3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo lets say your "lover" is pinned down in a cross fire and you are ordered to do something other than come to his or her rescue? What if you are in a battle situation and you begin to engage in sexual relations that distract you from the duty at hand? What if fights break out between those "lovers" who are cheating etc? Don't you see an inherent problem here?
Soldiers should be treated like soldiers. Their off-duty sexuality is none of Big Government's business.
Originally posted by whodeyWell hang on, what if your best friend (non-sexual) is pinned down in a cross fire and you are ordered to do something other than come to his or her rescue? Are you telling me that you might not feel a conflict of interest then?
So lets say your "lover" is pinned down in a cross fire and you are ordered to do something other than come to his or her rescue? Don't you see an inherent problem here?
And surely it cuts both ways. Let's say that your lover (or, indeed, best friend) is pinned down in a cross fire and you ARE ordered to go to his or her rescue. Wouldn't you be twice as committed to fulfilling your assigned task than you would be if you were just following orders for the sake of an abstract goal? Wouldn't you be more devoted to performing your duty if the life of someone you loved was at stake?
Originally posted by whodeyNo, I don't. I see a bunch of hysterical rubbish.
So lets say your "lover" is pinned down in a cross fire and you are ordered to do something other than come to his or her rescue? What if you are in a battle situation and you begin to engage in sexual relations that distract you from the duty at hand? What if fights break out between those "lovers" who are cheating etc? Don't you see an inherent problem here?
Assuming that DADT is repealed says nothing about whether rules can be adopted which deal with the "problems" (more like lurid fantasies) you have conjured up.
Originally posted by whodeyI'd really like to see you elaborate on this one. Are you suggesting that gays are so lacking in self-control they'll put sex before their duty while being under fire ?
What if you are in a battle situation and you begin to engage in sexual relations that distract you from the duty at hand?
Originally posted by BartsThis was not aimed at homosexuals specifically. That is why women and men are not live coed in the barraks.
I'd really like to see you elaborate on this one. Are you suggesting that gays are so lacking in self-control they'll put sex before their duty while being under fire ?
Originally posted by whodeyThere are already gays showering with straights in the military. In high school PE there aren't seperate shower facilities, and the same is true when you go to the gym, join a spa, are on a sports team, and many other instances. There really isn't any outcry for, say, Gold's gym to ensure gays have seperate showers or that they hide their sexuality.
So do you feel as though gays should be coed or treated like women in the military? Then again, what if the gays are coed together?
For the record, if men and women are allowed to have sexual relations in the military I would think that this would involve conflicts of interests and, therefore, am opposed to it. I am in no way suggesting that they should ...[text shortened]... owever, just that those who work together on the battle field should not have such distractions.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperComparing Gold's gym to the military is absurd. First of all, those at Gold's gym are not required to be there nor are they at war nor are they there to work for a superior. The bottom line is that when you introduce sexual relaions in the work place problems arise, thus, many businesses prohibit fraternization. How much more, then for those in the military who have to eat, sleep, and fight together? Granted, there will be those who are gay in the military regardless, however, if they are to join up then they must realize that the first time they act on those impulses they will be kicked out. If they have enough self control not to act on those impulses then more power to them.
There are already gays showering with straights in the military. In high school PE there aren't seperate shower facilities, and the same is true when you go to the gym, join a spa, are on a sports team, and many other instances. There really isn't any outcry for, say, Gold's gym to ensure gays have seperate showers or that they hide their sexuality.
Originally posted by whodeyAlternatively, it could be argued that it's no business of any employer or government who people chose to 'fraternise' with, and that those people should use the same self-control you suggest for gays to prevent such fraternisation from leading to 'problems' in the work-place.
Comparing Gold's gym to the military is absurd. First of all, those at Gold's gym are not required to be there nor are they at war nor are they there to work for a superior. The bottom line is that when you introduce sexual relaions in the work place problems arise, thus, many businesses prohibit fraternization. How much more, then for those in the militar ...[text shortened]... d out. If they have enough self control not to act on those impulses then more power to them.
Originally posted by whodeyIf that's your basis for excluding gays then are you also for excluding women? If not, then explain how that's not hypocritical.
Comparing Gold's gym to the military is absurd. First of all, those at Gold's gym are not required to be there nor are they at war nor are they there to work for a superior. The bottom line is that when you introduce sexual relaions in the work place problems arise, thus, many businesses prohibit fraternization. How much more, then for those in the militar ...[text shortened]... d out. If they have enough self control not to act on those impulses then more power to them.
Originally posted by whodeyThey do live in coed barracks, just not coed rooms. And there is NO rule telling them not to hump. If your concern is having to change and shower in front of them, refer to my Gold's Gym analogy.
This was not aimed at homosexuals specifically. That is why women and men are not live coed in the barraks.
Originally posted by whodeyBut seriously, as I suggested in my earlier post, is it only sexual bonds that cause problems to arise in the workplace? Is it not possible, as in the example I gave, that intense, platonic friendships might also do so? People who sleep and fight together, who rely on each other for life-saving help and support, are going to develop very strong emotional bonds no matter whether or not there's a sexual element. And these could undermine the status of the military as a well-oiled machine.
The bottom line is that when you introduce sexual relaions in the work place problems arise, thus, many businesses prohibit fraternization. How much more, then for those in the military who have to eat, sleep, and fight together?
But equally, they could help to uphold that status. Surely the fact that you know, are close to, and care about your comrades is going to be one of the things that helps you to do your duty as a soldier, to work as a unit in a stressful situation, to protect and defend the rest of the group when under fire.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBut why not coed rooms? It seems to me that the same delimma is present with gays.
They do live in coed barracks, just not coed rooms. And there is NO rule telling them not to hump. If your concern is having to change and shower in front of them, refer to my Gold's Gym analogy.
As I have said, I disagree with there not being a ban on "humping"
Originally posted by whodeyAdmit it, USAP, you've been overwhelmed with lust at least once or twice while under fire and couldn't restrain yourself!
So lets say your "lover" is pinned down in a cross fire and you are ordered to do something other than come to his or her rescue? What if you are in a battle situation and you begin to engage in sexual relations that distract you from the duty at hand? What if fights break out between those "lovers" who are cheating etc? Don't you see an inherent problem here?
Originally posted by TeinosukeThose problems can arise via platonic reliationships, however, they are almost certain to occur with what we are discussing.
But seriously, as I suggested in my earlier post, is it only sexual bonds that cause problems to arise in the workplace? Is it not possible, as in the example I gave, that intense, platonic friendships might also do so? People who sleep and fight together, who rely on each other for life-saving help and support, are going to develop very strong emotional b ...[text shortened]... s a unit in a stressful situation, to protect and defend the rest of the group when under fire.