• 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!

Gays in the military (its anonymous)

Openly gay personnel in the army?

  • Yes - im cool with that

    Votes: 54 79.4%

  • No - never again will i pick up the soap

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • Other - explain

    Votes: 5 7.4%
  • Total voters
    68
You do realize how insignificant the money that goes to showers is when compared with the rest of the military expanses, like, say, a predator UAV?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Predators are awesome.

Wrong - for the military's interests - and that's why there's nothing nanny about it.
Click to expand...

Ok, why does the military have an interest in treating soldiers like they can't handle sharing showers?

Then there's nothing to debate here, you choose not to see reason.
Click to expand...

Reason involves conclusions drawn from accepted premises. Stating that a premise is "common sense" is not reason, it is simply an unsubstantiated premise. If you would like to make a reasoned argument for why such an absurd policy should exist, I am all ears.

What do you imagine the consequences would be if men and women showered together?

Since, as you have observed, there is no innate difference between the attraction of a straight man to a woman and a gay man to another man, and there have been no observable consequences of allowing gay men to shower together, one can project that there would similarly be no observable consequences to allowing men and women to shower together.

That is reason.
 
Cephus said:
I'm entirely fine with gays in the military, there have always been gays, there will always be gays, they deserve to be able to serve their country just like anyone else.
Click to expand...

I totally agree 110%. I see the prevention of gays in the militery as nothing less than unfounded discrimination. I look forward to the day gays can serve openly and without fear in the greatest military in the world.

Cephus said:
Frankly, the reason lots of people have given, that the military is too butch to deal with it, is a fairly pathetic excuse. The fact that lots of military men (and women too, I suppose) are homophobic is a sign of their immaturity and emotional stagnation, certainly not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of opposition might also be based on general ignorance. People approach the issue with preconceived stereotypes of gays, which I admit is not helped by the radicals in the gay movement, but are still generally false and misleading over all. A gay soldier doesn't wear a shawl and high heals to combat. That folly would decadence, not sexual preference.

Your average gay soldier is virtually indistinguishable from any hetero soldier, so from where I'm standing there's no reason to bar gays from serving.
 
Panache said:
Yeah, but Predators are awesome.
Click to expand...
I know.
Ok, why does the military have an interest in treating soldiers like they can't handle sharing showers?
Click to expand...
The soldier is the property of the military.
The military would like to keep its property in perfect shape and with zero distractions.
That is of course not what's happening on the ground, but it's a policy.
Reason involves conclusions drawn from accepted premises. Stating that a premise is "common sense" is not reason
Click to expand...
Common sense describes a reason for having a reason, it is not a reason for itself but it certainly is an ally.
It is simply an unsubstantiated premise. If you would like to make a reasoned argument for why such an absurd policy should exist, I am all ears.
Click to expand...
Look, when arguing over issues that affect a collective, I tend to separate between my own, personal opinion (what I think is right for me) and the concern for the collective (what I think is right for everyone as one grouped entity).

The reason I am saying this is because, personally, I have no problem with mixed showers.
In fact, let's face it, what kind of a male would refuse showering with naked women?
However, when I'm arguing on policies and laws and issues that would concern me as part of the collective, and not me as an individual, I must see this from the point of view of the military as an administrating entity.

The military sees, as I've mentioned earlier, its soldiers as its property.
The military believes then that the soldier's main concern is to fulfill his role and service in the organization, be it to fight in the front or to defend from the rear.
The military, hence, has adapted policies that would be considered by civilians as "nanny" policies, policies that come to control the soldiers from misbehavior.
However, such policies are all united in their interest, the military's interest, to center the soldier on one sole goal, that is, his role in the military.

To cut to the point, distractions, be it a sexual distraction or any other kind of distraction, will be prevented by the military whenever it's possible and practical.
That means, everything that would get the soldier to sink in thoughts, instead of thinking on how to fulfill his role better - would be prevented by the military when possible.
What do you imagine the consequences would be if men and women showered together?
Click to expand...
It would be a hell of a fun I'd tell you that.
However, I do believe that it would cause a bit of informality and unprofessional behavior, leading to the mentioned sexual distraction.
Since, as you have observed, there is no innate difference between the attraction of a straight man to a woman and a gay man to another man, and there have been no observable consequences of allowing gay men to shower together, one can project that there would similarly be no observable consequences to allowing men and women to shower together.

That is reason.
Click to expand...
I don't think that women and men would ever share showers in the military. (except, as mentioned, in submarines)

I do agree however that gays showering with males is just like straight males showering with females, something that mentalgear dismisses.
 
Apocalypse said:
There's nothing you should be sorry about, you're simply making a false statement.
Click to expand...
I've said nothing false.

And I laugh at that fictional belief.
Click to expand...
You really have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction, don't you?

