I still don’t get it.
Their thoughts are dangerous?
Not dangerous, but capable of making one uncomfortable.
Bizarre.
On the left side of the discomfort scale: shrapnel, poisonous gas, gaping wounds, dead buddies, body bags.
On the right side: a guy thinks I’m cute.
Fine, Lib, maybe you are secure enough in your body not to care, but not all of us are so fortunate.
RickJay has expressed my position on this issue very well.
And to extend Libertarian’s post, what I really don’t get is why it is possible for the military to order a soldier (sailor, etc.) to kill people just because they are of a certain nationality, ethnicity, etc., and that order will be followed without question, at risk to life and limb, but if you order that same soldier to * live with, work with, and respect* people regardless of sexual orientation, somehow that order is just too difficult to follow.
“Kill those people over there, just because they happen to be Iraqi soldiers.”
“Yes, Sir!”
“Treat these people here with basic human respect, and allow them to do their jobs, even if they happen to be gay.”
“I’m sorry, Sir, but that gives me the willies.”
Is there any sort of rational argument supporting the argument that a majority of naked men are particularly sexually interesting in the first place? 
It’s not the same thing at all, and you know it. When a conflict occurs, it’s because the opposing side is seen to be a clear threat to either out country, our concerns, or is engaged in violations of human rights that are great enough to warrent intervention. Saying that the US Government orders the military in to a country to kill it’s soldiers, just because they are foriegn is about as incorrect a statement as can be made. Now you may not believe that the other country poses a dangerouse enough threat to us to warrent armed conflict, but unless you have access to more intel, it’s just your opinion. Or do you honestly believe that Iraq does not have chemical/biological weapons, and the capability to use them?
This actually is the best idea. And to be honest, except for boot camp, it never came up again. I worked with several people during my time in the Navy that I was almost positive were gay, and it didn’t bother me at all. I’m guessing that the powers that be look to the close living conditions that may be required during conflicts, and worry that it might be an issue then. I personally believe that if you’re in a situation that is that harsh, you probably have other things to worry about, and checking out anyone, male or female is far from your mind.
And as I said, I suppose that theoretically, a gay man thinking I have a nice tushy really shouldn’t bother me. It also shouldn’t bother vegiterians to watch someone eat steak. Some people can deal with it, some can’t. I think the military was just trying to find the best solution it could to a difficult dilema.
Well, as I’m not gay, I can’t aswere definativly. I will guess that that there must be some reason gay men have sex. I’m sure that emotional attatchment and commitment may play into a lot of relationships, but I’m sure just as many are based on physical attributes. Again, I’m going with my belief that gay men are pretty much like straight men…only interested in different things…shrug
I don’t mean to be hard-headed, but I don’t follow you. Did you mean secure in my emotions? Or my sexuality maybe?
No, in your body-image. It has nothing to do with my sexuality that I feel uncomfortable being sized up by people.
Atrael wrote:
Wouldn’t another solution be education?
In all likelihood, most soldiers probably are not so emotionally unstable. (And if they are, they should be discharded anyway.) I think for the most part, guys are skittish about gays because of the many street myths we learned early on.
LaurAnge
I still don’t follow you, sorry. Are you saying that you find yourself unattractive?
Airman, What a shameful, shameful legacy for the Air Force. They’ve come a long way. When the Air Force Academy was forced to go coed along with the rest of the national service academies, thank god they had a more enlightened view. They said “We do things with excellence, so we will integrate the sexes with that same excellence.” And they set about doing it as best they could. I’d like to think that they’d take that same view if they were asked to stop booting out homosexuals.
Is the guy thing different? Because while I’m not comfortable showering co-ed, it wouldn’t bother me to know some of the women who are showering with me are lesbians. I mean, what, are they going to wrestle me to the ground and force gay sex on me? All my combat training will be as nothing to the heat of their passionate leers?
Lib, would it help you to understand if I said yes?
I guess so. But frankly, that sounds like an emotional issue to me, a matter of your self-esteem. I think that, objectively, most military bodies, especially in basic training, are in pretty good shape. And quite honestly, if you don’t find yourself attractive, in all likelihood others (including gays) won’t either.
My God! I went to that school in 92 - 93. And I knew of a Russian linguist who was kicked out for being gay, as well.
Well, thanks for that vote of confidence.
All I’m saying is that some people will feel uncomfortable in communal showers, especially so if other people may be looking at them in the sense of whether or not they are attractive.
If you are unable to understand that, I’m sorry, but it is an issue that exists.
I’m sure it is, and you have my sympathy and understanding. But I pray that a soldier might be, well, stronger.
And what reason is there to believe that your physical attributes are the ones someone’s looking for?
Personally, I think the idea of being stressed that someone in a shower might find one physically attractive is pretty arrogant. But then again I know a lot of people who have t-shirts/bumperstickers with slogans like, “Yes, I’m bisexual. No, I’m not attracted to you.”
So, we should keep gays out of the military because of what some people think they might be thinking.
Of course, you realize that makes no sense whatsoever.
What if I’m walking down the street, and I decide to pop some guy in the nose because I think he might be thinking of attacking me? Would that be justified? I mean, I thought he was gonna take out a machine gun and start gunning down the whole street full of people, so I punched him in the nose. No, I didn’t have any evidence, but he was Italian, and you know how they are with machine guns. I felt he had a good chance of doing major harm to passers-by, because he had that look, you know?
Would that be right?
So why is it right to deny us the privilege of serving in the armed forces because somebody thinks a gay guy might be thinking about having sex with him?
You see, what you think I’m thinking is your problem. Get it?
Yeah. Actually, MrVisible, I think you’ve framed it more precisely. The problem (from their bizarre viewpoint) is not really what the gays might be thinking, but rather what the straights might be thinking the gays might be thinking.
It still strikes me as an emotional weakness, and it does jive with the integration analogy, I think, because a lot of the White soldiers were no doubt “uncomfortable” about sleeping and eating with Blacks. Nevertheless, they were told to grow up and get over it.
Apparently, the homophobia of the ranks (and the brass) is more important than national security.
I cannot come up with another interpretation.
I can see an argument whereby integrating now (when we are on the verge of war and morale is important) might be a strategic mistake, but, good god, we should have bitten the bullet on this one years ago rather than dismissing good people with valuable skills now.