• 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!

Pentagon: Letting openly gay troops serve won't hurt military

exactly what i've been saying. it's the combat units that suffer here.
 
It does work, because gays do not shower with straights "right now" as openly gay. Gay people if DADT is repealed will have extra rights, above straights. Why not give straights the same privilege to shower with eachother, if equality is what we are seeking here???

Wrong. Gay men are not female. Gay women are not male. Gay men do not have the same parts as women. Gay women do not have the same parts as men. Women have periods, men don't. Women can get pregnant, if there happened to be an affair between a man and a woman who did live together. Gay men can't. And two gay women can't either. Women do not normally share bathrooms and/or public showers with men, no matter what the sexuality of the men or women are, in civilian life. Gay men and women share bathrooms and showers (lockerrooms) with other members of their same sex all the time in civilian life.

Gay men and women share the same shower spaces now with people that they might be attracted to in the military. Do you somehow believe that those gay men and women will suddenly become more likely to commit assault simply because they can tell people that they are gay? That doesn't make one bit of sense. Would you be more likely to commit assault against a woman who thought you were gay but then found out/realized you were heterosexual just because she might have believed before that you liked men, and now she finds out that you really might have been attracted to her? Do you think a lot of men are any more likely to commit assault or even hit on the woman than they were before she knew that they might really be attracted to her?
 
exactly what i've been saying. it's the combat units that suffer here.

No, this is the latest moving goal post you've used after McCain told you your talking points.
 
I am afraid that one this openly gay people are allowed to serve there will be a number of tragedies.

I also think it just might negatively effect recruitment.

I have no clue what the solution is.
 
Wrong. Gay men are not female. Gay women are not male. Gay men do not have the same parts as women. Gay women do not have the same parts as men. Women have periods, men don't. Women can get pregnant, if there happened to be an affair between a man and a woman who did live together. Gay men can't. And two gay women can't either. Women do not normally share bathrooms and/or public showers with men, no matter what the sexuality of the men or women are, in civilian life. Gay men and women share bathrooms and showers (lockerrooms) with other members of their same sex all the time in civilian life.

Gay men and women share the same shower spaces now with people that they might be attracted to in the military. Do you somehow believe that those gay men and women will suddenly become more likely to commit assault simply because they can tell people that they are gay? That doesn't make one bit of sense. Would you be more likely to commit assault against a woman who thought you were gay but then found out/realized you were heterosexual just because she might have believed before that you liked men, and now she finds out that you really might have been attracted to her? Do you think a lot of men are any more likely to commit assault or even hit on the woman than they were before she knew that they might really be attracted to her?

The key issue here is that gay people are being given extra rights basically to be in their own fantasy land serving openly with the sex they are attracted too but yet straight men and women are kept separate from eachother. In all fairness, we need to mix men and women together to be equal here. It does matter that gay joe and jane are open now in the showers because it would make staight joe and jane uncomfortable the same way it would with our current social norms that keep the opposite sex separate from eachother. There is no difference.

It makes more sense to just make all gay units. Problem solved. If you want to serve your country and are just as patriotic, lobby for that?
 
The key issue here is that gay people are being given extra rights basically to be in their own fantasy land serving openly with the sex they are attracted too but yet straight men and women are kept separate from eachother. In all fairness, we need to mix men and women together to be equal here. It does matter that gay joe and jane are open now in the showers because it would make staight joe and jane uncomfortable the same way it would with our current social norms that keep the opposite sex separate from eachother. There is no difference.

It makes more sense to just make all gay units. Problem solved. If you want to serve your country and are just as patriotic, lobby for that?

There is no way to guarantee that anyone is ever in a unit without gays in it. With no more DADT, gay servicemembers will not be required to reveal their sexuality. And 'gay joe" or "gay jane" are not going to be any more attracted to a straight servicemember than they were before they could do so openly. It is stupid to think that true.

And most straight servicemembers could care less about whether a gay person is actually checking them out in the shower. If they were really that concerned, they wouldn't be in the military now. Or, at least they shouldn't be, since we do have gays in the military now who very well could be looking at them in the shower or naked now. And, there are a whole lot more important things to be concerned with than who may be looking at them naked.

I bet you that most people's discomfort at being naked in front of others comes from being uncomfortable about someone else judging them for imperfections, not from their looks possibly turning someone on. It would obviously depend on the person, but why be uncomfortable about someone else being turned on by the way you look naked? So what? Does that hurt you in some way, that they're turned on by your naked body? Does a person with obvious imperfections, that could cause other people to be uncomfortable be forced to sleep/shower somewhere else, because they may make people uncomfortable? What about a not-very-attractive person sleeping naked? That makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I say put them in a different berthing, it makes the rest of those the person works with uncomfortable, so why not?

And all gay units won't work. There are not enough gays that would be openly gay in any one job to make a complete unit.
 
Except submariners.

You know, that only sounds funny because I was going to mention that one of the main reasons that we couldn't have an all female submarine crew was for the same reason that we couldn't have an all gay unit, there just wouldn't be a guarantee that there would be enough females or gays in all of the necessary jobs, for enough time to actually justify either. This is why, instead of the often made suggestion of making an all-female crew, the Navy is instead implementing its plan to slowly integrate women onto the bigger subs.

There is also the question of who will train these soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen to actually do their jobs? If there is going to have to be some integration anyway, why bother segregating after? And besides that, gays are already integrated into the units they are currently in, no matter how many people want to keep their blinders on about it. Those guys have already been living and showering with all those guys who are claiming that they would be uncomfortable showering/living with a gay guy. (And, yes, I do believe that it is mostly guys who have a problem with gay guys. Most of the military women I know could care less.)
 
You know, that only sounds funny because I was going to mention that one of the main reasons that we couldn't have an all female submarine crew was for the same reason that we couldn't have an all gay unit, there just wouldn't be a guarantee that there would be enough females or gays in all of the necessary jobs, for enough time to actually justify either. This is why, instead of the often made suggestion of making an all-female crew, the Navy is instead implementing its plan to slowly integrate women onto the bigger subs.

There is also the question of who will train these soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen to actually do their jobs? If there is going to have to be some integration anyway, why bother segregating after? And besides that, gays are already integrated into the units they are currently in, no matter how many people want to keep their blinders on about it. Those guys have already been living and showering with all those guys who are claiming that they would be uncomfortable showering/living with a gay guy. (And, yes, I do believe that it is mostly guys who have a problem with gay guys. Most of the military women I know could care less.)

I'm mainly joking here. My boyfriend and my bro are/were both nukes.
 
There is no way to guarantee that anyone is ever in a unit without gays in it. With no more DADT, gay servicemembers will not be required to reveal their sexuality. And 'gay joe" or "gay jane" are not going to be any more attracted to a straight servicemember than they were before they could do so openly. It is stupid to think that true.

And most straight servicemembers could care less about whether a gay person is actually checking them out in the shower. If they were really that concerned, they wouldn't be in the military now. Or, at least they shouldn't be, since we do have gays in the military now who very well could be looking at them in the shower or naked now. And, there are a whole lot more important things to be concerned with than who may be looking at them naked.

I bet you that most people's discomfort at being naked in front of others comes from being uncomfortable about someone else judging them for imperfections, not from their looks possibly turning someone on. It would obviously depend on the person, but why be uncomfortable about someone else being turned on by the way you look naked? So what? Does that hurt you in some way, that they're turned on by your naked body? Does a person with obvious imperfections, that could cause other people to be uncomfortable be forced to sleep/shower somewhere else, because they may make people uncomfortable? What about a not-very-attractive person sleeping naked? That makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I say put them in a different berthing, it makes the rest of those the person works with uncomfortable, so why not?

And all gay units won't work. There are not enough gays that would be openly gay in any one job to make a complete unit.

If we repealed DADT by using all gay units, it's a safe assumption that more gays would enlist. I'm not stating that gay people would be more attracted to straights with their new open status if DADT was repealed, but am only asking for fairness to allow hetero men and women the same privilege that gays currently have and even more so without fear of being booted out of the military if DADT is repealed. A women shouldn't be uncomfortable using a tampon in front of me, or showering in front of me. Who cares if I'm checking her out in the shower right. Is that your logic. If so, fine, let's let everyone serve in the military side by side in the most private places with the sex they are attracted to if it's not such a major deal to you? If it's good enough for gays, it should be good enough for all...
 
If we repealed DADT by using all gay units, it's a safe assumption that more gays would enlist. I'm not stating that gay people would be more attracted to straights with their new open status if DADT was repealed, but am only asking for fairness to allow hetero men and women the same privilege that gays currently have and even more so without fear of being booted out of the military if DADT is repealed. A women shouldn't be uncomfortable using a tampon in front of me, or showering in front of me. Who cares if I'm checking her out in the shower right. Is that your logic. If so, fine, let's let everyone serve in the military side by side in the most private places with the sex they are attracted to if it's not such a major deal to you? If it's good enough for gays, it should be good enough for all...

I wouldn't have a problem with sharing shower spaces with men. I'd say go for it. But I know it won't happen. The military is not willing to deal with the headache and huge amount of problems that could come from putting men and women together. With the lack of widespread mutual attraction (the few gays may be attracted to some of the straight men, but the straight men most likely wouldn't be attracted to the gay men, while heterosexual men and women would quite possibly be attracted to each other), there would be a much higher chance of mass hookups on military ships and bases where it is prohibited. And, then there is the physical differences between men and women. There are also the problems with military spouses (who, despite what some may believe, do have at least some affect on military policies) who would not be comfortable with their spouse actually living and showering with others that he/she may be attracted to and who very well may be attracted to them. And then there is the pure fact that men and women living together, sharing living spaces with non-family members, going to the bathroom/head together, and showering together are not cultural norms in our society. Men and women do not do this normally in the US. There are separate bathrooms for men and women, in most public places, not gays and straights. There are separate showers in those jobs and places that need them in public/civilian life for men and women, not for gays and straights. And even now in the military, gays and straights occupy the same berthing spaces, men and women do not and never have in the US military.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with sharing shower spaces with men. I'd say go for it. But I know it won't happen. The military is not willing to deal with the headache and huge amount of problems that could come from putting men and women together. With the lack of widespread mutual attraction (the few gays may be attracted to some of the straight men, but the straight men most likely wouldn't be attracted to the gay men, while heterosexual men and women would quite possibly be attracted to each other), there would be a much higher chance of mass hookups on military ships and bases where it is prohibited. And, then there is the physical differences between men and women. There are also the problems with military spouses (who, despite what some may believe, do have at least some affect on military policies) who would not be comfortable with their spouse actually living and showering with others that he/she may be attracted to and who very well may be attracted to them. And then there is the pure fact that men and women living together, sharing living spaces with non-family members, going to the bathroom/head together, and showering together are not cultural norms in our society. Men and women do not do this normally in the US. There are separate bathrooms for men and women, in most public places, not gays and straights. There are separate showers in those jobs and places that need them in public/civilian life for men and women, not for gays and straights. And even now in the military, gays and straights occupy the same berthing spaces, men and women do not and never have in the US military.

I think the whole "shower issue" is BS. hetero/homo it doesn't matter. people are going to hook up no matter what. allowing males and females or gay guys and straight guys to shower together is not going to result in dramatic increase of sex.
 
I think the whole "shower issue" is BS. hetero/homo it doesn't matter. people are going to hook up no matter what. allowing males and females or gay guys and straight guys to shower together is not going to result in dramatic increase of sex.

I agree, since we had a couple of girls caught in male berthing. Actually, from what I observed on the ship, men didn't seem to mind (for the most part) women in their berthing, getting some from one of the guys, but the women wouldn't allow men in their berthing, no matter who was trying to get some (although we did joke about it). I do think that most straight men would be much more likely to actually report two men having sex in berthing, then a man and a woman having sex in the berthing.
 
Back
Top Bottom