Rules are Rules... I am Certain the Liberals who...

[ConHog]

Why am I telling myself that I'm going to really REALLY regret posting in this thread. Oh well, here goes anyway. . . .

First, in my opinion homosexuality is not a choice for most gay and lesbian people. Nor is it a moral problem. Nor is it anything like racism or sexism or whatever other 'isms one wishes to compare it with. For purposes of this topic, procreation or marriage are not issues either.

The issue goes to biological norms only, and it is that which presents a problem for a military who knows that is is a problem and complicates things when soldiers are having sexual relations with other soldiers.

So there is little or no problem with soliders having sexual relations with other soldiers when the whole group is heterosexual male or heterosexual female. The probability that any of these will be attracted to others of their own gender is almost nil.

And it is prudent to make sure that men and women, even in the military, have separate sleeping quarters, separate shower facilities, etc. where dressing, undressing, and sexual attraction is likely to take place. Evenso, the incidence of rape, sexual assault, mutual relations, and pregancy are higher in the co-ed military than in the general population. You sure don't want to create even more compromising conditions than already exist.

You simply can't put young men and women at their sexual peak and with raging hormones in continuous compromising conditions and not have some act on it, rules or no rules. The sensible policy is to remove opportunity and temptation as much as possible.

So where do you put the gay guys and gals? You can't put the guys in with the women because they are guys. Ditto putting the gals in with the men. And if you put two gay guys together or two gay gals together, you have the same problems you have when the heterosexual guys and gals are mixed.

So short of having separate rooms and shower facilities for every soldier, how do you create an environment in which the soldiers are more focused on soldiering than they are on each other?

And I think that is the issue that makes this a problem that is not easily solved.

I think you underestimate the professionalism of most military personal. Does sex occur? Sure, it does, but is it the primary focus of soldiers? No. And I don't believe gay soldiers would be any different, and if they were, there are provisions within the UCMJ for dealing with that regardless of their orientation.

 

[CurveLight]

Conhog is one of the whinier loser rightwing nuts. I agree with that.

You know it's truly amazing that the only people who call me such things are those who I have proven are liars over and over and over.

Sir, you're a liar.

You're the worthless **** inventing stories to try and justify your bigotry. It's worse you create a combat fantasy you sick fuck.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why am I telling myself that I'm going to really REALLY regret posting in this thread. Oh well, here goes anyway. . . .

First, in my opinion homosexuality is not a choice for most gay and lesbian people. Nor is it a moral problem. Nor is it anything like racism or sexism or whatever other 'isms one wishes to compare it with. For purposes of this topic, procreation or marriage are not issues either.

The issue goes to biological norms only, and it is that which presents a problem for a military who knows that is is a problem and complicates things when soldiers are having sexual relations with other soldiers.

So there is little or no problem with soliders having sexual relations with other soldiers when the whole group is heterosexual male or heterosexual female. The probability that any of these will be attracted to others of their own gender is almost nil.

And it is prudent to make sure that men and women, even in the military, have separate sleeping quarters, separate shower facilities, etc. where dressing, undressing, and sexual attraction is likely to take place. Evenso, the incidence of rape, sexual assault, mutual relations, and pregancy are higher in the co-ed military than in the general population. You sure don't want to create even more compromising conditions than already exist.

You simply can't put young men and women at their sexual peak and with raging hormones in continuous compromising conditions and not have some act on it, rules or no rules. The sensible policy is to remove opportunity and temptation as much as possible.

So where do you put the gay guys and gals? You can't put the guys in with the women because they are guys. Ditto putting the gals in with the men. And if you put two gay guys together or two gay gals together, you have the same problems you have when the heterosexual guys and gals are mixed.

So short of having separate rooms and shower facilities for every soldier, how do you create an environment in which the soldiers are more focused on soldiering than they are on each other?

And I think that is the issue that makes this a problem that is not easily solved.

So you oppose gay and lesbian soliders serving openly in the military? I disagree.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why am I telling myself that I'm going to really REALLY regret posting in this thread. Oh well, here goes anyway. . . .

First, in my opinion homosexuality is not a choice for most gay and lesbian people. Nor is it a moral problem. Nor is it anything like racism or sexism or whatever other 'isms one wishes to compare it with. For purposes of this topic, procreation or marriage are not issues either.

The issue goes to biological norms only, and it is that which presents a problem for a military who knows that is is a problem and complicates things when soldiers are having sexual relations with other soldiers.

So there is little or no problem with soliders having sexual relations with other soldiers when the whole group is heterosexual male or heterosexual female. The probability that any of these will be attracted to others of their own gender is almost nil.

