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.
Incidentally, do you consider every woman you encounter to be a potential sexual partner?
Lifting DADT changes the terms of their agreement.
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 sexuals any less deserving of that treatment?
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.
I thought this was pretty basic, but sexual preference and gender are two different things.
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.
Maybe sexuals are better at controlling their urges than you would be?
The hoops you're jumping through in order to avoid being labeled a phobe are as hilarious as they are ineffective.
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.
Why did it take so long to allow racial integration of the armed forces?
I find that particularly re ed because sexual harassment in the work place that involves two men is a straight guy giving a gay guy about his sexuality the vast majority of the time. It's almost never a gay guy hitting on a straight guy.
Yoni and WC suffering from "gay panic"
Gays have been showering for decades in the military with straights, but now it's a show-stopping (shower-stopping?) problem for Yoni.
What's REALLY funny about this, is that Yonivore seems more concerned /is more engaged with this thread about hetero/ sexuals 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.
Because that's Nacho Cheese.
That's how many phobes perceive "the gays."
Maybe you missed this the first two or three times I said this, but the military is resistant to widespread change in many instances.
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.
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.
"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. , he see non-white, non-Christian, non-right-winger Americans as sub-human.
That won't happen. Sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Lawsuit wouldn't go through.
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.
You simply cannot compare race to sex in the case of DADT.
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.
I think it's a valid comparison. I think that those who are aged 40 and older overestimate the potential ramifications/problems.
another great anecdote
They have already showered with you and not gotten erections. You aren't that desirable.
phobe 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
