The Instigator
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kyudisease
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should gay men be allowed to serve in the army?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
kyudisease
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 43098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Hard_Muscle_Guy_30

Pro

Yes, I believe that a C***sucking sissy does have a place in the army.

Will you take con?
kyudisease

Con

The gay rights movement is still relatively in it's infancy, there are too few sets of standards and practices. The army is hardly a well oiled machine but what order it does bring from the chaos stems from heavily worded SOP's or Standard Operating Procedural memos. They have an SOP for nearly everything from how to cook a strip of bacon to how a private may or may not spend his personal time; so when a complaint comes up that isn't specifically covered in AR, army regulations, the SOP can be consulted to validate or invalidate a complaint.

The army is slow to change and unless there were to be an entirely new code of conduct that all would accept... having openly homosexual people in the army will lead to an increase in soldier complaints and a decrease in morale, work out-put, and functionality as team members.
Debate Round No. 1
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30

Pro

Well why can't the make a SOP on how a soldier should respond to a sexual advance from another (gay) soldier?

1. what is a sexual advance?
A situation where another soldier is taking sexually provocatively to you, is touching you, is looking with desire at your body, is showing you his penis and similar ..

2. Possible responses:
2a: The soldier may engage in sex, and suck the gay soldiers penis
2b: The soldier may refuse
2c: To maintain the balance of power, satisfy the masculinity of the soldier who was sexually approached and to preserve the traditional macho culture of the Army, he may respond with violence.

I am sure, that allowing gays in the army will attract gay men looking for sex, and especially passive gay men looking to be raped by strong, muscular, straight soldiers in army fatigues. That sort of behaviour is unmilitary, unmanly and very much unsolder man like and should therefore be serverly punished.

But, I hear you object, would the passive C***sucking F***** not also enjoy, being beaten up and stripped naked in a military style? Yes, most likely, that is why I propose, that the SOP for violently refusing a sexual advance from a gay soldier, allows for full torture. He won't be enjoying his punishment, when he is hanging, star naked, from wires from the ceiling, having a thick hard police baton pressed up his rectum and electric wires from a shock machine attached to his genitalia, that's for sure!! He he, also this will allow for the soldiers in the army to train torture and interrogation techniques more frequently..
kyudisease

Con

I want to thank kbub for his comment likening gays in the army to women. It leads me into an excellent area of debate, what I see as being one of, if not, the biggest of issues.

How would female soldiers react if they were to be told they must take communal showers with male soldiers? Or share the same room? Undoubtedly that would lead to any number of sexual harassment claims. How might an 18 year old out of po-dunk Kansas feel when he gets to boot camp and is told he has no choice but to bathe and bunk with someone or someone's who may regularly entertain sexual fantasies involving him?

I believe it is wrong to tell Anybody that they have no choice but to endure a situation that they may find sexually uncomfortable.

Hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, of tax dollars would be needed to organize an endeavor as seemingly simple as separate privy and showering facilities. That would satisfy some complaints, far from all, but even with that solution you are adding an element of divisiveness into a formula that calls for unity.
Debate Round No. 2
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30

Pro

Good point!
I do believe, that humiliating the young 18 old recruits by sexually shaming them is already on the menu during recruit training in every army, anywhere in the world. Hazing, where the young recruits are forced to undress, share their sexual fantasies, masturbate in front of older soldiers, having their manhood touched or worse, is a road well travelled, when the Sergeant want to break the will of the recruits, and bring them out of their comfort zone. Having gay men on staff, could add new ways. I could imagine forcing the recruits to stand stark naked to attention, making them watch two gay soldiers have sex in front of them, to see if one or more of them become aroused.

Also the SOP on possible responses to sexual advances, does allow for the 18 year old Kansas boy, to beat the crap out of a gay soldier, for even looking at him funny.

Then again, I am not saying that there would be no sacrifice on the part of the straight soldiers. Yes, the gay soldier in the bunk next to you, may very well dream of sucking your manhood. So what?? The gay soldier would also be troubled by being surrounded by so much man meat and not even be allowed to take a good look at it, right?

The 18 year old out of po-dunk Kansas recruit has already been showering with several closeted or open gay men during his school years, and for straight males in 2013 it is natural now, to have their bodies seen as an object of sexual desire. In fact, he has spent many hours training his muscles to become as attractive as possible (to women)

In fact, the proposed new gay soldiers would be severely at risk of beatings and sexually humiliation hazing games themselves. All it takes is two other soldiers claiming that he has been acting inappropriately, then they may beat him.
kyudisease

Con

It seems we both agree that it is unsafe and unsavory. I was in the army, my wife still is. In fact I am in my on-post housing at ft. Carson as I type. It seems that our debate is over for the most part, so here is some running commentary.

It may surprise you to learn that it is a much softer and gentler army in this day and age. I personally don't agree with it, I am more akin to your school of thinking as in hazing and tough corporal punishment will make a sturdier soldier. I was disgusted when I was at basic training... I recall this instance foremost: We, my unit that is, was in formation. Someone had f'd up, I don't remember who or why, but the drill Sgt ordered us to start doing push-ups. I, of course, complied... but one member of the unit a male, late 20's - early 30's, out right refused...

Him> "No"
DS> "What?"
Him> "I'm not going to do them."
DS> [looks around bewildered} "Well then, you just stand there, and I'm going to write you up."
Me> WTF?

A new rule now, already you were not aloud to touch them... but now if you give pt as a punishment, ie.. push-ups, the Sgt, or whoever, has to do the pt with the person being punished...?
Me> WTF?

thanks for the debate and an opportunity to bs.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Post-debate comment to my CON opponent "kyudisease"

LOL no, we do still not agree that homosexuals in the army are unsafe :-)

But we DO agree with the conventional school of recruit training, that to build a man, who first have to break the boy, as in hazing and tough corporal punishment will make a sturdier soldier.

I apologize for the strong graphic content, but there is no way around saying it like it is:
The Sergeant from your basic training should have beaten the crap out of that disobedient *sob*

In fact, since he is not allowed, you and the other recruits should have attacked in in the barracks at night, blindfolded him, and beaten him with soap. Also I believe that male on male torture is natural, why else are the fragile testicles placed in a sac outside the male body, that fits so snugly in the fists of another soldier?
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Women soldiers?
Really stupid: can you imagine what Saddam Hussein Arab soldiers would have done if they had caught an American female soldier alive??

Yeah, exactly: rape and torture
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
response to khub:

I think, yeah, not quite the same. I do not except a lot of straight soldiers being offended and humiliated, if women came on to them. Also, the idea of the sexually aggressive woman is a joke to most men, and certainly should be to soldiers :D

So instead, the problem with women in the army, is that THEY would be at risk from sexually aggressive male soldiers, as is indeed the case, in those armies where women are allowed: they are harassed and raped
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Same argument against women serving. I hope pod responds in these 6 minutes...
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Well the challenge has been accepted, check it out
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Cool
Posted by FreedomHawk 3 years ago
FreedomHawk
Sorry. I am not against gay people serving in the army . I could take the con but when I debate I prefer to defend my real opinions ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30kyudiseaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros conduct was shameful. And he went against his proported stance, since his arguments were supporting the con side of the argument.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30kyudiseaseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro was attempting satire, but I'm sorry to say it didn't make much sense with me. I believe in gays in the military, but I'm really not sure what pro was trying to say, if s/he wasn't trolling... Conduct to con. I almost reported the graphic content.