I have nothing against gays...

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure they have a rationale behind why it's okay to bunk sexuals with the same sex but not heterosexuals of opposite sexes. I'd just like to hear it.

I have tried for years to get such an answer from liberals, and they never have an explaination of their bias.

[CuckingFunt]

This is seriously some of the dumbest I've ever read.

[balli]

lol

[balli]

I'm sure they have a rationale behind why it's okay to bunk sexuals with the same sex but not heterosexuals of opposite sexes. I'd just like to hear it.

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.

[Yonivore]

This is seriously some of the dumbest I've ever read.

Why's that?

[Yonivore]

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.

At least you're consistent. I'm thinking the military and the vast majority of the public, don't share your thinking.

Which gets us back to the question of why, if it's inappropriate to bunk opposite sex heterosexuals together, why is the appropriate to bunk same sex sexuals together?

[Wild Cobra]

This is seriously some of the dumbest I've ever read.

Can you elaborate? What parts?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.

Now what happens to the female enrollment into the military? I love it, after partying drunk women and men in the same room...

Think about those ramifications by chance?

[balli]

Make love, not war man.

[Yonivore]

Make love, not war man.

That'll get you defeated by the enemy every time.

[balli]

That'll get you defeated by the enemy every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

[CuckingFunt]

Why's that?

Can you elaborate? What parts?

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive; b) that sexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings; c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty; and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.

[spursncowboys]

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

The Sunshine Project. Thats classic!!

[PixelPusher]

This is seriously some of the dumbest I've ever read.

You should stop by the political forum more often.

[Yonivore]

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive;

I never assumed that...I'm sure they are. But, once you become aware, what are your responsibilities for allowing the practice to continue?

b) that sexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings;

Not all but, a percentage of heterosexuals are precisely that and, it's a damn good thing they aren't allowed to bunk and shower with the opposite sex. Why should I expect there won't be a certain percentage of sexuals similarly inclined? Do we really have the resources to determine who will and who won't abuse the arrangement? And, if we do, why not employ similar bunking arrangements for those heterosexuals that are able to control their libido?

c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty;

But, the military doesn't facilitate that by allowing heterosexuals to bunk and shower together. To lift DADT and not address the issue of sexuals bunking and showering together is disparate treatment.

and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.

I'm not referring to sexual violence but to consensual relationships. The military attempts to prevent them by segregating the heterosexuals, by sex, and discouraging fraternizing. I'm sure they would similarly discourage fraternization among sexuals but, how do they segregate and, if they don't, how do they continue the practice among heterosexuals and it not be discriminatory?

[Wild Cobra]

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive; b) that sexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings; c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty; and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.

It forces people into conditions they may not be comfortable with. I'm sure there are women that would have no problems sharing shower and sleeping facilities with men. Not all though. The same applies to strait men. Not all would be comfortable in having to share such facilities with openly gay men. It should not be required by either, but requiring that gays be accepted openly is the same as requiring women to bunk in the same rooms and showering in the same community showers as men.

Do you think the public is ready for that?

[Stringer_Bell]

It forces people into conditions they may not be comfortable with.

That was always my understanding of why DADT was in place, to protect morale. The most important thing on the battlefield is believing the person next to you being ready to successfully execute the mission according to military values...and I don't think being sexual limits a soldier's capacity to do such a thing. It's not right that people should be outraged at gays, or afraid of serving with them, but the uneasiness DOES exists and it's not fair to assume majority of armed forces personnel are passed their prejudices enough to be cool with it.

But really, when there are qualified individuals with language abilities and good intellect willing to fight...I feel it's wrong to kick them out for being gay. Someone needs to find a Third-way.

[CuckingFunt]

You should stop by the political forum more often.

I'm not quite that much of a masochist.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Tell me something Yoni, since all you republicans love to about respecting your armed men and all... wouldn't you assuming they were all sexed crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control (like you're doing in this ing thread) be an insult in their eyes?

Why do you insult them so? Why the hate?

[CuckingFunt]

Not all but, a percentage of heterosexuals are precisely that

What percentage? And where did you find it?

[Yonivore]

Tell me something Yoni, since all you republicans love to about respecting your armed men and all... wouldn't you assuming they were all sexed crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control (like you're doing in this ing thread) be an insult in their eyes?

Why do you insult them so? Why the hate?

Who said anything about them being sex-crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control.

The simple question is if the military lift DADT and allows gays to openly serve, don't they owe them the same discretion afforded opposite sex heterosexuals who aren't allowed to bunk and shower together?

What percentage? And where did you find it?

So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex sexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

[jack sommerset]

Obvoiusly it's a argument based on reality. Not some fantasy reality gays want to define it as. Some define it as prejedices. ing duh. Let the s each other. I don't give a . Let them have every right a married couple has. I don't give a . But don't sit there and think it's normal. It's not. To have a teacher soley preach about gays ing gays is ignorant.It's a waste of time and tax payers money. How bout this. Sex education classes cover birth protection, safe non disease sex, sex crimes but to have a movement the s want soley concentrated of dudes ing dudes, girls ing girls is ing pathetic. It's not what we want in our schools. Don't make kids take a class so the s can feel better about themselves. Guess what s, we don't give a but don't spew your life style on EVERYONE!

[CuckingFunt]

So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex sexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

I'm not trying to shift anything. I'm suggesting it's a non-issue.

More specifically, I'm suggesting that the only reason it would even be considered an issue by you is due to your own prejudices and assumptions about gay people, as evident in the completely unsubstantiated claim that "a certain percentage" of sexuals are slaves to their libido and same-sex lust.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex sexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

Bull ! You'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact that DODT doesn't remove the sexual in sexuals. You still have men who are attracted to other men bunking together. How exactly does DODT take care of that "problem" as you like to call it?