the former.



It is neither helpful or conbstructive for you to keep asserting I have done things of this nature when they have never happened. I have stated my opinion, NO different than anyone else including you. I have NEVER tried to 'end debate' or 'claim victory' or shot down discussion or any of the tiresome thing I have been accused of in the last couple posts. Frankly, either cite cases where I did this thing or withdraw the statement.

I said there is no logic to an assertion then laid out in detail why I felt this was the case. How is that ANY different than you have done? How is that ANY different than anyone has done? Feel free to disagree! Feel free to state and demonstrate that there is plenty of logic to your assertions. But instead you seem more interested in debating me than debating what I have demonstrated.



What?

How on earth do you draw that bizarre statement from my position? "No such thing as sexual harassment?" that doesn't even make any sense. I have shown that the sexes (in terms of facilities) are ALWAYS separated based on gender rather than on sexuality, and that every situation one cares to mention where there is confusion, the separation falls on the side of gender, not sexuality. This includes places where people spend long periods of time in close proximity. This includes other nations that have adopted open homsexuals in the military.

ALL I have done is ask that people stop making the unevidenced assertion that OF course, separation is based on sexuality when in every other circumstance it is not. ALL I have asked is for a SINGLE example to support the oft stated but never justified assertion that separation is based on sexuality, as THAT seem to be the only main argument remaining under debate against openly gay soldiers. How is that unreasonable?

How on earth does that lead you to saying there would mean there is no such thing as sexual harassment? How does that make any sense at all? Did I say or imply there was no such thing as sexuality? Ever? Did I say that clothing had nothing to do with sex? Did I suggest that people would be able to walk around naked in the military (For God's sake, WHERE did you get these from? They don't even bear vague SIMILARITY to what I was saying, not even Close!) Did I say or do ANY of the things you accuse me of?

Kivro- HIV doesn't neccesarily = aids- um, so what? Seriously- what does that have to do with the subject at hand? You don't want gays in the military because of the HIV virus?

That is your best argument- really? How quaint.

Ummm yeah... In fact, we'd have converstions with each other while showering.... since there were no stalls... It like a locker room. People didn't just shut up while in the shower or locker room. And I can not express the amount of stories funny to hilarious that just would not happen if I had to worry about the sexuality of the man to my left and right.



Maybe... or maybe it's still an "If" and that's why you aren't uncomfortable. The question is DTOM how many women soldiers have become completely nude in front of you?? Do you think it would be fair to force them to shower in front of you.


STRAWMAN

I made acomment abourt strawman's and I want to address it. Look if you attack my idea that people are going to feel uncomfortable I'm not calling that a straw man. That is fair game.

However if you make a comment that people are silly because Gays are going to rape them, or gays are going to stalk the showers looking for peek, or gays are going to do some other outlandish thing.... That is a strawman. Because in the end... I'm just going to agree with you "yeah that's a silly arguement", but wonder... who made it??


Absolutely... and maybe you are just in some far out way experiencing certain things. Many times I notice that people don't say the experience things.... but they make implications that certain things are going on. So how often do you take showers with women soldiers?? Does your unit make intergrate sexes??



Again....YES. It is not about them. I may not understand homosexuality, but I have admitted time and time again... that I think homosexulity at least in terms of who we are attracted to is innate. I have also said earlier, that if you were to allow open homosexuality it would be unfair to make straight males shower with them, bunk with them in the same barracks room. I feel that everything a woman is not made to do with a man a straight man should not be forced to do with an open homosexual. That is all I am saying.

For instance... I have served with women in the fleet. I think it is right that open homosexual would be allowed to go serve whereever and whenever women are allowed. If women have different rooms... homosexuals have different rooms. But if "modesty" dictates that women should be separated from men in certain instances such should be the case with open homosexuals.

Vermillion