I completely agree. Might be sooner than six months though.
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.
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.
"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.
What are some of the several dozen possibilities?
Such as... ?
Such as... ?
I actually bookmarked the thread.
Should be a good laugh 6 months from now.
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!
The reason why Cobra, Yoni and Crookshanks won't name specifics is because they don't have a ing clue whether this will have positive or negative ramnifications on the military, they just know THEY don't like it.
Obviously, they know better than the people running the military.
I would guess it's also because they have very limited social interaction beyond email forwards, comment sections on blogs and message boards.
Actually, in another thread, I "named" my concern.
And, then, the military will have to address the problem they were hoping to avoid by ins uting DADT.
I absolutely believe there are sexuals 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.
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.
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.
And this problem won't make itself known until now?
It's not as if sexuals 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 phobia to ridiculous concern for the gays?
That presumes it isn't successful.
But, if the military starts having to worry about how they bunk and bathe sexuals without making them do so with either sex, that's going to distract, a lot.
It wouldn't be.
Are you suggesting sexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are sexuals 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.
Why do you say that?
I think a sexual 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?
I'm suggesting that there has never been a time in the history of the military during which sexuals haven't been serving. I am further suggesting that every single sexual 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.
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.
Should we require women to make the same adjustments? After all, it would sure make things easier, logistically.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
