• 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!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

Not women only, no, but both in parallel per your 'gay men think like women when it comes to sex' argument.

Since gay man have the sexual attraction of hetero women, integrating gays in the way women were integrated seems to be the way to go.

Not sure I follow you............
 
Not sure I follow you............

It's your argument....

Gay men think like women And Lesbians think like men when it comes to sex.........

I agree with that argument, but I also think this is perfectly manageable by integrating gays in the way women were integrated.
 
Last edited:
OK I will give you another chance.......How do you have to deal with gays serving openly in the navy aboard ship?:confused:

There's nothing to deal with. Everyone just does their job. Gays and Straights don't generally have sex with each other.
 
It's your argument....



I agree with that argument, but I also think this is perfectly manageable by integrating gays in the way women were integrated.

1. I don't thin Gay men think about women.........

2. well that would make it 2 for 2 because women have not worked aboard ship.....
 
There's nothing to deal with. Everyone just does their job. Gays and Straights don't generally have sex with each other.

They don't huh.......Well I have seen many instances where gays made unwanted sexual advancements against straights and were discharged.........How do you explain that?
 
Yeah the pressure is on for the status quo.......

Really? Hmm 20, 30 years ago I bet the Sec. of Defense would have been fired for even suggesting gays could serve.
 
1. I don't thin Gay men think about women.........

2. well that would make it 2 for 2 because women have not worked aboard ship.....

Not sure I follow you. There was no shortage of women serving on ships in my Navy. (Well, actually, there was. Come to think of it. :rofl)

The Department of the Navy announced today that it will begin assigning women to duty aboard ships. The action is in accord with Navy-sponsored changes to legislation governing the assignment of women contained in the recently enacted Fiscal Year 1979 Defense Authorization Bill. The action is also in accordance with the applicable judicial decision.

<snip> Women in U.S.Navy, women on Navy ships

There were guys onboard that I swear were more queer than a three dollar bill too. Several effeminate types too. Boy, did those guys catch hell.

After seeing the hell and harassment they went through I always wondered WHY a gay would even WANT to serve and subject themselves to such harassment. They can't just swim home.

In fact, I married an ET. She was a bitch and I kicked her to the curb later BUT at the time, she had tits and an ass and that's all that mattered. :rofl You know what they say, "Any port in a storm."
 
The part of a homosexual man's brain which interprets pheromones is identical to a heterosexual woman. The part of a homosexual woman's brain which interprets pheromones is identical to a heterosexual man.

It's been a while but if you would like I could dig up one of the studies I've already read on this. Please keep in mind, though, that I'm really trying to avoid a 'nature of sexuality' discussion.

You don't have to cite studies, I already know about this, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. All it proves is that the attraction exists, but it doesn't address the fact that attractions are manageable with simple human will power. Just because pheromones work that way, doesn't mean gay man will be throwing themselves at straight men in the military. If that were the case it would already be happening.

It's my argument that while Navy's concern is valid, it is just as manageable as having women on the ship.

Yes but the reasons for doing so are different. One is about the right of the woman to be safe and secure from predatory sexuality within a male-dominated unit, and one is about stigmatization of someone for the nature of their sexuality. Gays would most certainly be in the minority in any unit, so removing them is not about group-predatory sexuality (i.e. protecting the gay person from being come onto), but the discomfort of the straight majority who are not even at risk. In addition to that, sexual misconduct is still sexual misconduct in the military, whether it's dealing with heterosexual interactions or homosexual.

If integration proves to be a problem, the military could simply assign homosexuals to bunks specifically for homosexuals only just as they do for women only. I'm not talking about creating special accommodations or even moving a single bunk on a ship, but merely assigning who sleeps where with sexual orientation in mind.

If integration is a problem because of homophobia, then people who have a problem with the gays can simply resign from the military. They are not in the military to be activists anymore than the gays are; they are there to do a service to their country. If they can't work together because of psychological distress over their fellow soldier's sexuality - which is, in fact, irrelevant to their duties - then they need to leave. Likewise, if a gay soldier is unable to control themselves, then they need to be removed. People who put their duties second have no business being in the military.

