Rick Perry's new campaign ad unleashes a blast of homophobia

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying I agree with his argument, but nowhere did he say he thought gays would attack anyone. Your arguments will be more credible if you don't strawman, Connor.

And he's right in that the military does segregate people in barracks due to sexuality, ie men and women.

You can't fucking segregate gays and lesbians by sexuality unless you give them their own individual rooms or make it so that there's one gay guy and one lesbian to a room, and giving bisexuals individual rooms. So that part of his argument is literally nonsense, and is stupid anyways- I'm going to bet that anybody who looks on the military as some sort of live porno is going to be washed out fairly quickly, and if they aren't, that's not something that you can resolve with discrimination, but rather with having actual standards.

Also, what exactly do you think "breaches of discipline" means, in that context? Unauthorized card games? Alcohol on duty?

Okay, let me be clear: I don't think its a good idea. I'm not going to be defending the idea of sepperating gays in barracks, and if you suggest that I am, I will treat that lie, and the liar who says it, with all the respect they deserve.

As for what "breaches of discipline" means, I'm not sure what kind of sexual behaviour in the armed forces constitutes a breach of discipline, but I'm betting the list is probably more extensive than just "sexual assault". Maybe Chocula meant what you apparently think he means. But I don't think its obvious enough to justify making that assumption.

[Connor MacLeod]

To Chocula: How is that any better? Fine I'll happily recant the 'attack in a frenzy of sexual lust' bit. I admit I was exaggerating in a fit of extreme sarcasm over my utter disbelief you could be saying all this with a straight face. I'll replace it with 'I can't belive you think gays would be so lacking in self control that they couldn't respect the personal spaces of other men." or something. I mean really, "lustful glances?" You think that sort of shit is going to be likely and they're going to be so blatantly obvious?

More to the point, even if it DId happen, why the hell is the assumption that the straight guy is going to jump to physical assault? I guess they're lacking in self control as well, and if the moron were dumb enough to launch an assault over that, then he ought to be punished for assaulting a fellow soldier (I'd assume that if assault came up in any other context, that is what would happen.) Frankly it comes off as you wanting to punish gays and lesbians (sorry I probably should be specifying both like Bakustra is.) because they might cause a scene.

[Bakustra]

Try looking at the post just above you, where he defines it as "gay dude checks out straight dude, fight breaks out", as compared to among gay guys, where this will not happen because all gay guys are OK with being checked out... and the reasonable solution is segregated units, rather than sexual harassment prevention courses, cracking down on bullshit, and providing people with the training necessary to cope with getting checked out by people, all of which are tools already in use by the military to deal with the relatively rare cases where this would occur.

[Connor MacLeod]

And on top of that I'm still trying to figure out why gays and lesbians putting their lives on the line for a country that treats them as second class citizens is a form of unfair favoritism, while allowing Christians to invade schools is 'fair and just.'

Edit: Lets try and see if we can put this in another context. Would it be appropriate to segregate by racial traits because someone might be racist? That could lead to 'lapses of discipline and order' too.

[Bakustra]

And on top of that I'm still trying to figure out why gays and lesbians putting their lives on the line for a country that treats them as second class citizens is a form of unfair favoritism, while allowing Christians to invade schools is 'fair and just.'

It's not "invasion" to Perry, it's reinstatement, because this is a Christian country and nobody really could object to Christian prayer in the classroom and Christian peer pressure on Muslim kids who pray at specific times of the day and the Ten Commandments being taught as the basis of American law. Unless they're atheists, who just try to ruin America for everybody with their ACLUs.

And they're not putting their lives on the line for America, they're just trying to infiltrate the military to render it limp-wristed and gross, if political cartoonists who liked Perry are any indication.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's not "invasion" to Perry, it's reinstatement, because this is a Christian country and nobody really could object to Christian prayer in the classroom and Christian peer pressure on Muslim kids who pray at specific times of the day and the Ten Commandments being taught as the basis of American law. Unless they're atheists, who just try to ruin America for everybody with their ACLUs.

Yeah. I noticed he doesn't really come out and say "Christian" directly, but it's not really fooling anyone in context. I mean what else can he be referring to when he says 'religious heritage?'

And they're not putting their lives on the line for America, they're just trying to infiltrate the military to render it limp-wristed and gross, if political cartoonists who liked Perry are any indication.

.. really? I've never seen those, but it sounds incredibly retarded.

