SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court ordered the military to temporarily continue its "don't ask, don't tell" policy for openly gay service members Friday in response to a request from the Obama administration.

In its three-page ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling was based on new information provided by the federal government, including a declaration from Major General Steven A. Hummer, who is leading the effort to repeal the policy.

"In order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented in the light of these previously undisclosed facts," the court wrote, that it would uphold an earlier order to keep the policy in place.

Despite the delay in dismantling the controversial policy, the ruling bars the federal government from investigating, penalizing or discharging anyone pursuant to "don't ask, don't tell."

The court of appeals had halted "don't ask, don't tell" July 6 but the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion Thursday saying ending the policy now would pre-empt the orderly process for rolling it back, per a law signed by President Barack Obama in December.

The ruling was supported by Servicemembers United, an organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, but the group's executive director Alexander Nicholson voiced frustration over the slow process of dismantling "don't ask, don't tell."

"The situation with finally ending this outdated and discriminatory federal policy has become absolutely ridiculous," said Nicholson. "It is simply not right to put the men and women of our armed forces through this circus any longer."

And here I was hoping we'd put this one in the grave and were done with it

Never will I understand why we need separate legislation because a person like a dangle instead of a bajingo.

I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Good old fashion sentimentality and logistical problems. I think the sentimentality figured more into it than anything else.

The military is by an large a very conservative institution (The saying "There are no Atheists in fox holes" also factors in somewhat). DADT was passed as part of a compromise with Clinton. Prior to it, homosexuals could not service in the military. With it they could serve, as long as nobody knew about it...

EDIT: My position on it is the same as gay marriage. I don't care, just get it over with so people will stop complaining and we can move on to bigger problems in the world. Like starving African children

Always ask, frequently tell, I always say.

I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly sensible rule to a point. The point being that should you be 'outed' then you're out.

It also meshes with my general view point. Couldn't care less who you prefer to knock boots with. It's none of my business. Indeed, it's between you and said other.

Kind of gets up my nose on two counts. One, that homosexuality is seen as something to be declared at all, and two, that some homosexuals feel the need to inform as many people as possible about their particular preference. If it really doesn't matter to the person(s) involved, then why mention it at all?

I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

Mr Mystery wrote:Kind of gets up my nose on two counts. One, that homosexuality is seen as something to be declared at all, and two, that some homosexuals feel the need to inform as many people as possible about their particular preference. If it really doesn't matter to the person(s) involved, then why mention it at all?

Yeah, why ever mention 'I'm going to meet my girlfriend's parents this weekend, man I always get nervous at that part' 'Nah, I'm skipping the bar, I'm going out with [name] tonight', 'Yeah, [name] and I are going to take a trip to Manhattan next time I've got leave', or anything like that? Or get email, paper mail, or texts from your girlfriend, or talk to her on the phone even briefly when anyone else can hear. Or go out on a date without making it into a huge secret.

The LOOK AT ME I LIKE PENIS part of the gay community gets on my nerves, but asking 'why ever mention anything about the person you're dating' is really pretty silly.

It's cause the entire military is secretly gay, DADT is just the phrase "No Homo" codified.

It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

avantgarde wrote:It's cause the entire military is secretly gay, DADT is just the phrase "No Homo" codified.

It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

avantgarde wrote:It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

This is sig worthy

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s, the military had an absolute rule that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

But they can openly discuss such things:

'Nah, I'm skipping the bar, I'm going out with George...err Georgie...I mean Georgina, yes that's her name, Georgina defininitely not a bloke called George. No way'

Oh its this one again? Good grief.

Relapse wrote:I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

A lot of people in the military in the 50s weren't comfortable being in close quarters with a negro, but they had to get over it.

Agreed. Besides like a gay guy told me once, get over yourself Brandon, I dont want to feth you in the slightest. Things were fine after that

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Relapse wrote:I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

A lot of people in the military in the 50s weren't comfortable being in close quarters with a negro, but they had to get over it.

How many women are comfortable bathing with men in the same space at the same time? Using the same bathrooms. Sure some probably don't mind, but many probably do. It's really the same thing in this case and a little different from a subjective bias against people for the color of their skin. This is a bias against people for their behavior which I actually think is harder to deal with than some of the dumber reasons for people not to like other people.

When possible the military provide separate facilities. It's one of the 'reasons' women are banned from combat units and why for so long they weren't allowed aboard combat ships in the navy. We really can't provide for separate facilities for both gay men and gay women. It's a stupid cost to be spent and I don't see the military funding such a project. So, how do we logistically deal with it? Honestly the soldiers are probably just gonna have to suck it up and deal with it and do what you're supposed to do when there is inappropriate behavior going on. Report it.

The paranoia about homosexual soldiers is likely a little unjustified I think, but I don't consider it to be without rhyme or reason. Of course, I also don't think this bias is really that 'logic' why they were banned from the military. I think that's just good old fashion 'you're a weirdo and not like me' style bias.

EDIT: To be honest, I'd be a little uncomfortable, but I think that's more because as an Army brat, I've never met anyone who I knew was gay and don't have any idea exactly how to behave. I know that sounds weird, probably I should just treat them like I treat everyone else I meet (with silent contempt ) but the human brain is weird. People get confused when encountering something they have no experience with or nervous.

biccat wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s,CONGRESS HAD A LAW FOR the military
that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

Fixed that for you. Let us not forget that the military does not make its own rules. They are rightfully imposed by the civilian government. Which is the reason when certain organizations and universities did/do not allow military recruiters and the like access because they do not like the 'military rules' like DADT it is a load of stinky poo, usually a weak excuse to engage in an anti-military hatefest which would have existed anyway.

Jake

LordofHats wrote:How many women are comfortable bathing with men in the same space at the same time? Using the same bathrooms. Sure some probably don't mind, but many probably do. It's really the same thing in this case and a little different from a subjective bias against people for the color of their skin. This is a bias against people for their behavior which I actually think is harder to deal with than some of the dumber reasons for people not to like other people.

How many southern men were comfortable with bathing with negroes in the same space at the same time? Using the same water fountains? Turning up in the same bars? They had to deal with it, and the objections seem silly now, even outright racists don't support going back to segregated facilities. This actually makes LESS sense that segregation did back in the 40s, because at least there was segregation to begin with, and there was segregation in society to model on. There currently are gays in the military, and they're not segregated from straights, and there are gays in society who use the same locker rooms and bathrooms as straights.

The idea that the army suddenly needs to come up with a form of split facilities that it has never used for a class of people in the past, and that isn't used in society in general, is just nuts. "Don't ask, don't tell" never meant 'no gays in uniform', it just meant that the gay guys in your shower didn't tell you they were.

I guess if you want to ignore the point. The bias against gays is not the same as the bias against blacks. One is based on behavior, the other on a fictional idea of race. Bias against a behavior is harder to deal with than a bias against a social construct because the behavior is real while the construct is imaginary.

BearersOfSalvation wrote: There currently are gays in the military, and they're not segregated from straights, and there are gays in society who use the same locker rooms and bathrooms as straights.

This was a debate in the military community a few years ago. It still comes up every now and then. It's not like I'm making it up.

The idea that the army suddenly needs to come up with a form of split facilities that it has never used for a class of people in the past, and that isn't used in society in general, is just nuts.

It's easy to say that in a society where gays in general are not socially accepted as being 'normal' culturally. We can tolerate all we want but the cultural bias won't go away for a long time, especially in a society with 1000 years of Christian back history behind it. I also never claimed that the argument made sense. It's just one that exists (among others). Like those against women in combat units their mostly kind of silly and function as shield for people to use so they can say 'no gays' while at the same time pretending that they have a legitimate logical reason.

"Don't ask, don't tell" never meant 'no gays in uniform', it just meant that the gay guys in your shower didn't tell you they were.

DADT meant the military didn't have to deal with the problem. They could just pretend it didn't exist (you know, until it blew up in their face).

LordofHats wrote:I guess if you want to ignore the point. The bias against gays is not the same as the bias against blacks. One is based on behavior, the other on a fictional idea of race. Bias against a behavior is harder to deal with than a bias against a social construct because the behavior is real while the construct is imaginary.

Eh, I'm not so sure its that clear. Homosexuality isn't just a behavior, its an identity. Homosexuals do homosexual things, and it in large part defines who they are. The behavior informs the identity, sure, but that isn't so distinct from an identity informing a behavior; ie. all black folk do X. The comparison isn't direct, true, but they're closer than you might think as, in both cases, two personal characteristics have served to develop a certain type of subcultur, though not an exclusive one.

LordofHats wrote:
This was a debate in the military community a few years ago. It still comes up every now and then. It's not like I'm making it up.

Without being overly brazen, the trends regarding the acceptance of homosexuality in the military are amusingly skewed towards the more intellectually demanding parts of it. Whether or not that has to do with the situations of those parties is open for debate, though the same debate leads to questions regarding other military issues; like higher rates of sexual assault convictions amongst combat personnel.

LordofHats wrote:
It's easy to say that in a society where gays in general are not socially accepted as being 'normal' culturally. We can tolerate all we want but the cultural bias won't go away for a long time, especially in a society with 1000 years of Christian back history behind it.

Europe seems to be doing just fine.

LordofHats wrote:
I also never claimed that the argument made sense. It's just one that exists (among others). Like those against women in combat units their mostly kind of silly and function as shield for people to use so they can say 'no gays' while at the same time pretending that they have a legitimate logical reason.

Women at least have a biological deficiency (muscle density, not what you thought of immediately) in the field.

dogma wrote:Europe seems to be doing just fine.

I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did. As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

LordofHats wrote:
Women at least have a biological deficiency (muscle density, not what you thought of immediately) in the field.

The problem is that there likely are women who meet the physical requirements. Probably more than a few. But the ban is outright, based on a cultural bias about women within the military and outside the military as it relates to combat duty with some 'reasons' thrown in for justification.

