Sexual Orientation & The Military

[Bluth Corporation]

If you gander at the percentages of homosexuals in the united states and the percentages of non, they're pretty big, and I feel that, those who would serve and were able to serve would definitely make up for a lack of NON.

That's just it--you "feel." You don't know, and neither do I.

It'd be great if it that were the case. As I've been saying all along in this thread, someone with the authority, the resources, and the know-how (I possess none of those) needs to research this and find out what the answer is. If the answer is that it won't be a problem, then great, go ahead with it. But if it would create problems with recruitment and retention, it needs to be put off, at least until attitudes towards homosexuality change (which won't take place overnight, and an effective military is still needed in the meantime).

As best as I can tell, the public debate so far has been between the assumption that "the guys in there now would never go for it" on the one hand (an absurd position, if for no other reason than it is merely an assumption) and an ideological "Bigotry is unacceptable no matter the cost" with which I sympathize but which is nevertheless equally absurd because it ignores the fact that there may indeed be very real and very significant costs to allowing homosexuals to serve openly, and a critical thinker actually needs to seriously analyze the trade-offs that might be involved rather than make ideological pronouncements.

[Mt Id]

No, you certainly don't know me. I know you pretty well though. I've seen your face enough times in bars. If YOU can't draw a parallel between your prejudice toward homosexuals and your abrupt and unjust decision that 15 year olds are stupid... well, there's little hope for you. But again, I knew that already.

The fact that you want to keep this debate personal rather than factual implies to me that you are INCREASINGLY aware that you have no real support for your arguement.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I have no prejudice against homosexuals and I did not say that 15 year olds are stupid. All I said was that he was spouting opinion as fact but no matter how much he believed in that opinion it wasn't a fact. I have been trying to be more factual then others here, so when you say i'm trying to make this personal you have no idea what you're talking about.

So until you make a point and not just useless attacks against me personally, I'm going to ignore you. Have a nice day.

[Bluth Corporation]

Furthermore, what if we lost some white military men when blacks were allowed to join? Who the fuck cares?

If the number of people who were lost is considerably more than the number of people who were gained, then yes, it's a problem. If you can't at least understand the reasoning behind this argument--you don't have to agree with it, you just need understand the reasoning behind it and be able to argue it civilly and politely without presenting it as being the "General Consensus of Morons"--then you have a severe deficiency of critical thinking skills, which is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

Sometimes forcing the world to fit into our ideological preferences can have disastrous problems in reality. Reasonable people realize this, and refrain from making issues simpler or more black-and-white than they are. The issue of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military in the context of present-day popular attitudes towards homosexuality is such a situation.

[Absolvability]

So until you make a point and not just useless attacks against me personally, I'm going to ignore you. Have a nice day.

Very clever. Use my arguement against me. Dun dun dunnnnn. At any rate, I started off on a fairly factual note and you ignored it. If you like you can check some previous posts and try to refute what I said. Otherwise, I'm quite comfortable with you ignoring me.

Furthermore... prejudice. Pre (before) judice (justice?) Basically, if you chalk any particular person up as being stupid and then blame it on their age (which becomes a generalization and doesn't take into consideration smart 15 year olds (which I think this one is,)) you are being prejudiced. Likewise, if you claim that homosexuals wouldn't be good soldiers because some might not be then you are forgetting that some straight men are not worthy of the title as well. And, as such, you are prejudiced, because you plan to lump them all together and pre-exclude them from service. Savvy?

If the number of people who were lost is considerably more than the number of people who were gained, then yes, it's a problem. If you can't at least understand the reasoning behind this argument--you don't have to agree with it, you just need understand the reasoning behind it and be able to argue it civilly and politely without presenting it as being the "General Consensus of Morons"--then you have a severe deficiency of critical thinking skills, which is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

I believe in quality over quantity. I also believe that if we are to forsake equality in order to have a bountiful military then we have misguided priorities. I also believe that changes take time to implement and that after 20 years none of it would be a problem any longer. As far as technicalities go. I'm sure the debate would continue.

I do understand the reasoning. I also understand that prohibition of slavery was devastating to the Southern economy. Y'know what happened? Eli Whitney made a cotton gin. Do not confuse your own inflexibilities with that of the general public.

Intellectual immaturity? Good lord, what about wisdom? Must I really muck through all the bullshit? Can you not see parallels between this issue and issues of the past? DO WE NOT LEARN!? Intellectual immaturity... lol, how dare you.

[Alversia]

I can see the arguements both for and against this idea,

Yes, gays should be allowed to openly join because this is the 21st Century after all and we are meant to be much more open minded. I've never been a Soldier so I can't pretend to know how I would react to such an event but, in falling with my own opinions, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. If the man can shoot straight and is as hardworking as anyone else, then why should he be forced out because of a job he willingly volunteered for because of something completely unrelated to military matters?

On the other hand, I can see that, while I would have no problems with it, there are others who would. Some people are naturally conservative and set in their ways and, if they decided to resign over this after many long years of faithful service, then I can see why the Military would be unwilling to openly allow such a thing to occur, plus the whole cohesion and morale arguement that's been mentioned here before.

I think the DADT system is probably the best compromise. Gays and Lesbians can join as long as they're discreet and the Conservative elements of the Military can convince themselves that their troops are all 100% Hetro individuals.

[Ravea]

Furthermore, what if we lost some white military men when blacks were allowed to join? Who the fuck cares?

If the number of people who were lost is considerably more than the number of people who were gained, then yes, it's a problem.

What exactly does this mean? Are straight men going to quit the military in droves if gays are allowed to serve openly?

[Mt Id]

Very clever. Use my arguement against me. Dun dun dunnnnn. At any rate, I started off on a fairly factual note and you ignored it. If you like you can check some previous posts and try to refute what I said. Otherwise, I'm quite comfortable with you ignoring me.

Furthermore... prejudice. Pre (before) judice (justice?) Basically, if you chalk any particular person up as being stupid and then blame it on their age (which becomes a generalization and doesn't take into consideration smart 15 year olds (which I think this one is,)) you are being prejudiced. Likewise, if you claim that homosexuals wouldn't be good soldiers because some might not be then you are forgetting that some straight men are not worthy of the title as well. And, as such, you are prejudiced, because you plan to lump them all together and pre-exclude them from service. Savvy?

Wow. NO WHERE have i said that homosexuals wouldn't make good soldiers. I've actually been trying to avoid talking about that until I had some real time to think about it. If you will go back over every single one of my posts in this thread you'll see that the only thing I've been arguing about is this kid spouting opinion as fact. Whether he is smart or not doesn't matter to me. Opinions being proclaimed as fact, however, does. That is my ENTIRE argument. Don't start trying to say i'm prejudiced when none of your standards for classifying someone AS prejudiced apply to me.

[NX401]

man, who gives a fuck let gays serve. there not gonna produce anyway and we have more people on the front lines. so what are they gonna do...scare you with their penis or pussy..i mean come on. i know many gays and lesbians that just dont hit on straight people just because their hot. they talk normally like you and i. and i think the person with homophobia is gay and very scared of coming out that he can accept everyone.


OMG....iTS A PENIS...RUN FOR THE HILLS its coming for your ass 3 <============3

xD

[Bluth Corporation]

What exactly does this mean? Are straight men going to quit the military in droves if gays are allowed to serve openly?

Have you been paying attention to this entire thread, where throughout I've been arguing that yes, that's a reasonable possibility that warrants research to discover whether or not that would be the case?

[Mt Id]

man, who gives a fuck let gays serve. there not gonna produce anyway and we have more people on the front lines. so what are they gonna do...scare you with their penis or pussy..i mean come on. i know many gays and lesbians that just dont hit on straight people just because their hot. they talk normally like you and i. and i think the person with homophobia is gay and very scared of coming out that he can accept everyone.


OMG....iTS A PENIS...RUN FOR THE HILLS its coming for your ass 3 <============3

xD

One problem I find with your argument: You say that gays are just like normal people but then a few sentences later use being gay as an insult.

[Absolvability]

NX you sexy sumbitch what brings you here? Can't resist a good debate, can ya?

[quote-"Hahaha"]OMG....iTS A PENIS...RUN FOR THE HILLS its coming for your ass 3 <============3[/quote]

Tell you what. I'm waiting to get sent to Army bootcamp as we speak. When I end up in a combat zone... and I have somebody covering my ass for me... I sure hope they like my ass ~_^

[Ravea]

What exactly does this mean? Are straight men going to quit the military in droves if gays are allowed to serve openly?

Have you been paying attention to this entire thread, where throughout I've been arguing that yes, that's a reasonable possibility that warrants research to discover whether or not that would be the case?

I think that's ridiculous. No where in any other country has there been masses of straights dropping out of the military after gays were allowed to serve. There weren't huge numbers of white leaving the military in '48 when integration became a national policy. Most of the arguments that were used back then are now applied to homosexuals-that they would mess up unit cohesion, that they wouldn't make good soldiers. I don't see integration of gays going much differently. Besides, there are already many gays in the military already; pretending they don't exist doesn't mean that they aren't around and serving our country faithfully. I feel like it's dishonoring them by saying "You've risked your life for your nation, but you aren't fit to serve because gays are icky."

