I take it back. THIS is some of the stupidest I've ever read.
Then why do they not allow opposite sex heterosexuals to bunk and shower together?
A certain percentage of all people, sexual or heterosexual are "slaves to their libido."
Why can't you tell me how it is okay for same-sex sexuals to be bunked and to shower together but, not opposite-sex heterosexuals?
You are the very deffinition of ignorance, you know that? A stupid ing one at that.
i'll bet your ex-wife has an explanation regarding you.
sorry.......you said explaination.
It removes the burden from the military from being responsible for sexual behavior among same sex members of the military. DADT puts the responsibility on the individual to make their sexual orientation a non-issue.
Every one in here has assumed I'm opposed to gays in the military or that I'm opposed to gays bunking with straight of the same sex. I think the real problem will be gays bunking with gays -- in an environment where they are allowed to reveal their sexual orientation.
As has been pointed out, all gays aren't sex-craved maniacs but, by lifting DADT, you've now made the military responsible -- just as they are for heterosexuals -- for making sure those that do have an active libido don't prey on someone else simply because they're gay.
Just as there are opposite-sex heterosexuals that would not want to be forced to bunk with the other sex because of multiple reasons, not just the sexual aspect; I'm sure there are sexuals that are uncomfortable with being exposed in the same manner.
Are you going to suggest that a sexual, in a shower with a bunch of the same sex individuals would not behave in the same manner as a heterosexual in a shower with a bunch of opposite sex individuals?
Why should sexuals be exposed to that vulnerability any more readily than heterosexuals?
It's reality and for good reasons.
In this country, that separation has always been made according to sex/gender, and not sexual activity. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I've made no arguments in this thread as to whether or not that arbitrary method of separation makes sense, so I don't feel the need to defend that position. All I've said is that your argument doesn't follow from the evidence/reasons you have presented, and that your concern appears wholly baseless.
6 billion people on the planet. The whole planet. Seriously does anyone think just 1 percent of them (man, woman) want to be ass ed let alone on a daily basis. Uh NOOOOOOOOOOOO. You talk about a minority. I swear i'm not a mad guy. It's funny. Give those who do like it rights but don't make it a "must" class everyone should take
But, why do you think that is? Why are the sexes segregated?
But, I think the reasons of gender segregation go to the heart of my argument.
There are fundamental human behaviors shared by heterosexuals that make bunking opposite-sex heterosexuals together impractical and disruptive to the mission of the military.
For the same reasons, bunking same-sex sexuals together is just as impractical and disruptive to the mission of the military unless you establish a mechanism that attempts to restrain that fundamental human behavior.
DADT is that mechanism.
Is it perfect? No. sexual relationship occur. But, so do heterosexual relationships. However, by having DADT, sexuals can be held accountable for instigating those relationships without have the sticky mess of how do you keep them apart and not be liable. With opposite-sex heterosexuals, gender segregation is an easy, if imperfect mechanism that makes DADT that you're heterosexual unnecessary.
You're still an idiot.
They are showering and bunking together already.
Somehow you think male heterosexuals are going to be raped if DADT is rescinded.
Your sexual fantasies are not reality. Quit pretending they are.
Where did I ever say that? But, I do think there will be a whole lot more problems with the sexual community, in the military, if DADT is lifted.
Your incessant attempts to inflame the dialog and goad me into responding to your irrelevant nattering do nothing to advance the conversation.
If sexuals want to normalize their sexual orientation and have DADT lifted, I think an appropriate question is how do you relieve the military from the responsibility to provide a non-hostile work environment to sexuals that would now be openly bunking and showering with others who may, or may not, be sexually attracted to them and viewing them in a way that could lead to harassment or a hostile environment?
My point has been that, because of DADT, that responsibility lies with the individual. And, that only makes sense because, unlike opposite-sex heterosexuals, segregating them isn't practical -- if even feasible.
DADT gave sexuals an avenue through which they could resolve such an environment. Without it, the military is going to have a cluster that can't easily be resolved by just saying, "okay, men in that building and women in that one."
Let me turn the question around. What do sexuals gain by having DADT lifted?
It's a distraction the military doesn't need right now. In other words, it doesn't pertain to Military or Economic Security and, thus, falls into that third category of "everything else" mentioned in the thread on Presidential priorities.
Last edited by Yonivore; 10-13-2009 at 06:14 AM.
Yeah like making this obama's economy and killing him with it..yet not realizingit will eventually turn around and he will all of the credit
. brilliant idea! way to think ahead..
When someone starts of a sentence with "I have nothing against gays..." shows prejudice from the outset, usually indicates their mindset right off the bat.
It is the same when you say "I am having nothing against blacks (or any other group)...."
i think when hegel posited the notion of a constant human discourse ,that would slowly take humanity and history towards an enlightened apogee, he hardly could have imagined such threads initiating debates over the concerns of showering or bunking with sexuals. if our forums are a reflection of the health of our minds then we can safely assume that the american intellect is in critical condition.
Why not? It's one of your main themes in this forum. I don't think you ever will be done teaching SpursTalk about gays and gay sex.
In this thread at least your contribution was topical; usually your anti-gay screeds come out of nowhere.
"american intellect"
oxymoron
With a majority of Americans thinking evolution is not a plausible theory, one knows the forces ignorance and irrationality have gained perhaps the upper hand.
Watching TV rots your brain and wastes your life, which is what the corps and politicians want, so your brain if available to their manipulations intended to empty your pockets.
add to that list talk radio. one of the other culprits largely responsible for the construction of what ortega y gasset referred to as the "mass man". as a result, threads such as this worthless subject become the focus of our public "dialogue".
I think Yoni and CF are talking on two levels.
Yoni is saying, as a simple "Is this fair" matter, on the separation between gender and orientation, whereas CF is talking about the world as it really is.
I would say yes Yoni, it is slightly unfair/strange that man/girl is divided up but hetero/ isn't. However, as CF pointed out, that distinction occurs in other areas, the most prevalent probably being boy/girl bathroom division.
The major point is, repealing DADT will allow us to keep qualified individuals. Those individuals are already bunking with the same gender, and there are rules to deal with if they cross a line. As well, polls have shown a majority of Americans, AND a majority of military members, would accept repealing DADT. Seems rather open and shut to me.
The freedom to be who they are, openly and honestly, to express themselves. I wouldn't take this freedom lightly. After all, these people are fighting to maintain our freedoms, and anyone who's been in the military knows we voluntarily curtail some of our freedoms already; I don't think sexual orientation should be one of them.
In defense of worthless threads like this, you are at least given the option to try to raise the level of discourse and try to deconstruct prejudices and fallacies you have or perceive in others rather than passively internalizing the opinions of media puppets. Sure, there will always be people parroting "mass-man-isms" from their particular sides of the ideological fence, but those interested in an actual dialogue rather than coasting towards a "win" on the coat-tails of some pundit's rhetoric are at least pro-actively engaging their critical thinking and will to self-realization... even if the original topic was Bat Boy.
Besides, given the nature of a bulletin board, it's probably easier to discuss trivial minutiae than deep theory, if only because most of these trifling topics come pret-a-porter with their issues and arguments built-in and require only reasoning to sift through their bull or truth, as opposed to the citations/do entation a more serious conversation would demand.
indeed. where would the forum "debate" be without google search engine and indoctrinated thought via the AM dial.
well you can't really fight a religious war with a bunch of publicly known s. somethings gotta give, and it aint gonna be the military
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
