OT: Gay Marriage

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

Both.

IMHO, Russel’s point is exactly on target.

It’s not about loving or hating gay people. It’s about segregating people by sexual preference. I’m pretty sure males and females are kept in separate quarters for this very reason, and can understand why some men and women would feel uncomfortable living in intimate quarters with people who might have a sexual interest in them (and where they really don’t want to reciprocate).[/quote]
I agree that its not about loving or hating anyone.

However, I think the comfortability factor should not play a bigger policy part in military life than it does in regular life.
You share bathrooms now with homos.
You have gay waiters and doctors.
Like half of your kids’ teachers are gay.
Gender segregation is easy because respective genders look and act comparatively differently from one another.
Women generally are of a physically smaller stature and generally have higher voices.
Those are some of their defining characteristics.
The only thing that defines homos is the sentiment of sexual preference.
Segregation based on any preference or sentiment (other than loyalty) is foolish.
You are basically arguing for separation based on the possibility that some soldiers will be afraid that someone will think something about them (that they are attractive) that they don’t like.
The absurdity of catering to that particular sensitivity is part of the reason that the Israeli army doesn’t.
While I am not a fan of Israeli policies, it can’t be argued that they suck at defense generally or unit cohesion in particular.[/quote]

It’s not about “comfort” or “sensitivities” at all. It’s about increased potential for sexual harassment (on both sides) and romantic liasons that are not conducive to the military’s objectives.

As for the bolded part of your comment, I can absolutely assure you that the military doesn’t segragate males and females because one group is smaller and has higher voices. Do you think they make short males with high-pitched voices sleep in the womens’ barracks? Do tall, deep-voiced women sleep in the mens’ barracks? No; the segregation exists solely due to the potential for sexual relationships and all the problems that can entail.

Living and fighting in close quarters in the military is NOTHING like sharing public bathrooms in a restaurant, or being served by a gay waiter, or having a gay teacher working with your kids, etc.

Wouldn’t you agree that (you, straight Dan) sharing office space with a woman as part of your normal 9-5 job is NOT the same as showering with and sleeping with a woman — often literally side-by-side, with perhaps 3-5 women sharing a single showerhead with you, and seeing each other naked on a regular basis? You don’t see a difference there? **That** is why some people have a problem with it.

As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.

BTW, this is not *my* personal opinion; I’m just playing devil’s advocate and trying to explain the other side’s perspective. I have absolutely no problem with gays or lesbians, and have had many gay/lesbian/bisexual friends, roommates, and coworkers, myself. I fully support gay marriage and can’t for the life of me understand why straight people think that gay marriage is any more destructive to their “holy institution” than divorce is.

Just wanted to explain that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily redneck bigots. There are logistical and practical reasons for their objections.

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[afx114]

This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I agree. Less of an invasion of privacy for sure. Certain enviornments make it less likely for gays to sexually harass co-workers(including subordinates) or have mutually consenting but illegal and potentially mission damaging relationship on deployments.Fact is, gays are everywhere or almost everywhere in the military, even if some ratings have higher populations.

Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.

Military harassment of people who want to get out due to sexual orientation claims(dishonorable discharge or worse) is based in the same things.Everyone pretty much knows who is who. Don’t ask, means “too bad mr. heterosexual they are here, leave them alone or else”, don’t tell means “don’t cross the line mr. homosexual , do your job, or else”.

More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?

On the other hand, if the ruling members of society and the military thought that getting every heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual and tri-sexual in uniform, even if by conscription, would serve a particular mission better, then we will see adjustments.It won’t be about anyone’s rights, gay or straight, even though it will most certainly, be conveniently framed that way.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I agree. Less of an invasion of privacy for sure. Certain enviornments make it less likely for gays to sexually harass co-workers(including subordinates) or have mutually consenting but illegal and potentially mission damaging relationship on deployments.Fact is, gays are everywhere or almost everywhere in the military, even if some ratings have higher populations.

Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.

Military harassment of people who want to get out due to sexual orientation claims(dishonorable discharge or worse) is based in the same things.Everyone pretty much knows who is who. Don’t ask, means “too bad mr. heterosexual they are here, leave them alone or else”, don’t tell means “don’t cross the line mr. homosexual , do your job, or else”.

More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?

On the other hand, if the ruling members of society and the military thought that getting every heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual and tri-sexual in uniform, even if by conscription, would serve a particular mission better, then we will see adjustments.It won’t be about anyone’s rights, gay or straight, even though it will most certainly, be conveniently framed that way.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I agree. Less of an invasion of privacy for sure. Certain enviornments make it less likely for gays to sexually harass co-workers(including subordinates) or have mutually consenting but illegal and potentially mission damaging relationship on deployments.Fact is, gays are everywhere or almost everywhere in the military, even if some ratings have higher populations.

Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.

Military harassment of people who want to get out due to sexual orientation claims(dishonorable discharge or worse) is based in the same things.Everyone pretty much knows who is who. Don’t ask, means “too bad mr. heterosexual they are here, leave them alone or else”, don’t tell means “don’t cross the line mr. homosexual , do your job, or else”.

More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?

On the other hand, if the ruling members of society and the military thought that getting every heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual and tri-sexual in uniform, even if by conscription, would serve a particular mission better, then we will see adjustments.It won’t be about anyone’s rights, gay or straight, even though it will most certainly, be conveniently framed that way.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]This argument seems to be getting framed into the dorm/foxhole (mind the pun) context, but what about the desk job Arabic translator who goes to his own home every night and doesn’t sleep or shower with his fellow soldiers? Under what situation would his homosexuality undermine the mission or morale? What about the lesbian VA nurse? Or the bisexual admiral’s secretary? Do these judgements only apply when in the immediate field of battle?[/quote]

IMHO, it’s all about the living quarters. If they aren’t living and showering with other military personnel, then it shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I agree. Less of an invasion of privacy for sure. Certain enviornments make it less likely for gays to sexually harass co-workers(including subordinates) or have mutually consenting but illegal and potentially mission damaging relationship on deployments.Fact is, gays are everywhere or almost everywhere in the military, even if some ratings have higher populations.

Once there is trouble the military is faced with the conundrum, do we let this person known to be causing division and stress in the unit go, or preserve his/her expertise and the potentially hundreds of thousand of dollars the miltary(tax payer) has invested in him or her. If it weren’t for that money and the damage of losing important personnel rapidly,hurting planning, there might well be an attempt at a zero tolerance rule for
the U.S military.

Military harassment of people who want to get out due to sexual orientation claims(dishonorable discharge or worse) is based in the same things.Everyone pretty much knows who is who. Don’t ask, means “too bad mr. heterosexual they are here, leave them alone or else”, don’t tell means “don’t cross the line mr. homosexual , do your job, or else”.

More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?

On the other hand, if the ruling members of society and the military thought that getting every heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual and tri-sexual in uniform, even if by conscription, would serve a particular mission better, then we will see adjustments.It won’t be about anyone’s rights, gay or straight, even though it will most certainly, be conveniently framed that way.

[Author]

Posts