|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/19/2002 : 10:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Never been in the military? Obviously you've never read any other post I've made. In fact, you must have even read this thread very well.
Entered the Army in '91, assignments included 75th Ranger RGT, 160th SOAR, 5th and 10th Special Forces as well as a couple useless leg units in between. Background in communications and intelligence. Got the T-shirt from places like Somalia, Kuwait, etc.
Never been in, my ass. And Phil Plait has never looked thru a telescope......
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
 |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2002 : 12:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Right on, I have had the pleasure (or mispleasure) of attending a few gay nightclubs as one of Fiona's friends is gay. They can pick a straight guy from a mile away and they really don't give a rats arse about straight people. I never got hit on once, although I must admit Fiona and I act VERY hetrosexual while we are there.
To each their own I reckon. Do you really think a person would CHOOSE to be gay considering all the shit they get for it.
I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth.
-- Thomas Huxley |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2002 : 13:41:27 [Permalink]
|
Who the hell said anything about love?
I'm talking about the fundemental right each of us expect in regards to those who take a sexual interest in us, regardless of thier sex.
Men's and womens bathrooms are seperated for this reason in the VAST majority of civilized countries. Men and women do not share the showers at the local Bally's gym either. Why? Because we have a reasonable expectation not to be ogled at times where we must expose those naughty bits mom yelled at you for showing your priest (sorry, different rant).
That is based on the 'social norm' of heterosexuals. It is just supposed that no one of the same sex would be interested, and therefore not looking or not caring if they did look. But this is not the case in reality. In fact it's an old cliche that homosexuals join the military just to be housed in close proximity to others of thier same gender. While I'm sure that's not why gay people join, you can see where it would hold it's advantages if you were so inclined.
Are you arguing that a woman would have no right to shower at the local YMCA without men showering right next to her? She should not feel uncomfortable or threatened at that time of vulnerability? You can call it old fashioned or not, the entire civilized world agrees that it's a basic right of people.
In a black and white world, that'd be fine. But there are alot of rainbow colored people too.
And I agree that who you like to hump shouldn't stop you from defending this country. So the point becomes how do you house them? The reason men and women are seperated now are the same reasons that hetro men and women would feel uncomfortable in totally co-ed barracks, sharing showers, shitters, and rooms. Just because the genitalia looks the same doesn't erase sexual harrassment. And don't forget that (at least in the military) even looking too long, or an smile (in the wrong situation) can equal sexual harassment.
Married people present a whole new problem with the co-ed facility argument as well. I doubt we'd have much of a force left if every wife or husband back home knew their spouse was showering with the opposite sex everyday. Neanderthal in your opinion or not, most people see marriage as some level of property stakes and others aren't allowed to look.
But you are utterly and completely disregarding hetrosexuals (who, by the way are in the vast majority) rights to force hetros to live with homos for the exact same reasons that men and women are currently seperated.
You are choosing the political agenda of a lobby group over the rights of the men and women who actually serve this country.
I don't have a good answer, which is why I posed the question here. But all I've seen so far is 'damn the strait people, making gays warm and fuzzy is more important.' That sounds like PC dogma to me. Excuses that it's somehow harder for gays emotionally or that crap is just weak justification for choosing to trample the other groups rights.
Having spent too many years in the barracks, I can tell you that to civilians all this may seem trivial, hence the political agenda is more important- but to a GI in the barracks, that is is HOME. After going to some shithole and dodging bullets, shrapnel, mines, diseases, filth, etc, all we had to look forward to was that little chunk of a room where you keep your stuff and a bed with real sheets. Home.
Civilians tend to toss around the pitiful rights soldiers now have, having no intention of ever lowing themselves to suffer the consequences of their decisions.
quote:
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
--So being married, where I should only care about one person, I should be allowed in any female shower or bathroom facility? If only gay people are attracted to other gay people, and never check out obviously strait people- why should a married person, having committed to only one person in the whole world, be unwelcome in the other gender's facilities? This argument just doesn't hold water. You're making exceptions only for your selected lobby.
