• 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

Should the law be changed so that gays can serve openly in the military.


  • Total voters
    96
That is just not true. I was in Armor and Air Defense Artillery for years. Both are a combat MOS. We had gay men in a few of the units I deployed with. It was kept quiet, but it proved to be no problem for anyone. A few got discharged, and we lost good people because of it including a damn good commander. It is simply a shame.

You just said it.... Commander....lol

Im talking amongst the regular joes.


It WILL cause divisiveness amongst some units that regularly have to share facilities. Im not talking on a temporary basis, im talking the infantry guys who live in the ****ty ass barracks where they have shared latrines and showers.
I personally witnessed a chubby gay private in Basic Training get his ass beat by other recruits because it was learned that he was talking about the male recruits' penis sizes to the female recruits and some of the female recruits didnt find this amusing.
The gay was given an article 15 and allowed to continue training. He was booted out in less than a year.
 
You say your not anti-homosexual, but your opinions are.

Yes they should get over it, we would be a better society if people would accept others for who they are, and not have irrational fears about homosexuals.

How are my opinions anti-homosexual? With DADT in place all homosexuals can serve and all heteros can feel comfortable and not have their privacy violated.

Are you anti-privacy then? So if I chose to walk into a female shower, get naked, and bathe with them should they just "get over it"? It's not about soldiers discriminating against homosexuals, it's about having their privacy rights and them not having to feel violated by having a member among them possibly checking them all out in the nude. We can accept others for who they are, but we shouldn't force others into uncomfortable situations or violate their privacy.
 
I believe gay men are sexually attracted to penises?

I would assume so to an extent. However, they cansee one any time they want, since they come attached to one.
 
You say your not anti-homosexual, but your opinions are.

Yes they should get over it, we would be a better society if people would accept others for who they are, and not have irrational fears about homosexuals.

Actually he has a valid point.
The same way female soldiers would feel violated if male soldiers suddenly jumped into their showering area naked is the same way male soldiers would feel about openly homosexual soldiers doing the same thing.
 
It's not RIGHT?!!! :doh To quote you, I suppose that's the price they will have to pay to be in the military.
People have the right to have facilities where they can bathe and use the bathroom without having others sexually attracted to them.


Heteros feeling violated is their own problem. If no one does anything physical to them, whatever their paranoia is, is for them to deal with.
Alright, so then I have every right to shower with naked women and if they are uncomfortable with me there then that's their problem. It's not about homophobia, it's an issue of privacy. If a woman feels violated because a naked man is wither her showering does that mean she has a problem and has an irrational paranoia of men?
 
How so? I think sexual orientation shouldn't be something that is asked when someone enlists and isn't a qualifying aspect of being a soldier. However, what I am saying is that sexual orientation becomes an issue when it violates the rights and privacy of the vast majority of other soldiers.

Rights and privacy are not just for the majority. This further demonstrates the hypocritical aspect of your position.


There is a greater good. Homosexuals can still serve and no one has to feel sexually violated or have their privacy infringed on.

One is responsibile for their own feelings. If someone feels violated without this actually happening, it is the responsibility of the person with the feeling... not the other.

Personally, I would be fine with having soldiers not allowing their wives/husbands to events in order to make thing "fair."

Good. THAT'S consistency.

And it doesn't matter if I'm attracted to every female, would it ever be appropriate for me to shower with women, use women's bathrooms, or go to an all female's bunking facility and sleep there among them? I may not be attracted to every woman on earth, but the fact that I am a heterosexual male means that it will always be inappropriate and a violation of the privacy of women for me to live, shower, and bunk with them. It's not just about my sexual preference or whether or not I am attracted to individuals, it's also about the rights and privacy of women who would feel uncomfortable with a hetero man seeing them naked and sleeping in the same room as the, in close proximity.

One has no "right" to not feel uncomfortable.
 
You just said it.... Commander....lol

Im talking amongst the regular joes.

Tank commander as in buck Sergent NCO, not officer. :lol:

It WILL cause divisiveness amongst some units that regularly have to share facilities.

