...do you suppose an open gay policy will increase, decrease or make no difference in volunteering to serve?

...do you suppose an open gay policy will increase, decrease or make no difference in volunteering to serve?


I say no difference. The youth of today are not homophobic for the most part.

No difference. Gays will not serve any more than they already do, and heteros will not refuse to serve alongside their homo brethren.

No difference.

...do you suppose an open gay policy will increase, decrease or make no difference in volunteering to serve?

Just my opinion, but....

Homosexuals make up about 2-3% of the population, and I'm guessing that they serve at a lower rate than the average population. Therefore, a pretty insignificant amount of people serve (before or after DADT).

Bigots make up, IMHO, more than 2-3% of the population. Therefore, the change in who will serve will be a change in the number of bigots vs the change in the number of homosexuals (if you're not homosexual and you're not a bigot, why would it effect you at all?).

Simple math if my guess is right that bigots make up more than 2-3% says that the number of people serving will drop.

Could be wrong here but i don't think being openly gay means they get to swagger when marching in formation, and a little common sense will tell them not to hold hands or make out with their SO's on a military base in public i think no difference. Gays have been in the military for years and don't hit on their bunkmates.

Could be wrong here but.... a little common sense will tell them not to hold hands or make out with their SO's on a military base in public.

We're taking about 18 year old males, what does common sense have to do with their behavior?

J(if you're not homosexual and you're not a bigot, why would it effect you at all?).




This bothers me, the assumption that becuase a person might not want to share a room with a homosexual they must be a bigot or a homophobe?

Is a woman who doesn't want to bunk with men a heterophobe? No, she isnt. Just a woman who wants the same personal privacy traditionally given.

Again, we come back to the simple fact that forcing folks to billet with those who might view them as sexual partners is not right. And that's the side that always seems to get lost in the mix. So, becuase %70 of the force thinks its ookay, does that mean we trample the %30 who dont? Unless of course folks can "opt out" of "mixed orientation" billeting? If thats the case, fine. But if you allow women to refuse billing with men, and dont allow heteros the same option, you are being unfair.

Why does everyone ignore this part of the issue?

Simple math if my guess is right that bigots make up more than 2-3% says that the number of people serving will drop.

I'd say that the economy has an exponentially greater impact. Same with world events affecting patriotism.

If the Bush tax cuts get extended and the job market improves, make sure you take that into account if recruiting drops.

I remember the Village People, so the stereotype of the Navy and gays was still strong when I joined, but I was able to separate hysteria from fact. I see no reason that most people will not do the same.

Remember, they aren't making the military "gay friendly," they're making it a bit less hostile to them.

This bothers me, the assumption that becuase a person might not want to share a room with a homosexual they must be a bigot or a homophobe?

Is a woman who doesn't want to bunk with men a heterophobe? No, she isnt. Just a woman who wants the same personal privacy traditionally given.

Again, we come back to the simple fact that forcing folks to billet with those who might view them as sexual partners is not right. And that's the side that always seems to get lost in the mix. So, becuase %70 of the force thinks its ookay, does that mean we trample the %30 who dont? Unless of course folks can "opt out" of "mixed orientation" billeting? If thats the case, fine. But if you allow women to refuse billing with men, and dont allow heteros the same option, you are being unfair.

Why does everyone ignore this part of the issue?

Because that factor has been true for as long as we've had a military. It's not like they're suddenly going to have gay orgies in the middle of the barracks.

We know who the gays where on my ship, and this would not have changed anything.

Because that factor has been true for as long as we've had a military. It's not like they're suddenly going to have gay orgies in the middle of the barracks.

We know who the gays where on my ship, and this would not have changed anything.

I never said they were, nor am I positing surprise buttsecks, just that if a condition is applied, it should be applied equally.

I see no difference in new recruits. Particularly enlisted. There may be an impact on the officer corp. I can see there being some real issues in the academies. And it could impact some of the old timers. They could be likely to get out rather than retire.

It will have effects....many people still have issues with this. less of the population is gay and it may make them feel like they can serve now, because they are less of the population they will not make up for the numbers that may wish not to serve next to them.

When I was military I found women to be more tolerant then the men on gay personnel. I fear openly gay military members may face more physical abuse in the enlisted ranks, but the officers will most likely be more discret and choose more of a shuning approach. Neither are good for the military or the members that need to work as a team.

The rule has been in place for many long years and has worked is it right or wrong, I don't know. Finding out it was right the hard way could be very painful.

No difference.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Don't care if they are gay or straight, just shoot straight.

No change in the enlistment numbers because of it.

Might be more fights though. At least for a few years till it all gets worked out.

Just like any integration, there will be some rough patches. 10 years from now it'll be smooth sailing.

