Gays and life
Quote: Rob SingerI'm not known as being tolerant with gays either, but it's only against those that have that God-awful lithpy "designer delivery" with wavy hands & fingers such as the ones you see in the clothing, home design, and other such industries on TV.
But a lot of these gay people are responsible for so much of the music, movies, art, theater, television, architecture and interior design (including of casinos), designing Christmas ornaments, horticulture, literature... not to mention writing your computer code, doing research on digital imaging, whatever it is that artistically motivated people choose to do.
And even if this ur-gay is just processing your bank statement, you don't have to understand gayness. But this is a cold, unfeeling world, and it isn't right to sentence someone to life alone just because of who they want to bang private parts with. I'm not going to tell someone who they can or can't love, and I think that's not too much for anyone to ask from other people; in fact, it's a pretty small thing, IMO.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't expect you to all of a sudden enjoy "designer delivery"; I expect you to always feel as you do about it, and honestly, that's OK. It's how you feel. But I think it also makes sense to see it as something that you don't understand, but at the same time not care about, because it's really just some other poor schmoes trying to make headway against those 6-5 odds-against, in their own way.
I got suspicious about the kind of reporting that we began to hear: sympathetic-to-gay-activist reporters would have stories about someone stumbling over "don't tell" and getting tossed out because their emails were read. This of course instantly plays on civilian notions of fair play, never mind just how many of these individuals got busted in that way. Quite amazing how many DADT got discharged. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe those emails busted them because they said "I'm for gay rights". Those emails and other "tells" revealed homosexual activity, and, again, I'm sorry, but the kind of excess the gays get into is so astonishing it is easy for me to believe 99% of the cases of discharge were valid by any reasonable standard. I'm sorry for the ones that werent, I'm sure that happened too.
It is utterly amazing to me how dishonest and incomplete the political discussions become. Even reading Senator Inhofe's official objections shows politicians are heeding the old "you can't handle the truth" once again. His wording is carefully crafted and reveals almost nothing. We did not get an honest discussion about this, I'm convinced!
I doubt if DADT was broken, and if it was, it should have been fixed without a full repeal. It clearly made plenty of sense. We shall see just how this plays out.
Quote: odiousgambitMaybe this should be moved to free speech, but I can say that I am quite concerned that Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. [DADT]
I got suspicious about the kind of reporting that we began to hear: sympathetic-to-gay-activist reporters would have stories about someone stumbling over "don't tell" and getting tossed out because their emails were read. This of course instantly plays on civilian notions of fair play, never mind just how many of these individuals got busted in that way. Quite amazing how many DADT got discharged. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe those emails busted them because they said "I'm for gay rights". Those emails and other "tells" revealed homosexual activity, and, again, I'm sorry, but the kind of excess the gays get into is so astonishing it is easy for me to believe 99% of the cases of discharge were valid by any reasonable standard. I'm sorry for the ones that werent, I'm sure that happened too.
It is utterly amazing to me how dishonest and incomplete the political discussions become. Even reading Senator Inhofe's official objections shows politicians are heeding the old "you can't handle the truth" once again. His wording is carefully crafted and reveals almost nothing. We did not get an honest discussion about this, I'm convinced!
I doubt if DADT was broken, and if it was, it should have been fixed without a full repeal. It clearly made plenty of sense. We shall see just how this plays out.
If the majority of active military thinks it will have either a positive or no effect on how they can perform the job why are you concerned?
Is the pentagon a sympathetic to gay activist organization?
Face facts if you are under 40 you most likely know and have gay friends. They aren't monsters out to steal you kids and recruit them.
This is no different than the idea that Blacks could not serve with whites.
Quote:
If the majority of active military thinks it will have either a positive or no effect on how they can perform the job why are you concerned?
Is the pentagon a sympathetic to gay activist organization?
Face facts if you are under 40 you most likely know and have gay friends. They aren't monsters out to steal you kids and recruit them.
This is no different than the idea that Blacks could not serve with whites.
The fact is the people in the military who have "no problem" with gays serving are people to whom the military is a job they report to daily then go home after doing some office work. Ask a combat unit and the view is far different. Ask someone who must bunk with and shower with other guys and the view is different than the guy who goes home to his apartment at the end of the day.
Homosexuality causes problems in military life, which is the reason gays were banned in the first place. The average gay male will have 100xs the number of sexual partners as the average straight male. The risk of AIDS in a combat unit alone is unacceptable enough to keep DADT. All we did was weaken a country to be politically correct.
Quote: MoscaBut a lot of these gay people are responsible for so much of the music, movies, art, theater, television, architecture and interior design (including of casinos), designing Christmas ornaments, horticulture, literature... not to mention writing your computer code, doing research on digital imaging, whatever it is that artistically motivated people choose to do.
And even if this ur-gay is just processing your bank statement, you don't have to understand gayness. But this is a cold, unfeeling world, and it isn't right to sentence someone to life alone just because of who they want to bang private parts with. I'm not going to tell someone who they can or can't love, and I think that's not too much for anyone to ask from other people; in fact, it's a pretty small thing, IMO.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't expect you to all of a sudden enjoy "designer delivery"; I expect you to always feel as you do about it, and honestly, that's OK. It's how you feel. But I think it also makes sense to see it as something that you don't understand, but at the same time not care about, because it's really just some other poor schmoes trying to make headway against those 6-5 odds-against, in their own way.
I'm perfectly fine with gays who have given us all those arts, as long as they do not feel the need to get in front of the camera and look for lovers with their ridicuous delivery methods.
As for their inclusion into our military, even Israel allows it. Anyone who wants to risk their lives protecting myself and my family is a hero in my book, male, female, gay or whatever.
Quote: AZDuffmanAll we did was weaken a country to be politically correct.
As a practicing heterosexual I think you are full of crap - your very presence in my country (where I spent 20+ years on active duty) weakens it as a result of your small minded, petty attitude.
Exactly how does DADT keep AIDS out of a combat unit? How does DADT keep the clap or the crabs out of military units (and if you think those things don't exist you are mistaken). How does DADT keep drug or alcohol abuse out of the unit (big problem in Iraq and Afghanistan)?
Homosexuality causes problems in military life just as serving with blacks caused problems in military life in the 50's, 60's and truth be told even to today. When I entered the military in the 60's if you were married to a person not of your race you couldn't be stationed in Mississippi because that was "against the law" in that state. I suppose "political correctness" changed that law.
There are still people in combat units who dislike serving with races other than their own and there will always be homophobes in the ranks and out side of them. There will also be perverts and rapists and just plain out and out bad people (just because you put on the uniform doesn't change the character - you dance with the character you brought). Having served with some pretty bad characters (who were very good at what they did) I can guarantee the country is no weaker today than it was the day before yesterday.
Quote: Wavy70
If the majority of active military thinks it will have either a positive or no effect on how they can perform the job why are you concerned?
According to Inhofe," this survey focused on what would happen 'when' DADT is repealed and not 'if' DADT should be repealed."
I havent checked into what McCain had to say specifically. The whole thing stinks to high heaven to me. Again, what, thoughtfully, could have been wrong with the concept of DADT if the gays could behave?
Quote: MartinHomosexuality causes problems in military life just as serving with blacks caused problems in military life in the 50's, 60's and truth be told even to today. When I entered the military in the 60's if you were married to a person not of your race you couldn't be stationed in Mississippi because that was "against the law" in that state. I suppose "political correctness" changed that law.
There are still people in combat units who dislike serving with races other than their own and there will always be homophobes in the ranks and out side of them. There will also be perverts and rapists and just plain out and out bad people (just because you put on the uniform doesn't change the character - you dance with the character you brought). Having served with some pretty bad characters (who were very good at what they did) I can guarantee the country is no weaker today than it was the day before yesterday.
The ancient Greek armies of Alexander's time were predominantly homosexual, and that didn't seem to affect their fighting prowess any.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe average gay male will have 100xs the number of sexual partners as the average straight male. The risk of AIDS in a combat unit alone is unacceptable enough to keep DADT.
I gotta call bullsh*t on this. What is your evidence?
Quote: RobSingerAs for their inclusion into our military, even Israel allows it.
Anyone who wants to risk their lives protecting myself and my family is a hero in my book, male, female, gay or whatever.
Well-spoken (written ?). AGREED.
Quote: WizardI gotta call bullsh*t on this. What is your evidence?
Here is one piece of evidence:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
Add in annecdotal evidence and it gets even more believable to me. I may have exaggerated at "100s" but 50xs is certainly believable.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe average gay male will have 100xs the number of sexual partners as the average straight male.
100, thats all? In the late 70's I worked as a bartender and just down the street was a Gay bar, and a lot of those guys would come into my bar too. I got to know dozens of them, and they were all sexaholics. It was all they talked about and all they did, constantly on the prowl for a new experience. I knew two guys who were life partners, in their 50's. They were officers in the Army in the 1950's and they swore they never had more sexual action then when they were in the military. They claimed that all organizations that are made up of all men, like the YMCA, military, Boy Scouts, fraternal organizations, the Catholic Church, were all magnets for Gay men. I got along great with those guys, for the most part they were above average in intelligence and had great senses of humor. They were always horny as teenage boys on a Saturday night, though.. Its not the sex thats important, I think its a validation thing. As long as they can still get 'action', it means they're still attractive and desirable.
Quote: odiousgambitI havent checked into what McCain had to say specifically. The whole thing stinks to high heaven to me. Again, what, thoughtfully, could have been wrong with the concept of DADT if the gays could behave?
McCain in 06 stated the time to change would be when the leaders of the military come to me and say it's time to change DADT.
The Chairman of the Joint Chief's of staff did just that.
McCain will not support it now mainly due to the fact he is fighting for his career against a very conservative opponent.
Quote: AZDuffmanHere is one piece of evidence:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
Add in annecdotal evidence and it gets even more believable to me. I may have exaggerated at "100s" but 50xs is certainly believable.
That source claims:
25%: 0-99 (implied)
15%: 100-249
17%: 250-499
15%: 500-999
28%: 1000+
It is hard to draw a mean from that, but the median would be somewhere in the high end of the 250-499 range. That would imply the median heterosexual man would have 2.5 to 5.0. I can't believe it is that low. Also, that study was from 1978, and the average must have been higher back then. The risk of AIDS must have put a damper on it.
Sorry, but even your own evidence doesn't back up your statement.
Quote: WizardThat source claims:
25%: 0-99 (implied)
15%: 100-249
17%: 250-499
15%: 500-999
28%: 1000+
It is hard to draw a mean from that, but the median would be somewhere in the high end of the 250-499 range. That would imply the median heterosexual man would have 2.5 to 5.0. I can't believe it is that low. Also, that study was from 1978, and the average must have been higher back then. The risk of AIDS must have put a damper on it.
Sorry, but even your own evidence doesn't back up your statement.
I find even 75% of them having over 100 scary, and I do not think AIDS has really dampened it. I have heard reports of gay sex parties where the possibilities are part of the allure. Then add in how much hell is raised if you suggest abstinence education. Again, perhaps "100s" is high but 50-100xs is not.
We can agree to disagree.
Quote: WizardThat would imply the median heterosexual man would have 2.5 to 5.0. .
I went thru most of the hetero men I know in my head and 2.5-5 is about right. I know a few who have only ever had sex with just their wives. I've known a few guys who were real hounds, but they don't hold a candle to Gay men who are that way. My wife had an antiques business for 20 years and we got to know a lot of Gay couples, mostly middle aged life partners. Even they were very sexually oriented, always making clever jokes about young men they found attractive. I really like Gay guys, the world would be a sorry place without them.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have heard reports of gay sex parties where the possibilities are part of the allure.
I have also heard that the VP machines in NV are not truly random.
Quote: Wavy70I have also heard that the VP machines in NV are not truly random.
Wasn't that what that shown on "Breaking Vegas" where the guy who investigated it was right? You know, the former NGCB guy who broke the random number generator in AC?
Quote: RobSingerI'm perfectly fine with gays who have given us all those arts, as long as they do not feel the need to get in front of the camera and look for lovers with their ridicuous delivery methods.
As for their inclusion into our military, even Israel allows it. Anyone who wants to risk their lives protecting myself and my family is a hero in my book, male, female, gay or whatever.
I know. I think a person should be on camera to the extent that he or she makes good entertainment; that's what the camera is for. If a good story can be made around it, I don't care about the other part. And, some people like this, and some people like that. Outrageous stereotypical gay behavior is OK for some, and not for others. Don't change, if it doesn't appeal to you. But take the extra step beyond a person risking his or her life, and see that person's right to have a free life, unrestricted by law, even if you don't like it.
Quote: WizardI gotta call bullsh*t on this. What is your evidence?
I second this. You'll need to show me some quality evidence from a reputable study before I consider this a reasonable assumption.
OK, I posted this before reading all of the responses. After reading them, I still have to agree with the Wizard.
As far as it meaning the median count of partners for hetero guys being 2.5 - 5.0, I think some of you are way off, or are basing your thinking on small sample sizes. For every guy who gets married at age 20 and has a count of 2-3, there's another guy who got married at 36 and has a count of 40-50. Keep in mind that:
1. People are getting married older in life now vs in the 60's-70's
2. Kids are starting sex earlier in life now vs in the 60's-70's
3. The internet has made it easier for guys to find both prostitutes and casual NSA hook-ups
Those three items all will lead to higher partner counts.
Quote: Toes14I second this. You'll need to show me some quality evidence from a reputable study before I consider this a reasonable assumption.
OK, I posted this before reading all of the responses. After reading them, I still have to agree with the Wizard.
I'm done on this thread. Since 1993 I have at various times challenged the "sell" job given on behavior of homosexuals, men espically. While we are told that , "not that there is anything wrong with that" and there is no real difference except that gay males hook up with guys, the reality is different if you explore it even a little. When you challenge the "allowed" premise of homosexual behavior online you shortly get attacked by a virtual mob. I am not going to drag out a big discussion on this site that will inevitably degrade. "Tolerance for other views" is preached but never practiced by this movement. I already said I exaggerated at saying "hundreds" and should have said 50-100 times. That is all I will concede.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm done on this thread. Since 1993 I have at various times challenged the "sell" job given on behavior of homosexuals, men espically. While we are told that , "not that there is anything wrong with that" and there is no real difference except that gay males hook up with guys, the reality is different if you explore it even a little. When you challenge the "allowed" premise of homosexual behavior online you shortly get attacked by a virtual mob. I am not going to drag out a big discussion on this site that will inevitably degrade. "Tolerance for other views" is preached but never practiced by this movement. I already said I exaggerated at saying "hundreds" and should have said 50-100 times. That is all I will concede.
I don't understand how you get to ranting about "tolerance for other views" here. Tolerance is allowing everyone, including people you don't agree with, to have the same rights and privileges you do. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with you. Tolerance for other views means extending the same rights and privileges to other Americans that don't see eye to eye on you. I don't see any of your rights or privileges being violated here.
Personally, I find the whole argument against gay behavior silly. Especially this sexual partner discussion. Who cares how many sexual partners they've had? That makes no difference with how they'll perform in the military.
There have been a couple of studies about how homosexuality affects military units. Here are a couple:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a915889778~db=all~jumptype=rss
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/randstudy(3).pdf
Both challenge the thinking around DADT and point to evidence that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would increase cohesiveness, not reduce it.
Quote: AZDuffmanWasn't that what that shown on "Breaking Vegas" where the guy who investigated it was right? You know, the former NGCB guy who broke the random number generator in AC?
No, that guy (Ron Harris) actually hacked the machine. In one case, he gaffed a slot game to pay out a jackpot when a certain sequence of coins was inserted. That had nothing to do with the RNG - it was a flat-out back-door hack. In the AC case at Bally's, he worked out software to track the RNG on a keno game so he knew what numbers would come up. The RNG code was working as desired, but since Harris had illicit access to that code he could run it in advance on his own computer and figure out where in the cycle it was, enabling him to know the next set of numbers drawn. (I have to assume that's what happened, since if the keno RNG had been cycling non-stop then access to the source wouldn't have mattered.)
Quote: bluefire
There have been a couple of studies about how homosexuality affects military units.
How can there be studies on being openly Gay in the military when it hasn't happened yet? Personally, I like Gay people. Unfortunately, everybody isn't as broad minded as I am.
Quote: AZDuffmanI find even 75% of them having over 100 scary, and I do not think AIDS has really dampened it. I have heard reports of gay sex parties where the possibilities are part of the allure. Then add in how much hell is raised if you suggest abstinence education. Again, perhaps "100s" is high but 50-100xs is not.
We can agree to disagree.
I just called bullsh*t on 100s being too high. Sounds like you've come down from that, in which case we do agree.
Quote: EvenBobI went thru most of the hetero men I know in my head and 2.5-5 is about right. I know a few who have only ever had sex with just their wives. I've known a few guys who were real hounds, but they don't hold a candle to Gay men who are that way.
Personally, my circle during my single life looked straight out of the Big Bang Theory, making 2.5-5.0 something to be envious about. However, I wouldn't use that to make any statements about the population at large. My point being that using ones personal experience is usually a bad use of statistics.
Quote: EvenBobHow can there be studies on being openly Gay in the military when it hasn't happened yet? Personally, I like Gay people. Unfortunately, everybody isn't as broad minded as I am.
The first study looks at people who were compliant with DADT during their military stay but were open about it later once they retired from the military. The author admits some problems (it's a cross section rather than a random sample), but has some decently strong evidence to back up what they are doing.
The second study looks at Iraq & Afghanistan war veterans and explores how they would have reacted to having homosexuals serve with them in the war in various situations. They examine the arguments for and against to try to gauge the opinions of those who actually fought in the war.
Both studies came to similar conclusions about DADT - that it caused grief, and that just letting them serve openly would cause the units to be closer knit and have an overall positive effect.
The only thing DADT did was make asking if someone was gay against the rules. There were some major disqualifying questions during the entry interviews (I did thousands of them; I worked in the recruiting world for many years)--have you used drugs, are you a conscientious objector, and are you a homosexual--that were asked every time. You could get waivers for drug use (and many, many other things but the other two were permanently disqualifying.
DADT simply changed the form and took out that question. Before DADT, applicants simply lied about the issue. After DADT, they didn't have to lie. Gays were still discharged if discovered in both cases. DADT didn't really provide any protection for gays; it just allowed them to stay in the closet. There were still people who discovered them and had them discharged and others who ignored the issue.
Now we are on the brink of allowing "openly"gay folks in the military. Do we really think the guys dressing up in drag and marching in "pride" parades are the type of people who will flock into the military and be disruptive? There may be a few initially, of course, but most of the people who join the military will be the more reserved type of person who does not seek to disrupt but merely to serve their country. The ones who try to push the limit will be quashed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice under such articles as "conduct unbecoming" and many others...
Gays have been and always will be in the military. The military will always be a more conservative organization than the general civilian population. The rule will be changed and smart commanders will say "aye, aye, sir" and lead their units through the change. I predict everyone will forget the issue was even a big deal in very short order...
Quote: RonCI predict everyone will forget the issue was even a big deal in very short order...
Doubtful. Thats what they said in 1947 when they desegregated the military. It took 25 years before it was fully accepted. Read Sammy Davis Jr's biography of his experience in the Army in the 50's. Its amazing he made it out alive.
Quote: EvenBobDoubtful. Thats what they said in 1947 when they desegregated the military. It took 25 years before it was fully accepted. Read Sammy Davis Jr's biography of his experience in the Army in the 50's. Its amazing he made it out alive.
I disagree with this comparison. The military was segregated with blacks in their own units. Integrating blacks into units was a radical change for not just those in the military but our whole society.
Gays have been in the military for...well, I guess as long as there has been a military.
Are their "incidents"--of course!! There will be things that don't go smoothly but I doubt it will be anything like racial integration.
EVERYONE out there has a a relationship with SOMEONE gay. They are a family member, friend, business associate, etc. That was not the case with integration--the blacks were not thought of as even being people by many folks. There are still many people who claim no black friends.
You may be right but I sure hope that you are not. We have way too many larger issues to consider like:
We are sending these kids to combat 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 times while most of us just sit at home and talk about the old days. I know folks served for years during many wars but there were KNOWN enemies that we were fighting in most cases (got tricky in Vietnam, but most folks did not do multiple tours of duty)...now we have people fighting an "unknown" enemy (the enemy could be anyone they see) for amounts of time that continue to pile up with no relief in sight. War is truly hell; these folks are seeing hell more often than most. How are we going to take care of the myriad of issues that come from being in a hellish situation for all that time?
Those kind of issues are much more important in my opinion...
Quote: RonC
You may be right but I sure hope that you are not. .
Do you have any idea how Gay boys are treated in High School? They're bullied and even beat up on a regular basis. These same bully's are going to join the military and all of a sudden find tolerance? We'll see.
Quote: EvenBobI went thru most of the hetero men I know in my head and 2.5-5 is about right. I know a few who have only ever had sex with just their wives. I've known a few guys who were real hounds, but they don't hold a candle to Gay men who are that way. My wife had an antiques business for 20 years and we got to know a lot of Gay couples, mostly middle aged life partners. Even they were very sexually oriented, always making clever jokes about young men they found attractive. I really like Gay guys, the world would be a sorry place without them.
What did the guy with the 2.5 do with the last .5 or do we really want to know ?
Quote: RonCI spent 21 1/2 years in the Marine Corps...
Outstanding post. Thank you.
