OxymoronP
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 795
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There's nothing you should be sorry about, you're simply making a false statement.Sorry dear, they're quite comparable.
And I laugh at that fictional belief.I claim I am of better caliber than someone who is supposed to be doing a job but can't because they're too distracted about sex.
As usual, you've just made a wrong statement.You are the one making the claim that our soldiers are those very immature, easily distracted, shallow, and under-trained individuals who cannot do a job because they are too distracted about 'teh sexxors'.
It is only saddening that such people like you have such repulsive opinions about our military, and it only earns you disrespect in return.Personally, I hold our soldiers in higher regard than that. Actually, I hold most PEOPLE in higher regard than that. It's sad that you and others like you... don't.
Then continue to hope, that's all you'll be able to do.If, in fact, our military is made up of the poor caliber of people you claim it is, then I hope we can get rid of all of them and start recruiting better ones.
The military policy is not shared with air-line companies, and I don't see why should it be.I know, right? Sometimes I take a shower with a girl I am very attracted to in the morning and then head to the airport to fly complex multiengine aircraft. Its just amazing that I was able to get an IFR clearance when all I could think about was the boobies I saw in the shower that morning.
Incredibly, I am not allowed to consume alcohol less than 8 hours before a flight, but I am allowed to shower with a girl. It's like the FAA isn't taking this threat of "sexual distraction" seriously.:doh
You got raped in the wings of a theatre while performing a quickchange during a show? Or does your arse still burn from the world imploding?
The situation between gay males and straight males is the same as the situation between straight females and straight males or gay females and straight females.Gays & straights should share showers and gays should discipline themselves in not sturring up any emotions when showering with guys. The reason males/females dont shower with each other isnt just the sexual distraction alone...its dominantly a cultural thing. Same sex schools dont do it because of the "sexual attraction" between the kids. It doesnt make a difference either way, in or out of the shower, i wouldnt hesistate to check out our lady commander in her tight military trousers.
I think you lot are trying to advocate uneccessary segregation and make out you have a valid point by comparing gays in the military with men/women and the status quo.
Atm there ARE Gays in the military. Find me statistics that there efficiency is considerably lowered because they shower with guys and come back to me.
OK?
I don't get it.No what i think is wrong is that your making claims about indivisual efficiency and sexual attraction of homosexual men when you havent got anything to back that assertion up with.
I'd like to update you that homosexuality openness is not allowed yet in the US military, and hence there are no such statistics.There are gays in the military right now. Where are the statistics, where are these claims you make?
That's where your argument is over.It doesnt go away because they dont say anything. Its still there and has been since the dawn of armies and since the bible.
Women and men are segregated due to the sexual attraction, yes
Evidence that you don't believe would exist with homosexuality, can I hear your reasoning for that or do you simply label homosexuality as a fake sexuality?but thats because such a seperation has evidence to back it up with.
What does that has to do with anything?Add to the fact women are far more phsyically vulnerable than a man, sticking women in showers with a bunch of men wouldnt be the best idea.
Absolutely false, I am comparing one sexuality with another.It isnt ridiculous to argue for such a thing because your comparing sexual preference with gender.
You mean house them together?If we segregate gay men, shall we put the lesbians with the straight guys?
Riiiiiiiiiight.The militaries interests are to kill the Muslim guy with the big black beard.
I don't get it.
Are you saying that sexual distraction is not a distraction, or that homesexual men are not attracted to straight men?
:roflAnd why is it only about homosexual men, what about homosexual women?
I'd like to update you that homosexuality openness is not allowed yet in the US military, and hence there are no such statistics.
That's where your argument is over.
Unless you believe that the sexual attraction of homosexual men/women to straight men/women is somewhat different than the sexual attraction of straight men/women to straight women/men, you have no point.
Evidence that you don't believe would exist with homosexuality, can I hear your reasoning for that or do you simply label homosexuality as a fake sexuality?
What does that has to do with anything?
Was that an argument you've tried to make?
How is that a legitimate reasoning? How is that holding any essence of rationalism at all?
Absolutely false, I am comparing one sexuality with another.
Do you feel it's wrong?
You mean house them together?
I don't see why not, it is the showers that are the forbidden-to-mix zone in the military, and nothing else.
That is far from the statement you've made earlier.Im saying you dont have **** to proove homosexual men are any less efficient because they shower with straights.
Your point is valid (finally), however there are not that many gay people in the military and it would minimize the unnecessary distraction to separate them. As I said many times already before, the military's policy is to avoid distractions when possible, with an emphasis on when possible.:rofl
Do you not see the inherent flaw in your argument?
Your advocating seperating straight guys from gay guys to avoid sexual distraction, right?
How will they be any less distracted in a shower full of GAY GUYS. :laughat:
So you're saying that I have no proof that, specifically homosexuals are less efficient (and not generally everyone), and because of that you believe that my reasoning is wrong.Im saying you have no proof to tell me that gays in the army currently are less efficient or distracted to any certain degree which is causing problems within the army.
I'm sorry but that has to be the most ridiculous claim made so far in this thread.Im OK with separating men and women because of the physical differences between the two and the fact that many women are not comfortable showering with men and the fact that it tends to be the norm in our society, even in school during P.E classes.
Thank you, that's exactly it.What your saying is flawed. You wish to seperate sexualities so as to lessen sexual distraction.
Already answered that above.That means we cannot place homosexuals with straight guys or each other. So we would have to put each and every individual homosexual in a shower full of women.
I am not advocating anything, I am speaking from the military point of view and how would they minimize the caused distraction.I dont have evidence that doesnt account for homosexuality either but what you are advocating is impracticle.
I have no problem with that, I wouldn't have problem with taking a shower with a homosexual too.Simple as. What harm does it do to you as a straight man if a homosexual has a little crush on you?
Give me a break.Its a fact. Women are far more vulnerable to sexual abuse in these circumstances.
Woah, hold it buddy.Not at all. I just find it amusing how you are creating reason to hide behind your own homophobia.
I believe that it's not right for the military, even if its harm is minimal.Of course, you only care about the individual efficiency of our soldiers right? So you believe sexual distractions are not good, right?
Avoid repeating yourself, I have already answered that one above.So you propose separating men based on sexuality and putting them in a shower together so as to "lessen sexual distraction", because putting a gay in a shower full of gays would do exactly that, right?
Again, watch your words.Exactly.
It just boils down to the fact you cant bear to think about another guy checking your arse out in the shower.
Either way they will be distracted. Why the uneccessary discrimination?
That is far from the statement you've made earlier.
But then again, I am not arguing about homosexuals alone, I am arguing about any two groups of people where at least one has a sexual attraction for the other.
Your point is valid (finally), however there are not that many gay people in the military and it would minimize the unnecessary distraction to separate them. As I said many times already before, the military's policy is to avoid distractions when possible, with an emphasis on when possible.
So you're saying that I have no proof that, specifically homosexuals are less efficient (and not generally everyone), and because of that you believe that my reasoning is wrong.
Well that's just a weird decision, to separate between what is already known about straight females to straight males sexual attractions and what you believe you know on homosexuals-straights sexual attractions.
I'm sorry but that has to be the most ridiculous claim made so far in this thread.
How is their physical difference got more to do with separating the showers than the sexual attraction between the two sexes?
Don't you see how far from reality the argument you make here is? Don't you see how ridiculously irrational it is?
In P.E classes, there is a separation because of their abilities.
Everyone, however, even the handicapped, are capable of taking a shower or sleeping in a bed.
Thank you, that's exactly it.
Already answered that above.
It is a problem that would be allowed to occur, seeing that the options are few.
I am not advocating anything, I am speaking from the military point of view and how would they minimize the caused distraction.
I have no problem with that, I wouldn't have problem with taking a shower with a homosexual too.
It's not my personal "can or cannot", it is the military's policy, and so far it is
has been working.
Give me a break.
Woah, hold it buddy.
Nothing that I said in this thread can rationally paint me as Homophobic, but actually the opposite.
You should watch what you're typing or you'll have to deal with the consequences of your own words, turd.
I believe that it's not right for the military, even if its harm is minimal.
Avoid repeating yourself, I have already answered that one above.
Again, watch your words.
Since this was in the same post, I'll refuse to report on it.
But the next time you'll decide to accuse me or anyone else in something that we're not, you will, as I said, suffer from the consequences.
Do I think they should? No.So you think lesbians should be grouped with men?
Then you've naturally succeeded in hiding it.This was my point all along.
Yeah why won't you give me a moment and I'll count for you.How many gays serve in the military, then?
I don't need to prove that sexual distraction is considered a distraction, it's right there in the name of the term. :screwyOk, so do you have evidence to show that straight male/female attractions in the shower cause distractions to ones military service?
Oh so let me see if I understand, you claim that because women and men have a natural difference in strength, it means that women cannot shower with men together.How is it irrational? When i say physical differences, i mean differences in strength, etc as you have stated in this last sentence.Thats why i believe women and men should be seperated because they may be open to paticular abuse by men.
This last part actually goes to show you are wrong.
All males and females, regardless of abilities, can also get dressed.
You know, I've really given you a chance, but if you choose to be one of those internet retarded trolls who aren't capable of forming an argument, relying on baseless accusations and usually end up in the debate politics' recycling-bin, then so be it.So sticking gay men with gay men will lessen distractions...how?
Your homophobic nature is really peeling through.
This is one of those situations you need to bite your lip in and take.
You've tried to point out to the only valid point in this debate that you have brought up, but when you've done this you've only strengthen the opposing position that sexual distraction is indeed a possibility when you've said: "Do you KNOW what happens when you stick gay men together in a shower?"It doesnt minimize ****. Infact it exagerrates the problem. Do you KNOW what happens when you stick gay men together in a shower?
And you base that on?A whole lot more than what happens when you mix them with straights.
And you just can't bear a thought.You just cant bear the thought of sharing the same shower with them. Simple as.
Are they allowed to be open about their homosexuality? Are they showing up in military statistics?Has it? Are gays separate? Are they paticularly distracted as of this moment?
No more than you're advocating homophobia when you refer to female to male relations as different than male to male or female to female relations.Is that a threat? Id like to see you try.
Your clearly advocating discrimination.
That's not the sole factor for "my point"'s validation.Perhaps if separating gays and sticking them together did lessen sexual attractions, you'd have a point. But you dont.
You have apparently missed a whole paragraph.Actually you skipped around it.
Reported? :2razz:Offended?
So straignt men can't control themselves, but gay men can. CHECKTo be honest, men who can control themselves and exercise a bit of maturity could shower with women and not get distracted too. I actually have no problem with men and women mixing together in the showers but evidently most straight men cannot be trusted to exercise such control, and i can wager most female personnel would be uncomfortable with the prospect hence why the two are separated. Now you could say "how about straight men who are uncomfortable showering with gays?"
Well WHAT THE HELL are you doing in the army then??? I didnt know who was gay amongst my friends but i can assure you there was more than a couple i showered with.
Voice your true thoughts here. This poll is anonymous so you can vote no if you choose so, obviously, as you are entitled to but please try and post an explanation too and why you think its important such a law is or isn't allowed.
Lastly, wouldn't people who dislike gays want them in the army? Its the best way to kill them off.
Vote!
So straignt men can't control themselves, but gay men can. CHECK
The military policy is not shared with air-line companies, and I don't see why should it be.
Ridiculous comparisons are counter-productive.
You checkmated nothing.Where did i say the same doesnt apply to homosexuals?
Check mate.
EDIT: Will reply to you Apoco ASAP.
Where are the 10 who said NO to homo's in the army?
Here you ridicule those who aren't tough enough to get over it. Your implication is quite clear.Well WHAT THE HELL are you doing in the army then??? I didnt know who was gay amongst my friends but i can assure you there was more than a couple i showered with.
Women and men are segregated due to the sexual attraction, yes, but thats because such a seperation has evidence to back it up with.
Moderator's Warning: |
Refer yourself to my response to rivrrat when she has claimed that she is of a better caliber than those who protect her life.If the soldiers don't need a nanny, then policies designed to nanny them are a waste of my money.
If soldiers do need a nanny (which I highly doubt) then as riverrat so astutely observed, we need soldiers that can act like adults.
Which is it?
What is, in your opinion, the reason for the separation of showers between male and female soldiers in the military bases, then?It does? If you could just point to this evidence, I will sadly retract my stance that gays and straights should share showers and my opinion of our military personnel will on the whole be drastically lowered.
Refer yourself to my response to rivrrat when she has claimed that she is of a better caliber than those who protect her life.
As to your current post, obviously it is the first, only that such policies do not waste your money. (How did you come to that conclusion is beyond me)
Also, there's nothing "nanny" in the separation of showers between males and females.
What is, in your opinion, the reason for the separation of showers between male and female soldiers in the military bases, then?
You do realize how insignificant the money that goes to showers is when compared with the rest of the military expanses, like, say, a predator UAV?Well, presumably my tax dollars are paying for an extra set of showers, and paying for policy makers to waste time discussing these policies, and paying for these policies to be enforced, etc...
Wrong - for the military's interests - and that's why there's nothing nanny about it.Sure there is. Have to keep the children separated for their own good. That's about as nanny as it gets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?