And it is prudent to make sure that men and women, even in the military, have separate sleeping quarters, separate shower facilities, etc. where dressing, undressing, and sexual attraction is likely to take place. Evenso, the incidence of rape, sexual assault, mutual relations, and pregancy are higher in the co-ed military than in the general population. You sure don't want to create even more compromising conditions than already exist.

You simply can't put young men and women at their sexual peak and with raging hormones in continuous compromising conditions and not have some act on it, rules or no rules. The sensible policy is to remove opportunity and temptation as much as possible.

So where do you put the gay guys and gals? You can't put the guys in with the women because they are guys. Ditto putting the gals in with the men. And if you put two gay guys together or two gay gals together, you have the same problems you have when the heterosexual guys and gals are mixed.

So short of having separate rooms and shower facilities for every soldier, how do you create an environment in which the soldiers are more focused on soldiering than they are on each other?

And I think that is the issue that makes this a problem that is not easily solved.

I think you underestimate the professionalism of most military personal. Does sex occur? Sure, it does, but is it the primary focus of soldiers? No. And I don't believe gay soldiers would be any different, and if they were, there are provisions within the UCMJ for dealing with that regardless of their orientation.

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

 

[maineman]

I'm posting from my Droid... more will leave or not join than will be gained by outing homosexuals...



peace...

another unsupported opinion.

I think that when gays can serve openly, many many long serving professional military personnel, who state they are opposed to gays serving in the military, will be amazed at all the former colleagues of theirs coming out of the closet whose dedication and professionalism they never questioned.

By and large you are wrong about that. The military is not chock full of gays just waiting to make their gayness public.

by and large, unless you wore the uniform for 25 years like I did, then who the fuck are YOU to be telling me ANYTHING about the subject? I never said that the military was "chock full" of gays. I DID say that there are plenty of gays serving right now and serving bravely and honorably and that have put their lives on the line to protect their compatriots and those compatriots know them and respect them and that respect was EARNED and will NOT be withdrawn simply because their sexuality becomes public knowledge at some point in time in the future.

 

[maineman]

Why am I telling myself that I'm going to really REALLY regret posting in this thread. Oh well, here goes anyway. . . .

First, in my opinion homosexuality is not a choice for most gay and lesbian people. Nor is it a moral problem. Nor is it anything like racism or sexism or whatever other 'isms one wishes to compare it with. For purposes of this topic, procreation or marriage are not issues either.

The issue goes to biological norms only, and it is that which presents a problem for a military who knows that is is a problem and complicates things when soldiers are having sexual relations with other soldiers.

So there is little or no problem with soliders having sexual relations with other soldiers when the whole group is heterosexual male or heterosexual female. The probability that any of these will be attracted to others of their own gender is almost nil.

And it is prudent to make sure that men and women, even in the military, have separate sleeping quarters, separate shower facilities, etc. where dressing, undressing, and sexual attraction is likely to take place. Evenso, the incidence of rape, sexual assault, mutual relations, and pregancy are higher in the co-ed military than in the general population. You sure don't want to create even more compromising conditions than already exist.

You simply can't put young men and women at their sexual peak and with raging hormones in continuous compromising conditions and not have some act on it, rules or no rules. The sensible policy is to remove opportunity and temptation as much as possible.

So where do you put the gay guys and gals? You can't put the guys in with the women because they are guys. Ditto putting the gals in with the men. And if you put two gay guys together or two gay gals together, you have the same problems you have when the heterosexual guys and gals are mixed.

So short of having separate rooms and shower facilities for every soldier, how do you create an environment in which the soldiers are more focused on soldiering than they are on each other?

And I think that is the issue that makes this a problem that is not easily solved.

I think you underestimate the professionalism of most military personal. Does sex occur? Sure, it does, but is it the primary focus of soldiers? No. And I don't believe gay soldiers would be any different, and if they were, there are provisions within the UCMJ for dealing with that regardless of their orientation.

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you underestimate the professionalism of most military personal. Does sex occur? Sure, it does, but is it the primary focus of soldiers? No. And I don't believe gay soldiers would be any different, and if they were, there are provisions within the UCMJ for dealing with that regardless of their orientation.

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

Are you opposed to women serving in the military? Are you opposed to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military?

 

[maineman]

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

 

[Sky Dancer]

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

Thank you, maineman. Your post is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Wicked Jester]

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

Get your ass over to the NBA championship thread and cover your losing end of the bet, dammit!

Like I said, never bet a liberal. They don't have the spines to pay up.

Pay up, SUCKER!......You owe me!

 

[bodecea]

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

If they even get punished.

 

[bodecea]

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

Get your ass over to the NBA championship thread and cover your losing end of the bet, dammit!

Like I said, never bet a liberal. They don't have the spines to pay up.

Pay up, SUCKER!......You owe me!

The NBA is gay.

 

[mal]

Sibling marriage is banned because of the posibility of birth defects.

So you're saying that marriage IS about ProCreation...

Noted.



peace...

 

[Political Junky]

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

So, you're afraid straight men will be tempted?

 

[mal]

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

So, you're afraid straight men will be tempted?

Or Abused by Superiors...

Either way, they will Infiltrate the Service like they did the Priesthood and the Result will be Bad again.



peace...

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't matter if orientations are a choice or natural.

I have to agree with CL here it really does not matter whether it is a choice or genetic. It is a fact that there are human beings that are attracted to the same gender. I also have to agree with Maineman later in the thread when he says that sexual contact happens in military life but the military deals with it. If such contact (straight or gay) happens in the military and such contact is in defiance of the rules and regulations of the military, then the military deals with it appropriately.

It is funny when you think about Maineman's reply in this case. Think about the conservative response to hate crime legislation. I and my friends are opposed to hate crime legislation partly because we believe there are already laws to prevent crime in place and a victim should be treated with the same protections regardless of the motivation of the crime. In this case, my conservative friends seem unwilling to accept that there are rules and regulations concerning sexual contact in the military and seem to think that additional rules and regulations are required to prevent certain types of sexual contact from happening.

Do we really need additional rules and regulations in this regard?

Immie

 

[mal]

It doesn't matter if orientations are a choice or natural.

I have to agree with CL here it really does not matter whether it is a choice or genetic. It is a fact that there are human beings that are attracted to the same gender. I also have to agree with Maineman later in the thread when he says that sexual contact happens in military life but the military deals with it. If such contact (straight or gay) happens in the military and such contact is in defiance of the rules and regulations of the military, then the military deals with it appropriately.

It is funny when you think about Maineman's reply in this case. Think about the conservative response to hate crime legislation. I and my friends are opposed to hate crime legislation partly because we believe there are already laws to prevent crime in place and a victim should be treated with the same protections regardless of the motivation of the crime. In this case, my conservative friends seem unwilling to accept that there are rules and regulations concerning sexual contact in the military and seem to think that additional rules and regulations are required to prevent certain types of sexual contact from happening.

Do we really need additional rules and regulations in this regard?

Immie

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't matter if orientations are a choice or natural.

I have to agree with CL here it really does not matter whether it is a choice or genetic. It is a fact that there are human beings that are attracted to the same gender. I also have to agree with Maineman later in the thread when he says that sexual contact happens in military life but the military deals with it. If such contact (straight or gay) happens in the military and such contact is in defiance of the rules and regulations of the military, then the military deals with it appropriately.

It is funny when you think about Maineman's reply in this case. Think about the conservative response to hate crime legislation. I and my friends are opposed to hate crime legislation partly because we believe there are already laws to prevent crime in place and a victim should be treated with the same protections regardless of the motivation of the crime. In this case, my conservative friends seem unwilling to accept that there are rules and regulations concerning sexual contact in the military and seem to think that additional rules and regulations are required to prevent certain types of sexual contact from happening.

Do we really need additional rules and regulations in this regard?

Immie

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

 

[mal]

I have to agree with CL here it really does not matter whether it is a choice or genetic. It is a fact that there are human beings that are attracted to the same gender. I also have to agree with Maineman later in the thread when he says that sexual contact happens in military life but the military deals with it. If such contact (straight or gay) happens in the military and such contact is in defiance of the rules and regulations of the military, then the military deals with it appropriately.

It is funny when you think about Maineman's reply in this case. Think about the conservative response to hate crime legislation. I and my friends are opposed to hate crime legislation partly because we believe there are already laws to prevent crime in place and a victim should be treated with the same protections regardless of the motivation of the crime. In this case, my conservative friends seem unwilling to accept that there are rules and regulations concerning sexual contact in the military and seem to think that additional rules and regulations are required to prevent certain types of sexual contact from happening.

Do we really need additional rules and regulations in this regard?

Immie

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

I've said no such thing about all...

I don't Believe the Military, the Inlisted or the Taxpayer should have to Burden a Minority's Sexual Choices...

That's what's being Asked.

If their Homosexuality isn't at Issue while in Uniform then DADT is fine as it is.

Otherwise, this is about Exhibitionism... Which from any "Pride" event around the Country, ANYONE can tell that's EXACTLY what this is about.



peace...