Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just haze.

[SapereAude]

I have a question though. I have no problem undressing and such around women that are heterosexual or gay men. I would feel very differently undressing or showering around hetero men or lesbian women. (Not doctors or my friend's lesbian mom when I was a kid, but I mean as an adult around other adults who are essentially strangers to you.)

Now I'm aware that most hetero men and lesbians out there are not necessarily interested in me, but that doesn't mean I want to shower, groom myself or dress in front of them. Don't you think it could make individuals feel very uncomfortable, and rightfully so, if someone who could be sexually attracted to them is allowed to watch them undress and shower and such?

I think the problem with your logic here, K-Mac is that if one were to be honest there is more bisexuality in the world that strict homo/hetero anyway. One doesn't even need to act on it for it to be true that a mostly hetero man or woman might find a particular person of the same gender attractive, or as is the case with prisons might make an exception due to circumstance.

I know a lot of women who are straight, married, never had a "gay experience" and yet when watching a particular actress, singer or whatever will say "yeah- I would so do her.

Where does that leave your arguement?

There are some people that are so attractive that for many or most they will transcend preferences.

[Black Wolf]

I'm sure a large majority of military members would state that they aren't ok with gays in service, but I'm sure they would also state that they aren't interested in starting any inquisitions or getting upset about it. The anti-gay service stance makes sense just because most service members come from conservative or moderate roots that hold those views. The left doesn't respect or support the military regardless of what they say and most left to far left people would do anything before they would work for the military. At least thats been my perception.

A 2006 poll by Zolgby says that 73% of people in the military would be okay with gay people in the service. So, not even that is a problem.

The other 27% will just have to get over it. And they will. Because that's what happens in the military.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Zip]

I think the problem with your logic here, K-Mac is that if one were to be honest there is more bisexuality in the world that strict homo/hetero anyway.

That's quite a statement. Got any proof for it? *Assuming that your "that" is supposed to be a than...

Edited January 24, 2010 by Zip

[Maximus]

I think the problem with your logic here, K-Mac is that if one were to be honest there is more bisexuality in the world that strict homo/hetero anyway.

I seriously doubt it. Not from the perspective of someone who has been on this planet for (almost) 50 years.

DADT was a Clinton era compromise. Most things Clinton did were compromises - trying to please all of the people, all of the time and succeeding in pleasing none.

In my eight years in the USAR, including combat operations during the Gulf War, I only ran across one individual suspected of being gay. It wasn't a big deal to me because he did his job. On the other hand, A lot of the females in our unit (401st MP) were trying to get pregnant so they would be sent home. No one really wants to be there (I missed my family tremendously - even shedding tears during private moments, such as they were [i'm only human, after all; I had an infant son born just before deployment]), but it's something one has to do in order to get the job done.

I'll take an effective homosexual over a female who would rather get out of duty (causing someone else to pull her weight) any day.

Before anyone starts: Not all females had this attitude, but enough did for it to be noticeable.

[Black Wolf]

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/..._gay_troops.php

Wow. I can't believe we have Republicans worrying about the cultural sensibilities of the people trying to kill us.

Wait, so we have women in these countries fighting in armed forces, they're not wearing burqas, a majority of them are Christian, and somehow, gay people will cause problems? Especially when fighting along side foreign forces deployed in the same countries, who DO let gays openly serve?

I was unaware that there was a level of hatred that terrorists could go beyond "Wanting to strap an explosive device to myself and blowing up".

Republicans: We care about freedom, and we don't give a shit about what anyone else thinks about us unless it gives us an excuse to treat gay people like shit.

[rebelconservative]

I understand the arguments about showering etc, but as I have precisely zero experience in the armed forces, I will defer to those who have served. If the military told me DADT was necessary and backed it up with evidence, I would support it 100%. As a citizen, I would be okay with discrimination against gays, blacks, Muslims, women, Objectivists, left-handed people or gingers, providing this gave us a more effective fighting force and contributed to my safety. The role of the armed forces is to protect us all, not to satisfy diversity quotas. The question we have to ask is "Does DADT keep Americans safer?" and as there is no evidence that such discrimination does contribute to military effectiveness (and there are other ways to resolve potential difficulties), it has to go.

As far as I am aware, we have had no significant problems in the UK with openly gay soldiers, nor has Israel, the service of gay soldiers has contributed to my security. Whether American soldiers would react differently, I am not sure. A Zogby poll suggests that 2/3 of US soldiers do not care about the issue, only 27% felt morale was negatively affected by openly gay soldiers in their unit (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf page 18). Perhaps, as I think was said earlier, those who feel uncomfortable with gay people could be reassigned to a different unit. However, of those soldiers who did not have openly gay members in their unit, 58% thought that there would be a negative impact if there was an openly gay person in their unit (page 19). It could be argued that this shows that the fear of gays undermining morale is not matched in reality, people are more accepting than they predict and it is not as big an issue as they thought. Interestingly, people felt their own morale would be less affected than the group (page 19). This could be due to the person projecting their own prejudice onto the group, or to an erroneous premise that others are homophobic.

Whilst Obama is right on this issue, repealing a flawed policy, I am greatly disturbed by his motivations. Perhaps it is my own bias, but it seems to me that the Left are not approaching this issue rationally, but are prioritising a political agenda over national security. Their concern is not getting the best people into the army, it is giving about enabling gays to be out and proud. The same is true over the issue of women in the army, where there are different entry requirements for men and women (quick google search gave this http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-army.htm). There should be a single standard, if women meet that - great, but we should not dilute the standards to increase the ratio of women. How any given policy affects military effectiveness should be the standard of this discussion.

Edited March 2, 2010 by rebelconservative

[Black Wolf]

There's a difference between "Satisfying diversity quotas" and simply allowing people into the army. I mean, why does every policy regarding the military have to involve strengthening the military physically? I mean, it can be argued that you can sacrifice a little bit of honor and integrity in order to make it stronger, but does that mean we can't try to save honor?

I find your position to be at least more respectable than most other concerns about DADT.

[JMeganSnow]

This could be due to the person projecting their own prejudice onto the group, or to an erroneous premise that others are homophobic.

This is generally backed up by my personal (anecdotal) experiences in these areas. For some reason, people (especially guys) who are quite comfortable with homosexuality imagine that everyone ELSE is homophobic. I've known a couple of people now who have served in units where "everyone knew" that a couple of the soldiers were gay even though they weren't open about it, and nobody cared.

Those commercials where drunken beefcake guys are uncomfortable and paranoid around gays are a joke. Even more so the ones where they're afraid that other guys will think they're gay. In real life, if you accuse a guy of being/acting "gay", one of the following happens:

55% He laughs and tells you that YOU'RE gay

35% He plays it up for further laughs

9% He actually is gay

1% ERROR REDO FROM START

Once you hit age 25, I've found, the proportion of people who are actually capable of getting their feelings hurt and worrying about things like this goes WAY, WAY DOWN.

[JASKN]

Once you hit age 25, I've found, the proportion of people who are actually capable of getting their feelings hurt and worrying about things like this goes WAY, WAY DOWN.

True that.