Gays in the Military

[John Dibble]

I'm sorry, gays cannot have the same relationships with guys as straight guys do, as guys automatically become sexual object to them.

That's ridiculous - gays can't have guy friends whom they don't want sex with? That's like saying straights can't have women friends whom aren't sex objects, which is a blatant untruth. I understand your position on homosexuality, but come on, this is just plain dumb.

[John Dibble]

I'm sorry, gays cannot have the same relationships with guys as straight guys do, as guys automatically become sexual object to them.

That's ridiculous - gays can't have guy friends whom they don't want sex with? That's like saying straights can't have women friends whom aren't sex objects, which is a blatant untruth. I understand your position on homosexuality, but come on, this is just plain dumb.

No it's not, it's completely correct. Even if you have no intention of having sex with a woman, men and women can't have the same relationships as straight men have with eachother. Think of a good friend of yours that is a woman. Would you use a public shower with her? Would you change with her? Come on, that's unnatural. If you honestly can say you can have the same relationship with a possible person of sexual pleasure as you can have with a person of no sexual pleasure, you're mistaken.

In addition to all of the above stated, one of the requirements of being in the military is to have good moral standards. Gays obviously don't have good moral standards.

Ok, so aside from things that can easily be solved with seperate locker rooms, I still fail to see the difference. And generally I don't consider such things part of a friend type relationship anyways.

Also, didn't you say 'Don't ask, don't tell' was a good policy - that lets gays in anyways so the distraction you are railing against is still there!Aren't you being a wee bit hypocritical? Sure, they aren't openly gay, but by your logic they will still regard the other men as sex object, right?

As to your idiotic 'good moral standards' comment, you can consider homosexual acts immoral if you wish, but you also likely consider prositution immoral, a profession our troops have been customers to for many years. It doesn't really apply in the sense you are thinking. I think the 'good moral standards' means don't torture prisoners and whatnot - behave like a civilized human being and not an animal - simple common sense.

[John Dibble]

Please, John, don't be rude.

How do you propose we solve the locker room distraction?

Yes, I said that "don't ask; don't tell" was a good policy. The policy says that homosexuals who have had homosexual events or intend on having homosexual events, they cannot join the military. So no, it doesn't allow gays (being, practicing homosexuals), but it can technically allow homosexuals. If homosexuals are openly homosexual automatically that creates a distraction among the other soldiers and among the homosexual himself.

Yes, prostitution should be banned among soldiers as well. It's funny how morality has been changed from a code of laws that we follow to have a civilized society, to a basic law of self-preservation. There's a difference between morality and self-preservation.

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude, I'm sure you've mouthed off too on occassion - sometimes people will say something that just so blatantly disagrees with your views that it pisses you off. As I said, even if you consider homosexuality immoral, that doesn't mean practicing homosexuals can't be overall moral people. You made a gross generalization, one that I view as wrong at that, and I said it was idiotic - it was rude, but oh well, now you know why.

As to solving the problem of locker room distraction, I really don't care what goes on in the locker room as long as it isn't full blown harassment. If they are unable to surpress their desires at times when they should be professional, they should be kicked out, otherwise I have no problem. If a practicing homosexual can perform his duties on the base(which is perfectly possible) I don't care what he does in his off time.

As for 'don't ask; don't tell' there is really no way to enforce it unless it is caught - homosexuals have always existed, and until society accepted their existence they have done what they do in secret. The military can't really stop it from happening.

And the soldiers should be able to hire prostitutes in their off time - it's good for morale, especially when they are in a foreign country without loved ones to comfort them. What's more important, a slight bit of morality, or soldiers that are less likely to desert?

[John Dibble]

"...even if you consider homosexuality immoral, that doesn't mean practicing homosexuals can't be overall moral people..."

That is an inconsistency, a logical flaw. But before I go on, let me ask: What is your definition of immoral people, or living an immoral lifestyle.

Well, morality for anyone isn't really that clear cut. Also, it's not inconsistant - a person may be immoral in one respect but moral in many others, nobody is perfect after all. The opposite also applies - a muderous tyrant who commits crimes against humanity on a daily basis could be faithful to his wife(which I think we both agree is moral). So, overall a person could have their flaws, but be for the most part a moral individual, and a person could have one moral strong point and still be an immoral individual. There are a few things that make people overall moral to me, one is that someone doesn't harm others for unjust reasons and another is not abusing any powers or priviliges that they are given. In the military, you are given training, gaining power and knowledge to fight, kill, and weaken the enemy - this power can be abused like any other(a certain prison incident in Iraq would be an example, even if you might consider it a small abuse). Honesty is also important - at least with those that you should be honest with(lying to your spouse is wrong, lying to an enemy is fine). I don't see practicing homosexuality as immoral, unless of course there someone is cheating on their monogamous partner - pretty much the same rules I would apply to heterosexual relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm assuming you mean in the military for the first part of the question - guess I'd have three locker rooms: men, women, and unisex. Leave it up to individuals to choose. The locker room doesn't affect the battle field as far as I'm concerned - the last thing you'd be thinking of when bullets are flying at you is about someone else's goodies.

As for colleges and high schools - colleges I would be fine with, everyone there is an adult(even if they don't necessarily act like it all the time), but you could have barriers for changing clothes and whatnot. Leave it to the individual colleges(is there a law against this anyways?). High schools would be a no(seriously, freshmen there can't even restrain themselves from laughing at the word 'penis'), and I'd still have barriers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, first off, they won't feel guilt and depression over it - that's just silly. If they were you, maybe, but not everyone thinks the way you do. Prostitution was rampant among the troops in Vietnam and Korea, and was more likely a comfort to them than anything else. They were probably more concerned with how to avoid getting shot than with the moral problems of prostitution. EDIT - also, is it really an emotional lie if you do it solely for physical pleasure(as is usually the case).

[John Dibble]

Oh, an 'immoral lifestyle'. Well, that's somewhat of a difficult question too - there is no one set immoral lifestyle. You already know I don't think homosexuality is immoral, so that's out. An immoral lifestlye to me is one in which the one living it has no regard for the rights of his fellow human beings. If you don't respect the rights of others, your rights are taken away - this is and always has been the basis of any good justice system. Murder someone and you get locked away or put to death. It is also immoral not to live up to important promises you make - such as being faithful to your partner, but if your partner approves of you having sex with others I don't think it's immoral necessarily, just unhealthy. To me just because a decision is unhealthy or dumb does not make it immoral by default - though it is immoral to run away from the consequences of your stupid or unhealthy actions, or to force others to bear the weight of those consequences. Also it's immoral to take the labor of others as you. Of course, some immoral acts surpass others, like murder is worse than cheating on a test. As I said before, nobody is perfect, even the best of us do immoral things sometimes, but it is the combined weight of your actions that determine what kind of person you are.

As far as locker rooms go, as I said, I don't really care too terribly about distractions in the locker room - leave it at two, ultimately you can't solve every problem. As far as your example, I think it already isn't allowed for soldiers and their superiors to date, and if it isn't it shouldn't be.

As far as showers go, as I said, once again - I DON'T CARE. I probably wouldn't participate in showers like that(I don't think most people would either). I prefer to keep my parts covered around other people - don't care if they are male or female. Though I don't think such showers would be much different from nude beaches, lol.

As for prostitution, I think opebo covered it pretty well - keep it policed to make sure minors are kept out(much as the porn industry is). You could also further regulate it by ensuring that prostitutes have regular checks for STDs and patrons are always offered condoms(or required to use if the prostitute says so).

[John Dibble]

John Dibble, I have a simple question I need you to answer before we can move on. At this current state, you havn't given me a clear answer: What is an example of an immoral lifestyle? If you can't answer that, then explain what the US Army means by a person living in good moral standards?

Ok, easy enough, an example of an immoral lifestyle to me would be one that involves someone regularly cheating on their partner. When you enter a monogamous relationship with someone you form a bond of trust - it is immoral to break that trust. A person who regularly breaks that trust makes it part of their lifestyle, so their lifestlye is immoral. They can be forgiven if they stop doing the deed and feel honest guilt for their behavior, but not before that. A career thief or con-artist would also be living an immoral lifestlye. A hedonistic lifestlye is not necessarily an immoral one, but it is certainly not a healthy one.

As far as the army goes, I am not completely sure - have they ever court martialed anyone for cheating on their wife? I would personally hold the standard that they didn't abuse the power given to them by being in the military, which I have pointed out as part of what I consider moral. I'm sure the army does hold that standard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, you'll never get an army free of emotional distraction - even simple male friendship can be a distraction. Homosexuals are only about 3% of the population anyways, and their population in the army would probably be lower than that, so I doubt it would be much of a problem in reality.