CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Which leads us directly to the 17 year old horn ball issue

Which leads us right back to the oppresive sexual mores that American kids are taught from day one.

Oh...and yes...I have never seen a mailman or a male that I was personally attracted to...but that's not relevant.

[Patroklos]

Which leads us right back to the oppresive sexual mores that American kids are taught from day one.

Are their places were 17 year olds aren't horney?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Are their places were 17 year olds aren't horney?

Hell, I'm 45 and...well nevermind!

Age is not an indicator of horniness...it can be an indicator of sexual inmaturity though. And that can be cured by making people feel secure in their sexuality as they grow up instead of treating it as the BIG SECRET most of everybody's youth.

[Patroklos]

And that can be cured by making people feel secure in their sexuality as they grow up instead of treating it as the BIG SECRET most of everybody's youth.

That might help with sexual harrasment and hate mongering, but I am pretty sure 17 year olds will be trying to bang each other in broom closets forever.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am pretty sure 17 year olds will be trying to bang each other in broom closets forever.

No doubt, but then so will the 30 year old officers! There is a difference between wanting to "bang" someone in the closet and not being able to control yourself in the shower however.

[Dinner]

Agreed. Big difference.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And this is what Asher can't explain. At least Mr. Fun had the courage to say he didn't know a reason even if he feld one way.

Asher just assumes his view is selfevident.

Do you have problems reading? Nothing I was talking about -- save for my singular response to PLATO -- has anything to do with separating ****.

And MrFun can't explain a lot of things.

My point is simply that having gay men in the unit doesn't hurt it. Demonstrably so. You need to counter the evidence provided from 24 other countries that have done so. You have not.

Instead, you've insulted us with this incoherent bull**** about "organizational stresses" and you also displayed a remarkable ignorance about the Canadian military.

[Patroklos]

, you've insulted us with this incoherent bull**** about "organizational stresses"

Being a perfectly valid point, you fail once again.

Of course, let me remember, was it me or you who first suggested resticting the look to a single Canadian warship since that mircocosm is always stressed? Oh yeah, it was me, prior to you insipid whiny temper tantrum about an insult to the CF that didn't happen.

And let me remember, was it me or you who seems to believe the wishes of straight men and women concerning normal standards of sexual orientation based separation are irrelevant because they are to stringent for you and thus should be thrown aside? You, and what an insultin opinion you have to both staight and gay military members.

Talk about arrogance, you can't even admit that gays would be subject to the same sexual tension/relationship pressures men and women deal with today because of integration. Why is that? You have zero explanation, we are just to take your completely baseless position that gays are paradigms of maturity and self restraint as fact becasue you say so regardless of observed reality.

Not that anyone believes you. It is pretty conclusive that the stresses between men and women do detract from combat effectivness regardless of whether that is compensated for by other things. Stress is just that, another thing to deal with you would be better of not having to deal with. So until you come up with a convincing reason why gays are not subject to normal human emotions, it stands undisputed that thier presence adds negative stess to the organization at every level.

When you can come to terms with that, then we can discuss if that is compensated for by any benefits on the individual, unit, and entire organization level.

and you also displayed a remarkable ignorance about the Canadian military.

And what about the CF did I get wrong. The fact that you don't have tons of troops in Afghanistan, your armed forces are not stressed? Did I make any observations besides those two combletely factual ones?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Being a perfectly valid point, you fail once again.

Of course, let me remember, was it me or you who first suggested resticting the look to a single Canadian warship since that mircocosm is always stressed?

You're intentionally asking for something you know not to exist in the public space. You're intentionally ignoring widespread claims by dozens of countries and belittling them to focus on a retardedly specific, clearly impossible scenario for anyone to provide detailed information on.

You think you're outsmarting people here, but you're not. What's going on here is far more simple than you can comprehend: it's a simple case of dozens of countries permitting gays to serve openly,and dozens of countries saying it's posed NO problem on a small scale (show me evidence of any loss of life or otherwise incapacitated military due to the presence of a gay man), and it's posed NO organizational problems either on a large scale (from the militaries themselves). The simple truth here is the mountain of evidence is against the stance that having openly gay troops would undermine the military or cohesiveness of the unit.

The simple truth here is you have not provided an OUNCE of evidence or anything to support anything of what you've said here. You've done your pseudo-intellectual bull**** of asking questions where any 4th grade ****** could tell you cannot be answered in the public domain, then when those questions go unanswered you act like it means something. It doesn't.

