Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 09:05pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Being discharged from the military is a strong motivator. I disagree that this is a civil rights violation. Not doing something about it would be a violation of individual rights to not feel like they're working in a hostile enviroment.

I suppose by your logic that segregation of whites and blacks prior to the 50s were not a civil rights violation then. After all, I'm sure there were white guys who felt uncomfortable in the presence of black guys in their barracks. What a violation of their privacy!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-03-15 09:06pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote: Other countries haven't asked these questions? How would you know if they wouldn't reach a different conclusion?
They probably don't care about privacy as much as people in the United States do.

What does this have to do with privacy? You're around alot of people anyways in a bunk setting. What difference does gender make to the privacy mix?

Unless you live under the prudish, Puritanical nonsense that seeing the other gender's body is horrible and sinful, it's not about privacy at all. You get the same amount either way.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 09:07pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Holy crap. Where did you pull that shit from? Your ass?

I've never heard of them building seperate quarters for people of different sexual orientation. If they haven't then obviously they don't care about that kind of privacy as much.

Oh noes! The gays are going to harass or rape the poor straight men! Better keep those uncontrollable gays separated!

Whoa. Don't put words in my mouth, asshole. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this seem like I'm being homophobic when this issue is about PRIVACY.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 09:11pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Being discharged from the military is a strong motivator. I disagree that this is a civil rights violation. Not doing something about it would be a violation of individual rights to not feel like they're working in a hostile enviroment.
I suppose by your logic that segregation of whites and blacks prior to the 50s were not a civil rights violation then. After all, I'm sure there were white guys who felt uncomfortable in the presence of black guys in their barracks. What a violation of their privacy!

Feeling uncomfortable because you feel that a black man is inferior to you is a lot different then feeling uncomfortable because your buck mate might actually have an interest in being your mate...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 09:12pm

SirNitram wrote:
What does this have to do with privacy? You're around alot of people anyways in a bunk setting. What difference does gender make to the privacy mix?

Sexual privacy, for lack of a better description, is what I'm getting at.

Unless you live under the prudish, Puritanical nonsense that seeing the other gender's body is horrible and sinful, it's not about privacy at all. You get the same amount either way.

You would be okay with coed barracks then?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 09:15pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Holy crap. Where did you pull that shit from? Your ass?
I've never heard of them building seperate quarters for people of different sexual orientation. If they haven't then obviously they don't care about that kind of privacy as much.

Ever entertain the idea that perhaps privacy isn't the issue? Or perhaps you were so certain of the "obviousness" of the idea that alternative conclusions do not exist for you?

Oh noes! The gays are going to harass or rape the poor straight men! Better keep those uncontrollable gays separated!
Whoa. Don't put words in my mouth, asshole. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this seem like I'm being homophobic when this issue is about PRIVACY.

That's because that's exactly how your statements to come across. The only thing you have going for your privacy argument is that you don't like the idea of someone fancying your ass in the shower. In the case, we'd have a larger logistical problem on our hands since there are yet to be segregated bathrooms and locker rooms for gays nationwide.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 09:15pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Feeling uncomfortable because you feel that a black man is inferior to you is a lot different then feeling uncomfortable because your buck mate might actually have an interest in being your mate...

Tell me, so how does one warrant segregation while the other doesn't?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-03-15 09:23pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
What does this have to do with privacy? You're around alot of people anyways in a bunk setting. What difference does gender make to the privacy mix?
Sexual privacy, for lack of a better description, is what I'm getting at.

I'm not having sex there, I'm sleeping there. And again, what's this magic difference between having a bunk setup full of men?

Unless you live under the prudish, Puritanical nonsense that seeing the other gender's body is horrible and sinful, it's not about privacy at all. You get the same amount either way.
You would be okay with coed barracks then?

A large bunk setup of mixed genders? Done it before. Why would I have a problem with it?

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2007-03-15 09:29pm

I'm not too fond of showering with straight men either. I just accepted that serving in the army would mean doing some things that aren't very pleasant, including giving up some privacy.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-03-15 09:34pm

As someone who's never served in the military, I would have no greater anxiety about showering with men period over gay/straight/black men(never showered with a man) and none at all over gay/straight/black women (showered with many women). Rooming with gay/straight/black men is simply a non-issue for me.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-03-15 09:42pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:George is obviously not sexually attracted to Tim Hardaway. In a barracks it would be inevitable that you'd have instances of sexual attraction.

It's not about erections. It's about respecting the privacy of others...

Look, I am no expert on gay men. But is the sexual attraction enough for one gay man to want to rape another man in the change room. This "gay panic" argument is total bullshit, I invite you to find one instance of a gay man raping a straight man. Whether or not they "feel" bad with gay men should have nothing to do with it. Women cannot and can never be in the same change room in horny teenagers in their sexual peak. Men physically dominate women, and the temptation would be a serious problem and probably increase the incidents of rapes. I don't see why the military should indulge people who "feel" their privacy was violated, extend your logic far enough and everybody should have individual shower rooms because they don't want other men comparing penis sizes.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-03-15 09:53pm

Ghetto edit: also, I don't see how sexual privacy means anything at all. Sexual privacy is only a problem if less sexual privacy increases oh, the incidents of sex. If a gay man was leering me up in the shower, I so wouldn't give a fuck. In fact I would take it as a compliment for my incredible physical physique/brain/whatever made him so attracted to me. I'd only be worried if there was an actual chance of sex, or if the gay man would actually come up to me and fuck me in the ass. That was the whole point of the Sulu vs Tim Hardaway commercial, Hardaway has an irrational fear and so do you apparently Kamakazie Sith. Privacy seems an euphemism for fear for you Sith, maybe you should try changing the way you think, gay men will not rape you in the shower and maybe if gay men are physically attracted to you that's a compliment. Or at the very least, you shouldn't give a fuck.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-03-15 10:06pm

brianeyci wrote:Ghetto edit: also, I don't see how sexual privacy means anything at all. Sexual privacy is only a problem if less sexual privacy increases oh, the incidents of sex. If a gay man was leering me up in the shower, I so wouldn't give a fuck. In fact I would take it as a compliment for my incredible physical physique/brain/whatever made him so attracted to me. I'd only be worried if there was an actual chance of sex, or if the gay man would actually come up to me and fuck me in the ass. That was the whole point of the Sulu vs Tim Hardaway commercial, Hardaway has an irrational fear and so do you apparently Kamakazie Sith. Privacy seems an euphemism for fear for you Sith, maybe you should try changing the way you think, gay men will not rape you in the shower and maybe if gay men are physically attracted to you that's a compliment. Or at the very least, you shouldn't give a fuck.

Having been hit on by multiple gay men a number of times, I can honestly say it's not that big of a deal. For me it would only become problematic if they were staring at me for several minutes, but then anyone I didn't know staring at me for several minutes would make me uncomfortable.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2007-03-15 10:28pm

General Zod wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Beowulf wrote:He's not the guy in charge! He's in almost no one's chain of command.
Methinks someone's not listening, so repost:
I'm pretty sure Beowulf was being sarcastic there. . .

Reading the thread, it sounds more like he's doing precisely what nearly every other military person in this has been saying: the chairman of the JCS is not the "guy in charge"..I've read that the chain of command pretty much bypasses the JCS, they're more advisory than anything.

That being said...it doesn't make what he says any more justifiable, but if you're going to be tying what he says to his position, it helps to be not wrong about the latter.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 10:43pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Feeling uncomfortable because you feel that a black man is inferior to you is a lot different then feeling uncomfortable because your buck mate might actually have an interest in being your mate...
Tell me, so how does one warrant segregation while the other doesn't?

Holy fucking shit. SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-03-15 10:44pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Feeling uncomfortable because you feel that a black man is inferior to you is a lot different then feeling uncomfortable because your buck mate might actually have an interest in being your mate...
Tell me, so how does one warrant segregation while the other doesn't?
Holy fucking shit. SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

You say that like it means something.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 10:52pm

SirNitram wrote:
I'm not having sex there, I'm sleeping there. And again, what's this magic difference between having a bunk setup full of men?

With DATD gone you'll have soldiers that are openly gay, and that's something I wouldn't feel comfortable with in the shower. Women certainly wouldn't tolerate it with men, and I don't see why we have to.

A large bunk setup of mixed genders? Done it before. Why would I have a problem with it?

Did you get naked in front of these women? Did you shower with them?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 10:52pm

Stark wrote:As someone who's never served in the military, I would have no greater anxiety about showering with men period over gay/straight/black men(never showered with a man) and none at all over gay/straight/black women (showered with many women). Rooming with gay/straight/black men is simply a non-issue for me.

There are some women like that to does this mean we should start having coed showers?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-03-15 10:55pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
I'm not having sex there, I'm sleeping there. And again, what's this magic difference between having a bunk setup full of men?
With DATD gone you'll have soldiers that are openly gay, and that's something I wouldn't feel comfortable with in the shower. Women certainly wouldn't tolerate it with men, and I don't see why we have to.

'Women certainly wouldn't tolerate it with men'? On what do you base this sweeping generalization of roughly three billion individuals?

A large bunk setup of mixed genders? Done it before. Why would I have a problem with it?
Did you get naked in front of these women? Did you shower with them?

Yes. Is this some shocking, gut-wrenching, world-collapsing revelation to you? Does nudity so scar and terrify you?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-03-15 10:57pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Feeling uncomfortable because you feel that a black man is inferior to you is a lot different then feeling uncomfortable because your buck mate might actually have an interest in being your mate...
Tell me, so how does one warrant segregation while the other doesn't?
Holy fucking shit. SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

Thank you Captain Obvious for repeating yourself and failing to answer my question. Try again.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-03-15 10:57pm

Sith:

Dude, what the hell is your hangup about this? There are currently homosexual men and women in the military who regularly shower with other men and women, some of whome are also homosexuals. What horrible things do you think would happen?

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-03-15 10:57pm

brianeyci wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:George is obviously not sexually attracted to Tim Hardaway. In a barracks it would be inevitable that you'd have instances of sexual attraction.

It's not about erections. It's about respecting the privacy of others...
Look, I am no expert on gay men. But is the sexual attraction enough for one gay man to want to rape another man in the change room. This "gay panic" argument is total bullshit, I invite you to find one instance of a gay man raping a straight man. Whether or not they "feel" bad with gay men should have nothing to do with it. Women cannot and can never be in the same change room in horny teenagers in their sexual peak. Men physically dominate women, and the temptation would be a serious problem and probably increase the incidents of rapes. I don't see why the military should indulge people who "feel" their privacy was violated, extend your logic far enough and everybody should have individual shower rooms because they don't want other men comparing penis sizes.

Again, nobody is talking about gay men raping gay men. It's about having the right to shower without being sexually desired by another person. I can't believe the bullshit here. Why is it in matters such as this the minority end up oppressing the majority?

You're talking about taking away the rights of heterosexual men. We do have the to privacy away from those who are sexually attracted to us. We don't want to fuck everything that moves either.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-03-15 10:59pm

Flagg wrote:Sith:

Dude, what the hell is your hangup about this? There are currently homosexual men and women in the military who regularly shower with other men and women, some of whome are also homosexuals. What horrible things do you think would happen?

Why, the destruction of the Earth a la Alderaan! Did you know that consummation of sexual attraction can release up to 5.5x10E38 joules of energy over a period of nanoseconds?!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-03-15 11:06pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Again, nobody is talking about gay men raping gay men. It's about having the right to shower without being sexually desired by another person. I can't believe the bullshit here. Why is it in matters such as this the minority end up oppressing the majority?

You're talking about taking away the rights of heterosexual men. We do have the to privacy away from those who are sexually attracted to us. We don't want to fuck everything that moves either.

Where in the HELL are you getting this blatant bullfuckery? How the fuck are you being oppressed if some guy takes a liking to you, shower or no shower (i.e. context does fuckall in this scenario)? I'll bet 99% of the time you wouldn't even know you're being checked out by a guy, even if he's naked.

You sound EXACTLY like this:

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-03-15 11:07pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:It's about having the right to shower without being sexually desired by another person. I can't believe the bullshit here. Why is it in matters such as this the minority end up oppressing the majority?

Do outline for the class how the minority is actually executing this oppression of the majority you speak of. Do they have the power the majority doesn't to enforce their desires? To force others to acknowledge or indulge them? To act on them with impunity?

You're talking about taking away the rights of heterosexual men.

I was unaware that there was an inherent right not to be in the same communal shower area with a gay person.