"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Occurs Today

[LnGrrrR]

I applaud Obama for pushing this. Our military is made up of professionals, and I expect that while there may be some bumps, this is a great step forward. It was asinine to be kicking out qualified soldiers during a time of war, merely because they liked the same sex.

It's nice to see Obama can live up to a promise every once in a while. (Now, there is the matter of GTMO still being open...)

[ChuckD]

At one point in the WoT, they were kicking out so many Arabic translators, it was jokingly referred to as Don't Ask, Don't Translate. It costs hundreds of thousands to train up one of them, so from a purely financial standpoint, it was colossally stupid to discharge them.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I can't wait to hear about all the Billy Badass rednecks in the military beating up gay soldiers (and most likely doing sicker stuff than that).

[coyotes_geek]

I applaud Obama for pushing this. Our military is made up of professionals, and I expect that while there may be some bumps, this is a great step forward. It was asinine to be kicking out qualified soldiers during a time of war, merely because they liked the same sex.

It's nice to see Obama can live up to a promise every once in a while. (Now, there is the matter of GTMO still being open...)

:tu

Long overdue.

[Drachen]

Has hell's gate opened up and swallowed the country??? Or is that scheduled for noon?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Weren't traditional marriages supposed to be destroyed when gays were allowed to marry?

[boutons_deux]

All "Christian" hate groups take a well-deserved kick in the teeth.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not going to give Obama much credit for this. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Glad its done.

[Cane]

Good stuff. I wonder if the US NAVY will see a rise in recruiting now?

[101A]

Good stuff. I wonder if the US NAVY will see a rise in recruiting now?

The Navy, specifically, is not having any trouble in this economy. My boy intends to enlist as soon as he graduates (from High School) next spring. He qualified for Nuclear School on the ASVAB. Of course that was before he ruptured his ACL a couple of Friday nights ago...could delay things a bit.

[LnGrrrR]

The Navy, specifically, is not having any trouble in this economy. My boy intends to enlist as soon as he graduates (from High School) next spring. He qualified for Nuclear School on the ASVAB. Of course that was before he ruptured his ACL a couple of Friday nights ago...could delay things a bit.

Pfft... tell him to go EOD. :)

[baseline bum]

It's nice to see Obama can live up to a promise every once in a while. (Now, there is the matter of GTMO still being open...)

I would have rather had a good healthcare bill. Obama can still go fuck off.

[ManuBalboa]

Who's up for a lil Spartan pre-battle training session??? Anyone?

[JoeChalupa]

DVAgz6iyK6A

[Yonivore]

I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?

I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.

[ElNono]

I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?

I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.


You're free to end your military career if it bothers you. Doesn't sound like anybody is forcing you to be there.

[ElNono]

Does it bother people so much to know whether the next guy is gay or not?

I mean, he was still gay before you knew.

[Yonivore]

Does it bother people so much to know whether the next guy is gay or not?

I mean, he was still gay before you knew.
But, knowing it in the shower is a bit different.

Would it bother your sister (if you have one) to be forced to shower with men?

[ElNono]

But, knowing it in the shower is a bit different.

Would it bother your sister (if you have one) to be forced to shower with men?

Nobody is forcing anyone. If my sister willfully opted to take on a job where as part of her duties she would need to shower alongside lesbian women, then that's entirely her call. Why would I object?

[MannyIsGod]

Its a good thing men in the armed forces weren't showering with gay men prior to DADT being repealed.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I applaud Obama for pushing this. Our military is made up of professionals, and I expect that while there may be some bumps, this is a great step forward. It was asinine to be kicking out qualified soldiers during a time of war, merely because they liked the same sex.

It's nice to see Obama can live up to a promise every once in a while. (Now, there is the matter of GTMO still being open...)
You know, you guys in the Air Force have it made. Those in the Army, Marines, and Navy have to share such close quarters, showers, etc. rather often. Maybe it will work well for the Air Force, but... Just wait and see. This will be big trouble.

Mark my words, 9/20/11.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't wait to hear about all the Billy Badass rednecks in the military beating up gay soldiers (and most likely doing sicker stuff than that).
What I see likely happening is the gays harassing the straits, and maybe getting beat up over several harassment. Maybe complain about sexual harassment that has nothing happen because it will appear the commanders instilling discipline are being anti gay.

This has opened a can of worms with so many possible scenarios.

[Wild Cobra]

Pfft... tell him to go EOD. :)
Hard to beat the technical training the navy has for their nuclear ships. Many $80k+ Parts Changes I have worked with are prior Navy nuclear.

[ChumpDumper]

But, knowing it in the shower is a bit different.Why?

Do you get an erection if you know?

[CuckingFunt]

What I see likely happening is the gays harassing the straits

Yes. We know. That's why it's called homophobia.

[ElNono]

Those in the Army, Marines, and Navy have to share such close quarters, showers, etc. rather often. Maybe it will work well for the Air Force, but...

You know you can tell them you're straight and not interested, right?

[LnGrrrR]

If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?


They won't. They'll assume that those who are gay will be professional, and won't let it create an atmosphere that detracts from the mission. If it does, they'll be counciled.

[LnGrrrR]

You know, you guys in the Air Force have it made. Those in the Army, Marines, and Navy have to share such close quarters, showers, etc. rather often. Maybe it will work well for the Air Force, but... Just wait and see. This will be big trouble.

Not my fault I jointed the best service. And methinks thou doth protest too much. Most of the people that have a problem with this are over the age of 40 or so... and there's not many people over the age of 40 in the military.

[baseline bum]

But, knowing it in the shower is a bit different.

Would it bother your sister (if you have one) to be forced to shower with men?

So you're against jr high and high school athletics and PE classes too, I take it?

[Yonivore]

So you're against jr high and high school athletics and PE classes too, I take it?
I just think I ask a legitimate question.

If the sexes are separated in the showers and bunks due to the fact they are sexually and physically attracted to one another; how are homosexuals different?

If homosexuality is a normal orientation and, homosexuals have a libido, find others of the same sex attractive, and find themselves wanting to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex; why should heterosexuals be subjected to that when they are not similarly treated with respect to the opposite sex?

[Yonivore]

They won't. They'll assume that those who are gay will be professional, and won't let it create an atmosphere that detracts from the mission. If it does, they'll be counciled.
Why don't they assume that about heterosexuals?

Look, we're talking about normalizing homosexuality. If it is normal to assume men and women heterosexuals cannot shower or bunk together because of the problems it will cause, why is it off limits to assume men and women homosexuals should not shower or bunk together because of the problems it will cause?

[scott]

Obviously the gays will just start popping boners for everyone they see in the shower and gay rape will become commonplace now that they don't have a cover to protect.

[Yonivore]

Obviously the gays will just start popping boners for everyone they see in the shower and gay rape will become commonplace now that they don't have a cover to protect.
I didn't suggest that.

But, if it's safe to assume that if heterosexuals would act in that way should they be forced to shower and bunk with the opposite sex; why is not safe to assume homosexuals would do the same?

DADT was the boner patrol. Getting drummed out of the military for demonstrating an attraction to the same sex is pretty good salt peter, I would imagine.

[CavsSuperFan]

Can't wait to see Chaz Bono in a Marine Corp uniform... :vomit:

[scott]

I didn't suggest that.

But, if it's safe to assume that if heterosexuals would act in that way should they be forced to shower and bunk with the opposite sex; why is not safe to assume homosexuals would do the same?

DADT was the boner patrol. Getting drummed out of the military for demonstrating an attraction to the same sex is pretty good salt peter, I would imagine.

I've never spent a whole lot of time around enlisted, but I know a lot of officers and they're the most professional bunch I've ever been around. I have no doubts they'd be just fine showing/bunking with the opposite sex if they had to, and the same goes for homosexuals.

Furthermore, the same sexual harassment standards as heterosexuals should apply to homosexuals to safeguard against all the shenanigans that folks who have no direct interest in the issue (other than their own not-so-inconspicuous homophobia) are worried about.

[Yonivore]

I've never spent a whole lot of time around enlisted, but I know a lot of officers and they're the most professional bunch I've ever been around. I have no doubts they'd be just fine showing/bunking with the opposite sex if they had to, and the same goes for homosexuals.
And yet, they don't do it.


Furthermore, the same sexual harassment standards as heterosexuals should apply to homosexuals to safeguard against all the shenanigans that folks who have no direct interest in the issue (other than their own not-so-inconspicuous homophobia) are worried about.
Agreed but, why do you assume I have no direct interest?

[scott]

I once observed this exchange in the locker room of my gym:

A young kid (early 20s) was talking to his friend how there better not be any gays in locker room checking him out. A few minutes later a guy in his 30s, pretty well built, walks by and says: "I'm gay, and trust me this isn't the place I come to meet guys. Quit being such a fag."

Young kids facial expression was priceless. I LOLed.

[scott]

And yet, they don't do it.

So are you arguing we should let opposite sexes share showers and bunks?



Agreed but, why do you assume I have no direct interest?

What's your direct interest?

