Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.