kojikun wrote:Nah not at all. I don't know about "our" military, cause you're in canada im not (much to my dismay) so i cant say for you. But the american military guys who cant handle being hit on by other guys have issues. They shouldnt be defending a country if they cant live in it.
No one's saying that the present situation is ideal. But to go from "could be better" to "none of them should remain in the military" is simply nuts. Unless you have a better military to replace this one with, you're just talking out of your ass.
Oh theyre fine at killing, but that doesnt mean that theyre the right stuff. Theres more to it then just being willing to fight, you have to be fighting for a better result, you have to fight for something worth fighting for, and in that is a future where people arent so anal retentive. tho thats my ideal, as well as my definition of right stuff.
The best soldier is the one who is best-trained and most willing to do what it takes to defend his country. He is not necessarily the best member of society, although it would be nice if he could be both. There was once a university professor who responded to the question of why he didn't enlist with the curt retort: "Madam, I am the civilization they are fighting to defend". That's the crux of it: society needs its stuffy intellectuals and high-minded social progressives in order to move forward, but those people should not be in the military for myriad reasons.
Or, to put it another way, as Gene Hackman said in a movie once: "We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it". The conduct of a military is not like the conduct of the civilian state that it serves, and its performance would suffer if it were.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:No one's saying that the present situation is ideal. But to go from "could be better" to "none of them should remain in the military" is simply nuts. Unless you have a better military to replace this one with, you're just talking out of your ass.
I didnt say they shouldnt remain in the military. Just that theyre not what I'd like.
The best soldier is the one who is best-trained and most willing to do what it takes to defend his country. He is not necessarily the best member of society, although it would be nice if he could be both. There was once a university professor who responded to the question of why he didn't enlist with the curt retort: "Madam, I am the civilization they are fighting to defend". That's the crux of it: society needs its stuffy intellectuals and high-minded social progressives in order to move forward, but those people should not be in the military for myriad reasons.
Some, yeah, but not all. Others would be really good fighters because they have purpose behind their fighting.
Or, to put it another way, as Gene Hackman said in a movie once: "We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it". The conduct of a military is not like the conduct of the civilian state that it serves, and its performance would suffer if it were.
True enough, acting like civvies would be bad, but that doesnt mean they have to be silly tossers about something so tiny as being hit on. I can understand being pissed if he doesnt stop when you ask but i mean sheesh, some guys just get really freaked out.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
kojikun wrote:Some, yeah, but not all. Others would be really good fighters because they have purpose behind their fighting.
That has little to do with it. I've never been in combat, nor have I been a soldier, so we are equally devoid of personal experience in this regard. However, I have read enough literature about the subject to know that according to soldiers themselves, a soldier's war-fighting capability is most directly related to his training, not his intellectual motivations. In fact, it is said that intellectual motivations pretty much go out the window as soon as the bullets start flying. More importantly, a soldier must often do things which an intellectual would find very disturbing, such as gunning down a mother carrying her baby because she's pointing an assault rifle at him. Ugly choice, I know, but it happened in Mogadishu and it could happen again.
True enough, acting like civvies would be bad, but that doesnt mean they have to be silly tossers about something so tiny as being hit on. I can understand being pissed if he doesnt stop when you ask but i mean sheesh, some guys just get really freaked out.
The macho culture is part of the military, and I'm not sure what sort of culture you'd replace it with, at least in the near term.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Thirdfain wrote:I don't think it's a good idea to have troops on the field with romantic attachments, be they two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Sex is often surrounded by a corona of jealousy.
but men and women love each other too and can fall in love, by that logic we'd have to have sexually segregated armed forces, a men's army and a woman's army, etc. I have a friend who met his wife in the army.
Just because men in the military are not comfortable with homosexuals means thay shouldn't be defending the country?
First, they/we signed our enlistment forms and took an oath to defend this country, that means the people in, all of them. even the ones we dont agree with. I don't like the fact that some of the people in my country are illegal imigrants that abuse the system. But they are in the nation that I am sworn to defend and I will do so.
Second. What makes people opposed to homosexuality automaticly wrong? Just because that opinion is somewhat unpopular in the main stream cultrure is no reason to discount it. Homosexuals of all people, should be tolerant of diffirent opinions.
Zed Snardbody wrote:Second. What makes people opposed to homosexuality automaticly wrong? Just because that opinion is somewhat unpopular in the main stream cultrure is no reason to discount it.
You just wandered into official "he's full of shit" territory. Much like wandering into a minefield, it's best to carefully trace your steps back out of there.
You are implying that the only argument against homophobia is an appeal to popularity. This is blatantly false. People who "oppose homosexuality" do so by claiming that it is immoral. However, homosexuality does not cause objective harm to anyone, therefore it is not immoral under any scheme of morality based on objective reality. It would be impossible for you to browse this forum for any period of time and not recognize that there are more arguments against homophobia than mere appeals to popularity (which are false anyway; the mainstream in America is quite strongly opposed to homosexuality, as we are seeing now with the "backlash" against gays getting the right to have sex in their own bedrooms without being arrested).
Homosexuals of all people, should be tolerant of diffirent opinions.
"Tolerant" does not mean "refuse to criticize an idea which has no grounding in logic or observation".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Agreed. Its just the motivations behind fighting should be good, as should the people doing the fighting. If you're a racist pig, you shouldn't be fighting for a nation that prides itself on all men being created equal.
The macho culture is part of the military, and I'm not sure what sort of culture you'd replace it with, at least in the near term.
The macho culture is fine, I'd just replace it with a macho culture that isn't prejudiced or riddled with psychological deficiencies such as uneasiness around gay guys because they MIGHT hit on you. thats typical macho straight male bullshit, because they womanize just as much as gay guys "manize". difference is that straight macho men like feeling like theyre masculine, and being hit on by another guy is emasculating because its like youre just a piece of meat, youre like a woman. Theyre projecting, to some extent, their own demimisogenistic tendencies onto other guys unjustly. Tho i understand fully if theyre being HARRASSED despite repeated requests to stop. thats not uneasiness, thats irritation.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
Your right. What I was trying to say is that some people are opposed to homosexuality for what ever reason and that homosexuals need to respect that to a point. I add in to a point for a reason, no one should be made to bend over backwards to accommodate anyone, but every one deserves a level of respect. Most people against homosexuality are not out preaching about the evils of that life style, they sit by quietly and elect not to be in situations where they are exposed to that which they find offensive. Homosexuals need to realize that there choice is not everyone's and most people really couldn't care less and resent the fact that they are being made to deal with it. Reversely gays should not be required to feel that they need to hide their lifestyle.
In the case of the military we see a diverse cross section of America (My apologize to foreign posters, I don't know how your armed forces work). You have liberals, conservatives, even a few die hard socialists. What they have in common is a certain expectation of what they will find. Large, loud DI's, hard work, respect, things to blow up. They also expect a level of comfort. Food, a rack, and an environment where certain concerns are lifted. The soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have joined the armed forces to serve there nation. They did not join to help advance the equal rights movement of a segment of American society that they do not necessarily understand or agree with. They didn't join so that the public could observe the social and political ramifications of open gay integration into a closed and sperate culture that has no desire to include these people, nor does it have any desire to exclude them. They simply want to be left alone, to do there job and not be forced to wonder if their squad mate is harboring romantic thoughts about them.
Personal friends mostly. Bi sexuals make one wonder about the issue also. Though not being gay, I'm not in a hurry to debate this point considering it would be ery hard to prove or disprove since I'm a breader.
Zed Snardbody wrote:Personal friends mostly. Bi sexuals make one wonder about the issue also. Though not being gay, I'm not in a hurry to debate this point considering it would be ery hard to prove or disprove since I'm a breader.
I believe that bisexuals outnumber people that are "purely" gay, and straight.
Even if homosexuality is not genetic/hormonal it cannot be called a "lifestyle", because that implies some sort of choice in the matter, which would be illogical considering the vast negative consequences it has. The term "cultural dictate" would be more appropriate, implying that homosexuality would come about due to socio-cultural influences either creating the homosexual nature or opposition to the socio-cultural influences creating the homosexual nature. That would be an entirely subconscious occurance very early in life--and, considering the history of human sex and its secondary purpose as a social bonding function, probably derived from a bisexual base norm, not a heterosexual base norm.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
kojikun wrote:The macho culture is fine, I'd just replace it with a macho culture that isn't prejudiced or riddled with psychological deficiencies such as uneasiness around gay guys because they MIGHT hit on you. thats typical macho straight male bullshit, because they womanize just as much as gay guys "manize". difference is that straight macho men like feeling like theyre masculine, and being hit on by another guy is emasculating because its like youre just a piece of meat, youre like a woman. Theyre projecting, to some extent, their own demimisogenistic tendencies onto other guys unjustly. Tho i understand fully if theyre being HARRASSED despite repeated requests to stop. thats not uneasiness, thats irritation.
What a load of shit. You ever consider they just don't want guys hitting on them for the sake of it? A woman wouldn't want close contact with a guy eyeing her up or hitting on her. It has nothing to do with your bullshit phsycobabble and everything to do with not wanting close contact with homosexuals.
