Stormbringer wrote:Of course it's all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals fault.
You're god damn fucking right it is. If people weren't so fucking afraid of homosexuals, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?
Nevermind that simple improper fraternizations and the problems it has caused for units morale. Never mind the numerous problems that are simply the result of socially awkward people. Never mind that most people as you aren't so comfortable as you about all thing sexual.
Ah yes, "Gays will fraternize with their comrades and destroy unit morale." How could I forget?
Yeah, any one that doesn't fit your mold must be a knuckle dragging asshole.
No, they're just ignorant, insecure assholes, and there's no reason why we should be catering to ignorant, insecure people. You know what will happen if the military allows "openly gay" people in tomorrow? Nothing. People will live with it.
And of course no guy would ever look at some one unavailable.
And no male soldier has ever given a once-over to a female soldier? Give me a fucking break. Women are allowed in the service, and it hasn't caused massive problems for morale, like you and your fellow doomsayers are predicting it would if "openly gay" people were suddenly allowed to serve.
And of course you're assuming that ever gay guy will never so much as look at another man unless he's riding a rubber phallus float singing YMCA.
See above, you fucking idiot.
I never said they shouldn't serve. In fact I've said quite the opposite. However as I said I think you're initial and ongoing assumption that any man that would find living in close quarters with a gay man (or for that matter a woman living with a lesbian) uncomfortable must be a knuckle dragging, homophobic asshole.
Bullshit. I said that this idiotic "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was the result of draconian homophobia by policymakers, and that's the fucking truth. You then turned it into "Well, people might feel uncomfortable living with someone who might be sexually attracted to them, so it'll damage morale."
That is what I labeled as homophobic. And wanna know why? Because
straight men in the service wouldn't give a flying fuck if women were living in their barracks. The
women might, but the men wouldn't start feeling uncomfortable or losing morale.
If a gay man, however, is living in their barracks, the men are suddenly uncomfortable, and
that is a homophobic attitude.
And of course all that integrating women in the military boiled down to was paranoid women fearing men's advances. Funny how there's continual problems with even innocent intentioned things like improper fraternization and all the consequences that brings.
Try and get the issue straight here. You're talking about
straight men's discomfort, so your analogy about integrating women simply does not apply here. Women were the ones
trying to get in, so they're more analogous to gays.
I don't expect all of them to advertise it. But then again if the only way to deal with it while in uniform is to hide it, we're right back at don't ask don't tell except they're still there with all the complications that entails.
Do you honestly not see the difference here? If the Army lets gay men in with full knowledge of their sexuality, then gays aren't
compelled to hide it for fear of being booted out. They may hide it for personal reasons, but at least they won't be discharged if it comes out.
And I said I never favor that. I just object to your moronic assumption that any one that has a problem with gays being forced into close quarters living with homosexuals is some knuckle dragging barbarian asshole.
Okay, so let's ask ourselves: Would it be "uncomfortable" for straight males to have women living in the same barracks as them? Probably not. It may be uncomfortable for the women, but that's because they're outsiders. Now, would it be uncomfortable for straight males to have a gay man living in their barracks? Why, yes! This notion of discomfort you're prattling on about is the result of being around a gay man. And that is what we call homophobia, and that is why I label it as the anti-progressive filth that it is.
And once again you're back to the assumption that the only reason a person would be uncomfortable around gays is because they're an asshole. Thank you for that brilliant example of simply repeating yourself.
No, the only reason someone would be uncomfortable around gays is because he's homophobic. That's the
only conceivable reason, because in every single other aspect, gays are identical to heterosexuals. This "Don't ask, don't tell" mess only proves my point. If a gay man was getting along just fine in a platoon, and then told a buddy that he was gay, that buddy suddenly starts getting uncomfortable.
That's because he's homophobic.
Oh wait, I wasn't aware that homosexual attraction was the result of being gay.
Of course sticking a gay man into a platoon of men is going to cause the problem! If you stuck a man into a platoon of women you'd get the same laundry list of problems: the root cause, he's hetro.
The difference between a man and a woman is far greater than the difference between a gay man and a straight man, you moron. Believe it or not, not all gays are flamers who participate in the gay pride parade. They act just like straight males.
And oh my god, we don't put a man in an all female barracks! And oh my god, we don't call females assholes because they have a problem with how some guys behave. And oh my god, we don't call women or men assholes when unit morale tanks because of he's sleeping with her, she's sleeping with him bullshit.
Putting a man in an all-women barracks is far different from putting a gay man in an all-straight-male barracks, and you know it. You're tying these two situations together with the tenuous thread that's possible sexual attraction, because that's the
only thing they have in common. In the former situation, the man
stands out visibly, behaves
differently and is of a
different gender. In the latter, the gay man does
not visibly stand out, does not necessarily behave differently and is the
same gender.
Yet if you replace woman with gay man, suddenly they're assholes.
See above. Your analogy is total bullshit.
And racial integration is mostly a problem of ignorant people.
The problem of human sexuality is one that far dwarfs that and might I remind you, simple hetrosexual relationships are still an ongoing headache for the military. Do you really think that trying to use the military to provide therapy is the best way to go about it?
Who said anything about therapy? I said we should
forcibly integrate the military, just like we did the South.
And if you'll note, I don't disagree. However I take issue with the notion that anyone that has a problem with living in close quarters with a homosexual is simply an asshole.
Anyone unit that collectively
suffers a morale loss from simply having a gay member probably
is full of assholes. They're homophobes. What's so hard about this to accept? Mild discomfort from possibly never having known a gay man before is expected, but
you're scenarios and arguments imply that the presence of a gay man in a unit will destroy morale.
