|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2002 : 05:54:00 [Permalink]
|
Solly, all this stuff about co-ed showers and hypothetical men and my hypothetical daughters is a red herring. This has all been legislated already. The issue is same-sex observation. There is absolutely nothing now, or in the forseeable future, that you can do to prevent men who are attracted to other men from seeing those other men naked. Sure, you might be able to prevent Harvey Fierstein from walking into a barracks shower and humping someone's leg, but those who are content to keep their attractions to themselves will get to see all the sausage festivals they want. Attempting to appeal to my latent paternal emotions isn't going to change that.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2002 : 07:59:31 [Permalink]
|
There is a difference between what we can do if someone wants to do some meatgazing, and what the law says. A law about sexual harrassment is no more likely to be complied with than the speed limit. But that does not lessen the illgality of it.
It's a law we already have. I would like to see it include everyone.
It seems from these arguments that gays want to be accepted and identified as a legitimate group, but not when it concerns getting to shower or live with people of the same sex. Kind of a shady selection. Like they want to lay low when it comes to that particular subject. Why not, the status quo works in thier favor here. It's a free pass on EO complaints, all the while the group demands EO rights of it's own.
Tell gays that they can't be in certain jobs, or get the same promotions (assuming you allowed them in to begin with) and they'd have an EO tizzy. But suggest that housing them with the people they find attractive violates the same intent of the current gender-based policy, and suddenly they want to lay low. "what? Us? Just the the status quo where we get the peepshow."
I'm assuming again that gays want to be able to serve without hiding the truth or the witchhunts that can follow even an accusation. But to be identified as a group, and be legitimate, you must fall under the laws of the club you want to join. It seems you are arguing against that accountability. Is this particular lobby above the law?
The law is manifested in the policies that are set forth. The policy on preventing EO problems currently seperates men and women. It doesn't take into account gays. So to change the policy of banning gays would also take a rethinking of the EO policies, one of which covers housing- the example I put forth opening the thread.
Smell the glove!!!!
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2002 : 10:01:13 [Permalink]
|
Ah, the joys of dichotomous thinking.
Why is this so hard to understand? You can ban gays from serving openly in the military every day of the week and twice on Sunday and you still won't be able to prevent people who have same-sex attractions from serving and getting a personal peepshow.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Yuquiyu
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2002 : 01:08:45 [Permalink]
|
I don't know Solly, reading all this just makes me fell sick. You made us look like some sex perverted freaks, not all are looking for the chance to watch a great peepshow. If I place my self in a military shower room with more guys in there I will be too fucking frightened to look, even my own member. The fear wont let that happen, the fear of been marked as a freak will surely back of any intend of "satisfaction"
The wish of a better future, to blend in, is sometimes stronger than carnal desires. So please do not worry so much about it SollyLama, they are more afraid of you than you are of them. 
Harassment, a dangerous word indeed.
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 08:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why is this so hard to understand? You can ban gays from serving openly in the military every day of the week and twice on Sunday and you still won't be able to prevent people who have same-sex attractions from serving and getting a personal peepshow
--and you can ban murder, and people will do it everyday. It doesn't make it less illegal.
quote:
I don't know Solly, reading all this just makes me fell sick. You made us look like some sex perverted freaks, not all are looking for the chance to watch a great peepshow. If I place my self in a military shower room with more guys in there I will be too fucking frightened to look, even my own member.
--I'm not saying all gays are freaks. But the exact same argument can be made for co-ed facilities as well. I didn't join the Army for a peepshow, but the Army MADE SURE I didn't get one by adopting policies to prevent it. I'm married, so I shouldn't be concerned with anyone but my wife, so I should be able to shower with women- because I'm not there for a peep show?
I don't think people should have to be so frightened. That's not how I would want to live, especially if I was serving my country. The current system forces gays to stay in the closet, AND pisses off straits that may not want to be housed with them. Which of course leads to high tensions and attacks on anyone pinned with the gay label.
This is hardly a dignified position.
But the EO laws and policies exist and they have to be complied with. If gays want to be accepted, especially with special EO coverage (for hate crimes, affirmitive action etc) then they should be held to the same EO laws everyone else is. Those policies are based on sexual attraction, which clearly is an issue when you house gay people together with the same sex and have open bay showers, et al.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2002 : 15:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--and you can ban murder, and people will do it everyday. It doesn't make it less illegal.
Quit moving the goalposts. We weren't talking about legality. My point was that it's irrational to believe that banning gays from serving, openly or otherwise, will suddenly ensure ogle-free showers.
quote:
--I'm not saying all gays are freaks. But the exact same argument can be made for co-ed facilities as well. I didn't join the Army for a peepshow, but the Army MADE SURE I didn't get one by adopting policies to prevent it. I'm married, so I shouldn't be concerned with anyone but my wife, so I should be able to shower with women- because I'm not there for a peep show?
But we can do much to keep people who are obviously men out of compromising situations with people who are obviously women. We can even do the same with people who are obviously gay. What we can't do is keep out those people who are moderately attracted to the same sex, people who are perhaps content to just watch surreptitously and then go home and fantasize.
quote:
I don't think people should have to be so frightened. That's not how I would want to live, especially if I was serving my country. The current system forces gays to stay in the closet, AND pisses off straits that may not want to be housed with them. Which of course leads to high tensions and attacks on anyone pinned with the gay label.
This is hardly a dignified position.
What's the alternative?
"Okay, we've kicked out all the homosexuals. You grunts can go back to your showers feeling secure that no one's checking you out."
That's at worst a complete lie. It can't possibly be true all the time.
quote:
But the EO laws and policies exist and they have to be complied with. If gays want to be accepted, especially with special EO coverage (for hate crimes, affirmitive action etc) then they should be held to the same EO laws everyone else is. Those policies are based on sexual attraction, which clearly is an issue when you house gay people together with the same sex and have open bay showers, et al.
There may be good reasons to try to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces. Clearly however, personal discomfort can't be one of them.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2002 : 09:33:28 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer, I'm not arguing that the reality of it can't be very successfully enforced. EO laws are like the speed limit. Worse, it's harder to prove since there's usually no proof like a radar gun. EO complaints usually boil down to he said, she (he, it whatever) said.
But I AM talking about the legality of it. The UCMJ is LAW. Violations of it are a crime. You can be penalized far worse in teh military for even a minor infraction than in the civilian world. Remember, in the military, if a woman cries rape, YOU WILL sit in jail until you can prove your own innocence. There is also 'non-judicial' punishment. That's the Article 15 GI's fear so much. That requires that none higher than your company commander are needed for judge and jury. You can appeal it, but then it just goes one guy higher (like a battalion commander) and he's not likely to overturn one of his commander's decisions. If you choose a court martial (it's your right) it will go before a military court that resembles a civilian court. But by this time you will have already served some punishment, even if you are eventually cleared. And if you drag your commander into a court martial, you will eventually have to return back to duty under that same person. Guess who will pull every shitty duty from then on.
EO is a law. In the military violations of the law are much more serious than in the civilian world.
But even still, lack of effective enforcement doesn't mean it's not wrong. That's like saying that since there is no effective way for police to enforce the speed limit for everyone, that the law should be completely thrown out.
quote:
Okay, we've kicked out all the homosexuals. You grunts can go back to your showers feeling secure that no one's checking you out."
That's at worst a complete lie. It can't possibly be true all the time
--Of course it can't, but that doesn't mean that the policy doesn't, or shouldn't exist.
I have not argued against gays in the military. I've said several times that I don't think being gay disqualifies anyone from service. I'm just shy of thiking that some form of civil service should be mandatory for everyone who wants to enjoy the freedoms other pay for with thier blood.
But they are excluded as a group. That means that if that policy were changed, they would be allowed, as a group. They will demand special consideration for things like assaults (the ridiculous Hate-Crime laws) and EO protection from discrimination, like Affirmative Action. My point is that if you want to be accepted as a group, especially to receive preferrential treatment, then you should be subject to the same laws as everyone else, for the same reasons.
quote:
There may be good reasons to try to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces. Clearly however, personal discomfort can't be one of them
--Covered that. I'm not arguing letting them in. I don't know of any good reason to exclude gays from the military. But to allow them, we will have to review the current policies on many things (my example was housing) and make changes to accomodate gays as open members of the services. They simply must be held accountable to the standards of everyone else. That becomes an issue in things like housing.
Lack of enforcement doesn't make the issue go way.
And nothing really rocks, And nothing really rolls. And nothing's ever worth the cost. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2002 : 11:32:52 [Permalink]
|
Solly,
I don't know how we got to enforcement and the UCMJ; I was initially responding to your point about limiting heterosexual soldiers' discomfort. Naturally, if there's something in the UCMJ that prevents candid observation, it should be enforced across the board. But this is part of my objection. If the main reason to do this is to placate the soldiers who are so concerned about same-sex observation, then it's an empty gesture if the reality is that homosexuals will simply keep it to themselves and observe unnoticed.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2002 : 09:44:06 [Permalink]
|
We got into enforcement because I think you're saying that since it can't be effectively enforced, there should be NO policy concerning gays. Maybe I misunderstood you.
I agree enforcement of specific acts of sexual harrassment (SH) is nearly impossible to achieve, especially if the perp is actively trying not to be caught. A he said/he said situation.
One of the ways the military deals with the issue now (restricted to male/female considerations since there are no 'gay soldiers') is to seperate the groups in housing. The policy of seperate housing and facilities.