Your right. What I was trying to say is that some people are opposed to homosexuality for what ever reason and that homosexuals need to respect that to a point. I add in to a point for a reason, no one should be made to bend over backwards to accommodate anyone, but every one deserves a level of respect. Most people against homosexuality are not out preaching about the evils of that life style, they sit by quietly and elect not to be in situations where they are exposed to that which they find offensive. Homosexuals need to realize that there choice is not everyone's and most people really couldn't care less and resent the fact that they are being made to deal with it. Reversely gays should not be required to feel that they need to hide their lifestyle.
In the case of the military we see a diverse cross section of America (My apologize to foreign posters, I don't know how your armed forces work). You have liberals, conservatives, even a few die hard socialists. What they have in common is a certain expectation of what they will find. Large, loud DI's, hard work, respect, things to blow up. They also expect a level of comfort. Food, a rack, and an environment where certain concerns are lifted. The soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have joined the armed forces to serve there nation. They did not join to help advance the equal rights movement of a segment of American society that they do not necessarily understand or agree with. They didn't join so that the public could observe the social and political ramifications of open gay integration into a closed and sperate culture that has no desire to include these people, nor does it have any desire to exclude them. They simply want to be left alone, to do there job and not be forced to wonder if their squad mate is harboring romantic thoughts about them.
on a sidenote, I think I shall replace 'gay' with 'black' for most of that paragraph. you get the same posts done in the 40s and 50s.
regardless of whether individual officers dont want them, discrimination is not the american ideal.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
Just a little something to add, on how gays are kicked out of the military.
There is nothing any place that says "you cannot be a homosexual".
Straight and gay are subject to the same rules, and these rules include UCMJ article 125, sodomy.
Technically a hetrosexual solider can get kicked out for getting caught getting a blow job, or having anal intercourse, sometimes they do depending on circumstances.
PS a unit I was in, there was a guy, which was a had many sexual harrasment cases against him, and once he mention about getting a BJ, and that was brought up in the case, he admitted to it, and it to fell into the "don't ask don't tell" policy of sodomy, and thats how he got kicked out.
I am sure if a homosexual really wanted to challenge the system, they could be openly gay, but at the sametime having to for go any relationship that showed PDA, or sodomy. I believe everyone would be watching him/her like a hawk.
So the rules do apply to everyone, but they are much more forgiving with hetrosexual sodomy, and not as many people report it. Plus the average soilder does not go around saying he/she is straight either.
One more thing. This is how the military gets around the whole issue. Why should they give one group special privillages, when it actually applies to everyone.
Stormbringer wrote:What a load of shit. You ever consider they just don't want guys hitting on them for the sake of it? A woman wouldn't want close contact with a guy eyeing her up or hitting on her. It has nothing to do with your bullshit phsycobabble and everything to do with not wanting close contact with homosexuals.
Uh, chill? I said if theyre just uncomfortable with it and want it to stop thats no uneasiness but irritation. If theyre hit on once, and are really freaked out by it, thats mre then just "for the sake of it". My "psychobabble", as you so call it, is more then just a load of shit, because if you ask the guys and actually delve down into why they dont like being hit on by other guys, its not just "for the sake of it", its because something about it disturbs them. if it DIDNT disturb them, they'd have no problem with it, would they?
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
The Yosemite Bear wrote:I find the whole military/conservative standpoint totally ignorant of history....
pop quiz
TE Lawrence
Alexander of Macedonia
Walt Witman
besides military service what did these men have in common.
ceaser, too, iirc. and the spartans.
the ancient world was such fun.
and, Im mildly sure admitting homosexuality means a discharge.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
Enforcer Talen wrote:
and, Im mildly sure admitting homosexuality means a discharge.
The one guy I knew who admiting being gay while in the Navy was investigated before they discharged him. They interviewed old boyfriends etc... to make sure that he really was gay and that he wasn't just saying that to get out. I don't know what kind of discharge he got. I didn't know him that well. IIRC he was an Electronics Technician in our department.
I don't know if it's been mentioned but the US military often sees homesexuals as security risks if they are in positions that expose them to classified material. The idea is that homosexuals are more open to blackmail than non-homosexuals and thus more vulnerable to someone forcing them to reveal classified information.
I don't know that they've ever backed this up. All the cases of spying that I've heard of none of them ever mentioned the person being homosexual. That hasn't stopped the US military from trying to pin stuff on people by saying they were gay, like in the case of the USS Iowa explosion.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
But the american military guys who cant handle being hit on by other guys have issues. They shouldnt be defending a country if they cant live in it.