There is no need to make sweeping segregation policies. It can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Only if it becomes epidemic - and it won't - should general policy be considered.

Every single argument being made here were the same arguments that were made for segregating blacks and whites in the military. It's about the discomfort of the empowered majority, and to that I say, too effing bad.

I think we need to afford people some time to acclimate to change instead of trying to get everything we want all at once. Other militarys have gays integrated with heteros and there's no significant problem, but those militarys have had gays mixed with heteros for a very long time.

As far as I know, in Canada, there were no problems in the beginning, just like there are no problems now. Although, the same arguments were raised by conservatives... that there would be huge issues, the sky would fall, etc. It ended up not being that way whatsoever.

If DADT is lifted, it won't mean that suddenly every gay is out of the closet. The military is still a homophobic, hetero-normalizing, macho environment where people are trained to put their cares for humans on the way side in favor of taking orders. The perceived stereotype of what gays are contradicts that model which is where this fear comes from. The very root of it is lack of awareness that gays can be just as macho as any straight guy.

Once DADT is lifted, this will become plainly obvious.

If I had my way about it I would start with full integration with strict enforcement of rules of conduct, and only if a significant trend developed would I implement a back-up plan of segregating bunks.

This would be a sensible policy. To my knowledge, this was the plan that was implemented in Canada, mostly to appease worried conservatives. There ended up being no need for segregation. I'm not saying the needs of the U.S. will be the same, but I think as long as the military emphasizes the reasons that people are there in the first place, the secondary social issues will be less important.
 
Really? Hmm 20, 30 years ago I bet the Sec. of Defense would have been fired for even suggesting gays could serve.

It seems you know nothing about the chain of command.......The president says **** and trh SECDEF squates and says where and when........
 
Not sure I follow you. There was no shortage of women serving on ships in my Navy. (Well, actually, there was. Come to think of it. :rofl)

The Department of the Navy announced today that it will begin assigning women to duty aboard ships. The action is in accord with Navy-sponsored changes to legislation governing the assignment of women contained in the recently enacted Fiscal Year 1979 Defense Authorization Bill. The action is also in accordance with the applicable judicial decision.

<snip> Women in U.S.Navy, women on Navy ships

There were guys onboard that I swear were more queer than a three dollar bill too. Several effeminate types too. Boy, did those guys catch hell.

After seeing the hell and harassment they went through I always wondered WHY a gay would even WANT to serve and subject themselves to such harassment. They can't just swim home.

In fact, I married an ET. She was a bitch and I kicked her to the curb later BUT at the time, she had tits and an ass and that's all that mattered. :rofl You know what they say, "Any port in a storm."

and did you have any trouble on your ship like men and women fraternizing, women getting pregnant and having to leave the ship so that some poor guy has to do 2 jobs........That is what happens when the carriers come into the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard...........

The big shots will tell you on the record that women aboard ship has been a winning proposition but if you talk to the chiefs and officer off the record they will tell you its been a miserable failure, that men and women aboard ship for a long period of time will get together and make babies....its the nature of the beast...........
 

They don't huh.......Well I have seen many instances where gays made unwanted sexual advancements against straights and were discharged.........How do you explain that?

Nothing to explain. Women get unwanted advances all the time. They say no. Are you saying Navy men are not as adult as everyday women? And an advance is not the same as having sex. As it is dangerous and unproductive, it really doesn't pay for anyone to make such an advance, so it is hardly something that will happen often.
 
ROFL! Thanks, I needed that. You really know **** about gay men.
So you think he COMPLETELY off base? No any truth whatsoever to his assertion? Just asking.
 
So you think he COMPLETELY off base? No any truth whatsoever to his assertion? Just asking.

Oh, I'm sure there are effeminate gay guys. The problem is that I've met many effeminate straight guys and many masculine gay guys. There is also biological evidence to indicate that many gay men have brains that are more similar to heterosexual women than they are to heterosexual men. What NP was suggesting was a stereotype; an oversimplified conception of how gay men think. Gay men ultimately think like gay men. They don't think like heterosexual women or like heterosexual men; they are not restricted to some funky gender role dichotomy. There is a reason that ancient cultures have referred to homosexuals and transgenders as the "third gender". Gay men are still men, with the same rampant sex drive that plagues the males of our species, but they are also often more free to express their sensitive and empathetic sides than heterosexual men are. In many primitive societies, homosexuals and transgenders have been responsible for bridging the gap between the sexes and bringing men and women together. Judging by shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, that hasn't changed much over the millennia.
 
The big shots will tell you on the record that women aboard ship has been a winning proposition but if you talk to the chiefs and officer off the record they will tell you its been a miserable failure, that men and women aboard ship for a long period of time will get together and make babies....its the nature of the beast...........

Then you're in luck. Two guys getting it on can't make babies :mrgreen:
 
Nothing to explain. Women get unwanted advances all the time. They say no. Are you saying Navy men are not as adult as everyday women? And an advance is not the same as having sex. As it is dangerous and unproductive, it really doesn't pay for anyone to make such an advance, so it is hardly something that will happen often.

And unwanted advance is a violation of the UCMJ....It is obvious you have never served your country or you would know that....
 
Nothing to explain. Women get unwanted advances all the time. They say no. Are you saying Navy men are not as adult as everyday women? And an advance is not the same as having sex. As it is dangerous and unproductive, it really doesn't pay for anyone to make such an advance, so it is hardly something that will happen often.

An advance, while on duty, can be considered sexual harrassment.
 
Oh, I'm sure there are effeminate gay guys. The problem is that I've met many effeminate straight guys and many masculine gay guys. There is also biological evidence to indicate that many gay men have brains that are more similar to heterosexual women than they are to heterosexual men. What NP was suggesting was a stereotype; an oversimplified conception of how gay men think. Gay men ultimately think like gay men. They don't think like heterosexual women or like heterosexual men; they are not restricted to some funky gender role dichotomy. There is a reason that ancient cultures have referred to homosexuals and transgenders as the "third gender". Gay men are still men, with the same rampant sex drive that plagues the males of our species, but they are also often more free to express their sensitive and empathetic sides than heterosexual men are. In many primitive societies, homosexuals and transgenders have been responsible for bridging the gap between the sexes and bringing men and women together. Judging by shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, that hasn't changed much over the millennia.
What the hell do you mean by plagues?
 
You know, those gays don't have self-control like we do. If allowed to serve, they would clearly rape everything in sight. All the time. Because it would be allowed.

Oh wait, gays already serve in the military and sexual advances on your fellow soldiers/sailors/marines/etc is already in violation of military code and can get you discharged. And they also don't rape people all the time.
 
You know, those gays don't have self-control like we do. If allowed to serve, they would clearly rape everything in sight. All the time. Because it would be allowed.

Oh wait, gays already serve in the military and sexual advances on your fellow soldiers/sailors/marines/etc is already in violation of military code and can get you discharged. And they also don't rape people all the time.

And 14,500 have been discharged since 1994 when DADT was instituted.......
 
and did you have any trouble on your ship like men and women fraternizing, women getting pregnant and having to leave the ship so that some poor guy has to do 2 jobs........That is what happens when the carriers come into the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard...........

The big shots will tell you on the record that women aboard ship has been a winning proposition but if you talk to the chiefs and officer off the record they will tell you its been a miserable failure, that men and women aboard ship for a long period of time will get together and make babies....its the nature of the beast...........

Hell yeah. Why do you think I ended up marrying the bitch? :rofl

Point being, speaking personally mind you, I found women to be more of a distraction than any of the suspected gays were. The gays never really bothered anybody. Yet, they caught hell. You know how much "bravado" goes on in the fleet.

Logic-wise, I would think gay guys would be less of a distraction to the men than the women are. Back then, I was thinking about ***** 24/7. Now days, I just think about it 22/7. :rofl

But in all fairness, the chicks did do a pretty good job. Not that I really noticed that much. I was too busy looking at their ass instead of their work. :3oops:
 
And 14,500 have been discharged since 1994 when DADT was instituted.......

And how many of those got discharged for misconduct, and how many simply for being gay?
 
Back
Top Bottom