[Yonivore]

So are you arguing we should let opposite sexes share showers and bunks?
No. I'm arguing that if homosexuality is a normal orientation with all the trappings of heterosexuality, why is the military going to be allowed to treat them differently than heterosexuals in policies designed to prevent fraternization, harassment, and sexual assault?


What's your direct interest?
What difference does that make? I was merely curious why you would assume I have none.

[Wild Cobra]

Not my fault I jointed the best service. And methinks thou doth protest too much. Most of the people that have a problem with this are over the age of 40 or so... and there's not many people over the age of 40 in the military.
You joined the second best. There is no beating the Navy. I wish I went Air Force myself, but went Army, being convinced promotions were faster. There is no beating the Navy for technical schools. Air force is the second best in technical training, but the best in how they treat their people. I would have Joined the Navy if I didn't mind living on the open seas. Not afraid of water, I just need women in close proximity. I would have joined the Air Force if I knew the promotions were better than in the Army for real good people in technical fields. Making E-6 in my MOS was next to impossible. Had to wait in essence for someone to die or retire. Such a good job field, nobody left.

[ChumpDumper]

yoni, gay men don't automatically want to have sex with you.

Get over yourself.

[LnGrrrR]

Why don't they assume that about heterosexuals?

Well, for one thing, you're talking about the military, which isn't known as a great innovator. They probably will integrate sometime down the line. It is due to that same reason that the military won't separate gays/straights... because they've already been bunking together.

Another reason is that men are usually physically bigger than females, and so in a random confrontation of male vs female, the male will usually win out, which is a reason for separated sexes.


Look, we're talking about normalizing racial integration. If it is normal to assume men and women heterosexuals cannot shower or bunk together because of the problems it will cause, why is it off limits to assume blacks and whites should not shower or bunk together because of the problems it will cause?

This post in the 1950s.

[LnGrrrR]

DADT was the boner patrol. Getting drummed out of the military for demonstrating an attraction to the same sex is pretty good salt peter, I would imagine.

Why shouldn't the straight person have to deal with being uncomfortable, rather than the gay person?

[CuckingFunt]

If the sexes are separated in the showers and bunks due to the fact they are sexually and physically attracted to one another; how are homosexuals different?

What makes you assume that's the reason separation has always been based upon biological sex?

[Spurminator]

:lmao

This issue definitely weeds out the backwards homophobes.

[CuckingFunt]

Look, we're talking about normalizing homosexuality.

No we're not. We're talking about no longer actively stigmatizing it.

[baseline bum]

I just think I ask a legitimate question.

If the sexes are separated in the showers and bunks due to the fact they are sexually and physically attracted to one another; how are homosexuals different?

If homosexuality is a normal orientation and, homosexuals have a libido, find others of the same sex attractive, and find themselves wanting to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex; why should heterosexuals be subjected to that when they are not similarly treated with respect to the opposite sex?

I'll take you seriously when you petition your representative to have kids not take showers after football, basketball, track, PE, etc. in school. It should be a serious concern for you, since jr high school to high school is the age a male has the highest libido.

[Yonivore]

What makes you assume that's the reason separation has always been based upon biological sex?
What other reason is there?

[Crookshanks]

I think in 6 months to a year from now, they're going to see this was not such a good idea - but you can't put the Genie back in the bottle. I think this will have a negative effect on the military.

[Jacob1983]

So does this mean there will be gay couples in the military? Is that allowed or do they split couples up in the military so they won't be distracted?

[Wild Cobra]

I think in 6 months to a year from now, they're going to see this was not such a good idea - but you can't put the Genie back in the bottle. I think this will have a negative effect on the military.
I completely agree. Might be sooner than six months though.

[CuckingFunt]

I would love to know what, specifically, the people predicting doom think is going to happen now that DADT has been lifted.

Specifically.

And I'm not talking about people feeling uncomfortable or pissed off or anything else speculative like that. I'm talking about actual, tangible, measurable effects. How will all this prophetic discomfort manifest itself? Again, specifically.

I'm genuinely curious.

[Yonivore]

I would love to know what, specifically, the people predicting doom think is going to happen now that DADT has been lifted.

Specifically.

And I'm not talking about people feeling uncomfortable or pissed off or anything else speculative like that. I'm talking about actual, tangible, measurable effects. How will all this prophetic discomfort manifest itself? Again, specifically.

I'm genuinely curious.
I haven't seen anyone predict doom.

[CuckingFunt]

i haven't seen anyone predict doom.


i think in 6 months to a year from now, they're going to see this was not such a good idea - but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I think this will have a negative effect on the military.


i completely agree. Might be sooner than six months though.

'k.

[Wild Cobra]

I would love to know what, specifically, the people predicting doom think is going to happen now that DADT has been lifted.

Specifically.

And I'm not talking about people feeling uncomfortable or pissed off or anything else speculative like that. I'm talking about actual, tangible, measurable effects. How will all this prophetic discomfort manifest itself? Again, specifically.

I'm genuinely curious.
Out of the several dozen possibilities, we can be all but certain something pretty bad will manifest.

I will not predict specifics, only that I completely agree with Crookshanks.

Time will tell.

[Yonivore]

'k.
"not such a good idea" <> "doom"

No, not 'k.

Why take every argument to the extreme?

I believe the lifting of DADT will result in other problems with which the military will have to deal, further distracting them from their primary mission of national defense.

DADT was established and, for the most part working. I think they should have left it alone.

[scott]

Out of the several dozen possibilities, we can be all but certain something pretty bad will manifest.

I will not predict specifics, only that I completely agree with Crookshanks.

Time will tell.

What are some of the several dozen possibilities?

[CuckingFunt]

Out of the several dozen possibilities

Such as... ?


I believe the lifting of DADT will result in other problems with which the military will have to deal

Such as... ?

[ElNono]

I would love to know what, specifically, the people predicting doom think is going to happen now that DADT has been lifted.

Specifically.

And I'm not talking about people feeling uncomfortable or pissed off or anything else speculative like that. I'm talking about actual, tangible, measurable effects. How will all this prophetic discomfort manifest itself? Again, specifically.

I'm genuinely curious.

I actually bookmarked the thread. :lol

Should be a good laugh 6 months from now.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Out of the several dozen possibilities, we can be all but certain something pretty bad will manifest.

I will not predict specifics, only that I completely agree with Crookshanks.

Time will tell.

Honestly, Hollywood must be knocking down your door in hopes to cast you in the inevitable "Ace Ventura" remake. You've got the talking out of your ass down to a science!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The reason why Cobra, Yoni and Crookshanks won't name specifics is because they don't have a fucking clue whether this will have positive or negative ramnifications on the military, they just know THEY don't like it.

[LnGrrrR]

Obviously, they know better than the people running the military.

[Spurminator]

The reason why Cobra, Yoni and Crookshanks won't name specifics is because they don't have a fucking clue whether this will have positive or negative ramnifications on the military, they just know THEY don't like it.

I would guess it's also because they have very limited social interaction beyond email forwards, comment sections on blogs and message boards.

[Yonivore]

The reason why Cobra, Yoni and Crookshanks won't name specifics is because they don't have a fucking clue whether this will have positive or negative ramnifications on the military, they just know THEY don't like it.
Actually, in another thread, I "named" my concern.


I think it's only a matter of time before some modest homosexual sues for separate facilities.
And, then, the military will have to address the problem they were hoping to avoid by instituting DADT.

I absolutely believe there are homosexuals that feel the same way about having to shower and bunk with members of the same sex as would heterosexuals having to shower and bunk with members of the opposite sex.

I also believe this will lead to problems that will be addressed in the courts and further distract from the military's mission.

I make no prediction on when and, if it doesn't, good.

[Yonivore]

Obviously, they know better than the people running the military.
If this was such a slam dunk for the military, why did it take them so long -- even after Obama's initial order to make it so -- for them to implement?

I'm not suggesting I know better just that it wasn't an easy decision for anyone.

[Spurminator]

Such a lawsuit would do nothing to "distract" the Military from any missions.

Distract the media and people outside the Military? Sure. But it would just be another passing story in the endless water cooler news cycle. Like most of the things you worry about.

[CuckingFunt]

I absolutely believe there are homosexuals that feel the same way about having to shower and bunk with members of the same sex as would heterosexuals having to shower and bunk with members of the opposite sex.

And this problem won't make itself known until now?

It's not as if homosexuals who have been serving in the military for years are going to magically realize they're gay when they wake up tomorrow. If it's an issue for anyone (and I'd feel pretty comfortable blindly guessing that it's not), it's one they've already been dealing with for however long they've been in the armed forces.

Or did you forget to consider that when you rapidly switched from thinly veiled homophobia to ridiculous concern for the gays?

[Yonivore]

Such a lawsuit would do nothing to "distract" the Military from any missions.

Distract the media and people outside the Military? Sure. But it would just be another passing story in the endless water cooler news cycle. Like most of the things you worry about.
That presumes it isn't successful.

But, if the military starts having to worry about how they bunk and bathe homosexuals without making them do so with either sex, that's going to distract, a lot.

[CuckingFunt]

That presumes it isn't successful.

It wouldn't be.

[Yonivore]

And this problem won't make itself known until now?

It's not as if homosexuals who have been serving in the military for years are going to magically realize they're gay when they wake up tomorrow. If it's an issue for anyone (and I'd feel pretty comfortable blindly guessing that it's not), it's one they've already been dealing with for however long they've been in the armed forces.

Or did you forget to consider that when you rapidly switched from thinly veiled homophobia to ridiculous concern for the gays?
Are you suggesting homosexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are homosexuals and have the same sexual organs they won't be embarrassed to be seen in the shower by another person? Perhaps someone they're attracted to and with whom considering starting a relationship?

We'll see what happens.

[Yonivore]

It wouldn't be.
Why do you say that?

I think a homosexual could make a compelling case for it creating a hostile environment to be forced to disrobe in front of potential sexual partners.

[ElNono]

I think a homosexual could make a compelling case for it creating a hostile environment to be forced to disrobe in front of potential sexual partners.

Why couldn't they make that case before DADT?

[CuckingFunt]

Are you suggesting homosexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are homosexuals and have the same sexual organs they won't be embarrassed to be seen in the shower by another person? Perhaps someone they're attracted to and with whom considering starting a relationship?

We'll see what happens.

I'm suggesting that there has never been a time in the history of the military during which homosexuals haven't been serving. I am further suggesting that every single homosexual person currently serving in the military has already had to make whatever adjustments necessary to bring themselves to shower in the presence of members of the same sex. Even those they may be attracted to. And, yes, even those with whom they may consider starting a relationship.

[Yonivore]

Why couldn't they make that case before DADT?
They could but, it would have resulted in their dismissal.

I believe that's why the military had such a hard time with the decision.

[Yonivore]

I'm suggesting that there has never been a time in the history of the military during which homosexuals haven't been serving. I am further suggesting that every single homosexual person currently serving in the military has already had to make whatever adjustments necessary to bring themselves to shower in the presence of members of the same sex. Even those they may be attracted to. And, yes, even those with whom they may consider starting a relationship.
Should we require women to make the same adjustments? After all, it would sure make things easier, logistically.

[CuckingFunt]

Why do you say that?

Because there is no situation in which the suit presented in your hypothetical would be successful. The military would either point out that the person(s) filing the complaint knew they were agreeing to share same sex accommodations when they signed up to serve, in which case the complainant would lose, or it would be a case of sexual harassment and the individuals responsible would be pursued for creating a hostile environment. There is simply no situation in which it is even remotely reasonable to believe that someone would be successful in forcing the military to provide private showers, barracks, and dressing rooms.


I think a homosexual could make a compelling case for it creating a hostile environment to be forced to disrobe in front of potential sexual partners.

Incidentally, do you consider every woman you encounter to be a potential sexual partner?

[Yonivore]

Because there is no situation in which the suit presented in your hypothetical would be successful. The military would either point out that the person(s) filing the complaint knew they were agreeing to share same sex accommodations when they signed up to serve, in which case the complainant would lose, or it would be a case of sexual harassment and the individuals responsible would be pursued for creating a hostile environment. There is simply no situation in which it is even remotely reasonable to believe that someone would be successful in forcing the military to provide private showers, barracks, and dressing rooms.
Lifting DADT changes the terms of their agreement.


Incidentally, do you consider every woman you encounter to be a potential sexual partner?
No. But, if I were showering with a room full of them, I'm sure there'd be a few who I would consider.

But, again, that misses the point. Even if no one was sexually attracted to anyone else in the room of butt naked people; heterosexuals are afforded the opportunity to be free from exposure to the opposite sex. Why are homosexuals any less deserving of that treatment?

[ElNono]

They could but, it would have resulted in their dismissal.

Why is that? The claim could be made by somebody already outside the military.

DADT didn't change anything as far as that claim is concerned.

[Yonivore]

Why is that? The claim could be made by somebody already outside the military.

DADT didn't change anything as far as that claim is concerned.
Okay. We'll just have to see what happens.

If nothing, I'm fine with that.

[ElNono]

heterosexuals are afforded the opportunity to be free from exposure to the opposite sex. Why are homosexuals any less deserving of that treatment?

I thought this was pretty basic, but sexual preference and gender are two different things.

[CuckingFunt]

Lifting DADT changes the terms of their agreement.

In what way? I'm pretty sure that people who enlist are still doing so with the understanding that they'll be sharing same sex accommodations.


No. But, if I were showering with a room full of them, I'm sure there'd be a few who I would consider.

Maybe homosexuals are better at controlling their urges than you would be?


But, again, that misses the point. Even if no one was sexually attracted to anyone else in the room of butt naked people; heterosexuals are afforded the opportunity to be free from exposure to the opposite sex. Why are homosexuals any less deserving of that treatment?

The hoops you're jumping through in order to avoid being labeled a homophobe are as hilarious as they are ineffective.


If nothing, I'm fine with that.

I find that hard to believe. You seem pretty damned invested in the repeal being disastrous.

[Yonivore]

I find that hard to believe. You seem pretty damned invested in the repeal being disastrous.
I don't believe I ever said it would be disastrous.

[ChumpDumper]

If this was such a slam dunk for the military, why did it take them so long -- even after Obama's initial order to make it so -- for them to implement?

I'm not suggesting I know better just that it wasn't an easy decision for anyone.Why did it take so long to allow racial integration of the armed forces?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What I see likely happening is the gays harassing the straits
I find that particularly retarded because sexual harassment in the work place that involves two men is a straight guy giving a gay guy shit about his sexuality the vast majority of the time. It's almost never a gay guy hitting on a straight guy.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni and WC suffering from "gay panic" :lol

Gays have been showering for decades in the military with straights, but now it's a show-stopping (shower-stopping? :lol ) problem for Yoni.

[LnGrrrR]

What's REALLY funny about this, is that Yonivore seems more concerned /is more engaged with this thread about hetero/homosexuals sharing bunks than the post I put up awhile back when there were rumors that the military would have their retirement reduced/pushed back to the age of 60.

[Wild Cobra]

What's REALLY funny about this, is that Yonivore seems more concerned /is more engaged with this thread about hetero/homosexuals sharing bunks than the post I put up awhile back when there were rumors that the military would have their retirement reduced/pushed back to the age of 60.
I share such a concern also, but it is being forced to bunk with, effectively, another sex.

The next logical step is to bunk men and women together, because that is how many heterosexuals perceive the gays. As a different sex, that they don't want to be naked in front of.

Any changes in retirement would be grandfathered. This retirement genie can be put back into the bottle if it doesn't work. As I said before, what percentage of people joining the military stay 20 years anyway? So many who do continue on to 30+ anyway, because they like it, and why they stayed to 20.

[cantthinkofanything]

Why did it take so long to allow racial integration of the armed forces?

Because that's Nacho Cheese.

[CuckingFunt]

The next logical step is to bunk men and women together, because that is how many heterosexuals perceive the gays. As a different sex, that they don't want to be naked in front of.

That's how many homophobes perceive "the gays."

[LnGrrrR]

If this was such a slam dunk for the military, why did it take them so long -- even after Obama's initial order to make it so -- for them to implement?

I'm not suggesting I know better just that it wasn't an easy decision for anyone.

Maybe you missed this the first two or three times I said this, but the military is resistant to widespread change in many instances.

[LnGrrrR]

The next logical step is to bunk men and women together, because that is how many heterosexuals perceive the gays. As a different sex, that they don't want to be naked in front of.

That's how a lot of ignorant people perceive them, yes. A lot of people perceived black people as another race a good 70 years ago or so. That viewpoint has greatly diminished.


Any changes in retirement would be grandfathered. This retirement genie can be put back into the bottle if it doesn't work. As I said before, what percentage of people joining the military stay 20 years anyway? So many who do continue on to 30+ anyway, because they like it, and why they stayed to 20.

Actually, statistics show a huge dropoff after 20+ years, and a bottleneck from 15-20.

My problem with the retirement solution is that they say it's unfair to those who don't stay for 20 that they don't get a retirement... and yet they want to push back the age we receive benefits by about 20 years. Are you trying to save money with this plan or not? Everyone who joins the military knows it is 20 years or nothing. I think most people are ok with that.

[boutons_deux]

"perceived black people as another race"

many still see them as inferior, even sub-human, which was more common in slavery times.

Yoni even sees non-Americans as sub-human. Hell, he see non-white, non-Christian, non-right-winger Americans as sub-human.

[vy65]

I absolutely believe there are homosexuals that feel the same way about having to shower and bunk with members of the same sex as would heterosexuals having to shower and bunk with members of the opposite sex.

I also believe this will lead to problems that will be addressed in the courts and further distract from the military's mission.

I make no prediction on when and, if it doesn't, good.

That won't happen. Sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Lawsuit wouldn't go through.

[Wild Cobra]

That's how many homophobes perceive "the gays."
Consider this.

Women are seen as sex objects by men more so when naked. Men have this insight of themselves, of how we treat women, both said and unsaid. The sexes are separated more so that women can have their privacy against this thought pattern of men. Men are still men, and if aroused by naked man, it's no different than putting men around naked women.

[Wild Cobra]

That's how a lot of ignorant people perceive them, yes. A lot of people perceived black people as another race a good 70 years ago or so. That viewpoint has greatly diminished.

You simply cannot compare race to sex in the case of DADT.

[Wild Cobra]

Everyone who joins the military knows it is 20 years or nothing. I think most people are ok with that.
Yes, and if the standard changes, it may change recruitment some, but very little as most people don't plan to stay 20 when they join. It may actually relieve that bottleneck.

[LnGrrrR]

You simply cannot compare race to sex in the case of DADT.

I think it's a valid comparison. I think that those who are aged 40 and older overestimate the potential ramifications/problems.

[z0sa]

I find that particularly retarded because sexual harassment in the work place that involves two men is a straight guy giving a gay guy shit about his sexuality the vast majority of the time. It's almost never a gay guy hitting on a straight guy.

another great anecdote

[ChumpDumper]

Consider this.

Women are seen as sex objects by men more so when naked. Men have this insight of themselves, of how we treat women, both said and unsaid. The sexes are separated more so that women can have their privacy against this thought pattern of men. Men are still men, and if aroused by naked man, it's no different than putting men around naked women.They have already showered with you and not gotten erections. You aren't that desirable.

[ElNono]

Consider this.

Women are seen as sex objects by men more so when naked. Men have this insight of themselves, of how we treat women, both said and unsaid. The sexes are separated more so that women can have their privacy against this thought pattern of men. Men are still men, and if aroused by naked man, it's no different than putting men around naked women.

Homophobe and sexist. Did you see your mom as a sex object too when you saw her naked?

You even fail the address the fact that, should we take your argument at face value, whatever you think is going on was happening already when DADT was in place, and removing DADT changes nothing about it.

[ElNono]

another great anecdote

Frankly, I have not heard many cases of heterophobia. On the other hand, you don't have to look further than this thread to see homophobia in action.

[Yonivore]

Frankly, I have not heard many cases of heterophobia. On the other hand, you don't have to look further than this thread to see homophobia in action.
I think people construing simple opposition to the lift of DADT as homophobia is a form of heterophobia.

[ElNono]

I think people construing simple opposition to the lift of DADT as homophobia is a form of heterophobia.

Lifting DADT didn't change the sexual preference of anybody.

DADT was immaterial to either phobia.

[Yonivore]

Lifting DADT didn't change the sexual preference of anybody.

DADT was immaterial to either phobia.
Okay, so why is my opposition to it being lifted labeled as homophobia?

[ElNono]

Okay, so why is my opposition to it being lifted labeled as homophobia?

I never called your opposition to DADT homophobia. Quote?

[Yonivore]

I never called your opposition to DADT homophobia. Quote?
I don't keep track of who says what. Fact is, my opposition to DADT being lifted has been characterized as homophobic.

[ElNono]

I don't keep track of who says what. Fact is, my opposition to DADT being lifted has been characterized as homophobic.

I can see how it would be characterized as such.
That said, you should go talk to whoever was pointing the finger at you.

If you don't care who that is, why should I?

[Blake]

I don't keep track of who says what. Fact is, my opposition to DADT being lifted has been characterized as homophobic.

Seems more like you are showerophobic.

If they started giving everyone a little more privacy in the shower stalls, would you then be ok with putting gays on the front line?

[Yonivore]

Seems more like you are showerophobic.

If they started giving everyone a little more privacy in the shower stalls, would you then be ok with putting gays on the front line?
I'm okay with gays serving now.

[ChumpDumper]

It's characterized as thinking gays are turned on your naked body.

[scott]

I shudder to think how many instances of gay boners occurred in barracks showers across the world today.

[Yonivore]

I shudder to think how many instances of gay boners occurred in barracks showers across the world today.
Probably no more than before.

[ChumpDumper]

Probably no more than before.Way to shit on your own argument.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's a valid comparison. I think that those who are aged 40 and older overestimate the potential ramifications/problems.
I think anyone who thinks sex bias and race bias are equal, are fooling themselves. Race issues were simple bigotry. Integrating the gays in the military do have some who oppose it for reasons of bigotry, but what about those who oppose it for the same reason we don't have men and women bunk in the same rooms and share showers?

[LnGrrrR]

I think anyone who thinks sex bias and race bias are equal, are fooling themselves. Race issues were simple bigotry. Integrating the gays in the military do have some who oppose it for reasons of bigotry, but what about those who oppose it for the same reason we don't have men and women bunk in the same rooms and share showers?

To be frank, I'm not wildly excited about showering with other heterosexual men. Does that mean I should get my own shower?

[ChumpDumper]

I think anyone who thinks sex bias and race bias are equal, are fooling themselves. Race issues were simple bigotry. Integrating the gays in the military do have some who oppose it for reasons of bigotry, but what about those who oppose it for the same reason we don't have men and women bunk in the same rooms and share showers?Those people need to realize they aren't that attractive.

[admiralsnackbar]

I think anyone who thinks sex bias and race bias are equal, are fooling themselves. Race issues were simple bigotry. Integrating the gays in the military do have some who oppose it for reasons of bigotry, but what about those who oppose it for the same reason we don't have men and women bunk in the same rooms and share showers?

It isn't clear gender divisions are any more necessary than gender-preference ones with respect to showering or latrine segregation. I know for a fact that the Germans (and Dutch as well, I believe) make no such concessions (although I don't know if that open-mindedness extends to co-ed co-habitation) without falling apart into orgies.

It's doubtless too much to ask of older Americans who've been raised to think of sex/sexuality in certain terms, but it certainly doesn't seem to be an insurmountable barrier for us as a species to have soldiers that could potentially be attracted to one another sharing space while fighting for a specific goal without degenerating into a simulation of the San Fernando Valley in the 70's.

As a side note: why are people who regularly complain about a nanny state so willing to dismiss the notion that individuals can be/should be responsible for their actions?

[ChumpDumper]

yoni's 51st state Israel has had gays openly serving for over 15 years.

yoni is an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

In our search for published evidence in English and in Hebrew we have not been able to find any data indicating that lifting the gay ban undermined Israeli military performance, cohesion, readiness or morale. In addition, none of the thirty-five experts we interviewed could recount any indication that the lifting of the gay ban compromised military effectiveness. The comments of Professor Stuart Cohen, a Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University who has written extensively on the Israeli military, were typical of our findings: “As far as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, the entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is concerned”. In a recent interview for ABC news, Israeli Brigadier-General Oded Ben commented that Israelis show “a great tolerance” with respect to homosexual soldiers in the military. Scholars, officials, NGO observers, and service members interviewed for this report echoed the theme of tolerance put forward by the Brigadier-General. When asked if she had experienced any problems because of her sexual orientation, for example, a female soldier who served between 1993 and 1996 stated: “I was quite amazed to find out that people either thought that my sexual orientation was ‘cool’ or were indifferent to it”. Amir Fink, the co-author of Independence Park: The Lives of Gay Men in Israel, argues that the IDF policy changes, among larger societal changes, have resulted in a more open attitude in the military: “I believe that … after the 1993 change in regulations there are more soldiers who are aware of the fact that there are gays in the unit and [that] they should treat them decently”.

http://www.palmcenter.org/node/554

[LnGrrrR]

yoni's 51st state Israel has had gays openly serving for over 15 years.

yoni is an idiot.

See? If they just forced the Israel military to stay in the closet, then they wouldn't be having any issues with the rest of the Middle East! [/yoni]

[EVAY]

How come the folks consistently in favor of government saying it is not okay to be an openly gay guy in the military are also the people consistently claiming that government is too intrusive in people's lives?

[ChumpDumper]

How come the folks consistently in favor of government saying it is not okay to be an openly gay guy in the military are also the people consistently claiming that government is too intrusive in people's lives?Government needs to regulate things like shower erections.

[scott]

Anyone got an updated boner count?

[LnGrrrR]

Anyone got an updated boner count?

I'm pretty sure a portal to hell opened up somewhere on base today, with gay men wrapped up in S&M gear threatening to force all us heteros to our knees. Thankfully I didn't go near that area today.

[SnakeBoy]

This was fucked up...

hKtzOjAWGIE


And Santorum is retarded... "any type of sexual activity has no place in the military" :lol

[ElNono]

I'm pretty sure a portal to hell opened up somewhere on base today, with gay men wrapped up in S&M gear threatening to force all us heteros to our knees. Thankfully I didn't go near that area today.

Sure you didn't :rolleyes

:lol

[scott]

This was fucked up...

hKtzOjAWGIE


And Santorum is retarded... "any type of sexual activity has no place in the military" :lol

lol @ not having to hide that you're gay as "a special privledge"

[ElNono]

I think in 6 months to a year from now, they're going to see this was not such a good idea - but you can't put the Genie back in the bottle. I think this will have a negative effect on the military.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I'm amazed the military is still in existence!

[Clipper Nation]

Cr:lol:lolkshanks

[leemajors]

shore leave was happy!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdcwkLI4w1qeaq71o1_400.jpg

[Trainwreck2100]

shoulda been called don't ask don't tell cause it's already obvious

[baseline bum]

I'm amazed the military is still in existence!

Anti-war government nig is going to tear it down and use the C-5s and C-130s for subsidized same-sex honeymoons. Public transit ftw.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao