Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

BAM

Thoughts?



I think they should get rid of it personally. A gay person who wants to serve the country in the military should be able to do so without having to hide it. I honestly think we probably lose potential soldiers simply because of this policy.

The military leadership is a clique like any other, with their own irrational biases and prejudices outside their profession. Gay men in uniform will not get people killed. Many armies have had and continue to have gay soldiers and it worked fine. The military said black soldiers would be a bad idea and refused to do it until Truman made them do it, and it turned out fine. Tolerance is part of discipline and hazing represents a professional failure.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Agreed. However, some argue that this is the exact reason why the military shouldn't have openly gay members, because they would clearly be subject to hazing/prejudices which would also fracture units, and potentially cause problems for the chain of command (how to discipline those for hazing without causing more discord among the unit, dealing with prejudices that gay people are "weak" "soft" whatever, etc.)

This is truly a difficult issue. The problem is that military personnel are forced to live in very close quarters, which obviously involves dressing, showering, sleeping, and often conversation about personal details of their lives. The general hetero/gay breakdown is 93% to 7%.

The problem: Many soldiers have an issue sharing close living arrangements with soldiers who are sexually attracted to their gender.

Current solution: If you're gay, keep it to yourself.

Now, gay soldiers don't like this solution. Many hetero soldiers don't like living with openly gay soldiers. You can tell the hetero soldiers that homosexuality is a reality until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change that they are uncomfortable and that their morale can be undermined. You can tell gay soldiers to keep it quiet, but that doesn't change that they are uncomfortable and that their morale can be undermined.

Telling a straight or gay soldier to "get over it" says to them that their concerns are silly and unimportant. Someone loses, either way. If you are going to force Soldier A to live with Soldier B when B is sexually attracted to A's gender, then you might as well end the separation of men and women completely because men and women are only given separate quarters now based on gender due to sexuality.

Since someone is going to get trampled on, then you have to side with the 93%. Sorry, but DA/DT is about the most equitable of the bad choices of solutions, imo.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I think my favorite take on the sharing showers fobia was this:

I'm going to join the army, spend years overseas getting shot at and living in hellish conditions, just so I can see some dude's weiner in the shower.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

They don't want your junk, they want to serve their country, stop being such a pussy.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

Falsely assumed statement is false.

If they were in it to get some dick, they would just go to a gay bar.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

I agree with the part about "they don't want your junk", but if they're in it just to serve their country, then why do they have a problem not being openly gay?

Of course, this rationale could be applied to both straight and gay, both women and men. A soldier is a soldier is a soldier. Stop being a pussy. Get over it. Check your personal issues and sexuality at the door, along with your gender. You can pick them up when you're discharged. Great, in theory. Not so great, in practice.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Another falsely assumed statement.

Do you know even one gay person in the military?

Do you know every gay person in the military?

Are you constantly in their brains knowing everything they think?

You cannot make a general assumption on something that has no supporting evidence to support your conjectures. Even polls are a rickety statistic.

There are many fucked up people in this world, and I would NOT be surprised if one person, who is homosexual, joined the military for the cock.

Stop assuming shit.

There is the possibility that someone joined for the cock. That possibility eliminates your general assumption until proven wrong. Either way, someone gets fucked with or without don't ask don't tell.

Your logic is so stupid it hurts my brain.

Akiina - Priest - Royal Militia
Leeloo Minai Lekarariba-Laminai-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.

I stopped caring about your opinion WAY before you posted this. You have no conceptualization of true logic. If you don't even understand my post, you must live in a turtle shell.

Then again, I am trying to explain myself to an idiot who loves fucking salad fingers, the dumbest shit alive.

Best. Sentence. Ever.


I'm going to use this every time I enter an argument with someone who's opinion's differ from mine:

"Well, you have no conceptualization of true logic...so fuck you." haha

edit:



Woah WOAH buddy...you're bringing Salad Fingers into this argument?

Hubert Cumberdale is quite offended.

Let me pose this as food for thought:

Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, I know!!

I have 4 soldiers. All are open about their sexuality.

1 straight male
1 gay male
1 straight female
1 lesbian female


Why should there be any problems at all resulting from these 4 soldiers sharing quarters and facilities?

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Quoting something I posted earlier, either way, someone's going to be offended. That's life.

If I chose to be in the military, I wouldn't give a shit if some homosexual wants to look at my penis. I would give a shit if he sexually advanced on me. From what I understand, being gay doesn't cause problems for the most part but overall, the implications of it being a massively potential problem are non-ignorable.

"Leave No Man Behind" speaks volumes about why this is a fundamentally flawed and non-viable adaptive strategy.

It's flawed for several reasons. First is the implied assumption: that people can't overcome their limitations and get along, so therefore losses must be cut. This assumption is clearly incorrect because it's been done in the past. Other militaries throughout history and in many countries in the present day have gay soldiers and they work fine. They aren't undermined by their gay soldiers. The military has said, "it's a choice between fairness and functionality" regarding black soldiers and many other issues and were proven wrong when civilians forced change on them.

It's also flawed because acquiescing to the preferences of the majority is ultimately self-defeating. Institutions doom themselves to stagnation and decline when they refuse the challenge to adapt and simply stick head in sand. If every calculation is made with the lowest common denominator in mind, that inevitably reduces the range of potential values, which means increasing groupthink and narrowness of appeal. I don't refer (as many do) in this context to the issue of recruitment, but of the long-term wisdom of allowing the military to continue to be dominated by rednecks in uniform with a certain political slant. It bodes ill for the political stability of the country to have a certain mindset give the thumbs-up or thumbs-down on internal policy based on their own biases.

Finally, every functional institution and society has protections for the unpopular minority. Even the military. An institution is most functional when it affords its protection to all its members, not just the tyrannical majority, and that's why "Leave No Man Behind" is not only a humanist vision but a piece of military genius that affords tremendous effectiveness in the real world. Smaller minds might say, leave that man behind, it's only one...but history shows very consistently that espirit de corps is maintained by one for all and all for one. So to say, we should exclude these people, because we're disinclined to protect them, is really just a refusal to make the military a better institution towards its own ends.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.