Should Our Military Have Scaled Brokeback Mountain?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Unlike you, I can read and understand what it is I'm reading. You are such a coward, man (nope, can't even call you a man. a man has the courage of his convictions). Just be a man and admit you hate gays and I'll leave you alone. Otherwise, you're just full of shiiit and everything you say is pretty much irrelevant by definition.

Fine, OK I hate gays. Now will you get back on your medication? thioridazine I would imagine. You are one angry SOB.

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

I don't want to see equality brought to the military because all I care about is mission accomplishment and not dying. If a person is causing distractions I do not want them there, if this is caused by some members disagreeing about his lifestyle then I am sorry but GTFO. The gays I served with were "out" in a sense but they kept it to themselves and were both model Marines. The military is the last place to force this upon because it is life and death for the people on the frontline, politicians sitting on Capitol Hill for the most part have no idea what it is like to serve in these hell holes. As a leader the last thing I want to do is try to play Mr. PC so DC can have a circlejerk about how our military is super accepting of all lifestyles.

 

All I am saying is that military's job is to not emphasize getting along but to kill our enemies, if your lifestyle lowers the capability to complete the mission then there is an issue.

 

Thanks to all those who served as well and a WTF to the guy who couldn't get rounds in Kuwait. When I was in school after my service I met a Navy guy who was in Iraq the same time I was, he never carried a weapon, it blows me away that while we were doing our thing in Al Anbar there were places safe enough to not be armed, and we had to take a loaded rifle just to take a piss and couldn't go alone.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I don't want to see equality brought to the military because all I care about is mission accomplishment and not dying. If a person is causing distractions I do not want them there, if this is caused by some members disagreeing about his lifestyle then I am sorry but GTFO. The gays I served with were "out" in a sense but they kept it to themselves and were both model Marines. The military is the last place to force this upon because it is life and death for the people on the frontline, politicians sitting on Capitol Hill for the most part have no idea what it is like to serve in these hell holes. As a leader the last thing I want to do is try to play Mr. PC so DC can have a circlejerk about how our military is super accepting of all lifestyles.

 

All I am saying is that military's job is to not emphasize getting along but to kill our enemies, if your lifestyle lowers the capability to complete the mission then there is an issue.

 

Thanks to all those who served as well and a WTF to the guy who couldn't get rounds in Kuwait. When I was in school after my service I met a Navy guy who was in Iraq the same time I was, he never carried a weapon, it blows me away that while we were doing our thing in Al Anbar there were places safe enough to not be armed, and we had to take a loaded rifle just to take a piss and couldn't go alone.

 

I always assumed the lack of rounds was meant to be a sign of non provocation but considering you could see Iraqi positions from where I was based it was an uncomfortable feeling. I asked my CO what I was supposed to do if the Iraqis rolled out, "club them with my rifle butt?" Lol ah, the Clinton era military.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Were you ever in the military? People are rejected from joining the military for many reasons. Poor eyesight, height, various health and mental issues, blah, blah, blah.

Any military experience I have is irrelevant, and are you catagorizing homosexuality or transgenderment as a disease?

 

So far you've thrown out two logical fallacies, so if you don't have a better argument than that, stop making them.

 

There is nothing inherent about sexuality that prevents an individual from being a good soldier; and other soldiers bigotry or discomfort is not reason enough to exclude an otherwise capable and fit American from service. If the individuals they are serving with don't like it they can go AWOL, and take a dishonorable discharge.

[3rdnlng]

Any military experience I have is irrelevant, and are you catagorizing homosexuality or transgenderment as a disease?

 

So far you've thrown out two logical fallacies, so if you don't have a better argument than that, stop making them.

 

There is nothing inherent about sexuality that prevents an individual from being a good soldier; and other soldiers bigotry or discomfort is not reason enough to exclude an otherwise capable and fit American from service. If the individuals they are serving with don't like it they can go AWOL, and take a dishonorable discharge.

 

You sound like a bleeding heart liberal. Experience doesn't count. Practicality doesn't count. Purpose doesn't count. It would appear that the only thing that counts in your book is insuring that our military is part of some social engineering experiment. Up until now I haven't indicated where I stood on the issues of gays or transgenders in the military. I had hoped to moderate what I had expected to be a lively thread. I guess that is not happening, so I'll actually state where I stand. I am against transgenders in the military for the simple reason that I can't trust them to "have my back". (no pun intended) I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has a proclivity for suicide. As far as gays go, I'm undecided but concerned for the tremendous increase in sexual assault in the military. I need to know more.

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[TakeYouToTasker]

You sound like a bleeding heart liberal. Experience doesn't count. Practicality doesn't count. Purpose doesn't count. It would appear that the only thing that counts in your book is insuring that our military is part of some social engineering experiment.

I'm not the one who sounds liberal here, you are. The conservative argument against activist government is that it doesn't treat all individuals equally. Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

Up until now I haven't indicated where I stood on the issues of gays or transgenders in the military. I had hoped to moderate what I had expected to be a lively thread. I guess that is not happening, so I'll actually state where I stand. I am against transgenders in the military for the simple reason that I can't trust them to "have my back". (no pun intended) I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has a proclivity for suicide.

Jesus Christ. Corrolation is not causation. Simply because a high percentage of transgendered individuals commit suicide does not mean that they are commiting suicide because they are transgendered.

 

As far as gays go, I'm undecided but concerned for the tremendous increase in sexual assault in the military. I need to know more.

Sexual assaults haven't increased tremendously. The reporting of sexual assaults has increased tremendously. It follows logically that having the fear of being discharged from service for being involved in homosexual activity removed would lead to an increase in the reporting of homosexual activity, even if that homosexual activity is sexual assault. By "decriminalizing" the activity the sunlight has exposed an existing problem.

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

More liberal tag lines there. The ends do not justify the means.

 

A similar argument was made about blacks serving, but that worked out just fine.

Edited March 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

isn't the goal of military training to supress individual tendencies in favor of a controlled, reactive response from all soldiers in like manner? maybe this isn't what you meant, but I would imagine that 'group think' is exactly what the military is looking to accomplish with the enlisted.

[Tiberius]

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

The younger generation really isn't much distracted by things that scare you. They are so much more tolerant than people use to be

 

isn't the goal of military training to supress individual tendencies in favor of a controlled, reactive response from all soldiers in like manner? maybe this isn't what you meant, but I would imagine that 'group think' is exactly what the military is looking to accomplish with the enlisted.

Yup, first thing we learned was team work and we all had our heads shaved and were put in ugly green uniforms, lol. Everyone was equal... blah!

[3rdnlng]

I'm not the one who sounds liberal here, you are. The conservative argument against activist government is that it doesn't treat all individuals equally. Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

 

Jesus Christ. Corrolation is not causation. Simply because a high percentage of transgendered individuals commit scuicide does not mean that they are commiting scuicide because they are transgendered.

 

 

Sexual assaults haven't increased tremendously. The reporting of sexual assaults has increased tremendously. It follows logically that having the fear of being discharged from service for being involved in homosexual activity removed would lead to an increase in the reporting of homosexual activity, even if that homosexual activity is sexual assault. By "decriminalizing" the activity the sunlight has exposed an existing problem.

 

 

More liberal tag lines there. The ends do not justify the means.

 

A similar argument was made about blacks serving, but that worked out just fine.

 

The military excludes people for a lot of reasons. Joining the military is not a "right". If a group of people have a high rate of suicide and an even higher rate of psychological problems then they should be excluded just like people who are too tall or too short. We ask a lot of our military. Doubting the person next to them in a battlefield situation shouldn't be one of them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The military excludes people for a lot of reasons. Joining the military is not a "right". If a group of people have a high rate of suicide and an even higher rate of psychological problems then they should be excluded just like people who are too tall or too short. We ask a lot of our military. Doubting the person next to them in a battlefield situation shouldn't be one of them.

So you were against black American's being allowed to serve? The same exact argument was made then.

[3rdnlng]

So you were against black American's being allowed to serve? The same exact argument was made then.

 

That's plain horseshit and you know it. Blacks have served admirably in our military since the Civil War. Quit trying to muddy the waters. We're talking about a group of people with a near 50/50 chance of a mental disease and a proclivity for suicide serving in possible combat situations alongside others. I know I for one, wouldn't be as confident with Klinger covering my flank. It would be interesting to see what the active military and vets have to say on this subject. Before you say it doesn't matter, consider that it is/was their lives at stake.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's plain horseshit and you know it. Blacks have served admirably in our military since the Civil War. Quit trying to muddy the waters. We're talking about a group of people with a near 50/50 chance of a mental disease and a proclivity for suicide serving in possible combat situations alongside others. I know I for one, wouldn't be as confident with Klinger covering my flank. It would be interesting to see what the active military and vets have to say on this subject. Before you say it doesn't matter, consider that it is/was their lives at stake.

I'd imagine that transgendered individuals have served admirably in our military as well, and likely further back than the Civil War. And you know well that I'm speaking about the intergration of black Americans into general units rather than segregated units, where the exact same arguments against were made.

 

And again, corrolation is not causation. Just because a larger percentage of transgendered individuals have commited suicide does not mean they commited suicide because they were transgendered. You'll have to prove to me otherwise, unless you want your argument on these lines dismissed for the exact same reason HIGW gets dismissed.

 

And I'm not at all concerned with what active military or veterans think. Their opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's. That you're introducing that to the argument just adds to your stack of logical fallacies (this most recent being an appeal to authority), making it a trifecta.

Edited March 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

I'd imagine that transgendered individuals have served admirably in our military as well, and likely further back than the Civil War. And you know well that I'm speaking about the intergration of black Americans into general units rather than segregated units, where the exact same arguments against were made.

 

Why do you keep trying to relate transgendered individuals with blacks? They are apples and oranges.

 

And again, corrolation is not causation. Just because a larger percentage of transgendered individuals have commited suicide does not mean they commited suicide because they were transgendered. You'll have to prove to me otherwise, unless you want your argument on these lines dismissed for the exact same reason HIGW gets dismissed.

 

They may have committed suicide because they are conflicted about their sexuality and thus had their lopodichtomy or they may not have had any surgery. Regardless, it's a dangerous group to be around.

 

And I'm not at all concerned with what active military or veterans think. Their opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's. That you're introducing that to the argument just adds to your stack of logical fallacies (this most recent being an appeal to authority), making it a trifecta.

 

You'd better care what they think. We've asked them to put their lives on the line for us, not be a part of some social engineering project.

 

 

 

 

Your absolute thinking may make you think you are being admirable, but it isn't practical. It's sort of like when you stated that since Romney wasn't a true libertarian you were going to vote for Obama because you didn't have a true libertarian to vote for.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why do you keep trying to relate transgendered individuals with blacks? They are apples and oranges.

I'm doing it because the exact same argument was made, and since I'm comparing arguments against service, it's an exact apples to apples comparison. You may not like it, but I have documented history on my side.

 

They may have committed suicide because they are conflicted about their sexuality and thus had their lopodichtomy or they may not have had any surgery. Regardless, it's a dangerous group to be around.

I have highlighted the key word of you statement. It's inclusion is an admission that you're approaching your decision from a place not based in known facts or knowledge, but rather from feelings. Stop trying to feel your way through difficult problems. As I said, show me proof of causation rather that corrolation, and your argument then becomes a a strong one, until that time, it's no different that HIGW.

 

You'd better care what they think. We've asked them to put their lives on the line for us, not be a part of some social engineering project.

Horse ****. We've asked them to do nothing. They've volunteered for service, and they've volunteered to protect equal access to government for all of America's citizens. I'm grateful for what they've vonunteered to do, but that doesn't mean they get to make the rules, or do away with equality under their government because they think something is icky. Further, anyone who takes that stance is anti-heroic, in my eyes, and our military is better off without them.

 

Your absolute thinking may make you think you are being admirable, but it isn't practical. It's sort of like when you stated that since Romney wasn't a true libertarian you were going to vote for Obama because you didn't have a true libertarian to vote for.

Right, right... your new stance is that logic isn't practical.

 

You've doubled down by saying that I should feel obligated to engage in your false choice argument, and vote for your candidate, even though he doesn't represent me; rather than protesting the behavior of the less liberal of the two liberal parties, and working to force them to elect candidates I feel represent me.

 

Did you bump your head this morning?

[3rdnlng]

I'm doing it because the exact same argument was made, and since I'm comparing arguments against service, it's an exact apples to apples comparison. You may not like it, but I have documented history on my side.

 

 

I have highlighted the key word of you statement. It's inclusion is an admission that you're approaching your decision from a place not based in known facts or knowledge, but rather from feelings. Stop trying to feel your way through difficult problems. As I said, show me proof of causation rather that corrolation, and your argument then becomes a a strong one, until that time, it's no different that HIGW.

 

 

Horse ****. We've asked them to do nothing. They've volunteered for service, and they've volunteered to protect equal access to government for all of America's citizens. I'm grateful for what they've vonunteered to do, but that doesn't mean they get to make the rules, or do away with equality under their government because they think something is icky. Further, anyone who takes that stance is anti-heroic, in my eyes, and our military is better off without them.

 

 

Right, right... your new stance is that logic isn't practical.

 

You've doubled down by saying that I should feel obligated to engage in your false choice argument, and vote for your candidate, even though he doesn't represent me; rather than protesting the behavior of the less liberal of the two liberal parties, and working to force them to elect candidates I feel represent me.

 

Did you bump your head this morning?

 

Did blacks have a near 50/50 chance of attempting suicide?

 

Would you agree that people who attempt suicide have mental problems and that there is a correlation between transgenderism and suicide? That the mental problem's caused the suicide? That transgenderism is a good place to look for people with mental problems?

 

It isn't about other servicemen feeling that transgenders are "icky" but that their high degree of suicide attempts put their fellow servicemen at risk. I've mentioned this several times but you prefer to ignore that and make it about "icky".

 

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but would you rather have Romney or Obama sitting in the Oval Office today?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Did blacks have a near 50/50 chance of attempting suicide?

I'm sure that many individual black Americans had an even greater chance than that, just as I'm sure that many individual transgendered Americans have a zero percent chance of commiting suicide. Stop group-thinking.

 

Would you agree that people who attempt suicide have mental problems

As a blanket statement, no; though I would think it likely that a higher percentage of those individuals who have commited suicide had mental problems than those who have not commited suicide.

 

and that there is a correlation between transgenderism and suicide?

Again, corrolation is not causation. Again, HIGW.

 

That the mental problem's caused the suicide?

Unknowable leap of faith.

 

That transgenderism is a good place to look for people with mental problems?

If that's a concern, look, and screen; but you've shown no data demonstrating this.

 

It isn't about other servicemen feeling that transgenders are "icky" but that their high degree of suicide attempts put their fellow servicemen at risk. I've mentioned this several times but you prefer to ignore that and make it about "icky".

Individuals commit suicide, groups do not. I say "icky" because the larger argument against homosexuals serving openly has been about it making staright service members uncomfortable.

 

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but would you rather have Romney or Obama sitting in the Oval Office today?

Again, this is a false choice argument. What I want are candidates that represent me, and Republicans will not get my vote unless they give me one. I could care less about your candidate, I want my candidate; and libertarians like myself will work to make sure that you are stuck with the Obama's of the world until you give us one. The question, in my mind, is would you rather have President Obama, or a candidate I could support?

[3rdnlng]

I'm sure that many individual black Americans had an even greater chance than that, just as I'm sure that many individual transgendered Americans have a zero percent chance of commiting suicide. Stop group-thinking.

 

 

As a blanket statement, no; though I would think it likely that a higher percentage of those individuals who have commited suicide had mental problems than those who have not commited suicide.

 

 

Again, corrolation is not causation. Again, HIGW.

 

 

Unknowable leap of faith.

 

 

If that's a concern, look, and screen; but you've shown no data demonstrating this.

 

 

Individuals commit suicide, groups do not. I say "icky" because the larger argument against homosexuals serving openly has been about it making staright service members uncomfortable.

 

 

Again, this is a false choice argument. What I want are candidates that represent me, and Republicans will not get my vote unless they give me one. I could care less about your candidate, I want my candidate; and libertarians like myself will work to make sure that you are stuck with the Obama's of the world until you give us one. The question, in my mind, is would you rather have President Obama, or a candidate I could support?

 

I would say that there is a causation between mental problems and suicide. Can there be exceptions? I suppose so. I would also say that there is a correlation between transgenders and mental problems. While transgenderism didn't cause the suicide the mental problems that caused the transgenderism was the causation of the suicide. I have shown that 40% of transgenders have attempted suicide. An even higher percentage have mental problems. I don't think we should expect the average serviceman to go into combat with someone who has a good chance of having mental problems.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

I would say that there is a causation between mental problems and suicide.

 

Very few psychologists would disagree. The incidence of mental illness in attempted or successful suicide is somewhere between 95-100%, depending on the study you choose to read.

 

It shouldn't even be a topic for debate.

 

And the military's still free to discriminate against the mentally ill. Most people and organizations are, in fact, no matter what the ADA says.

[GG]

Very few psychologists would disagree. The incidence of mental illness in attempted or successful suicide is somewhere between 95-100%, depending on the study you choose to read.

 

It shouldn't even be a topic for debate.

 

And the military's still free to discriminate against the mentally ill. Most people and organizations are, in fact, no matter what the ADA says.

 

But are the mental problems caused by being LGTB or the other way around?

 

Gay baiting aside, the debate is not about societal norms of greater acceptance of LGB. The real debate should be whether the military is altering recruiting standards to have a more diverse participation. In that sense, is it fair to treat LGBT as a separate gender and have a similar discussion as to allowing women in combat. T Allowing more women in the military has certainly raised the number of reported sexual assault incidents, but that should not have been a surprise to anyone who thought that putting 18-22 year old is close quarters wouldn't spark sexual impulses in humans. The military is the epitome of the boys club. It should discriminate. But it should discriminate on a consistent standard of physical and mental toughness. If you can pass the physical and mental tests, then your gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

[3rdnlng]

But are the mental problems caused by being LGTB or the other way around?

 

Gay baiting aside, the debate is not about societal norms of greater acceptance of LGB. The real debate should be whether the military is altering recruiting standards to have a more diverse participation. In that sense, is it fair to treat LGBT as a separate gender and have a similar discussion as to allowing women in combat. T Allowing more women in the military has certainly raised the number of reported sexual assault incidents, but that should not have been a surprise to anyone who thought that putting 18-22 year old is close quarters wouldn't spark sexual impulses in humans. The military is the epitome of the boys club. It should discriminate. But it should discriminate on a consistent standard of physical and mental toughness. If you can pass the physical and mental tests, then your gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

 

Where do you house Private Klinger who still has his dick but identifies as a woman?

 

There have been many more sexual assault complaints over the last few years. Assaults against males are more common place than against females.