• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

if it is pressed after being asked not to, its harassment and the command can handle it.

Oh, I just meant like a sentence asking why the "I can't", which would be normal if they're disappointed.
 
It's a compliment, and should be treated as such.

That's the funny part. If a heterosexual man gets complimented or asked out by a woman it is considered a compliment. But if a homosexual guy said the same thing to a heterosexual guy it is "repulsive, gross, icky" etc etc. Its one big contradiction.
 
Maybe you wouldn't feel compelled to call people--who don't think exactly like you--bigots, if it weren't for your own bigotted mindset.
You obviously have no clue what bigotry means. Your support of bigoted policy proves you are. My dislike for any military as an organization is not singling out any individuals nor have any of my posts said that I have a particular disdain for those in military. Disliking an organization is far different than the directed bigotry that you are in favor of. So you may want to rethink that.
 
I got a better idea. Show us units from armies with open gay policies that have been trully tested in combat and performed superbly. You don't have any. I already know that. Because units with open gay policies haven't been in any real battled.

How 'bout those British sailors that were captured--correction--up-n-surrendered to the Iranians a few year ago? They did a fine job. Eh?
Just as I thought you have no links so your information is false. Thank you.
 
Being looked at and considered handsome/pretty by someone of the same gender while in the shower....thats really about it.

Edit: Oh and getting hit on by someone of the same gender. Of course I've never known a gay to hit on someone that they know is heterosexual so....
I don't think there is much chance that gays are going to run around hitting on straight people. I really don't think there will be much staring in the showers either. That idea is paranoid to the full. It's almost delusional in it's dimensions.
 
I don't think there is much chance that gays are going to run around hitting on straight people. I really don't think there will be much staring in the showers either. That idea is paranoid to the full. It's almost delusional in it's dimensions.

When I was young, I was told something very appropriate for this situation:

"hun, ain't no strait guy alive knows how to do for me what I need done. I will stick with gay guys who can make me tingle."
 
Even if they did, the standard response that everybody should know is "I'm flattered, but I can't." They probably won't press you, but if they do, just say either "I'm taken" or "I'm straight."

It's a compliment, and should be treated as such.

this isn't like your workplace. after this conversation is over, this person isn't going to say "oh, well, okay then" and go back to their cubicle. you are going to strip down naked for them so that they can check you for ticks. you will be sleeping with them tonight. there isn't any personal space.


i stick with my original point which is my only point here - which is that that reality means that the introduction of the natural barriers that come along with sexuality will reduce ease of intimacy and unit cohesion. those of you who want to say that recognizing that reality (that sexuality exists) makes one a bigot? go ahead. you are no better than that which you are accusing others of. enjoy your pretensions of superiority fed by a smug sense of the ability to depend upon emotion rather than reason.
 
Last edited:
this isn't like your workplace. the person who just hit on you is someone who will be in charge of stripping you down nekked and checking you for ticks and whom you will be sleeping with tonight. there isn't any personal space.


i stick with my original point which is my only point here - which is that that reality means that the introduction of the natural barriers that come along with sexuality will reduce ease of intimacy and unit cohesion.

Sleeping together in a foxhole or in seperate beds. They certainly won't be sleeping together having sex. Besides which if I'm in a foxhole I certainly wouldn't be caring about some dude checking me out. I'd be more worried about snipers or missiles or bullets.
 
Sleeping together in a foxhole or in seperate beds.

in a foxhole, in a ditch, in the same sleeping bag - it all depends on the weather. I used to have a boot (boot is a term used for "new guy" who hasn't deployed yet) called PK who was my designated blanket when it was cold and windy. nice, big, hairy, smelly, heavy blanket that I just pulled over me and went to sleep, two, or more, or all of us in a puppy pile. I probably cuddled another guy named Jimmy more than my wife during our first year of marriage - it was a winter training cycle, and damn how it rained All. The. Time.

They certainly won't be sleeping together having sex. Besides which if I'm in a foxhole I certainly wouldn't be caring about some dude checking me out. I'd be more worried about snipers or missiles or bullets.

guessing - you haven't spent alot of time in foxholes? even in a warzone, your time is 99.9% utter boredom; not rockets bursting o'er-head.
 
Last edited:
this isn't like your workplace. after this conversation is over, this person isn't going to say "oh, well, okay then" and go back to their cubicle. you are going to strip down naked for them so that they can check you for ticks. you will be sleeping with them tonight. there isn't any personal space.


i stick with my original point which is my only point here - which is that that reality means that the introduction of the natural barriers that come along with sexuality will reduce ease of intimacy and unit cohesion. those of you who want to say that recognizing that reality (that sexuality exists) makes one a bigot? go ahead. you are no better than that which you are accusing others of. enjoy your pretensions of superiority fed by a smug sense of the ability to depend upon emotion rather than reason.

But you are assuming that enough of the gay guys will harass the straight guys that this will be a problem. I really doubt that will happen. It is unlikely that any good soldier, including a gay soldier, would be willing to make his buddy feel uncomfortable like that while in that sort of situation, especially considering the potential response and/or negative publicity that it would give to some who feel the repeal was a bad idea. If a gay guy is asking out his fellow soldiers, especially while in the field or in a situation where they are likely to be sleeping close or seeing each other naked, then I could see that being an issue. But why not just figure out a way to deal with it through enforcement of other rules or different sleeping arrangements, rather than acting like DADT is the one rule keeping the gay guys from becoming horny, unprofessional jerks who can't keep their feelings in check.

And would there not be other things that made someone feel uncomfortable with sleeping with another guy, such as tendency to have sexual dreams and arousal that comes with them or a sleep cuddler? That seems to me like things that would make guys uncomfortable while sleeping with another guy, but they are things that can't be controlled. But it also comes back to the fact that there are already gay guys in the military. Some of those guys are already openly gay within their units or at least suspected of being gay. How would you handle a guy now who everyone suspected of being gay but no one could prove? So how does allowing him to say that he is gay, when he is not disrupting anyone else in his unit, change the environment? Everyone was pretty sure he was gay before, they just couldn't prove it.

To me this is about personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions, instead of labeling a whole group of people (gays) as troublemakers based on their sexuality rather than their individual actions and worth.
 
That's the funny part. If a heterosexual man gets complimented or asked out by a woman it is considered a compliment. But if a homosexual guy said the same thing to a heterosexual guy it is "repulsive, gross, icky" etc etc. Its one big contradiction.

really? is it just as "icky" as if the hetero guy was complimented or asked out by his cousin or sister? ;)
 
in a foxhole, in a ditch, in the same sleeping bag - it all depends on the weather. I used to have a boot (boot is a term used for "new guy" who hasn't deployed yet) called PK who was my designated blanket when it was cold and windy. nice, big, hairy, smelly, heavy blanket that I just pulled over me and went to sleep, two, or more, or all of us in a puppy pile. I probably cuddled another guy named Jimmy more than my wife during our first year of marriage - it was a winter training cycle, and damn how it rained All. The. Time.

Still, sleeping next to each other to keep warm is not the same as sleeping together in a bed.

guessing - you haven't spent alot of time in foxholes? even in a warzone, your time is 99.9% utter boredom; not rockets bursting o'er-head.

You're right, I haven't. Never been in the military. Still, even if bored there is no reason to think that a gay guy would hit on anyone in his unit when that gay guy knows that they are all straight. It's not like gay guys can't control themselves any less than straight folks.
 
really? is it just as "icky" as if the hetero guy was complimented or asked out by his cousin or sister? ;)

Complimented? No. Asked out...would prolly depend on the guy I'd imagine. Incest does exist after all. But for those that aren't into incest..yeah, it prolly would be icky.
 
Still, sleeping next to each other to keep warm is not the same as sleeping together in a bed.



You're right, I haven't. Never been in the military. Still, even if bored there is no reason to think that a gay guy would hit on anyone in his unit when that gay guy knows that they are all straight. It's not like gay guys can't control themselves any less than straight folks.

Kal, come on. If I was in a foxhole with a female, ugly or not, there is a limit on just how long it will take for me to probe the chances of getting some head.. :) Don't see why it would be different with a gay dude and a straight guy?

Tim-
 
Still, sleeping next to each other to keep warm is not the same as sleeping together in a bed.

no. in a bed you don't usually have full-body contact.

You're right, I haven't. Never been in the military. Still, even if bored there is no reason to think that a gay guy would hit on anyone in his unit when that gay guy knows that they are all straight. It's not like gay guys can't control themselves any less than straight folks.

so you are in favor of forcing young female members of the military to strip down and cuddle up with the males?
 
Kal, come on. If I was in a foxhole with a female, ugly or not, there is a limit on just how long it will take for me to probe the chances of getting some head.. :) Don't see why it would be different with a gay dude and a straight guy?

Tim-

point worth noting - 5 months into a deployment, there is no such thing as an ugly female.
 
Clearly all liberals think all soldiers are murderers of all babies!