Ultimately this is the right thing to do...I really don't care whether 30% of troops or 100% of troops disagree with it. As far as the concerns about rooming with a homosexual...people will need to get over it...it'll just take some time. My hope is that we are moving towards a society in which sharing a bunk with someone of the opposite sex isn't considered immoral. Imagine...a world where we expect adults to act like adults.

btw, I'm saying all of this as a Marine who served for 4 years...combat arms too!

Just like any integration, there will be some rough patches. 10 years from now it'll be smooth sailing.

Ultimately this is the right thing to do...I really don't care whether 30% of troops or 100% of troops disagree with it. As far as the concerns about rooming with a homosexual...people will need to get over it...it'll just take some time. My hope is that we are moving towards a society in which sharing a bunk with someone of the opposite sex isn't considered immoral. Imagine...a world where we expect adults to act like adults.

btw, I'm saying all of this as a Marine who served for 4 years...combat arms too!

Thats not the point. Should a woman be forced to bunk with a man? And shower next to him, no curtains? No tangents, please, its two simple questions.

Thats not the point. Should a woman be forced to bunk with a man? And shower next to him, no curtains? No tangents, please, its two simple questions.

Guys and gals are built differently. That's why they have separate facilities.

So, if I just install urinals in all the bathrooms, them women and men can share a two person room? I can, in fact assign any woman into a mans room, and thats okay, even if she says no?

But beds are non-denominational, as are showers, the persons plumbing has no bearing on that. Again, answer the simple question. This always happens folks wiggle and try to slide sideways, but nobody answers the question.

Can a woman be assigned to bunk in the same room as a man? And required to shower next to him?

So, if I just install urinals in all the bathrooms, them women and men can share a two person room? I can, in fact assign any woman into a mans room, and thats okay, even if she says no?

But beds are non-denominational, as are showers, the persons plumbing has no bearing on that. Again, answer the simple question. This always happens folks wiggle and try to slide sideways, but nobody answers the question.

Can a woman be assigned to bunk in the same room as a man? And required to shower next to him?

I wonder how they handle this on ships and subs now?

So, if I just install urinals in all the bathrooms, them women and men can share a two person room? I can, in fact assign any woman into a mans room, and thats okay, even if she says no?

But beds are non-denominational, as are showers, the persons plumbing has no bearing on that. Again, answer the simple question. This always happens folks wiggle and try to slide sideways, but nobody answers the question.

Can a woman be assigned to bunk in the same room as a man? And required to shower next to him?


No and no.



They are different physical genders. Once again, guys and gals are built differently, hence the seperate facilities. That seperation has nothing to do with one being a homo or a hetero. It has to do with physical anatomy of the two genders.




.

no diff.

I wonder how they handle this on ships and subs now?

separate berthing areas. the two dont mingle.

This bothers me, the assumption that becuase a person might not want to share a room with a homosexual they must be a bigot or a homophobe?

Is a woman who doesn't want to bunk with men a heterophobe? No, she isnt. Just a woman who wants the same personal privacy traditionally given.

Again, we come back to the simple fact that forcing folks to billet with those who might view them as sexual partners is not right. And that's the side that always seems to get lost in the mix. So, becuase %70 of the force thinks its ookay, does that mean we trample the %30 who dont? Unless of course folks can "opt out" of "mixed orientation" billeting? If thats the case, fine. But if you allow women to refuse billing with men, and dont allow heteros the same option, you are being unfair.

Why does everyone ignore this part of the issue?Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the part I was addressing. For most, the decision to join or not to join (usually done as a teen or very early in your 20s) is done without a lot of consideration as to the pragmatic effects like who you'll berth with. The few that really consider it, and change their mind on whether to join based on that, I would lump into the bigot area.

What you're saying I've repeatedly agreed with, though. The only "fair" way to deal with it, pragmatically, is to eliminate berthing and other hotel functions (shower, etc.) based on gender. We'd have to have one big happy family. After all, the reason for separating the genders is based on, as you suggest, an uncomfort at the lack of privacy based on normal sexual orientation. Once the lack of taking sexual orientation into account has to be done for berthing, it has to be done for all.

Anything else would just be wrong. This is where polls of YN2s who've never seen a ship in person makes no difference, especially when the poll is given out with the directive "we're gonna do this no matter what you think".

I'd say that the economy has an exponentially greater impact. Same with world events affecting patriotism.

If the Bush tax cuts get extended and the job market improves, make sure you take that into account if recruiting drops.

I remember the Village People, so the stereotype of the Navy and gays was still strong when I joined, but I was able to separate hysteria from fact. I see no reason that most people will not do the same.

Remember, they aren't making the military "gay friendly," they're making it a bit less hostile to them.

How is it hostile now?

However, for overall enlistment, I agree with you. I was holding all other factors unchanged for my hypothetical-situation answer.

Guys and gals are built differently. That's why they have separate facilities.

Tall, beefy men are built differently than short, skinny men.

