Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy

Oct 10, 2009#1

ZenMonkey

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he will end the \"don't ask, don't tell\" military policy.

The \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.

Obama said this country cannot afford to cut from the military's ranks people with needed skills for fighting. He made the comments to thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he knows gay rights activists get impatient but he says this country has made progress and will make more in defending those rights.

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

On the eve of a major gay-rights rally, Obama addressed thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues. They are looking for firm commitments on such issues as ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies.

Oct 10, 2009#2

AshburnerX

If he actually does it, good on him. It was a stupid policy to begin with.

Oct 10, 2009#3

phil

I'm happy for this. I've heard of this causing so much trouble that I'm glad it'll be gone. I kind of understand why it was implemented in the first place, but it seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

Oct 10, 2009#4

Krisken

The sooner, the better.

Oct 10, 2009#5

Espy

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

Oct 10, 2009#6

Iaculus

Espy said:
AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Click to expand...

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

That's not really what matters, though. What matters is that they can't get discharged for it any more. Big plus.

Oct 10, 2009#7

Nile

Finally.

Can't say his reasoning in the article is the best we could've hoped for, but it's still a step forward.

Oct 10, 2009#8

Espy

Iaculus;272779][quote=Espy said:
AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Click to expand...

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

That's not really what matters, though. What matters is that they can't get discharged for it any more. Big plus.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was what mattered, I just commented on the situation many will still find themselves in.

Oct 10, 2009#9

ThatNickGuy

Espy said:
AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Click to expand...

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

*shrug* It's a start?

Oct 10, 2009#10

Espy

ThatNickGuy;272794][quote=Espy said:
AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Click to expand...

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

*shrug* It's a start?[/QUOTE]
Yes. It is. I don't know why people are having such a hard time with my comment.

Let me make it easier for you all: Good for him. I am GLAD he did this. It's a SHAME that gays in the military are still going to be part of a culture that will push them to hide their sexual orientation or fear some sort of harassment.

Or did people just not like me saying that if he really wants to help the gay community he could push forward with equality in marriage for homosexuals? Sorry, it's just what I think he should do if he really intends to work for the homosexual community.

Oct 10, 2009#11

Ross

Espy said:
Or did people just not like me saying that if he really wants to help the gay community he could push forward with equality in marriage for homosexuals? Sorry, it's just what I think he should do if he really intends to work for the homosexual community.

That's the next step. Solve a morally-smaller issue that has more support now (getting rid of the don't ask don't tell policy), and use that momentum to work on the more controversial and less-supported issues, like gay marriage.

It's all in the strategery.

Oct 10, 2009#12

Espy

Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

Oct 10, 2009#13

Ross

Espy said:
Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

If that's the case, then be glad for the stuff he IS doing, if he doesn't intend on working on gay marriage at all.

Oct 10, 2009#14

Espy

Like I said above, I am. Good for him.

Oct 10, 2009#15

Ross

So don't complain

Oct 10, 2009#16

Espy

I fail to see how expressing a desire for a better and more complete stance is complaining but... Whatever floats your boat.

Oct 11, 2009#17

strawman

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

Oct 11, 2009#18

Krisken

stienman said:
So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

A lot of which are responsible for translation and other key elements. Not to mention, no soldier who serves his or her country honorably should be discriminated against for any reason.

Oct 11, 2009#19

Armadillo

Mark your calendars, people-this is a historic day in our nation's history: President Obama did something that I 100% support and commend him for.

That ain't gonna happen too often, kids.

Oct 11, 2009#20

AshburnerX

Krisken;272855][quote=stienman said:
So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

A lot of which are responsible for translation and other key elements. Not to mention, no soldier who serves his or her country honorably should be discriminated against for any reason.[/QUOTE]

We are basically asking them to pretend they are straight for their military careers. I know the military is all about smashing square pegs into round holes (wow that sounds dirty in the context) but to ask our soldiers to deny something they have no control over has got to be demoralizing. Not to mention that if a straight member has sex with someone in his unit, he's reprimanded and maybe moved somewhere else, but if a gay one does, they get booted out. It's a double standard.

Oct 11, 2009#21

Shegokigo

stienman said:
So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

That's fine, but now imagine how many they would lose in the many future years to come if the policy didn't change? You can't be short-sighted on this, which he isn't.

Oct 11, 2009#22

Cuyval Dar

Shegokigo;272870][quote=stienman said:
So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

That's fine, but now imagine how many they would lose in the many future years to come if the policy didn't change? You can't be short-sighted on this, which he isn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't think that the military has a problem finding recruits that aren't gay.
And furthermore, I don't think that they have lost any skills that can't be trained to an infinite number of recruits.

And I fully agree, Steiny. Obama is just paying lip service, just like with all of his other campaign promises.

Oct 11, 2009#23

AshburnerX

Cuyval Dar said:
Yeah, I don't think that the military has a problem finding recruits that aren't gay.
And furthermore, I don't think that they have lost any skills that can't be trained to an infinite number of recruits.

And I fully agree, Steiny. Obama is just paying lip service, just like with all of his other campaign promises.

So... what, you think it's OK to exclude and remove them for being gay, just because they might not be vital personnel? I'm not sure what your trying to say here.

Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

Oct 11, 2009#24

crono1224

Curvy doesn't like something obama has done? There's a fucking surprise. It was a silly policy to start with and doesn't hold water, despite how many people were actually kicked out i am sure it created plenty of more tension knowing if it leaked that you were gay you could get kicked out. Also that reduces recruiting of openly gay people. Who cares the actual numbers it was a good move on a hugely publicized thing.

Lip service or no I am sure our president can handle more that one thing at a time, he isn't GWB.

Oct 11, 2009#25

North_Ranger

*to the OP*

Hm. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Oh, and Cuyval? "Infinite number of recruits", really? Then tell me why the US Aemy had to lower their recruitment standards a few years back just to meet their recruitment goal? I mean, clearly they wouldn't need to, since they have "infinite number of recruits"?

But I digress. While dropping the DADT might not mean a rise in recruitment or a drop in discharge figures, it's still a powerful symbolic act. It sends a message that being a homosexual is not something to be ashamed of, something you need to keep under cover if you want to have a career in the armed forces.

Oct 11, 2009#26

Dusty668

I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

Oct 11, 2009#27

Iaculus

Dusty668 said:
I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

Well, yes, it was an advance at the time, but these days, it's a relic. For the record, we dropped our own DADT policy in 2000, and everything went swimmingly. The ECHR got something right, that's for sure.

Oct 11, 2009#28

phil

Espy said:
Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

/I origonally made a post about some really deep shit pretaining to my thoughts about the right.

I realize that I'm too drunk to give a real argument about this, but I will say this:

Obama is an educated man. An idealistic and nieve man, but an educated one. He knows that leftist ideals won't fly well with a middle centered America. I am 100% certain that he does not give 2 shits about sexual preference. He does, on the other hand, know that politics is not ready for a full on gay friendly politician. He has to pretend to be a church going man to please the the people who care about that. Thus, gay marriage will not be legalized in his administation and left to each state.

It's not right, but it's politics baby. in 20 years lets see where america is. Maybe then after we've hated on the gays and muslims enough we might be ok with making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Until then though, it's just a pipe dream. One that makes me sad because it should be legal.

Oct 11, 2009#29

Ross

Iaculus;272924][quote=Dusty668 said:
I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

Oct 11, 2009#30

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Oct 11, 2009#31

Bowielee

stienman;272960][quote=AshburnerX said:
Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

Oct 11, 2009#32

The Lovely Boehner

stienman said:
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point

Oct 11, 2009#33

Iaculus

stienman;272960][quote=AshburnerX said:
Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

Oct 11, 2009#34

Bubble181

You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

Oct 11, 2009#35

North_Ranger

Bubble181 said:
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity

[/jk]

Oct 11, 2009#36

Seraphyn

Man, I don't even remember when gays were openly allowed to join the army here, before we got into this millenium for sure. How come the US is still so behind on these things? Does religion still wield so much power?

In any case: any step forward is a good thing, so good on Obama for making this happen.

Oct 11, 2009#37

strawman

Charlie Dont Surf;272972][quote=stienman said:
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Oct 11, 2009#38

AshburnerX

North_Ranger;272997][quote=Bubble181 said:
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity

[/jk][/QUOTE]

It's not fear... it's shame. There's a difference

Oct 11, 2009#39

Bowielee

stienman;273009][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;272972][quote=stienman said:
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point[/quote]

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

Are you saying that homosexual sexuality is diffierent that heterosexual sexuality, and thus they don't need separate facilities, or are you saying that we shouldn't have separate facilities for men and women?

It's a very logical argument, and I'm curious why you're dismissing it out of hand without refuting it.

It honestly sounds like something people don't want to address/admit because it's not solved.

If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

It is a non issue. Gay men and women of the same gender already use the same facilities in civillian life, why would there be a change for the military?

Apparently you don't know any gay people. Yes, homosexual and heterosexuality is different.

If you'd been showering with women since birth, there would be no need to have seperate facilities. It's a cultural thing, not a sexuality thing.

Also, this is the worst strawman argument I've ever heard.

Oct 11, 2009#40

ElJuski

stienman;273009][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;272972][quote=stienman said:
The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point[/quote]

If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

Are you saying that homosexual sexuality is diffierent that heterosexual sexuality, and thus they don't need separate facilities, or are you saying that we shouldn't have separate facilities for men and women?

It's a very logical argument, and I'm curious why you're dismissing it out of hand without refuting it.

It honestly sounds like something people don't want to address/admit because it's not solved.

If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the problem you propose is wrongful assumptions of gay men and women desiring straight men and women, and assimilating them to their "wrongful" deeds.

It also sounds like you're projecting your *own* fears of being assimilating to their "wrongful" deeds.

In fact, there are unisex bathrooms and showers across the country; where there are separate bathrooms it seems more about the sexual-social norms long established in this country, or ease. Women don't exactly need urinals, don't they?

---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

Also, yes. If it were a "gay/straight" thing, why don't we just have separate bathrooms for homosexuals? And they can sit in the back of the bus, too, in case they decide to gaze upon my straight Adonis and turn me flaming.

Oct 11, 2009#41

Calleja

stienman said:
If I'm wrong, educate me.

-Adam

Cause gays have been showering and using their gender-assigned facilities all their lifes, it's nothing new to them, they can handle it... just as we could handle it if we had been using unisex facilities all our lifes, like many european countries.

Educated enough?

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

You know, as much as I can love the States, the puritan foundations still shine through too much for me to ever really consider moving there.

Oct 11, 2009#42

strawman

Love the irony/hypocrisy.

"It's a cultural norm" is ok to use as an argument for one side, but it can't be used for the other side.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Oct 11, 2009#43

Seraphyn

stienman said:
If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

-Adam

Because each is catered to their genders need, rather then their sexuality?

Oct 11, 2009#44

Calleja

stienman said:
Love the irony/hypocrisy.

"It's a cultural norm" is ok to use as an argument for one side, but it can't be used for the other side.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Yes, it's acceptable when dealing with whether you should burp at the table or not, but not when it's alienating a considerable chunk of the population of their basic human rights.

Or are you ok with women being burned at the stake for looking at a man that's not their husband? Y'know, cause it cultural?

It's not all black and white, steiny.

Oct 11, 2009#45

North_Ranger

AshburnerX;273014][quote=North_Ranger;272997][quote=Bubble181 said:
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity

[/jk][/QUOTE]

It's not fear... it's shame. There's a difference

[/QUOTE]

Well, the end result is the same, isn't it? Someone of the same sex appears tackle out/beaver presented and everybody screams bloody murder

---------- Post added at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Seraphyn;273026][quote=stienman said:
If my point is not rational, then explain why we still have separate facilities for men and women?

-Adam

Because each is catered to their genders need, rather then their sexuality?[/QUOTE]

And what about unisex toilets? Granted, they're not widespread, but they're still there...

Oct 11, 2009#46

Seraphyn

North_Ranger said:
And what about unisex toilets? Granted, they're not widespread, but they're still there...

Basically, when going unisex you save space and costs, so unisex is more cost effective. I think this is the basic idea when people decide on providing unisex facilities rather then separate gender facilities.

Of course, the whole gender apartheid thing started purely out of shame/embarrassment and a class/gender inequality.

Personally I don't mind either. Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

Oct 11, 2009#47

ElJuski

Seraphyn said:
Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

Right, the main issue is the sexuality present. Which, for some reason, Steiny thinks is different and rampant amongst the homosexuals versus "normal" day to day folk.

Oct 11, 2009#48

Philosopher B.

Can I just say,

fuck yeah Obama.

Oct 11, 2009#49

Steven Soderburgin

BOWLIEE AND ELJUSKI YOU MY DAWGS BUt you knew that already i mean at least juski did cause he an i be tight

edit OH SHIT I FUCKED UP BOWIELEE'S NAME FUCK

but seriously steinman what the fuck

Oct 11, 2009#50

Steven Soderburgin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902570.html

I was 18 years old when I landed in the kingdom of Bahrain, off the coast of Saudi Arabia, in the winter of 2005. It was the first time I'd ever left the continental United States. My joints ached after more than 24 hours of travel, but I knew that a new life of service and adventure awaited me on the other side of that aircraft door.

This was the day I had been dreaming about since I'd enlisted in the Navy a few months before, on my birthday. I loved my country, and I knew that I was ready to prove myself in action.

I also knew that I was gay.

However, I chose to put service above my personal life. My understanding of the \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy was that if I kept quiet about my sexuality and didn't break any rules, I would face no punishment. I was wrong.

Once I joined the Navy, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, for being gay. The irony of \"don't ask, don't tell\" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply. Now, after a Youth Radio investigation of the abuses I suffered, the chief of naval operations ordered a thorough study of how the Navy handled the situation and is currently reviewing the document. I'm hopeful that the case will be reopened and top leadership finally held accountable for the lives they have ruined.

Within days of arriving at my duty station in Bahrain, I decided that I wanted to earn a place among the elite handlers working with dogs trained to detect explosives. After passing exams and completing training, I went from serving among hundreds of military police to serving in a specialized unit of two dozen handlers and 32 dogs. I was responsible for training and working with two dogs throughout the region. Our goal was to keep explosives and insurgents out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For 12 hours a day in 112-degree heat with 85 percent humidity, we searched vehicles for explosives and responded to any threats. I loved the job, but there wasn't a day that went by when I wasn't completely miserable.

Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

I can't say for certain when the abuse started or when it stopped. Now, several years removed from those days in Bahrain, it blends together in my mind as a 28-month nightmare.

Once, the abuse was an all-day event; a training scenario turned into an excuse to humiliate me. Normally we ran the dogs through practice situations -- an earthquake, a bomb or a fight -- that we might encounter in our work. That day, in a classroom at an American school in Bahrain, with posters of the Founding Fathers lining the walls, the scenario happened to be me. I was the decoy, and I had to do just what Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint ordered.

In one corner of the classroom was a long sofa, turned away from the door. When you walked into the room, it appeared that one man was sitting on it, alone. But I was there too -- the chief had decided that I would be down on my hands and knees, simulating oral sex. A kennel support staff member and I were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us having sex. Over and over, with each of the 32 dogs, I was forced to enact this scenario.

I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn't \"tell.\"

I even saw \"don't ask, don't tell\" used against heterosexual female service members who had reported being the victims of sexual assault. If my chief acted on their statements, he would be forced to punish a friend of his, so the easiest way to make the problem go away was to scare the women into silence by saying something like: \"You weren't sexually assaulted by a male in my unit. I hear you're a lesbian.\" After all, homosexuals have no rights in our military. You can't sexually assault someone who doesn't exist.

But the abuse wasn't invisible to everyone. In 2005, roughly six months into my time with that unit, a new sailor in our group was taken aback when I was left tied up in a dog kennel. She reported the incident and, from what I understand, this prompted an internal investigation into hazing in my unit. Even then, the abuse continued, and I still couldn't bring myself to talk about it. It took 90 minutes and the threat of a subpoena to get me to testify.

The Navy confirmed 93 incidents of misconduct, including hazing, abuse, physical assault, solicitation of prostitutes and misuse of government property and funds, but the case was closed. After receiving a letter of caution, the military's version of a slap on the wrist, my chief was eventually promoted in rank and position.

In the course of that investigation, the Navy decided to charge my best friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a 27-year-old Sailor of the Year and second in command of my unit, for failing to put an end to my chief's tyranny. The idea that she could have stopped the abuse is, to me, unfair and unreasonable. The Navy itself failed to stop him.

Val, as I called her, was set to return home when she was told of the charges and that she wouldn't be leaving Bahrain as planned. She was afraid that she would never see the United States again. My mentor ended up taking her life.

This incredible woman, whom I ate lunch with every Sunday and ran with every morning, was gone. Since the night I learned of her death, I have been haunted by nightmares. In my dreams, she's decomposing and suggests that the only way for me to stop my abuse is to follow her lead and end my life.

Just two days before she killed herself, Val gave me a gift, a token of congratulations on being accepted to the Naval Academy prep school in Rhode Island.

And despite everything that had happened -- the abuse and her death -- I decided to enroll. I wanted to put what had happened in Bahrain behind me. I had applied to the academy twice before I was finally accepted to the prep school, an education that would put me on my way to a commission from Annapolis.

It was my dream come true. I left Bahrain as a petty officer 3rd class and completed a six-week officer candidate boot camp. My commanders told me they wanted me to have a leadership role at the school. But after more than two years of abuse, the suicide of a fine sailor and the Navy's unwillingness to punish the top leadership in my unit, I was mentally and emotionally depleted. I refused to be punished any longer for who I am, so I made the most difficult decision of my life. I stood outside the office of my commanding officer with my knees buckling. My resignation read:

\"I am a homosexual. I deeply regret that my personal feelings are not compatible with Naval regulations or policy. I am proud of my service and had hoped I would be able to serve the Navy and the country for my entire career. However, the principles of honor, courage and commitment mean I must be honest with myself, courageous in my beliefs, and committed in my action. I understand that this statement will be used to end my Naval career.\"

It would take two months for the Naval Academy and its lawyers to figure out what to do with me. The lawyers dove into a mess of technicalities. The \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy is riddled with inconsistencies, loopholes, unfairness and hypocrisy. As an officer candidate, I found the situation even more confusing. Lawyers debated: Should they be consulting the \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy for officers or the regulations for enlisted personnel? Given the amount of money invested in military officers, the policy for them is far more forgiving.

During those weeks I was ordered to restricted duty and living quarters. I was stuck pulling weeds in the courtyard of the school, as students who had been my peers walked to class in their proud midshipmen-candidate uniforms. I was ordered not to contact my former classmates by any means. The school didn't want me to \"influence them.\" This was my lowest point. Based on principle, based on dignity, I had forfeited my dream of a Naval Academy graduation.

Thankfully, I was discharged honorably with full benefits. Otherwise, I would have been left with no money for college and no health-care options for the severe depression, insomnia and post-traumatic stress disorder that Veterans Affairs physicians have diagnosed in me since I've returned from overseas. That would have been lawful under \"don't ask, don't tell.\"

For years, I kept this story a secret from my loved ones, wanting simply to move on. But I believe we have a window of opportunity now in the effort to repeal \"don't ask, don't tell,\" and this has propelled me to go public with my experience. This weekend, I will be at the National Equality March for gay rights in Washington, after traveling across the country speaking at gay pride events and at universities, trying to build momentum for a strategy for repeal.

I'm doing all of this during midterms at the University of San Diego, where I am a junior majoring in political science. While my greatest regret is that I will never graduate from Annapolis, I am confident that soon I will serve proudly as a commissioned officer.

I don't think I will ever feel as powerless as I did when I was on my knees, wearing a U.S. military uniform in the Middle East, forced by my superior to shove my head between another man's legs. But I have discovered that telling this story holds its own kind of power.

The more I talk about what happened to me, the more I hear from others who have been in similar situations. Students in the service academies calling me, crying, asking if they should quit. World War II veterans. Enlisted soldiers serving overseas. They are hopeful that we may soon have a different kind of military, that gay and lesbian men and women can serve the country we love with job security and dignity.

Despite everything, I am hopeful, too.

Joseph Rocha is a junior at the University of San Diego.

fuck DADT

Oct 11, 2009#51

Calleja

Educated enough?

Oct 12, 2009#52

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Huh.

I don't support this policy.

Oct 12, 2009#53

Shegokigo

BlackCrossCrusader said:
Huh.

I don't support this policy.

Well thanks for putting those very useful 2cents into the conversation, especially since you didn't bother adding a single word of reason behind it. :rolleyes:

Oct 12, 2009#54

Rob King

ElJuski;273045][quote=Seraphyn said:
Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

Right, the main issue is the sexuality present. Which, for some reason, Steiny thinks is different and rampant amongst the homosexuals versus "normal" day to day folk.[/QUOTE]

I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.

Oct 12, 2009#55

North_Ranger

Kissinger said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902570.html

*snip Rocha wall of text*

Click to expand...

fuck DADT

Indeed. God, that sounded horrible... Part of me hopes that hazing of this magnitude isn't going on in our own defence forces. But then there's the part of me that remembers how juvenile, asinine and completely idiotic treatment all of us got in the hands of our immediate NCOs... *sighs*

---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

Rob King;273205][quote=ElJuski;273045][quote=Seraphyn said:
Unisex is fine, separate is fine. If it turns someone of any gender on to watch me shower or something I couldn't care less, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

Oct 12, 2009#56

Shegokigo

Rob King said:
I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.

So now you're Pro-Segregated Bathrooms? I think we should get Segregated Locker Rooms while we're at it, why stop there? I can think of how much further you can push that line of thinking for hours. :eek:

rly:

Oct 12, 2009#57

@Li3n

What needs to happen is something that will make accidental sightings of other's genitalia no longer be an issue in male toilets... coz really, i had enough of looking at the ceiling while trying to pee.

Oct 12, 2009#58

Steven Soderburgin

But no, seriously, guys, let's keep this Sword of Damocles hanging over every gay serviceman or -woman's head, making them live in constant fear of being discovered in the best of situations, and in the worst, allowing them to be harassed and abused and even preventing straight women from being able to report sexual abuse and assault for fear of being kicked out for being gay because of fucking bathrooms

let's just keep doing that because you know us queers just can't fucking control ourselves

fucking shit

Oct 12, 2009#59

Hailey Knight

Oh shit... I didn't even know it until now... There's gay people EVERYWHERE!

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Oct 12, 2009#60

Covar

And yet some shitfuck in the House wants to ban smoking in the military :eek:

rly:

Oct 12, 2009#61

Hailey Knight

I think the military needs to have separate bathrooms based on whether you can procreate. So send the visectomies and tube-tied with the homosexuals, and leave the baby-makers be.

Oct 12, 2009#62

ElJuski

escushion said:
Oh shit... I didn't even know it until now... There's gay people EVERYWHERE!

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN. OHHHHH GOOOODDDDDDDDDDD

Oct 12, 2009#63

SpecialKO

Guys, you don't even want to put the bathroom option out there. 'Cause at least the male portion of the LGBT population has been wanting it. Not because they're gay/bi/trans, because they're GUYS.

Have you been in a men's public restroom before?

No rational, relatively hygienic human male would turn down the chance to get government-approved access to an exclusive bathroom used by a smaller segment of the population.

Every guy you can keep out, regardless of differentiation method, is that much less TP all over the floor, pee-stains, missed urinals, unflushed shit you have to deal with.

If I could lobby Yankee stadium successfully to provide exclusive bathroom facilities to the minority of 25-34 males from New Jersey with mixed racial backgrounds, an appreciation for terrible puns, and a working knowledge of Google Adwords, I would.

Oct 12, 2009#64

Iaculus

Shegokigo;273219][quote=Rob King said:
I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.

rly:[/QUOTE]

Who's 'you' here? Explaining an argument's reasoning doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

Oct 12, 2009#65

ElJuski

Either way "Function 1" isn't enough of an argument and "Function 2" is under the auspicious reasoning that only straight people use public bathrooms anyway.

Oh, and that someone is more "vulnerable" because they are using a restroom. As if taking a piss or a shit is a mating call for the human race.

Oct 12, 2009#66

sixpackshaker

Well now I hope it becomes, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't kick them out, Don't engage in lewd acts in the restroom.

All you guys using the bathroom analogy... George Micheal or Larry Craig.

Oct 12, 2009#67

Chibibar

on one hand, I guess I kinda understand the "don't ask, don't tell" at least the original idea behind it. I mean, how would you handle your staff correctly? I mean the general public is pretty ignorant in terms of mentality of homosexuals. I mean look at general populus of U.S. won't even let them married and how do you think the government handle it?

they hide it and push it aside thinking it is "catchable" I am sad of the story earlier about a guy being hazed for his sexuality, but he didn't say anything cause he didn't want to be discharge. Can you imagine the hazing will occur if some people are open about it?

I think it is a step and I HOPE same sex marriage will be allow across the U.S. (as the next step) Tossing religion aside and look at the basic rights the government are denying their citizen because of their sexual preference.

Oct 12, 2009#68

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Shegokigo;273196][quote=BlackCrossCrusader said:
Huh.

I don't support this policy.

Well thanks for putting those very useful 2cents into the conversation, especially since you didn't bother adding a single word of reason behind it. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

I have my reasons of course. But, I don't see the need reveal them to anyone here.

Oct 12, 2009#69

Armadillo

ElJuski said:
As if taking a piss or a shit is a mating call for the human race.

Haven't spent much time on the net, have you? :Leyla:

Oct 12, 2009#70

Kitty Sinatra

Bubble181 said:
You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

But you will, I hope. :unibrow:

Oct 12, 2009#71

ElJuski

Armadillo;273492][quote=ElJuski said:
As if taking a piss or a shit is a mating call for the human race.

Haven't spent much time on the net, have you? :Leyla:

[/QUOTE]

Good point--we shouldn't let people who get off to pissing and shitting in the military, because they might endanger those who don't get off to pissing and shitting who are in the military.

Oct 12, 2009#72

Biardo

I've showered with gay guys before after football, I didn't care and neither did they, it's not like they can't control them selves when they see a naked man. I've went to unisex saunas before and I didn't jump the first naked women who walked in either.
I for one support Obama in this case and I do hope he does something about the gay marriages also although I do see why that will be difficult down there, baby steps, baby steps

Oct 12, 2009#73

Kitty Sinatra

So was this part of Obama's Nobel Potential?

Oct 12, 2009#74

ElJuski

Gruebeard said:
So was this part of Obama's Nobel Potential?

Considering his nomination was in February...well, he might have been in the bathroom taking a piss at the time and thought, "Hey, I never thought about this--gay people go potty too!"

Oct 12, 2009#75

Espy

Biardo said:
I've showered with gay guys before after football, I didn't care and neither did they, it's not like they can't control them selves when they see a naked man. I've went to unisex saunas before and I didn't jump the first naked women who walked in either.

I agree with you but I think some are missing the point of Stein's argument.
Not everyone WILL be comfortable.
Just like not every woman would be comfortable with men in their shower rooms at the Y.
It doesn't make them bigots or evil or terrible for being uncomfortable. It makes them human and uncomfortable. While I don't think it's enough of an argument to NOT overturn DADT, it's not half as horrible of what some of you are making it out to be. Unless every woman who doesn't want to shower with a man is a evil bigot that is.

Oct 12, 2009#76

SpecialKO

Espy, is your point about getting the support of people who feel uncomfortable, or actually arguing the validity of the bathroom argument, which Steiny kind of pulled out of nowhere (as others have pointed out)?

Oct 12, 2009#77

Espy

My point is saying that his argument, that people will be uncomfortable with sharing certain spaces with people of the opposite sexuality is a real thing.
It's not some crazy bigoted argument, there are people who will be uncomfortable with it, much as, like I said, women at the Y aren't going to just let them make their showers gender neutral.

I'm not saying we need the support of those who are uncomfortable, or that we even need to address that uncomfortability. Let's get this stupid law overturned already.
I think it will sort itself out.
But I don't think anyone who is uncomfortable with showering with someone of the opposite sex or of the opposite sexuality is automatically a bigot, which is kind of the vibe I get from some posts here.
Does that make sense?

Oct 12, 2009#78

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Espy, you're getting pretty close to mirroring my sentiments on this subject.

Oct 12, 2009#79

ElJuski

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly. And that there are many people out there who are using that reason as a projection of some ignorant fears.

Chiefly, this notion that just because a man is gay he wants all other gay men. Or gay women to all women.

But yes, if it is just about the notion, and the person clearly doesn't have any bigoted sense of homosexuality, that's all good...they just have a silly notion of bathrooms.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly. And that there are many people out there who are using that reason as a projection of some ignorant fears.

Chiefly, this notion that just because a man is gay he wants all other gay men. Or gay women to all women.

But yes, if it is just about the notion, and the person clearly doesn't have any bigoted sense of homosexuality, that's all good...they just have a silly notion of bathrooms.

Oct 12, 2009#80

Espy

ElJuski said:
No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly.

I hope I made it clear, I agree with this.

Oh and @BCC: If you agree with me so much why am I not in your "I love you guys" thread???? :mad:

Oct 12, 2009#81

Kitty Sinatra

BCC loves us guys? Gaaaaaay.

Oct 12, 2009#82

Rob King

Iaculus;273366][quote=Shegokigo;273219][quote=Rob King said:
I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.

rly:[/QUOTE]

Who's 'you' here? Explaining an argument's reasoning doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.[/QUOTE]

Thank you so much. This is where I go wrong in these conversations, it seems. I'm horrifically liberal, but it breaks my heart to see a misunderstood argument wandering the streets alone. I saw Steinman's argument being mistreated, I stepped in to clarify what I though was his obvious point, and I get painted with the same brush.

I personally couldn't care less about sharing a bathroom with homosexuals. As for having only one changing room for men, women and all in-betweens, of each and every sexuality ... whatever. I could dig it. It certainly makes sense to me.

Oct 12, 2009#83

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Espy;273628][quote=ElJuski said:
No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly.

I hope I made it clear, I agree with this.

Oh and @BCC: If you agree with me so much why am I not in your "I love you guys" thread???? :mad:

[/QUOTE]

I thought what we had went beyond mere words. I can see now that I am mistaken.

Oct 12, 2009#84

North_Ranger

Pink shower curtains.

You heard me. At least, that was one solution used by the Finnish Defense Forces - when women were allowed in. I don't know what kind of a shower system the US Army has, but our barracks' wash rooms had small shower cubicles where one went for a quick wash. When women joined in and unisex military units (such as the Rapid Response team) began to appear, they noticed that the usual white shower curtains were a little... see-through.

So they changed the curtains into pink ones that aren't.

Pink. It's the answer.

DISCLAIMER: While pink shower curtains are indeed in use in the FDF, the purpose of this message is humorous. The poster is staying up late and is talking out of his ass. Do not take him seriously.

Oct 12, 2009#85

Steven Soderburgin

GOD WHO FUCKING CARES GUESS WHAT GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHARE BATHROOMS WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER WHAT THE FUCKING SHITTING CHRIST THIS IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVER

Oct 12, 2009#86

AshburnerX

Kissinger said:
GOD WHO FUCKING CARES GUESS WHAT GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHARE BATHROOMS WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER WHAT THE FUCKING SHITTING CHRIST THIS IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVER

This is EXTRA Funny if you imagine Henry Kissinger saying it.

Oct 12, 2009#87

Kitty Sinatra

It's EXTRA EXTRA funny if you imagine yourself walking into a bathroom and see fucking, shitting Jesus Christ.

Sorry, no picture.

Oct 12, 2009#88

strawman

You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't mean my message to come off that way, but I'm tired and I'm just gonna roll with that...

-Adam

Oct 12, 2009#89

makare

stienman said:
You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

It depends on what your goal is, if the goal is the denouncement of ridiculous, ignorant "arguments" then I think people in here are doing alright.

Keep on truckin' :cool:

Oct 12, 2009#90

ElJuski

Thanks, makare. My sentiments exactly.

Also, I don't need to call my representatives. It already got changed! It's just a matter of denouncing the absurdly ridiculous notions people seemingly have about homosexuality based on these "hypothetical" arguments.

Oct 12, 2009#91

Rob King

makare1 said:
It depends on what your goal is, if the goal is the denouncement of ridiculous, ignorant "arguments" then I think people in here are doing alright.

As far as I understand it, what Steinman was getting on with was neither ridiculous, ignorant, or even an argument. He was suggesting that we examine a curious, and under-discussed portion of the issue.

Maybe it's a non-issue for the people here in the forum. I've already stated it's mostly a non-issue for me personally. But I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. The bathroom (or locker room, or shower room, or whatever) issue is connected.

Oct 12, 2009#92

Armadillo

Modern political discourse 101:

Person A: brings up a hypothetical situation that may or may not be crucial to the topic at hand, but they feel it's important to explore, regardless of their personal position.

Persons B through ZZZ: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Oct 12, 2009#93

Kitty Sinatra

Person AAAA: "Ah c'mon guys. Person A was just saying it's okay 'cause she was mature for her age"

Oct 12, 2009#94

ElJuski

It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

---------- Post added at 04:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 AM ----------

Gruebeard said:
Person AAAA: "Ah c'mon guys. Person A was just saying it's okay 'cause she was mature for her age"

oh god

Oct 12, 2009#95

Rob King

ElJuski said:
It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

Again, I really don't see this.

Or rather, I see it. But I don't see it as any different from what we do with heterosexual men. See my previous post:

Rob King said:
... I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. ...

Oct 12, 2009#96

Bowielee

stienman said:
You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't mean my message to come off that way, but I'm tired and I'm just gonna roll with that...

-Adam

Y'know Steinman, it's easy to be an armchair pundit on an issue like this, but having been an out homosexual (who was actually turned down for military service due to his sexuality, first man in my line to not serve in the army) This is, and always has been a huge sticking point for me.

Your comments do come off as ignorant and vaguely homophobic. As for action, I HAVE lobbied against descrimination against gays in the military for most of my adult life, until I just decided to say fuck it and stopped being an activist because douche nozzles such as yourself think that gay men can't manage to do everything that straight people do without wanting to pounce on every cock we see and I figured I was tired of fighting a losing battle. Nowadays I fight with my votes and that's about it.

Yes, I'm totally biased on this, and I could give two shits less if that bothers you or not.

Oct 12, 2009#97

ElJuski

Rob King;273814][quote=ElJuski said:
It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

Again, I really don't see this.

Or rather, I see it. But I don't see it as any different from what we do with heterosexual men. See my previous post:

Rob King said:
... I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. ...

[/QUOTE]

Well, the whole gender differentiation and anxiety thing is starting to get thrown out the window. This country still holds fast to a lot of social-sexual norms and barriers that don't exactly hold up to rational scrutiny. It would be a good thing is people weren't so apprehensive about the opposite sex.

Which is a lumbering iceberg of a social change, but it's getting there.

Oct 13, 2009#98

strawman

Bowielee said:
douche nozzles such as yourself think that gay men can't manage to do everything that straight people do without wanting to pounce on every cock we see

Oct 13, 2009#99

Espy

ElJuski said:
Well, the whole gender differentiation and anxiety thing is starting to get thrown out the window. This country still holds fast to a lot of social-sexual norms and barriers that don't exactly hold up to rational scrutiny. It would be a good thing is people weren't so apprehensive about the opposite sex.

Which is a lumbering iceberg of a social change, but it's getting there.

I agree with you on a lot but not on this. Gender differences, whether they be bathrooms, showers at the Y, clothing stores for one gender, etc, are still a LARGE part of the mainstream, at least here in the US. The homosexual population of the US is what, between 5-10 million after some census searches and thats out of over 300 million, making it a very, VERY small number. Gender is MUCH bigger and from what I see in my every day activities, very much a separation point between people.
Just out of curiosity what exactly do you see failing under logical scrutiny? Showers that are gender specific? Changing room? Bathrooms?
I don't ask to be antagonistic, but because I have honestly NEVER heard anyone offer an argument for logical failure for these gender specific things.

Oct 13, 2009#100

makare

I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act. :confused:

Oct 13, 2009#101

Espy

You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

And the reason people say "it CAN change and people CAN deal with it" is because A) We already go to the bathroom and shower with homosexuals, we just probably don't know it and B)they are a VERY small part of the overall population. It's not like trying to integrate blacks and whites.

Oct 13, 2009#102

strawman

Espy said:
Just out of curiosity what exactly do you see failing under logical scrutiny?

To back you up a bit, Americans have an extraordinarily strong culture of privacy. It's backed up in the constitution, and is the right that was used to strike down anti-abortion laws.

It's no big deal in Europe to run from the bathroom to the bedroom sans towel and being seen by someone.

