Gays in the Military

[A18]

It's distracting to be attracted to the people around you., or to have the people around you attracted to you.

You can't just "control" all of it. The don't ask don't tell policy makes sense, but gay people shouldn't join.

[Nym90]

It's distracting to be attracted to the people around you., or to have the people around you attracted to you.

You can't just "control" all of it. The don't ask don't tell policy makes sense, but gay people shouldn't join.

But what about those who can control it, as the vast majority can (especially those who want to be in the military)? Or do you think they are lying?

[A18]

The way you naturally act around people you're attracted to hurts military morale.

But regardless of whether or not they can control it, people don't want to be around gays who are attracted to them. I certainly don't want to shower with gay people.

[12th Doctor]

It's distracting to be attracted to the people around you., or to have the people around you attracted to you.

You can't just "control" all of it. The don't ask don't tell policy makes sense, but gay people shouldn't join.

So, do you think then that all work places should be segregated by gender and sexual preference, or do you simply believe that gays cannot control their sexual urges?

[Nym90]

The way you naturally act around people you're attracted to hurts military morale.

But regardless of whether or not they can control it, people don't want to be around gays who are attracted to them. I certainly don't want to shower with gay people.

As I said before, it wouldn't bother me any to shower with someone who was gay. I'm very confident in both my sexuality and in my ability to defend myself. If someone lacks confidence in either, then I can see why it might be a problem (but even then, the vast majority of gay people can be trusted not to rape someone against their will; gay people are no more likely to commit rape than straight people are).

[A18]

How often do fellow McDonalds employees shower together?

Who said ANYTHING about rape?! People generally do not like people they're not attracted to being attracted to them. Goes for gays and just ugly people.

Now, that's a tendency. Showering with gays, however, is an extreme.

[12th Doctor]

How often do fellow McDonalds employees shower together?

Who said ANYTHING about rape?!

Someone who is comfortable defending this country is probably comfortable enough in thier sexuality to not get all bothered or worked up by showering with gays or being gay and showering with other men.  Wouldn't you say?


Just because I'm attracted to a girl doesn't mean I can't work with her or view her in a non-sexual manner when in a business relationship.  I do it all of the time, in fact.

[A18]

The military isn't the same as CostCo.

[The Duke]

I'm for gays in the military.  If they want to serve dangerous duty for sh*t wages and be called babay killers by the left, more power to 'em.  Most thankless job in the world, and we shouldn't be too picky in who we allow to take it.

[Donovan]

I'm for gays in the military.  If they want to serve dangerous duty for sh*t wages and be called babay killers by the left, more power to 'em.  Most thankless job in the world, and we shouldn't be too picky in who we allow to take it.

Alas,

Me and Ford agree on Something! Imagine that. Write his down in the record books

[Bogart]

I think the only plausible answer is to follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in some way. As a gay guy, I obviously support gay rights. But, the military is not the same as society at large. I think that allowing openly gay men into the same ranks as straight men would, wrong or uninformed as the position is, undermine morale.

Anyone who chooses to serve in the military gives up certain rights to which they would otherwise be entitled.

[Brambila]

Nym,

Your choice is this: homosexuals can either join a male division or a female division. If they join a male division, it will be equivalent a man joining a woman’s division, which can cause various problems. The man would be subject to constantly having sexual distractions. It would ludicrous to say he wouldn’t, and I don’t care  how your gay friends act, as if they truly act normal they are either lying or are not gay. The truth of the matter is, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, and if they are in a position where they are very close to the person of the same sex, they WILL be tempted, exactly like how a man in a woman’s division would act. Now, if the gay man joins the women’s division, then he will cause the same distraction among the women.

As a matter of fact, we already know that putting women in men’s divisions is wrong. Even when women are in the same campgrounds, problems have arisen. Rape for women in the military has increased in the last few years. In one year alone, 9% of women in the marines were victims of rape, along with 8% in the Army and 6% in the Navy (1). We know from this that men in the military are of course VERY sexually active. I’ve been a book about a 1993 US military invasion of Mogadishu, and in it the author wrote that the soldiers were very open about masturbation, and it wasn’t always taken humorously (2). Soldiers are young and therefore most sexually active, so putting ANY sort of sexual reminders are huge distractions to their duties.

Rape does exist among homosexuals about the same rate as heterosexuals. Sure, men are strong, but some men are stronger than others. Likewise, some women are stronger than men. Your point is irrelevant. I honestly don’t care if you think you could beat up a homosexual, I’m sure there are plenty of homosexuals out there who could beat up a soldier, especially after training.

Question, Nym: Can you honestly say you would not be distracted if you were serving in a division, showering with, and spending your time 24/7 with a bunch of really sweaty, athletic, sexy women?

I’d like to quote what the military says about the “Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy.



1. (B) POLICY. -A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE ARMED FORCES UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IS MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SUCH REGULATIONS:

1. THAT THE MEMBER HAS ENGAGED IN, ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE IN, OR SOLICITED ANOTHER TO ENGAGE IN A HOMOSEXUAL ACT OR ACTS UNLESS THERE ARE FURTHER FINDINGS, MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SUCH REGULATIONS, THAT THE MEMBER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT-

(A) SUCH CONDUCT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE MEMBER'S USUAL AND CUSTOMARY BEHAVIOR;

(B) SUCH CONDUCT, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS UNLIKELY TO RECUR;

(C) SUCH CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF FORCE, COERCION, OR INTIMIDATION;

(D) UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MEMBER'S CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE ARMED FORCES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN PROPER DISCIPLINE, GOOD ORDER, AND MORALE; AND

(E) THE MEMBER DOES NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY OR INTENT TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

2. THAT THE MEMBER HAS STATED THAT HE OR SHE IS A HOMOSEXUAL OR BISEXUAL, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, UNLESS THERE IS A FURTHER FINDING, MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE REGULATIONS, THAT THE MEMBER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT A PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN, ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE IN, HAS A PROPENSITY TO ENGAGE IN, OR INTENDS TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

3.THAT THE MEMBER HAS MARRIED OR ATTEMPTED TO MARRY A PERSON KNOWN TO BE OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL SEX. (3)

Clearly, the military is concerned about the sexual distraction. Allowing homosexuals to be open about their sexuality is definitely a possible problem, one that is not worth experimenting with.

Please note that another question that must be asked is can homosexuals control their sexuality? Whether or not marriage is the reason why, promiscuity among homosexuals is at an extraordinarily high rate, much higher than any other minority besides prostitution (which by the way is not good). This being so, the question that must be asked is if homosexuals pose more of a distraction (and possibly a threat) then women do in joining men’s divisions. I believe they do.


1. Nelson, Terri Spahr For Love of Country: Confronting Rape and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military
2. Bowden, Mark Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, pg. 184-185.
3. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/dontasklaw.html, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue:
Text of the Policy, 1993 S. 1337; SEPTEMBER 16, 1993

[The Duke]

Its important to cut down on sexual activity between soldiers, but now that we have women in the military, keeping gays out doesn't solve the problem of sex in military.  Only discipline does that.

[Brambila]

Women and men are separated, thus no distraction exists (except when men and women are in the same camps or barracks, which I disagree with). Men and women can be separated to successfully end sexual distractions. However, homosexuals cannot.

[Nym90]

Nym,

Your choice is this: homosexuals can either join a male division or a female division. If they join a male division, it will be equivalent a man joining a woman’s division, which can cause various problems. The man would be subject to constantly having sexual distractions. It would ludicrous to say he wouldn’t, and I don’t care  how your gay friends act, as if they truly act normal they are either lying or are not gay. The truth of the matter is, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, and if they are in a position where they are very close to the person of the same sex, they WILL be tempted, exactly like how a man in a woman’s division would act. Now, if the gay man joins the women’s division, then he will cause the same distraction among the women.

As a matter of fact, we already know that putting women in men’s divisions is wrong. Even when women are in the same campgrounds, problems have arisen. Rape for women in the military has increased in the last few years. In one year alone, 9% of women in the marines were victims of rape, along with 8% in the Army and 6% in the Navy (1). We know from this that men in the military are of course VERY sexually active. I’ve been a book about a 1993 US military invasion of Mogadishu, and in it the author wrote that the soldiers were very open about masturbation, and it wasn’t always taken humorously (2). Soldiers are young and therefore most sexually active, so putting ANY sort of sexual reminders are huge distractions to their duties.

Rape does exist among homosexuals about the same rate as heterosexuals. Sure, men are strong, but some men are stronger than others. Likewise, some women are stronger than men. Your point is irrelevant. I honestly don’t care if you think you could beat up a homosexual, I’m sure there are plenty of homosexuals out there who could beat up a soldier, especially after training.

Question, Nym: Can you honestly say you would not be distracted if you were serving in a division, showering with, and spending your time 24/7 with a bunch of really sweaty, athletic, sexy women?

I’d like to quote what the military says about the “Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy.



1. (B) POLICY. -A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE ARMED FORCES UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IS MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SUCH REGULATIONS:

1. THAT THE MEMBER HAS ENGAGED IN, ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE IN, OR SOLICITED ANOTHER TO ENGAGE IN A HOMOSEXUAL ACT OR ACTS UNLESS THERE ARE FURTHER FINDINGS, MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SUCH REGULATIONS, THAT THE MEMBER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT-

(A) SUCH CONDUCT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE MEMBER'S USUAL AND CUSTOMARY BEHAVIOR;

(B) SUCH CONDUCT, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS UNLIKELY TO RECUR;

(C) SUCH CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF FORCE, COERCION, OR INTIMIDATION;

(D) UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MEMBER'S CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE ARMED FORCES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN PROPER DISCIPLINE, GOOD ORDER, AND MORALE; AND

(E) THE MEMBER DOES NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY OR INTENT TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

2. THAT THE MEMBER HAS STATED THAT HE OR SHE IS A HOMOSEXUAL OR BISEXUAL, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, UNLESS THERE IS A FURTHER FINDING, MADE AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE REGULATIONS, THAT THE MEMBER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT A PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN, ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE IN, HAS A PROPENSITY TO ENGAGE IN, OR INTENDS TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.

3.THAT THE MEMBER HAS MARRIED OR ATTEMPTED TO MARRY A PERSON KNOWN TO BE OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL SEX. (3)

Clearly, the military is concerned about the sexual distraction. Allowing homosexuals to be open about their sexuality is definitely a possible problem, one that is not worth experimenting with.

Please note that another question that must be asked is can homosexuals control their sexuality? Whether or not marriage is the reason why, promiscuity among homosexuals is at an extraordinarily high rate, much higher than any other minority besides prostitution (which by the way is not good). This being so, the question that must be asked is if homosexuals pose more of a distraction (and possibly a threat) then women do in joining men’s divisions. I believe they do.


1. Nelson, Terri Spahr For Love of Country: Confronting Rape and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military
2. Bowden, Mark Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, pg. 184-185.
3. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/dontasklaw.html, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue:
Text of the Policy, 1993 S. 1337; SEPTEMBER 16, 1993

Well, we have very different levels of trust for people who choose to join the military. I trust them to behave themselves, and if they aren't doing so, I trust their superiors to toss them out. You don't. I'm sorry, but I know my own friends better than you do, and no matter what you think, you can't know for sure how they think or act.

As for your question, for one, I would never sign up for the military; I trust that someone who would, however, can keep those desires in check, and if they can't, they should be thrown out. I would support myself getting fired from any job (not just military) if sexual distractions were keeping me from doing my job.

Sure, I'd be distracted, but if I was at work, I'd keep my mind enough on work so as not to allow it to degrade my job performance. I trust that others would do the same, or, like I said, they should and would be fired.

[Brambila]

The problem with your “trust” philosophy is that it doesn’t prevent these events from happening. It’s a given that after women are raped the men are punished and kicked out, but that’s not the issue. My problem with allowing homosexuals is that it gives the military a higher risk of committing these crimes. You can say all you want about how you trust that some people will be able to keep their sexual desires “in check”, but the problem is that it’s simply not possible. Unless you’re asexual, men WILL be distracted should women join their regiments, and similarly homosexuals will be distracted if they join the military. I want to prevent these crimes, and punishing offenders alone doesn’t solve anything.

Secondly, it isn’t a question about being distracted. I don’t think you understand the philosophy of the military- it isn’t just a job that you’re doing. Crimes committing in the military affects everyone. The entire basis of the military is teamwork, and if you’re going to allow these possibilities in the military, you’re affecting the surrounding soldiers, the objectives, and ultimately the security of our nation. If you honestly believe these issues can be solved by “Firing” soldiers who do misconduct, you’re kidding yourself.

[Nym90]

The problem with your “trust” philosophy is that it doesn’t prevent these events from happening. It’s a given that after women are raped the men are punished and kicked out, but that’s not the issue. My problem with allowing homosexuals is that it gives the military a higher risk of committing these crimes. You can say all you want about how you trust that some people will be able to keep their sexual desires “in check”, but the problem is that it’s simply not possible. Unless you’re asexual, men WILL be distracted should women join their regiments, and similarly homosexuals will be distracted if they join the military. I want to prevent these crimes, and punishing offenders alone doesn’t solve anything.

Secondly, it isn’t a question about being distracted. I don’t think you understand the philosophy of the military- it isn’t just a job that you’re doing. Crimes committing in the military affects everyone. The entire basis of the military is teamwork, and if you’re going to allow these possibilities in the military, you’re affecting the surrounding soldiers, the objectives, and ultimately the security of our nation. If you honestly believe these issues can be solved by “Firing” soldiers who do misconduct, you’re kidding yourself.

I see your point, but I don't think that it is a wide spread enough problem to warrant as drastic an action as not allowing gays to serve. I think that the military is best served by allowing everyone to serve who wants to, as long as there is no direct evidence that they will break the rules (and being gay isn't enough evidence in and of itself). In order to get the strongest possible military, we should allow everyone in who wants to be in, and then prosecute the very few who will behave badly. The percentage who will cause a problem are so small that it isn't worth denying the great majority the ability to serve openly just because of a few. It would do the military more harm than good.

[Brambila]

Nym, you still arn't getting this. Putting gays in the military is committing the same crime as putting women in men's divisions. The problem is that there is a huge distraction because you're with somebody you're sexually attracted to. I'm sorry, gays cannot have the same relationships with guys as straight guys do, as guys automatically become sexual object to them.

[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.

[Brambila]

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.

[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.

[Brambila]

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.

[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?

[Brambila]

"...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.

For the locker room problem, I have another question: Should we then allow men and women to share locker rooms? For that matter, should we allow men and women in colleges and high schools to share locker rooms?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, they can find out many times. Now if the soldier wants a new life and so joins the military, alright, he can. But you can't argue that my support of the "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy is inconsistent with my views, as it's not.

I completely disagree with your prostitution view. It's absolutely horrible for their morale, as they will feel guilt and depression from knowing the fact that the person they slept with doesn't really care for them. Sexual occurances with prostitutes is an emotional lie, and a physical pleasure. Soldiers arn't going to desert if they don't have prostitutes. That's just silly.

[A18]

Yes, we should allow high schools to share locker rooms