The current policy is a real loser. Not only do gays still have to hide and lie or face investigation and discharge, but it violates the same rights that current policy is already based on keeping men and women seperate.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2002 : 18:10:39 [Permalink]
|
OK, I'll ask again. If gay men don't give a rats ass about your ass, what is the issue? How are your rights being trampled by living in close quarters with a gay men who regard you pretty much the same way heterosexual men do? All I can think of, because you keep saying it, is that it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Blacks used to be housed in separate barracks too. Why? Because, at the time, living with blacks made whites feel uncomfortable.
Sometimes the majority is wrong. Get over it.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 09:02:22 [Permalink]
|
I agree with solly,
I am not gay.
I have never fancied another male (of any age).
I am not a paedophile.
I have never raped.
I am not homophobic.
If gay (we'll stick with men for the purpose of this post)men don't find people of the same sex attractive or get aroused by them, how do you account for male rape, or (and i'll get murdered for this) child molestation.
But please indulge me and consider these scenarios
If a (male)paedophile picks up a 15yr old boy with intent, then by definition he is GAY.
Contrary to many previous posts he FANCIED a STRAIGHT member of THE SAME SEX. QED!!!!!
If a gay male takes a shine to the tight assed newcomer in prison, the chances are that the newcomer ain't gay, but does that stop the rape going ahead? And to reiterate the same point he FANCIED a STRAIGHT member of THE SAME SEX. QED!!!!!
I appreciate that I've picked two of the more unusual cases but the point (however difficult to swallow.....no pun intended) needed to be made.
If we bear these two instances in mind, is it really beyond the realms of possibility that a gay man may fancy a straight man. NO!
It's impossible to tell if a man is gay or straight "from a mile away". There will be successes and failures with this method. As i stated earlier I am not gay, I do however frequent a gay club(for the music not the company)and yes I have been hit on numerous times. If you state clearly that you're not gay NO problem, just as us hetero's do they move on to the next target.
Put simply my point is this:
GAY MEN WILL AND DO FIND (SOME) STRAIGHT MEN ATTRACTIVE.
Please don't pick up on the extreme examples it's the essence of this post that is important not the examples!!
For the record any body that wishes to look at my arse needs a doctor not the army!
I believe in nothing; only my scepticism kept me from being an atheist.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 09:25:47 [Permalink]
|
Rape is a criminal act and has little to do with sex. It is a crime of power. Generally, in prison a group of men work to create a punk. They beat and threaten him and he becomes someone's slave. To all outside appearances, this person appears gay, but would not have been otherwise. Outside of that situation, few of these people would have a gay relationship. I would imagine such things happen now in the military, but probably don't get reported much.
There is something to gay and hetero relationships that is not the sexual act, and that is what is generally referred to as gay and hetero, not cases of criminal behavior. Yes, a man - boy sexual act can be called a technically homosexual one, but it is a power relationship, not an equal partnership.
quote:
I agree with solly,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 09:38:57 [Permalink]
|
I am also not a homosexual, unless Slater agrees to marry me.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 09:40:45 [Permalink]
|
You are assuming that gay people only look at other people they are emotionally involved with? What a crock of shit.
I check out women if I find them attractive. Doesn't matter if I know a damn thing about them. Being married, I technically shouldn't care about other women, right? So following your logic, I would NEVER run an appreciative eye over any woman unless I had some involvement with her. I should have full access to any public shower they have to use.
So gay guys wouldn't be interested in checking out Brad Pitt, as 1) he is strait, and of course gay people NEVER check out strait people. and 2) he's married and obviously unavailable. So you're saying no gay guy would be interested in seeing him naked? Given the oppurtunity of an open shower bay, they simply wouldn't look? BULLSHIT.
The issue isn't whether they are attracted to ME, it's whether they are attracted to the same gender you intend to house them with.
If so, then men and women might as well have no seperate facilities at all either. I don't see the world going to that model just yet.
quote:
Blacks used to be housed in separate barracks too. Why? Because, at the time, living with blacks made whites feel uncomfortable.