In the US both the person running and the person who saw it would be embarrassed. Not necessarily by what they saw, or that they were seen, but by the breach of privacy - even when there should have been no expectation of privacy.

The rising generation, and even those in college now, may not be able to fully grasp just how strong this is for the majority of Americans. Until they run across the hallway, and wonder why they felt embarrassed even though no one saw them.

It takes a long time to change a culture without some fantastic outside force (such as world war) pushing the change.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

Espy said:
You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

Are you being tongue in cheek here? Follow that path - why won't they let us? Doesn't it still lead to the same result of unnecessary sexual tension?

-Adam

Oct 13, 2009#103

Espy

I just don't see it happening, despite sexuality becoming more and more mainstream and acceptable (i.e. you would never have seen a "MAXIM" out on your married friends table 20 years ago) I still don't see a lax of gender specific things/stores/options.

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

stienman said:
[/COLOR]

Espy said:

You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

Click to expand...

Are you being tongue in cheek here? Follow that path - why won't they let us? Doesn't it still lead to the same result of unnecessary sexual tension?

-Adam

I am being extremely silly and for at least some men I now, extremely serious.:biggrin1:

Oct 13, 2009#104

strawman

makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Oct 13, 2009#105

Armadillo

stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Oct 13, 2009#106

Iaculus

stienman;273837][quote=Bowielee said:
douche nozzles such as yourself think that gay men can't manage to do everything that straight people do without wanting to pounce on every cock we see

I don't recall making that argument. I'm not sure I can make it any more explicit and clear, but let me try:

In the US culture, hetersexual men don't shower with heterosexual women because it causes unnecessary sexual tension. Most heterosexual males, when they see a naked woman, stops thinking about work, hobbies or whatever and starts thinking about sex. It doesn't make them want to pounce on every girl they see, as you so eloquently put, but it's a distraction, and a daily tension they don't have to deal with.

The converse is true - if there's a one way mirror so the men can't see the women, but the women can see them then the males still have sexual tension that must be dealt with.

Now, EITHER people are arguing that:

1. Gay people are fundamentally different and therefore not subject to sexual urges (ie, heterosexual and homosexual sexuality is fundamentally different)
2. People just get to deal with it (ie, the whole culture needs to change RIGHT THE @#$# NOW)

I didn't think that people would argue in favor of #1, but some here appear to be saying that homosexual males either are not aroused by the sight of naked males, or simply don't get aroused by the sight of naked men the same way that heterosexual males get aroused by the sight of naked women. It's odd that people would say that there's a difference when it seems like they've been trying to tell us it's just as innate and strong a sexual drive as heterosexuality. If #1 is true, that would seemingly preclude the existence of gay porn, but as far as I can tell it's not unpopular.

The people arguing for #2 are just clueless. You can't change a culture overnight. It's been a long time since homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, but the reality is that things are actually moving very quickly. The latest polls show a distinct change (which is why Obama is able to at least meet and make promises - I can guarantee you if there were less than 60% support he'd treat homosexuality as every other president has).

I'm sorry to have offended you or anyone else - this is not my intention. But those that don't recognize even the seemingly insignificant barriers to change will eventually trip over them. Many may dismiss this as a stupid argument, but it's completely logical within the framework of the culture at hand, and to dismiss it without examination will prove to be a hindrance to their goals.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

You forgot option 3 - it's been happening for years, and hasn't caused much of a problem, if anything. Seriously, how often have you seen openly gay people getting kicked out of public bathrooms in civilian life so far? It's not as if the military has a monopoly on people of the same sex getting cooped up together for an extended period of time - they're just the only ones who will formally discharge you if, say, you're a guy who prefers the schlong to the hoo-haa.

The reason is simple - the genders tend to be segregated from a relatively young age, whereas homosexual and heterosexual people of the same gender are not. As such, sharing bathrooms for the latter rapidly becomes a norm, one that can be dealt with with a minimum of fuss, whereas a heterosexual male popping into the women's bathroom is sufficiently out of social context to cause a definite fuss. All that is happening here is that a truth would be acknowledged that has been present for years - some people you share a bathroom with may be gay.

Again, we got rid of DADT nine years ago, and we haven't had any problems like this. It's not as if the UK is a seething, hedonistic pot of ultraliberality, either - in many ways, we're just as straight-laced as you. We got the exact same shrieking overreactions to the notion, and then once it had happened - bam. Nothing. It's a non-issue. It will not be tripped over.

Oct 13, 2009#107

makare

stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Because areas are designated by gender does not mean that the designation has anything to with sexual arousal. If a guy goes into the women's bathroom by mistake pisses in a stall and leaves what crime would that be exactly? Trespassing? If he walked around naked it might be public lewdness... but it still wouldn't have anything do with sexual arousal.

Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

Armadillo;273857][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Oct 13, 2009#108

strawman

makare1 said:
Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

That's too bad.

-Adam

Oct 13, 2009#109

Armadillo

I never thought the statement "gay men get aroused by the sight of naked men" would cause such a fuss. I always put it up as a "well, no shit" kind of a thing. "Straight men get aroused by the sight of naked women." Again, no shit. DEFINITIONS, PEOPLE!!!

:behindsofa:

Oct 13, 2009#110

makare

stienman;273861][quote=makare1 said:
Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

That's too bad.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

I honestly think you just post nonsense to see people's reactions and then act holier than thou about it.

It's really the only explanation.

Oct 13, 2009#111

Iaculus

Armadillo said:
I never thought the statement "gay men get aroused by the sight of naked men" would cause such a fuss. I always put it up as a "well, no shit" kind of a thing. "Straight men get aroused by the sight of naked women." Again, no shit. DEFINITIONS, PEOPLE!!!

:behindsofa:

Question is, though - does this present a problem?

My argument? No. Besides, ever been anywhere near a nudist colony? A good percentage of the population really doesn't look all that arousing with their kit off. Less so, I imagine, when they're going to the loo.

Oct 13, 2009#112

Armadillo

makare1;273859][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Because areas are designated by gender does not mean that the designation has anything to with sexual arousal. If a guy goes into the women's bathroom by mistake pisses in a stall and leaves what crime would that be exactly? Trespassing? If he walked around naked it might be public lewdness... but it still wouldn't have anything do with sexual arousal.

Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

Armadillo;273857][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Oct 13, 2009#113

@Li3n

I think you guys are missing the real issue here... GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEEING ALL OUR PENISES (PENI?) WHEN WE WHERE USING PUBLIC BATHROOMS...

Oct 13, 2009#114

makare

O NOES!

Armadillo said:
In a court of law, yes. Intent absolutely matters and you are 100% correct. However, in society, my point holds, and this is what stienman was arguing: there are social forces that have not yet and may never accept homosexuality as anything other than deviant, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that CANNOT be ignored, no matter how much you or I disagree with it. You have to take an active stance and try to change minds, not just dismiss those views out of hand, which does nothing to further your cause.

Hey he said crimes.. he made it about the law.

I will say from my personal experience that when men have used the women's bathroom for bathroom purposes only the women don't really care*. However, if the guy was like lurking around in the bathroom that was different.. Although I have reported creepy female bathroom lurkers too so it is more the lurking thing and not the gender that is a factor.

*I want to qualify that. If men try to use the women's bathroom when there is a really long line of women they can fuck off and die. We already have to wait forever. We don't need to wait for men who have their own bathrooms.

Oct 13, 2009#115

Armadillo

mr_thehun said:
You know, I've seen plenty of naked women in public places (the nudist beach was a five minute walk from my university and was the only beach worth going to) and I have to say, just because they are naked doesn't mean I think of them sexually when I see them naked.

bloody North American prudes (I am Canadian)

Well, if someone does get aroused at the sight of naked people, that doesn't mean they necessarily think it's a BAD thing. Arousal is a normal part of the human condition, and as such needs to be understood so that we don't become sweaty, fetal-position ninnies at the mere sight of a nipple.

That's kind of a roundabout way of agreeing that prudes suck.

Oct 13, 2009#116

Iaculus

Armadillo;273869][quote=makare1;273859][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Because areas are designated by gender does not mean that the designation has anything to with sexual arousal. If a guy goes into the women's bathroom by mistake pisses in a stall and leaves what crime would that be exactly? Trespassing? If he walked around naked it might be public lewdness... but it still wouldn't have anything do with sexual arousal.

Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

Armadillo;273857][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

To further the point, when a man goes into a women's bathroom, he is seen as a "pervert," is he not? Now why would that be the case if sex had NOTHING to do with the separation?

Saying that there is a sexual component to male/female separations in bathing and bathroom facilities does not IN ANY WAY indicate support for a policy like DADT or any other homophobic policies.[/QUOTE]

if he intentionally went into the women's bathroom with the intention of ogling the women yes that would be a sexual crime. But that is not the same as simply using the bathroom on a regular basis.

I don't want to change the subject but I am going to use this example: if a man is going to the park and watching kids play because seeing happy kids amuses him = not sexual, not perverse. if a man is going to the park and watching kids play because seeing kids arouses him= sexual, perversion.

Context and intent play a big role in what is a crime and what isn't. A man using the bathroom to pee is not going to be seen in the same light as a man using it specifically for a sexual purpose like ogling.

If you can't see the difference there, stay out of the bathroom... and the courtroom.[/QUOTE]

In a court of law, yes. Intent absolutely matters and you are 100% correct. However, in society, my point holds, and this is what stienman was arguing: there are social forces that have not yet and may never accept homosexuality as anything other than deviant, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that CANNOT be ignored, no matter how much you or I disagree with it. You have to take an active stance and try to change minds, not just dismiss those views out of hand, which does nothing to further your cause.[/QUOTE]

Some things, though, can be dismissed. Concern about bathroom segregation is one of them. Now, I know there are plenty of sore points out there - doubt you're going to be implementing full, equal-rights gay marriage across the country any time soon - but sometimes, you can ignore the crazies without kicking off a second Civil War.

It's been happening for years in pretty much every other profession with its own shared bathrooms. Why is it a problem now?

Oct 13, 2009#117

Deschain

I think you guys are missing the real issue here... GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEEING ALL OUR PENISES (PENI?) WHEN WE WHERE USING PUBLIC BATHROOMS...

I guess I've been doing it wrong. I've been doing that thing where I don't show off my penis to other people in the bathroom and I don't go peer at theirs.

Oct 13, 2009#118

Armadillo

Iaculus;273876][quote=Armadillo;273869][quote=makare1;273859][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Because areas are designated by gender does not mean that the designation has anything to with sexual arousal. If a guy goes into the women's bathroom by mistake pisses in a stall and leaves what crime would that be exactly? Trespassing? If he walked around naked it might be public lewdness... but it still wouldn't have anything do with sexual arousal.

Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

Armadillo;273857][quote=stienman;273850][quote=makare1 said:
I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

To further the point, when a man goes into a women's bathroom, he is seen as a "pervert," is he not? Now why would that be the case if sex had NOTHING to do with the separation?

Saying that there is a sexual component to male/female separations in bathing and bathroom facilities does not IN ANY WAY indicate support for a policy like DADT or any other homophobic policies.[/QUOTE]

if he intentionally went into the women's bathroom with the intention of ogling the women yes that would be a sexual crime. But that is not the same as simply using the bathroom on a regular basis.

I don't want to change the subject but I am going to use this example: if a man is going to the park and watching kids play because seeing happy kids amuses him = not sexual, not perverse. if a man is going to the park and watching kids play because seeing kids arouses him= sexual, perversion.

Context and intent play a big role in what is a crime and what isn't. A man using the bathroom to pee is not going to be seen in the same light as a man using it specifically for a sexual purpose like ogling.

If you can't see the difference there, stay out of the bathroom... and the courtroom.[/QUOTE]

In a court of law, yes. Intent absolutely matters and you are 100% correct. However, in society, my point holds, and this is what stienman was arguing: there are social forces that have not yet and may never accept homosexuality as anything other than deviant, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that CANNOT be ignored, no matter how much you or I disagree with it. You have to take an active stance and try to change minds, not just dismiss those views out of hand, which does nothing to further your cause.[/QUOTE]

Some things, though, can be dismissed. Concern about bathroom segregation is one of them. Now, I know there are plenty of sore points out there - doubt you're going to be implementing full, equal-rights gay marriage across the country any time soon - but sometimes, you can ignore the crazies without kicking off a second Civil War.

It's been happening for years in pretty much every other profession with its own shared bathrooms. Why is it a problem now?[/QUOTE]

Well, of course we won't be implementing full, equal-rights gay marriage across the country. We can't, since it's a state-by-state issue. For the record, I'd like to see Minnesota (my home state) implement civil unions for all: gay, straight, monogomous and polyamorous alike, while leaving "marriage" to the churches. Of course, I know that'll never happen because that's such a liberal whackadoo idea even for this state.

SEE KRISKEN, I HAVE EXTREME LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS TOO!!!

Oct 13, 2009#119

Krisken

Lol, never said you didn't!

Oct 13, 2009#120

Iaculus

Armadillo;273880][quote=Iaculus;273876][quote=Armadillo said:
Some things, though, can be dismissed. Concern about bathroom segregation is one of them. Now, I know there are plenty of sore points out there - doubt you're going to be implementing full, equal-rights gay marriage across the country any time soon - but sometimes, you can ignore the crazies without kicking off a second Civil War.

It's been happening for years in pretty much every other profession with its own shared bathrooms. Why is it a problem now?

Well, of course we won't be implementing full, equal-rights gay marriage across the country. We can't, since it's a state-by-state issue. For the record, I'd like to see Minnesota (my home state) implement civil unions for all: gay, straight, monogomous and polyamorous alike, while leaving "marriage" to the churches. Of course, I know that'll never happen because that's such a liberal whackadoo idea even for this state.

SEE KRISKEN, I HAVE EXTREME LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS TOO!!!

As for the bathrooms, I don't recall myself (or anyone else for that matter) saying that they agreed with the bathroom "problem," only that it IS a problem for many people, and as such must be taken into account when crafting these sorts of policies. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem pissing or shitting in the same room as women. Hell, I've done it. (Although admittedly I get terribly pee-shy in those instances.)[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know how the Americn legal system works - I wasn't thinking of a sweeping law, by any means, just every state going for it. Like I said, not likely to happen any time soon.

Was not singling out anyone here on the bathroom thingy (the 'you' was general, as in a question that they might be asked), just pointing out that the number of people who'd have a problem with it and raise trouble about it was likely to be small enough to be ignored. I know that cultural matters take a while to properly integrate, but, conversely, you don't want to have the crazies always holding you at political gunpoint either. After all, this has already been pretty much integrated - all the new stuff does is point it out.

Oct 13, 2009#121

strawman

I don't know why everyone is fixated on peeing and pooping here. When I'm talking about bathroom stuff I'm also including showering, but it appears I need to be more specific to include that.

1. "It works in the civilian world" cannot be used as an excuse because military life is different. Civilians don't have to shower with each other every single day for years, and often when they do they still have the choice of a private shower cubicle. Not true in the military.

2. Military personnel get to live according to the orders of the President and Congress - and they can't leave if their leaders change the rules. If it makes them uncomfortable, they are stuck with it. In the civilian world one can quit a job if part of the contract requires they shower in situations where they are uncomfortable showering.

3. "It's been happening for years, and it's obviously not a problem" is so untrue it's astounding you'd even put that forth as an excuse. You are essentially ignoring all the horrific abuse homosexual soldiers go through at the hands of their fellow soldiers, not to mention the daily teasing, hazing, etc. If "it's not a problem, everyone will accept it just fine" then this wouldn't be happening right now.

4. The horrific abuse and hazing that is happening is not directly due to DADT - it existed well before DADT, and will continue to happen well after DADT - although DADT can make things more difficult to pursue problems legally if one wants to stay in the military, but as the example earlier in the thread showed the case is being pursued and dealt with. Taking away DADT won't suddenly stop these things from happening, and as can be seen in instances of rape against female soldiers, taking DADT away won't necessarily increase the rate of reporting. If there are statistics that show DADT is regularly being used as a tool to reduce the reporting of rape (as opposed to all the other terrible tools being used to reduce the report of rape) then I'd very much like to see them.

5. Just as intent matters for some things, openness matters in this case. For many people in the US there is a difference between showering with people who may be gay but never show it, talk about it, etc and showering with people who are openly gay. This, in fact, extends to the civilian bathrooms people are so quick to bring up as an example of "everyone is already doing it" - it works because you don't know if the person next to you at the urinal is gay. But when an obviously or flamboyantly homosexual person enters the restroom it does make people uncomfortable, as Ame pointed out. Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that it's not a problem for anyone else.

A lot of the above can be handled by changing the culture, but simply removing DADT won't resolve them, in some cases may exacerbate existing, and may bring up new problems due to the specific culture of the US. Yes, the UK has a different enough point of view regarding human sexuality that one can't draw complete parallels between the two. Yes, the armed forces are different enough (in terms of culture, size, training, etc) that even if sexuality was exactly the same there would still be significant differences.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 08:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------

Amorous Eyes said:
So if I go to visit the US, which bathroom should I use, stien?

And again, repeating myself here, but just to make the question even more difficult (for you), I'm pansexual. Oh shit! Does that mean I'm banned from using any public bathroom/shower/whathaveyou ?

That's exactly what I'm getting at.

For civilian life it's largely a non-issue because the use of the bathroom is largely private. You go in the one you are dressed as, and no one will know whether you are actually of that sex, or attracted to the opposite sex or not.

However, the context changes when you are openly pansexual at work, and the company requires that you shower with all your co-workers.

If you break that privacy and mutual agreed ignorance by shouting in the ladies room, "I am a pansexual and I like both guys and girls" then you'll be changing the environment due to the additional knowledge you are giving out.

"Amorous Eyes said:
makare1;273863 said:

stienman;273861 said:

makare1 said:

Yet again I have no clue what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

That's too bad.

Click to expand...

I honestly think you just post nonsense to see people's reactions and then act holier than thou about it.

It's really the only explanation.

Click to expand...

That's my thought at times. Really.

I understand that you believe what I'm saying is nonsense. As I've repeatedly said, if you are unable to grasp this point of view then you are limiting yourself to your own rose-colored-glasses worldview.
-Adam

Oct 13, 2009#122

Steven Soderburgin

wow steinman you are one smug, holier-than-thou motherfucker.

The issue you're raising is a complete non-issue. This is why: everyone is already using public showers and restrooms with homosexual members of their own gender. It already happens. Everyone knows they could be showering with a homosexual. The only time when it would become an issue is when a person is acting lewd or aggressive or threatening and there is potential for that whether someone is gay or not. There will be idiots who think that every homosexual is after their dick all the time, but they will think that NO MATTER WHAT and they'll still have to share bathrooms and public showers with them NO MATTER WHAT. Basically continuing a policy that forces gays in the military to live in constant fear in order to cater to the whims of ignorant bigots because they might have to shower with people they know are gay (rather than showering with gay people they may or may not be aware are gay) is a horrifying and frankly indefensible position. This is such a weak position to argue that it seems absurd that you are actually arguing it, especially if you've ever read anything about any civil rights movement in history. There are always bigots who make shit harder for people they want to oppress. This is no different.

Oct 13, 2009#123

@Li3n

Everyone knows they could be showering with a homosexual.

Someone's overestimating the level of though people put in when they go to shower...

Deschain said:
I think you guys are missing the real issue here... GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEEING ALL OUR PENISES (PENI?) WHEN WE WHERE USING PUBLIC BATHROOMS...

Click to expand...

I guess I've been doing it wrong. I've been doing that thing where I don't show off my penis to other people in the bathroom and I don't go peer at theirs.

Sure you don't, that's why you're so vocal about denying it...

Oct 13, 2009#124

Fun Size

Deschain said:
I think you guys are missing the real issue here... GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEEING ALL OUR PENISES (PENI?) WHEN WE WHERE USING PUBLIC BATHROOMS...

Click to expand...

I guess I've been doing it wrong. I've been doing that thing where I don't show off my penis to other people in the bathroom and I don't go peer at theirs.

Then how do you know who won?

Oct 13, 2009#125

D

Dubyamn

@Li3n said:
Someone's overestimating the level of though people put in when they go to shower...

Outside of Prison at least.

Oct 13, 2009#126

Steven Soderburgin

But seriously this is so fucking condescending, steinman. It's unbelievable.

"hey gay military folks i know that things are really tough for you what with not being able to be who you are, having to live in constant fear of being found out and kicked out of your job, possibly being harassed and tormented with no way to stop it or hold your tormentors responsible for their actions, and all that stuff, but have you considered how it would be kind of awkward for some of your fellow soldiers who are ignorant bigots to have to shower with you?" - steinman, you don't mess with the latter day saints

Oct 13, 2009#127

Chibibar

Poor Stienman... I think he is just presenting the point, I don't think he actually support it (do you Stienman?)

The military life is strict. You can set draconian rules that may not pan out well in civilian life.

I have many friends who served and tell me stories. I unfortunately can't serve due to my physical condition

but what they told me is that life is hard (especially in basic) in the military. I don't think the "distraction" or uncomfortable-ness is an issue since the first few month is uncomfortable.

You do as you are ordered and follow it. So I think if DADT rules are thrown out, just add the rules

no sex in the bunks (given)
no sex in the bathroom (which also exist I believe)

I think American is making "sex" too much a taboo which made the whole culture "uncomfortable" but in the military, you can just set up rules and move on and punish people accordingly (like hazing and such)

I personally believe the sad sad thing about this whole thing is religion. Many religions believe that homosexuality is a bad thing and that flows into our society and even our government (see other thread about same sex marriage). Sometimes you just need to make bold changes and people will eventually follow.

Oct 13, 2009#128

SpecialKO

Steiny, just from your arguments, I'm not sure why you'd want to keep DADT, since as you point out correctly, it does not prevent any of that abuse, and actually makes it more difficult to confront.

Also....

obviously or flamboyantly homosexual person enters the restroom

:suspicious:

I dunno how many gay soldiers you've met, but the one's I've met were only obvious on the prowl in socially-prowl-acceptable situations. The other 95% of the time, they were just like any other guy.

I really don't think that once DADT goes away, all of sudden, male military showers will start sounding like a gay singles bar. The off-duty areas might, granted (or maybe 1% of them, anyway).

I know you're making an argument for unintended consequences, but since you've pointed out that DADT, at this point anyways, really doesn't do much as a resolution to problems, I'm confused as to why you're arguing against its removal.

Oct 13, 2009#129

JCM

ZenMonkey said:
AP story:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he will end the \"don't ask, don't tell\" military policy.

The \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.

Obama said this country cannot afford to cut from the military's ranks people with needed skills for fighting. He made the comments to thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he knows gay rights activists get impatient but he says this country has made progress and will make more in defending those rights.

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

On the eve of a major gay-rights rally, Obama addressed thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues. They are looking for firm commitments on such issues as ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this, and dont see how this is in any way wrong.

Oct 13, 2009#130

Chibibar

you know. I was talking to my wife during lunch and we came to a realization.

Throwing out DADT policy will actually help the soldiers rather than hinder. The general society is not ready to accept the homosexuality as a whole BUT most homosexual will more than likely keeping it quiet anyways because of all the internal hazing and such, but with DADT out of the way, these soldier can actually file complaint and be protected instead of discharge.

I think there should be more rules to protect soldier from being haze overall. I don't think there will be a sudden "rise of the gays" in the military because the general military personal wouldn't know how to handle it and thus the people who are gay are more than likely to keep it to themselves to protect themselves from the general military populous.

Oct 13, 2009#131

Armadillo

I'm going to go ahead and defend stienman here, even though he didn't ask me to. If I'm out of line, stieny, let me know.

MY GOD PEOPLE, he didn't advocate for any position here!!! Near as I can tell, he's in favor of repealing DADT as well, but realizes there's going to be some struggles. Homophobia and generalized uncomfortability aren't going to magically disappear when DADT goes away! If we're going to do this, and I think we should, we HAVE to analyze the possible ramifications and the reasoning for those ramifications.

The guy brought up a scenario which could VERY EASILY occur, and you all want to nail him to the fucking cross for it. Good Lord...

Oct 13, 2009#132

makare

Poor Stienman. Everyone is always picking on him. It's a tragedy.

Oct 13, 2009#133

Iaculus

Armadillo said:
I'm going to go ahead and defend stienman here, even though he didn't ask me to. If I'm out of line, stieny, let me know.

MY GOD PEOPLE, he didn't advocate for any position here!!! Near as I can tell, he's in favor of repealing DADT as well, but realizes there's going to be some struggles. Homophobia and generalized uncomfortability aren't going to magically disappear when DADT goes away! If we're going to do this, and I think we should, we HAVE to analyze the possible ramifications and the reasoning for those ramifications.

The guy brought up a scenario which could VERY EASILY occur, and you all want to nail him to the fucking cross for it. Good Lord...

Very easily? Not exactly. Even if it did, I doubt the damage would even register to any great extent. Again, non-issue. There are bigger things to be concerned about.

Oct 13, 2009#134

JCM

Iaculus;274329][quote=Armadillo said:
I'm going to go ahead and defend stienman here, even though he didn't ask me to. If I'm out of line, stieny, let me know.

MY GOD PEOPLE, he didn't advocate for any position here!!! Near as I can tell, he's in favor of repealing DADT as well, but realizes there's going to be some struggles. Homophobia and generalized uncomfortability aren't going to magically disappear when DADT goes away! If we're going to do this, and I think we should, we HAVE to analyze the possible ramifications and the reasoning for those ramifications.

The guy brought up a scenario which could VERY EASILY occur, and you all want to nail him to the fucking cross for it. Good Lord...

Very easily? Not exactly. Even if it did, I doubt the damage would even register to any great extent. Again, non-issue. There are bigger things to be concerned about.[/QUOTE]Bingo.

Fear of prejudice is just an excuse of most oppressors, from South african Boers to white Americans during the Martin Luther King years.

If you have the right to declare you like the opposite sex, pray to god/satan/vishnu/noone, why cant a gay guy say he is gay?

Oct 13, 2009#135

Calleja

More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

Oct 13, 2009#136

Iaculus

Calleja said:
More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

Click to expand...

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

Oct 13, 2009#137

Calleja

Steinman did say getting rid of DADT shuldn't be an issue... it's right there. Here, I'll quote it.

stienman said:
So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

-Adam

His reasoning is numbers. Even after people have quoted first-person perspectives of people who are NOT being terminated cause of DADT living through hell while in the military.

Again, steinman can take care of himself, you guys don't need to play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate. If that's not what he means he can say it himself, he's a respected and beloved member of the community and is being treated like anyone else would be, why are people jumping up so much at his defense? I haven't even seen real flames, besides Kissinger's usual drama.

Oct 13, 2009#138

ElJuski

I don't think someone passionate about equal rights is "drama".

Oct 13, 2009#139

Calleja

it's literally drama once you start flinging personal insults like "smug motherfucker", dude. I'm not being biased here, just factual.

Oct 13, 2009#140

SpecialKO

Calleja said:
I'm not being biased here, just factual.

Reality has a well-known factual bias.

Oct 14, 2009#141

makare

TeKeo;274456][quote=Calleja said:
I'm not being biased here, just factual.

Reality has a well-known factual bias.[/QUOTE]

I can actually hear Sam the Eagle saying that.

Oct 14, 2009#142

Rob King

makare1;274474][quote=TeKeo;274456][quote=Calleja said:
I'm not being biased here, just factual.

Reality has a well-known factual bias.[/QUOTE]

I can actually hear Sam the Eagle saying that.[/QUOTE]

This makes me wish I could tune in to CNN some day and see muppets do a round-table about current events.

Oct 14, 2009#143

Armadillo

Iaculus;274366][quote=Calleja said:
More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

Click to expand...

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

Oct 14, 2009#144

Iaculus

Armadillo;274501][quote=Iaculus;274366][quote=Calleja said:
More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

Click to expand...

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

Oct 14, 2009#145

JCM

Iaculus;274518][quote=Armadillo;274501][quote=Iaculus;274366][quote=Calleja said:
More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

Click to expand...

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

I don't think they're saying that it should prevent the removal of DADT, just that it is a factor that should be compensated for in the process of removing it.

Now, I don't even believe that, but there you go.[/quote]

This, this, this, a million billion kajillion times THIS.

Let me be clear again, speaking only for myself: I hate DADT. I want it gone, and I think any person willing to serve this country should be allowed to, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm for civil unions for all, marriage for the religions. That doesn't mean I think the transition is going to go smoothly, (very few large-scale social transformations do) and I'm not about to knee-jerk shit on opinions that I don't share. To do so is the epitome of the closed-mindedness that so many on my side in this debate claim to despise in their opponents.[/quote]

Oh, sure, I can see there being obstacles to equal gay rights as a theoretical concept. I just don't see the whole DADT kerfuffle being one, based on prior evidence. It just doesn't qualify a a 'large-scale social transformation' to me. Really, is bathroom sharing the best concern that can be come up with regarding the transition?[/QUOTE]Because people are prejudiced, and dont want "the gays" using the same bathroom as them? The bathroom "concern" did pop up when the South African president's representative was negotiating with the ANC and Mandela in prison as one "problem".

I can bet at least one white guy said it would be a problem when the blacks wanted equal rights.

Guess some people are so prejudiced against gays that they'll find any excuse, even when the bathroom dillema is idiotic, as one could have anything from artists who draw nudes, scat fetishists, pedophiles and bisexuals/curious people/etc using the bathroom and looking at you/your kid's in a different way.

Looks like for some people its something one cant handle, and worth delaying giving gays rights.

---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

Calleja said:
More importantly, why is the slight discomfort of individuals who WILL in time just get used to it carry more weight than the basic human rights of a significant number of the population?

Remember, under DADT, homosexuality is still BANNED from the military. They're BANNING gays, it's 2009 and they're still being BANNED.

Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who \"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts\" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because \"it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.\" The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

Click to expand...

They're right and out saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Fuck that.

This.

Oct 14, 2009#146

Calleja

Of course it's not gonna go over smoothly, the point here is THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!

Oct 14, 2009#147

SpecialKO

Calleja said:
RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!

That's kind of starting to happen in the US. :eek:

rly:

Oct 14, 2009#148

Covar

Calleja said:
Of course it's not gonna go over smoothly, the point here is THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!

Perhaps because the Military has enough to worry about right now, so you want any non-mission-essential change to go as smoothly as possible. Not considering unit-cohesion when implenting such a large change as this is dangerous, and irresponsible.

So everyone keep on thinking that the military culture and mindset is the same as on the Civilian side, it's quite amusing. In the mean time when we have our annual briefings come December I'll let you guys know how this change goes down, when it's told to us officially.

Oct 14, 2009#149

JCM

Covar;274727][quote=Calleja said:
Of course it's not gonna go over smoothly, the point here is THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

Calleja said:
Of course it's not gonna go over smoothly, the point here is THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!

Amen.

If a few million people can survive knowing others are gay, there is no reason the military, with better disciline and educatiion, cant.

Oct 14, 2009#150

Chibibar

Well... taken from the story before, the unit DID know the guy was gay and haze him for it BUT still using the same bathroom and such. The only reason that kept going because of DADT. If there is no DADT, the soldier could have reported the hazing and even discover that he is gay, the soldier wouldn't have been discharge, BUT since DADT exist, he had to kept quiet if he wants to continue in the military.

I do believe their unit know that their member is gay and take advantage of hazing them since there won't be any repercussion.

I don't think there will be much change in the military OTHER than gay people will get to stay in the military and report abuse by their unit.

Oct 14, 2009#151

The Lovely Boehner

Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.

Oct 14, 2009#152

Covar

Charlie Dont Surf;274750][quote=Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/QUOTE]

Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.

despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.

Oct 14, 2009#153

Krisken

Covar;274752][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;274750][quote=Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

Oct 14, 2009#154

Chibibar

Krisken;274757][quote=Covar;274752][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;274750][quote=Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/quote]

Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.

despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.[/QUOTE]
And you base this declarative statement on....

If that were the case we still wouldn't have women serving in the military.[/QUOTE]

sometimes there are policies where you just have to implement it.

Oct 14, 2009#155

Bowielee

Calleja said:
Steinman did say getting rid of DADT shuldn't be an issue... it's right there. Here, I'll quote it.

stienman said:

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

-Adam

Click to expand...

His reasoning is numbers. Even after people have quoted first-person perspectives of people who are NOT being terminated cause of DADT living through hell while in the military.

Again, steinman can take care of himself, you guys don't need to play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate. If that's not what he means he can say it himself, he's a respected and beloved member of the community and is being treated like anyone else would be, why are people jumping up so much at his defense? I haven't even seen real flames, besides Kissinger's usual drama.

Where do I sign up for my "be an ignorant ass and get away with it scott free" card that Steinman apparently has?

Why shouldn't he be treated like anyone else on the board?

Oct 14, 2009#156

SpecialKO

Covar said:
Not considering unit-cohesion when implenting such a large change as this is dangerous, and irresponsible.

I wasn't aware that the cohesion of American military units rested so strongly on its abilities to brutally haze its gay members and get away with it.

Oct 14, 2009#157

Covar

Krisken;274757][quote=Covar;274752][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;274750][quote=Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

If that were the case we still wouldn't have women serving in the military.

We still don't have women serving in the Infantry, Rangers, and other combat Roles in other branches.

Oct 14, 2009#158

Calleja

You know what else didn't go over smoothly? Blacks being accepted into white schools.

Ugh, that was a mess, I don't know why they bothered.

Oct 14, 2009#159

Espy

You know, here's the deal. You can disagree with whomever you want ok? That's great. I don't care if people don't like Steinmans or anyone else's arguments: Let's see less vitriol or else you guys can start posting your "IBTL" pics.

Oct 14, 2009#160

Bowielee

Espy said:
You know, here's the deal. You can disagree with whomever you want ok? That's great. I don't care if people don't like Steinmans or anyone else's arguments: Let's see less vitriol or else you guys can start posting your "IBTL" pics.

Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.

Oct 14, 2009#161

Fun Size

Bowielee;274774][quote=Espy said:
You know, here's the deal. You can disagree with whomever you want ok? That's great. I don't care if people don't like Steinmans or anyone else's arguments: Let's see less vitriol or else you guys can start posting your "IBTL" pics.

Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban, me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.[/QUOTE]

Before the lock-hammer drops, I'll take the opportunity to point one thing out. Rage as much as you like, steiny is at least trying to discuss the thing. I don't always (or even often) agree with his point of view, but he's trying to discuss it. I understand that for some here this is personal. That has the unfortunate effect of making reactions extreme. Whether he's playing devil's advocate or simply expressing his opinion, at least he's trying to discuss reasoning behind it. Every opportunity you get to understand the opposition's reasoning is a chance to actually think about and address their concerns in a way that they can potentially understand. If all you can react with is "You're wrong and you suck for thinking that", or respond with blatant hostility of any kind, then there's no discussion to be had from anybody, just yelling.

Oct 14, 2009#162

Bowielee

Fun Size;274779][quote=Bowielee;274774][quote=Espy said:
You know, here's the deal. You can disagree with whomever you want ok? That's great. I don't care if people don't like Steinmans or anyone else's arguments: Let's see less vitriol or else you guys can start posting your "IBTL" pics.

Oct 14, 2009#163

Fun Size

Bowielee;274780][quote=Fun Size;274779][quote=Bowielee;274774][quote=Espy said:
You know, here's the deal. You can disagree with whomever you want ok? That's great. I don't care if people don't like Steinmans or anyone else's arguments: Let's see less vitriol or else you guys can start posting your "IBTL" pics.

Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban, me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.[/quote]

Before the lock-hammer drops, I'll take the opportunity to point one thing out. Rage as much as you like, steiny is at least trying to discuss the thing. I don't always (or even often) agree with his point of view, but he's trying to discuss it. I understand that for some here this is personal. That has the unfortunate effect of making reactions extreme. Whether he's playing devil's advocate or simply expressing his opinion, at least he's trying to discuss reasoning behind it. Every opportunity you get to understand the opposition's reasoning is a chance to actually think about and address their concerns in a way that they can potentially understand. If all you can react with is "You're wrong and you suck for thinking that", or respond with blatant hostility of any kind, then there's no discussion to be had from anybody, just yelling.[/quote]

Points were made, but quickly tossed aside. His original supposition was that seperate bathrooms would be demanded because gay people apparently can't shower with people of the same gender without accosting them. THAT is what I find willfully ignorant, and there's no reason he shouldn't be called on that.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I thought his point was that some people will be uncomfortable showering with people they know to be gay, which is absolutely true. It took an unfortunate turn when he tried to use the argument that we require separate bathrooms for men and women for similar reasons. Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable. Does this warrant leaving it in place? No, of course not. Is it going to cause problems when it's repealed? You betcha. Dismissing the concern outright is also willfully ignorant, and falls under the category of "their discomfort is not my problem".

Which frankly is how DADT supporters feel, and why they piss a lot of people off.

Oct 14, 2009#164

The Lovely Boehner

It won't get locked, just moved to flame wars.

Oct 14, 2009#165

SpecialKO

Fun Size said:
Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable.

There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.

Is it going to cause problems when it's repealed? You betcha.

Again, no one has said otherwise.

What folks have been saying, again and again and again and again is:

Does this warrant leaving it in place? No, of course not.

Oct 14, 2009#166

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf said:
It won't get locked, just moved to flame wars.

No, I have no qualms about locking it up. I'm not going to let some jerks ruin a thread just so they can get it moved where they can really go nuts. If you want to start a flamewar thread about the subject go nuts.

Bowie: You can say whatever you would like. I won't and can't stop you nor was I trying to. I was merely asking for people to lower the rage level that seemed to be brimming. See my drift? If we want tolerance, rational discussion, etc from others we usually get if by showing it first in my opinion.

Oct 14, 2009#167

Fun Size

TeKeo;274804][quote=Fun Size said:
Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable.

There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.[/QUOTE]

Actually, what they said was "hey, you've probably showered with gay people already, so this is a non-issue", which is nothing less than dismissing the concerns of someone else. Again, same thing the DADT supporters do, except up until now they've been the comfortable majority.

Either way, all I was trying to point out was that getting angry and stomping one's feet does not allow for progress to be made. Trying to understand the thought processes behind those that oppose you does. As Zen has most eloquently pointed out, there's only so far that can get you, but if someone is offering their reasons, however inane they seem to you, it seems like giving them a moment of consideration instead of simply flaming that person might do some good.

Oct 14, 2009#168

Armadillo

TeKeo;274804][quote=Fun Size said:
Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable.

There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.

Is it going to cause problems when it's repealed? You betcha.

Again, no one has said otherwise.

What folks have been saying, again and again and again and again is:

Does this warrant leaving it in place? No, of course not.

The reason why people are getting pissed is because "consider how people are going to be uncomfortable" is pretty much no different from "won't someone think of the children" as an argument tactic, and its being used here (again) to victimize the people who, as a group, share at least some of the responsibility for the victimization of gay people in American society.[/QUOTE]

I think you're reaching pretty hard here. As I've pointed out a few times, NOBODY here is arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed, or that gays shouldn't serve in the military, only that there are people in the military who will have a MAJOR problem with it. To read some of the posts here, you'd think stien or Covar (and maybe myself) are advocating lining up gay people and shooting them. Ignoring an opposing point of view doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and could actually have the undesirable effect of making people feel marginalized, which could radicalize them further. This is why all points of view must have their chance to be heard, and a civil explanation given when that point of view doesn't get its way. Yelling "you're an asshole and you can suck a dick," doesn't accomplish much in terms of unity.

You know what's ironic? If there was a poll question asking, "should DADT be repealed?" I bet "yes" would be the unanimous answer, and yet this is the thread most in danger of devolving into a flame war.

Oct 14, 2009#169

makare

I haven't seen anything lock worthy in this thread. Stienman's words are just as vitriolic as everyone else's, they are just said in his usually Gomer-esque "aw gee guys" way that it is hard to spot. But they are just as caustic and hate-filled.

Oct 14, 2009#170

Chibibar

After reading stories and trying to understand both sides, I still think DADT is a stupid rules. All it does is allow hazing against gay people and not being reported since the victim is subject to dismiss due to no gay in the military (at least known ones)

There are gays IN the militar, but they just mind their own business and serve their country. But it seems that some people take this opportunity to haze them since they victim will less likely to report it SINCE it will cause their discharge (which I find it unfair)

How is it handle now? is that hazed person shower separately? Do they get their own bathroom? I would say no, since currently military doesn't allow open gay people (again open means it is known to the people who can dismiss them) to serve. So how is it handle now?

I personally believe that people will adjust. People will always adjust, you just have to set in the rules and regulations and people will adjust.

When the military allow non-white into the military, they adjust.

When the military allow female into their ranks, they adjust (slowly since they are not allow in combat zone yet)

I'm sure when people will adjust when DADT is repeal.

It is the basic rights of people are being tread upon. If someone is hazing you due to religion, the guilty are punish cause the victim can report it AND not be dismiss for believing in something else (I'm sure there are exception like a cult that requires to sacrifice your unit's blood or something might cause dismissal)

Oct 14, 2009#171

SpecialKO

Fun Size;274816][quote=TeKeo;274804][quote=Fun Size said:
Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable.

Trying to understand the thought processes behind those that oppose you does.

Of course, but at some point, if someone is going to persist in making an argument that's demonstrably either not valid or a non-issue, there's really very little that can be done.

Calling them names is a step far, of course, but it's not like (to pick a different extreme example) engaging with the birthers is really going to be productive.

Oct 14, 2009#172

Armadillo

Chibibar said:
After reading stories and trying to understand both sides, I still think DADT is a stupid rules. All it does is allow hazing against gay people and not being reported since the victim is subject to dismiss due to no gay in the military (at least known ones)

There are gays IN the militar, but they just mind their own business and serve their country. But it seems that some people take this opportunity to haze them since they victim will less likely to report it SINCE it will cause their discharge (which I find it unfair)

How is it handle now? is that hazed person shower separately? Do they get their own bathroom? I would say no, since currently military doesn't allow open gay people (again open means it is known to the people who can dismiss them) to serve. So how is it handle now?

I personally believe that people will adjust. People will always adjust, you just have to set in the rules and regulations and people will adjust.

When the military allow non-white into the military, they adjust.

When the military allow female into their ranks, they adjust (slowly since they are not allow in combat zone yet)

I'm sure when people will adjust when DADT is repeal.

It is the basic rights of people are being tread upon. If someone is hazing you due to religion, the guilty are punish cause the victim can report it AND not be dismiss for believing in something else (I'm sure there are exception like a cult that requires to sacrifice your unit's blood or something might cause dismissal)

I agree, people will adjust. There's been a fairly rapid (by historical standards) acceptance of gay people in the U.S. in the last ten years or so. I've long believed that gay marriage will be allowed and seen as no big deal almost nationwide in my lifetime, and each passing year brings us closer to that. Of course, there will always be resistance to gays, but there are also people who still have a problem with interracial dating.

Oct 14, 2009#173

Chibibar

Armadillo said:
I agree, people will adjust. There's been a fairly rapid (by historical standards) acceptance of gay people in the U.S. in the last ten years or so. I've long believed that gay marriage will be allowed and seen as no big deal almost nationwide in my lifetime, and each passing year brings us closer to that. Of course, there will always be resistance to gays, but there are also people who still have a problem with interracial dating.

Yea. My parents FINALLY accepts my wife after 9 years of being together (include 4 years of marriage)

Oct 14, 2009#174

Fun Size

"TeKeo said:
Fun Size;274816 said:

TeKeo;274804 said:

Fun Size said:

Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.

Click to expand...

Actually, what they said was "hey, you've probably showered with gay people already, so this is a non-issue", which is nothing less than dismissing the concerns of someone else.

Click to expand...

How so? If you're uncomfortable with gay people in the same bathroom as you, and someone points out that there's nothing to worry about because there have been gay people in the bathroom with you before, then it's pretty much being addressed directly.

Right, but it's being addressed by saying that those concerns are unfounded. It's saying that what you feel or fear or whatever is going through that person's mind is invalid. Great. It's invalid. I concur. But it still needs to be addressed, because it's going to cause problems when this thing is repealed.

TeKeo said:
Trying to understand the thought processes behind those that oppose you does.

Click to expand...

Of course, but at some point, if someone is going to persist in making an argument that's demonstrably either not valid or a non-issue, there's really very little that can be done.

Calling them names is a step far, of course, but it's not like (to pick a different extreme example) engaging with the birthers is really going to be productive.

Again, I concur. I was just trying to stem the tide of rage that this was becoming.

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

Armadillo;274830][quote=Chibibar said:
After reading stories and trying to understand both sides, I still think DADT is a stupid rules. All it does is allow hazing against gay people and not being reported since the victim is subject to dismiss due to no gay in the military (at least known ones)

There are gays IN the militar, but they just mind their own business and serve their country. But it seems that some people take this opportunity to haze them since they victim will less likely to report it SINCE it will cause their discharge (which I find it unfair)

How is it handle now? is that hazed person shower separately? Do they get their own bathroom? I would say no, since currently military doesn't allow open gay people (again open means it is known to the people who can dismiss them) to serve. So how is it handle now?

I personally believe that people will adjust. People will always adjust, you just have to set in the rules and regulations and people will adjust.

When the military allow non-white into the military, they adjust.

When the military allow female into their ranks, they adjust (slowly since they are not allow in combat zone yet)

I'm sure when people will adjust when DADT is repeal.

It is the basic rights of people are being tread upon. If someone is hazing you due to religion, the guilty are punish cause the victim can report it AND not be dismiss for believing in something else (I'm sure there are exception like a cult that requires to sacrifice your unit's blood or something might cause dismissal)

Oct 14, 2009#175

Espy

makare1 said:
I haven't seen anything lock worthy in this thread. Stienman's words are just as vitriolic as everyone else's, they are just said in his usually Gomer-esque "aw gee guys" way that it is hard to spot. But they are just as caustic and hate-filled.

I haven't seen anything lockworthy yet, either, I said keep it up and it's going that way. That is it. Sorry, I should have said, "I'm about to take my pants off" like NR, that gets the message across

If someone is spouting hateful speech please use the report button on that post so the mods get a message and we will deal with it. If Stein said something that is hateful, seriously, report it and you will see it dealt with, just like anyone else, I promise.

The thread isn't gonna get locked, we can actually have a discussion without screaming and swearing at each other, just go look at the religion thread.

Oct 14, 2009#176

ThatGrinningIdiot!

This is why I despise political discourse, and also one of the reasons I refrained from expressing my opinion earlier. This group has gone from debating the policy itself to arguing about the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

There always seems to be this "us vs. them" mentality in this forum, with no room for compromise.

Oct 14, 2009#177

makare

Poking holes in the opposing viewpoint is the only way to debate. Otherwise you are just reciting your feelings.

Oct 14, 2009#178

Steven Soderburgin

Yo, so I honestly feel that steinman was being a smug and condescending prick and so I expressed that because basically he was saying that we should seriously stop and think about how a few assholes being uncomfortable while taking a shower is too large a price to pay for allowing gays to serve in the military without hiding who they are and without living in constant fear of being discovered.

NOT THAT HE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THIS BUT COME ON JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

Also when people told him how stupid his position was and why, he responded with "Looks like you guys just don't get what I'm talking about, this is something I don't see discussed and if you're not going to discuss it then that's your problem HEH"

BlackCrossCrusader said:
This is why I despise political discourse, and also one of the reasons I refrained from expressing my opinion earlier. This group has gone from debating the policy itself to arguing about the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

Do you understand what "debate" actually is?

Edit: makare I know we've had our differences in the past but you seriously rule in this thread so *daps*

Oct 14, 2009#179

Chibibar

I thought debate is basically pointing out the flaws of the "evidence" presented by the opposition.

like Which is better Pie vs Cookie
Person A: I like Pie because it taste good
Person B: I like cookies, cookies are better cause there are more recipes than pies
Person A: but pies are more refine and take longer to make than cookies also pies tend to be staple for some traditional holidays like Thanksgiving.
Person B: but cookies also have a holiday. Christmas.

etc etc.. and counter each other point with facts or conjecture (in this forum) or even personal feelings, but when people start spouting personal feelings and ideas without basis of facts, then well...... it turns into a shouting match

Oct 14, 2009#180

makare

Chibibar said:
I thought debate is basically pointing out the flaws of the "evidence" presented by the opposition.

like Which is better Pie vs Cookie
Person A: I like Pie because it taste good
Person B: I like cookies, cookies are better cause there are more recipes than pies
Person A: but pies are more refine and take longer to make than cookies also pies tend to be staple for some traditional holidays like Thanksgiving.
Person B: but cookies also have a holiday. Christmas.

etc etc.. and counter each other point with facts or conjecture (in this forum) or even personal feelings, but when people start spouting personal feelings and ideas without basis of facts, then well...... it turns into a shouting match

that example seems more like negotiation to me. This fact for that fact down until you both concur.

To win a debate you have to not only support your side but also show that the other side is wrong and why. That means tearing apart the argument from all angles.

If a person is unable to support his argument and has to fall back on the "I'm just being a devil's advocate" stay out of the debate. If you can't take the heat for you argument. GTFO.

If the devil wants to argue with us it isn't that difficult to make an account himself.

Oct 14, 2009#181

Calleja

makare, you're gonna be an awesome lawyer, dudette.

Oct 14, 2009#182

Troll

Covar said:
Perhaps because the Military has enough to worry about right now, so you want any non-mission-essential change to go as smoothly as possible. Not considering unit-cohesion when implenting such a large change as this is dangerous, and irresponsible..

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that the military will ALWAYS have something else to worry about. There will never be a convenient time to implement a change like this. The same arguments were used against de-segregating units, and basically the military was just told to deal with it. Everyone worked out fine, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't work out now.

Oct 14, 2009#183

Calleja

No, we should wait until the US is completely at peace and has NO military action ANYWHERE.

Y'know... cause that's happened so many times.

Oct 14, 2009#184

The Lovely Boehner

It's kind of a tricky thing to try to be civil when one side is literally saying that a group of people can't be equal until it's convenient.

Oct 14, 2009#185

Calleja

I've been civil throughout the thread. This thread, at least.

Oct 14, 2009#186

JCM

Covar;274752][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;274750][quote=Covar said:
dangerous, and irresponsible.

It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/quote]

Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.

despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.[/quote]I can see your worry, but we're talking about the army, you cant be that out-of-date with army training to to think that something that millions can live with after a law is passed, suddenly cant be accepted by the army.

Is the army there, instead of being disciplined soldiers who have undergone training and obey all orders, are just backward retarded hicks who cant keep up with the everyday citizen?

It's kind of a tricky thing to try to be civil when one side is literally saying that a group of people can't be equal until it's convenient.

With people like the guys here, black people would still be at the back of buses and women would still not have the right to vote, "until its convenient".

I'd love to see what the opinion would be if it was, lets say, mine, Covar's or Calleja's rights being taken away he would give the same racism Boer excused used during the apartheid years of South Africa; "implementing this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Would any of us accept that?

Oct 14, 2009#187

Troll

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Oct 14, 2009#188

Calleja

But it's NEVER going to be convenient! How long has the US had NO military presence elsewhere since World War II? Brief periods between Korea and Vietnam? then came Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Bosnia... it's unrealistic to just cross our arms until the army isn't "in danger".

Oct 14, 2009#189

JCM

Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Oct 15, 2009#190

@Li3n

TeKeo said:
I wasn't aware that the cohesion of American military units rested so strongly on its abilities to brutally haze its gay members and get away with it.

That's how the military has operated since like forever...

Oct 15, 2009#191

Chibibar

JCM said:
Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

Oct 15, 2009#192

DarkAudit

Fox couldn't be bothered to even point a camera out the window, but they send a satellite truck to cover an empty sidewalk in NJ.

Oct 15, 2009#193

Espy

Chibibar said:
I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

Are you actually asking someone to read what is posted? That ain't gonna happen.

Oct 15, 2009#194

JCM

Espy;275367][quote=Chibibar said:
I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

Are you actually asking someone to read what is posted? That ain't gonna happen.[/QUOTE]Errr, I said everyone in this thread, and included my name.

How is that not reading, if I may inquire?

Oct 15, 2009#195

Bowielee

JCM said:
Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Oct 15, 2009#196

Fun Size

Bowielee;275406][quote=JCM said:
Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.[/QUOTE]

I should clarify myself here, because I really don't want you or anyone to think that's what I was ever trying to say. You have every right to be pissed. You should be pissed. I would be pissed if it was me. I was just trying to express that the anger could be directed towards something productive.

You know what? There's a reason I try to keep myself to smart ass comments and whatnot. I somehow almost never manage to express what it is I'm trying to say without being misunderstood and irritating people, or worse, having someone think they know my position on something when they really, really don't. I think I'll go back to that for a long, long time now.

Oct 15, 2009#197

JCM

Bowielee said:
Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.

Oct 15, 2009#198

SpecialKO

Fun Size said:
You know what? There's a reason I try to keep myself to smart ass comments and whatnot. I somehow almost never manage to express what it is I'm trying to say without being misunderstood and irritating people, or worse, having someone think they know my position on something when they really, really don't. I think I'll go back to that for a long, long time now.

I think you're doing just fine, actually. Nothing wrong with trying to inject a breather into a strident conversation.

Oct 15, 2009#199

makare

JCM;275415][quote=Bowielee said:
Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Oct 15, 2009#200

Bowielee

makare1;275431][quote=JCM;275415][quote=Bowielee said:
Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.[/QUOTE]

Since alot of us in this thread are against DADT and discrimination against gays you are saying that if we were being discriminated against we would "sing a different song" and suddenly be FOR DADT and discrimination against gays.

Why would that be? To get the focus off our own discrimination?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the flippant attitude that people are having by basically putting basic non-issues up against the rights of those being descriminated against.

And lets face it, as I said in the beginning, the whole shower issue is a strawman argument in every definition of the term. It's making a mountain out of a molehill and using it as a possible roadblock to a real issue.

Oct 15, 2009#201

JCM

Pretty much that.

Like I mentioned before, the same "wait until we´re ready" has always led to either a)riots, or b)violence, and the exact exuses here have been used by the Boer and white americans, to no avail.

makare1;275431][quote=JCM;275415][quote=Bowielee said:
Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Oct 15, 2009#202

Steven Soderburgin

Bowielee said:
Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Yep. It really, really makes me mad when someone tells me I should just sit back and wait for when it's more convenient for the government to stop restricting my rights.

And it makes me especially mad when someone implies that my rights have to wait until we can make separate (but... equal?) showers for people like me.

Oct 15, 2009#203

Jake

Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

Oct 15, 2009#204

Rob King

Something just hit me, and since it's sort of topical, I figured I'd throw it up here. Do I remember someone telling me that there are no women in the Marines?

I remember someone, somewhere, telling me that women are barred from joining the Marines, because their presence destabilizes the psychology of the unit or something. Something to do with the fact that males supposedly are predisposed to protecting women, and introducing women to a unit would degrade the relaibility.

Again. I don't know if this is fact or fiction. If it's fiction, I'll feel a little silly, and move on with my life. If it's fact ... well ... that seems to me that it would bode ill for homosexuals in the military.

If "no women in the marines" is just a sexist issue, so many decades since women started their fight for equal rights, then it's going to be a longer, harder, uphill battle for homosexuals than I would have first imagined.

If it's a legitimate psychological concern, though, then I can only begin to imagine what kind of shit is going to fly in the next few decades to continue to preclude homosexuals from fully serving in the military, even after DADT goes away.

Oct 15, 2009#205

DarkAudit

Rob King said:
Something just hit me, and since it's sort of topical, I figured I'd throw it up here. Do I remember someone telling me that there are no women in the Marines?

I remember someone, somewhere, telling me that women are barred from joining the Marines, because their presence destabilizes the psychology of the unit or something. Something to do with the fact that males supposedly are predisposed to protecting women, and introducing women to a unit would degrade the relaibility.

Again. I don't know if this is fact or fiction. If it's fiction, I'll feel a little silly, and move on with my life. If it's fact ... well ... that seems to me that it would bode ill for homosexuals in the military.

If \"no women in the marines\" is just a sexist issue, so many decades since women started their fight for equal rights, then it's going to be a longer, harder, uphill battle for homosexuals than I would have first imagined.

If it's a legitimate psychological concern, though, then I can only begin to imagine what kind of shit is going to fly in the next few decades to continue to preclude homosexuals from fully serving in the military, even after DADT goes away.

Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

Oct 15, 2009#206

Rob King

DarkAudit said:
Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

Well, I'll just go feel dumb over here ... then ...

Oct 15, 2009#207

@Li3n

Rob King;275552][quote=DarkAudit said:
Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

Well, I'll just go feel dumb over here ... then ...[/QUOTE]

Plus, the Sacred Band of Thebes did just fine and they had the whole psychological protection thing...

Oct 15, 2009#208

Covar

not a total lie. Women are allowed in the marines, but do not serve in active combat roles. Same as in the Army. That is not to say that women can't see combat, but that they are not in positions where their unit actively seeks it out. The reasons are not just sexist reasons, (still not sure why there is no all woman infantry unit other than sexism or lack of demand, probably both), its partially the reasons you listed as well as some logistical purposes. Personally I wouldn't want to be in combat alongside any of the females in my unit. The reasons are purely Physical. I know another man beside me is held to the same level of strength and fitness as I am. Female soldiers are not held to the same standard, it's a lot lower.

As for people asking when a good time will be, saying there would never be a good time, how about 2000. not a lot going on in the military then, or 92-93 right after the first Gulf War. Same thing. Having a few units, and SF deployed is a lot different than >100k.

Oct 15, 2009#209

Troll

Jake said:
Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

Oct 15, 2009#210

Covar

A Troll;275611][quote=Jake said:
Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

[/QUOTE]

dude, it's not his fault you suck at trolling.

Oct 15, 2009#211

ThatGrinningIdiot!

makare1 said:
Poking holes in the opposing viewpoint is the only way to debate. Otherwise you are just reciting your feelings.

I agree on this. Unfortunately, people carry this tactic too far. Then the focus of the debate is lost to a wave of conjecture, personal attacks, and biased views.

As this trend continues. It is as though resolving the issue loses importance as people only care whether they are right or wrong. Once this happens, any meaningful discourse is routed.

Oct 15, 2009#212

Calleja

A personal attack is not poking a hole in the opposing view point, it's called ad hominem is not valid.

Oct 15, 2009#213

Jake

Calleja said:
A personal attack is not poking a hole in the opposing view point, it's called ad hominem is not valid.

Your mom isn't valid.

Oct 15, 2009#214

Cajungal

There are people who protest women in the military for just that reason, however. Ann Coulter is one of them.

Oct 15, 2009#215

strawman

Amorous Bitch said:
It's the holier than thou attitude we're getting at, stien.
Maybe you truly don't see it, but it's always there, always.

Kissinger said:
wow steinman you are one smug, holier-than-thou motherfucker.

Kissinger said:
But seriously this is so fucking condescending, steinman. It's unbelievable.

Bowielee said:
Where do I sign up for my "be an ignorant ass and get away with it scott free" card that Steinman apparently has?

makare1 said:
Stienman's words are ... caustic and hate-filled.

Kissinger said:
I honestly feel that steinman was being a smug and condescending prick

Jake said:
Steinman is the best troll ever.

I am honestly and truly very very sorry. I meant no offense at any time. It was never my intention to troll. I was not purposefully being condescending. Usually when I start offending people I can step away from the thread for a few days and the conversation will move on, but it appears that in this case my offense was too great.

To avoid further speculation: I believe the ban on gays serving in the military should be lifted.

Again, I apologize, and will leave you alone.

-Adam

Oct 15, 2009#216

Kitty Sinatra

Don't leave!

Anyway, just because this thread needs a breather let me go off topic momentarily: Adam, is your little signature picture set up as a personal emoticon?

Oct 15, 2009#217

SpecialKO

Dude, I have many, many times accidentally pissed people off, and most of those times I couldn't even claim to have voiced an opinion on a touchy subject.

I've pissed people off talking about hard-boiled eggs.

I think if we had got to your point a little earlier instead of running away with the example, maybe folks would have been a little less willing to fire all guns. Or maybe not.

Either way, no need for you to leave.

Oct 15, 2009#218

Kitty Sinatra

I really doubt he's leaving; just bowing out of this thread.

My reply was a joking over-exaggeration (And I almost mentioned some recent departees but changed my mind, deciding this thread was already flamey enough)

Also, Adam PMed me. Yes, it's a personal emoticon. Y'know, if anyone actually cares.

Oct 15, 2009#219

strawman

Gruebeard said:
Don't leave!

TeKeo said:
no need for you to leave.

Thanks for the thought, but please don't turn this into the stienman thread. I'm just leaving this thread alone, not the forum.

I've discussed a single point 3 different ways and it's been refuted in ways that don't leave room for more discussion. Even if I was not offensive, I would still have nothing worth posting left to say about the subject.

-Adam

Oct 16, 2009#220

Jake

Steinman is the worst troll ever. :humph:

Oct 16, 2009#221

Kitty Sinatra