No, not all. But enough that it seems that liberals are the promoters of this image.
 
But you are assuming that enough of the gay guys will harass the straight guys that this will be a problem.

no, i'm not. I don't doubt you will get instances of that occuring, and I don't doubt that you will get instances of that being suspected (Cpl Jones always picks me to check for ticks.... why? etc.) which will create it's own problems - but my argument here assumes nothing more than the fact that they will be homosexual males, that homosexual males are attracted to other males, and that other males are aware of this. that is all that is necessary to start throwing up boundaries and barriers to personal interaction where none existed previously. we can all teabag each other throughout the field ex's because it's funny.... but no one is going to rub their penis in the gay guys' face or really find it particularly hilarious when he does it to them - he's different because of his sexuality, he can't be fully part of the joke part of the group, part of the intimacy that occurs in male-bonding. and because sexuality is generally unchanging, that is always going to be there. we won't see a shift as we did with racial tension because whlie attitudes towards racial differences (and agreed, towards sexual differences) are subject to change, basic sexual drive is not. he's not going to cease being gay anymore than you are going to cease being a woman - and because of that the nature and level of interaction between him and others will always have barriers and limitations that currently do not exist. because he will not cease being gay any more than I will cease being straight or you will cease being a woman that tension will always be there, seperating members of the unit from one another and hurting that cohesion and unity that is so vital.

To me this is about personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions, instead of labeling a whole group of people (gays) as troublemakers based on their sexuality rather than their individual actions and worth.

to me it's about not making it harder for the guys on the pointy end to do their job and make it back home in one piece. i couldn't give a **** less if people are offended or have their feelings hurt, or suffer loss of self-worth, or not, so long as that end is achieved.
 
Kal, come on. If I was in a foxhole with a female, ugly or not, there is a limit on just how long it will take for me to probe the chances of getting some head.. :) Don't see why it would be different with a gay dude and a straight guy?

Tim-

And if told no what would you do? Back off right? The difference between you and a female vs that of a gay guy trying to get some from a straight guy is that the gay guy will already know that the answer from the straight guy is no.

If you knew that the woman would say no right from the start, before you even tried, would you still try to get some from her?
 
no. in a bed you don't usually have full-body contact.

Depends on how you and your other half sleep.

so you are in favor of forcing young female members of the military to strip down and cuddle up with the males?

Forcing? Only if life depended on it. Are you saying that they do that in the military? Force males to strip and cuddle? Somehow I doubt that. But irregardless if it happens then a heterosexual male would still feel a gross factor irregardless of it being a gay guy or a straight guy. Yet you seem to have gotten use to it through training right? Is it not possible to get use to "cuddleing" with a gay guy when you know that life may depend on it? Let's put it this way. If your life depended on cuddleing with a gay guy would you do it?
 
no, i'm not. I don't doubt you will get instances of that occuring, and I don't doubt that you will get instances of that being suspected (Cpl Jones always picks me to check for ticks.... why? etc.) which will create it's own problems - but my argument here assumes nothing more than the fact that they will be homosexual males, that homosexual males are attracted to other males, and that other males are aware of this. that is all that is necessary to start throwing up boundaries and barriers to personal interaction where none existed previously. we can all teabag each other throughout the field ex's because it's funny.... but no one is going to rub their penis in the gay guys' face or really find it particularly hilarious when he does it to them - he's different because of his sexuality, he can't be fully part of the joke part of the group, part of the intimacy that occurs in male-bonding. and because sexuality is generally unchanging, that is always going to be there. we won't see a shift as we did with racial tension because whlie attitudes towards racial differences (and agreed, towards sexual differences) are subject to change, basic sexual drive is not. he's not going to cease being gay anymore than you are going to cease being a woman - and because of that the nature and level of interaction between him and others will always have barriers and limitations that currently do not exist. because he will not cease being gay any more than I will cease being straight or you will cease being a woman that tension will always be there, seperating members of the unit from one another and hurting that cohesion and unity that is so vital.



to me it's about not making it harder for the guys on the pointy end to do their job and make it back home in one piece. i couldn't give a **** less if people are offended or have their feelings hurt, or suffer loss of self-worth, or not, so long as that end is achieved.

Just wanted to comment on the bold part.

Boundaries can be overcome and these types of boundaries are only in the mind of people. Which means you can be trained out of them.
 
so you are in favor of forcing young female members of the military to strip down and cuddle up with the males?

Again, since it does not seem to be sinking in: gay men are not women, gay women are not men. Treating two differing situations as the same is foolish.
 
Back
Top Bottom