Campaign Creations

I just want to point one thing out:

AA7Dragoon wrote:

sodon wrote: "I stand by the principle that putting people (whether they are men and women or men and men) together in a war when they're attracted to each other is a horrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with equality or the proper role of men and women. ...  It's not that attraction has people humping each other instead of doing their job, DoW. But in a fight, you need to be able to make quick decisions that cannot be influenced by an attraction you feel to your mates. Self control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way."

In other words, Sodon is saying a homosexual is incapable of making a quick decision in combat because they are "influenced by an attraction" towards their fellow soldiers.  Would he mind describing such a situation where a highly trained individual in combat is incapable of fulfilling his duties as a soldier because he or she is gay?

He specifically mentioned both men and women, and did not mention homosexuality at all. He stated that having a unit with individuals who could become attracted to eachother is a "horrible" idea. This could mean a straight man and woman, a gay man and a straight man, etc. Don't put words in his mouth AA7, you are better than that.

And now I vanish once more.

*poof*

Of course he mentioned it, WB.  He means both heterosexuals and homosexuals which is absurd because to many degrees the military mixes males and females together in various capacities and those interactions are openly allowed whereas homosexuals are not.

If he didn't mean to include homosexuals, he never would have mentioned it in this thread at all.

AA7Dragoon wrote:This is a convenient excuse to hide the true feelings that Sodon had no problem expressing.  The feelings being that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals as soldiers nor equal members of society. 

As Sodon mentioned. "Self-control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way" so too did the Navy believe that the biology of African-Americans did not allow them to be capable navy soldiers.  This is the same bigotry, only manifested differently in a generation less backward in thinking. 

Now before you reply, you need to take into consideration that I have spent over an hour preparing this post.  I take your opinions very seriously and expect any kind of rebuttal to have substance and evidence to disprove my arguments.

You will no doubt be surprised to hear my actual thoughts on the subject. However, you have not earned the privilege of hearing them. In fact, you have not earned the privilege to hear me debate with you or for you at all.

AA7, I stated in my original post that one problem with allowing homosexuals to fight with other men is that it opens up avenues of sexual attraction that may be inappropriate in combat situations. I also explicitly noted that the same problem exists with heterosexual men and women. I also referred to the biology of sexual attraction, which demands irrational behavior as part of the reproductive process. At no point did I denigrate you or even homosexuals in general. You feel I have by suggesting homosexuals may be incapable of controlling their behavior, but you must acknowledge that I also suggested heterosexuals would be equally incapable of controlling their behavior around the opposite sex - hence the frequent references to women in the military. On this principle, I was, in fact, quite fair.

If you are taking the above paragraph as an argument or defense, stop. I am simply restating my original posts in order to emphasize an important point: I did not denigrate homosexuals as a special group in society, and I did not personally attack anyone in this thread.

The same, however, can not be said of you. Your otherwise well argued post is rife with references to me, to my "true feelings" and to my "bigotry." These references have only one base: that I disagreed with you.

I balk at you now, sir, in particular because of the hypocrisy of your knee-jerk reaction. You took what is, in all likelihood, prevalent homophobia in society and military administrations and applied them to me, when I gave no evidence of such feelings at all, except that I disagreed with you. The actual content of my argument became, and has since been, irrelevant.

You have done me wrong, AA7.

It may be that I am actually, aside from this "principle" that I have my doubts about, on your side. Or I may not be. However, until you acknowledge the insult you so wrongly delivered to me, and acknowledge that, as of yet, I have given you no grounds, no "evidence," by which you may accuse me and slander me in your argument as you did, and, to be blunt, modify your post to reflect the reality of my position, you can consider me completely and ardently against you.

You do not know my true feelings. You have no right to accuse me of bigotry. And until you account for the grossly misrepresented way you took my posts, you do not get the privilege of claiming that you will take replies to your argument seriously. And you will not get a serious reply either, at least not from me.

AA7Dragoon wrote:Essentially, what some of you are saying is that "rules are rules" and that this officer deserved what he got because he knew what he was getting into when he joined.

This is true.  The solution is to change a rule that isn't working or that you don't like, not to break the rules.  By doing so, you make it just as easy for someone else to ignore the rules YOU would set up and think are good.  It's basically like a contract.  Once you sign, you must abide by it.

It's not right to deny someone the right to join the military because of their sexual orientation. But, bigotry isn't going to stop, they take their own risk by openly being gay and joining the military, theres obviously stupid consequences, whether it be from the military itself or their fellow soldiers.

Sodon, on one hand you are alluding to some kind of "principle" stating it is a "horrible idea" to put "people" together who are attracted to one another.  What is this "principle" you speak of?  Is it a theory or philosophy of what following?  On the other hand, you're saying I completely took you out of context but refuse to clarify or state concisely your true opinions on the matter.

If someone states it is a "horrible idea" to have women mixing with men or other gay soldiers, most likely they would choose not to have such integration in the military.  If you are in support of gays in the military and women in the armed forces, then I completely confused what you said and I am sorry for it.


mAc, what I am advocating for is social justice.  Just because "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the set of rules, it does not make it morally just.  By the argument you are standing on, are you saying it was justifiable for black soldiers to be excluded from the armed forces because that was the policy of the military until the 1960s?  Let me give you an excerpt of their policy towards black soldiers:

During the next weeks Secretary Knox warmed to the subject, speaking of the difficulty faced by the Navy when men had to live aboard ship together. He was convinced that "it is no kindness to Negroes to thrust them upon men of the white race," and he suggested that the Negro might make his major contribution to the armed forces in the Army's black regimental organizations.7 Confronted with widespread criticism of this policy, however, Knox asked the Navy's General Board in September 1940 to give him "some reasons why colored persons should not be enlisted for general service. " 8 He accepted the board's reasons for continued exclusion of Negroes-generally an extension of the ones advanced in the Poletti letter-and during the next eighteen months these reasons, endorsed by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Bureau of Navigation, were used as the department's standard answer to questions on race. 9 They were used at the White House conference on 18 June 1941 when, in the presence of black leaders, Knox told President Roosevelt that the Navy could do nothing about taking Negroes into the general service "because men live in such intimacy aboard ship that we simply can't enlist Negroes above the rank of messman. "

http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-fm.htm
By agreeing banning gays in the military is justifiable so long as "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is in effect, are you not agreeing with segregation policies from this time period since they were the rule of law?  As you stated,

mAc wrote:It's basically like a contract.  Once you sign, you must abide by it."