LordofHats wrote:
I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did.

The thing that isn't true. When you say something about "1000 years of Christian history" you aren't talking about the US, you're talking about Europe. I mean, the US isn't even half that old. Thererfore, it doesn't seem like age is the issue, at least not in the sense of "older equals more Christian."

LordofHats wrote:
As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

I'm not sure that's true. I simply think that Europe is older, and like an older brother it scoffs at some of the rookie mistakes we've made in the last 50 years.

LordofHats wrote:
The problem is that there likely are women who meet the physical requirements. Probably more than a few. But the ban is outright, based on a cultural bias about women within the military and outside the military as it relates to combat duty with some 'reasons' thrown in for justification.

Maybe, but I can tell you that I can outperform most any infantryman in a distance race, but I would never be allowed to serve in combat because I have an artificial ACL.

Categorical bans in the military aren't just about gender.

dogma wrote:The thing that isn't true. When you say something about "1000 years of Christian history" you aren't talking about the US, you're talking about Europe. I mean, the US isn't even half that old. Thererfore, it doesn't seem like age is the issue, at least not in the sense of "older equals more Christian."

I say that because you have to look at the early European colonists for the the English Colonies that would form the core of the future US which has several centuries of history behind it. The earliest English colonists had a large cadre that were in a generous way of saying it, religious radicals. Even though they would become a minority of the population by the time of Independence, the United States historically heavily entrenched their particular brand of Christian thought (the Great Awakenings furthered this). Our history with Britain is partially to blame, as Britain has always been a little different from the rest of Europe culturally while following many of the same trends, and that mixed in with the colonists' religious backgrounds and created a religious environment different from that in Europe.

By the time of the Revolution Europe had begun to shred the Christian yolk. The United States on the other hand went through a series of events with a much longer history behind them that entrenched Christianity further into our political culture. We wouldn't really start seeing the shift noticeably until the 1960's and it's still very strong in our political culture to the point that one can argue no president can win election without being Christian in some way.

EDIT: Our peculiar slave culture to 1860, Civil War Reconstruction, and the Progressive Era also contributed heavily to this issue I think.

I'm not sure that's true. I simply think that Europe is older, and like an older brother it scoffs at some of the rookie mistakes we've made in the last 50 years.

I'm not entirely sure it's true either (not in the way I've phrased it). It's merely a trend I've noticed in the US political culture over time. To clarify, I am trying to explain the continued and very strong persistence of Christianity in American political culture. From what I understand, it is no where near as strong in Europe, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Categorical bans in the military aren't just about gender.

I'm talking about a single categorical ban that is about gender. Not all categorical bans. Some make perfect sense, some make a little, others don't make much at all.

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Relapse wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Neither is the fact that there are straight people who are obsessively convinced that "the gays are out to get inside them!".

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Neither is the fact that there are straight people who are obsessively convinced that "the gays are out to get inside them!".

Just telling it like it is. In a close quarter situation with shared showers, etc., most straight people in the military do not want gays around them.

Because many straight people here in the US are under the misconception that being gay is contagious and those who are afflicted by it can't control themselves from wanting to bum any hole they see.

Kanluwen wrote:Because many straight people here in the US are under the misconception that being gay is contagious and those who are afflicted by it can't control themselves from wanting to bum any hole they see.

Be that as it may, anyone going into a combat situation should not have their effectiveness or moral compromised by something like this.
As far as your comment goes, I had a friend who was constantly approached by homosexuals who knew he was straight. He even had one come after him with a gun after he turned down his offers and told him to stay away from him.
There are similar stories ,minus the weapon, I have from other friends of mine. Multiply this by the number of people in the military that have no doubt had similar experiences, and you can understand why known gays wouldn't be welcome the next rack over.

Relapse wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Because many straight people here in the US are under the misconception that being gay is contagious and those who are afflicted by it can't control themselves from wanting to bum any hole they see.

Be that as it may, anyone going into a combat situation should not have their effectiveness or moral compromised by something like this.

If this is impacting their combat effectiveness or morale--maybe the military isn't the right place for them. Who knows, they might have to bunk with someone of the Islamic faith!

As far as your comment goes, I had a friend who was constantly approached by homosexuals who knew he was straight. He even had one come after him with a gun after he turned down his offers and told him to stay away from him. There are similar stories ,minus the weapon, I have from other friends of mine.

I find this very hard to believe. But these are the kinds of stories that circulate all over about the Rainbow Menace, so I can't say I'm surprised your friends have these stories.

Multiply this by the number of people in the military that have no doubt had similar experiences, and you can understand why known gays wouldn't be welcome the next rack over.

Then I have to humbly suggest they get their panties untwisted, and get over it.

This idea that there's some great conspiracy of The Gay to bum every straight man is usually tied in to the straight men in question having regrets afterwards of experimenting and their self-perception based on society's views on homosexuality.
We live in a society where girl on girl interaction is some kind of great big legendary thing for a girl to have been part of, a guy to have seen or even been in the middle of a girl-on-girl sandwich, but if you hear about some guy who did something as innocent as kissing another man on the lips in anything but a joking manner it's usually accompanied with implications of them being some kind of deviant who would probably molest your child.

And in case you're wondering, no. I am actually not gay--but I see no fething reason for it to be treated like some kind of sick compulsion, and think the misinformative bullcrap needs to stop.

LordofHats wrote:
I say that because you have to look at the early European colonists for the the English Colonies that would form the core of the future US which has several centuries of history behind it.

Well, the better part of New England anyway.

LordofHats wrote:
The earliest English colonists had a large cadre that were in a generous way of saying it, religious radicals.

You are much kinder than I.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm talking about a single categorical ban that is about gender. Not all categorical bans. Some make perfect sense, some make a little, others don't make much at all.

Well, categorical bans are always "bad" in the sense that they exclude people who meet the intentional criteria of the category; which was my point.

Untwist your panties and get over it? Wrong thing to be saying to someone who puts his life on the line.
As far as your denial of my friends experiences go, whether you doubt them or not doesn't matter. They happened and the politically correct view that it's all a myth that gays never come on to straights is ridiculous.

Relapse wrote:They happened and the politically correct view that it's all a myth that gays never come on to straights is ridiculous.

Oh no, straight men might have to deal with being sexually attractive.

However do straight women do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Untwist your panties and get over it? Wrong thing to be saying to someone who puts his life on the line..

Well, not really, because putting your life on the line doesn't mean you are particularly strong, on a personal level.

There's an R-rated question I could ask here which would illustrate the difference.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:They happened and the politically correct view that it's all a myth that gays never come on to straights is ridiculous.

Oh no, straight men might have to deal with being sexually attractive.

However do straight women do it?

Straight women who aren't interested in sex aren't forced to have showers with men or sleep close by them.

Relapse wrote:
Straight women who aren't interested in sex aren't forced to have showers with men or sleep close by them.

No, they just have to interact with them ever day.

But hey, I'm sure knowing that Johnny is gay makes your life much worse than it was when you didn't know Johnny was gay.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Straight women who aren't interested in sex aren't forced to have showers with men or sleep close by them.

No, they just have to interact with them ever day.

But hey, I'm sure knowing that Johnny is gay makes your life much worse than it was when you didn't know Johnny was gay.

But they don't have to interact with them by sharing showers, bathrooms,tents and other day to day military requirements.
As far as Johnny goes, we had no clue the guy that came after my friend was gay. He'd go bowling with us and was just one of us for a few weeks until he started coming on to my friend. After that we wanted nothing to do with him, and one day he showed up at the door with a shotgun, wanting my friend to go away with him.

Relapse wrote:Untwist your panties and get over it? Wrong thing to be saying to someone who puts his life on the line.

Most soldiers get the utmost respect from me for their job. However, that doesn't mean they get a free pass as to their behavior as a person. You'd think that they'd be able to understand that they're supposed to be examples of how humanity should behave, with the idea that their role isn't to be killers but guardians.

As far as your denial of my friends experiences go, whether you doubt them or not doesn't matter. They happened and the politically correct view that it's all a myth that gays never come on to straights is ridiculous.

I didn't say that gays never come on to straights.

Straight men come onto lesbians all the time. People don't usually go around wearing a sign that advertises their sexuality. You're not going to find out which way someone swings unless you ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Straight women who aren't interested in sex aren't forced to have showers with men or sleep close by them.

No, they just have to interact with them ever day.

But hey, I'm sure knowing that Johnny is gay makes your life much worse than it was when you didn't know Johnny was gay.

But they don't have to interact with them by sharing showers, bathrooms,tents and other day to day military requirements.
As far as Johnny goes, we had no clue the guy that came after my friend was gay. He'd go bowling with us and was just one of us for a few weeks until he started coming on to my friend. After that we wanted nothing to do with him, and one day he showed up at the door with a shotgun, wanting my friend to go away with him.

So your argument is predicated upon the basis of anecdotal evidence over a person who, if he'd done this with a woman OR a man, would be considered a deviant.

Brilliant!

I was there when it was going on, my friend.
My argument is based on what was the norm for my own and my friends experiences.
The last place a straight person wants to have a gay proposition them in is a barracks.
I don't know how much I can put across the point of how awkward and potentially dangerous being in close quarters would be after a homosexual came on to someone who was straight, or even an uninterested,possibly repulsed, homosexual.
It's not like being in a bar where you can just walk away or tell someone to get away from you.
You'll have to be showering with this person, sharing a tent, all of what I said before about close quarters.
Somebody's eventually coming to great harm in this situation.

Relapse wrote:I was there when it was going on, my friend.
My argument is based on what was the norm for my own and my friends experiences.

And, once again, the primary post holding up your argument is based upon A GUY WHO TRIED TO USE A SHOTGUN TO GET SOMEONE TO COME WITH HIM.

That's not a sane, rational individual. That's what is called a "deviant".

Or a T-1000. Either/or.

The last place a straight person wants to have a gay proposition them in is a barracks.

The last place a woman wants to have a man proposition her is on deployment.

And yet, it happens. There's rules against it--and it happens. It's only when they're caught engaging in the activity that you start hearing things like "forced" or "pressured" into it.

Almost like the same could be said in regards to homosexual activities.

I don't know how much I can put across the point of how awkward and potentially dangerous being in close quarters would be after a homosexual came on to someone who was straight, or even an uninterested,possibly repulsed, homosexual.

Once again, you use the word "dangerous". This is a ridiculous argument. Provided the homosexual in question isn't a nutter to begin with--there's no "danger".

Awkwardness? Sure. Just like if you ask your female friend out and she shoots you down.

If someone is going to be "dangerous" in close quarters like these, it's because they'd be a danger no matter their sexual orientation.

It's not like being in a bar where you can just walk away or tell someone to get away from you.
You'll have to be showering with this person, sharing a tent, all of what I said before about close quarters.
Somebody's eventually coming to great harm in this situation.

Many people share tents when camping, there are communal showers at many public facilities(pools, for example, have public showers in the locker rooms), etc.

You don't see people "coming to great harm" in these situations unless the potential for harm(i.e. a deviant individual who does not ascribe to the norms of society in terms of behavior) was already present.

Of course gay people are dangerous, that is why gay pride marches kill thousands each yeah.

I agree with Kanluwen. One incident in which the homosexual individual wasn't completely sane shouldn't even be mentioned, unless you're trying to make gay person in the military out to be anything more than a person who likes dick instead of vagina.

My point is not based only on the extreme example of my friend as I've said, but on other expereinces other friends in my group have had, also.
Yes it would be a dangerous situation for all involved. The propositioned person could easily initiate a blanket party for the person who came on to him or worse.
As far as public showers and all that go, outside of the military you can leave and be far from someone if you wish, and not have to right by them on a daily basis.

LordofHats wrote:I guess if you want to ignore the point. The bias against gays is not the same as the bias against blacks. One is based on behavior, the other on a fictional idea of race. Bias against a behavior is harder to deal with than a bias against a social construct because the behavior is real while the construct is imaginary.

I know you don't like your prejudice against the queers being compared to the old prejudice against the coloreds, but they're both simple hatred of someone based on something basic to how they were born. You want to think that you're more progressive than the guys who didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as one of those people who's skin was darker, but it's all the same thing. It actually has nothing to do with behavior, someone who says 'whao I'm attracted to guys' but never sleeps with a guy gets kicked out for violating DADT.

This was a debate in the military community a few years ago. It still comes up every now and then. It's not like I'm making it up.

It's not a debate, it's simple fact, anyone debating it is simply in denial and needs to accept reality. There are gays in the military, the whole point of DADT is 'you can be gay as long as we don't know'. That means they're already in your showers, and barracks, and foxholes, and gyms, and wherever else.

It's easy to say that in a society where gays in general are not socially accepted as being 'normal' culturally. We can tolerate all we want but the cultural bias won't go away for a long time, especially in a society with 1000 years of Christian back history behind it. I also never claimed that the argument made sense. It's just one that exists (among others). Like those against women in combat units their mostly kind of silly and function as shield for people to use so they can say 'no gays' while at the same time pretending that they have a legitimate logical reason.

Again, gays are not segregated in society. You can say nonsense about 1000 years of tradition, but it simply doesn't happen - there are bathrooms for 'men' and 'women', but not for 'straight men' or 'gay women'. There are gym locker rooms for men and women, but none specifically based on gayness. The idea that the army suddenly has to come up with a segregation that hasn't been needed for the roughly 20 years that gays have been allowed in the military and that isn't practiced in the outside world is just silly.

And aside from the fact that 1000 years of 'christian back history' is bunk anyway, treating blacks as worse than whites had a similarly long history, and open segration was going on outside of the military up until the 1970s, yet the idea of making a seperate water fountain for the coloreds and not allowing them to pollute the white water fountain by drinking from it sounds completely absurd today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Just telling it like it is. In a close quarter situation with shared showers, etc., most straight people in the military do not want gays around them.

Just telling it like it was. In a close quarter situation with shared showers, etc, most white people in the military did not want coloreds around them back when the army practiced segregation.

Relapse wrote:Be that as it may, anyone going into a combat situation should not have their effectiveness or moral compromised by something like this.

Same thing was said back during desegregation.

Relapse wrote:My point is not based only on the extreme example of my friend as I've said, but on other expereinces other friends in my group have had, also.

Which is what makes your entire argument extremely suspicious to begin with. So every single one of your friends has had an experience with a "supergay" who tried to proposition them nonstop, even after being told they aren't gay?

Sounds like either:
A) Someone realized how uncomfortable they got about being asked out, and decided to have some fun with it.
B) People (SHOCK!) exaggerated their experiences to one-up each other.
or
C) You had experiences with really really weird people.

Yes it would be a dangerous situation for all involved. The propositioned person could easily initiate a blanket party for the person who came on to him or worse.

If someone's going to get that upset about being propositioned by a homosexual, I once again submit, they need to man up and deal with it. I've been asked out by a fat girl before, I didn't try to get vengeance on her for daring to have the audacity to do it.

As far as public showers and all that go, outside of the military you can leave and be far from someone if you wish, and not have to right by them on a daily basis.

The point, since I seemingly have to explain it to you in simplistic terms, is that people don't go around advertising their sexuality and in many cases you won't know you're showering or bunking with a homosexual.

Relapse wrote:
But they don't have to interact with them by sharing showers, bathrooms,tents and other day to day military requirements.

And yet gay men have done so since at least 1993, clearly they must be superlative in terms of sexual control; being presented with so much meat.

Relapse wrote:
As far as Johnny goes, we had no clue the guy that came after my friend was gay. He'd go bowling with us and was just one of us for a few weeks until he started coming on to my friend. After that we wanted nothing to do with him, and one day he showed up at the door with a shotgun, wanting my friend to go away with him.

Well I'm glad to know that attempted rape is only phenomenon exhibited by homosexual people. I'll be sure to tell my straight, female friends that they were never subjected to the crime.

I said that most of my friends had been approached by gays, and more than one had in fact been approached more than once.
In simplistic terms for your benefit, I'd say if you haven't done it, man yourself up and go into the military. Going to Gemba, as it were to find out first hand how your politicaly correct stand works there.

"You have to try it" isn't a good stance for an argument.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
But they don't have to interact with them by sharing showers, bathrooms,tents and other day to day military requirements.

And yet gay men have done so since at least 1993, clearly they must be superlative in terms of sexual control; being presented with so much meat.

Relapse wrote:
As far as Johnny goes, we had no clue the guy that came after my friend was gay. He'd go bowling with us and was just one of us for a few weeks until he started coming on to my friend. After that we wanted nothing to do with him, and one day he showed up at the door with a shotgun, wanting my friend to go away with him.

Well I'm glad to know that attempted rape is only phenomenon exhibited by homosexual people. I'll be sure to tell my straight, female friends that they were never subjected to the crime.

They probably keep better control since they could be booted, asking straight people out.
As usual, you start throwing up straw men.
Too bad you couldn't join up. You'd have fact to go on instead of second hand knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:"You have to try it" isn't a good stance for an argument.

Which shows you just wish to sit on the sidelines criticizing people that have to deal with the garbage you'd make them deal with. I was in the Marines and at least know what the reactions I speak of would be.

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
But they don't have to interact with them by sharing showers, bathrooms,tents and other day to day military requirements.

And yet gay men have done so since at least 1993, clearly they must be superlative in terms of sexual control; being presented with so much meat.

Relapse wrote:
As far as Johnny goes, we had no clue the guy that came after my friend was gay. He'd go bowling with us and was just one of us for a few weeks until he started coming on to my friend. After that we wanted nothing to do with him, and one day he showed up at the door with a shotgun, wanting my friend to go away with him.

Well I'm glad to know that attempted rape is only phenomenon exhibited by homosexual people. I'll be sure to tell my straight, female friends that they were never subjected to the crime.

They probably keep better control since they could be booted, asking straight people out.

Um, yeah. You missed his point. There's no reason to assume that gays are going into shower locker rooms thinking "JACKPOT!". Just like if a straight man who didn't like chubby girls got into the women's locker room after a Lose 300 Pounds Swimfest Session, it's not that difficult to realize that many people(even gays!) don't find one particular thing attractive about another person.

As usual, you start throwing up straw men.

...This statement is amusing for so many reasons.

Having you, who have never been in the military, nor seemingly have any intention that way, saying that people who go into combat need to untwist heir panties and man up is also amusing on mant levels.

Relapse wrote:I said that most of my friends had been approached by gays, and more than one had in fact been approached more than once.

Oh no, they were told they were attractive. However will they cope.

Relapse wrote:
In simplistic terms for your benefit, I'd say if you haven't done it, man yourself up and go into the military. Going to Gemba, as it were to find out first hand how your politicaly correct stand works there.

If military men cannot deal with sexuality without whining like children I have serious doubts about their ability to tolerate gunfire.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Um, yeah. You missed his point. There's no reason to assume that gays are going into shower locker rooms thinking "JACKPOT!". Just like if a straight man who didn't like chubby girls got into the women's locker room after a Lose 300 Pounds Swimfest Session, it's not that difficult to realize that many people(even gays!) don't find one particular thing attractive about another person.

More importantly, being found attractive is not really significant (outside of the person finding). Chances are every one of us is found attractive every time we leave the house, and maybe even while in it.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:I said that most of my friends had been approached by gays, and more than one had in fact been approached more than once.

Oh no, they were told they were attractive. However will they cope.

Relapse wrote:
In simplistic terms for your benefit, I'd say if you haven't done it, man yourself up and go into the military. Going to Gemba, as it were to find out first hand how your politicaly correct stand works there.

If military men cannot deal with sexuality without whining like children I have serious doubts about their ability to tolerate gunfire.

I'd love to be around if you'd ever have the guts to say that face to face with someone who has been in combat and doesn't like the thought of quartering with a gay.

Relapse wrote:Having you, who have never been in the military, nor seemingly have any intention that way, saying that people who go into combat need to untwist their panties and man up is also amusing on many levels.

"Going into combat" isn't the same as "tolerating others because they're different than you".

You can have my utmost respect for being a soldier putting his life on the line in combat(although to be honest, I've heard this argument more and more from individuals in the reserves or ROTC who never have served overseas or in combat but hey), and my complete and utter disdain for being unable to do the second.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:I said that most of my friends had been approached by gays, and more than one had in fact been approached more than once.

Oh no, they were told they were attractive. However will they cope.

Relapse wrote:
In simplistic terms for your benefit, I'd say if you haven't done it, man yourself up and go into the military. Going to Gemba, as it were to find out first hand how your politicaly correct stand works there.

If military men cannot deal with sexuality without whining like children I have serious doubts about their ability to tolerate gunfire.

I'd love to be around if you'd ever have the guts to say that face to face with someone who has been in combat and doesn't like the thought of quartering with a gay.

How is this any different to not wanting to have to share a dorm with an inconsiderate jerk who is up until 4am every night throwing parties in your dorm?

Seriously. If it's this much of a problem under the new system, I'm sure there will be the options of you know...being a completely decent human being, and stating your objections reasonably.

Not resorting to throwing out examples like "A gay with a shotgun once tried to make me his mountain bride!".

Relapse wrote:
I'd love to be around if you'd ever have the guts to say that face to face with someone who has been in combat and doesn't like the thought of quartering with a gay.

"...a gay..."

Right. You may as well talk about "...a Jew..."

I could tell you that I've done exactly what you've said, and that being in combat is not the sole barometer of nerve, but there is no point; because this is the internet and proof is not possible.

And yes, I understand that I said what I ostensibly did not intend to say.

All I can tell you is that my examples come from real life and experience. You seem oblivious and this conversation is going into ever decreasing circles with you talking about mountain brides.
The whole point I want to make is, that in a barracks setting, openly gay people are going to make things uncomfortable.
I won't claim any laurels for going into combat. I was fortunate enough to have not been in a position where I did not have to kill anyone.

Relapse wrote:
They probably keep better control since they could be booted, asking straight people out.

So, what you're saying is that, absent punishment, you would have your way with all the women you could see?

Relapse wrote:
As usual, you start throwing up straw men.

No?

I have no way to respond to this other than to say that you clearly don't know what strawmen are.

Relapse wrote:
Too bad you couldn't join up. You'd have fact to go on instead of second hand knowledge.

I am going on fact, the facts of what I've been told. Fact and second-hand knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

I have to admit that I to have wondered about the showering situation, simply as a matter of protocal...

co-ed showers don't exist in the military,AfAIK, and that of course makes sense, having males/females showering together would obviously be a source of potential problems.

So, by that same rational, perhaps having gay men showering with straight men could potentialy lead to the same sorts of problems....

Other than that however, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a Homosexual individule serving in the military.

Relapse wrote:All I can tell you is that my examples come from real life and experience. You seem oblivious and this conversation is going into ever decreasing circles with you talking about mountain brides.

The point you're missing and keep circling around is that the big example you gave is so outlandish and unbelievably uncommon that it's like claiming Buddhist terrorism is a common thing because Buddhist monks have set themselves on fire in protest at points during history.

The whole point I want to make is, that in a barracks setting, openly gay people are going to make things uncomfortable.

The whole point that you're, again, missing is that it's only going to make things uncomfortable if you put a huge emphasis on the sexuality of someone else.

You see this all the time whenever a teacher is outed, the parents flip out stating that clearly he's going to molest their kids. Why? Because he's GAY!
He's clearly deviant enough to begin with, what with preferring the same sex and all that he will also be immoral and deviant enough take advantage of our underage youths!

Does it happen? Yes. But more often than not...with a female student, and the teacher is straight.

I won't claim any laurels for going into combat. I was fortunate enough to have not been in a position where I did not have to kill anyone.

Then why do you keep saying "You need to do it" or what amounts to "You can't know, because you haven't done it" and keep bringing up the "combat" issue which has nothing at all to do with the issue of bunking with a homosexual.

Dogma, you are going so far off in this conversation by throwing out stupid examples, you are proving again and again what a straw man is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I keep bringing up the combat issue, because, Kanluen, you are the one saying that people who put themselves in a situation where they can see combat need to man up.

Relapse wrote:Dogma, you are going so far off in this conversation by throwing out stupid examples, you are proving again and again what a straw man is.

Pretty sure that saying gays are going to abduct you with a shotgun after you refute their advances is far more of a strawman than anything Dogma has given.

I keep bringing up the combat issue, because you are the one saying that people who put themselves in a situation where they can see combat need to man up.

You keep bringing it up because you're misunderstanding and getting offended by something that isn't there.

Saying that someone needs to "man up" because they might have to bunk with a homosexual isn't the same as saying that someone needs to "man up" because they'll see combat.

Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

But where oh where will we put the bisexuals?

Blindfolds for everyone!

But then how will you know which is the shampoo and which is the conditioner? :(

Every good answer makes three more questions.

Back on topic: I have a feeling most gay people have enough willpower to not attempt to bugger every guy they meet. I have a gay friend. Slept in the same room with him once.



Edit: Missed out a very important 'not' in that.

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

...I suppose that would work..

Basicly I was looking at things from a " straight male soldier" in the "role" of a female solider perspective ( if that makes sense)...

Female soldiers would most likely be unhappy about the prospect of having to shower with "straight male soldiers" ...so I can understand ( to a degree) where "straight male soldiers" may be unhappy about the prospect of showering with homosexual soldiers...

One could hardly expect the female soldiers to be told to "man up" and deal with it...
And I suppose from a certian perspective the same could be said for the " straight male soldier" as well...

It would be uncomfortable ( for anyone) to be in a situation in which which their nudity may be looked upon in a "lustful" manner....( not saying homosexuals are more or less "lusty" than a straight soldier in a shower full of female soldiers may be).

purplefood wrote:

Thread won. +1 Internets.

purplefood wrote:

...I just had a Margaret Cho flashback moment and almost fell out of my chair.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I know you don't like your prejudice against the queers being compared to the old prejudice against the coloreds, but they're both simple hatred of someone based on something basic to how they were born. You want to think that you're more progressive than the guys who didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as one of those people who's skin was darker, but it's all the same thing. It actually has nothing to do with behavior, someone who says 'whao I'm attracted to guys' but never sleeps with a guy gets kicked out for violating DADT.

I don't think there's anything progressive about it. I think the situation is different and not directly comparable. There's a bigger cultural background to bias against gays than bias against black people, and the bias is different itself.

It's not a debate, it's simple fact, anyone debating it is simply in denial and needs to accept reality. There are gays in the military, the whole point of DADT is 'you can be gay as long as we don't know'. That means they're already in your showers, and barracks, and foxholes, and gyms, and wherever else.

DADT changed nothing in the military. Prior too it no gays could serve. After it, gays could serve as long as no one knew about it. Effectively the situation didn't change (especially when gays started getting kicked out because of DADT). DADT was a compromise the military got because it meant they didn't have to deal with any of the questions or the trouble of integration.

Something doesn't need to be true or a fact for people to debate it.

Again, gays are not segregated in society. You can say nonsense about 1000 years of tradition, but it simply doesn't happen - there are bathrooms for 'men' and 'women', but not for 'straight men' or 'gay women'. There are gym locker rooms for men and women, but none specifically based on gayness. The idea that the army suddenly has to come up with a segregation that hasn't been needed for the roughly 20 years that gays have been allowed in the military and that isn't practiced in the outside world is just silly.

Again, I never said the argument was valid. It's just something that's said and thrown up as a "reasonable" excuse to keep DADT around or keep gays out. People come up with "reasonable" justifications to hide behind when being hateful or biased all the time. It's quite common, especially in political culture. The 1000 years of tradition is not a justification, but an attempt to explain why we're still have this debate over homosexuality in the US while many European nations seem to have largely moved on to other issues. The US has a much stronger tradition of evangelism and fundamentalism than Europe at large does and I think that background is one of the leading reasons we still have the gay rights debate in the US as strong as we have it. EDIT: As far as I know, we're the only developed western nation that doesn't allow gay marriage.

dogma wrote:Well, the better part of New England anyway.

The mid-west states and southern colonies as well. Maryland was filled with Catholics from England who had become more defensive religiously and as English Catholics at a time long after the formation of the Church of England were likely much more conservative in thought and more defensive religiously. No I guess they don't fall under the hyberbolic radical umbrella but you get the point. The south later on had its heavy institutionalization of Christianity as its justification for slavery and American slavery is different from European slavery as it pertains to the cultural integration of the practice and the justifications for it. The tone of the rhetoric in Europe was more focused on 'European' civilization, while the tone in the US was more focused on 'white' civilization.

LordofHats wrote:You are much kinder than I.

Hey, the brimstone and hellfire Puritans and Calvanist folks started small but after the Great Awakening they was everywhere We still have a few running around. I actually find them a little scary. They got a lot of passion for what they're preaching

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

As I said, I believe anyone who wishes to should be allowed to serve in the Military, my point is more one of " propriety".

I know what you're saying.

I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received. I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Relapse wrote:Dogma, you are going so far off in this conversation by throwing out stupid examples, you are proving again and again what a straw man is.

I cannot prove a definition, first of all.

I might be able to illustrate one, but that is different.

Anyway, the fact that you believe I am going off the reservation is illustrative.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

dogma wrote:It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

This isn't going to take place on a message board or a place of pure logic and reason. There are real people with real hang-ups about this that are going need to be reached, and as I said before, ridicule and straw-man arguments don't help that. In fact, it does the opposite. Everyone who might have an issue with this isn't Fred Phelps crazy.

dogma wrote:...but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

What if we tried getting the same effect without making people resentful? Maybe educate people instead of saying "You're an backwards donkey-cave, get over it."?

Maybe I'm just feeling idealistic today.

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

You chopped off the last bit of my post there Kan...

I don't know that the military is the only voluntary institution in which straight guys may be paraniod about showering with gay guys....perhaps it's experianced in High schools and public gyms as well...
Also, I'm not saying that I particularly agree with that "paranoia"....

My point was that I could understand it on a certian level...

In the same way I would understand a females "paranoia" about showering around a group of straight males.

Edit:...

I'm simply looking at the situation in various ways...
For example, Im sure you wouldn't tell a group f woman that they are simply being "paranoid" and intolerant , or that it was a matter of mindset and upbringing if they addressed a concern about having to be in a shower with a group of men...would you?

FITZZ wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Let the gays shower with the women? Problem solved.

Yeah, but then every dude joining the Army would be "gay" and showering 3 times a day.

...I see I may have started a ball rolling that I didn't intend to..

I know the whole " shower" thing may seem a bit silly...it's just something I was musing about...

" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Absolutely not..Straight Male soldiers with female soldiers)
" This group is sexually attracted to that group...put them together in the same area naked and wet"...( Right away Sir...Gay Male soldiers with Straight male soldiers)...

...Just seems a bit off to me is all.

So we should start having Homosexual and Heterosexual showers in gym locker rooms?

It's kind of obvious that there's no real issue in having homosexual teenagers showering with heterosexual teenagers in schools, nor does it seem there's also any issue with adults who have to use locker rooms in public facilities.

It really seems like the military is the only voluntary institution(read: not prisons) where this paranoia of "they're gonna get us when we're naked and unsuspecting!" is a problem, which could lead one to theorize it might just be the mindset of the soldiers based on upbringing.

You chopped of the last bit of my post there Kan...

Indeed I did. I didn't feel it was really relevant to your point overall. "Propriety" has no history worth mentioning that precludes homosexuals and heterosexuals from utilizing the same facilities.

I don't know that the military is the only voluntary institution in which straight guys may be paranoid about showering with gay guys....perhaps it's experienced in High schools and public gyms as well...

The point is that the military is the only institution which is voluntary(you're not FORCED to join the military) in which it would be required or a common, everyday occurrence where you MIGHT know someone is gay and you have to spend as much time around them as you do your family when you're a minor.

However: you don't have to shower in high school after gym class(I know that at my high school, they didn't actually allow us to use the showers after gym class. Only the sports teams got to use it, and even then only after practices never after games) or at a public recreational facility.

Also, I'm not saying that I particularly agree with that "paranoia"....

I never said you did, Fitzz.

My point was that I could understand it on a certain level...

I can understand it about as much as I can understand being worried that I will be mauled by a velociraptor.

In the same way I would understand a females "paranoia" about showering around a group of straight males.

The difference is that a large number of females have been raped by straight males.
While we cannot say conclusively that straight males have not been raped by gay males, most likely due to the stigma associated with such incidences and the psychological trauma usually incurred, the fact that they don't have armed guards at the YMCA showers says a lot.

FITZZ wrote:

Edit:...

I'm simply looking at the situation in various ways...
For example, Im sure you wouldn't tell a group f woman that they are simply being "paranoid" and intolerant , or that it was a matter of mindset and upbringing if they addressed a concern about having to be in a shower with a group of men...would you?

Overall I agree with you Kan....again I'm just examining various points of view.
The simple fact is they're are those who are uncomfortable with the idea ( for whatever reason) and these issues should be addressed.

What seems like "no big deal" to some is clearly a huge issue to others and unfortunately all the "common sense" in the world won't make that go away.

There are a slew of issues that no one here has even begun to bring up.

For example, married soldiers get extra pay (a housing allowance) or special on-post housing (an appartment/house vice living in the barracks). Their dependants get a bunch of tax payer subsidized benefits (the right to shop in the PX and commissary, the rght to use DoD medical facilities/health insurance, various death benefits if their service member spouse gets capped....)

In the Army, re-enlistment NCOs and commanders know they have to get the spouse to buy off on their soldier re-enlisting, you 're-enlist the family'. Soldiers may very well be able to be ordered to Deal With Homosexuals and Drive On. Getting the families to buy off on that is not something you can Order to Happen. That is an issue, whether you like it to be or not, it is.

Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Once that gets worked out, it all also has to be funded. In case you didn't notice we are in a budget crunch. The military has some maintenance and medical bills coming due.

And you have to prevent the two troops who 'get married' just to draw the housing allowance (yes, it happens now with straight troops, the probelm WILL increase when they don't have to find someone of a different sex. Trust me, I know soldiers.

Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourge clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

Bottom line, DADT may have been a half assed way for Congress and the Pres to address the issue, but the replacement is going to be painful too. The issue of marriage and dependents should have been part of the package, but the politicians would not commit.

Now, many of you think you know my position based on reading this. I submit you do not. My position is pretty easily defined as If they wanted the change, they should have done it correctly. How many of the above issues have you seen the politicians and the press address in detail? Just curious, I haven't seen much.


Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, thye will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Jake

CptJake wrote:There are a slew of issues that no one here has even begun to bring up.

For example, married soldiers get extra pay (a housing allowance) or special on-post housing (an appartment/house vice living in the barracks). Their dependants get a bunch of tax payer subsidized benefits (the right to shop in the PX and commissary, the rght to use DoD medical facilities/health insurance, various death benefits if their service member spouse gets capped....)

In the Army, re-enlistment NCOs and commanders know they have to get the spouse to buy off on their soldier re-enlisting, you 're-enlist the family'. Soldiers may very well be able to be ordered to Deal With Homosexuals and Drive On. Getting the families to buy off on that is not something you can Order to Happen. That is an issue, whether you like it to be or not, it is.

Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Actually, you'd be blaming the States, not Congress or the President. Obama made a special mention of the States in a statement about DOMA.
States are the ones who are in charge of marriages, not the federal government.

Once that gets worked out, it all also has to be funded. In case you didn't notice we are in a budget crunch. The military has some maintenance and medical bills coming due.

And you have to prevent the two troops who 'get married' just to draw the housing allowance (yes, it happens now with straight troops, the problem WILL increase when they don't have to find someone of a different sex. Trust me, I know soldiers.

What? People fake marriages to get benefits?
Shock! Gasp!

Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

...lol?
You know, this actually brings up a good point. It's clear that there's going to be discrimination.

Just like we've had cases where females have been sexually assaulted while serving in the military, by their own comrades, and nothing has been done.

In all seriousness, it's not hard to avoid this issue. Let someone pull the discrimination card all they want. If it has no clear basis, then you'll probably be okay. So long as you're not sending Sergeant Silar to the front of the formation and snickering about "now he can't watch me wiggle" or doing something absurdly stupid or so ridiculously based upon stereotypical homosexual images--you will not have an issue.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourage clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

Religious officials need to Shut Up And Deal With It too. The time for their halfcocked crap, wherein they say that "<Insert Religious Deity Here> made every one of us the same, in his own image...except the people we don't like, who we have to kill because they're WRONG!" is over.

Bottom line, DADT may have been a half assed way for Congress and the Pres to address the issue, but the replacement is going to be painful too. The issue of marriage and dependents should have been part of the package, but the politicians would not commit.

It's almost like the politicians are hamstrung by the fact that their constituency has mixed feelings on matters. Shock!

Now, many of you think you know my position based on reading this. I submit you do not. My position is pretty easily defined as If they wanted the change, they should have done it correctly. How many of the above issues have you seen the politicians and the press address in detail? Just curious, I haven't seen much.


Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, they will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Jake

Yes, the 'one federal entity that gets stuff done'...other than the Post Office.

You've never worked for the Post Office, have you?

Hey. My mail gets delivered, same time every day.

I call that "Getting Things Done".

No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

And you really didn't address a lot fo the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

Jake

CptJake wrote:No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

You're missing the point. The whole "gay marriage" issue is an issue for the states to decide, on a state by state basis.

The Fed could probably step in and force something, but we all know how well that goes over.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

Are you really turning this into an "us versus them" thing?

The only arguments I ever see AGAINST the repeal of DADT are from soldiers who are openly homophobic to a degree that it's mindboggling or from hardcore religious conservatives who can only say "God wills it!".

And you really didn't address a lot of the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

Because a great many of them aren't issues. The argument against the repealing of DADT presented here is that soldiers on the frontline are uncomfortable, to a degree that their morale and combat effectiveness is impacted, with the mere thought of homosexuals bunking or showering with them.

In that case, it's the soldiers being directly affected. The family isn't really an issue there.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Then enlighten us as to how they work.
An allegation is filed, and it goes from there to where?

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

No, there's really not more than that in a great many of these arguments. There's a lot of excuses that amount to "I don't want a GAY to see my penis, he might like it!" or are based upon the stereotype of the "nancyboy" homosexual being combat ineffective.

Actually, you'd be blaming the States, not Congress or the President. Obama made a special mention of the States in a statement about DOMA.

States are the ones who are in charge of marriages, not the federal government.

The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law and it prevents the DoD from giving any marriage benefits to gays because Federal law defines marriage as being between and man and a women. That's not on the states and it's not an issue that disappears just because the Obama administration no longer defends it. Hint hint. Obama won't be president forever. His successor may well start defending it again, and then there's the House which is trying to find a way to defend it without the DoJ.

This problem isn't solved the moment DADT gets repealed. The repeal brings up a host of other problems that then have to dealt with (and DADT was a huge effort to try and avoid dealing with those problems).

CptJake wrote:

biccat wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s,CONGRESS HAD A LAW FOR the military
that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

Fixed that for you. Let us not forget that the military does not make its own rules. They are rightfully imposed by the civilian government. Which is the reason when certain organizations and universities did/do not allow military recruiters and the like access because they do not like the 'military rules' like DADT it is a load of stinky poo, usually a weak excuse to engage in an anti-military hatefest which would have existed anyway.

Jake

Damn dirty civlians, expecting certain rights in regard to the people working for them. The military should just be allowed free reign over the people they're supposedly trying to protect.

Kanluwen wrote:

CptJake wrote:No, I'm not blaming the States, DoD is a Federal entity. And just like the Federal Gov't passed Civil Rights laws, they could have passed laws to cover this. They did not.

You're missing the point. The whole "gay marriage" issue is an issue for the states to decide, on a state by state basis.

The Fed could probably step in and force something, but we all know how well that goes over.

Instead they leave DoD to try to implement a broken law to the best of their ability. If the politicians could not get their constituents to buy off on something, maybe they should have done what they perceive as RIGHT vice some mealy mouthed compromise. Soldiers are expected to face consequences for doing what they consider right, it would be nice if the folks in DC would do the same once in a while.

Are you really turning this into an "us versus them" thing?

The only arguments I ever see AGAINST the repeal of DADT are from soldiers who are openly homophobic to a degree that it's mindboggling or from hardcore religious conservatives who can only say "God wills it!".

And you really didn't address a lot of the issues I mentioend, except to mock them or say they are not issues. When you are implementing something like this, I think it only fair to think through these types of issues and address them. Obviously YOU don't have to implement the new policy and choose not to recognize that there may be some issues that will need to be dealt with. Hooah. That doesn't make the job of the folks that do have to implement it any easier.

Because a great many of them aren't issues. The argument against the repealing of DADT presented here is that soldiers on the frontline are uncomfortable, to a degree that their morale and combat effectiveness is impacted, with the mere thought of homosexuals bunking or showering with them.

In that case, it's the soldiers being directly affected. The family isn't really an issue there.

It is also clear you have never seen how discrimination charges and allegations work in the military. Trust me (someone who has held company level commands twice, and who has a wife who held three and is now in a battalion level command, and we both have dealt with alleged discrimination issues, even at the congressional inquiry level MULTIPLE times), that one will be an issue.

Then enlighten us as to how they work.
An allegation is filed, and it goes from there to where?

Again, there is more than 'I don't want someone seeing my penis' going on here. Again, the press and our politicians do not seem to have addressed the issues.

No, there's really not more than that in a great many of these arguments. There's a lot of excuses that amount to "I don't want a GAY to see my penis, he might like it!" or are based upon the stereotype of the "nancyboy" homosexual being combat ineffective.

Allowing mixed race marriages wasn't left to the states. Allowing mixed race schools wasn't left to the states. How is this different? You can't, in my mind, say Gay Rights are like Civil Rights but then not be willing to actually treat them like they are. And if you DO leave it to the states, again, you will have issues with DoD troops in states that do not recognize their marriages, or you just deny them the right to marry.

To think families of soldiers, and potential soldiers/candidates for recruiting are not an issue, you don't get it. http://www.goarmy.com/parents.html The Army considers it an issue, which is why they even have a web page for parents of recruits. Make the influencers happy, make the soldier happy. For recruits that is parents for the most part, for troops already in, it is usually the family.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. This will be my last post on the topic. I'm convinced the issues I brought up are valid and will need to be addressed, even if at the unit level. I am basing that on over 35 years active duty between my wife and I. I very well could be wrong. In a year or two from now we'll see.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I got to go make sure my daughter is getting showered and ready for bed.

Monster Rain wrote:I know what you're saying.

I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received. I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Are there separate showers for men and women in the army now? Yes. Are there separate showers for gays and straights in the army now? No. Are there separate showers for gays and straights outside of the army now? No. It's a completely different situation, because people are 'concerned' about a situation that's existed in the military for almost 2 decades, and exists in society as a whole with no problems. It doesn't matter if they're receptive to it or not, they're in the army. Just like when Truman ended segregation, they'll either become receptive to it or end up at Ft. Leavenworth.

And again, this is not about allowing gays to serve in the military. Gays have been allowed in the military for almost 2 decades now, and their showering arrangements have not actually caused any problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Back in Truman's time, the bulk of the army came from areas with racial segregation, and those people and their parents thought that the coloreds needed to be segregated. They got over it, and they'll get over seeing gay people who don't pretend to be straight.

What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It. Many of our Chaplains are totally professional and will handle themselves well, BUT the religious orders that nominate and approve clergy for the Chaplain service, folks who are NOT soldiers, may be hesitant to encourge clergy to become chaplains. No law can make them... Again, it will be an issue. A big one? Probably not, but still an issue.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

It's only an issue with chaplains who have no respect for God, and are willing to swear a false oath in his name to advance their position in this world. Any chaplain has sworn to follow the orders of the president and officers over them, and to follow regulations and the UCMJ. If they refuse to do so, they are violating an oath they took in God's name. Now, obviously there are plenty of charlatans pretending to be clergymen, but I don't think that worrying about the feelings chaplains willing to tell a lie and forswear in God's name is really imporant for us to do. Does anyone really need clergymen who's oath before God is worthless?

Why are you talking to me as if I'm the one with the problem?

You have your mind made up, good for you. I'm fine with gay people serving in the military. My point is that there's a lot of people that aren't, and I don't think that they're necessarily evil because of it.

And to your other point, no, there aren't separate showers for different sexualities because they weren't open about it until recently. Do you really not see the difference between the possibility that someone is a certain way and knowing that they are? You don't think that will change the dynamic a bit, right or wrong?

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

Why are you making things up and attributing them to me as quotes? I never said I was for gays in the military.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Back in Truman's time, the bulk of the army came from areas with racial segregation, and those people and their parents thought that the coloreds needed to be segregated. They got over it, and they'll get over seeing gay people who don't pretend to be straight.

No one is claiming otherwise Bearer. I think your confusing people trying (and maybe failing) to articulate the complexity of the issue with being apologists for anti-gay sentiment in the military. We all know the military will get over it. The entire American society and culture will get over it.

Back in Truman's time the military was still institutionally racist even if it was no longer segregated btw. It would remain segregated until after the Korean War, and very racist as an institution until the early 1980's.

It's only an issue with chaplains who have no respect for God, and are willing to swear a false oath in his name to advance their position in this world. Any chaplain has sworn to follow the orders of the president and officers over them, and to follow regulations and the UCMJ. If they refuse to do so, they are violating an oath they took in God's name. Now, obviously there are plenty of charlatans pretending to be clergymen, but I don't think that worrying about the feelings chaplains willing to tell a lie and forswear in God's name is really imporant for us to do. Does anyone really need clergymen who's oath before God is worthless?

I don't think the spiritual advisor system will have a problem with the repeal of DADT. That system has a slew of other problems it has to deal with. Some of Jake's suggestions however I think have some relevance.

LordofHats wrote:I don't think there's anything progressive about it. I think the situation is different and not directly comparable. There's a bigger cultural background to bias against gays than bias against black people, and the bias is different itself.

In what way is the situation not comparable? You've got an irrational prejudice against a particular group. Sounds like the same thing to me. The cultural bias against gays is much more recent and shallower than bias against blacks - for example, slavery and the 3/5ths rule are in the constitution, while there is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that shows any bias against gays. This is all just scare words and ignorance of history, segregation was not just some minor thing to people back when it was around.

DADT changed nothing in the military. Prior too it no gays could serve. After it, gays could serve as long as no one knew about it. Effectively the situation didn't change (especially when gays started getting kicked out because of DADT). DADT was a compromise the military got because it meant they didn't have to deal with any of the questions or the trouble of integration.

DADT did change something in the military, it made it legal to be in the military if you were gay but kept it secret. Because of DADT, people who are gay have been serving in the military without breaking any regulations for almost two decades. And haven't needed seperate showers or whatever nonsense to manage it.

Again, I never said the argument was valid.

OK, so you're making an argument that even you don't think is valid. There doesn't seem to be much reason for me to respond to it then, since you're conceeding that the argument is worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Why are you talking to me as if I'm the one with the problem?

I'm arguing with the position you're advocating. If you're defending people with 'the problem', then anyone disagreeing with you is going to end up talking to you as though you're the one with the problem.

And to your other point, no, there aren't separate showers for different sexualities because they weren't open about it until recently. Do you really not see the difference between the possibility that someone is a certain way and knowing that they are? You don't think that will change the dynamic a bit, right or wrong?

"Recently" as in what, the 70s in some big cities, 80s a bit broader, and basically everywhere by the 90s? No, I don't think it will change the dynamic at all, since if people were going to start adding gay locker rooms, they would have done it more than a decade ago. There have been openly gay people in locker rooms since at least the 90s, and I've never heard anything from anyone about making special gay showers in the US in general.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:In what way is the situation not comparable? You've got an irrational prejudice against a particular group. Sounds like the same thing to me. The cultural bias against gays is much more recent and shallower than bias against blacks - for example, slavery and the 3/5ths rule are in the constitution, while there is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that shows any bias against gays. This is all just scare words and ignorance of history, segregation was not just some minor thing to people back when it was around.

When the constitution was written the idea of anyone being openly gay was unthinkable in American culture. That should tell you plenty about what they thought about homosexuality (and is why no one wrote it into the Constitution). Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

DADT did change something in the military, it made it legal to be in the military if you were gay but kept it secret. Because of DADT, people who are gay have been serving in the military without breaking any regulations for almost two decades. And haven't needed seperate showers or whatever nonsense to manage it.

They could have served before DADT while being gay. If you think there were no gays in the military before DADT you need to read more history. There's are entire books written on how USO shows in WWII played a huge role in the development of gay culture in the US (and drag shows) and how the military helped gays become organized to push for the civil rights.

It doesn't matter if DADT officially allowed gays to serve. It changed nothing because they still got thrown out if anyone knew which is exactly the same as it was before DADT. EDIT: Ah, no I guess that's not true. I suppose before DADT a gay soldier could be tried for sodomy, though I doubt there was much of that going on by the 90's.

OK, so you're making an argument that even you don't think is valid. There doesn't seem to be much reason for me to respond to it then, since you're conceeding that the argument is worthless.

I'm not making the argument, which you'd notice if you actually read the posts. Just because I mention a debate exists and that there is a argument for or against something, doesn't mean I support it or believe in it. I in fact don't. But the argument has people who believe in it and that presents a problem for DADT and its repeal and gays in the military. People early in the thread were asking about DADT, its purpose, and why it is there. I was attempting to explain it.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I'm arguing with the position you're advocating. If you're defending people with 'the problem', then anyone disagreeing with you is going to end up talking to you as though you're the one with the problem.

Ah. So much for objectivity.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Recently" as in what, the 70s in some big cities, 80s a bit broader, and basically everywhere by the 90s? No, I don't think it will change the dynamic at all, since if people were going to start adding gay locker rooms, they would have done it more than a decade ago. There have been openly gay people in locker rooms since at least the 90s, and I've never heard anything from anyone about making special gay showers in the US in general.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in the 70s?

That is what we're talking about.

Monster Rain wrote:
This isn't going to take place on a message board or a place of pure logic and reason. There are real people with real hang-ups about this that are going need to be reached, and as I said before, ridicule and straw-man arguments don't help that. In fact, it does the opposite. Everyone who might have an issue with this isn't Fred Phelps crazy.

If logic and reason are not effective, what is left except ridicule? Well, outside physical punishment, anyway?

At some point changing policy really is about telling the minority that they need to shut up and cope; and those who favor the DADT repeal are in the minority in the military.

Monster Rain wrote:
What if we tried getting the same effect without making people resentful? Maybe educate people instead of saying "You're an backwards donkey-cave, get over it."?

Maybe I'm just feeling idealistic today.

Realistically, educating people is saying exactly that, just in a slightly less blunt fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think painting anyone who objects to this as homophobic is pretty closed-minded too, if I'm honest. If a woman didn't want to shower with a man for the same reason and the reply was "Oh, he probably doesn't want to feth you anyway" I don't think it would be nearly as well received.

It isn't a 1-1 comparison, though. Hetero culture allows for same-sex showers without...ambiguity.

Relapse wrote:
I'm totally for letting gays serve in the military, but ridiculing people for having a concern like this is only going to make them less receptive to it.

Maybe, but there has been mileage in marginalizing people when their beliefs are....not congenial?

Why are you making things up and attributing them to me as quotes? I never said I was for gays in the military.

I believe the term is "misquote".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Look up recruiting stats that show zip-code maps of who enlists from around the country. You will see that the Army for example is predominantly middle class form conservative areas. Yes, there are others that enlist too, BUT since currently the types of kid most likely to raise his/her hand and volunteer to endure some really crappy things, and do it in time of war are coming form places other than the liberal parts of the country where openly gay folks are much more tolerated, recruiting once DADT is finally dead may be an issue, again, whether you think it should be or not, it is. Getting little Johny's Mom and Dad to buy off on him enlisting, well you do need to deal with THEIR feelings on the matter too.

Statistically, enlistees tend to be socially liberal, or at least become so after enlisting. The exceptions are the combat MOSs, which trend towards conservative populism. The argument is that being forced to deal with people you don't necessarily have anything in common with breeds a sense of pluralism. The combat MOSs are thought to buck this trend due to a highly insular set of experiences which creates a particular, and largely static, culture.

CptJake wrote:
Since there are States that do not recognize gay marriages, the dependent issue is going to be a big one. Right now when DADT goes away, there is NO provision to allow gay marriage in the military, so in fact, openly homosexual soldiers WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Don't blame the DoD, blame Congress and the Pres, one writes the laws, the other signs them.

Not really. What the military does in terms of benefits does not necessarily impact what any given state does. Little Johnny can collect benefits from his two daddies even if the state in which he is living does not recognize that they are married.

CptJake wrote:
Another issue, and this is one many of you will deny will happen, but I can point to several real world cases that convince me it will be an issue. The first time an openly gay troop gets pissed at a straight supervisor/leader, they WILL pull the discrimination card. That is going to have several effects. It will cause some leaders to hesitate to discipline a gay trooper. It will cause some good leaders to get crucified as sacrifice on the Alter of Political Correctness. Again, you can deny that this will happen, but your denial does not make your position correct.

Nor does your confidence make yours correct.

What you describe will happen, certainly, but considering the way allegations of sexual assault are handled in the military where superior officers are involved, I have a hard time believing it will be a significant issue.

CptJake wrote:
What about the many, many chaplains who cannot, according to their religion, support or advocate for gay troopers? You really cannot force someone with religious issues to just Shut Up and Deal With It.

Sure you can. The religiosity of an objection doesn't really have any bearing on the methods used to usurp it.

CptJake wrote:
Since the military seems to be the one Federal entity that Gets Stuff Done, thye will make this work. By law they have to. By nature they hate failing. I, again submit, the politicians could have done a damn better job than they did.

Politics are rough like that. Given American society this is about the best that could have been done.

Monster Rain wrote:Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in the 70s?

That is what we're talking about.

No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers, in spite of the fact that segregated 'gay' and 'straight' showers don't exist in society as a whole even though there have been openly gay people using them for decades, while gender-segregated showers do. There is a huge difference between insisting that facilities should be set up with the same division used in society at large, and insisitng on a new, special division that isn't actually used in society at large. It's even worse when you consider that the 'male' and 'female' division is based on objective, easily determined physical characteristics, while the 'gay' and 'straight' is based on internal feelings and includes a lot of grey area and people who don't fit entirely into one category or the other.

Anyone and expecting more personal privacy after joining the military than they get in the civilian world is an idiot.

LordofHats wrote:They could have served before DADT while being gay. If you think there were no gays in the military before DADT you need to read more history... It changed nothing because they still got thrown out if anyone knew which is exactly the same as it was before DADT.

You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT did change things, because it meant that it was LEGAL for gays to be in the military once it was passed. It changed who was legally allowed to be in the army, which is something. It is in fact the 'something' that we're discussing here, since we're just talking about allowing another class of people (people who are openly gay, not closeted) into the military.

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussion if you're just going to accuse me of saying things that I very clearly didn't and ignoring basic definitions of words.

I'm not making the argument,

You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical innacuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT did change things, because it meant that it was LEGAL for gays to be in the military once it was passed. It changed who was legally allowed to be in the army, which is something. It is in fact the 'something' that we're discussing here, since we're just talking about allowing another class of people (people who are openly gay, not closeted) into the military.

That' something' being a symbolic gesture that doesn't amount to much. They got thrown out both before and after DADT. Gays didn't need legal permission to be in military before DADT, and DADT still had them thrown out for being gay. I don't consider that to mean much. It's politicians playing political games where they pretend to do something for you so you'll feel better and vote for them while simultaneously not really doing anything to help you. Gays needed no legal permission before DADT to get into the military. DADT giving them legal permission didn't change what happened to them if anyone found out they were gay. They still had to hide. The situation for gays in the military was unchanged. If anyone found out you were gay you got thrown out. It's a very simple concept to understand and I'm hoping it might sink in with repetition.

Being given legal permission to be somewhere doesn't mean anything if you get thrown out the moment someone notices you. That's the government saying "We give you permission to be here" and then saying "What, you were gay the whole time? Bye bye."

EDIT: I could see it as a step forward for the LBGT rights movement as a whole, because it did recognize their existence at least, but for gays in the military it did nothing to alleviate their struggle.

You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical inaccuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

Real challenges with reading comprehension I see. I never ever claimed it was my argument. I mentioned in the very first post where I brought it up that it is a non-issue and people who don't like it will have to deal with it (which oddly seems to be your position so why you feel the need to spend pages fighting a position I've never held is odd to me when we seem to be in agreement on the issue). I can acknowledge that an argument exists without supporting it. It's very easy. My sister thought 2 + 2 = 22 at one point in time. You're the one spending a massive amount of time arguing against a position no one ever supported which doesn't work for progressing a discussion.

You also have yet to actually point out any historical inaccuracies. You just keep bringing up racial segregation.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers...

You mad? The thread's about DADT. The YMCA is off-topic, and equivocating it with the military is, to use your word, silly.

As to the shower issue, to some people it is the same. You're going to need to accept that as a fact.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...and insisitng on a new, special division that isn't actually used in society at large...

No I didn't.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...while the 'gay' and 'straight' is based on internal feelings and includes a lot of grey area and people who don't fit entirely into one category or the other...

Right, but if you were paying attention we're talking about people who are already identified as gay.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You argue an awful lot for someone who's not making an argument. This whole "I'm going to make an argument, but if you point out the absurdities and historical innacuracies in it I'm going to say it's not my argument so pointing out problems in it doesn't count" defense that you and Monster Rain are engaging in just doesn't work.

I think it works just fine. It would help if you calmed down a bit and actually read what was being written.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
No, we were talking about your silly attempt to equivocate between gender-segregated showers and gayness-segregated showers...

You really just used the "word" "gayness"?

LordofHats wrote:
...in spite of the fact that segregated 'gay' and 'straight' showers don't exist in society as a whole even though there have been openly gay people using them for decades, while gender-segregated showers do.

Gender segregation would imply that homosexuals are segregated from heterosexuals. Modern society facilitates sex segregation, not gender segregation.

LordofHats wrote:
You seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension here - I never said anything to indicate that I thought there were no gays in the military before DADT, just that there were no gays LEGALLY in the military before it. DADT...

That's blatantly wrong. One could be gay, and in the military under DADT, it simply wasn't legally possible to be openly gay in the military under DADT.

LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals (legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

LordofHats wrote:

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals (legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Homosexuality typically got punished under sodomy laws.

Actually, that's not true. At common law, co-conspirators weren't allowed to testify against one another. Given that sodomy is often done in private, homosexuals weren't punished under sodomy laws.

Those laws were usually reserved for spousal rape, where the woman was an unwilling participant, and therefore not an accomplice.

Then why are sodomy laws always referenced as punishing homosexuals (legitimate question, most books, as in like all two that I've read on the subject, mention it)

Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

Relapse: So if you're wanting to kick homosexuals out of the military because they might potentially be dangerous to straight men, why not kick straight men out of the military because they're, by the same logic you use, provably dangerous to the women in the military?

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:Europe seems to be doing just fine.

I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did. As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

I think you may be right about that. If so, then perhaps enough time has passed to allow the US military to adapt to the changes in society.

DADT will have been a part of that process. It may have been a messy compromise -- perhaps it was the "least bad" thing to do at the time.

LordofHats wrote:Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "punishing." Do you mean criminalizing their private behavior? Or do you mean systemic prosecutions of homosexuals for private conduct?

I'm pretty sure the second never happened. Sodomy cases are few and far between.

I meant criminalizing behavior (punishing was bad wording on my part). I have no idea if anyone ever actually got prosecuted for in reality. I was under the impression it was a possibility and that homosexuality was covered by sodomy laws.

Except for rare cases, homosexuals weren't prosecuted for their conduct. Given that there was no real injury, I'm not sure what the objection is about.

It's like the Mann Act, that punished transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes (non-marital sex mostly). On the outside, it's a problem. But the law was used to prosecute men who had sex with underage girls (arguably a problem) and others who were wanted for more serious crimes (like one of Al Capone's hitmen).

Somehow I sincerely doubt that homosexuals have not been persecuted thoughout for their conduct throughout history. The major reason why sodomy laws weren't used massively is becuase they were private, and almost impossible to prove without either one participant making a complaint or at least eyewitnesses. Just becuase it wasn't an amazingly effective tool for hunting persecuting homosexuals doesn't mean that isn't what its purpose was.

Aside:
We had a big thing over this in Tasmania (kind of like the *insert buck-toothed, backwards American state here* of Australia). The laws against sodomy were taken to the High Court of Australia, equivalent to the US Supreme Court, and international law was used to demonstrate that the law had no business in operation as it infringed on the rights of the individual with regards to privacy.

Biccat: Sodomy laws were used as tools to persecute homosexuals, which was part of their purpose without any doubt. Dunno why you're trafficking in revisionist history by claiming they didn't do this.

Yes, homosexuals were and even today still are persecuted for simply being homosexual-- even in the United States of America. The U.S. is liberal in this sense because in some countries it's punishable by death, but the U.S. is not entirely innocent.

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Sodomy laws were used as tools to persecute homosexuals, which was part of their purpose without any doubt. Dunno why you're trafficking in revisionist history by claiming they didn't do this.

See Lawrence v. Texas. Was the Supreme Court engaging in "revisionist history" on this point? If you have some source for your belief that sodomy laws were used to persecute homosexuals, I'd love to hear it.

Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been
enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A
substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions
for which there are surviving records were for predatory
acts against those who could not or did not consent, as
in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to
these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there
would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a
sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by
the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments
presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra,
at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man
against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting
relations between consenting adults in private, 19th century
sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations
between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations
between adults involving force, relations between adults
implicating disparity in status, or relations between men
and animals.

To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the
acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a
burden that would make a conviction more difficult to
obtain even taking into account the problems always
inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in
private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice. A partner's testimony, however, was admissible
if he or she had not consented to the act or was a
minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F.
Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton,
Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in
part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events
that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society
approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the
consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The
longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy
upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as
consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative
sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting
acts because of their homosexual character.

Melissia wrote:Yes, homosexuals were and even today still are persecuted for simply being homosexual-- even in the United States of America. The U.S. is liberal in this sense because in some countries it's punishable by death, but the U.S. is not entirely innocent.

You're, presumably, criticizing the US for the actions of its citizens, but comparing them to states that have a policy of discrimination? There is a world of difference between private action (which are disfavored by the government, see hate crime laws) and public action that is government sanctioned.

biccat wrote:See Lawrence v. Texas. Was the Supreme Court engaging in "revisionist history" on this point?

The Supreme court is hardly infallible.

biccat wrote:If you have some source for your belief that sodomy laws were used to persecute homosexuals, I'd love to hear it.

Lawrence and Garner were arrested for homosexual sex, which was against the law in Texas. This was what originally led to Lawrence v. Texas in the first place. Many, many states have had similar laws.

biccat wrote:You're, presumably, criticizing the US for the actions of its citizens, but comparing them to states that have a policy of discrimination?

No.

Homosexuals are not equal under the law.

biccat wrote:
To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the
acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a
burden that would make a conviction more difficult to
obtain even taking into account the problems always
inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in
private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice. A partner's testimony, however, was admissible
if he or she had not consented to the act or was a
minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F.
Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton,
Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in
part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events
that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society
approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the
consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The
longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy
upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as
consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative
sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting
acts because of their homosexual character.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

Melissia wrote:The Supreme court is hardly infallible.

Not infallible, but well informed. Which is why I used it as a source, because it supports what I said.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

Exactly. Though I don't think there was an actual law on people of different colours having sex...was there?

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Under then-prevailing standards, a man could
not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a
consenting partner, because the partner was considered
an accomplice.

That only seems to hinder your argument, if anything.

How does the bolded section hinder my argument? If the act is consensual and private, and neither party can testify about what happened, how do you propose to convict someone?

This is incredibly dense. The reason that the consenting partner cannot testify is because they are an accomplice, not because of legal equality.

It's like if a black guy couldn't testify that his white woman lover had sex with him because that would incriminate him

I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

biccat wrote:I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

Actualy, no it doesn't.

In fact I don't see how evidenciary issues pardons the practice of targetting homosexuals at all. That's like saying that the Criminal Code doesn't persecute murderers becuase sometimes there's not enough evidence to get a conviction.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior. The fact that private homosexual behavior couldn't be prosecuted due to evidenciary issues simply reinforces this point.

Actualy, no it doesn't.

In fact I don't see how evidenciary issues pardons the practice of targetting homosexuals at all. That's like saying that the Criminal Code doesn't persecute murderers becuase sometimes there's not enough evidence to get a conviction.

You'll have to come up with some evidence that there was a practice of targetting homosexuals. Because like I said, and as the quote above shows, anti-sodomy laws weren't used to target, persecute, or otherwise interfere with private, consensual homosexual sodomy.

biccat wrote:
You'll have to come up with some evidence that there was a practice of targetting homosexuals. Because like I said, and as the quote above shows, anti-sodomy laws weren't used to target, persecute, or otherwise interfere with private, consensual homosexual sodomy.

This is the one of the worst cases of History Revisionism I've ever seen.* If two private, consensual homoseuxal partners engaged in sodomy (which unbelieveably is not uncommon in homosexual partnerships) and there was evidence of it, such as a witness/photographs etc, then they could be prosecuted.






*And I've talked to Holocaust Denialists.

biccat wrote:I never said anything about "legal equality" (whatever that means), I said that sodomy laws weren't used to prosecute homosexuals for private behavior.

The very EXISTENCE of the case which outlawed sodomy laws to begin with, where the law was used to persecute a homosexual coule, proves otherwise.

Be in denial and revise history all you want, it doesn't change the fact taht you're in denial and revising history. The various laws in the US have been used to, and are STILL used to, persecute and discriminate against homosexuals even today.

Melissia wrote:Be in denial and revise history all you want, it doesn't change the fact taht you're in denial and revising history. The various laws in the US have been used to, and are STILL used to, persecute and discriminate against homosexuals even today.

I'll say it again: prove it. Cite your sources.

You are implying that there's some massive amount of discriminatory prosecution against homosexuals, both now and in the past, but haven't offered any evidence or support for your assertion.

The case in Lawrence is a rarity, and may actually have been set up.

Note that I really have no problem with staging cases (as long as everyone acts appropriately) to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:
You'll have to come up with some evidence that there was a practice of targetting homosexuals. Because like I said, and as the quote above shows, anti-sodomy laws weren't used to target, persecute, or otherwise interfere with private, consensual homosexual sodomy.

This is the one of the worst cases of History Revisionism I've ever seen.* If two private, consensual homoseuxal partners engaged in sodomy (which unbelieveably is not uncommon in homosexual partnerships) and there was evidence of it, such as a witness/photographs etc, then they could be prosecuted.

*And I've talked to Holocaust Denialists.

Also, one partner could change their mind and say it wasn't consensual.

biccat wrote:You are implying that there's some massive amount of discriminatory prosecution against homosexuals, both now and in the past, but haven't offered any evidence or support for your assertion.

Gay marriage is the most popular one right now, I believe, and the most overt one at the moment. It is definitely not the only one, nevermind non-legal methods of persecution.

Society inherently discriminates against homosexuals in the same way it discriminated against interracial marriages i he past. And yes, it is discrimination.

You mean the way more and more states are making it legal?

Monster Rain wrote:You mean the way more and more states are making it legal?

Which means it's getting better, but it hasn't gone away yet. Besides, the number of sates that have full and true legal marriage for same-sex couples I could almost count on one hand (New York being the sixth one, taking effect this very summer).

Just curious, I don't think the UK has an equivalent to this sort of law, does it? Their military seems pretty effective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8493888.stm

Aha, they let the gays in ten years ago.

Monster Rain wrote:You mean the way more and more states are making it legal?

Persecution doesn't necessarily end with legal recognition. I assure you that discrimination against gays will continue in the military (like in the rest of the US) likely for decades after DADT is permanently buried. My guess is that if DADT were dead and done today, it would still be a problem at least to 2030.

@Da Boss. As is the case in most European nations. Hell, even some third world nations! It's not the first time the US is behind the curve on a social issue (won't be the last either).

Reminds of the top gear USA special where they almost get killed cause they wrote gay stuff on their cars...