Having openly gay soldiers does not degrade morale, readiness, recruitment etc

[holy king]

why the hell would a woman get pregnant while on a submarine?

 

[aneeshm]

To be fair, he's making more sense than you are at the moment. The whole issue at hand is that homosexuals in the military is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I don't see why it would be needed for people to "feverishly" want to serve with homosexuals for this policy to be repealed. Do you apply those same standards towards all aspects of your life?!?

Nor do I. In fact, I've freely admitted my ignorance on the topic beyond the cursory examination that has been possible through the examination of the usual juvenile internet sources. Which is precisely why I don't claim to know which decision is the right one in this context, and am willing to leave it to people who actually know what they're talking about. (As opposed to, in case you were wondering, the invocation of democracy when principle is against you and principle when the people are.)

I just enjoy taking apart badly-constructed arguments, and all the ones who seem in favour of repealing DADT appear to me to belong to this category. They may be right, for all I know, but the reasons I've been coming across don't strike me as convincing in the least.

As for your question for sexual harassment, it should be no different than what is is for men harassing women (or vice versa).

I wasn't speaking of those in the military in that instance, but in civilian life, and not of what "should be" but of what what "will be" or what already is.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

why the hell would a woman get pregnant while on a submarine?

Yeah usually the submarine is in her, not the other way around.

 

[yesboii]

Yeah usually the submarine is in her, not the other way around.

Heh. Submarine. I think you mean supercarrier.

 

[aneeshm]

are you arguing that men shouldn't have equal responsibility? They help make the kid

If the responsibility is proportional to the help given in the "making", then the division of responsibilities should be proportional to the mass (and energy) of the contribution of each party. By that metric, the man should pay the equivalent of a single sperm and a few calories, and the woman for all the rest. (This is what, by the way, would be implied by the rationale behind the argument you've made regarding "making the kid".)

But no, I am not foolish enough to be arguing that. I am saying that the educating of the men is unnecessary; educating the women should be sufficient for the prevention of pregnancy (which is what, I hope, the military wants to aim at) (unless, as I said, rape is the preferred form of the sexes' relations to each other). Civilian laws already exist to punish extremely harshly any man foolish enough to trust a woman's claims regarding contraception and her fertility.

 

[galdre]

I just enjoy taking apart badly-constructed arguments, and all the ones who seem in favour of repealing DADT appear to me to belong to this category. They may be right, for all I know, but the reasons I've been coming across don't strike me as convincing in the least.

I have yet to see a valid reason not to

I served in the US Army - there are already gays there, and generally everyone knows who they are - at least that was my experience

 

[RedRalph]

Oh, I think it's absolutely inevitable. (History, as the expression goes, is on your side. At the moment, at least.) It's just that you're wrong, and I expect the (rather dire) consequences to manifest themselves over the next two to three decades, beginning, most probably, with this one.

Yeah, just look how badly the Brit, Israeli, Canadian, French, german etc armies have suffered.

 

[galdre]

If the responsibility is proportional to the help given in the "making", then the division of responsibilities should be proportional to the mass (an energy) of the contribution of each party. By that metric, the man should pay the equivalent of a single sperm and a few calories, and the woman for all the rest. (This is what, by the way, would be implied by the rationale behind this argument.)

But no, I am not arguing that. I am saying that the educating of the men is unnecessary; educating the women should be sufficient for the prevention of pregnancy (which is what, I hope, the military wants to aim at) (unless, as I said, rape is the preferred form of the sexes' relations to each other). Civilian laws already exist to punish extremely harshly any man foolish enough to trust a woman's claims regarding contraception and her fertility.

you know, women aren't the only ones who can do something to prevent pregnancies

if they both hold responsiblity, and they both can help prevent pregnancy, then if you want to educate it seems logical to educate both. Your view seems to be the traditional one that the woman holds sole responsibility for pregnancies

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Heh. Submarine. I think you mean supercarrier.

Your junk has a flight deck?

 

[galdre]

Your junk has a flight deck?

if something is taking off and landing on your junk, I would suggest you get that checked out...