Until you can come to grips with what can be reasonably be discussed, there's no point in you continuing this discussion. Resume scrubbing the deck or acting paranoid of teh homo in your group showers on your ship, because it'll be far more productive than the nonsense you're spewing here. MrFun may be naive enough to play this game with you, but I'm calling your bull****.

Talk about arrogance, you can't even admit that gays would be subject to the same sexual tension/relationship pressures men and women deal with today because of integration.

I'm not sure you're aware, but relationships here are two way streets. Unless you're gay, I'm not sure why having a gay soldier next to you would exert any more relationship pressure than if you're straight and having a woman next to you. I dunno, maybe I'm blessed with seeing the obvious, but why are you asking such inane questions?

Why is that? You have zero explanation, we are just to take your completely baseless position that gays are paradigms of maturity and self restraint as fact becasue you say so regardless of observed reality.

I haven't said anything remotely close to this. It's you that have repeatedly made comments about gays being superior -- whether that's freudian or you being stupid, I'm not sure.

[Patroklos]

Talk about arrogance, you can't even admit that blacks would be subject to the same racial tension blacks and whites deal with today because of integration.

You are so pathetically childish, it would be funny if your overt hostility wasn't such an obvious cover for you simply not have answers to such simple questions asked. Talk about showing your hand...

Take a look at your pitiful atempt at being clever above. OMFG YOU CALLED ME TEH RACIST ASHER WINS!!! Besides the fact that it makes no sense, and the substitutions you made don't match with the original to produce anything relevent, it shows you fail to comprehend the basic truth I have been saying this whole thread.

GAY MEN/WOMEN ARE THE SUFFER UNDER THE SAME SEXUAL/INTERPERSONAL STRESS/DESIRES/IMATURITY AS EVERYONE ELSE, AND YOU THINKING THEY ARE MAGICALLY IMUNE TO THE PROBLEMS THEY PRODUCE IS STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!

Amazingly, and tragically in your case, after thread after thread of argueing how being gay is nothing fundementally qualitatively, you are actual are argueing with me because refuse to buy into your BS notion that gays are somehow special in this regard. Whcih way do you want it Asher?

The simple truth here is you have not provided an OUNCE of evidence or anything to support anything of what you've said here.

And neither have you.. But so we are clear here, gays are immune to human feelings/emotion? Good for you Asher, your self destruct is complete.

You have done nothing here but quibble, and now you have decended into personal attacks. The good ole Asher we all remember

Whats even more funny, is you jumped into your stupid tyraid about whatever the hell your talking about when most here, least of all I, was even talking about whether to let gays serve, but how to manage it when they do. Just so completely and utterly pathetic

I mean, just....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
GAY MEN/WOMEN ARE THE SUFFER UNDER THE SAME SEXUAL/INTERPERSONAL STRESS/DESIRES/IMATURITY AS EVERYONE ELSE, AND YOU THINKING THEY ARE MAGICALLY IMUNE TO THE PROBLEMS THEY PRODUCE IS STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!

I'm so very confused.

Why don't we take a step back and evaluate where you went wrong. Oh, here we go. The start.

I've never said anything about gay men not having the same interpersonal desires/etc as everyone else.

Assuming you have the reading comprehension skills to read that last sentence (which, to be honest, is suspect at this point), what happens to the rest of your *****ing?

It sounds to me like your problem is soldiers have personalities. If you had your way there'd be no women or gay men in the military. An old boys club, I guess. Well, that's grand, but the military serves more purpose than that. Sorry bud.

And neither have you.. But so we are clear here, gays are immune to human feelings/emotion? Good for you Asher, your self destruct is complete.

This is so surreal to me. I've never said anything remotely close to that but you keep saying I have. You also keep saying I said gays are superior, but I've not even implied such a thing let alone said it. Are you in some variation of the Nedaverse?

FWIW, if you don't consider proof of the fact that openly gay soldiers don't degrade a military the word from the militaries from the countries that have done it (cited in this very thread), then what more is there? You've clearly ignored -- to the point of literally pretending it wasn't cited by Ramo in this thread -- evidence in addition to the anecdotal claims of others. You've done nothing but blatantly make **** up and then ask for retarded things like a controlled study of the effects of an openly gay crew member joining a Canadian frigate. Unreal.