[Count Chocula]

How are a straight man and a gay man side-by-side in a barracks or shower any different from a straight man and a straight woman side-by-side in a barracks or shower? Aside from only one party being interested...oh wait, that's probably the case in most instances! What I am contending is that there will tend to be more tension and more fights in male barracks where there are straight and homosexual men. If you add to that an assumption that the homosexuals will be an evenly distributed minority, you'll have 2 or 3 out of 100 guys who WILL be the main targets of hazing, dumb soldier boys being boys. It's not right or just, but it will happen. Picking on the minority is a common human practice, after all.

Combat changes attitudes rapidly, as does any shared adversity, but in my experience combat is a rare thing for most soldiers...which brings us back to garrison and training. What would you rather have in your armed forces: two or three out of 100 gay men who are mocked by their compatriots, or a battalion of gay men who are comfortable with each other and have esprit de corps?

I'm dyin' here, and don't know if I'm wayyy off base. Einie, Alyrium, somebody, chime in!

[Connor MacLeod]

So like I said are you saying it woudl be equally justified to separate by race just becuase someone in the group might be racist and it leads to confrontations or altercations? What about sexism? Religious intolerance? If we're going to start splitting up groups because someone might be intolerant towards them you're going to end up having alot of problems and 'discipline and unity' is going to go way out the window.

And while we're on the subject of separating men and women, yeah that is segregation too and it seems like its done for silly reasons. America has those puritanical attitudes that can influence thse things after all.

Now that I'm thinking about it, how do countries outside of America handle different genders or sexual orientations in their militaries? Do they segregate or is everyone serving together? Do they shower together too? Something tells me at least some other countries handle it differnetly from America. (edit: Fuck, why didn't I think of asking this before!)

[Connor MacLeod]

Well in any case I did a quick search around the net adn found this study from Canada, and it touches on the issue.

* Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

Now, this is one example and it may not be conclusive by itself, but it suggests to me that letting gays and lesbians share the same barracks with straight folk is not going to lead to all out conflict.

[Count Chocula]

So like I said are you saying it woudl be equally justified to separate by race just becuase someone in the group might be racist and it leads to confrontations or altercations? What about sexism? Religious intolerance? If we're going to start splitting up groups because someone might be intolerant towards them you're going to end up having alot of problems and 'discipline and unity' is going to go way out the window.

No, I'm not saying that and it's a bad analogy. Racism is prejudice based on cultural bias, differences in appearance, and perceptions of the others' inferiority. The armed forces integrated decades ago. Sexism? WTF are you trying to say here? Men and women already have separate quarters on military bases, and women have less physically demanding MOSs because they are physically less capable. Is acknowledging that difference sexist? And religious intolerance? Really? Now you're just being absurd.

[Bakustra]

So like I said are you saying it woudl be equally justified to separate by race just becuase someone in the group might be racist and it leads to confrontations or altercations? What about sexism? Religious intolerance? If we're going to start splitting up groups because someone might be intolerant towards them you're going to end up having alot of problems and 'discipline and unity' is going to go way out the window.

No, I'm not saying that and it's a bad analogy. Racism is prejudice based on cultural bias, differences in appearance, and perceptions of the others' inferiority. The armed forces integrated decades ago. Sexism? WTF are you trying to say here? Men and women already have separate quarters on military bases, and women have less physically demanding MOSs because they are physically less capable. Is acknowledging that difference sexist? And religious intolerance? Really? Now you're just being absurd.

All of those groups faced harassment and hazing (women still face a shitload of it), and yet they were integrated, and men and women serve in the same units, and so there's no real ground to stand on. None.

[Connor MacLeod]

No, I'm not saying that and it's a bad analogy.

How? You're claiming gay and lesbian soldiers have to be separated from teh straights because it might lead to conflicts. How is that different pray tell?

Racism is prejudice based on cultural bias, differences in appearance, and perceptions of the others' inferiority.

And a straight guy punching out someone because he might have looked at him naked isn't a prejudice? I certainly wouldn't call it a 'natural and reasonable reaction'

The armed forces integrated decades ago. Sexism? WTF are you trying to say here? Men and women already have separate quarters n military bases, and women have less physically demanding MOSs because they are physically less capable. Is acknowledging that difference sexist?

I'll at least concede this one because I dont think it will go anywhere and I don't feel a need to argue it, especially since your premise is essentially an overreaction to begin with.

And religious intolerance? Really? Now you're just being absurd.

Oh right. I guess we ended religious intolerance in america long ago, or something. It's not like the Muslims ever face harassment or anything right?

[Count Chocula]

Oh right. I guess we ended religious intolerance in america long ago, or something. It's not like the Muslims ever face harassment or anything right?