 

[aneeshm]

I have yet to see a valid reason not to

There may well not be any good reason to keep DADT, it's just that I haven't seen any good ones in favour of repealing it. As said before, I don't know much about this, so I prefer to leave it to the experts (and don't like it when politics interferes with their decision-making), but I generally do know a bad argument when I see it. (There is no need to take this personally, by the way - it's possible for a good thing to be supported by horrible arguments, and vice versa.)

I served in the US Army - there are already gays there, and generally everyone knows who they are - at least that was my experience.

That may well be so. But it is not permissible to generalise like this, is it? I mean, if someone made a similar generalisation about blacks/Jews/women/Muslims with which you disagreed, shrill cries of "Racism! Anti-Semitism! Misogyny! Bigotry!" would rend the air.

 

[galdre]

There may well not be any good reason to keep DADT, it's just that I haven't seen any good ones in favour of repealing it. As said before, I don't know much about this, so I prefer to leave it to the experts (and don't like it when politics interferes with their decision-making), but I generally do know a bad argument when I see it. (There is no need to take this personally, by the way - it's possible for a good thing to be supported by horrible arguments, and vice versa.)



That may well be so. But it is not permissible to generalise like this, is it? I mean, if someone made a similar generalisation about blacks/Jews/women/Muslims with which you disagreed, shrill cries of "Racism! Anti-Semitism! Misogyny! Bigotry!" would rend the air.

well, my experience has been confirmed by quite a few people from different branches of the military - in fact I've only met one person who claimed there were no gays in the branch he served in (the Marines), and when he said that the two other ex-servicemen present almost died laughing (and one of them was also an ex-Marine).

the good reason is that it is a violation of human rights - we should not be discriminating against someone because of their sexuality - if you don't think that is a good reason I don't know what to tell you

 

[Mise]

If you are a man, and you "make a sexual advance towards" (which has now been diluted down to the point where a polite invitation to sound out whether a woman is available for a date qualifies as an equivalent to a groping) a woman co-worker, and she reports this, you are in a lot of trouble.

I've flirted with girls at work before, happens all the time. Not sure what the hell you're talking about here. Clearly you've either never had a job before, never talked to a woman before, or both.

Yeah, if you grab their arse, you're gonna get into trouble. If you don't act like a giant douchebag, you won't get into trouble.....

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, if you grab their arse, you're gonna get into trouble. If you don't act like a giant douchebag, you won't get into trouble.....

That should go in the manual.

 

[aneeshm]

I've flirted with girls at work before, happens all the time. Not sure what the hell you're talking about here. Clearly you've either never had a job before, never talked to a woman before, or both.

The problem is that it is possible for you to get into a lot of trouble for doing what you did. Oh, I know that you won't (and nor will I), but that's because the women find your flirting good. The law, in a sense, turns on their whims. There is no longer any standard of acceptability by following which it is assured that you will not be crossing any lines.

Yeah, if you grab their arse, you're gonna get into trouble. If you don't act like a giant douchebag, you won't get into trouble.....

And who defines what is a "giant douchebag"? Try to understand the systemic problem here - the criminalisation of undefined behaviour. I am in favour of sexual harassment laws - if and only if there is an unambiguous way to determine whether an act fell into that category or not. I don't ask for perfection, but the (im)precision of the current definitions leaves too much to be desired.

 

[Mise]

The problem is that it is possible for you to get into a lot of trouble for doing what you did.

Erm, no it's not. You're so far wide of the mark on this one I suggest you just stop right here, before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[MobBoss]

why the hell would a woman get pregnant while on a submarine?

Why would they get pregnant in a combat zone? But it does happen, and I predict it will happen on a submarine as well. No need to ask 'why'...just accept the reality that it happens and go from there...

 

[Flying Pig]

why the hell would a woman get pregnant while on a submarine?

You don't know the military very well, do you?

 

[holy king]

everyone has unprotected sex with everyone?

 

[MobBoss]

everyone has unprotected sex with everyone?

Couple of problems here. No, not everyone has unprotected sex. However, many do, and even using birth control isnt a 100% gurantee of not getting pregnant.