Hazzy Wrote:Wars have been started over religion and political views. I think those two are more sensitive than how you entertain yourself in bed.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Like it or not sex is a sensitive subject for any individual. There are people who as the poster ahead of me said are homophobic, but seriously forcing someone into a situation of discomfort where their sexuality is challenged or threatened is just as bad as any other phobic situation. Do you take a claustrophobic person and show them into a box and nail it shut on them? No! So why should taking a homophobic person and shoving them in a room full of homosexuals be any different? You're taking an individual and forcing them into a situation that will cause discomfort, stress, and fear. That is completely UNETHICAL by any sociological and even psychiatric/psychological stand point. If you did that in a clinical situation without the patients consent, you would be arrested, have your license revoked, and even sentenced to jail/prison for reckless endangerment and psychological torture. So again, how is this any different?

As I said, things of a private nature often are best left private because it creates a better air of comfort of others around you and doesn't draw unwanted attention, if not, leaves you ina more respectful position because you are showing respect to others around you and they are showing you equal respect as well. There are certain things the general public and society as a whole just aren't ready for on a full scale basis no matter how much you want it to be. It will take time for society as a whole to accept alternative lifestyles, but forcing the issue on society isn't going to make the situation any better or improve the current situation faster.

Pentagon Study Wrote:"We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay," the report quotes a member of the special operations force as saying.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Political statements that are unproven are not valid talking points or reliable data references...

Here's a more reliable reference you should educate yourself with...

http://www.innerhealthstudio.com/coping-with-stress.html

If I need to dig up every mental health journal on stressful environments, phobic reactions, and other related information I can and will Google it.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:But things like this can cause units and companies in the military to become destabilized and cause not only dissension among it's members but also spark other problems such as hate related violence as well.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Like it or not sex is a sensitive subject for any individual. There are people who as the poster ahead of me said are homophobic, but seriously forcing someone into a situation of discomfort where their sexuality is challenged or threatened is just as bad as any other phobic situation. Do you take a claustrophobic person and show them into a box and nail it shut on them? No! So why should taking a homophobic person and shoving them in a room full of homosexuals be any different? You're taking an individual and forcing them into a situation that will cause discomfort, stress, and fear. That is completely UNETHICAL by any sociological and even psychiatric/psychological stand point. If you did that in a clinical situation without the patients consent, you would be arrested, have your license revoked, and even sentenced to jail/prison for reckless endangerment and psychological torture. So again, how is this any different?

You might think I'm viewing this from a single sided point towards heterosexual people, I'm not. I'm viewing it from both sides.

I've known throughout my life many people both friends and family who are homosexual, and there have been many of them who feel more comfortable keeping their sexuality private and personal rather than open and public. One of my cousins who lives in L.A. is a lesbian. She is not openly homosexual. She is very conservative about her lifestyle, she doesn't flaunt herself while in public, and always likes to avoid drawing attention to herself. She has even told me she would rather be a private person about it because unwanted attention brings discomfort, gossip, and even ridicule by others around her and her life partner. I think she's right... Do I like her lifestyle? No. Do I support her and her life partner? Yes. Do I love her regardless of her lifestyle? Yes.

As I said, things of a private nature often are best left private because it creates a better air of comfort of others around you and doesn't draw unwanted attention, if not, leaves you ina more respectful position because you are showing respect to others around you and they are showing you equal respect as well. There are certain things the general public and society as a whole just aren't ready for on a full scale basis no matter how much you want it to be. It will take time for society as a whole to accept alternative lifestyles, but forcing the issue on society isn't going to make the situation any better or improve the current situation faster.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Political statements that are unproven are not valid talking points or reliable data references...

Here's a more reliable reference you should educate yourself with...

http://www.innerhealthstudio.com/coping-with-stress.html

If I need to dig up every mental health journal on stressful environments, phobic reactions, and other related information I can and will Google it.

SaptaZapta Wrote:So if a person happens to believe that Jews have horns or Blacks are cannibals or women are inferior, they should not be "shoved in a roomfull of" those scary monsters?

Gays should not be excluded from the military just because some other people don't like being around them.
It's the homophobes that should be excluded, if their condition is such that they can't function around people they know to be gay.

As for people keeping themselves private or not, that's their own business. The law doesn't require gays in the military to flaunt themselves. It just allows them to not live in constant fear of someone finding out.

Mute Wrote:Firstly if a person thought those things, they wouldn't get through screening at MEPS.
Second, they arent excluded anymore. just clearing that up. It's the issue of how others will react, which is a basic "eh so what?" within the military. Soldiers, sailors, pilots, mechanics, etc etc realize theyve a job to do, and they're going to do it regardless of who theyre working for. otherwise they'll be discharged from the service.

Fiel Wrote:Take a guess at who's talking:

"DADT was repealed. 65 to 31."
"Son of a peach! They got 9 idiotic republicans. I have to figure out who they are."
"Why are you so angry about this?"
"Because attraction reduces battlefield efficacy. In Israel they tried to integrate their military force with women, but they found that men behaved erratically to save the women that may have endangered themselves. Here it will be the same story, but with gays trying to protect other men. The battlefield is tough as it is - why put gays through it? Why put straight men through it?"

I couldn't refute his point. Anyone care to take it on?

Fiel Wrote:Take a guess at who's talking:

"DADT was repealed. 65 to 31."
"Son of a peach! They got 9 idiotic republicans. I have to figure out who they are."
"Why are you so angry about this?"
"Because attraction reduces battlefield efficacy. In Israel they tried to integrate their military force with women, but they found that men behaved erratically to save the women that may have endangered themselves. Here it will be the same story, but with gays trying to protect other men. The battlefield is tough as it is - why put gays through it? Why put straight men through it?"

I couldn't refute his point. Anyone care to take it on?

FanaticRat Wrote:How would that be any different from how it is now? Gays can currently serve in the military, just not openly. They're not being integrated into the military, they're already there, this bill will only make it so they won't be discharged if they are revealed as gay. You like what you like whether you say it or not.

Fiel Wrote:they found that men behaved erratically to save the women that may have endangered themselves. Here it will be the same story, but with gays trying to protect other men. The battlefield is tough as it is - why put gays through it? Why put straight men through it?"

I couldn't refute his point. Anyone care to take it on?

SaptaZapta Wrote:Men protect women in irrational ways (if they do) due to "chivalrous" values instilled in them since childhood.
I've never heard of gays acting that way to protect other men.

Eosian Wrote:Pammenes would probably like to have a word with him.



Your ignorance is appalling then.

SaptaZapta Wrote:That's different.
A person would fight (irrationally, perhaps) to protect his or her mate (and offspring).
This is different from "chivalry" which has men protecting women with which they have no emotional bond, and to whom they're not attracted, just because they are women.