Don't Ask Don't Tell

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AEON said:
I tend to seperate ideas from people. I am always searching for the "perfect" system or organization. While I am not a perfectionist, when it comes to theories - I enjoy discussing what would make something "Ideal" instead of "workable"or "fair."

In other words, your religious beliefs preclude you from recognizing or acknowledging gay people whatsoever, and, as such, you must find every opportunity to denigrate, belittle, and banish everything about them from your life.

And, yet, we're supposed to care every little time social conservatives' feelings get hurt if some damn nativity display isn't put up in December. Yup...it certainly is all about ideas before people.
 
Last edited:
Justin24 said:
Why should we label someone with a word. I mean we are against labeling black people as N____, white people as honkey or white devils, so why use a word to label people, even bigot? Why not just ignore them or forgive them and just continue with your lives?

A little "sympathy for the devil," I see?
 
People are more important than ideas, and if you can't understand that AEON well I feel sorry for you. In your posts throughout this whole thread you have reduced women in the military to nothing but "hysterical" T and A, and gay men to sex maniacs who are out to harass their fellow straight soldiers. It is IDEAL that we don't do things like that, it is 2007.

It is about so much more than "hurting peoples feelings", and I can't comprehend how you don't seem to understand that. Someone telling me I don't look good in an outfit hurts my feelings. Reducing my entire gender to T and A, well that is a whole different thing altogether. It is about degrading women and gay people and acting as if they are less than you and inferior.

And you seem to be thinking that certain comments directed at you that aren't intended to be funny are.
 
AEON said:

I tend to seperate ideas from people. I am always searching for the "perfect" system or organization. While I am not a perfectionist, when it comes to theories - I enjoy discussing what would make something "Ideal" instead of "workable"or "fair."

I really would like to know just how you perceive something as ideal if it isn't fair. Isn't fairness one of the hallmarks of being ideal?
 
yolland said:
I think Irvine and MrsS have already answered this by pointing out that the analogy is false; the logical analogy would be forcing straight women to do these things with lesbians, which again, I haven't seen widespread evidence of straight female revulsion towards.
There are no real analogies that would be the perfect fit. Even the lesbian analogy fails because the male/female “sex drives” are different.
yolland said:
Furthermore, I don't see expecting a female soldier to willingly huddle with a male soldier in order to stave off hypothermia as 'sexual harassment'; sexual harassment would be if the male soldier reacted to the situation by groping her or dropping a string of vulgar come-ons.
I disagree. Choosing to huddle close to survive is one thing. Purposely putting a female into a position where she must huddle with a man in a spooning position in order to pass the course or stay in the unit is sexual harassment.



yolland said:
And Irvine already explained the reason for having separate showers for men and women--it's simply a continutation of basic gender socialization practices in our society which people of both sexes have observed from childhood;
Couldn’t Hardaway use that defense? Would you accept it if I said that we should keep gays our out of the Infantry because it's simply a continuation of basic sexual orientation socialization practices in our society which people of both sexual orientations have observed from childhood;


yolland said:
a question of what's perceived as an appropriate audience for exposing one's nakedness. A member of the Shuri, Mursi or Me'en peoples of Ethiopia, who customarily wear no clothing at all, might see this as bizarre, but that's OK; we're not the Shuri, Mursi or Me'en so there's no logical need to change that particular custom, as it's not a major issue to supply separate barracks and showers for male and female servicepeople. Gay men and lesbians, on the other hand, have spent their lives sharing the bathroom, locker room, dorm bunks etc. with fully or partially naked members of their own sex, so there's no titillating shock factor provoked by sense of 'inappropriateness' there.

However, the heterosexual men don’t want the gay men showering them. If they have gone “unnoticed” it was a good thing. Forcing a heterosexual man to shower with an openly gay man is forcing the straight man to surrender what he believes is appropriate. It seems you dismiss “tradition” in one hand, and then use “tradition” as a defense in the other.

yolland said:
It's of course reasonable to expect that gay and lesbian servicepeople will refrain from molesting their bunkmates, just as it's reasonable to expect that straight servicemen will refrain from doing the same with female soldiers they work with at various points; it's not reasonable, however, to assume that any of the above are so innately inclined to do so as to make letting them serve unwise. That was exactly the argument often made in the 19th century for why women don't belong in the workplace: both men and women would be rendered incompetent by being continuously sexually distracted, thus the workplace would be 'degraded' and its efficient functioning made impossible.
The work around the office is much different than the work in the Infantry. This is an unfair comparison. For instance, my desk not job does not require me to shower naked with women nor does it require that I “spoon” with them to stay warm.
yolland said:
Instead, it turns out that men and women are eminently capable of working together in all kinds of arenas without transforming into incompetent libidinal beasts.
Depends on the job situation.
yolland said:
The only reason that argument ever made sense to anyone to begin with was because of the irrational assumption that simply having both sexes together in the workplace would automatically make that environment a sexual one, and it does indeed resemble 'Islamic extremist' thinking.
In every office that I’ve ever worked in there is indeed a sexual environment. There are affairs, jealousies, flirtations, harassment, etc. I’m not saying that the office needs to be segregated. I’m just saying that there is indeed a sexual environment that exists and you must choose not to participate in order to avoid it.
yolland said:
It seems to me that you're looking at the presence of gay and lesbian soldiers in their respective sex-segregated units in precisely the same way: you assume, without rational cause, that it would automatically make that environment sexual.
I’m not a psychologist; so I can’t offer much other than some basic undergraduate Psychology 101 thinking. But I remember reading that men have a sexual thought once every minute (is it more or less?). This “problem” is even more exaggerated in the military since most of the men serving are in their late teens and early twenties.

Again, the men in the Infantry are asked to perform a nearly impossible task with an almost incomprehensible amount of physical and mental stress. They need to have total focus, the sort of focus that can lead to life or death. The LAST thing they need another distraction. Allowing openly gay men to serve in their units adds a distraction whether people want to admit or not. I simply do not see why it is so difficult for non-Infantry to understand this.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Choosing to huddle close to survive is one thing. Purposely putting a female into a position where she must huddle with a man in a spooning position in order to pass the course or stay in the unit is sexual harassment.

What makes someone uncomfortable and what feels inappropriate is defined by the person placed in that situation, but thanks for trying to tell me what I am or am not comfortable with :rolleyes: Spooning with people I don't know well (men and women) to stay warm - been there, done that. Now if someone had made kissy noises and tried to cop a feel, yeah that's offensive.

However, the heterosexual men don’t want the gay men showering them. If they have gone “unnoticed” it was a good thing. Forcing a heterosexual man to shower with an openly gay man is forcing the straight man to surrender what he believes is appropriate. It seems you dismiss “tradition” in one hand, and then use “tradition” as a defense in the other.

I've never really been comfortable showering with other women or even seeing them shower even if they are comfortable with it. You know what I do? Turn away, or just wait until they are done. After all, it's MY problem I'm not comfortable with it. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to come to the gym.
 
Last edited:
Ormus said:


In other words, your religious beliefs preclude you from recognizing or acknowledging gay people whatsoever, and, as such, you must find every opportunity to denigrate, belittle, and banish everything about them from your life.

This is completely false.
 
AEON said:


This is completely false.



you don't see your posts about not wanting to shower or cuddle with a gay person as not being degrading and belittling and expressing a desire to banish them from whatever sphere you choose?

is it also not perfectly logical to take your previous post and substitute the word "black" for "gay" and you'd get a 1950s-era justification for the maintenance of a racially segregated army?
 
Originally posted by yolland

The only reason that argument ever made sense to anyone to begin with was because of the irrational assumption that simply having both sexes together in the workplace would automatically make that environment a sexual one, and it does indeed resemble 'Islamic extremist' thinking.

AEON said:


In every office that I’ve ever worked in there is indeed a sexual environment. There are affairs, jealousies, flirtations, harassment, etc. I’m not saying that the office needs to be segregated. I’m just saying that there is indeed a sexual environment that exists and you must choose not to participate in order to avoid it.



"In every office that I’ve ever worked in there is indeed a sexual environment"

What is the common denominator here?

What or who is the real problem?
 
Irvine511 said:


you don't see your posts about not wanting to shower or cuddle with a gay person as not being degrading and belittling and expressing a desire to banish them from whatever sphere you choose?
Irvine,

If you wanted have a beer and talk, I’d do that. If you wanted to have dinner with my family, I’d welcome that as well. If you wanted to shower or cuddle with me – I won’t do that.

Irvine511 said:


is it also not perfectly logical to take your previous post and substitute the word "black" for "gay" and you'd get a 1950s-era justification for the maintenance of a racially segregated army?

Were all blacks homosexuals? If not, this “substitution” wouldn’t work. This is a sexual tension problem and has nothing to do with race.
 
deep said:






"In every office that I’ve ever worked in there is indeed a sexual environment"

What is the common denominator here?

What or who is the real problem?

Do you work in an office?
 
In theory, AEON, the substitution works almost flawlessly. White men did not want to see it or acknowledge it in the 60s. Now white Christian men do not want to see it in the 2000s.
 
AEON said:


Do you work in an office?



my office is completely non-sexual.

you know why? i'm the only gay. and there are lots and lots of very pretty women.

it's just like ... showering at the gym.
 
I guess the ideal is to separate by the sexes

that way there is no sexual tension.

and if that is not possible

the women should wear modest clothes and cover up
to prevent any sexual tension
 
AEON said:

Irvine,

If you wanted have a beer and talk, I’d do that. If you wanted to have dinner with my family, I’d welcome that as well. If you wanted to shower or cuddle with me – I won’t do that.



would you go to the gym with me, do some sets on the bench press, and then shower up and grab a beer afterwards?

if we were lost in the woods would you rather freeze to death than cuddle with me?

and chances are AEON -- I'M NOT GOING TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU! so what's the freaking difference?



Were all blacks homosexuals? If not, this “substitution” wouldn’t work. This is a sexual tension problem and has nothing to do with race.

your discomfort with homosexuality is the same thing as whites discomforts with blacks.
 
AEON said:

In every office that I’ve ever worked in there is indeed a sexual environment. There are affairs, jealousies, flirtations, harassment, etc. I’m not saying that the office needs to be segregated. I’m just saying that there is indeed a sexual environment that exists and you must choose not to participate in order to avoid it.

The difference is that flirting and sexual harassment and anything else you mentioned are all outside the scope of job requirements and job duties and how all that is carried out. To exclude a gay man from anything that is a job requirement (including huddling and showering), and from a job, for those alleged reasons is wrong- plain and simple. The distraction is in the mind of the straight man, it is up to HIM to control that and deal with it- that is the solution, not to exclude the gay man. Or the woman.

If sex is the biggest distraction in the military, well we really have problems. Seems to me that fear would be-at least one of the biggest ones. Trying to stay alive and all that.

Men having sexual thoughts every minute or whatever it is is each individual man's issue to deal with-you don't punish women or gay men because of it. Gee how do you guys manage to function in a professional environment when all you can think about is sex, sex, and more sex?
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
If sex is the biggest distraction in the military, well we really have problems. Seems to me that fear would be-at least one of the biggest ones. Trying to stay alive and all that.



i know! we're losing a war to Arab teenagers right now. you'd think there'd be bigger concerns.
 
Clinton opens door to gay activists
Opposes 'don't ask, don't tell' military policy of husband's administration
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:44 p.m. ET March 5, 2007

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president.

Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency.

"I am proud to stand by your side," Clinton said in a keynote speech Friday to the Human Rights Campaign. Neither Clinton's campaign nor her Senate office made any announcement that she would be making the Friday address.

In the speech, Clinton joked that she shares the same initials as the group, and pledged to maintain the same close working relationship that last year helped defeat the federal amendment which would have banned same-sex marriage.

"I want you to know that this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president," Clinton told the group. "I want you to know that just as you always have an open door to my senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House and together we can continue this journey."

Clinton's husband Bill Clinton was president when the Pentagon instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. In 1999, as she prepared to run for the Senate from New York, Clinton publicly opposed that policy.

Previous to Bill Clinton's administration, gays were flatly forbidden from serving in the military.

Sen. Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen could wear the uniform.

"This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said.

Her chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards and Barack Obama, also favor repealing the policy.

She also attacked the Bush administration for making political appeals based on gay rights issues, vowing that her presidency would mark "the end of leadership that has politicized the most personal and intimate issues."

Human Rights Campaign vice president David Smith said Clinton's comments were "very well received," though he added the group is not endorsing any candidate and does not anticipate making an endorsement "anytime soon."

Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said Tuesday the candidate "affirmed her desire to have a strong partnership with the community as president," adding they were "delighted" the speech was available on the Internet.

Clinton aides said no announcement was made because the group's gathering is traditionally closed to the press. Video of the speech was posted on the group's Web site.

Smith said such annual board meetings have always been closed to the press, but it was the first time he could remember that a speech at such a meeting had been made public afterward.

"There's no contradiction," he said. "The event is always closed to the press and we wanted to make (the remarks) available for people to see."
 
AEON said:


Do you work in an office?

I work in an office with about 130 people and 60% are women and a good number of them are quite attractive

I have worked in this environment for about 30 years

I make an effort not to cross boundaries, there have been times that I have gotten involved with people I work with

I have learned to try and separate personal and work time

there are some people that choose interact with each other on their own time

it is still a free country

all relationships are complicated
but, they can be very rewarding
 
Irvine511 said:



would you go to the gym with me, do some sets on the bench press, and then shower up and grab a beer afterwards?

if we were lost in the woods would you rather freeze to death than cuddle with me?

and chances are AEON -- I'M NOT GOING TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOU! so what's the freaking difference?





your discomfort with homosexuality is the same thing as whites discomforts with blacks.

Aeon

something to think about

if you were lost in the woods

with your;

1. sister
2. grandmother
3. 30 year older than you aunt
4. neice


and had to cuddle with them to survive
would you have any inappropriate thoughts or attraction to any of the above?

I don't think you would, all females on that list, why do you think that is?


That is because you know they are off limits to you.

That they are not in an available group for a male / female attraction.


I hope you get what I am saying here,

Irvine, and any other gay man sees you
like you see that group

you (straight men) are not in an available group.
 
I'm not a monster...seriously...

8-21-06022.jpg
 
Angela Harlem said:
In theory, AEON, the substitution works almost flawlessly. White men did not want to see it or acknowledge it in the 60s. Now white Christian men do not want to see it in the 2000s.

I suppose you mean that you think there should be ZERO discrimination of ANY kind? So the NBA should be forced to allow 4 foot 3 inch Centers because to deny them the chance to play and earn millions is discriminatory? How about MLB pitcher without both arms?

Not all discrimination is the same.
 
deep said:


Aeon

something to think about

if you were lost in the woods

with your;

1. sister
2. grandmother
3. 30 year older than you aunt
4. neice


and had to cuddle with them to survive
would you have any inappropriate thoughts or attraction to any of the above?

I don't think you would, all females on that list, why do you think that is?


That is because you know they are off limits to you.

That they are not in an available group for a male / female attraction.


I hope you get what I am saying here,

Irvine, and any other gay man sees you
like you see that group

you (straight men) are not in an available group.

So a gay man would automatically know that I wasn't gay? How so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom