|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2002 : 11:46:34
|
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 12:45:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's my problem with it:
Quite simply, where do you put them?
You can't room them with strait males. The entire reason why men and women have seperate quarters is because of the sexual attraction between the two groups.
It is? I did not know that. I thought it had something to do with 'protecting' the females, not because sleeping in the same room as someone of a gender you might be sexually attracted to is nesecerally a bad thing. That appears to be the reason for most gender segregated housing I have come across. No other institution I know of has seperate gay housing.
And what would you do with people, who are Bi? Isolate them completly?
|
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 13:23:25 [Permalink]
|
No, the policy is because of attraction. Even a policy 'protecting' someone due to sexual issues is still based on the attraction being there to precipitate whatever it is you need protecting from. It is the same reasoning behind gender specific restrooms anywhere. A matter of privacy from people who would (under what is considered a social norm) be attracted to your naughty bits. The assumption is that people if the same sex are never attracted to each other.
A loss of privacy is somewhat expected among the same gender in public area like restrooms and such.
The fact that this doesn't hold true to reality is what generates threads like this one.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 13:43:57 [Permalink]
|
Nobody wants to live with country music fans.
quote:
You can't room them with strait males.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 14:52:13 [Permalink]
|
I think this should be handled as it always has been since gays have served in all armies of every society that has ever existed. Remember, it takes 2 to tango and no one will get pregnant so that's not an issue. So what if people look? That's just how life is. It may make one feel uncomfortable but a single gay man bunked with dozens of heteros is going to do what? Turn all the heteros gay? Is this something you experienced. I didn't think so.
I don't see any issue here at all. Homosexuals have served proudly for millenia.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 15:42:29 [Permalink]
|
But that's hardly fair. And it completely flies in the face of the policy we have now and what it's based on. Besides, that policy is based on the total exclusion of gays from service. So you are in support of keeping them in the closet?
I guess I should clarify that I'm assuming gays don't want to be banned from service to begin with and have to lie about it while in. My case is referring to openly gay people in uniform.
The status quo is based on a complete ban of homosexuals.
If you think they should be allowed to serve as openly gay, then you are KNOWINGLY choosing the rights of one group (a minority group at that) over the rights of the others.
To make strait soldiers live in such proximity to someone who is sexually attracted to them is wrong. It's an expected privacy and why males and females are kept seperate to begin with. A soldier would have the same case if you suddenly started making rooms, latrines, showers, etc co-ed.
Although military service requires a massive loss of privacy, it can still be expected not to have men ogling women (and vice versa) in the showers. You can wipe your ass without (supposedly) worrying about sex issues. No one interested is supposed to be looking or able to look.
But you're throwing out that policy based simply on what is between someone's legs. That is an over-simpification of human sexuality.
You are supposing that it is somehow less offensive and valid that an ogler (okay I can't spell) is checking them out as long as they have similar genitals to the victim. That's like saying a person can't be raped by the same sex. A man and a lesbian are no different in this situation. It's the attraction that divides the genders, not the genitals. The current policy does not take into account gays at all.
Also, Lars, you seem to toss about people's right to privacy from sexual harrasment (which includes as little as a wink in the military) awful easy. So you're just saying the hell with everybody's rights as long as we make a lobby group happy? If so, why not trample everyones and just go totally co-ed and be fair to everyone, not just a special interest group?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 16:21:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To make strait soldiers live in such proximity to someone who is sexually attracted to them is wrong.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this living situation is only hard on the gay soldiers. They are the ones that would be experiencing stress living day in, day out with heteros they might or might not be attracted to with no way of consumation ever happening. The straight soldier might feel a bit "edgy" but this is nothing compared to what a gay person would feel.
I just don't see the issue if a homosexual wants to serve their country knowing what they will have to deal with. Straight people have almost nothing to deal with unless they are total rednecks repressing their natural inclination towards homosexuality.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 17:03:11 [Permalink]
|
I don't buy the argument that it's so much harder for a homo than a hetero. You are simply dismissing the feelings of the majority (and the ones not in violation of UCMJ at that) as unimportant. First off, I could make the same argument with men and women. Those same 'edgy' feelings are the ones that seperate males and females now. Again, you just seem to support one, but not the other. That's pretty selective of you. You just flat out chose sides with one group, moreover you completely dismiss the rights of the other groups.
To say that gays have served proudly is also not very accurate. Many excellent soldiers have been gay, but they did not serve proudly as gay soldiers. At no time has the US (or many other militaries) accepted gays. Oh you can lie, or hide it, but you cannot be a gay soldier. UCMJ, and therefore THE LAW prohibits it. So while they may have been outstanding troops, they were only so because the were specifically 'not gay' or they would have been thrown out.
I think the American people misunderstand the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
You still CAN NOT be homosexual in the military. It is against the law. While you don't have to admit to being gay, and no one is supposed to ask you, the rule has not changed prohibitting gays from service. If you admit to being gay or get caught engaging in any homosexual behavior (including things like holding hands, hugging, kissing- not just buggering your bunk mate) you will be investigated and thrown out. Gays are not allowed into the US military, pure and simple. All Clinton did, in typical fasion, was make big promises he had no intention of keeping.
In fact, the number of investigations went UP after the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy took effect. Many of these became witch hunts that ended careers wholesale.
But do not mistake the current policy for one that allows gays. You may not get a 'bad conduct' discharge and you'll get your benefits, but you effectively resign from the military if you admit to being gay.
So Clinton's policy sucks all the way around; it makes gays hide or outright lie about thier orientation or face dismissal while forcing hetero people to room with people that they have a legitimate right to not want to sleep, shower, etc with because of basic privacy issues already afforded to people (based on gender because they are 'no gay' soldiers) for the same reasons in the same policy! WTFO?!
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 17:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Atomic, I kind of get the sense from the zeal of your post you're not exactly neutral on the subject.
Look man, I don't give a damn what gets you off. One of my closest friends is a lesbian in big bold letters. I trust her to babysit my daughter. I'm no homophobe.
But if women get seperate everything so men won't get a boner checkin' them out in the shower, why can't a heterosexual expect the same respect of privacy?
You're also dismissing the fact that some people just aren't brought up to accept it. They are just as entitled to their opinion as you are. They are not necessarily "rednecks" or somehow beneath you. No one said that your view was the right one. While I don't believe in god, I can't make the rules because "I know" I'm right and they're all zealots. You have to consider even points of view you find distasteful as legitimate of an opinion as your own.
If you believe that women and men should be kept seperate but homo and hetero shouldn't, you're falling into a double standard created to suit your strictly pro-gay point of view. You want the military to ignore the rights of hetero soldiers because gays feelings are more hurt or strained? WTFO?
Dude, step back and look at what you're saying.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 18:02:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You want the military to ignore the rights of hetero soldiers because gays feelings are more hurt or strained?
I'm not in the military or gay but deal/work with them all the time and just don't see a problem with it. The only people, in my experience, that ever seem to take issue with gay people living and working generally existing with gay people are those prejudiced against them.
And in the army I could see women and men sleeping/showering etc together. I have no problem with that either. I think it's the old-fashioned types that make the rules because of their own prejudices that often have a life of their own separate from facts.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 18:27:29 [Permalink]
|
But I'm talking about people's rights, not thier feelings. I certainly think you're in the minority if you believe there should be total co-ed everything. Every rest room in every building, every shower in a gym, etc. People, whether they are just repressed compared to your opinion or not, have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being ogled while naked. I doubt you'd get NOW to agree to open every female shower to males across the board. I don't see ACLU taking on this one, bud.
Why would someone feel less uncomfortable about having to be exposed in front of a homo as opposed to a hetro of the opposite sex? The invasion of privacy is the same and no less harmful.
I think it's a pretty basic human dignity to not have to scrub your ass in mixed company.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 18:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it's a pretty basic human dignity to not have to scrub your ass in mixed company.
Good for you. I disagree.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 19:05:19 [Permalink]
|
And really, dude, if you've never been in the military..... It's a completely different world. I mean the incredible loss of privacy you already experience and the very confined environment are central to the life of a troop. This is not just some minor detail to be discounted. Prisoners in the federal penal system have more privacy. And this is someone who you may have to count on in a life or death situation. So you have to weigh very carefully your wish to push a political agenda against what's best for the people actually living the life and possibly losing thier lives for this country. Once again, you just never asked the guy on the ground.
So while I don't dismiss your opinion as unqualified because you are neither a vet or gay, I do have to take them with a grain of salt. I'm not certain you fully grasp what you consider fair to people's rights.
Just let me get this strait (pun intended):
you think gays should serve openly and be roomed with hetro soldiers and damn thier rights, the progression of the gay lobby is more important. Anyone who doesn't fully accept gays is "old fashioned" and somehow below your wisdom and therefore are simply WRONG. While we're at it we will make every room, shower, tent, latrine, completely co-ed. Do you think, in reality that this is appropriate?
Well, I guess every jr. high gym class just got more exciting. I mean, that'd be a hell of a double standard, to tell children that what adults do is wrong, but only for another couple years! Just what is your litmus test for that? Hey adult males would now have free reign to hang out where young girls shower! Sounds like a big leap forward. You wouldn't need to stalk and terrorise someone from a distance. You could just follow them to any public place they may have to use. Prosecution would boil down to he said/she said and get nowhere.
Am I the only one here that thinks that might just be a bad idea? You know you can't pass that policy just in the military. It's only a microcosm of the whole citizenry. EO is EO, man.
You have also neglected the fact that alot of these people that you so easily expose are MARRIED. You know, as in spoken for? So every guy in a unit should get to check out your wife? Call me a neanderthal, but I call bullshit here. Now THERE'S an advertisement for joining the military- so your wife stationed say, 10,000 miles away in Korea, can put on a show for the boys.
You have not the slightest respect for privacy. Your whole argument requires a total rejection of it. Anything else is 'old fashioned'.
I certainly wouldn't want my wife to go to take a piss at a resturant with a bunch of guys there. She'd feel uncomfortable, and I'd have to escort her and punch a .40 cal hole into anyone that got even an inch out of line. Then there'd be blood and cops and lawyers...... I'd just rather avoid that, thanks.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 19:18:49 [Permalink]
|
really man, bullshit. If there's no right to privacy, why don't you send me a picture of your mother naked, or sister or wife? I mean, I should be able to check them out at any public place, right? That's the price for having to snap a shit in your world.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 18:58:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it's a pretty basic human dignity to not have to scrub your ass in mixed company.
You seem to be assuming that a gay might give a rats ass about your ass. Every gay person I know prefers the ass of another gay. Your insistence that you would be loosing your privacy is just silly. You have been in showers with gay's already, probably, at school, in the service, at camp, etc. How many of them ogled you? Oh, that many? Hmmmmm. The thing is, gay men don't care about you. Not as a sex partner anyway. Your whole argument fails if you can't prove that gays have a predatory nature. It doesn't matter if gays prefer same gender sex. What you need to do for your argument to hold up is to explain why you think a gay would want you or any other heterosexual as a sex partner.
Failing that, the privacy issue is your issue. (And the issue of a whole lot of other straight's too, based on a false assumption that owes more to prejudice than reality.) I'm sure your not a homophobe. Your just afraid of being naked in front of a homosexual. Hmmmmm....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Dr Shari
Skeptic Friend
135 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2002 : 23:59:27 [Permalink]
|
I am constantly amazed at the amount of anti-gay rhetoric on a site that is made up of people who for the most part consider themselves free-thinkers. Why do Gay and Lesbian people appear to continue to be such a threat to straight people? To me this is such a non-issue. For those of you who are worried about where you put homo-sexuals in the military stop and realize that there is so much more then SEX in being Gay. It is not just who they may prefer for a sexual partner but it is choice for a whole lifestyle!
News Flash... Gay People want to meet and love other Gay People. They have no hidden agenda to convert people who are not interested in the gay lifestyle. Everyday we see people on the street fully clothed that either turn us on or not. Nudity is not mandatory for sexual attraction. So in the military( and here I bet SollyLama has never been in the military) there is a greater chance that in the shower or in a common sleeping area seeing a naked person of the same sex is likely to happen but it also happens at health clubs, store dressing rooms and other public areas where you never know if the person next to you is straight or gay and they are not out to jump your bones.
A person who joins the military is not looking to get a free show of naked bodies of the same sex. They are there for the same reason as heterosexuals. Career and job oppertunities. SollyLama grow up and get over it. You are in more danger from a person on the street attacking you then a gay person. Homosexual rape is almost unheard of.
Let consenting adults love and have sex with anyone else willing to be with them. Most are looking for the same thing everyone else is. A loving commited relationship with a person who has the things in common. For gays that is a relationship with other gays.
I agree. It looks like your homophobia is showing.
Death: The High Cost of Living
It is easier to get forgiveness then to get permission! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