Curvy women are built differently than Paris Hiltons.

That they're built differently is not why there are separate facilities. It is that over 95% have a sexual orientation that makes berthing them together stupid from a mission/morale standpoint.

When you have another sexual orientation thrown into the mix OPENLY, you mess with the equation.

separate berthing areas. the two dont mingle.

Then that is how they should have to treat gays. Just think, 4 separate areas.

No and no.



They are different physical genders. Once again, guys and gals are built differently, hence the seperate facilities. That seperation has nothing to do with one being a homo or a hetero. It has to do with physical anatomy of the two genders.




.I have sons and daughters and they use the same bathrooms, and sleep in identically bought beds. Their anatomy has never caused me to install separate bathrooms, or buy separately designed beds.

Please explain your position.

Then that is how they should have to treat gays. Just think, 4 separate areas.

You'd put homosexual men openly together with other homosexual men?

how would that be different from putting heterosexual men and women in together?

Tall, beefy men are built differently than short, skinny men.

Curvy women are built differently than Paris Hiltons.

That they're built differently is not why there are separate facilities. It is that over 95% have a sexual orientation that makes berthing them together stupid from a mission/morale standpoint.

When you have another sexual orientation thrown into the mix OPENLY, you mess with the equation.

I don't understand why people CONTINUE to cling to this ridiculous argument. listen carefully:


THERE ARE GAYS IN THE MILITARY RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND. IF THEY AREN'T ####ING EACH OTHER IN THE HALLS, OR PLAYING HIDE THE PICKLE WITH INNOCENT BYSTANDERS..THEY AREN'T GOING TO START NOW.

It is crazy to fear that because dadt isn't there for "protection" anymore that there are going to be mass raping and pillaging by gay men..or that all of the sudden beauty school drop outs will start yelling "haaayyyyy Im gonna pack up my butt plugs and join the military"

And as if seperate berthing really keeps soldiers from screwing each other :bigwhoop:

I don't understand why people CONTINUE to cling to this ridiculous argument. listen carefully:


THERE ARE GAYS IN THE MILITARY RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND. IF THEY AREN'T ####ING EACH OTHER IN THE HALLS, OR PLAYING HIDE THE PICKLE WITH INNOCENT BYSTANDERS..THEY AREN'T GOING TO START NOW.

It is crazy to fear that because dadt isn't there for "protection" anymore that there are going to be mass raping and pillaging by gay men..or that all of the sudden beauty school drop outs will start yelling "haaayyyyy Im gonna pack up my butt plugs and join the military"

And as if seperate berthing really keeps soldiers from screwing each other :bigwhoop:Why did you quote me to announce this obvious fact? When did I say or imply that removing DADT will have military members "####ing each other in the halls, or playing hide the pickle with innocent bystanders"?

You seem to be correcting me on an argument I don't believe and never made.

However, from a policy standpoint, if you pretend they're not there (which is what DADT does), there's no reason to make any accomodations for them being there. If you remove that phony blinder, you have to make policy based on fact, and that policy needs to be evenly enforced - all genders, all sexual orientations.

This bothers me, the assumption that becuase a person might not want to share a room with a homosexual they must be a bigot or a homophobe?

Is a woman who doesn't want to bunk with men a heterophobe? No, she isnt. Just a woman who wants the same personal privacy traditionally given.

Again, we come back to the simple fact that forcing folks to billet with those who might view them as sexual partners is not right. And that's the side that always seems to get lost in the mix. So, becuase %70 of the force thinks its ookay, does that mean we trample the %30 who dont? Unless of course folks can "opt out" of "mixed orientation" billeting? If thats the case, fine. But if you allow women to refuse billing with men, and dont allow heteros the same option, you are being unfair.

Why does everyone ignore this part of the issue?

I think you make an excellent point. I am far from homophobic. I have no problem with a homosexual's life style, but I also am not in a position where I shower or have to sleep in the same room as any homosexuals. When I went to basic training, there was zero privacy.

I don't understand why people CONTINUE to cling to this ridiculous argument. listen carefully:


THERE ARE GAYS IN THE MILITARY RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND. IF THEY AREN'T ####ING EACH OTHER IN THE HALLS, OR PLAYING HIDE THE PICKLE WITH INNOCENT BYSTANDERS..THEY AREN'T GOING TO START NOW.

It is crazy to fear that because dadt isn't there for "protection" anymore that there are going to be mass raping and pillaging by gay men..or that all of the sudden beauty school drop outs will start yelling "haaayyyyy Im gonna pack up my butt plugs and join the military"

And as if seperate berthing really keeps soldiers from screwing each other :bigwhoop:

It's not that it keeps them from screwing each other, but I am looking at it like this. If I don't know you are gay and I have to take a shower in front of you well....what ever. If I know you are gay, and I am forced to take a shower or live in the same room with you...there is something unfair about that.