You are so pathetically childish

You have done nothing here but quibble, and now you have decended into personal attacks. The good ole Asher we all remember

What's it called when somebody does this again?

[Patroklos]

I've never said anything about gay men not having the same interpersonal desires/etc as everyone else.

Men and women maintain a degree of separation based on their sexual orientation no matter their walk of life. This is considered matter of course, not some attempt to oppress or segregate or empower one over the other. It is simply a recognition of the nature of humans, their desires and urges. Especially when subjected to hardship/stress.

And in you come. Gays don't need to be separated on par with other groups because we are special and its no big deal, we can control ourselves. As a matter of fact, it is those other sexual orientations that need to have their desires thrown out to accommodate us even though they were not asking for any more separation than they impose on themselves, willingly.

And on and on you go, pretending that this was somehow linked to if we should let them serve, blatantly ignoring the fact the we were discussing what do do when they served. But hey, you had an axe to grind.

To include maliciously and falsely claiming I insulted the CF. Honestly, until you go back and clean up the embarrassing mess you call an argument but was actual a reactionary completely unwarranted emotional illustration of your insecurities, you really don't have much to add here.

-- evidence in addition to the anecdotal claims of others. You've done nothing but blatantly make **** up and then ask for retarded things like a controlled study of the effects of an openly gay crew member joining a Canadian frigate. Unreal

Actually, I asked if anyone knew of such a person, since it would a good way to see one way or the other. I didn't as you to produce anything.

And Ramo's article is relevant in so much as it showed there was no measure to base any of your claims of zero effect on combat readiness, the MoD said exactly that.

All you have offered was your second hand account of a private you know. I gave you a first hand of someone account who actually has to manage these things. Obviously you don't care, but its not hard to figure out which holds more water.

So MoD says one thing, and the USDoD says another. Which one is the premiere military force in the world by orders of magnitude?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And in you come. Gays don't need to be separated on par with other groups because we are special and its no big deal, we can control ourselves.

And on and on you go

The fun part of this is: I've never said that or anything like that. You've said I've said it at least half a dozen times. I've corrected you about as many. You keep saying it.

I'm not convinced you can't let men and women serve together. I'm not convinced you can't let them have a unisex bathroom. I'm not convinced that men and women need to be segregated at all.

In fact, you'll see I clearly made such a comment in this very thread. But instead of addressing that, you see fit to tell me that I'm saying gays are superior when nothing even close to that was said by anyone but you. Freudian, definitely.

Did it ever occur to you that the gays are already in the units? So isn't this pressure already there? The difference is if he can tell his fellow soldiers if he's gay or not. It's up to you to point out that saying "I'm gay" will functionally harm a unit. Because so far, all evidence (from all countries who have openly gay members) say it makes no difference at all to the effectiveness of the unit. I'm waiting for you to prove otherwise, which you are incapable of doing -- which is why, I presume, you continue to insert words into my mouth even after being corrected.

[MrFun]

Okay, first of all to Asher; I never got the impression that Pattycakes was being arrogant in describing/explaining his first-hand knowledge and experiences in his services. I read all of what he has posted so far too; I did not skim/skip. In fact, while I continue to disagree with him on principle, I find his first-hand accounts posted here informative and insightful.

Secondly, to Wezil and Plato; I never stated that straight people are worse in lacking self control than gay people are. Not sure how you came up with the comment that I think straight people lack control, Wezil. But your question has provoked me to further think about this issue.

For some reason, I'm stuck in trying to explain why we should not integrate women with men, if I argue that gay men and straight men can be integrated. The best answer right now that I can offer, is that gay men (closeted or open) and straight men have already always shared showers together in the military anyway and for the most part, no serious problems arose.

Now, men and women however, have not had such a precedent in sharing showers together; maybe this is because of their obvious biological-gendered based differences when they are both stripped of clothing? (shrugs)

[Patroklos]

The fun part of this is: I've never said that or anything like that. You've said I've said it at least half a dozen times. I've corrected you about as many. You keep saying it.

Goodnight sweet prince...

If Patty feels uncomfortable showering with a gay man, that's something he has to deal with. If he thinks that'll destroy military unit cohesion in the US while it hasn't elsewhere, than that's saying the will of the US soldiers to serve their countries is secondary to the fact that Patty is uncomfortable showering with somebody who happens to like men.

You were great. But I've had better.