Yea, as tankers we never shared facility's. :roll:

Im not talking on a temporary basis, im talking the infantry guys who live in the ****ty ass barracks where they have shared latrines and showers.

You mean like most of us in combat arms? Give me a break. Most of the time no one even had any idea. It's not like we sat around trying to figure out who was gay or not.

I personally witnessed a chubby gay private in Basic Training get his ass beat by other recruits because it was learned that he was talking about the male recruits' penis sizes to the female recruits and some of the female recruits didnt find this amusing.

If he was straight the same thing would have happened. Not like men brag about their penises, oh wait. :lol:

The gay was given an article 15 and allowed to continue training. He was booted out in less than a year.

And I can tell you story's of rape and assault that got people discharged who were straight.

Your argument is as out dated as my old M60A3.
 
Last edited:
Heteros feeling violated is their own problem. If no one does anything physical to them, whatever their paranoia is, is for them to deal with.

Females feeling violated is their own problem. If no one does anything physical to them, whatever their paranoia is, is for them to deal with.

This is why I shall support fully co-ed showering facilities in the military.

And hell, if we apply this principle to the military, who says we shouldn't apply it everywhere?

Think of how much money will be saved if businesses and workplaces dont have to build seperate bathrooms.... gyms dont have to make seperate locker/shower facilities.

Oh the possibilities.....
 
I would assume so to an extent. However, they cansee one any time they want, since they come attached to one.

And they wouldn't be sexually attracted to it.
They would however be sexually attracted to a penis that is not theirs, that's a fact.
Do you really think that gay men are sexually attracted to their own penises?
 
You mean like most of us in combat arms? Give me a break. Most of the time no one even had any idea. It's not like we sat around trying to figure out who was gay or not.
Wouldnt have to spend time figuring it out, they would be openly gay. It would be BAM IN YO FACE. And everyone would know when Brad came walking in the shower that they were in the presense of a potential **** gazer.
 
People have the right to have facilities where they can bathe and use the bathroom without having others sexually attracted to them.

1) Show me where this "right" exists.
2) How are you going to determine if someone, sharing those facilities, is sexually attracted to them? You are making the assumption that ALL homosexuals would be sexually attracted to a heterosexual of the same sex. I'd like to see you prove that.



Alright, so then I have every right to shower with naked women and if they are uncomfortable with me there then that's their problem.

You keep talking about rights. I don't see any "rights" in anything you are saying. I see rules and laws. If the rule were changed so that you could shower with women, and they were uncomfortable, then yse, that is their problem. They could choose to shower elsewhere or at another time.

It's not about homophobia, it's an issue of privacy. If a woman feels violated because a naked man is wither her showering does that mean she has a problem and has an irrational paranoia of men?

Feeling violated? I think it depends on the situation and context, and on how the man reacts... and the woman for that matter.
 
Rights and privacy are not just for the majority. This further demonstrates the hypocritical aspect of your position.
I agree, but in this case there is no way to ensure rights and privacy for all. Call me hypocritical, but I support DADT because I feel it's the best way to allow homosexuals to serve and have heterosexuals be protected and have their privacy rights preserved. It may not be the most ideal solution, but it is the best one. The alternative would mean heterosexuals will be forced to shower and bunk with those who are attracted to their gender, which is comparable to having co-ed bunks and showers.

One is responsibile for their own feelings. If someone feels violated without this actually happening, it is the responsibility of the person with the feeling... not the other.
So back to my example, if I shower with naked women but don't commit any sexual act is it still a problem for them to feel uncomfortable with me being there?

Good. THAT'S consistency.



One has no "right" to not feel uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]
You are right in that there is no "right" that others feel uncomfortable. What if peanut butter makes someone uncomfortable? They don't have the right to demand all peanut butter be destroyed.

However, people have a right to privacy. We have male and female bathrooms for a reason. We have separate showering facilities at gyms for a reason. The only way I could support repealing DADT is if they had a bunk set up where gays will have to stay and heteros can chose to stay there if they have no problem with it. However, this is not always possible and you would still have gays being attracted to other gays living and showering together in the same living space.
 