[Absolvability]

Have you been paying attention to this entire thread, where throughout I've been arguing that yes, that's a reasonable possibility that warrants research to discover whether or not that would be the case?

Your concern is well founded. I just think it's a little evasive in nature. The real point is-- are we going to let even the most practical prejudices determine our opinion?

One problem I find with your argument: You say that gays are just like normal people but then a few sentences later use being gay as an insult.

You'll find that insult/offense is in the eye of the beholder. I believe this 'insult' was generated because he knew JUST how you'd recieve it. Are you unable to recognize sarcasm or satire? Must be a lack of experience. -chuckles- Lets get the 15 year old in here to translate for you.

[Mt Id]

One problem I find with your argument: You say that gays are just like normal people but then a few sentences later use being gay as an insult.

You'll find that insult/offense is in the eye of the beholder. I believe this 'insult' was generated because he knew JUST how you'd recieve it. Are you unable to recognize sarcasm or satire? Must be a lack of experience. -chuckles- Lets get the 15 year old in here to translate for you.

I'm not talking about the sarcasm or the satire that he shows in the second, one line paragraph. I'm referring to the point in the first paragraph where he says the homophobe is actually gay. Here:

man, who gives a fuck let gays serve. there not gonna produce anyway and we have more people on the front lines. so what are they gonna do...scare you with their penis or pussy..i mean come on. i know many gays and lesbians that just dont hit on straight people just because their hot. they talk normally like you and i. and i think the person with homophobia is gay and very scared of coming out that he can accept everyone.

Now if he really did think this person was gay I could understand that, but I highly doubt that is the case and so it is an insult directed at the "homophobe"

[Glorious Freedonia]

This is one of those issues that totally depends on the traditions of a culture. In cultures with a strong Judaeo-Christian tradition, gays should be kept out because the military should reflect the best of the culture. However, there are and have been many cultures that accepted or even preferred homosexuality and these homosexual cultures have often produced some of the best fighting men the world has ever seen. Even today, the bhurka soldiers are considered by me to be the best fighting men in the world. All or substantially all of them are homosexual. Sorry I use "homosexual" to mean men who have sex with men even if they also have sex with women.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals serving as soldiers (the best ones have been gay after all). But the values of the community must be reflected in the values of their military or else it can stain the respect that the people have for their military. The only strategic flaw with not permitting gays is the idea that the enemy can discover a secretly gay soldier's gaiety and use it to blackmail them into providing the enemy with secrets or other aid.

[Absolvability]

Now if he really did think this person was gay I could understand that, but I highly doubt that is the case and so it is an insult directed at the "homophobe"

There is a difference between an untruth and an insult. As I said before, insults are in the eye of the beholder. Or, to be more clear, in the eye of the reciever. For example... if somebody called ME gay... it would not be true, but it would also not be insulting, because I do not see gays as being in any way lesser.

See where I'm headed now?

In cultures with a strong Judaeo-Christian tradition, gays should be kept out because the military should reflect the best of the culture.

Lets not confuse the 'best' of culture with the 'majority' of culture.

[Mt Id]

Now if he really did think this person was gay I could understand that, but I highly doubt that is the case and so it is an insult directed at the "homophobe"

There is a difference between an untruth and an insult. As I said before, insults are in the eye of the beholder. Or, to be more clear, in the eye of the reciever. For example... if somebody called ME gay... it would not be true, but it would also not be insulting, because I do not see gays are being in any way lesser.

See where I'm headed now?

I see what you're trying to say but it doesn't work exactly like that unfortunately. It may to some extent, but when calling someone gay has become an insult in general language, then no matter who hears or says it, it is still an insult. If someone called me short, even though I knew I was right at average height, it would still be considered an insult. I know there is nothing wrong with being short, nor is there anything particularly thrilling about being tall, but calling people short has often been used as an insult, much like the way calling someone gay has been used.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Now if he really did think this person was gay I could understand that, but I highly doubt that is the case and so it is an insult directed at the "homophobe"

There is a difference between an untruth and an insult. As I said before, insults are in the eye of the beholder. Or, to be more clear, in the eye of the reciever. For example... if somebody called ME gay... it would not be true, but it would also not be insulting, because I do not see gays as being in any way lesser.

See where I'm headed now?

In cultures with a strong Judaeo-Christian tradition, gays should be kept out because the military should reflect the best of the culture.

Lets not confuse the 'best' of culture with the 'majority' of culture.

If you call a homophobe gay that is an insult to a homophbe that may not be an insult to you.

What is "best" for a culture is not subjective to the individual nor objective in the manner of absolute truth. It is almost completely relative to the culture that is in question. The reason why I qualify this statement at all is that some cultures have barbaric practices that are not for the best no matter how much the people of the culture love it. These are limited to the absolute extremes of barbarism like burning heretics and widows.