Quote: RonCI spent 21 1/2 years in the Marine Corps. There were gays in combat units that I served in. They did their job and got along well with other people. They did not disrupt the unit. They did not troll for "other" partners. There was a network of folks who were gay, but they were less disruptive (that is to say not disruptive at all) than the people who got drunk and whored it up each payday and always ended up "on report" and the ones who just couldn't seem to keep out of fights. They were there and people knew it, but nobody really chased them down.
The only thing DADT did was make asking if someone was gay against the rules. There were some major disqualifying questions during the entry interviews (I did thousands of them; I worked in the recruiting world for many years)--have you used drugs, are you a conscientious objector, and are you a homosexual--that were asked every time. You could get waivers for drug use (and many, many other things but the other two were permanently disqualifying.
DADT simply changed the form and took out that question. Before DADT, applicants simply lied about the issue. After DADT, they didn't have to lie. Gays were still discharged if discovered in both cases. DADT didn't really provide any protection for gays; it just allowed them to stay in the closet. There were still people who discovered them and had them discharged and others who ignored the issue.
Now we are on the brink of allowing "openly"gay folks in the military. Do we really think the guys dressing up in drag and marching in "pride" parades are the type of people who will flock into the military and be disruptive? There may be a few initially, of course, but most of the people who join the military will be the more reserved type of person who does not seek to disrupt but merely to serve their country. The ones who try to push the limit will be quashed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice under such articles as "conduct unbecoming" and many others...
Gays have been and always will be in the military. The military will always be a more conservative organization than the general civilian population. The rule will be changed and smart commanders will say "aye, aye, sir" and lead their units through the change. I predict everyone will forget the issue was even a big deal in very short order...
I spent 20 years as an enlisted man and officer in the United States Army. The Army, much less the nation, has never has a free and frank discussion of how the enlargement of numbers and roles of women in the forces impacted readiness and misson performance. The personal observations I saw with my own eyes over those two decades from when we went from a few women to nearly 20% of the force were almost all negative.
The role of a military is to close with and kill the enemies of the United States. Morale and esprit de corps are an integral element of the efficiency of a military organization.
An armed forces more concerned with "diversity" and "civil rights" is one that has less concern with killing and preparing to kill the enemies of this country.
As I always used to say, "It says United States Army, not Salvation Army"
Quote: CrappedOutI spent 20 years as an enlisted man and officer in the United States Army. The Army, much less the nation, has never has a free and frank discussion of how the enlargement of numbers and roles of women in the forces impacted readiness and misson performance. The personal observations I saw with my own eyes over those two decades from when we went from a few women to nearly 20% of the force were almost all negative.
The role of a military is to close with and kill the enemies of the United States. Morale and esprit de corps are an integral element of the efficiency of a military organization.
An armed forces more concerned with "diversity" and "civil rights" is one that has less concern with killing and preparing to kill the enemies of this country.
As I always used to say, "It says United States Army, not Salvation Army"
It is essential to keep the military discipline needed to do the task at hand--and I see it getting done day in and day out by both women and men (and straights and gays) today. There was a long period of time where we were not constantly "in a fight" during the period after Vietnam where things strayed to the "politically correct" side of the equation a little too far, but I really think we have a pretty damned good military when the leadership does its job. A lot of the issues during the era after Vietnam had to do with the whole "zero defect" mentality where no one would take a chance on anything going wrong.
We have an all-volunteer force. The number of women didn't necessarily go up because leadership wanted more women but because women do have a right to serve and there was a need to fill the ranks of the military with sufficient volunteers. Those are things leadership has to work through by having high standards for EVERYONE and not lowering them....
Quote: EvenBobDo you have any idea how Gay boys are treated in High School? They're bullied and even beat up on a regular basis. These same bully's are going to join the military and all of a sudden find tolerance? We'll see.
You are right--things don't always go the way they should. Gays are bullied. So are others. It doesn't happen to MOST but it does happen to SOME. It is stupid, but we can't let our policies be dictated by people who do stupid things. We don't let the robbers and murderers make the rules do we?
So some people join the military and are not tolerant. You have that right now. The difference is that they become adults, the penalties increase for idiotic behavior, and less incidents happen.
We won't have zero incidents no matter what we do.
Quote: CrappedOutI spent 20 years as an enlisted man and officer in the United States Army. The Army, much less the nation, has never has a free and frank discussion of how the enlargement of numbers and roles of women in the forces impacted readiness and misson performance. The personal observations I saw with my own eyes over those two decades from when we went from a few women to nearly 20% of the force were almost all negative.
The role of a military is to close with and kill the enemies of the United States. Morale and esprit de corps are an integral element of the efficiency of a military organization.
An armed forces more concerned with "diversity" and "civil rights" is one that has less concern with killing and preparing to kill the enemies of this country.
As I always used to say, "It says United States Army, not Salvation Army"
With all due respect, an armed force that does not reflect its national population is nothing more than a hired gang. Might as well turn the whole thing over to XE (nee Blackwater) and call it a day. The reason the U.S. military exists is to protect those very rights and diversity you suggest have no business in the force. So the military will do as we always did, salute smartly, say yes sir and get 'er done.
I always thought of homosexuality as a "talent" rather than an "immutable" characteristic. By "immutable," I mean something that's not your choice to either inherit or develop/retard. I put gender, race, nose shape, foot size, hair color, etc. Yes, you can change all those things (except maybe race), but that's not the sense I mean. I mean, no matter how many nose exercises you do, your nose is still shaped like X.
By "talent," I mean something that's in you (kind of like "immutable") but that won't be realized unless you develop/retard it with practice and behaviors that promote/demote that "talent." For example, Mozart was talented. But imagine if he never pursued music. He would still have "musical" talent, but he never would have written all those symphonies because he did nothing to develop the talent with practice and behavior.
"Talent" has a positive connotation, but in the sense I mean, it can cut both ways. For example, we all know people with bad tempers. To a certain extent, this is "immutable." But someone with a bad temper must learn how to retard it or he/she can get into trouble.
Clearly, a person with a bad temper is not excused from murder just because he was "born with it." Being "born with it" is no excuse for your behavior. You have to take what you're "born with" and work with it. This will look different based on the "talent." Mozart never pursuing music would have been a shame and a major loss. But a bad-tempered person never retarding his "talent" can be tragic.
I put homosexuality in the "talent" category rather than the "immutable" category. Whether or not it is a good talent or a bad talent has been debated, and opinions have changed, over the centuries. We just happen to live in a time where the pendulum is swinging from "bad" to "good." In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was considered "good" ... or at the very least, not stigmatized like it is (rightly or wrongly) now.
In any event, being "born with it" does not "excuse" homosexual behavior. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike all decide to engage in their sexual behavior, regardless of their "talent." Some people's urges may be stronger than others, but at the end of the day, whether or not to have sex is a decision. It's just that people with stronger urges find it harder to resist.
I also think that not all of the people who engage in the behavior have the "talent," but engage in the behavior for other reasons. As foreign as it may be to some of us, I think there are many men who engage in homosexual behavior even though they don't have that "talent." They do it for acceptance, or approval, or for some other powerful reason than their "talent." I personally know one guy, a playwright in New York City, who's straight but acts gay in order to gain acceptance into the artistic community there. If I had to throw a percentage on that, I would say that 80% "fake" it. The problem is, it's hard to tell the fakers from the truly "talented."
Also, I think that, like any other folks, homosexuals search for a way to be different ... or an individual, or unique, or whatever. And, whether "faking" or not, know that engaging in homosexual behavior is what makes them different/individual/unique/whatever. So, they put it in the face of Society, since, as I said earlier, we live in a time where the pendulum is swinging from "good" to "bad."
I think the problem with DADT lies in these last two points. In an organization like the military where some extra degree of sameness is required, the temptation to be different/individual/unique/whatever is magnified.
Fakers might be able to resist more than the truly "talented," but would probably revert should their need for acceptance/approval/whatever not be satisfied. So you have a needy soldier jonesing for gay sex to feel more accepted. The truly "talented" may find it too hard to be someone they're not. These are problems that, to some extent, every soldier must face, so that may not be much of a disruption, at least not as much as similar heterosexual needs, and personally, I think I could live with it.
But it's the in-your-face-Society types that present a major problem, and they discolor all other fakers and truly "talented." While I doubt the repeal of DADT would cause recruitment lines in San Francisco to explode or Harvard, Yale, and other universities to allow the military back on their campuses, I do think that there would be a not-insignificant contingent of people who are just interested in causing trouble. Maybe other segments of society can and should deal with that kind of trouble.
But the military, clearly, is not one of those segments. The military's success in defending this nation (what is it, 12-1 now?) happened for some reasons, and that extra degree of sameness is one of those reasons. Any disruption for the sake of disruption, or as some big social experiment, doesn't help that.
The problem is, from the outside, you can't make this determination, you can't discriminate if you could, and if DADT is repealed, there's no legal way to get rid of the in-your-face-Society soldier if he behaves that way. DADT, weirdly, seems to do a pretty good job of walking that line, although I think an outright ban would be better.
Note that my opinion has nothing to do with how good or bad a homosexual soldier would be. But there's more than just that soldier to think of. There's all the soldiers around him and the nation he must defend. If he's really interested in serving the nation's defense, there are plenty of civilian ways to serve. The military often assigns/rejects people based on their "immutables" (say, someone born blind) or their "talents" (say, a sharpshooter or code-breaker). DADT or a ban would just be a continuation of that policy, not an absolute refusal to employ them at all in any capacity in the defense of their nation.
Any true patriot, homosexually "talented" or otherwise, should understand this and seek to serve in the ways that best serve the common defense and minimize disruption. If this is in the field as mobile infantry, great. If it's code-breaking, great. If it's an analyst for the CIA, great. Sometimes, it'll be by staying completely out of it. There are no shortage of places to serve.
When homosexuals just *have* to serve in *this particular* way, it always makes me wonder what their motives are, and inclines me to put them in the in-your-face-Society segment of that group.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThis is just one guy's opinion, so don't freak out over it.
No freak - I just have some questions regarding your philosophy (theory?).
Is drunkeness a talent or immutable characteristic? There are some who would define it as you do for homosexuals (as a talent) and others who will say it is immutable (in the genes) - yet it is not a dis-qualifier from military service and since it doesn't occupy all souls in the ranks it certainly is different. I served with a lot of drunks and I'm fairly certain there are still an above average share in the ranks even today especially in a war zone (and be careful I still work for DoD I might know whereof I speak). Consequently I can say that when "drunks" just "have" to serve in "this particular" way, it always makes me wonder what their motives are, and inclines me to put them in the in-your-face-Society segment of that group.
Now replace "drunkeness" with "cocks-man", adulterer, drug addict (both legal and illegal), gambler, slob or any other misfit characteristic you care to put in play. I served with them all and it didn't seem to bother me nor my brothers in arms (although the drunks were the worst especially when you had to get them out of the can and haul them home to their long suffering wives).
Quote: MartinNo freak - I just have some questions regarding your philosophy (theory?).
Is drunkeness a talent or immutable characteristic? There are some who would define it as you do for homosexuals (as a talent) and others who will say it is immutable (in the genes) - yet it is not a dis-qualifier from military service and since it doesn't occupy all souls in the ranks it certainly is different. I served with a lot of drunks and I'm fairly certain there are still an above average share in the ranks even today especially in a war zone (and be careful I still work for DoD I might know whereof I speak). Consequently I can say that when "drunks" just "have" to serve in "this particular" way, it always makes me wonder what their motives are, and inclines me to put them in the in-your-face-Society segment of that group.
Now replace "drunkeness" with "cocks-man", adulterer, drug addict (both legal and illegal), gambler, slob or any other misfit characteristic you care to put in play. I served with them all and it didn't seem to bother me nor my brothers in arms (although the drunks were the worst especially when you had to get them out of the can and haul them home to their long suffering wives).
I would say drunkenness is a behavior.
If it's helpful, I might re-phrase the question to say, "Is the propensity to be vulnerable to aclohol addition a "talent" or an "immutability"?" In my opinion, that propensity is a "talent." You have to work with it, however you're predisposed. Drinking is always a behavioral choice. Nothing's more common than a rolling, face-down-in-the-gutter person who doesn't have that propensity. Also, it's common to see people who really struggle with this "talent" resist that urge, hard as it may be.
My further guess, thinking about the drunks you mention in your comments, is that the percentage of people who are getting drunk a lot are doing it for reasons other than the "talent" called propensity to addiction - handling stress, acceptance, peer pressure, whatever. If someone is going to get drunk to the detriment of doing their duty, I would think - just like any other occupation - that it would cost them advancement or influence or longevity or whatever or even get them kicked out.
I would also posit that there is not an in-your-face-Society segment of drunks in the same way that there is an in-your-face-Society segment of homosexuals. At least, I haven't seen a Drunk Pride Parade, or entire neighborhoods of drunks, or National Drunk Pride Month, or people trumpeting their uniqueness because they're drunks, or things like that. On the contrary, the people I have come across who have this propensity and are dealing with it are humble in the extreme -- AA, Celebrate Recovery, etc.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI would say drunkenness is a behavior. On the contrary, the people I have come across who have this propensity and are dealing with it are humble in the extreme -- AA, Celebrate Recovery, etc.
And homosexuality is not "a behavior?"
I respectfully disagree with you in that every bar, nightclub, gin mill or casino floor I have ever been in or on has included many drunks who are celebrating their drunkenness with some rather obnoxious in-your-face activities. I have also served with several who managed to make an entire career without once being derelict in their duties. I've even known a number who never exhibited "drunkenness" per se but who managed to inhale a lot of beer between 5 and bed time. These people exist and do not seem to affect unit cohesion. Many of them became alcoholics as a result of squadron happy hours which were designed to promote unit cohesion.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerSome people's urges may be stronger than others, but at the end of the day, whether or not to have sex is a decision.
... so I'm not sure where that confusion is coming from.
I don't doubt that people can behave in all sorts of ways, and that their behavior may or may not reflect underlying "talents," or that people who are drunk might get in-your-face about it sometimes. I do think, generally, these are behaviors, though. And I stand by my assertion that ...
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI would also posit that there is not an in-your-face-Society segment of drunks in the same way that there is an in-your-face-Society segment of homosexuals. At least, I haven't seen a Drunk Pride Parade, or entire neighborhoods of drunks, or National Drunk Pride Month, or people trumpeting their uniqueness because they're drunks, or things like that. On the contrary, the people I have come across who have this propensity and are dealing with it are humble in the extreme -- AA, Celebrate Recovery, etc. It's just that people with stronger urges find it harder to resist.
Of course, you're free to disagree based on the behavior of some idiots. But you can't disagree that there's no National Drunk Pride Month, or a Drunk Pride movement with its own version of the rainbow logo. This is what I mean. And, maybe there are some people out there who are humble about their homosexual "talent" in the same way that AA members are humble about their propensity-towards-addiciton "talent," but I haven't met any.
I think that, when you take this way of looking at things and extend it to behavior, it creates confusion. Behaviors can look way different than "talents" in the sense that I'm talking about because there are lots of factors besides "talents" that affect behaviors. We've both cited a lot of examples. How many truly gay people behave straight for a long time for whatever reason outside that "talent"?
This way of thinking is only meant to apply to what someone's "talents" are, not to how they actually behave.
Which is that they can work with gays like anyone else. And gays can work with straight people professionlly.
Or else it's a double standard only applied to gays.
Quote: CrappedOutThe personal observations I saw with my own eyes over those two decades from when we went from a few women to nearly 20% of the force were almost all negative.
I have a friend who was a cop for 35 years and when the subject of female police officers comes up, he goes ballistic. He says they're for the most part totally useless for anything but writing tickets. They constantly call for backup when they don't need it, are afraid to take risks, they can't run, they can't subdue suspects, they can't take verbal abuse, they take their authority way too seriously and tend to abuse it, on and on and on. He hates women as cops and claims the majority of male cops feel the same way.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerBut you can't disagree that there's no National Drunk Pride Month, or a Drunk Pride movement with its own version of the rainbow logo.
You've never been to New York or Vegas on St. Patrick's day, then? If you ever need a definition of a Drunk Pride movement that's all you have to do. Complete with their own "green shamrock" logo. Happens every year just like, for example, the "gay pride parade."
One celebrates a mythical person who is supposed to have driven the snakes from an island - the other symbolizes freedom, liberty and equality - big difference.
So you see - I can disagree.
And exactly how does one "behave straight?" I've been straight all my life and never considered it either a talent or a behavior but part of my character.
But that's enough - I take your point and will think about it for awhile. Thanks for the discussion and argument.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, that guy (Ron Harris) actually hacked the machine. In one case, he gaffed a slot game to pay out a jackpot when a certain sequence of coins was inserted. That had nothing to do with the RNG - it was a flat-out back-door hack. In the AC case at Bally's, he worked out software to track the RNG on a keno game so he knew what numbers would come up. The RNG code was working as desired, but since Harris had illicit access to that code he could run it in advance on his own computer and figure out where in the cycle it was, enabling him to know the next set of numbers drawn. (I have to assume that's what happened, since if the keno RNG had been cycling non-stop then access to the source wouldn't have mattered.)
No, not when Harris did it (thanks for putting in the name, my mind is too fried this week to check the black book. If you watch the show, in the first part they tell how he was investigating some gaming company where the RNG wasn't random and was somehow fixed. Not like a pull-tab machine that could be set and you could not throw away a losing hand, but to make winning more difficult. Someone got shot over it if I remember right.
Quote: EvenBobI have a friend who was a cop for 35 years and when the subject of female police officers comes up, he goes ballistic. He says they're for the most part totally useless for anything but writing tickets. They constantly call for backup when they don't need it, are afraid to take risks, they can't run, they can't subdue suspects, they can't take verbal abuse, they take their authority way too seriously and tend to abuse it, on and on and on. He hates women as cops and claims the majority of male cops feel the same way.
Before anyone calls me out for being back in the thread, the thread has meandered and this post is about the female cop post. If this is "hijacking" I will not reply again. It feels more like following the thread flos, so................
Remember that bailiff (sort of a cop) who some big dude overcame and escaped? The mayor or whoever said, "What was the problem, women can do anything men can do!" Well, the woman bailiff was about 60 and 110 lbs. Crazy. I am about 5'10" and 190-200 but very weak and I told people the mayor was nuts because I was relatively close in size to the guy who escaped but would have gotten my @$$ beaten just as bad. For cops, at least uniform cops, I want big, strong guys who can subdue a subject and command, not demand, respect from the suspect.
Can some women handle some or most guys, sure. Think Claire Howell from "OZ" who even the head of the mafia admitted he was scared of her. (Yes, I know it was a TV show, I am talking types.) But our PC society says we need "x" number of female cops and "x" is always way higher than the number of capable females available and interested. So standards get lowered. Now, the police have over the years decided you need to run a 5.0 40 yard dash to be an effective cop. Now they need 20% femaled to get out of the academy. The women can't make it at 5.0 so they lower it to 5.5 for women. Are the crooks going to run slower? Nope, we just became less safe in the name of PC.
Here in Pittsburgh for years the police had to hire in "units of 4" consisting of 1 white male, 1 white female, 1 black male, 1 black female. (Pittsburgh has no real racial demographics other than white/black.) So you had a large number of white guys with military and even MP experience applying; you had black males with the same military experience but not near as competitive since there are simply 1/10 to 1/8 as many blacks as whites but the same number of "racial slots" available. Even with that all the males would have good experience what with it being nexgt to impossible for a male to get a police officer job in PA w/o military experience.
But then the women--how do you find an equal number with the same qualifications? Simply impossible. But a judge set the quota, so it was done.
When talking to them about DADT they had some interesting insights.
My daughter had her first barracks roommate try to get in the shower with her. She told her, in no uncertain terms, that she wasn't into that. End of story. They got along fine after that. She said that everyone basically knew who was gay, and as long as they did their jobs, no problem.
My son said to think about the barracks like he had at Fort Hood. They were the size of a decent walk-in closet and two guys had to share it.
His main concern was that it would just create another class of people within the military that complain that they were treated differently or didn't get the promotion they deserved because they are "gay". I told him "welcome to the real world". It has been my experience that people that are placed in any type of protected class, and then perform poorly, may fall back on the excuse that they are being treated differently because of who they are, not how they performed.
But what is going to happen with the housing situation? They both agreed that this is going to become a major problem. The solution is not to force straight personnel to share living space the size of closet with an openly gay person, just as we would not put a straight male and a straight female in this situation. I, quite frankly, do not have a solution here.
And what about the flagrant militant gays that we all know will enlist just to make a point? It is my opinion that this will be a very short term problem that will disappear in short order.
Both my kids and I agree that the performance of gays in the military is not in question. They do just as well, or as poorly, as anyone else. There will be serious problems with the repeal of DADT and lets all hope the professional leaders we have in the military, who will have to deal with this, are left alone by the politicians and allowed to do their job in handling this.
Quote: AZDuffmanFor cops, at least uniform cops, I want big, strong guys who can subdue a subject and command, not demand, respect from the suspect.
My friends biggest complaint is he has to work even harder at his job to make up for the incompetence of the female officers. A lot of crooks have chauvinistic ethnic backgrounds, and they have an antagonistic attitude towards females in positions of authority. They'd rather go to jail than be subdued by a woman. So the female officers are in a constant state of fear in a lot of major cities and rely heavily on male officers to protect them. This doesn't make for a great work environment when the men not only have to watch their own asses, but the womens asses too. Pun intended.
