Achebe: Will you please stop trying to impart a sense of ribald revelry in a serious issue like ... well like ..... like whether gays can be cannon fodder just like everyone else ... well no that's not what I meant ... I mean ... like whether lesbians and gays can stand side by side and die for their country like everyone else ..... and ah ... no that's not what I meant either .... I mean ... ya know .... depsite a sexual preference for the same gender .... well they have as much right to be respected and honored as anyone else ..... and, ah, because they're going to put their life on the line ..... oh hell ... what was that point you were trying to make ...... ahhhhhhhhhhhh ...... just send in the damn clowns .... but make sure they don't have any sex life .... start with Jerry Falwell and his cronies .... oops nope .... they make too much money ... dang here we go again .... PS I wonder how many of the people who died at the World Trade Center were homsexual? Mmmmm, I wonder if people prayed just for the heterosexuals, or if the firefighters/paramedics were hoping to find as many straights before they had to start looking for the gays too? Mmmmmmmmm,intersting.
outlaw, I think this announcement is dumb. Basically nothing has changed, it appears. I'm not going to defend this announcement. But "don't ask, don't tell" is a guideline the military operates under. They have many laws that don't apply to the rest of the country/corporations. Are we going to start going in and questioning every single military law? Their laws are different from ours for a reason--I'm not sure consistency should be the priority when analyzing them. The main question should be does this law strengthen or weaken our military. Personally, the military life just isn't for me...but I'm not going to question how they choose to protect me. Let's also not forget that gays are not banned from the military, either. That is a legitimate question that not many people like to address.
The Freak, et al .... Addressing the unaddressable: " .... Do we not have separate quarters for men and women? ...." The argument is that since women and men are separated in barracks why should gay/lesbian organizations oppose a clear distinction between straight and gay in the military. 1. Presumption: that by separating homosexuals from heterosexuals will prevent sexual contact and discord in the ranks. Well first of all, let’s get things straight (no pun intended) - Women and men are separated into separate barracks in the military because of gender not sexual preference. Many published studies have placed the percentage of 20% to as high as 45% as an indication of the number of gay and lesbian military personnel presently in the armed forces. I will not agree or argue the merits of those figures, but it would be safe in saying that “the powers that be” understand that the homosexual phenomenon does in fact exist in the military at some percentage. Yet they still house according to gender. My argument is: Having separate quarters for men and women, in and by itself, does not imply that it prevents sexual contact. Therefore by suggesting a separation of declared hetero- and homo- sexual members (no pun intended) from one another will not prevent sexual contact. The discord occurs, from poor information, wrong information or perceived intent. 2. Presumption: that by separating homsexuals from heterosexuals the military becomes more efficient and functions proficiently. Secondly, men and women are different. I know it is fashionable to be very strictly polar on this issue. Either you are professing the righteousness of “equality” for all genders, or you are attempting to carve out the “differences” so radically that by definition some would think we are not even the same species. But the simple fact is we are the same species – with equally important but separate functions. By and large the two genders operate and think differently. Communicate and express ourselves differently. Perceive tasks and achieve goals differently. If we were to eliminate sexual preference from the equation, these main functional differences would still exist. In short, men and women are different.My argument is: Having separate quarters for men and women is the proper alignment of “like with like”, because functionally it serves the aims of the military. Enlisted men/women mess together. Officer corps men/women confer together. General staff men/women office together. It is a selection process designed for efficiency of method based on function. 3. Persumption: that by separating homosexuals from heterosexuals the military are correctly abiding by the same standards as the separation of the genders. Thirdly, distinction by gender and distinction by sexual preference does not have the same face, same attitude, same contentious factors associated with them. This society has had great pains in attempting to blend the goal of gender equality with the realization that genders are not equal. Society has also made it quite clear that a vast polarity exists between the understanding of same sex preference and the acceptance of these people into the fabric of our culture. It has forced many people to hide behind a façade to escape the damaging results of this lack of understanding. Gender contentious issues are argued/cased/maintained or resolved in the open without abject fear of instant reprisal. My argument: Regardless of how anyone wishes to perceive equality, the definition in relation to gender is benign when compared to the fervor and anger displayed towards same-sex preference issues. The two are presently not equal and never will be, until our culture accepts that gender and sexual preference are both merely expressions of our humanity.
oeilpere I may be the gay-lovingest conservative around, but the idea that gender is the reason we have seperate barracks in the military is ridiculous. The reason is sexual preference. Gender only is indirectly associated because men are male and normally (95% of the time) are attracted to women who are female. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed in the military. But, I also believe that it is an obvious concern of non-gays about living arrangements. Sure, much of the foundation of that concern is bigotry towards gays, but I think if straight men and straight women cannot sleep, live, and bathe togther, then neither should gay men and gay men, and gay men and straight men, and gay men and straight women, and gay men and lesbians, and lesbians and straight men, etc. I think homosexuals should be accepted as full members of our society, but in doing so they should have to live by the same standards non-gays do. That standard is to seperate those who are sexually attracted to one another, especially in situations that involve nudity, or other personal/intimate situations.
All, "Separate" is a word, "seperate" is not. Achebe, It should discriminate based on socio-economic factors. That was damn funny. outlaw, I guess gay dead bodies are just as good as straight. DREAMer, Men and women are separated because of social conditioning based on the whole taboo aspect. The whole Adam and Eve discovering shame for their nakedness, etc. It has nothing to do with actual sex acts.
Damn! It's a shame my all my junior high/high school coaches were so religous...otherwise we could've showered with chicks!
Dreamer: You missed some of my points .... and we can agree to disagree on some of the others. Let me see if I can make my case from a different angle. We are talking about sexual preference. We are talking about the separate living arrangements made by the military to house both genders. My point was that they are housed that way not because men and women cannot live closely with one another without jumping each other’s bones all the time. But they are housed that way to accommodate the dissimilar activities each gender wishes to enjoy. Now stay with me here. I am not just wordsmithing here. 1. We live in a society that practices some interactive limitations. We display some measure of shame over nakedness. We want to not only have some established parameters of "personal space" we, each of us wish to dictate what those measures are when possible. We each enjoy some simple gender specific camaraderie. In short, we have a clear identification with our gender as having some rules of order when we interact or live with one another. And, a clear different set of rules of order (if you will) for the opposite gender. I live with three ladies. My wife and two teenage daughters (my two boys are married and in college, respectively). The girls talk to their mother about some things and talk to me about other things. The girls will walk right into the bathroom and chat with their mother when she is in the bathtub, or on the seat for that matter. The girls will also walk naked around their mother and each other. But they will NOT do any of those things around me. To illustrate it even more ... my boys always did exactly the same thing with me. Never once did they display the same behavior with their mother. I could name many, many other such contrasting behaviors. Now I know, you know where I am going with this ... but bear with me. These military issues are gender identification issues. They are not sexual orientation or sexual preference issues. My daughter's do not see this as a sex issue with me. It is gender issue. My point is: The military sees it for what it is - i.e. a gender issue. I will concede the fact that it also limits the availability and decreases the opportunities of one soldier jumping the other's bones, but that is incidental and not the focus of the living arrangement. It is to separate the genders for gender accommodation. 2. Hundreds (not a couple or even a dozen or two) of research studies have proven by consistent results that ideas/opinions/arguments such as the following are false, misleading and based almost entirely on stereotypical hysteria. (a) Homosexuals (gay men and lesbian women) want to have sex more than straights want to have sex. (b) Homosexuals are always searching for a straight partner to "convert" to homosexualaity. (c) Homosexual and heterosexual men cannot mingle, live or cohabitate together without having sex. (d) Homosexual and heterosexual women cannot mingle, live or cohabitate together without having sex. My point is: Education will lead to understanding in a lot of these interpersonal objections. Having the support of your superiors, and confidence of your peers sure goes a long way also. But the problem is with the straights Not with the homosexual elements. 3. When faced with a dispute between two parties which equally represent themselves, have equally valid issues and which equally deserve a decision in their favor - arriving at such a decision is difficult and may frequently lie in the "what is most right" category. I serve on a state ethics board that does this very thing month after month. When making a decision that by its nature cannot have an equitable compromise, both parties’ issues are weighed against these factors: (a) If no decision is rendered, will both parties be harmed? (b) If no decision is rendered, will one party benefit more than the other? (c) Will a decision unduly harm the unrewarded party? (d) Will a decision excessively benefit the rewarded party? My point is: If the question is: “Should known gays and lesbians be housed separately from procliaimed straight soldiers?” IMHO, the answers for each of these factors are: (a) - Yes, homosexuals will be isolated and deemed a distinct entity based on sexual preference and not on their gender or ability to perform their duties. (b) – No, but the judgement to “let things be” or the no harm no foul attitude of the present policy “no tell, but if you do we’ll fire your butt” offers no solution, no future and in fact continues to stereotypically harness the fact that homosexuals are here, and in the army. I never have liked the idea that “if you don’t know something, then it is best for everyone” approach to living. Education is the key. Learn to understand what you don’t presently and then make an informed decision and go on with life. (c) - Possibly. Regardless of what is selected there will be some who feel they have been wronged. (d) -If the reward is that homosexuals can serve and cohabitate equally with same gender soldiers, I don’t think that is an excessive amount of reward. Nor do I see it as an excessive amount of harm to the opponents. Hey, thanks for the debate, discussion, whatever … Dreamer … Cheers.
<B>My point is: The military sees it for what it is - i.e. a gender issue. I will concede the fact that it also limits the availability and decreases the opportunities of one soldier jumping the other's bones, but that is incidental and not the focus of the living arrangement. It is to separate the genders for gender accommodation. </B> To extend on this, gay men would not be allowed to house with lesbian women either. That would indicate that it's a gender thing, not a sex thing.
Freak, Your maturity impresses me daily. If you do not understand that western society has been formed by religion then you need to pick up a book or something...stop listening to that crappy music. DREAMer, I realize I was very vague (I was in a hurry), but I was speaking of modesty in regards to nakedness. This has nothing to do with sex acts. Do you really think that wild sex (beyond what occurs now) would be going on if men and women shared the same bathroom, etc. It is considered better for a father to see his son naked (after a certain age) and for a mother to see the daughter, etc. Is this because otherwise the father and daughter would be having sex all the time? Keep in mind that Freud's theories in regards to this have been pretty well destroyed. On a personal note, at one point in college I lived with two female dance majors. Some people had a problem with that, even though they knew there was no sex going on. I certainly did not feel more tempted to have sex with them just because they were female, we saw each other in various stages of undress, etc. I guess we just didn't feel the pressures of taboo, so it didn't bother us. Anyway, it was a mistake in the end...but only because they were dancers. If anyone doesn;t know, they are a different animal and terribly hard to live with.
oeilpere, You listing stereotypes didn't clear anything up for me, nor did it help me understand your point. I don't think gays are sexual maniacs. I believe homosexuals are people just like everyone else, but (and I can't understand why people would argue differently), if they are just like me and you, then they should have to live by the same standards as you and I. ------------------------ shanna & oeilpere, No, not a 'gender' thing, but a conforming to social norms "thing". Our society does not approve of men and women "living together", because they (usually, naturally, whatever term you want to use) are sexually attracted to one another. Now, if you take that and apply it (equally) to homosexuals, then it makes sense that they not be housed with people that they are sexually attracted to. .... After thinking about it, I guess it would make sense for homosexual males to be housed with heterosexual males, because (in theory) they are not attracted to one another. But, I do know for a fact that homosexual males are attracted to males. That is where the problem lies. If you house gay men and straight men, you are asking for conflict between them. If a gay man does make a pass at a straight man, I think the reaction would be fairly obvious, especially in a setting like the army. Gays, if allowed to express openly, would also be harrassed if forced to house with straight males (not by me, but c'mon, it's a problem for the vast majority of straight males). I guess I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it is a problem. Housing males and females (of any sexual preference) is not gonna happen, and straight and gay housing leads to a complex issue of bigotry, social sexual norms, and gender.
'baud -- thanks for the props. I agree with all your points DREAMer. Sounds like the military has the right idea by not making sex an issue. That seems to be the strategy that makes the most effective military. If what op says is true, and somewhere between 20-45% of the military is homosexual, what's the problem? Sounds like gays are doing just fine in that area. btw DREAMer...I never heard your take on the whole Hakeem situation. You kind of left me alone to fend for myself (although I'm usually always doing that it seems). Random thought that's semi-related to this topic: Female reporters are allowed in men's lockerrooms, correct? But are male reporters allowed into female lockerrooms? If not, why?
TheFreak, It's a little complicated, but to put it simply, I was asked to tone down my support of the Big Man. I agreed with you. Hakeem is and always will be my favorite basketball player of all times. I don't know if male reporters are allowed in female dressing rooms after a game.... Since women are allowed to report from inside men's lockerrooms, then the male reporters should get the same privilege for female sports.