As usual, you've just made a wrong statement.
I have never claimed that the soldiers are not able(As stated quite clearly in my previous post, and as expected from anyone who is not brainless to be able to comprehend), but that this is a military policy.
Click to expand...
It's military policy that soldiers are incapable of doing their jobs if they see a person they're attracted to?

It is only saddening that such people like you have such repulsive opinions about our military, and it only earns you disrespect in return.
Click to expand...
Please do explain what opinions of our military are 'repulsive'? The opinions that I think they're of higher caliber than YOU obviously do? Only you could find that repulsive.

Then continue to hope, that's all you'll be able to do.

Point is, the military policy has nothing to do about you "hard-working" civilians, but about military personnel, and I'm sorry but it's none of your business.
Click to expand...
Holy ****ing ****, are you kidding me? None of my business? Now I know you're full of ****. It is every BIT my business. It is my country, my military, and my tax dollars funding them. Every goddamn thing my country's military does is my business. ALL of it. It is ALL of our business and it's even more telling about you personally that you're of the mindset that it isn't our business. The **** it isn't.
 
rivrrat said:
I've said nothing false.
Click to expand...
False.
You really have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction, don't you?
Click to expand...
False.
It's military policy that soldiers are incapable of doing their jobs if they see a person they're attracted to?
Click to expand...
False.
I think they're of higher caliber than YOU obviously do?
Click to expand...
False
Only you could find that repulsive.
Click to expand...
False.
Holy ****ing ****, are you kidding me? None of my business? Now I know you're full of ****. It is every BIT my business. It is my country, my military, and my tax dollars funding them. Every goddamn thing my country's military does is my business. ALL of it. It is ALL of our business and it's even more telling about you personally that you're of the mindset that it isn't our business. The **** it isn't.
Click to expand...
Charming.

False.
 
I am all for gays openly in the military. Some of the most intelligent people I have met in my life were gay.

The military needs more brain power than they do brawn power in modern warfare. Our forces would be losing a great resource by banning gays.
 
Apocalypse said:
Do I think they should? No.
Would I have a problem with that? No.
Click to expand...

Oh but that would cause a distraction amongst our female personnel....righht? ;)

Then you've naturally succeeded in hiding it.
Click to expand...

You where probably too busy pissing Rivat off at that point to notice. I think that point was fairly obvious in what makes your argument flawed so one would have thought you would have picked up on where it was leading.

Yeah why won't you give me a moment and I'll count for you.
Click to expand...

You mean you dont know? I just assumed you did when you said there isnt all that many gays in the military.

I don't need to prove that sexual distraction is considered a distraction, it's right there in the name of the term.
Click to expand...

Is that your argument?

Oh so let me see if I understand, you claim that because women and men have a natural difference in strength, it means that women cannot shower with men together.
Click to expand...

No, it makes women more vulnerable in such circumstances, for example to sexual harrasment by men (and more dominantly sexual assault).

But only a moment ago you've stated that it shouldn't be a problem to have two opposing sexualities showering together, right?
Click to expand...

IF those men can be trusted to excercise a level of maturity and control, absolutely. Unfortunately we cannot account for every individual man and since homosexual assaults on straight men is something which is very uncommon, not only is it stupid and pointless to group them together anyway, i dont see much cause for concern keeping them together.


You know, I've really given you a chance, but if you choose to be one of those internet retarded trolls who aren't capable of forming an argument, relying on baseless accusations and usually end up in the debate politics' recycling-bin, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Its good they recycle. The main question is, will you answer my question?

You've tried to point out to the only valid point in this debate that you have brought up, but when you've done this you've only strengthen the opposing position that sexual distraction is indeed a possibility when you've said: "Do you KNOW what happens when you stick gay men together in a shower?"

And you base that on?
Click to expand...

Mathematics. Statistically, gays are more probable in indulging in sexual activities in a shower full of gays then they would a shower full of straights.

And you just can't bear a thought.
Click to expand...

Lol thats actually quiet funny can i still that one? :mrgreen:

Are they allowed to be open about their homosexuality? Are they showing up in military statistics?
Click to expand...

Works both ways i guess.

No more than you're advocating homophobia when you refer to female to male relations as different than male to male or female to female relations.
And yet one of us has violated the forum's rules and would suffer from the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yeah anyway, your totally missing my point.
Straight men straight women seperation = good.
gay men straight men seperation = shower full of homosexuals = where is the less distraction in that?

Getting it now?
In otherwords, its a POINTLESS thing you are advocating.


That's not the sole factor for "my point"'s validation.
Click to expand...

Please present them.
So far we have agreed on seperating straights from gays will lessen distraction because sticking gays in a shower room full of other gays naturally does exactly that. :roll:

You have apparently missed a whole paragraph.
Reported? :2razz:
Click to expand...
:rofl
Cant take a debate? Its all good.

Since ive revealed your agenda, i have no interest in addressing your points from this point onwards because its irrelevant to my poll anyway. Its a yes or no question, and then you explain why or why not you want gays in the military and debate that.
If you wanna set up a seperate poll "should gays shower together", please be my quest, PM me the URL, and lets have some fun.

ALSO your reply to Rivvat has prooven you are incapable of conducting a mature debate, so you ill return the favour and simply ignore your irrelevant opinons anyway. Post one more out of thread post, ill return the Report.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Wow, such a compelling argument you make!

When you actually come up with something of substance, why don't you let us know.
Click to expand...
I thought that you should know that I came up with something of substance.

How was that?
 
MetalGear said:
Oh but that would cause a distraction amongst our female personnel....righht? ;)
Click to expand...
Housing lesbians and straight males together would cause a distraction among the females(lesbian) personnel?
Say what?
You where probably too busy pissing Rivat off at that point to notice.
Click to expand...
And you were too busy riding the merry goes round in Lala land.
I think that point was fairly obvious in what makes your argument flawed so one would have thought you would have picked up on where it was leading.
Click to expand...
No, it only means that other options would have to be sought.
Life is not black and white, you know. Unless you're a dog.
You mean you dont know? I just assumed you did when you said there isnt all that many gays in the military.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is called an assumption.
Is that your argument?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did not understand the question.
Do you want me to provide a proof that sexual distraction is a distraction?
Do you also want me to prove that the white horse is white, or that the black knight is black?
No, it makes women more vulnerable in such circumstances, for example to sexual harrasment by men (and more dominantly sexual assault).
Click to expand...
Yes, but for a rape to occur a sexual attraction needs to be there first.
Meaning that you do believe that a sexual attraction is a possibility when showering with the opposing sexuality.
That's a step in the right direction, mental.
IF those men can be trusted to excercise a level of maturity and control, absolutely. Unfortunately we cannot account for every individual man and since homosexual assaults on straight men is something which is very uncommon
Click to expand...
It still happens though, no?
I get the feeling that you base your argument on the belief that rapes by homosexuals never occur.
Its good they recycle.
Click to expand...
They don't.
They do right click and then empty recycling bin, and then there's only nothingness.
The main question is, will you answer my question?
Click to expand...
That is your main question?
Do you KNOW what happens when you stick gay men together in a shower?
Click to expand...
No, I've never been in a shower filled with gay men before, only one at a time really.
But if that is your fantasy then sure I can participate.
Mathematics. Statistically, gays are more probable in indulging in sexual activities in a shower full of gays then they would a shower full of straights.
Click to expand...
You're the one who's asking me to prove the obvious.
Now go ahead, prove it.
Lol thats actually quiet funny can i still that one? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
As long as you avoid the spelling mistakes, sure.
Yeah anyway, your totally missing my point.
Straight men straight women seperation = good.
gay men straight men seperation = shower full of homosexuals = where is the less distraction in that?
Click to expand...
There are always other options to consider.
Occupying the shower at different times is one.
In otherwords, its a POINTLESS thing you are advocating.
Click to expand...
Only if by pointless you mean that it is one point less than perfection.

Since nothing is perfect, that is.
Please present them.
So far we have agreed on seperating straights from gays will lessen distraction because sticking gays in a shower room full of other gays naturally does exactly that.
Click to expand...
As I said before, there are many other options to consider.
:rofl
Cant take a debate? Its all good.
Click to expand...
I eat debates for breakfast.
Since ive revealed your agenda
Click to expand...
Since you've revealed your agenda.
I have no interest in addressing your points from this point onwards because its irrelevant to my poll anyway.
Click to expand...
You have no interest in making a rational argument from this point onwards, and from this point backwards, and at this point.
Its a yes or no question, and then you explain why or why not you want gays in the military and debate that.
If you wanna set up a seperate poll "should gays shower together", please be my quest, PM me the URL, and lets have some fun.
Click to expand...
No I believe that I have answered this question in my first post here.
I have no problem with gays in the military and I have no problem with gays being housed together with straights.
You, however, have many problems, with many different issues.
ALSO your reply to Rivvat has prooven you are incapable of conducting a mature debate, so you ill return the favour and simply ignore your irrelevant opinons anyway. Post one more out of thread post, ill return the Report.
Click to expand...
Certainly you are incapable of forming any kind of argument at all, forget an immature debate and mature debate, you do not even reach step one, which is to present your position in a civil way.

If that is the point when you wish to end this pathetic exercise of self-mockery that you call "my side of the argument", then so be it, arrivederci to you.
 
Apocalypse said:
Housing lesbians and straight males together would cause a distraction among the females(lesbian) personnel?
Say what?
Click to expand...

Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.

Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
 
Cephus said:
Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.

Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
Click to expand...

What about the females who get raped by straight macho dudes?
 
Cephus said:
Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.
Click to expand...
Either you have misunderstood that paragraph of his or I have.
As I perceive it, he has made the claim that Lesbian females being housed together with straight males would cause a distraction for the female (the lesbian) personnel.

I do agree with your point however that housing only gays together is a bad move, which is why I believe that the right housing move would be to mix gays with straights in a balanced manner.
Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
Click to expand...
Do not appeal to your own posts as logical, it doesn't look good when one is praising his own words.
 
rivrrat said:
I know! When I worked on the river, many of us guides - both male and female - changed clothes together before and after trips. I mean.. we saw each other nekkid! It's a wonder we were able to then paddle down class v rivers, taking 9 guest's lives into our hands, make split second decisions, and sometimes tend to serious injuries. I don't know how we did it. I mean, all I could think about while crashing my raft through 15 foot waves was, "I saw Tommy's pee pee!" It's a wonder we weren't all killed. :shock:

When I drove an ambulance, I had to share quarters with a male medic. We had to live together for days on end. Sleeping next to each other, seeing each other barely clothed. I don't know how we managed to actually save so many people's lives day in and day out. I mean, I remember once I was applying pressure to someone's femoral artery in an attempt to keep them from bleeding out (and save their leg) and all I could think was, "Goddamn I wanna **** my partner!"

/end sarcasm

I don't know how we do it either. We simply must be of better caliber than those who serve in our military.
Click to expand...

Similarly, I worked in a police agency and the guys in my office (SWAT) stripped down in the office all the time before and after serving high hazard raids. I don't know how I managed to work with them without turning into a complete imbecile.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Similarly, I worked in a police agency and the guys in my office (SWAT) stripped down in the office all the time before and after serving high hazard raids. I don't know how I managed to work with them without turning into a complete imbecile.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! You must be kidding. I mean, how could that be possible? That people are actually able to perform high stress jobs without being distracted by sex on the brain all the time due to being in close proximity with the gender they are sexually attracted to?

I mean, it boggles the mind.

It also boggles the mind why some people think our soldiers are so pathetic that they're incapable of doing the same thing.
 
rivrrat said:
It also boggles the mind why some people think our soldiers are so pathetic that they're incapable of doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
That is also false, as nobody has ever said that.
 
And to elaborate on the answer to rivrrat's claims:

In post #112 in this thread:
Apocalypse said:
It is not a question of "able" or "not able".
That is a military policy, effecting military personnel, AKA, soldiers.

If the military feels that this is a distraction, then it would take care of it.
Click to expand...


In post #127 in this thread:
Apocalypse said:
As usual, you've just made a wrong statement.
I have never claimed that the soldiers are not able(As stated quite clearly in my previous post, and as expected from anyone who is not brainless to be able to comprehend), but that this is a military policy.
Click to expand...


Conclusion from both posts on rivrrat's claim:
False claim.
 
Apocolypse, i have made one simple conclusion from your point; this being, seperate gays with straights and stick gays together to lower sexual distraction. How you have managed to convince yourself that would lower sexual distraction is beyond me. Simply put, everything you have written thus far aimed at me in this poll is:

FALSE.

Thankyou for your attempt to debate anyway but generally im not in favour of uneccessary discrimination in our armed forces.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.

Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
Click to expand...

He is incapable of realizing that which is why he is still argueing his point.
 
MetalGear said:
Apocolypse, i have made one simple conclusion from your point; this being, seperate gays with straights and stick gays together to lower sexual distraction. How you have managed to convince yourself that would lower sexual distraction is beyond me. Simply put, everything you have written thus far aimed at me in this poll is:

FALSE.
Click to expand...
That post is, as the ones before it, inherently false.
 
MetalGear said:
He is incapable of realizing that which is why he is still argueing his point.
Click to expand...
False.

Proof that this statement is false:

In post #136 in this thread, replying to your claim that putting gays together is wrong;
Apocalypse said:
Your point is valid(=the recognition that your point is actually a point), however there are not that many gay people in the military and it would minimize the unnecessary distraction to separate them. As I said many times already before, the military's policy is to avoid distractions when possible, with an emphasis on when possible.
Click to expand...

In post #164 in this thread, replying to a repeating by you that placing gays together is wrong:
No, it only means that other options would have to be sought.
Click to expand...

Same post, a reply to another repeating:
Apocalypse said:
There are always other options to consider.
Occupying the shower at different times is one.
Click to expand...

Post #167 in this thread, replying to Cephus where he's saying that housing only gays together is bad:

Apocalypse said:
I do agree with your point however that housing only gays together is a bad move, which is why I believe that the right housing move would be to mix gays with straights in a balanced manner.
Click to expand...

Rational conclusion due to sum up of comments:

Mental gear's accusation is inherently false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom