CJCS: Problem with gays in the miltary? Leave

[Gipper]

"Once the gays start doing each other in the barracks, showers, etc..." What on Earth are you talking about? Is it your assertion that gay people will only join the military for the purposes of having sex in the shower and ruining the institution as a whole? That is absurd.

Going with that "argument" I could ask how we could ever allow openly gay people in the workplace, because once they start having sex in the bathroom, it will just ruin the office...

When you think of the Israeli military, I would imagine you think of an image of a well run Army that gets the job done...nevermind that soldiers serve in it who are openly gay.

I mean really, that is your argument for why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to remain in place... because "the gays will start doing each other in the barracks."

What is absurd is you concluding from my comments that gays will join the military JUST to do each other in the shower. Never stated that.

My point is once DADT is replaced with openly gay, bad things will happen. Do you have understanding of human nature?

We already have problems with pregnancy and other issues due to women and men working closely together. Once you put lots of openly gay men together with straights, there will be problems too.

And also I pointed out that straight men will not join up if they know they will be showering, bunking, etc with gays. That is just human nature...and the results of this will be very detrimental to the effectiveness of our military and could turn the military from a mostly conservative political entity to a liberal one, which is the objective of the left.

Got it?

 

[Rick]

Contrary to your apparent belief, gay people don't want to have sex with every man they see.

Straw man, and how do you know - are you gay?

I played sports all through high school and college, and we did actually have a gay person on our team... and for showering after games etc, no one cared.

You are entitled to your predilections, and others to their's.

Does allowing gay people into colleges (who sleep in dorms and share common shower rooms) somehow mean that they just want to go around and "do each other" all day long? That is an absurd argument.

Oh - oh .... you're arguing with yourself again.

You want to keep don't ask don't tell fine, I have no problem with that, but the whole argument that if you do away with it the Army will turn into a sex club for gay people is just ridiculous.

Straw men flying thick and fast, and what I want is all of them OUT of the military.

 

[BigRob]

What is absurd is you concluding from my comments that gays will join the military JUST to do each other in the shower. Never stated that.

My point is once DADT is replaced with openly gay, bad things will happen. Do you have understanding of human nature?

I have an understanding that this position flies in the face of numerous other countries that have openly gay people serving and do not have the problems that you are arguing will occur.

We already have problems with pregnancy and other issues due to women and men working closely together. Once you put lots of openly gay men together with straights, there will be problems too.

Then why do other countries allow them to serve and have little problem with it?

And also I pointed out that straight men will not join up if they know they will be showering, bunking, etc with gays. That is just human nature...and the results of this will be very detrimental to the effectiveness of our military and could turn the military from a mostly conservative political entity to a liberal one, which is the objective of the left.

Got it?

Yea, I got it... its a stupid argument overall. The only real point in the whole debate is that enlistment might go down...

Outside of that, arguing that human nature will not support this all the while ignoring how it is working fine in other nations seems a bit odd.

 

[BigRob]

Straw man, and how do you know - are you gay?

I am happily married... yet I have friends who are gay and have no desire to have sex with me.

Additionally, it is not a straw man to address the point that you brought up..

Oh - oh .... you're arguing with yourself again.

More like responding to your argument... you say it would be a problem because they will have common shower rooms and sleep in barracks... the closest comparison to that is a college dorm.. where this is not a major problem.

Straw men flying thick and fast, and what I want is all of them OUT of the military.

Well that is not going to happen... there are currently gay people serving on the front lines... and because they have kept it to themselves, you most likely think of them as a hero...

 

[Gipper]

I have an understanding that this position flies in the face of numerous other countries that have openly gay people serving and do not have the problems that you are arguing will occur.



Then why do other countries allow them to serve and have little problem with it?



Yea, I got it... its a stupid argument overall. The only real point in the whole debate is that enlistment might go down...

Outside of that, arguing that human nature will not support this all the while ignoring how it is working fine in other nations seems a bit odd.

Other nations have no problems (you claim and left wing press claim) so its okay for the US to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? What other nations?

We are the world's sole superpower. We are at war and have many dangerous enemies. Our military must be ready and effective. Anything that MIGHT negatively effective preparedness should not be implemented. And, we have a much larger number of man under arms who are much more likely to see combat than say, Denmark.

Claiming there are no problems with open gays in Denmark's military means it is okay in the US military, is like comparing apples and Blue whales.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

comparing the US Military to Israels...is like comparing...apples to just slightly smaller apples....but just as good of a apple.

 

[Hobo1]

If you eliminate DADT, then what are we left with? Feel free to ask, feel free to tell? We don't tolerate open conversations about sexual preferences in the work place or in normal pubic conversations - most people find it offensive.

I know there are places in San Francisco where gays and lesbians feel comfortable making a provocative remark - and in its place, that's fine with me.

Live together, get married, go to bars and parties together - that's okay with me... as long as I can walk the other way. What I don't want is being forced to stay in a small environment, like standing watch while on patrol, or while working on the bridge of an navy vessel while two guys carry on an openly gay conversation which I am forced to listen to.

I wouldn't tolerate it at an office party, or in a board room. At the same time I wouldn't want to be forced to hear "hey, you got a cute ass, I'd like to get some of that", when I am forced to stand a 4 hour watch with these two guys talking nearby.

To me it is all about societal norms. Maybe a little difficult to define, but DADT seems to fit the military situation just perfectly.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If you eliminate DADT, then what are we left with? Feel free to ask, feel free to tell? We don't tolerate open conversations about sexual preferences in the work place or in normal pubic conversations - most people find it offensive.

I know there are places in San Francisco where gays and lesbians feel comfortable making a provocative remark - and in its place, that's fine with me.

Live together, get married, go to bars and parties together - that's okay with me... as long as I can walk the other way. What I don't want is being forced to stay in a small environment, like standing watch while on patrol, or while working on the bridge of an navy vessel while two guys carry on an openly gay conversation which I am forced to listen to.

I wouldn't tolerate it at an office party, or in a board room. At the same time I wouldn't want to be forced to hear "hey, you got a cute ass, I'd like to get some of that", when I am forced to stand a 4 hour watch with these two guys talking nearby.

To me it is all about societal norms. Maybe a little difficult to define, but DADT seems to fit the military situation just perfectly.

I see, so you should not have to live with them being open even the slightest about who they are...but your free to be a Bigot all you want and the world must part for you to be free to be one...

Your free to not join the military...its your choice...your hate and ignorance should not force others to not be able to serve our nation...

 

[BigRob]

Other nations have no problems (you claim and left wing press claim) so its okay for the US to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? What other nations?

Your whole argument was predicated on the idea that human nature would take over and thus openly gay soldiers should not be allowed...Pointing to other nations (with humans in the military) and citing that they are not having a major problem with it seems to fly in the face of the claim that "human nature" will be a problem with a policy such as this.

We are the world's sole superpower. We are at war and have many dangerous enemies. Our military must be ready and effective. Anything that MIGHT negatively effective preparedness should not be implemented. And, we have a much larger number of man under arms who are much more likely to see combat than say, Denmark.

No one is saying our military should not be ready and effective...Take a look at some of these arguments from 1947.

“Negro outfits should be maintained separately,” an Army master sergeant from North Carolina told Pentagon interviewers in 1947. “To do otherwise is to invite trouble and many complications. The equal rights plan should not be forced on the Army as an example to civilians.”

Troops also offered dire predictions for what would happen if whites and black units were forced to serve together.

“For sure, all the GIs will quit the Army or buck like hell to get out,” a 20-year-old Army private first class told the surveyors. The service members were quoted anonymously in the 1947 study.

Added another 19-year-old soldier: “If the Negro and the whites were mixed, there would be a civil war among the troops. There would be a lot of useless bloodshed if this happens.”

It appears we are just rehashing the same old arguments that ultimately meant nothing... surely you are not going to sit here and argue in 1947 with the Cold War on the horizon and the Korean War looming anyone wanted to make the Army less effective.

Claiming there are no problems with open gays in Denmark's military means it is okay in the US military, is like comparing apples and Blue whales.

I never said anything about Denmark.. I pointed to Israel since that would be a much closer comparison, but again, if the argument that human nature would take over and cause problems has any validity to it, it should have the same validity everywhere humans are in this situation.... which it does not seem to have.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Your whole argument was predicated on the idea that human nature would take over and thus openly gay soldiers should not be allowed...Pointing to other nations (with humans in the military) and citing that they are not having a major problem with it seems to fly in the face of the claim that "human nature" will be a problem with a policy such as this.



No one is saying our military should not be ready and effective...Take a look at some of these arguments from 1947.



It appears we are just rehashing the same old arguments that ultimately meant nothing... surely you are not going to sit here and argue in 1947 with the Cold War on the horizon and the Korean War looming anyone wanted to make the Army less effective.




I never said anything about Denmark.. I pointed to Israel since that would be a much closer comparison, but again, if the argument that human nature would take over and cause problems has any validity to it, it should have the same validity everywhere humans are in this situation.... which it does not seem to have.

maybe next gipper will push for all gay units, segregate them out..then just like blacks, we can put the worse strait officers in charge of them...then if the unit does poorly with the worse training, supplies, and officers...blame the gays for it..

 

[Gipper]

Your whole argument was predicated on the idea that human nature would take over and thus openly gay soldiers should not be allowed...Pointing to other nations (with humans in the military) and citing that they are not having a major problem with it seems to fly in the face of the claim that "human nature" will be a problem with a policy such as this.



No one is saying our military should not be ready and effective...Take a look at some of these arguments from 1947.



It appears we are just rehashing the same old arguments that ultimately meant nothing... surely you are not going to sit here and argue in 1947 with the Cold War on the horizon and the Korean War looming anyone wanted to make the Army less effective.




I never said anything about Denmark.. I pointed to Israel since that would be a much closer comparison, but again, if the argument that human nature would take over and cause problems has any validity to it, it should have the same validity everywhere humans are in this situation.... which it does not seem to have.

I made my point.

We are not going to agree. And, I am surprised to be debating this issue with a conservative.

If nothing else, why would you side with the Left? I would hope we agree that the Left has worked tirelessly the past 50 years to destroy our culture, institutions, and everything that made America great. Any issue promoted by them I am against on general principles.

Why take a chance on f-ing up our military with open gays? WHY? You want to be seen as politically correct? Why would a conservative want to promote the left wing agenda? WHY? Most left wing ideas that have been enacted have been a disaster for our country. I for one am against taking a chance.

 

[Hobo1]

I see, so you should not have to live with them being open even the slightest about who they are...but your free to be a Bigot all you want and the world must part for you to be free to be one...

Your free to not join the military...its your choice...your hate and ignorance should not force others to not be able to serve our nation...

There is the fatal flaw in your argument. No, neither the military nor civilian society tolerates a bigoted attack against someone else. I cannot call someone a jew boy or a N*gger or in any other way slander another person with insults, nor can I speak of it within earshot of someone who would be offended.

Whatever my personal feelings are about these cultural groups, I cannot speak of it in a bigoted fashion to them or around them.

Yet you are arguing that two gays are a special class of people who have the right to speak of their perverted sexual orientation while I am in the room. That is patently offensive to a vast majority of people in our society today. Gays have no more "right" to speak of their sexual orientation than two southern guys have a right to speak how they would like to lynch a N*gger in the presence of a black man.

 

[BigRob]

I made my point.

We are not going to agree. And, I am surprised to be debating this issue with a conservative.

You did make your point.. as for why I am coming down on the other side of that point is because it seems the evidence goes against it.

If nothing else, why would you side with the Left? I would hope we agree that the Left has worked tirelessly the past 50 years to destroy our culture, institutions, and everything that made America great. Any issue promoted by them I am against on general principles.

Why take a chance on f-ing up our military with open gays? WHY? You want to be seen as politically correct? Why would a conservative want to promote the left wing agenda? WHY? Most left wing ideas that have been enacted have been a disaster for our country. I for one am against taking a chance.

There does not appear to be any actual evidence that such a policy would screw up our military or its capability.

 

[Rick]

I am happily married... yet I have friends who are gay and have no desire to have sex with me.

How do you know?

Additionally, it is not a straw man to address the point that you brought up..

Actually, no, I DIDN'T suggest gays want to have sex with every man they meet.

More like responding to your argument...

False - YOU brought up gays "doing each other all day long", not me.

you say it would be a problem because they will have common shower rooms and sleep in barracks... the closest comparison to that is a college dorm.. where this is not a major problem.

No, college students don't sleep in barracks arrangements - they have separate rooms.

Well that is not going to happen...

Obviously not while the leftwingers are in control, but that ends Jan 2013.

there are currently gay people serving on the front lines... and because they have kept it to themselves, you most likely think of them as a hero...

Possibly, but the issue of gays in the military can't devolve around an occasional hero, but rather the overall consequences of having them there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is the fatal flaw in your argument. No, neither the military nor civilian society tolerates a bigoted attack against someone else. I cannot call someone a jew boy or a N*gger or in any other way slander another person with insults, nor can I speak of it within earshot of someone who would be offended.

Whatever my personal feelings are about these cultural groups, I cannot speak of it in a bigoted fashion to them or around them.

Yet you are arguing that two gays are a special class of people who have the right to speak of their perverted sexual orientation while I am in the room. That is patently offensive to a vast majority of people in our society today. Gays have no more "right" to speak of their sexual orientation than two southern guys have a right to speak how they would like to lynch a N*gger in the presence of a black man.

actually legally you can, just the rest of us will look down on you as a ignorant little person...And to talk about lynching someone...it to talk about commiting a crime...its called Conspiracy, and also could be Assult if directed at a specific someone..just like if I said I was going to shoot you, I could be jailed...has nothing to do with what race you are...its a crime...

2 people talking about who they happen to wish to be with, is there right...you don't have any right to say what others can say in front of you, simply because you don't like it or agree. Its not a crime...Thats like me saying Republicans should not talk about republican ideas in front of me, as its my right to not have to hear them...its stupid...wrong, and unconstitutional...

what you do have a right to...leave. No one is forcing you to join the army..No one forces you to hang around anyone that's gay...its your choice...Just like gays have the right to not hang around you, not join the army...or join it (just like you) But they don't have the right to say you can't talk about being strait...simply because they are not.

Its amazing what a self centered little world you must live in.