Friday, February 5, 2010

Gays in the Military


Honey Locust Thorns
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
I've seen/heard this question arise lately...

Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension. So, where would we HOUSE gays in the military??

What do we do if "the gays" are openly admitted in the military? Deal with it. Be adult. Expect professionalism.

As we all know, gay folk are already in the military. Always have been.

Those who think "most guys" would be uncomfortable living with gay guys may be projecting a bit too much of their own worries. Gay folk already are in the military, does that make them uncomfortable?

Maybe it does for some folk, but if so, they just need to move on, get over it. Be adult. Be professional.

If I were in a room of 20 guys and one of them was gay, the thing is, I'm not interested in him, not being gay myself. So, there's not really a likelihood of an affair developing or it being a problem for me. Right?

If the guy is not a sexual deviant, then there's not a chance of him wanting to force himself upon me. Agreed? (And if he is sexually deviant and inclined to force himself on others, then it's his problem, straight or gay.)

So, from my point of view, I'm not uncomfortable being in a barracks-style room with a gay guy. I don't know of any studies that indicate that "most guys" would be uncomfortable with this situation. I sort of doubt that, given that it's been the reality for a long time. But even if that's the case, that seems to be their problem, not the gay soldier's problem.

Now, the greatest problem that I can think of is for the gay guy (or lesbian gal). And in that case, perhaps it's a legitimate question to ask: Are they the sort who would be unduly distracted and "turned on" by the notion of sleeping around a bunch of guys/gals who aren't attracted to them?

The word I hear is, no, they would not be.

Think of it this way: If you were tending to a bunch of young children, changing the diapers of both boys and girls, is that a problem for you? No, of course not. Or at least not for me. I'm not attracted to children, so that's not like there's any temptation there.

From what I hear, it's more like that (slightly different situation, of course, but in the ballpark of being like that).

Yeah, some times, a gay guy might joke around about how "hot" Brad Pitt is or a lesbian might drool a bit about some straight woman. But from what I hear, it's sort of like that whole gaydar thing - if there are no "gay vibes" coming from someone, there's not that much of a problem setting the straight group aside as "untouchable." They aren't interested in someone who's not interested in them, as a rule.

That's what I hear.

Now, of course, there ARE some more lusty gay and lesbian types out there. Folk who are turned on by anything that's breathing and the same gender. Of course, that's true for straight folk, too (except, of course, lusting for the opposite gender - but by my anecdotal estimations, the problem is largest with young straight guys, am I right?)

But we expect our doctors to be able to examine men or women without it being a problem - we expect professionalism from them. The same is true for our soldiers. We expect professionalism. And, if an individual soldier has a hard time being professional around whichever gender he or she is attracted to, then that's a problem that specific soldier has and they need to be weeded out, probably. Gay or straight.

But as long as our soldiers, like our doctors, can be professional about it and compartmentalize their sexual urges (and I see no reason why they can't, in general), then this is not going to be a problem.

Speaking as a non-gay person, that has been my impression. I have not seen anyone writing firsthand about the situation, but that's my impression, for what it's worth.

Anyone out there seen anyone writing/speaking with more firsthand knowledge on this topic?

36 comments:

Alan said...

The entire premise of this series of questions is flawed.

We've had LGBT folks in the military forever. Yet let's count how many sexual harassment suits we've had involving same-sex interactions vs. opposite sex harassment.

Ummm.... Tailhook, anyone??!

If there's any group of sexually predatory people we should ban from the military, if experience is any indication, that would be straight males. Yet no one is handwringing over their inclusion in our military.

Instead we argue about who we should or should not include in our military. And *in each case* we do so based on whether or not these straight white males can handle it.

Can we include racial/ethnic minorities in the military? Well, the argument went, we cannot because it would be disruptive for the straight white males who are there. Can we include women in the military? Well, the argument went, we cannot because it would be disruptive for the straight white males who are there. Can we include LGBT people in the military? Well, the argument goes, we cannot because it would be disruptive for the straight white males who are there.