[Absolvability]

I see what you're trying to say but it doesn't work exactly like that unfortunately. It may to some extent, but when calling someone gay has become an insult in general language, then no matter who hears or says it, it is still an insult. If someone called me short, even though I knew I was right at average height, it would still be considered an insult. I know there is nothing wrong with being short, nor is there anything particularly thrilling about being tall, but calling people short has often been used as an insult, much like the way calling someone gay has been used.

What you're talking about are insecurities. You are not at all talking about general language. If you were, you'd realize that 'gay' is not an insult. Neither is 'black'. Faggot and nigger, on the other hand, are insults. The difference is (since we're talking about general language here,) connotation/denotation.

If you call a homophobe gay that is an insult to a homophbe that may not be an insult to you.

Uh, yea, that's what I said.

What is "best" for a culture is not subjective to the individual nor objective in the manner of absolute truth. It is almost completely relative to the culture that is in question. The reason why I qualify this statement at all is that some cultures have barbaric practices that are not for the best no matter how much the people of the culture love it. These are limited to the absolute extremes of barbarism like burning heretics and widows.

You begin with an interesting philosophy. One that I do not agree with, but one that I can not really refute either, since philosophies are of an ineffible nature. That intrigues me is that you go on to contradict yourself by describing barbaric practices. Barbaric to whom? Isn't this being subjective? Why not burn heretics? Why not burn widows? Why not burn gays? Why must fire get involved before something is considered an injustice?

I think you should answer these questions in your own head. If you answer them here you'll surely be proving my point.

[Gewinny]

Using gay as an insult or to mean stupid is what's insulting. Of course the word itself is not insulting to someone who doesn't view homosexuality as immoral. It's not the word itself, but the way the word is being used by the person, and the intentions behind it.
Let me put it this way: let's say you've got purple skin. "Purple" is, of course, a perfectly harmless word and one that you probably use to describe yourself. However, suppose someone says "This film is so purple" in a way that they intend to mean "This film is stupid". That's what's insulting. Not the isolated use of the word 'purple', but the use of it in context to mean 'stupid'.

On the topic of the military, speaking from the point of view of a U.S. citizen I absolutely disagree with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Our men and women in uniform risk their lives equally for their country no matter who they're sexually attracted to, and so they should be treated equally. A heterosexual man with a wife back home is just as likely to commit a war crime as a pansexual woman with a wife back home. There have been studies after studies on the subject, and all have shown that sexual orientation has no affect on military performance.

[Absolvability]

On the topic of the military, speaking from the point of view of a U.S. citizen I absolutely disagree with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Our men and women in uniform risk their lives equally for their country no matter who they're sexually attracted to, and so they should be treated equally. A heterosexual man with a wife back home is just as likely to commit a war crime as a pansexual woman with a wife back home. There have been studies after studies on the subject, and all have shown that sexual orientation has no affect on military performance.

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner!

Using gay as an insult or to mean stupid is what's insulting. Of course the word itself is not insulting to someone who doesn't view homosexuality as immoral. It's not the word itself, but the way the word is being used by the person, and the intentions behind it.
Let me put it this way: let's say you've got purple skin. "Purple" is, of course, a perfectly harmless word and one that you probably use to describe yourself. However, suppose someone says "This film is so purple" in a way that they intend to mean "This film is stupid". That's what's insulting. Not the isolated use of the word 'purple', but the use of it in context to mean 'stupid'.

And you're correct here too. The simple fact is that I know the person very well (NX) that started this whole thing, and I can assure you that he is a proponent of equality in general, and was using a bit of satire/sarcasm in order to poke fun at the fact that homophobes would consider being called gay an insult.

Kind of like Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal," where he implies that eating babies is a good idea. It is very wise to take into consideration WHO said a thing when examining that particular thing.

That being said, the 'joke' was probably in bad taste. On the other hand, I think the intolerant deserve a little of their own medicine, however hypocritical that may be.

[Jahca]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

Have you ever served in the military?

It does fuck up cohesion. I want the Don't ask, Don't Tell to apply to everyone in the armed forces. I do not personally hate gays, but it does get uncomfortable and demoralizing knowing a man (being deprived of sex) possibly is sexually attracted to you.

[Nuerek]

I hate gays and think they should be eliminated completley
I hate you Colonic immigration

[Agzenzia]

Meh, humans/nations will always have a ban against some other type of human, be it blacks(before) homosexual's lesbian's or even bisexual, either way, theres always going to be some argument going on about racism sexism or something, its never going to be perfect guys.

[Ravea]

I hate gays and think they should be eliminated completley
I hate you Colonic immigration

EXCELLENT argument. You, sir, deserve a medal.