• 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
It is a different topic. Boys grow up showing with boys and girls grow up showering with girls. Never the twain shall meet. I would have no hesitation in showering with a room full of lesbians. They're all girls, just like me.

Asking a woman to shower with a man is not the same thing.
Well, you don't get to equate little boys and girls to grown men and women as an argument. There is a differnce between boys and men. Boys are boys. Men are aware of their sexual desires. Openly gay means openly gay. We don't get to argue that they should be respected for their sexual preference and then claim that we should pretend that it makes no difference.

If their sexual desires are supposed to be equal and respected to the sexual desires of heterosexuals, then they should be treated as sexual beings like the rest. It is the same thing as asking men and women to shower together. How many gay men would love to be in a room full of naked men? Or are they robotic and without human nature?
 
Why are showers segregated by gender, what is the reason or purpose of this?

It is a different topic. Boys grow up showing with boys and girls grow up showering with girls. Never the twain shall meet. I would have no hesitation in showering with a room full of lesbians. They're all girls, just like me.

Asking a woman to shower with a man is not the same thing.


Hm. I would be somewhat uncomfortable showering with a room full of male homosexuals. There, I admitted it. Wow, I feel so free. "Free to be me..." :mrgreen:

James later asks why showers are gender-segregated in school. Well, we know the answer don't we? Because we're worried that something MIGHT happen between them, especially between 13-21 yo.

We continue to segregate showers and lockers at adult exercise facilities into full adulthood. Why?

We know why, of course.

Is there NO parallel at all to the homosexual question? Can someone explain why not?

Paging Jallman. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I would guess it starts with mom, dad, the school board......

And why do you think it starts with mom,dad and the school board? Why do you think that they do not want males and females showering together?


What are you asking?

Because you seem to be deliberately ignoring the reasons why school showers and even military showers are segregated by gender.
 
Why are showers segregated by gender, what is the reason or purpose of this?

Come on, Goshin. I think you might be thinking over the idea but I don't believe you're sold on it.
How does a woman/woman or man/man showering together in any way equate to a woman and a man showering together?

I really don't want to derail Redress' thread. It's a good one. I'll join you in another thread on this topic if you want to start one.
Whaddya say?

:wink2:

If you want to start a new thread, I will join you there.

I don't claim to have "bought" into anything, or not. I'm asking the question: IS there no comparison between the two issues? Both involve someone being among nude individuals to whom he/she might be attracted, and the question of whether such a scenario could lead to problems.

It seems that with male/female scenarios we DO automatically assume their could be issues. We DO seem to automatically assume that some women would be uncomfortable with it and further that it is OKAY and REASONABLE for women to have a problem with communally showering/changing among men.

Yet when we turn that around and say "some men might be uncomfortable showering/changing with homosexual men", all the sudden they are homophobes who need to grow up and get over it, because THEY are the problem.

Double standard?

I'm just asking questions...
 
Wouldn't distrust come with having to hide it, and lie about it?
What is to distrust when the problem is not known? If you don't know about something, you can't be afraid/paranoid/homophobic/etc.

I would rather have people be able to be out in the open, than have to hide it, and have rumors about people spreading.
Rumors don't spread. Soldiers live their lives and move on. Nobody gives a **** until the problem is KNOWN.

The fact is that true acceptance of others, and having shared experience's bring unity.
Until you can understand what goes on in the mind of a combat killer, I don't think 90% of the combat soldiers I have worked with give a **** what type of experience homosexuals can "share" with them.
Also, why would someone being gay bring distrust about them? This fallacy that all gay people can't wait to get in the shower with heterosexuals so they can gawk at them is nonsense. Being truthful is the best policy, and allowing gays to openly serve, will not only help our military, but our society as a whole.
Its not nonsense to those who you want to impose your sense of "fair" and "politically correct" nonsense on. Im not so sure how this difference will help society as a whole either.
 
Come on, Goshin. I think you might be thinking over the idea but I don't believe you're sold on it.
How does a woman/woman or man/man showering together in any way equate to a woman and a man showering together?

I really don't want to derail Redress' thread. It's a good one. I'll join you in another thread on this topic if you want to start one.
Whaddya say?

:wink2:

Oh c'mon. I think you are underthinking this. Shower segregation is based on physical appearance, which was the simple way of seperating sexual prefernece. The military, especially the Marines and Army, is an institution where proximity and personal space is a luxury. Openly serving gays will be the source of a leadership struggle. Showering, living quarters, and such are exactly what the Pentagon is focusing on in this study. It's not a matter of whether to do it. It's a matter of how.
 
Double standard?

I'm just asking questions...

It is a double standard.... a double standard of the "politically correct" order.

Its "politically correct" and liberal and "fair" to support gays in every way shape and fashion and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe who has no reasoning behind their problems.
 
At what high schools? The ones in San Fransisco and Massachusetts? No offense but wasn't the last time you were in high school was the 1950s or 1960s? So how would you know what went on in the high schools or high school locker rooms in the last 30 years?

I graduated in 1980. Please don't ASSume. My daughter also went to high school in the 90's.

How would a coed shower and coed room sharing be different than heterosexuals and gays showering and sharing rooms together?

It is irrelevant to this discussion as people have mentioned before.
 
Last edited:
It is irrelevant to this discussion as people have mentioned before.

It's hardly irrelevant if the military study is focusing on such topics. What do you think they are studying, whether or not they can eat the same MREs?
 
Last edited:
See, this is why I'd rather wait until the Pentagon finishes their studies on the subject. We need to KNOW if this is going to cause readiness problems of some kind before we go messing with the organization that protects the nation.

If the Joint Chiefs figure they can handle it, and the troops don't have a problem with it, fine. I'm just saying let's be sure we aren't opening a big can of "OH CHIT I didn't know THAT would happen!" before we do this.
 
See, this is why I'd rather wait until the Pentagon finishes their studies on the subject. We need to KNOW if this is going to cause readiness problems of some kind before we go messing with the organization that protects the nation.

If the Joint Chiefs figure they can handle it, and the troops don't have a problem with it, fine. I'm just saying let's be sure we aren't opening a big can of "OH CHIT I didn't know THAT would happen!" before we do this.

In the end, this is going to be a leadership challenge. At the basic level, the leadership will have to deal with the refusal to get along within platoons, squads, and fire teams. All it's going to take is a few accusing one of looking at another in the shower. Or friction between room mates over whatever may arise. And these room mates make up the fire teams.
 
Since it looks like either this year or early next DADT will almost certainly be repealed, and the latest polling shows over 70 % support for allowing gays to serve openly, it's time to ask the basic question. Do you think the law should be changed so gays can serve openly in the military?

I would like to see a poll with this question asked of the military vets of this forum.
 
Since it looks like either this year or early next DADT will almost certainly be repealed, and the latest polling shows over 70 % support for allowing gays to serve openly, it's time to ask the basic question. Do you think the law should be changed so gays can serve openly in the military?


Hmmm.

I'd like to see figures on just how many gays in the military we're talking about....

...vs how many military personnel would have a major problem with repealing DADT and might end their career early over it?

If the former number is 1% and the latter is 30%, there could indeed be a readiness issue.

First and foremost the military has to be able to fight well; all issues of fairness or equality come FAR behind that question.

Caveat: I have no idea what those percentages would be... I just think we ought to know before we do anything.
 
All I have to say really is that it's an insult that men and women are putting their lives down for their country and in the process they have to live in fear that who they are could be outed and their service could be finished.

The Pentagon should do whatever it takes to provide these people with dignity of service. The rest of you will just have to deal with it.
 
Hmmm.

I'd like to see figures on just how many gays in the military we're talking about....

...vs how many military personnel would have a major problem with repealing DADT and might end their career early over it?

If the former number is 1% and the latter is 30%, there could indeed be a readiness issue.

First and foremost the military has to be able to fight well; all issues of fairness or equality come FAR behind that question.

Caveat: I have no idea what those percentages would be... I just think we ought to know before we do anything.

In my experience,... when the basic troops (enlested, lower ranks) did not feel their immediate superiors had their best interest at heart,... they would find other ways to handle 'situations.' I seen more than one guy look for ways to 'get out' or get a change of orders because they feared for themselves if they didn't. One was overly religuious (wouldn't wear shorts or pt gear for religious reasons) One was gay. Several were just lazy and or had bad attitudes.

The point is,... the Marine corps (I won't speak for other branches) is not the place to air your unique individual qualities (regardless of what they are) if they are going to throw a wrench in the unit's cohesiveness. There is a lot of down time and too many opportunities (guys who are already away from home, in uncomfortable situations (shared showers, etc) to accomodate even the slightest chance that another guy is getting wood checking you out.
 
I would like to see a poll with this question asked of the military vets of this forum.

A fair number of military vets have posted and offered their opinions in this thread, myself included.
 
What is to distrust when the problem is not known? If you don't know about something, you can't be afraid/paranoid/homophobic/etc.
What are we supposed to do? Hide LGBT people under the rug, pretend they don't exist. If they live on base are they supposed to hide their partners? Are they supposed to not have a love life? It's hard to keep this stuff hidden.

Rumors don't spread. Soldiers live their lives and move on. Nobody gives a **** until the problem is KNOWN.

You're looking at the situation from the unknowing straight solider perspective. Why not take a look at the situation from the shoes of the gay soldier. Living in fear of being found out, trying to hide your personal life, being afraid of being attacked by some homophobe who finds out. Thats what DADT does.
Oh, and I find it disturbing you called homosexuality a "problem"

Its not nonsense to those who you want to impose your sense of "fair" and "politically correct" nonsense on. Im not so sure how this difference will help society as a whole either.

It's not "political correct" nonsense. It's equality, having the same rights for all is something we should strive for. It will help society because people will look at these soldiers,and see people from all walks of life. White, black, asian, Native American, gay, straight, woman, and men, and people will see that we aren't so different. We're all blood, and flesh, and if those people can fight for our country, then their all right. It's a trickle down effect of acceptance.

Like I've said before, the problem is with the homophobes. NOT the LGBT soldiers.
 
I think we should let the military decide for itself.
 
What are we supposed to do? Hide LGBT people under the rug, pretend they don't exist. If they live on base are they supposed to hide their partners? Are they supposed to not have a love life? It's hard to keep this stuff hidden.



You're looking at the situation from the unknowing straight solider perspective. Why not take a look at the situation from the shoes of the gay soldier. Living in fear of being found out, trying to hide your personal life, being afraid of being attacked by some homophobe who finds out. Thats what DADT does.
Oh, and I find it disturbing you called homosexuality a "problem"



It's not "political correct" nonsense. It's equality, having the same rights for all is something we should strive for. It will help society because people will look at these soldiers,and see people from all walks of life. White, black, asian, Native American, gay, straight, woman, and men, and people will see that we aren't so different. We're all blood, and flesh, and if those people can fight for our country, then their all right. It's a trickle down effect of acceptance.

Like I've said before, the problem is with the homophobes. NOT the LGBT soldiers.

your star,

Your position is idealistic. If there is one place we should refrain from idealism it is in the military.
 
I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?

because proponents don't actually care about whether gays are serving or not; they care about making a political point and using the military to do it.
 
What are we supposed to do? Hide LGBT people under the rug, pretend they don't exist. If they live on base are they supposed to hide their partners? Are they supposed to not have a love life? It's hard to keep this stuff hidden.



You're looking at the situation from the unknowing straight solider perspective. Why not take a look at the situation from the shoes of the gay soldier. Living in fear of being found out, trying to hide your personal life, being afraid of being attacked by some homophobe who finds out. Thats what DADT does.
Oh, and I find it disturbing you called homosexuality a "problem"



It's not "political correct" nonsense. It's equality, having the same rights for all is something we should strive for. It will help society because people will look at these soldiers,and see people from all walks of life. White, black, asian, Native American, gay, straight, woman, and men, and people will see that we aren't so different. We're all blood, and flesh, and if those people can fight for our country, then their all right. It's a trickle down effect of acceptance.

Like I've said before, the problem is with the homophobes. NOT the LGBT soldiers.

Just to make the point, since some one is going to bring this up and be accurate and probably not as mellow on it as I, being against gays in the military, or uncomfortable around gays does not really make one a homophobe. The former makes them in the wrong on the issue, but that is a different thing entirely.
 
your star,

Your position is idealistic. If there is one place we should refrain from idealism it is in the military.

Why?

The time for equality in any aspect of this country is always now. If we ever are going to see the day where the phrase that "All men are created equal" is actually accurate in describing this country we must fight for equality, for everyone, in every situation.
 
because proponents don't actually care about whether gays are serving or not; they care about making a political point and using the military to do it.

This is 100 % factually incorrect. If you don't know how other people think, it will only serve to make you foolish to tell people how they think. You have no clue how those who support gays serving openly think, as your post proves.
 
your star,

Your position is idealistic. If there is one place we should refrain from idealism it is in the military.

1) I disagree that we should refrain from idealism in the military. It should in fact be one of the many goals for the military.

2) The issue is whether it will work. I think we all agree that if it will not, then it should not be implemented. Part of the explanation of why it will is that forcing people to be responsible for their own emotional reactions is not harmful to the military, and will actually lead to better soldiers.
 
because proponents don't actually care about whether gays are serving or not; they care about making a political point and using the military to do it.

I've heard some plausible reasons for why DADT should not be lifted, but they are mostly logistical problems that can be overcome with good policy making.

The blanket "no" statements have failed to sway me at all. It's frankly non-negotiable to me. When the military allowed women in, they, by virtue of rewriting the rules, defined themselves as an institution that allows people who may be attracted to each other to serve together.

Tough luck.
 
Back
Top Bottom