Since when do we automatically assume that all straight white males are either completely pathetically fragile wimps or complete Neanderthals? Sure, some might be, yet we do not keep out all heterosexual males from the military just because some are sex crazed barbarians.

If people honestly do not trust the people in uniform who are voluntarily honorably serving our country to behave in a reasonable and professional manner, then I highly doubt they actually know anything about our military. I just think this is all a bunch of crap because unlike those who question the abilities of our soldiers, I actually respect the professionalism and honor of the men and women in our military, instead of looking down on them as uneducated rubes.

When units were integrated, it was argued that it would cause too much unit disruption. And yeah, perhaps it did cause disruption. But our soldiers are professionals and they got over it. They got over it to the point of just a few years later having a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who is black. The unit will get over this too.

Heck, if the Israelis can do this and still remain one of the most badass militaries on the planet, what are we worried about, exactly?

Oh yeah, we're worried about those poor victimized straight marines who apparently can't handle themselves around blacks, women, and a few queers. Feh. Is that really a good basis for any sort of policy.

And the conservative argument here, is the same as the conservative argument for gay marriage. Look, conservatives, you won! You've even persuaded LGBT people that service to their country is an important and valuable ideal. You should celebrate instead of keeping them out.

Alan said...

BTW, I do think it's interesting that, rather than an entire discussion about the potential benefits of admitting a group of people who are clearly devoted to the military & their country and who are highly skilled, the conversation, even among allies, tends to degenerate into talking about sexual predators.

Meh.

Dan Trabue said...

I hope you don't perceive this post as unkind, in any way, Alan. As you can see, I hope, I agree with your conclusions.

Alan said...

Yeah, I understand. I just think the whole "gays are sexual predators" meme is a little 1950's and accepting that premise is flawed from the beginning.

The real issue should be whether or not it is a good idea for a free country to exclude any law-abiding, qualified individuals from military service based on something that has nothing to do with whether or not they can fire a gun or fix a humvee or translate Farsi. Particularly in a time of war, when we have had to instituted stop-loss orders to keep our numbers up.

For me, one of the most convincing arguments is that the UK, Israel, Germany, Australia, Italy, & most of the rest of our allies around the world allow LGBT people to serve in their militaries.

North Korea, Cuba, China, Syria, and Yemen, for example, do not.

Which group would we rather be part of?

Stan said...

I missed it. Where was the "gays are sexual predators" concept?

Dan Trabue said...

You'd have to ask Alan, but I think he's referring to the notion that some (I don't know about "most") straight guys would feel uncomfortable with a gay guy in their dorm/barracks notion that was posited. ("Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension")

Why do you think some people think that "most guys" would feel uncomfortable? Because gays are sexual predators, looking to sneak a peek at some guys' junk? From what source do you think the discomfort is arising?

As I noted, if a gay guy were in my shared space (as they have, indeed, been), I would not feel uncomfortable. I'm not uncomfortable for a few reasons...

1. I assume he's not interested in me. There's no real chance for romance there, so why would he be interested?

2. Even if someone DID find me attractive, what of it? Again, there's no real chance of romance, so where's the discomfort coming from?

For this reason, some people might assume that gay folk are acting in a sexual predator mode, trying to check out the other dudes, maybe hit on them or something.

It seems if you're comfortable with your sexuality and with your gay friends' sexuality, there's no real discomfort there. In other words, it seems the discomfort is coming NOT so much from the gay fella's action(s), but from the straight person who fears being hit on or ogled or something and why would the army make special arrangements or allowances for that person's discomfort?

Where do you think the discomfort would come from?

Dan Trabue said...

Sorry if that was poorly worded, hopefully that made sense.

Marty said...

"For this reason, some people might assume that gay folk are acting in a sexual predator mode, trying to check out the other dudes, maybe hit on them or something."

If that is really the case, then it says more about the person who thinks that way than it does about the one who is gay.

Really.

To exclude anyone from willingly serving their country in the military because of their sexual orientation is...well...totally stupid.

Stan said...

I guess I'm confused. I would think that a woman who finds a man attractive, so she asks him to, say, go on a date, would not be classified as a "sexual predator". I would assume that a homosexual who finds a man attractive might ask him if he's interested in some sort of relationship as well, and I wouldn't classify it as "sexual predator". It seems as if you (Alan and Dan) are saying either anyone who pursues a sexual relationship of any sort is a sexual predator, or homosexuals do not pursue sexual relationships. I'm pretty sure that neither of these are correct, so I'm just lost.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm with you, sorta, Marty.

Stan, I guess maybe it would help if you would clarify if you think "most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension?" And, if so, why do you think there'd be sexual tension? Why do you think there'd be discomfort?

I'm saying between a regular straight guy and a regular gay guy, there is no sexual tension because there is no mutual attraction of a sexual manner. There being no sexual attraction, there'd then be no sense of being uncomfortable.

However, if you are of the mind that gay folk are more predatory, trying to win you over, trying to seduce you or something, then that would explain the source of the discomfort and sexual tension.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan said...

It seems as if you (Alan and Dan) are saying either anyone who pursues a sexual relationship of any sort is a sexual predator, or homosexuals do not pursue sexual relationships.

I'd suggest that it is the case generally that gay folk don't tend to pursue sexual relationships with straight folk. Just as most straight folk probably don't pursue sexual relationships with gay folk. What would the point be?

Were I a single young man, I could expend a great deal of energy pursuing a romantic relationship with a lesbian girl, but to what end? The answer would be no, so it would be a waste of time.

Marty said...

"However, if you are of the mind that gay folk are more predatory, trying to win you over, trying to seduce you or something, then that would explain the source of the discomfort and sexual tension"

Is this a guy thing or something?

I have some friends that used to be...30+ years or so ago...in a Sign Language entertainment group. They traveled different places performing. On one occasion 2 guys in the group, one straight, the other gay, shared a hotel room together. Later the gay guy told me our friend (the straight one) had wrapped himself up like a mummy in bedsheets in fear of being hit on. We really had a good laugh over it. To this day whenever I see that straight guy I think about that.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

There seems to be this notion, the "gay as sexual predator" thing, that gays and lesbians, self-professed bisexuals and even some transgenderedd folk, are a bunch of adolescents, incapable of controlling their sexual urges, wanting to hit on any and every person they lay eyes on, refusing to take "No" for an answer.

And it seems to exist among a bunch of people who seem to me, at any rate, to be so afraid of "gay" precisely because . . . well, to be honest, I think they're afraid they might enjoy it.

Stan said...

Okay, well, I see the problem. I wasn't aware that homosexuals are always clear on who is and who is not attracted to the same gender and would never think of approaching those who are not. I've heard of "gaydar", but I wasn't aware that it was so keenly developed. That's good to know. It appears that at least some heterosexual males know in advance when they see a homosexual female as well, since they wouldn't make any attempt to start a relationship with a lesbian.

I'm not talking about "predators". Normal males under the age of 30 are acting on hormones and would, even with civility, approach someone (male or female depending on their tendency) to attempt to establish a relationship. Apparently only heterosexual males do that. My bad.

Dan Trabue said...

I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked of you, Stan. It might help the conversation if you did. You are, I believe, amongst those who believe "Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension."

Why do you think that?

If it is simply the case that you think that straight guys would be "uncomfortable" changing around gay guys, do you think that's a justifiable reason for excluding a segment of the population from service? It seems to many of us to be a fairly lightweight and emotion-based reason. "But I won't feel comfortable undressing around a gay guy!" Really?

These are young men and women who we might be going out to face gunfire and explosions and we're worried that they won't be comfortable undressing around someone else? I know an awful lot of people don't feel comfortable undressing around ANYONE. It seems that if the concern is simply for a soldier's comfort, we'd allow dressing rooms for everyone. But I doubt that you're suggesting that.

So, if you're concerned for something beyond somebody's relatively minor discomfort, what is it?