In other words, if a black man enlists in the navy, he should only expect to ever be a messman mopping up the deck rather than an officer commanding a ship?

AA7, I think you went off on a tangent in your response to mAc. The only thing he postulated is that rules exist so they can be enforced. He didn't justify the idea that gays should be excluded from the military. That's all there is to what mAc said. I understand you're passionate about equal opportunity, and it's been stated that the solution is to change the rule rather than break it.

AA7Dragoon wrote: Sodon, on one hand you are alluding to some kind of "principle" stating it is a "horrible idea" to put "people" together who are attracted to one another.  What is this "principle" you speak of?  Is it a theory or philosophy of what following?  On the other hand, you're saying I completely took you out of context but refuse to clarify or state concisely your true opinions on the matter.

If someone states it is a "horrible idea" to have women mixing with men or other gay soldiers, most likely they would choose not to have such integration in the military.  If you are in support of gays in the military and women in the armed forces, then I completely confused what you said and I am sorry for it.

I will not state my true opinions, because thus far you have made it clear that any kind of disagreement with you, however slight or tangential, is enough to be slandered and insulted.

The entire point of that long post, whose message you have completely disregarded (much like my first few), is that this "principle" I put forth has nothing to do with bigotry, regardless of whether I believe it or not. Your slander of my character was both unnecessary and unfounded.

Since you refuse to understand that, I'm done.

If a rule stated "you may describe your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. If a rule states "you must withhold your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. The military isn't about sexual orientation, it's about putting aside your own drama, opinions, and so forth for what the country believes in.

The country believes in? "We are america, screw the rest of the world"?

PS: Thanks for the recession.

Lavarinth wrote: If a rule stated "you may describe your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. If a rule states "you must withhold your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. The military isn't about sexual orientation, it's about putting aside your own drama, opinions, and so forth for what the country believes in.

Except the policy of involuntary non-disclosure only applies to gays, not us heterosexuals.  A special policy for a certain group is discriminatory, just as if a unit was segregated for gays or if gays were not allowed to rise past a certain rank.

The policy was never popular with gay rights groups but most haven't sued to get the policy overturned (and given the precedents in law, they would most likely win) because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would just get replaced with a worse policy barring even more access to gays.  However, the difference now is that first, there is a new President willing to change the policy, and second, there are two ongoing combat operations, so there's a lot more people willing to fight the policy both inside the military and without.

Sodon wrote:

AA7Dragoon wrote: Sodon, on one hand you are alluding to some kind of "principle" stating it is a "horrible idea" to put "people" together who are attracted to one another.  What is this "principle" you speak of?  Is it a theory or philosophy of what following?  On the other hand, you're saying I completely took you out of context but refuse to clarify or state concisely your true opinions on the matter.

If someone states it is a "horrible idea" to have women mixing with men or other gay soldiers, most likely they would choose not to have such integration in the military.  If you are in support of gays in the military and women in the armed forces, then I completely confused what you said and I am sorry for it.

I will not state my true opinions, because thus far you have made it clear that any kind of disagreement with you, however slight or tangential, is enough to be slandered and insulted.

The entire point of that long post, whose message you have completely disregarded (much like my first few), is that this "principle" I put forth has nothing to do with bigotry, regardless of whether I believe it or not. Your slander of my character was both unnecessary and unfounded.

Since you refuse to understand that, I'm done.

I have not slandered you, Sodon.  If you would clarify yourself, I can explain any differences of views. 

Or you can choose to feel hurt and not try to resolve anything.  If that's easier for you.


Mucky, I understand what mAc is saying.  My question to him is it socially just to enforce this law simply because it is a rule?

DrumsofWar wrote:

Lavarinth wrote: If a rule stated "you may describe your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. If a rule states "you must withhold your orientation if you wish to continue to be enlisted in the military" I would expect people to follow it. The military isn't about sexual orientation, it's about putting aside your own drama, opinions, and so forth for what the country believes in.

Except the policy of involuntary non-disclosure only applies to gays, not us heterosexuals.  A special policy for a certain group is discriminatory, just as if a unit was segregated for gays or if gays were not allowed to rise past a certain rank.

The policy was never popular with gay rights groups but most haven't sued to get the policy overturned (and given the precedents in law, they would most likely win) because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would just get replaced with a worse policy barring even more access to gays.  However, the difference now is that first, there is a new President willing to change the policy, and second, there are two ongoing combat operations, so there's a lot more people willing to fight the policy both inside the military and without.

So what your saying is the conservative regime is near its end! (Awaits mAc's rage input.)

We've got Newsweek claiming "we're all socialists now" and Michael Moore laughing about "the end of capitalism". Happy?

And I agree with Sodon in that I'm sick of anyone who disagrees being automatically labeled a bigot, as if there isn't any other possible explanation. Such is modern politics.

A guy lost his lifelong job because he disclosed that he likes men? What kind of a fucked up country is the USA?

That reminds me, the army is discriminating against atheists.