Females feeling violated is their own problem. If no one does anything physical to them, whatever their paranoia is, is for them to deal with.

This is why I shall support fully co-ed showering facilities in the military.

And hell, if we apply this principle to the military, who says we shouldn't apply it everywhere?

Think of how much money will be saved if businesses and workplaces dont have to build seperate bathrooms.... gyms dont have to make seperate locker/shower facilities.

Oh the possibilities.....

And if it made sense logicistically, most folks agreed with it, and there was no harm in it, I see no problem with it either.
 
As a straight male would you prefer to shower with a homosexual that isn't out or wouldn't you rather know so that you decide based on your own comfort level whether you wanted to disrobe in the shower? Seems to me that what you are really saying is that "ignorance is bliss".
 
And they wouldn't be sexually attracted to it.
They would however be sexually attracted to a penis that is not theirs, that's a fact.
Do you really think that gay men are sexually attracted to their own penises?

So what you are saying is that it is not the penis itself. In that case, where is the problem?
 
How are my opinions anti-homosexual? With DADT in place all homosexuals can serve and all heteros can feel comfortable and not have their privacy violated.

Are you anti-privacy then? So if I chose to walk into a female shower, get naked, and bathe with them should they just "get over it"? It's not about soldiers discriminating against homosexuals, it's about having their privacy rights and them not having to feel violated by having a member among them possibly checking them all out in the nude. We can accept others for who they are, but we shouldn't force others into uncomfortable situations or violate their privacy.

What happens when they get outed then? Will they have to leave the military because some homophobe might feel uncomfortable? This same argument was made about minorities, when they decided to integrate the military, and it was just as bad then as it is now. Someone's insecurities are their problem, not the people they are uncomfortable about.
Honestly, I really don't see the big deal, I really doubt any LGBT people in the military are going to make a pass at anyone they are bunking or showering with.
You say we should accept people for who they are but not force people into uncomfortable situations, but if they are uncomfortable with homosexuals being in their unit then they have not truly accepted them, as equals, or human beings. Homosexuals in the military should be treated just like heterosexuals, nothing more, nothing less. It's just that simple, and if anyone is uncomfortable with that, it's their problem, and they do need to get over it.
 
And if it made sense logicistically, most folks agreed with it, and there was no harm in it, I see no problem with it either.

and I see no problem with gays in combat arms units keeping their sexuality discreet.

I also see no problem with gays in support units being openly gay.
 
As a straight male would you prefer to shower with a homosexual that isn't out or wouldn't you rather know so that you decide based on your own comfort level whether you wanted to disrobe in the shower? Seems to me that what you are really saying is that "ignorance is bliss".

That is exactly what I am saying.
 
I say let them in. There are plenty of military jobs that don't require two guys sharing a fox hole if that "undermines" the morale. I had a gay suitemate in Lawschool-1Ls were assigned suitemates. He was an older German guy there for an LLm-a colonel in the Luftwaffe as I recall. I respected him, he respected me and the other straight guy. I remember one of our librarians-he wore a USNA ring. I asked him why he was no longer in the navy. He said (he was an expert on Russian military issues and spoke Russian) he was gay so they gave him the boot. Why I asked? He said they thought he could be blackmailed. I asked how an open gay guy could be blackmailed.

Stupid the guy was top of his class and a genius

and think of the Psy-Ops value. Muslim extremists hate gays. They are terrified of gays. We could tell jihadists if we catch them they will be interrogated by only gay military inquisitors.
 
I say let them in. There are plenty of military jobs that don't require two guys sharing a fox hole if that "undermines" the morale. I had a gay suitemate in Lawschool-1Ls were assigned suitemates. He was an older German guy there for an LLm-a colonel in the Luftwaffe as I recall. I respected him, he respected me and the other straight guy. I remember one of our librarians-he wore a USNA ring. I asked him why he was no longer in the navy. He said (he was an expert on Russian military issues and spoke Russian) he was gay so they gave him the boot. Why I asked? He said they thought he could be blackmailed. I asked how an open gay guy could be blackmailed.

Stupid the guy was top of his class and a genius

and think of the Psy-Ops value. Muslim extremists hate gays. They are terrified of gays. We could tell jihadists if we catch them they will be interrogated by only gay military inquisitors.

At first I was shocked when I saw this, but on thinking about it, it is pretty consistant with how you seem to think.
 
So what you are saying is that it is not the penis itself. In that case, where is the problem?

In your argument with digsbe you were apparently suggesting that there is a difference between hetreosexuals showering with the opposite sex and homosexuals showering with the same sex.
That argument was of course flawed, since there is no difference between a sexual attraction of a gay man to a penis and a straight male to a vagina, even though the gay man can see his own penis.(As you have pointed out)
 
I agree, but in this case there is no way to ensure rights and privacy for all. Call me hypocritical, but I support DADT because I feel it's the best way to allow homosexuals to serve and have heterosexuals be protected and have their privacy rights preserved. It may not be the most ideal solution, but it is the best one. The alternative would mean heterosexuals will be forced to shower and bunk with those who are attracted to their gender, which is comparable to having co-ed bunks and showers.

1) You are correct. It is hypocritical.
2) There is a difference between thoughts/feelings and actions. You are operating under the assumption that this is not accurate.


So back to my example, if I shower with naked women but don't commit any sexual act is it still a problem for them to feel uncomfortable with me being there?

If there is nothing that states that this is not allowed, yes. Try this. What if she's a lesbian and is NOT uncomfortable? See how you are using very subjective and absolutist conditions and examples?



You are right in that there is no "right" that others feel uncomfortable. What if peanut butter makes someone uncomfortable? They don't have the right to demand all peanut butter be destroyed.

However, people have a right to privacy. We have male and female bathrooms for a reason. We have separate showering facilities at gyms for a reason. The only way I could support repealing DADT is if they had a bunk set up where gays will have to stay and heteros can chose to stay there if they have no problem with it. However, this is not always possible and you would still have gays being attracted to other gays living and showering together in the same living space.

Why do you think there are separate showering and bathroom facilities?
 
What happens when they get outed then? Will they have to leave the military because some homophobe might feel uncomfortable? This same argument was made about minorities, when they decided to integrate the military, and it was just as bad then as it is now. Someone's insecurities are their problem, not the people they are uncomfortable about.
Honestly, I really don't see the big deal, I really doubt any LGBT people in the military are going to make a pass at anyone they are bunking or showering with.
You say we should accept people for who they are but not force people into uncomfortable situations, but if they are uncomfortable with homosexuals being in their unit then they have not truly accepted them, as equals, or human beings. Homosexuals in the military should be treated just like heterosexuals, nothing more, nothing less. It's just that simple, and if anyone is uncomfortable with that, it's their problem, and they do need to get over it.

Spoken like someone who has never been in the situation where your job is more than just a job. Your unit is your family, your brotherhood. Divisiveness in your unit makes you weak, incapable of completing your mission.
 
In your argument with digsbe you were apparently suggesting that there is a difference between hetreosexuals showering with the opposite sex and homosexuals showering with the same sex.
That argument was of course flawed, since there is no difference between a sexual attraction of a gay man to a penis and a straight male to a vagina, even though the gay man can see his own penis.(As you have pointed out)

I pointed out the flaw with hhis argument, since it does not take into account that gay men are not visibly different from strait men, whereas women are visibly different from men. Right now, every day, strait men are showing with gay men and there is no problem. Strait women are showing with gay women. It happens, and in many cases it happens with the strait person knowing it is happening. The only case where it is a problem is when some one acts innapropriately, and there are already regulations in place for those situations.
 
Gays should be allowed to serve openly int he military, but the current bill is full of pork so it should not be supported.

This should be a clean act for the right reasons, not perverted into a political maneuver for funding pet protects. Don't dishonor gays that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom