Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#577 Jan 03 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I'm argumentative, not defensive. There's a difference


Now you're just being defensive.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#578 Jan 03 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Well, if DADT was implemented in 40 days, please tell me what possible changes could take over a year without affecting the environment?

Slow moving bureaucracy? Taking X many days to do something doesn't mean that doing something requires X many days.

Quote:
You trust the politicians, because you know they never lie, I placed my allegiance with the military, because they have the best concept of the current military.

Hahaha... nice strawman but you still managed to dork it up. Politicians matter because the new regulations will be determined by them. Gates, Mullen & Obama will ultimately decide the new rules, not Casey or Amos or whoever else. But, you know, feel free to keep saying "You only believe them because you think they never lie!" That was truly a cutting remark and stuff.

For that matter, the Chiefs of Staff are politicians. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president as they serve in a decision-making capacity in his administration. They may not act "political" in your eyes but they are definitely politicians.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 5:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#579 Jan 03 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Nadenu wrote:

I've learned that Alma doesn't personally know one single gay man.
Just wait until he discovers himself :D
#580 Jan 03 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
If you are already serving with gay men, are already living/showering with gay men. What difference does DADT make, outside allowing those gay men to come out, and in retrospect allow you to avoid those men if you feel uncomfortable.


The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes? It's so important to gay rights that they be able to serve openly, but you honestly think it'll stop at the edge of social decorum? No one will mention their sexuality in any terms other than who they're dating back home? Do you honestly believe that?


Let me engage in a bit of slippery slope prediction:

It will not be long before we'll have events where a straight member of the military is made to be uncomfortable by the presence of an openly gay fellow soldier. And the straight guy will be labeled as s bigot for being uncomfortable listening to someone talk about how much he likes to suck other guys off while naked in the same shower. And when someone (like maybe me) points out that this was predicted when we had this discussion way back in 2010, the chorus of responses from people like you is that people should just get over their sexual hangups and that a straight man shouldn't have any reason to feel uncomfortable no matter what is being said around him. It'll be labeled as a violation of the gay mans rights if he's *not* allowed to openly discuss his sexual activities anywhere he wants.


I'm sure that'll never happen though.

Quote:
So I ask again, what is your issue, either you can tolerate gays, or you can't, either you are a bigot, or you are not.


Does "tolerate" mean not complaining when the guy you're showering with talks about how attracted he is to men? Where does toleration end? Where does the right of the rest of the people in the world come in?


Quote:
So either you can tolerate being around gay men (like you do now unknowingly) or you can't (knowingly) which means you are either a bigot or you are not.


There's nothing in between those two? Isn't there a reasonable expectation that straight soldiers should not be made uncomfortable? I think the very nature of fighting for gays to serve "openly" sets up the exact sort of scenario I outlined earlier. Where will you come down on the issue when something like that happens? When a straight soldier complains about a gay soldier speaking explicitly about his sexual activities, does he have a right not to be exposed to that? Or will you insist that serving openly includes that sort of behavior?

What happens when a gay soldier wants to have his partner housed on base? How do we adjust the on base visitation rules to allow for the fact that simply not allowing people of the opposite sex in the housing after a set time isn't sufficient to the purpose of those rules? There are a whole host of issues involved in this. It's not as simple a change as many of you are making it out to be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#581 Jan 03 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I believe you may have forgotten to make a specific point to say that you're *not* defending someone else's position just now.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#582 Jan 03 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes?

According to the studies of other militaries, the majority (I'd say the large majority) of gay men choose to still not make their sexuality public because, terror in the showers aside, the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice *****" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.

The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#583 Jan 03 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I believe you may have forgotten to make a specific point to say that you're *not* defending someone else's position just now.


Hah! I actually considered saying exactly that, then decided that would be too obnoxious and obvious. For the record, I'm not defending the entirety of Alma's argument, just the point that there is a comparison between the problems with having men and women sharing shower and housing facilities and with allowing straight and gay men (or women) sharing the same.

Why would you assume they weren't similar?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 5:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#584 Jan 03 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why would you assume they weren't similar?
Because currently, straights and gays shower together. Men and women do not. The fact that one is currently happening, while the other is not, makes them dissimilar.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#585 Jan 03 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes?

According to the studies of other militaries, the majority (I'd say the large majority) of gay men choose to still not make their sexuality public because, terror in the showers aside, the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice *****" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.

The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.
What Joph said.

Just because the policy is changing, doesn't mean the military is going to be a slumber party full of gays talking about ************

Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can **** off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.
#586 Jan 03 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can @#%^ off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.

It's also a bad argument that exactly parallels that of not having women or blacks serving because it makes certain people uncomfortable.
#587 Jan 03 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
... the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice *****" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.


So, will the harassment policies you put such weight in outweigh the label of anyone who complains as a "homophobic ******"?

I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime? How do you make that decision? Is there any good way to handle this?

Now. You're a liberal internet poster. Which side do you take? How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?


This will happen. And the straight guy *will* be labeled as a bigot by the very posters on this forum who are insisting that it wont make any difference. And the public pressure for the military to protect the rights of gay soldiers to serve openly will result in a skewing of the very sexual harassment rules you claim will prevent any problems from occurring.

You will apply a double standard to this, even if you claim now that you wont. You will view the same exact exchange between a gay man and a straight man differently than if it were between a straight man and a straight women. No matter how much you think you are an enlightened person who does not judge based on gender or sexual orientation, you will apply bias. And you wont be alone.


Some of us can see these patterns before they happen. Others will only see them after they happen. Most people, unfortunately, will continue to deny the pattern even after the fact, and thus will to fail to see the next occurrence coming. I can only point it out to you. I can't make you see.

Quote:
The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.


Nah. The overwhelming benefit to repealing DADT is the ability to label those who oppose it bigots, score points with gay rights groups, and make anti-military groups thrilled. And if the cost is making a whole bunch of people unhappy and disrupting our military along the way, it's a small price to pay for having the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#588 Jan 03 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can @#%^ off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.

It's also a bad argument that exactly parallels that of not having women or blacks serving because it makes certain people uncomfortable.


It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.

It does somewhat parallel the issues with women serving in the military. And guess what? There are still many posts in the military in which women are not allowed for the very same reasons I'm talking about. We don't put women in front line ground combat positions. When women were incorporated into the military, it required that we adjust things like barracks, housing, wash facilities, etc and they're only allowed to serve in those areas in which those changes can be reasonably made.

There are no women on many naval vessels for that very reason. It's not just about discomfort or bigotry and it's a cheap evasion of the issue to keep returning to that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#589 Jan 03 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".

Quote:
How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?
I'd imagine he'd consider them completely irrelevant, until said posters affect a change in military law/policy.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#590 Jan 03 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So, will the harassment policies you put such weight in...

Again, I'm speaking from having read the study. I know that's not as powerful as "you're a liberal internet poster..." but we can't all just make shit up as we go along. Some of us have to do the heavy lifting of having something intelligent to say.

Quote:
Nah. The overwhelming benefit to repealing DADT is the ability to label those who oppose it bigots...

Whatever polishes your cross, I guess.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 7:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#591 Jan 03 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.


There you go, conveniently forgetting about "separate but equal" again.
#592 Jan 03 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".


Really? quick test: Let's say that tomorrow we mandate shared shower facilities for men and women in the military. A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same? Be honest.


Quote:
Quote:
How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?
I'd imagine he'd consider them completely irrelevant, until said posters affect a change in military law/policy.


You honestly don't think that public perception of the event will affect how it's managed? That's a strange assumption given that we're discussing a change that is being driven by exactly the same sort of public perception and manufactured outrage. How do you not see this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#593 Jan 03 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.


There you go, conveniently forgetting about "separate but equal" again.


There you go, tossing out a weighted phrase with no applicability to the subject at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#594 Jan 03 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".


Really? quick test: Let's say that tomorrow we mandate shared shower facilities for men and women in the military. A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same? Be honest.

Are you really so convinced that everyone is lying to help their argument that you can't accept the answer you were given? For me, my response would be the same either way. You don't step outside the chain of command without a pressing need to do so, such as being placed in immediate physical danger, which is not present in the scenario you presented. Gay, straight, man, woman, doesn't matter.

Edited, Jan 4th 2011 12:39am by Majivo
#595 Jan 03 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
DADT Study Review wrote:
Within the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia militaries, there was a general expectation that noticeable numbers of gay men and lesbians would reveal their sexual orientation to fellow military personnel after the policy change, but in fact very few did so. As a result, commanders and senior officials have generally concluded that the policy change has had little impact on their forces.
[...]
The United Kingdom’s review two years after its policy change found very few problems in units, primarily because only a small number of military members opted to disclose their sexual orientation. Those few incidents that did occur were handled at the unit level, and were comparable in scope to incidents reported as “personality clashes.” Since the time of that review, British forces have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; senior officials interviewed indicated that no incidents had occurred during these deployments and that leaders and military personnel had fully adapted to the policy.
[...]
None of the nations contacted by the Working Group or RAND indicated that there was a rise in the number of harassment incidents as a result of the policy change. Germany maintains a somewhat unique reporting mechanism for formal complaints of all kinds, which operates outside the Ministry of Defence and reports directly to the Parliament. In the five years since the policy change, 50 of the 60,000 complaints filed involved a gay man or lesbian. Of those 50, fewer than 10 involved harassment of some kind. In the United Kingdom, there was no increase in the rate of same-sex harassment. In the two years that followed the policy change, there had been one incident of an unwanted sexual advance by a gay man, which was dealt with effectively at the unit command level. Canada observed no change in the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change. In Australia there were 12 complaints filed involving gay men or lesbians in the 2 years post policy change, of which fewer than 5 involved harassment of any kind.

Or, you know, we can sit and cry about scary liberal plots to call Gbaji and Alma bigots at the expense of our military which could never handle the horrific waves of gay-on-straight shower harassment looming over the horizon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#596 Jan 03 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same?
Yes, while laughing at the guy for getting beat up by a woman.

Quote:
You honestly don't think that public perception of the event will affect how it's managed? That's a strange assumption given that we're discussing a change that is being driven by exactly the same sort of public perception and manufactured outrage. How do you not see this?
I'm sorry, has the military changed it's current actions, despite the repeal being passed and no new laws/policies actually being put in place? No? That's why I'd expect them to still follow the laws until they're actually changed.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#597 Jan 03 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Canada observed no change in the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change.
To be fair, we already had the French serving in the military, so it was always assumed there were gays everywhere.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#598 Jan 03 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Majivo wrote:
Are you really so convinced that everyone is lying to help their argument that you can't accept the answer you were given?


Yes, I am. Because the answers you are giving right now don't jive with the historical pattern.

Quote:
For me, my response would be the same either way.


No, it wouldn't. But that's because right now you're making the decision based on a hypothetical to which you know what the "right" answer is. But when something like that actually happens, you'll be using a completely different methodology to base your position on, and will not notice that your answer will have changed. That's the pattern I'm talking about.


Quote:
You don't step outside the chain of command without a pressing need to do so, such as being placed in immediate physical danger, which is not present in the scenario you presented. Gay, straight, man, woman, doesn't matter.


What if the person in question claims that he/she was about to be sexually assaulted if they didn't respond physically and remove themselves from the situation? Are you honestly trying to claim you'd put the same weight on a straight man making this claim as you would on a straight woman?


And do you honestly think that public perception would be the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#599 Jan 03 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, we already had the French serving in the military, so it was always assumed there were gays everywhere.

Ironically, Canada's military commissioned and released a report predicting dire consequences if they start letting homosexuals serve openly.
Canada's Charter Report wrote:
• “There should be severe problems integrating known homosexuals into the CF, particularly in the Land and Sea operational units, with a resulting adverse impact on cohesion.”
• “Any of [the predicted] impairments to cohesion and morale would cause personnel problems; taken together they constitute a serious threat to military effectiveness.”
• Allowing gay individuals to serve would have an “overall negative impact on recruiting.... There is also some evidence that allowing homosexuals in the CF will cause some current servicemembers to leave the CF.”

It also reported that there'd be fights & violent altercations, harassment and that a majority of heterosexual males (and a sizable minority of female soldiers) would refuse to share showers with homosexuals. None of those things actually came to being.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#600 Jan 03 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same?
Yes, while laughing at the guy for getting beat up by a woman.


Huh. Good thing we're not applying different standards here. Would you laugh at the gay soldier in the same situation?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 6:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#601 Jan 03 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because the answers you are giving right now don't jive with the historical pattern.

Unless we mean the historical pattern of western first world nations who can changed their modern military forces to allowing open homosexuality.

Not those patterns... we need to discuss the ones of liberal persecution in Gbaji's head.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 186 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (186)