Are you kidding me? Your argument is that if gays want to serve openly in the military they have to submit to sexual harassment? No one would tolerate a serviceman calling out "show us your tits, honey" to a servicewoman but it's ok for a guy to grab his crotch and say "yeah I bet you'd love to get your lips on this, wouldn't you fag?"

18-25 year olds are going to be fucking like rabbits;

There, got rid of some unnecessary specificity for you.

most gay guys consider that to be the number one selling point of being gay.

This is bullshit. Sure, it's significantly easier as a MSM to find a partner willing to skip the pretense of dinner times whatever number is currently socially acceptable, but the idea that most gay guys are having sex with multiple partners a night is pure fantasy. Hell, as far as I know it was hetero kids that came up with FWB.

If you actually observed for a minute instead of just dismissing homosexually, you'd find that most homos are just like most heteros. We all like to sleep around when we're young but we also want to find a stable relationship with a partner. Of course, when your society discourages you from forming or keeping those relationships, yeah you kind of are just left with cheap sex to fill the void.

You won't hear much about it, just like you don't hear about the problems with integrating females. After all, all units have disciplinary problems, and they deal with them all the time. The difference is simply that when there are more problems, your command spends more time doing legal paperwork and less time working on training. You have more soldiers who are not pulling their weight. You lose camaraderie and get bickering and politics. I think that's been a major problem with our support units and, notably, we have been moving towards using contractors for support jobs far more than we used to. I can't see how we're going to insulate our combat units from this change.

The bottom line is that this is a social experiment being performed that will result in people dying. It's a privilege to serve, not a right, and not one that's worth a single person dying.

No you probably won't hear much about it, but because it won't be that big of a deal (or at least, it doesn't have to be--I don't doubt the homo-haters will try). This is not a "social experiment." As always with social progress, we've let others do the hard experimentation for us so all we have to do is take the empirical evidence. Yes, such human rights pioneers such as China and South Africa allow homosexuals to serve in the military.

Even the Israeli army (who few would dispute that operate in an extremely stressful and hostile environment) can manage it:

In a comprehensive review of interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF in 2004,[23] researchers were not able to find any data suggesting that Israel’s decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale. In this security-conscious country where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness. In addition, while no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials and representatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare.

Interestingly, they also seem to realize that the real security threat is not from openly gay service men and women, but the closeted ones:

Israel takes the position that gays in the closet (those who, for example, may have informed their superiors of their sexual orientation, but on a confidential basis) cannot get security-sensitive jobs while those who are out can work anywhere.

So, it would seem that gays serving openly will result in fewer people dying.

Someone call the faaabulaaance, this man needs a humor injection, stat.

Seriously though, how do you cope in this fucked up world with so little?

These puritanical beliefs about gender, nudity, and sex just need to die already. The amount of psychological and sociological harm they have inflicted, and continue to inflict, is simply unfathomable. As is so common, you conflate nudity with sex, but there are so many shades of grey in between. You might even say they're not even on the same scale because sex does not require nudity, and nudity does not require that sex take place (except in the puritanical mindset where the only time a person should see another naked is when they're having sex and even then, we'd best just pretend the whole thing never happened).

Of course it's not your fault, exactly, these ideas are beaten into our consciousness from a very early age. Children have no inherent aversion to nudity, it's a learned behavior from their parents (who rightfully should teach them what is and is not appropriate). However, that teaching often starts creeping into other areas where it's ok to be naked like the privacy of own's room, the bathroom, or the locker room. We're told to keep the blinds closed and cover up because "someone might see you." Our brains fill in the missing dots: it's bad for someone to see us naked, the only time we should be naked is having sex, therefore anyone that sees us naked is immediately overcome with the urge to grope us.

That's simply not the case, and I think you know it. The proposed problem (if it even exists) is not sexual tension, but adults (and supposedly professionals) behaving like impetuous adolescents. The only thing that really marks a difference between a post-pubescent adolescent and an adult is wisdom and maturity, the maturity to understand and cope with things like having your feelings hurt or, as gross as you might find it, that gay guy or that fat girl find you attractive.

So no, DADT is not a reasonable policy, as it is not based in reason. If you actually believe that the policy has anything to do with the "shower problem," you've bought into the bigotry, even if you aren't a bigot yourself. It's obvious to everyone that homosexuals are no less capable a soldier than heterosexuals (and in some cases, more apt than their straight counterparts due to their proclivity to do things like study foreign languages). So tossing a good solider out because they're gay is something most people can use their faculties of reason to say that's wrong and stupid. Oh, but "they might see you naked in the shower," and just like that, people's brains shut off.

Sure, I'll admit that I like the gym shower because it's a great place to see a lot of attractive men without their clothes on. However, it's more on the level of looking at art, or a landscape view on a hike because just as those straight guys have no interest in sex with me, I have no interest in sex with them because there is no reciprocation of that sexual attraction. There's no sexual tension there unless you're the one bringing it to the table. It's the same for most straight guys too: they'll admire that passing beauty in the short skirt but it's nothing for their girlfriend/wife to get upset over. It's not as if the second their spouse turns her back they're going to run over and start hitting on the girl.

I'm glad you brought up the "shower problem" though, because in my mind it really underlines just how discriminatory the policy is. Statistically speaking, your average military man is already showering with one or two other men who could potentially be sexually interested in poor ol' Joe Hetero. Somehow it's not a problem now but it will be once everyone "knows" which among them is interested in dudes? I say "knows" because as other servicemen have pointed out in this topic, it's typically not that hard to figure out ("gaydar" isn't magic, after all) and not that big of a secret anyway. So what you're really saying is that it's demonstrably not a problem but you want to reserve the right to oppress the homos by holding the threat of a dishonorable discharge over their heads. Yet, if a private organization were to take up such a policy it wouldn't stand, not even for a minute.

DADT simply is a bigoted policy, there's just no getting around it (even if it was well intentioned). It's an attempt to put a demographic in a box and label it as "different." Oh sure, we as a culture in general embrace the individual and the different, but there are certain "differents" out there that just don't deserve the same respect or rights, no? That's what you've said after all, is that your "right" to not feel imagined sexual tension is more important than the right of another to be themselves and actually express their existence as a sexual being. I suppose we should also curb free speech because I've probably violated your "right" to not get your feelings hurt by me calling your beliefs bigoted.

It's not even effective because like so many social policies based on placing people into neat little categories, the weakness is that human beings are not so neat and simple. Your fear is a dude checking you out in the shower, and you've sorted that into neat little boxes of hetero (going to stare at the ceiling) and homo (going to drool). The problem is, sexuality isn't black and white and even the idea that a straight guy doesn't take a peak is absurd. Just look at the straight guys that shower at the gym with half a hardon even knowing they're more likely to encounter a gay guy at the gym than most anywhere else in their daily life. Another example of where it breaks down is me: up til now you've probably assumed I'm gay by the things I've said, but I'm bi. Even if you discount the straight guys checking you out the first time you shower together, and feel safe because you've kicked out the openly gay guy, you're forgetting the large percentage of people who have some degree of bisexuality even if they're not far enough towards the middle to call themselves bi like me. Just because someone shows you pictures of his smokin' hot girlfriend and how he loves her tits doesn't mean he doesn't also like your penis.

So to make a (very) long story short, it really doesn't require some imaginary future where there is no sexuality (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who prays nothing of the sort ever happens), it just requires people to treat each other with respect and act like adults. If someone can't do that, they need to be disciplined accordingly, not because they're gay or straight. You might be surprised how far a little respect can go. If you were to approach me as an adult (and thereby demonstrate some respect for me, instead of trying to get me fired behind my back), take me aside, and say "look I know you're gay and I don't really have a problem with that, but it still makes me a little uncomfortable in the shower" I would return the show of respect by working something out, whether that be being in the shower room at different times or simply never looking in your direction (but really, it's a shower, not a sightseeing trip--get in, scrub up, and get out).

You can try the "extreme cases" argument, but you gotta understand this is an "uncommon" endpoint and by the time you hit 13 it's "less than common" and then 15 is "common."

Do you have a citation for this? I do:

In 2009, 10.0 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 were current illicit drug users (Figure 2.6): 7.3 percent used marijuana, 3.1 percent engaged in nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutics, 1.0 percent used inhalants, 0.9 percent used hallucinogens, and 0.3 percent used cocaine.

0.3 percent is hardly "common."

Mid-teens hard drug users are oddly more common than mid-20s hard drug users; college kids seem to stabilize on marijuana, but high school kids want to try heroin.

No, no they are not. From the same reference:

Rates of current use of illicit drugs in 2009 were higher for young adults aged 18 to 25 (21.2 percent) than for youths aged 12 to 17 (10.0 percent) and adults aged 26 or older (6.3 percent). Among young adults, 18.1 percent used marijuana in the past month, 6.3 percent used prescription-type drugs nonmedically, 1.8 percent used hallucinogens, and 1.4 percent used cocaine

As for heroin, the average age of active and first time users has always been higher than that of any other hard drug.

There is a large overlap in the people that bitch about how bad HFCS is for your health and those that want to stand against drug prohibition. I understand the difference between HFCS being "forced" on you ... and cocaine being "voluntary"; but it's still a strange position.

I'm not convinced that there is a large overlap in these two groups but even if so, how is it a strange position? It seems to be a logical extension of the right to control one's own body. That said, I disagree that HFCS is forced upon anyone and is (as I myself found out) surprisingly easy to avoid.

Then you find the people that are against cigarettes but for legalized marijuana and cocaine, and one can only assume they're retarded.

One can only assume you're making shit up, because I've never heard someone say cigarettes should be banned in one breath and to legalize marijuana and hard drugs in the next. Perhaps you're confusing the issue with smoking in public places? There you have the previous situation where one is being deprived of the right to control what enters their own body because you cannot avoid breathing in the smoke (or at least it goes well beyond any sort of reasonability).

Esoteric arguments about peoples' conflicting stances aside, there's a severe ethical problem with selling someone a simple poison with no benefit to get their money in your pocket. Cigarettes gradually damage your health and the "benefit" you get from initial nicotine high quickly fades into "tolerance" and "cravings"; good tobacco at least is enjoyable, and less toxic.

Indeed, let's just throw out the whole drug debate and label it an "esoteric argument" and just declare that drugs are a severe ethical problem. Or not. You may recall that the entire debate largely is an ethical, "esoteric" one. Namely, is it ethical to allow someone to purposefully damage their health and is it ethical to control such actions through force of law?

Alcohol is the same way, a horrible substance with little benefit (although some significant in low daily dose); but good beer and good wine cannot be de-alcoholized without destroying the flavor and/or texture as well.

What makes it a "horrible substance?" As you point out (however subdued), alcohol does have such benefits as lowering overall mortality when consumed around the one drink per day level, not to mention the social benefits. More importantly, what's your point here? That you would bring back Prohibition if beer and wine could be made alcohol free?

Easy fix: place people re-opting-in on a separate zero-priority list for e.g. a year, and require a full medical exam (paid for by the person opting-in). If the physician determines you have a condition leading to organ failure, you're also placed on the zero-priority list. People on the zero-priority list may only receive an organ if there are no eligible candidates for that organ on the normal-priority list.

An even easier solution is simply not to allow anyone to opt-out. It's ridiculous to be forced to increase the cost and complexity of programs every time some navel gazer decides he's special because of $made_up_shit and deserves an exemption or some sociopath decides he only wants to take and not give. Society allows you to achieve more than you ever could alone, but that opportunity comes with responsibility. If you don't like those terms, go live in some remote section of forest and scrounge everyday for food until you die of starvation and disease. Nothing of value will be lost.

It's because if you don't immediately disclaim any desire to even touch an Apple product, a dozen Slashdotters will immediately jump down your throat reminding you how you will be forever imprisoned within the product while making wild claims about your intelligence, sanity, and sexuality.

I don't know what the deal with this topic is, but this is the second time I've seen someone give terrible advice relating to dogs. Feeding your dog only once a day increases the chance of bloat which can kill your dog, even if you treat it properly.

That said, I do agree that the quickest way to stop gaining weight is to stop stuffing your face with every energy-dense food you can find.

I do hate to derail your train of thought here (I often fantasize about similar things when people do that kind of asocial crap), but that's a terrible way to teach a dog not to urinate inside. Besides being somewhat cruel to an animal that doesn't really understand, it's inefficient because the dog's more likely to learn that he has to hide it from you, not that he needs to do it in the appropriate spot.

I wonder just how much we are like animals... would rubbing someone's nose in their litter teach them to never do it, or would they just learn to only do it when no one was around?

So you're saying that my time would be better spent dicking around in the few hours before my flight (reading, playing games, talking to friends, catching up on some work, whatever) so that I can arrive just on time (apparently showing superior time management skills) while dealing with the increased stress of trying to hurry through crowds to make it to my gate. What if, through superior time management skills, I was going to arrive right on time (with a reasonable margin of 5-10 minutes) but there was some unexpected holdup at the security check and now I miss my flight? Now I really will be wasting time sitting on my ass for a few hours for the next flight, possibly with increased cost.

Or, I could get to the airport an hour or two early and spend the rest of the time dicking around (reading, playing games, talking to friends, catching up on some work, whatever).

I'm not at all convinced I've managed my time worse than you.

How quaint. Where I live it's common for pickups and SUVs to keep their high beams on and pull up as close as possible to your rear so that the maximum amount of light shines into your eyes via your rear-view mirror.

Well, I think he's not entirely off base, though it probably heavily depends on your area and choice of lunch stop. For example, on days that I don't bring my lunch to work and I'm slammed for time, I can drive to the McDonald's about a mile away, eat, and make it back within 20 minutes. At an average adult walking pace (~3mph) it would take 20 minutes just to get there.

Obviously the better solution is just to bring your own lunch and/or work for a company that doesn't have absurd policies that harm the productivity of the people that produce their value...

The magic year in that... page is 1913. Before 1913 no one except the ultra rich and non-citizens had to pay tax! The page makes it out like the government is illegally collecting taxes and we were all swindled into it by Walt Disney... or we could note that the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913. Nope, no mention of that though, except the very end were the writer pretends it doesn't exist:

No part of the Federal Government is constitutionally permitted to levy such a direct tax on citizens of States and no amendment to the Constitution has changed that, not even the 16th amendment.

Er, well the 16th amendment did change the Constitution to allow it, and courts have confirmed that it applies to wages and other income.

The article does point out that the increasing taxes were enacted to help pay for the war and so they were in full effect during the 50s. This is the same 50s during which the concept of a "nuclear family" really took off. Somehow in the golden era of the nuclear family they did just fine paying the taxes with only one parent (the father) bringing home the bacon. So why is it that today a nuclear family struggles with both parents working?

I'm not sure why you're still arguing this point, it makes no sense.

• A homosexual man cannot marry another man (of any orientation).
• A heterosexual man cannot marry another man (of any orientation).
• A man of any sexual orientation cannot marry another man (of any orientation).

On the other hand, a homosexual man can marry a woman (of any orientation). So, while I agree with you that the net effect is that of the groups discriminated by the law, the group "same-sex homosexual partners wishing to marry one another" is the most represented, it's not the only case either. The law discriminates against all men of any belief or persuasion from marrying another man.

Take the sentence you quoted from me:

No, it's decidedly not about sexual orientation. The law says that if you are male, you cannot marry another male (and the same with females).

Your inference is that a male marrying another male must be homosexual and the law prevents one male from marrying another male, thus the law discriminates against homosexuals. The conclusion is true but not exclusive (as it also potentially discriminates against other demographics). You premise is unnecessarily exclusive (i.e. it is not necessary that both or even one of the male/female parties in a same-sex marriage be homosexual).

In case it's still not clear, two buddies that have zero sexual interest in each other or sex with men in general and have never desired anything but a woman but decide to get married for shits and giggles would also be prevented by the law because the law says two people of the same sex cannot be married. If it said that homosexuals cannot marry people of their own sex, that would be discriminating based on sexual orientation and in that case the two buddies would be allowed to get married because they are heterosexual.

I was responding to the idea that people would be paying off their debts with the extra income. For the most part, people in that kind of debt are living beyond their means. That is, they could spend less now with some self control and not have a "need" for the extra 5 or 15k. I posit that these same people when given extra income will continue to be financially irresponsible and spend it on increased luxury rather than needs, like paying off debts.

I wasn't really intending to get involved in a tax debate, but I don't agree that taxes caused the current situation where two parents are required to work to provide for a family. Taxes really haven't changed all that much, but pay (or effective pay taking into account external factors like inflation) has decreased. For example, if an extra $5k (or $15k income of which the family would supposedly receive $5 ?? 66% tax rate ??) would make a huge difference in society, why can companies not pay their employees an extra $15k per year? Sure, it will hurt the bottom line but why is that such a big deal? ExxonMobil brought in $20 billion in net income last year and they employ approximately 80k people. A $15k raise for every single one would cost them about $1.2 billion, a mere 5% of their net income...