--Ah, the old last defense argument that any point made will be the result of some predjudice. If he has issues with gays, then he must be a racist and nazi too. WEAK.
Men and women are seperated, all over the world, into different facilities based on the exact same issue as I'm talking about here with gays. You support one but trivialize the other. Awful selective of you.
I'm talking about equality here. Everyone has the equal right not to be put on display to people who might violate your right not to be sexually harrassed. In the incredibly close quarters of military life, this is a fundamental right that must be taken very seriously.
Often times men and women are serperated on completely different floors of a barracks to prevent any inappropriate behavior. To make sure no males (for example, but it works both ways) accidentally walk in on a female in the buff. The same reason for that is the same reason I'm talking about with gays.
You are simply making excuses for invasions of privacy because you wish to further a political agenda of a lobby group. You give all kinds of excuses (they only want other gays is a blatantly stupid one) why they wouldn't do something inappropriate (which has very wide parameters when dealing with EO) at all. But that's like saying that since I'm married I'd never check out another woman in a shower, given the chance. More than to a gender, I'm dedicated to just one person. Under your logic I should be able to see anyone naked, since I just wouldn't be interested.
No one has answered the points I made in the opening post. All I've heard was excuses that it's 'tougher' on gays, that anyone who isn't either gay themselves or embraces them without question is 'old fashioned' or somehow inferior. Even that if I don't want a gay guy in the shower with me, then I must not want blacks to either. All either incorrect or just asinine, and not once offering anything other than;
making the gay lobby happy is more important than people's rights, sexual harrassment issues, and as comfortable living as possible in a barracks. Basically, the hell with everything as long as we push the gay agenda.
The 'wouldn't be interested and therefore never look' argument was also shot to hell by the lesbian chick I mentioned in earlier posts. I asked her, having spent 6 years in the Navy. She admits to checking out the merchandise (getting caught once and nearly investigated) in open showers every day. Hey, it's what she was into, and there it was in spades. The fact that she never got in trouble for it doesn't mean she didn't look (which is more than enough to slam a soldier of a different gender for sexual harrassment) at what was soaping up in front of her.
Having to have a deeper connection or even emotions for someone to be interested in seeing them naked doesn't explain the popularity of pornography very well.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 15:28:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
--And I'm amazed at just how PC alot you people are. It's like an insult on this BBS to be called PC, yet alot of you sound like spokespeople for whatever little lobby you've aligned with. I've seen insults hurled at rednecks, soccer fans, Australians, etc but no one ever seems to get all offended by those particular stereotypes and cliches. But say something about cetain groups, the protected few that MTV is saying are cool this month, and people can't type replies fast enough.
quote:
Why do Gay and Lesbian people appear to continue to be such a threat to straight people?
--Another hackneyed tactic. Try to make the people raising points somehow 'afraid' or 'threatened' by another group. It's wording aimed at making someone you don't agree with seem inferior or weak. I'm only raising the issue of a double standard in how we seperate people now. It's based on fundemental attraction, which is obviously an issue with gays as well as straits. But the law does not acknowledge homosexuals at all, so is not a very good reflection of the reality of human sexuality.
quote:
To me this is such a non-issue
--See above post regarding civilians that have no intention of actually living under the same conditions they so easily hoist upon soldiers.
quote:
A person who joins the military is not looking to get a free show of naked bodies of the same sex
--Absolutely. This is why the current policy is there- to ensure the people that would be sexually attracted to you (only the opposite sex, since there are no 'gay' soldiers) can't, even if they wanted to, get that free show. They do not join for that reason, because the regulations prevent it from being a motivator. But you are saying there shouldn't be regulations addressing the same exact issue for dealing with gays. Again, that's the position of a lobbyist, not someone open to debate.
quote:
You are in more danger from a person on the street attacking you then a gay person. Homosexual rape is almost unheard of
--RED HERRING. I never once mentioned rape. Nor have I brought up the violence that would certainly break out due to some people's intolerance. Both are crimes that can be dealt with thru the UCMJ. Neither are tolerable for an instant. I never suggested that being in the company of lots of naked people would be too much for any gay person and they'd commit a crime. I am talking about sexual harrasment, and specifically in the military, where a wink or smile at the wrong time can equal an EO complaint.
quote:
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
--All very poetic and sweet. I think I hear violins in the background. Where did you mistake that for the mission of the military? I said before I don't care who you snog. The problem is the forced housing. Love? Who gives a rat's ass about that? What, is Uncle Sam running a gay dating service now? I could care less if you're gay walking down the street. Just like a woman wouldn't care about a guy walking down the street. The difference comes when we (well, not you) peel off that uniform after work. I never questioned a gay person's affection for their mate. I only question the inappropriatness of utterly forgoing someone's (in this case a vast majority) rights to push lobby agendas.
quote:
It looks like your homophobia is showing.
--Remind me to hide that again when my friend (diesel dyke lesbian) comes over to for dinner tonight. Maybe I should rethink all the times she's watched my daughter then? Yeah, I'm such a homophobe I feel perfectly comfortable leaving my kid with a gay person- better than I feel about many straits. Damn that intolerant Solly. Bad Lama!
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 16:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am also not a homosexual, unless Slater agrees to marry me.
Now why did you say that? We all know you're gay as a three dollar bill. Are you just trying to prove his contention that sods, like yourself, lust after straights
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 18:17:27 [Permalink]
|
Solly has friends that are gay, so he can't be prejudiced, right?
I don't know if he is or not and I don't care, but when someone starts throwing around the word "PC" what they're saying is that rudeness and hate is okay and it's "PC" to think otherwise.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 19:58:41 [Permalink]
|
Damn, just look how black that kettle is.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 20:04:34 [Permalink]
|
I have news for you Solly: no matter how much you apparently don't want to believe it, gay guys checked your ass out in the shower when you were active duty. If, tomorrow, you change in the gym locker room, gay guys are checking your ass out. Sexuality runs a great continuum. Not all men who find your ass attractive will be Will & Grace flaming homosexuals. If you for a moment think that simply because you didn't know they were there, that they actually weren't there, you've got some deeper issues.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 21:04:13 [Permalink]
|
It seems the fundamental issue SollyLama is presenting deals with the reason for separate berthing. If we allowed openly gay people in the military, where would they sleep? Why do we separate men's and women's berthing areas? Privacy? Reduce the risk of pregnancy? Make men/women feel safer?
If (for some odd reason) the CNO woke up tomorrow and decided that women will serve on submarines, but we would have to share all facilities, I would have no problems with that (okay, I would be a little uncomfortable at first, but I'd get over it). I would share a room with a female Sailor, use the same heads, and do my best to provide her with the same amount of privacy that I give the men. So where is the problem?
SollyLama suggested a few:- The wives of servicemen would be very uncomfortable with an arrangement like this, but that could be dealt with
- It would be easier for servicemembers to have intercourse and thus violate the UCMJ, but it is not difficult to arrange some other meeting place
- It would violate some right to privacy, as if it makes any difference who sees your naughties, they will be seen
The real issue (IMHO) is security: for some reason, men and women in our culture (and some others, but not as many as one may think) feel safer if they are only naked around those unattracted to them.
Addendum: considering the highly improbable situation I presented above, after a few months underwater I might develop some attraction for this hypothetical roommate, but nothing would come of it.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, why do people seem to feel more comfortable around the same gender when naked? Is it because we expect people to give us the same privacy we give them by not looking?
-me. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 22:01:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Even that if I don't want a gay guy in the shower with me, then I must not want blacks to either. All either incorrect or just asinine, and not once offering anything other than;
making the gay lobby happy is more important than people's rights, sexual harrassment issues, and as comfortable living as possible in a barracks. Basically, the hell with everything as long as we push the gay agenda.
I wasn't suggesting that you don't want blacks in the shower with you. I was trying to make a point about prejudice and change. Oh well.
Also, you defend your position by calling anyone who questions it PC. Apparently, the only discussion you will except is one that supports your conviction that living with gays invades your privacy, and how to deal with that in the military.
I must except your original premise. Well, I don't. And now, I'm done with this discussion.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