So the policy exists already, and for the same reasons that would affect homos as well as hetros. The policy is to reduce SH/EO complaints. Factors like rape are minimal, since it's infrequent and already one of the most punishable offenses under UCMJ. The over-riding factors are SH/EO.
Allowing gays to serve openly creates another sub-division that the EO laws and policies will have to apply to.
Under the current policy and it's intent, housing gays with straits of the same sex is tantamount to allowing men in the women's showers.
The arguments I've heard so far simply want to ignore applying the law to a select group.
They are currently overlooked (actually not acknowledged at all) by the system, and that seems just fine to you.
That's a loophole, and it should be closed. It would go a long way to legitimizing gays in the military- to have them conform to policies already in place. Dodging this particular policy seems awful calculated. Especially considering that gays would be afforded many benefits thru the EO policy of the UCMJ. Sort of a two-faced approach.
No remorse, No repent. We don't care what it meant. Another day another death. Another sorrow another breath. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 06:13:37 [Permalink]
|
Some people seem to make a lot of loud proclamations about their prowess and their contributions to the world. In my experience, those that are the loudest usually are the ones that do the least. Certainly not always. But usually.
"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 - 09/07/2002 : 16:09:37 [Permalink]
|
I can't help but remember that during 'Nam the Gays considered their being banned from the military a good thing. Wonder if that's why they called themselves "gay," because they were happy that they weren't going to be shot at?
The Gays who wanted to serve enlisted. When they joined up they "stayed in the closet". "Staying in the closet" only constitutes behaving in a manner that is indistinguishable from anyone else. That's what the military is all about. That's why uniforms are so uniform. That's why they march in step with one another. That's why they are punished if their F***ing shoelaces aren't laced left over right.
Frankly the only special treatment I ever heard anyone getting in the Navy is that when we went on night infiltration missions the African Americans among us didn't have to cover their faces with shoe polish.
I don't really understand what is being asked for here. Do you want the Gays who don't want to serve to lose their deferments? Or do you want one group in the military to be exempt from the uniformity of military life?
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 02:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Perhaps people who think like The SollyLama should be banned from participating in The Armed Forces because they, themselves, would each be a hazard to The Armed Forces.
Have you ever been in the military? If not, you can not say or even begin to determine what is detrimental to the armed forces.
Sucessfully integrating gays into the military is not something that can be done just because you or anyone else thinks it's a good idea. It takes time. You can issue the order, that doesn't mean that everyone who has to follow that order will do so sucessfully. The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy of the Clinton administration resulted in 'witchhunts' for gays in the military. Even being suspected of being gay was enough to damage a career.
They haven't even been successful in integrating women into the military. What makes you think that just opening the doors to gays will overcome many of the powerful prejudices that are amplified by the close quarters in the military? Things will or won't change over time, but forcing the issue is not always the best solution. Sometimes letting things work themselves out has to suffice.
Plus, as Solly has pointed out, there are a whole range of issues that have to be considered for gays serving openly in the military. It centers around morale and welfare of all the troops, not just those who are gay. If you do not consider the climate of the military, as it currently stands, then you've endagered lives. That is the first lesson most of us learn in the military, any action you take may eventually cost a person their life. If I fixed something wrong, we'd lose a plane, pilot, and BN. Not to mention the civilians on the ground when that bird dropped from the sky.
Consider the consequences of forcing people to live 80-100 per squad bay and the personal prejudices that are brought on board by each of those individuals. It is the responsibility of the military to forge a cohesive unit out of those individuals. Forcing another tension into the room could, at this time, break the bonds that hold that unit together.
You can not like it all you like. Work on educating the general populace about gays. Acceptance in the civilian community will eventually leak over into the military. Then gays openly serving might work.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 14:48:06 [Permalink]
|
Why?
quote:
Have you ever been in the military? If not, you can not say or even begin to determine what is detrimental to the armed forces.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 22:35:12 [Permalink]
|
Because the military is a not necessarily a microcosm of the larger civilian community. The rules are different.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2002 : 09:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Because the military is a not necessarily a microcosm of the larger civilian community. The rules are different.
This is probably the greatest source of difference between the (ex)service people and those more liberally inclined on this board. Military life is one of sacrifice on a daily, 24/7 level. Not just "the ultimate sacrifice…although that does happen…but a thousand small, and not so small sacrifices. Most of your rights and freedoms as an individual are sacrificed to be in the military. They are sacrificed to make your part of a team whose duty it is to protect the common good at the teams own expense (and I am not referring to money).
The key word there is duty, meaning responsibility. Which is why the phrase "you never served" pops up so often in these conversations.
The idea that you have these rights just because you have them, service people understand is a fallacy. These rights had to be paid for…they know because they are the ones who paid. While they feel that you have every right to take advantage of these freedoms even to the extent of verbally attacking your country in time of war they also understand that it is you duty and responsibility to defend it.
-------
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