Why yes, yes they do. I wonder why?








EDIT: Let's just say that Muslims in America get treated with more suspicion and skepticism because of the various bombings, beheadings, honor killings, and other unpleasantness perpetrated by others of their faith and justified by them by their faith. Nobody gave a shit that Tim McVeigh was Christian or not, he didn't cite the Bible as justification...and 8-10% of Christians don't support terrorism. Unlike the other white meat.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm sorry are you making an argument or are you just changing the subject to avoid addressing me? Kinda hard to tell because you decided to post a bunch of pictures and then snip the rest of my argument. I certainly wouldnt want to be accused of strawmanning you or something. Again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh right. I guess we ended religious intolerance in america long ago, or something. It's not like the Muslims ever face harassment or anything right?

Why yes, yes they do. I wonder why?

So, let me get this straight? Harassment of Muslims is justified because a small number of them have committed terrorist attacks?

Yup, you're a bigot.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well at least I can be sure I'm not strawmanning him if I think that.

surfing around again it does look like Muslims are facing increased discrimintation In America even a decade after 9/11. But some terrorists are muslims so I guess that's justified. just like all the military injustices the Iraqi's suffered were justified or something. I'm pretty sure there were a few.

It also turns out there's been at least a few cases where the possibility of racism turned up here and here.

Again I'll hardly call it conclusive, but I would say there's definitely reason to think racism AND religious intolerance are potentially divisive issues in the military, just like sexual orientation is supposed to be if we believe Chocula (even though the Canadian military at least has tried it and doesnt seem to have any problems. But hey, I'm sure America would be different!)

[Count Chocula]

I addressed your last sentence, you know, the rhetorical Muslims don't get harassed *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

On to the others:

Count Chocula wrote:
No, I'm not saying that and it's a bad analogy.


How? You're claiming gay and lesbian soldiers have to be separated from teh straights because it might lead to conflicts. How is that different pray tell?

Racism can be, and has been, overcome by education. Sexual urges are biological and more deep-seated imperatives, and thus much less likely to be overcome by sensitivity training. Tolerance can be and has been taught, but that's not the same thing as acceptance.

And a straight guy punching out someone because he might have looked at him naked isn't a prejudice? I certainly wouldn't call it a 'natural and reasonable reaction'

I've seen lots of naked men and boys, gym class and working out will do that, but there's a difference between looking and lusting. Don't fucking split hairs. A straight guy won't punch a gay guy for just looking...any more than a girl would get pissed if you looked at her. Staring, however, is a different matter, and a young gay guy has just as much control over his sexual urges as a young straight guy...not much. You're welcome, I've provided your post proper context.

[Connor MacLeod]

I addressed your last sentence, you know, the rhetorical Muslims don't get harassed *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

No you just did a random picture spam which apparently means that the Muslims earned their discrimination for associating iwth terrorists.

On to the others:
Racism can be, and has been, overcome by education. Sexual urges are biological and more deep-seated imperatives, and thus much less likely to be overcome by sensitivity training. Tolerance can be and has been taught, but that's not the same thing as acceptance.

What, gays and lesbians are completely lacking the ability to control their urges or something? I'll note this still doesn't explain how your 'lustful glances' are more prone to conflict than racism or religious bigotry.

I've seen lots of naked men and boys, gym class and working out will do that, but there's a difference between looking and lusting. Don't fucking split hairs. A straight guy won't punch a gay guy for just looking...any more than a girl would get pissed if you looked at her. Staring, however, is a different matter, and a young gay guy has just as much control over his sexual urges as a young straight guy...not much. You're welcome, I've provided your post proper context.

So again, gays and lesbians apparently are lacking in any sort of self control or tact I guess. Either that or you're just making arguments on baseless fears.

[Count Chocula]

So, let me get this straight? Harassment of Muslims is justified because a small number of them have committed terrorist attacks?

Yup, you're a bigot.

I confirmed they face harassment. Not all of it is justified, but that "small number of them" have cast a shadow on the rest.

[bobalot]

You might think that's the message Chocula, and some people might see it that way but the take away for everyone else is "Rick Perry hates gay people". Which is surprising as Michelle Bachmann and Santorium have the "we hate gay people vote" locked up. It also implies that a Rick Perry administration would kick gays back out of the military.

It also has the simple problem of not being true, you can pray in schools and you can celebrate Christmas but you can't compel others to do so on school time which I guess equals Christian oppression.

Christians like Rick Perry equate not having special consideration as unbearable oppression. I suspect it also fulfils their ongoing fantasies of being the persecuted martyr.

And history repeats itself with Count Chocula fucking up another thread.

[Spoonist]

I don't even know where to start Chocula, but I'll give it a different approach than the other posters.

Instead of looking at a country where it doesn't work and look at what goes wrong why not look at other countries where it does work and see what they do right?
I know that most conservative americans doesn't realise that there is other countries but sometimes we'd like to remind them.

The argument in the countries where being gay and military isn't an issue and works the idea of seperated barracks and/or units where rejected precisely because it creates more problems than it solves. Which tends to be the same way they think about females in uniform as well.
From a military standpoint it's another unecessary level of complexity. Logistics is fucked for instance. Transfers a nightmare etc.
From a unit standpoint you want the unit to be a mix, when you have a selective filter of one-types that unit will be less effective and more likely to end up doing bad things because they cannot act outside of their cultural prejudice.
From a personal standpoint, its never good to be singled out/filtered out. This is true regardless of it being race/gender/creed/religion or sexual orientation. Each individual when joining the military want to be part of the 'team' anything that prevents that will be detrimentary to the effectiveness you can bring to the unit.

Then it just breaks down if you start doing rational thinking. If we seperate the blacks/gay, then what do we do with the mulattos/bisexuals? At what point do we stop seperating our soldiers by race/gender/creed/religion or sexual orientation? Much better, more effective and much much much easier to deal with individual ignorance with education (harsh if necessary) and bunch them all together.

[Todeswind]

Is there an army that houses its soldiers in coed barracks?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why is it creepy? Men and women in the armed forces live in separate barracks.

You just got done saying they should be put into separate companies and battalions. Someone in the military might have to correct me but that sounds awfully like you are claiming they should serve in separate military formations, not simply have different accomodations.

Of course, giving men and women separate accomodations could be seen as silly puritanism OMG MEN MIGHT SEE BOOBIES AND GET LUSTFUL THOUGHTS.

Admittedly, given the frequency of rape in Iraq, that is a pretty good line of thinking...

[Spoonist]

Is there an army that houses its soldiers in coed barracks?

Yes. Mostly the nordic and benelux countries.
Some seperate them during training and mix them in the field, others the vice versa.

I know that some of the danes and swedes have mixed camps in afghanistan. (I've two friends who met that way).
Couldn't find a nice english source for swedes but here is a danish one.
http://www.nato.int/ims/2001/win/denmark.htm

Back a decade and a half ago when I was in boot camp/basic training, then in my unit we had two females and they were asked where they wanted to sleep and by their own choice they bunked up with the rest of us to fit in. Then when we were in field training they got their own tent because we snored too much.
However I know that our officers on a semi-weekly basis asked them for signs of trouble and had a contingency plan if they wanted to bunk somewhere else.
We had some openly gay males as well in the division but not in my unit. Mostly they were in the closet though. Though statistically lesbians were more likely that gays.

I've seen lots of naked men and boys, gym class and working out will do that, but there's a difference between looking and lusting. Don't fucking split hairs. A straight guy won't punch a gay guy for just looking...any more than a girl would get pissed if you looked at her. Staring, however, is a different matter, and a young gay guy has just as much control over his sexual urges as a young straight guy...not much.

Now what I don't get is people like chocula who thinks that people in the closet doesn't develop skills to oogle without being overt. Its not like its a terribly difficult thing to do since "even" straight guys do it all the time. To me I'd much rather be oogled in the open than secretly because then I can react to it. But then I don't have a problem with my own sexuality so I'm less likely to be gay in denial.
Then compare the violence angle to the muslim veil thingie. Covering the women up leads to a society with more sexual harassment, not less. Seperating girls and boys into seperate high schools lead to more teenage pregnancies, not less. etc
That goes for you to Alyrium Denryle, its easier to get a military culture that prevents rape in a mixed environment if you do it right. Just like its easier to prevent racism in racially mixed units. However americans seem to be some kind of self proclaimed exception.

[Eleas]

Surprisingly, if you put up a fence, folks will put a lot of effort into ways of getting around it. The lure of the forbidden fruit and all that.

Thing is, comparisons made in this thread to historical racism is very much appropriate. In both cases, we have the flaming bigots who scream and hurl profanity-laced denunciations, but we also have the more moderate and/or tacitly bigoted people, which often form the majority segment. They are the guys who oppose transgressing against the status quo because "the kids will be shunned at school" / "this will only hurt the movement in the long run" / "you're blowing things out of proportion".

No matter how one chooses to present it, separate but equal and its ilk generally achieves the first at the cost of the second.