As to a gay person "knowing" that a straight person is straight, I wasn't actually totally suggesting that they have a sixth sense in that regards, somehow magically knowing. I'm saying that if I'm in a work situation and get to know some folk and know that Mr X is straight and I'm a gay guy, well, then, I would not waste time trying to ask him out.

If the worst thing you're worried about is some gay guy coming up to a straight guy and asking if he's interested, then all the straight guy has to do is say, "no," and that's the end of that conversation. What are you worried will happen? That a straight guy will be propositioned by a gay guy and the straight guy will go, "hmmm, you know, I've always been attracted to girls, but, what the heck! Let's give it a whirl!" - is that what you're worried about?

I'm just unclear on where you concern is or what would trouble you about gays serving in the military.

Dan Trabue said...

Marty asked...

Is this a guy thing or something?

No, just a SOME guy thing, I think. Perhaps it has something to do with how you're raised. I would have suggested it's a universal issue with young men because that's how I was when I was young. But then, my son is not that way, so perhaps if you're raised to believe that gay folk are "sodomites" out to "convert" straight people to being gay and leading lascivious lives, then maybe you're more freaked out about the whole "they might see me!" or "what if he touches me?!" thing.

Perhaps it's just the fear of the unknown.

Marty said...

Senator Gillibrand (NY) was on Wolf Blitzer CNN discussing this issue. She said that we had lost 16,000 military personnel due to our archaic policy, with 800 being in "mission critical areas, meaning we cannot easily replace them"...10% were fluent in foreign languages like Farsi and Arabic.

16,000.

That's more than 3 brigades, more than a whole division.

It's insane.

These men and women are willing and able to serve. Let them.

Alan said...

GKS wrote, "And it seems to exist among a bunch of people who seem to me, at any rate, to be so afraid of "gay" precisely because . . . well, to be honest, I think they're afraid they might enjoy it."

Well there's that. More likely they're not afraid they'd enjoy it because they already know full well that they would. There's no homophobe like a closet queen.

There's also the irony that the majority of guys who are so terrified of gay guys hitting on them are generally stupid, ugly, old, and fat. One has to wonder what sort of fantasy world they're living in where they imagine that *anyone* would hit on them.

They're pretty much same sort of ugly, fat, old guy who thinks wearing a speedo to the beach in order to show off the multiple cardiac surgery scars in his whale-like blubber and back hair is the way to really turn on the ladies.

Marshall Art said...

I believe it's YOU dudes who are missing the point. If there is no problem with people being "professional" and controlling themselves, then I suppose the military could save a whole bunch of cash by grouping everyone together, including male and female. No tension there, huh? Just be professional. That's a far more reasonable way to view the situation than changing diapers, Dan.

That we've had "LGBTX" folks in the military already means nothing. They haven't been free to be thus far so unless they're willing to risk their careers, they keep their mouths shut. This is what makes it possible for them to be there in the first place. It's nonsense to assume that under such circumstances we can make a true judgement of the situation.

Sexual conduct is a logical concern for the military and as noted by Stan, the majority of military are young people for whom such self control is least likely. Fears of being hit-upon are only a portion of what some may consider. More likely is problems between the homosexuals themselves rather than any between them and the normal guys. This would be akin to grouping men and women together. Fraternizations of all sorts are frowned upon in the military and I suppose an ideal situation would be to invent a means of cheaply, safely and temporarily suppressing the sexual desire altogether while one is in the service so as to remove that very volatile emotion from consideration.

It's far too dangerous and important an area for social experimentation and frankly, to force the military to conform to the whims and desires of its members is as nonsensical as forcing God to conform to the sins of mankind. But you folks on the left never tire of such practices.

Dan Trabue said...

Sexual conduct is a logical concern for the military and as noted by Stan, the majority of military are young people for whom such self control is least likely.

1. Sexual conduct while on duty MAY well be a concern of the military. And, if so, there can be rules about that - no fraternization, no sexual conduct or misconduct between soldiers, that could be a rule IF the military is concerned about sexual fraternization.

But we're not talking about sexual conduct. We're talking about people who happen to be gay (or straight). What of it? What's the problem if there are no behavioral issues?

I'm not suggesting that it should be okay for gays to rape folk or to engage in consensual sexual activity while on duty. I'm saying they should not have to hide their sexual orientation any more than straight folk ought to have to hide theirs. Just equality.

2. Why this one "sin," (what is a sin in your mind - being gay, I guess?)? Why say "gays can't be openly 'sinners' in the military"? Why not other sins (or imagined sins)? You're suggesting singling out one group for discrimination for no legitimate cause except "they're gay" and I believe that to be wrong.

Fears of being hit-upon are only a portion of what some may consider. More likely is problems between the homosexuals themselves rather than any between them and the normal guys.

As repeatedly noted, we've had gays in the military forever. Is there now or has there ever been a problem in the real world with gay folk misbehaving? I'd suggest probably not. At least not in any greater degree than straight folk.

You seem to be wanting to discriminate for no legitimate reason beyond that it might make some people uncomfortable. Really? You're worried about our military personnel being uncomfortable?

Marshall Art said...

Again, how is it different than having the sexes sharing bathroom and shower facilities? With normal people separated by sex, there is no sexual tension during the course of the average day.

Look at the situation in the Navy. There are more pregnancies with more women serving along side men. Even where the sexes don't mix on the job, female personnel getting pregnant is a problem with miltary readiness.

Without women, men contracting diseases is a problem with readiness. Adding a class of people who statistically are responsible for most new syphillis cases will affect readiness.

Discriminating against bad behavior is good practice. But the point here is forcing the military to conform to the whims of a scant few selfish and twisted individuals, rather than expecting the conformity that makes the military an efficient fighting unit.

So here's the real issue: what's more important? Serving one's country or serving one's country on one's selfish terms? The military isn't a democracy. It isn't a club for people to express themselves. This whine only adds to the burdens of those expected to train, lead and command order of the troops under their responsibility.

Dan Trabue said...

You keep talking about a vague "sexual tension." Tell me, what are you really worried about?

Is your whole concern that some straight guys will be uncomfortable because they're fearful some other guy might sneak a peak at them?

Is that your entire concern here?

And if so, do you want us to really base policy based solely on the supposed discomfort and fear of a few soldiers?

If there's not a problem (and from what I've heard, the largest actual real world problem we have regarding sexual activity in the military is STRAIGHT sexual misbehavior and violent sexual behavior from straight guys), then why are we accommodating a few folk with religious biases based solely on feelings and discomfort and fear?

On the other hand, if there IS a real world actual problem, by all means, share it.

Stan said...

Alan: "There's also the irony that the majority of guys who are so terrified of gay guys hitting on them are generally stupid, ugly, old, and fat."

Thanks for that, Alan. Good to know that the more "liberal" or "progressive" side which flaunts itself as the kinder, gentler folk can be as rude, overgeneralizing, and unkind as those with whom they disagree.

(Since I don't know anyone in the military who is "stupid, ugly, old, and fat", your argument seems irrelevant as well as unwarranted.)

(And the times that I've been propositioned by homosexuals was never when I was stupid, ugly, old, or fat.)

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: 'You keep talking about a vague "sexual tension.' Tell me, what are you really worried about?"

I would want to repeat Marshall's repeated question: "Again, how is it different than having the sexes sharing bathroom and shower facilities?" If there is no sexual tension, no reason to worry about any of this, and all we need to do is mandate "No sexual behavior", why bother housing men and women in different facilities? It would be so much more efficient and inexpensive to house everyone together. Since sexual tension and sexual behavior is not (or should not be) an issue, what's up with that?

As for the problem of heterosexual harassment, I would agree that it is a problem. No one seems to be willing to talk about the fact that there is no exclusion of females in military roles anymore. No one seems to take into account that one of the primary reasons that such crimes are taking place is because there are more opportunities to commit those crimes (by the influx of more women in more places). And while sexual harassment between the genders is illegal in the military and, thus, actionable, can we expect sexual harassment between the same genders as being equally illegal, equally reported, and equally actionable?

Dan Trabue said...

It is different because the straight soldier is not interested in the gay soldier. Hence, no sexual tension.

SO, I repeat my unanswered question: What are you worried about? Is your concern merely that some straight soldiers would feel "uncomfortable?" Is that the whole and complete entirety of your position? That some people ought not be allowed to serve in the military because other people would feel uncomfortable around them?

If that is your entire argument, do you understand that some of us will dismiss that as an incredibly lightweight and emotion-based reason for discrimination?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan said...

No one seems to be willing to talk about the fact that there is no exclusion of females in military roles anymore.

So, is it your position that gays should not be allowed to serve because other people would be "uncomfortable" around them and that women should not be allowed to serve because they might be the target of rapists and sexist assaults?

Do you understand that if that is your position, you seem to hold a punish the victim approach to policy? Which seems to be a ridiculous and morally offensive position to hold, if that is your position.

I mean, do you also think that it was New York's fault for building the Twin Towers that caused the terrorists to want to destroy it?

Alan said...

Stan blathered, "Good to know that the more "liberal" or "progressive" side which flaunts itself as the kinder, gentler folk can be as rude, overgeneralizing, and unkind as those with whom they disagree."

Hi Stan. I'm over here. See? Yup, over here. *waves* I'm not the entire "liberal" nor "progressive side", nor was I ever elected as a representative for the liberal or progressive side. If you want to criticize liberals and/or progressives as a group, do so based on the behavior of the entire group. I represent a constituency of one. So if you'd like to criticize me, go ahead, I couldn't possibly care less what random anonymous trolls on the internet think. But if you don't want to automatically be taken as a hack, at least try to pretend to be intellectually honest with your criticism.

I've never claimed to be either a liberal nor progressive. Nor have I ever claimed to be kinder nor gentler. That clear things up for you? Good.

I'm sorry that you consider the truth "unkind" but tough cookies, kitten. ;)

BTW, that wasn't an argument, it was an opinion. Try to figure out the difference, and save us all some time, won't you? Thanks. To clarify for you, my arguments were the earlier comments that you skipped because you can't respond to them.

Glad I could clear all that up for you.

Now, on to this... Dan, why are you even engaging with people when you have to make statements like this, "I'm not suggesting that it should be okay for gays to rape folk or to engage in consensual sexual activity while on duty. "

What. The. Hell?

If you feel you have to make such ridiculous statements because what you're saying is going to be misunderstood by the morons you're talking to, to mean that you are actually *for* rape, perhaps you should consider why on Earth you're bothering. Conversing with people who would otherwise believe you approve of rape unless you explicitly say differently is fun? Useful? Enlightening? I find it hard to believe it is any of the above.

Just an observation.

Alan said...

BTW, Dan, the fact that you continue to even deem the whole "sexual tension in the showers" BS as being worthy of a response, Dan, is a little sad itself.

Fact is, I bet I could round up hundreds of women for you to shower with that you wouldn't find the least bit interesting, particularly if we plopped you down in a war zone with the very real threat of IEDs and suicide bombers hanging around outside the camp. So Dan, are you suggesting that we're somehow less evolved than you are? That sexual interest is the only thing on our minds? That gay people are always and automatically attracted to every person of the same sex they see? That they do not have the ability to, as any normal adult can, recognize that there is a time and a place for everything, and the workplace is neither the time nor the place?

If not, why engage on a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of gay people serving in the military?

I understand that discussing guys showering together has a prurient fascination for folks like MA and his cronies, but I'm honestly a little surprised you stoop to their level.

Dan Trabue said...

I, for one, don't think Stan or Marshall or morons or incapable of learning. Most days I think that, at least.

And so, I can't help myself but try to ask questions to get them to clarify their position and to clarify my position.

If nothing else, other people who may LEAN towards thinking like Stan or Marshall may come along and read this and, in comparing what I consider to be our reasonable and moral positions versus their unreasonable and immoral positions... that can help them at least think twice before agreeing with a Stan or a Marshall.

I may be mistaken for doing so, but it seems right to me. I sort of understand your position (I believe you'd say that by engaging in reasonable conversation with people holding unreasonable positions, that I give them more credence than we ought to give) and you may be right. Still, I guess I think it's worthwhile so I do, to some degree, address these folk.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan...

So Dan, are you suggesting that we're somehow less evolved than you are? That sexual interest is the only thing on our minds?

No! No! Not at all. Quite the opposite!

Having been a teen-aged heterosexual male and being around many teen-aged heterosexual males (some who are now in their 30s, 40s and 50s...), sometimes I DO think straight males are less evolved. Sadly.

Alan said...

Then why engage with the smokescreen?

The question is simple: Can LGBT people do the job? Are they just as qualified? Do we want the most qualified, best prepared military to protect us? Of course. Period.

The "gays in the showers" nonsense is just how some people get their rocks off because they enjoy discussing guys showering together while pretending to be horrified by the prospect. Adults have better things to talk about.

Alan said...

It's your business of course, but if I had to actually state to someone that I was against rape because they would otherwise think I was for it, I find it hard to believe there's any chance of common ground or that I could ever understand what motivates such a person.

Frankly, I can't imagine why I'd want to understand such a person.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan, I already DO understand them. I WAS them, although hopefully not to the extreme they are. And so, perhaps you can understand why I strive to be patient.

I hope it does not offend you, as I value your wisdom and friendship here.

Alan said...

Honestly, when our allies seem to accept the premises of the bizarre, silly, unsupported, and obviously offensive positions of people like them, then yeah, I find that sad. It is particularly sad when it requires one to roll around in the mud with them and when they can so clearly manipulate the conversation to the point where you feel you have to defend yourself against your perceived pro-rape beliefs.

So you used to believe that if someone disagreed with you about a topic, that they were probably in favor of rape? Somehow I doubt that. There isn't a continuum between us and them. There is a categorical distinction between someone who holds a set of opinions about particular topics whatever they may be, and someone who believes that anyone who holds a different opinion than theirs is inhuman. So, I don't know you, but I have a hard time believing you were ever them just because you used to hold some similar opinions.

But I don't know you, so I'm not about to get offended by your positions any more than I get offended by the little yapping dogs who troll around here on occasion. But like my neighbor's yappy dog, they are fun to taunt now and then.

Marshall Art said...

Taunt if it makes you happy, Alan. Jibes from the small-minded have no affect, so do your worst.

OR, you could attempt to show where the "unreasonable" part of our concerns are. Maybe better still, you could show how because you have a desire, that such desires equate to rights in any way that must be respected by the rest of society. THAT would be a good way to persuade us troglydytes that prefer to adhere to traditional standards and the eternal truths of God.

DODT, while conflicting with the standing codes of military conduct, is the ideal way for homosexuals and lesbians to serve. It forces them to do what they're suppose to do anyway, which is deny themselves in favor of the military's notion of proper military behavior.

I don't know that Stan or myself ever brought up the idea of rape into the discussion. Thus, I don't know why Dan would feel it necessary to do so. Yet if predators is an issue, bringing in a new group of them isn't bright, even if the percentages of predator to disciplined is the same. Now it shows up in a different way requiring efforts that should be directed toward improving the military, not assimilating a whole new animal.

The question of one shower for all soldiers still stands. If there is no "discomfort" or "tension" that can't be overcome by simply ordering the troops to do so, why separate the sexes? The parallel is obvious except to those deceitful types (like Alan) who pretend such dynamics play no role. Not all women are desired by all men. That has nothing to do with the separation. They're not going to wait to see who's attracted to whom. They just separate them and until this homosex thing it seemed to make perfect sense. But if the military changes its tune, then separating the sexes makes no sense at all.

Alan said...

And MA continues his male-on-male shower fantasies...