Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Almalieque, you clearly haven't followed the history of DADT at all. This has been going on for seventeen years and if you had ever bothered to investigate how politicians defended the policy, then you have no right to get into the discussion.

Maybe you'd also take care to notice that NO POLITICIAN has used the privacy issue as grounds to oppose DADT.

Here's one thing to read. In it, the defense departments general counsel discusses how the historic opposition to DADT was extremely similar to what was holding back integration in the 40's. And he's someone who doesn't believe homosexuality is a "self-identifier" which I assume refers to the idea that being gay isn't something you are forced into.

Check this too--it's a fairly comprehensive list of rebuttles to the typical republican responses (though it is still written as an article--not an essay).


They worry that the marines won't accept the openly gay soldiers. It has NOTHING to do with them being worried about the gay guy seeing them naked. That's like asking for a different surgeon because he's gay. He's going to have FAR more intimate relations with your body than any gay guy in your troop does. But you'd be a dumbass to make it an issue.

Another quote?


Believe me, no one has EVER tried to use the privacy issue to oppose DADT, because it is horrendously weak and is based on a premise of prejudice, which the Republican party needed to avoid if they actually wanted to defend the bill. Notice how they are all super careful to avoid dissing gays? But the fact is that their arguments are extremely weak if you assume that they don't think the troops are irreparably homophobic.

I'm not fucking making crap up. These have ALWAYS been the arguments against DADT's repeal. Just because you think you have authority to refute that because you've chatted with some friends doesn't mean squat.

HAVE people made the privacy objection? Yes. But no politician with any hope of defending DADT has. And the fact that most people making the privacy claim often end up asserting that the guys locker room will turn into an orgy doesn't help (no, really, most articulated articles on the subject inevitably mention that the straight guys are gonna turn to the gays for sexual gratification). And THAT'S the biggest objection they make.

I also like the hidden assertion that gays are sexual deviants that will become the whores of bases.

And have you noticed that the privacy option is rarely mentioned even outside of politics? That's because it is grounded firmly in homophobia.

P.S. You DO realize that many other countries have gays in their military, right? Have you noticed that the lack of privacy hasn't caused the entire system to fragment?

Literally the only capacity the privacy issue has been discussed with has been when the Defense Department said there would be some issues to look into if DADT was repealed (note: they were NOT offered as reasons it shouldn't be). You can find them here, with a pretty good rebuttle, but I'll quote them too:



The second one is a fucking joke and has nothing but homophobia to do with it. It's great going to war and having it forbidden from slapping your pal on the back.

The last one is frankly the military's biggest concern. But it's one they already have experience with when it comes to female soldiers in areas that have harsh restrictions on their sex.

But none of these were offered as reasons DADT shouldn't be repealed. They were stated as what the Defense department was thinking about should it fall.

[EDIT] forgot to add second link.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 9:18pm by idiggory

Christ, this place attracts tards like lanterns do lightning bugs.

/facepalm

1. No it isn't. They are similar in one sense and very different in another.

If you discourage close quarters because you think the people are sexually voracious, then it is the same--you don't want to change with people of the other sex because it is a sexual atmosphere.

If you discourage close quarters due to modesty, however, there is absolutely no argument against gays sharing living quarters. They have all the same parts you do--it isn't somehow extra barbaric to expose them.

Furthermore, there's an actual risk of sexual tensions when a straight man/woman are together. When gays are with straight people, the attraction is one sided. Nothing is going to happen because any sexual tension is unreciprocated so it doesn't build upon itself. So even if men/women are kept apart for sexual reasons, it still isn't necessarily a problem.



A. Not all men are attractive to gay men--fact. Not all women are attractive to gay women--fact.

B. Not all gay men are sexual fiends who will pounce on a straight man at the first chance they get--fact. Not all gay women are sexual fiends who will pounce on straight women at the first chance they get--fact.

C. When's the last time you heard of a straight man or women getting sexually abused or assaulted by a gay in a gym locker room?

D. You might still find them attractive, but it's a WHOLE DIFFERENT story when you know they aren't into your gender. There are a lot of straight guys I find attractive. There's no sexual tension between us because they don't reciprocate. And no gay guy (who's not a lunatic) tries to push sex on a straight man. For one thing, that's an excellent way to suddenly find yourself the target of a hate crime (seriously). For another, you know as well as anyone else that you are wasting your time.



The military != the politicians. If General Patraeus wanted to stop DADT ten years ago, he still wouldn't have been able to until Congress repealed it. Notice how Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces? HE couldn't repeal DADT until congress said so. The bill literally had nothing to do with the "big wigs in the military."

Congrats on demonstrating how little you know about how the US works.

If it wasn't alma, I'd volunteer to help. Maybe Bard will take one for the team.

Oh yeah, and @ alma, when the Pentagon released its report saying that the repeal of DADT would cause little to no immediate harm to the armed forces (and no extended harm), it also included a commentary on why the military SHOULDN'T segregate bathrooms.



*cough*

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 10:01pm by idiggory

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

A. You were SURE this girl in your class was a "*****" and you know another guy who's "flaming" and you think that people weren't treating them just as bad as if they had come out (even if they weren't?) Until my senior year, I was the *only* out kid in my school. Do you think I was the only one being mocked for being gay?

B. You are only showing how retarded you are if you refuse to read the rebuttles. I'm replying to what you said SPECIFICALLY. I completely understand WHAT you are saying--I'm telling you that you are wrong. The WISE thing to do is evaluate the opposition's argument and try to logically rebuttal. But I guess that basic skill is lost on you. That, or you just like maintaining ignorance.



That I agree on, which is precisely one of the reasons why I don't think segregated bathrooms matter.

Noooo... you're not a homophobe at all!

Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.

If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 10:10pm by Xsarus

Lindsey Graham's a dude. Granted, he has a girl's name, a southern accent, lacks ********** & fits the whole "christian conservative whom bangs male hookers but isn't really gay" profile so i can see how that would confuse you.



And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.

So please stop.

Something's wrong with this.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:19am by Uglysasquatch