Stumble This | You should also watch “Question: Is It OK for Iran to Waterboard Americans?” |
I thought this was one of the more interesting questions from the debate.
tags:
Comments 
What exactly are they saying? That those in the military shouldn't treat colleagues with respect and tolerance as would be expected in any other professional environment?
McCain and Romney said the same thing: they turn to the military leaders for advice on the matter. Sounds good to me.
I hate politics.
When I'm in a group shower, I don't want to be checked out the entire time, and I'm sure a woman wouldn't want to be checked out the entire time either. And don't give me this just-because-he's-gay-doesn't-mean-he's-gonna-stare-at-guys bullshit. That's like saying that just because I'm hetero I'm not going to stare at a naked woman that's lathering herself up. All that aside, another huge reason for gays to not be in the military is the same reason women are not allowed in combat: Emotional attachments. If one man goes down, his boyfriend/lover/whatever will be immediately taken out of the fight with him, effectively reducing available manpower by two instead of one.
The very first sentence is either poorly constructed or poorly thought out. You compare sharing sleeping/undressing/dressing space with the opposite sex, to having gays in the military - *at all*, whether you share that same space with them or not. Might want to add a few parameters onto the end of there, because right now it looks misinformed and unbalanced, where it should only look misinformed.
Secondly with regards to your "staring at me in the shower" comment; think about america's current policy on gay people in the military. Gay people are currently in the shower with straight people RIGHT NOW (ohnoes). Do you think that, because they aren't allowed to admit to being gay, they're physically incapable of looking at you whilst you lather up? THINK for god's sake.
(And that's not even addressing the latent homophobia of the argument)
And i'm not even sure if it's woth mentioning that your last reason is painting gays as, well, small minded, secretive, ignorant animals. As though they would literally be having sex with each other at night and going into battle the next day side by side - perhaps holding hands? If they did take a lover, then as though they would be incapable of, and the army would stand in the way of, splitting themselves up in order to maintain their mental focus. DO YOU EVEN REALISE COUNTRIES HAVE OPEN-DOOR POLICIES TO GAY PEOPLE AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH THEY ARE NOT HAVING IT AWAY LIKE RABBITS IN A SACK.
You know what, everything about your post speaks volumes to me. You probably don't consider yourself a homophobe.
Here's a little logic twister for you;
If the army vetted people to make sure they were disciplined and professional, they would NOT be staring at people in the shower. But then you wouldn't be in the army either, because your opinions are not becoming of a disciplined and professional individual.
(and i'm not even gay, imagine if a gay guy read that bull)
I find MarineGunrock's opinion on women in combat disgusting as well. Some may remember that last year Canada suffered it's first loss of a female soldier in combat when Capt. Nichola Goddard was killed in a firefight in Afghanistan. Female soldiers, with the same training/testing as males, are just as good soldiers. I think you Americans need to wake the fuck up and stop preaching freedom when you treat your own people like shit.
so.... i'm confused now, you're for or against gays in the military?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
Which told me nothing i didn't already know, and i doubt it would tell anyone else anything they didn't already know. But its Saturday and i was procrastinating(avoiding something) so i filled it out. That also justifies this post.
Interestingly enough, the Spartans encouraged homosexual relationships amongst their soldiers because they believed that a warrior would fight harder if he knew that his lover was fighting alongside him and depending on him in part to keep him alive. Not that I'm saying the Spartans were on the mark, just a little tidbit of history.
My question is this: Aren't the men you fight with your comrades in arms? I mean this with no sense of irony. My friends who have served often consider the men they fought with their brothers. And while this is certainly not the same as a romantic love interest, isn't seeing a brother fall in a combat also very distracting?
Anywho, it seems to me that the shower/bunk issue is more of a logistics problem than a moral one. MG, I'm curious, are you against gays in the military, and if so, do you believe that, even if all the logistics issues like bunking and whatnot were solved, gays should not be allowed in the military?
Completly unrelated, rembar, best lolcat evar.
All don't-as-don't-tell does is make it fair game to be bigots and homophobes and go out your way to poke into personal lives in order to ruin a career. Don't you think the whole manliness and testosterone of the Marines isn't appealing to gay men? I would probably guess you are an above average percentage of gay men in your showers then, say, at the gym in an average location.
The idea is that openly gay men is a distraction, in that dude gets beaten by homophobes. I guarantee you the military is not gay free AT ALL. And you probably are being checked out in the shower, so deal with it and give up your caveman attitudes.
Sidenote: I find it funny that if someone speaks out against homosexuality, they are accused with being a latent homosexual, like it's supposed to be an insult to them. But the people saying it are supposed to be supporting homosexuality, so isn't that kind of hypocritical? To me that's like someone saying "Fucking terrorists need to die" or "Damn racist KKK bastards" and then having someone counter that with "Oh, you're just a latent suicide bomber." or "You're just a latent racist."
Oh, and Danny, I don't care how disciplined I/you/they are. I'll/you'll/they'll be staring at an attractive naked woman in the shower.
What the hell is up with that? Did they not teach you to stick to the guns you are firing?
I'm not saying that just because gays are in the military that they're going to start color-coordinating out uniforms or anything stupid like that, rather that most Marines/soldiers simply do not agree with homosexuality. If it's some big news flash, 99% or more of the men and women of our armed forces are Republican, so they hold Republican views.
The trend has a lot of noise in the signal, and signal thus swings high and low, but the trend is unmistakable, and in my case, welcome.
I've never served in the military, I know, but I've got family and friends who served, and several of them are gay (I may delight MG by announcing that most of my gay veteran friends or acquaintances are from the Navy, some are from the army, and not a one of them is a Marine).
I agree with what Ron Paul had to say on the matter in another debate.
On another note on Skeeve's comment about females being trained and tested the same as males. Maybe in the Canadian Army, but not even close in the American Army. Female physical standards can be ridiculously out of line with males standards to the point of being laughable. It's even become a joke in the Army if you train anywhere outside of Ft. Benning or Ft. Knox since they are they only two left that don't train females. In order to pass a physical fitness test, a 21 year old male needs to perform 42 correct push-ups. That's bare minimum just to pass and be considered a lazy dirt bag by your command. You may even be forced into remedial training to score higher. A 21 year old female requires *19* push-ups to get the same passing score. In fact, a perfect score for a female is 42 (a male's bare minimum). I am of the mindset that if you want to be treated equal, equalize the testing. If you are truly capable of performing (and there are many that are, I know) then you will be able to pass on the same scale as a man of equal age.
However on the same note yes there will probably be a lot of upset soldiers if gays are allowed to serve openly. It probably won't tear our military asunder, but I'd wager there would be a few very unfortunate incidents. That seems to happen anytime you try to integrate one group with a group that doesn't like them.
That's a great Ron Paul quote, unfortunately his beliefs don't extend to the state level, where it's perfectly okay for the state government to tell people what they can and can't do. But back to the matter at hand, it would be a great policy to implement as far as the military goes, not perfect, but then nothing ever will be.
Gender equality (or any equality for that matter) be damned if one group is allowed to shirk their responsibility. If the person next to you in combat doesn't have the strength to pull you out of harms way if you are wounded that person shouldn't have been there in the first place. And personally I don't care if that person is male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian or whatever; if they passed the same standards I did and have proven themselves to be professional and dedicated, I'd be honored to have them there covering me.
in 3 years, when all of our eager young, myspace generation warriors are dead in Iran and they start trying to draft us GenX old farts to kill/die for oil, I will lie through my teeth and swear up and down that I've polished miles of sausage with my tonsils.
Bull. I hope some MORE (thanks Skeeve) serving military members speak up about the professionalism issue and show that what you're saying is just plain wrong. You think everyone is incapable of controlling theirselves not to stare at people of their sexual preference in the shower? That's even more bigoted than your homophobia - if i enjoy eating "Marmite", and you don't, are you going to tell me that i'm obviously wrong and DON'T enjoy it too?
@Lurch - i think that, assuming openly homosexual men would get beaten for being homosexual, then this is an issue of professionalism and discipline wherever you are serving. I've never been in the military, so i'm not gonna say "this is how it should be", because everyone knows what should be and what is are often far apart. However i do know 1 gay dude in the military and when asked about it he just says that it's never been a problem. This is the British army, and i don't proclaim that all gays in the British army have an easy ride either. All i'm saying is, it's possible for people to be bonded and taught in such a way that they don't beat a guy up for being gay.
It's not like he runs around in a tutu and carries his gun with a limp wrist, is it? Or his uniform has a rainbow flag on the arm. No one bothers pushing him on the issue, and just like someone who practised, say BDSM, he doesn't consider himself special or different, and he doesn't march around going "HELLO I'M GAY!!!" (or hello i like BDSM). He's just a guy among guys.
And he doesn't stare at people in the shower. If that's ok with MarinegunRock.
i am a bit gay myself, let's just say nonpracticing gay, "in touch with my feminine side", "theatregoer". i like colour coordination. i can appreciate a nice ass on either gender, especially if it's all soapy... i could "exaggerate" that fact if necessary. better than shooting myself in the foot in some ditch in somebody else's desert.
So, for those Judo-Christian Conservative individuals who might be offended by having to work closely with an openly gay individual; you offend me and I will not serve next to you.
If you want to see some ass kicking gay (and bisexual) soldiers, check out 300, and read the history behind it. The old 'I'm afraid someone is going to look at my peepee in the shower' is a modern construct, and seems a flimsy argument when put under any scrutiny.
Frankly, with the recent mismanagement of the military (Rumsfeld) and our quagmire in Iraq, I'd think we need all the help we can get in regards to recruitment.
http://www.hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=12583 (this is not much of an article, but didn't feel like hunting endlessly for a better one. If someone has a better link from the history channel, wiki or something else, lemme know and I'll swap it.)
Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality, which means not only the fear of gays, but the fear of being gay yourself. It stands to reason that homophobia can be a negative reaction to ones own gayness. Though many use this as a cheap shot or an insult, there is truth behind it. I don't imagine that most people who hate racists or terrorists are latent racists or terrorists, so I don't think your analogy holds up.
That said, this is complicated question, and it deserves discussion. The reality is that there are gay people in the military, as there are everywhere, and this should be accepted and dealt with rationally. Perhaps, don't ask tell is wrong, because in a way it takes a moral position on something which has no secular reason for being considered so. But I am not sure that current American climate is ready to accept gay people, although I wish we were. The fact that gay people can't get married is a more oppressive statement on civil rights. Once that is taken care of the rest will follow.
Tired of idgits making this comparison....
born black, not gay.....sorry kids, imprints are a motherfucker....
What's in your sexuality?? It ain't melanin or the lack thereof-
Also, I think it's a great idea for the military to only allow white, straight, Christian men to fight. Let them do Bush's evil bidding. I just hope Jesus has a lot of cots ready.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
Anyways, as to the policy, we would not have Stop Loss right now if they weren't busy kicking out gays. We would have Arabic translators and intelligence, but instead we only allow closeted gays to serve.
@choggie: There's no consensus, so you can't say definitively that people *aren't* born with their sexuality (whatever it may be). The best guess we have now is a complex interaction of biology, cognition and environment. There is plenty of evidence for biological factors (prenatal hormones, twin studies, physiological differences etc). Can you explain what you mean by "imprinting"?
What was compared was the view of allowing certain people to serve alongside others. And that statement is totally correct. The same arguments were used with negro troops in Civil War -> WWII or even black soldiers in Vietnam. The argument about going into battle and depending on them to watch your back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html
Berticus, I can't speak for MG, but I can tell you why I don't agree. Basic Christian values. Simple as that. I find it disgusting. That doesn't mean that I hate gay people. It also doesn't mean I think they should have no rights. I don't believe your religion should ever determine government policy. So while I would support a gay person's right to serve, I still find their lifestyle choice abhorrent and believe it will have to be answered for some day.
And no, my comments were not meant to be incendiary.
@Berticus: Same as Lurch said, it's basic Christian values, and beyond that, I don't believe it to be natural. If it was, humans could reproduce by homosexual mating. After all, that's all mating is for: Procreation. If two men, or two women for that matter, can not procreate, then it isn't natural.
But I will not shun, insult or demean anyone because of their sexual orientation. I will also not avoid a relationship with someone because they are gay. They are as much a human as anyone else here.
And to Eric, my understanding of the current scientific position on this subject is that there are basically 3 groups that wind up homosexual in the end: (1) those that are very biologically influenced to be so and who choose to accept it, (2) those who are slightly influenced by biology who choose to embrace it, and (3) those that are not at all influenced by biology, but are influenced to be so externally.
I say "choose" in each case because there are cases where such people have chosen the opposite. Human determination can be pretty strong. We have more power over our bodies than most would think.
Oh and on-topic, I have no problem with homosexuals serving in the military. Don't-ask-don't-tell was a way to keep everyone comfortable. It might be needed for a few more years, but then it'll probably be abandoned as unnecessary.
Also on topic, it appears from the media that this particular general was a plant! Still reading up on the situation, but CNN is embarrassed already so that means something was amiss.