I don't think a gay man would "hit" on me, but if he found me attractive it is reasonable to assume that he might fantasize about me.

I might not come on to an attractive woman if I were showering with her, knowing it was not welcome, but I certainly would fantasize about her. Would you be comfortable taking that shower?

Male hetero (maybe mix these with female homo?)
Male homo (same with hetero females, govt issued "gay husband":))
Bisexuals get single rooms

Liberty, has anyone suggested that homosexuals will be rampaging about? Not one person has raised that as an issue, and no thinking person will raise that, its really not an objection anyone has. In fact, I have said that that's not an issue right in this thread. Stick to the point. Is it okay to require a woman to bunk with a man? If so, its not okay to require a man or woman to bunk with a homosexual roommate.

Why should heteros have fewer rights than women have?

"haaayyyyy Im gonna pack up my butt plugs and join the military"

OMG. :lmao:

Then that is how they should have to treat gays. Just think, 4 separate areas.

think about that.
Men and women are kept apart because they are sexually attracted to each other.
Dont want the gays in with men or women depending on their sex because they might be sexually attracted to someone and it could cause problems.

Put gays in their own and wouldnt be the same as putting hetero males and hetero females together?

think about that.
Men and women are kept apart because they are sexually attracted to each other.
Dont want the gays in with men or women depending on their sex because they might be sexually attracted to someone and it could cause problems.

Put gays in their own and wouldnt be the same as putting hetero males and hetero females together?
BS. They're kept apart because they are physically different. Take sexuality out of it. My 6 year old won't run around the house naked with his step sisters around but has no problem baring all in front of his brother and step brothers. Its because the boys have the same parts.

BS. They're kept apart because they are physically different. Take sexuality out of it. My 6 year old won't run around the house naked with his step sisters around but has no problem baring all in front of his brother and step brothers. Its because the boys have the same parts.

BS back to you.
By the time they are old enough to go in the military, Im pretty sure they understand that they are physically different, so there should be no problem putting them together.
Some might just have to grow up and accept that its a perfectly natural thing.

BS back to you.
By the time they are old enough to go in the military, Im pretty sure they understand that they are physically different, so there should be no problem putting them together.
Some might just have to grow up and accept that its a perfectly natural thing.

My 6 year old understands that they're different, hence the being modest. The same can be said about growing up and realizing they're not there for sex so sexual preference shouldn't matter. I would be no more comfortable with a gay man in the shower than a straight man because a man is a man and different than I am.

My 6 year old understands that they're different, hence the being modest. The same can be said about growing up and realizing they're not there for sex so sexual preference shouldn't matter. I would be no more comfortable with a gay man in the shower than a straight man because a man is a man and different than I am.

in the end it does not matter what you think or how you feel.
besides, that gay man will want nothing to do with you.

in the end it does not matter what you think or how you feel.
besides, that gay man will want nothing to do with you.

And your feelings are no more relevant than mine. Why are there separate rest rooms in elementary schools? Because males and females are different even when sexuality is not considered.

Sums up this argument!

This thread demonstrates why this is not such a cut-and-dry issue. I only hope the military handles this wisely or there WILL be problems.

This thread demonstrates why this is not such a cut-and-dry issue. I only hope the military handles this wisely or there WILL be problems.

All anyone need do is listen to what Gates actually said. He could not have been any clearer;

Given what they deem to be proper time to plan and prepare and implement, given proper time, disruptions will be MINIMIZED. Not eliminated.

He really impressed me as one heck of a public servant.

All anyone need do is listen to what Gates actually said. He could not have been any clearer;

Given what they deem to be proper time to plan and prepare and implement, given proper time, disruptions will be MINIMIZED. Not eliminated.

He really impressed me as one heck of a public servant.

I've spent too much time in and around the military to know how they can screw things up policy-wise. This will really be one of the first big policy changes since they integrated blacks back in 1948. That Executive Order wasn’t implemented very well. It took decades to develop policies that addressed all of the racial issues that still exist today.

I’m not saying it wont work, I’m just hoping they do it wisely. Everyone deserves the opportunity to serve, and do it without hiding and with dignity. But everyone in our military deserves to live in environments that are without intimidation or harassment. And gays are just as capable of harassment as anyone else. When you allow gays to be open, some will be very open. Most will serve with honor and dignity; I’m certain of that. But there will always be those few on both sides that will cause problems.

The military will need to develop more than just strict policies on keeping people in line; they will also need to make sure facilities accommodate everyone’s needs and to maintain good order and discipline. This is not an easy task for gays. You really have to think about how gays will be placed in places like basic training, barracks, and other common facilities. These things could cost an exorbitant amount of money. Anyone that is pretending that throwing gay men in the same showers and hetero men wont cause problems are fooling themselves. You have one incident of a gay guy coming on to a straight guy in a shower that results in a death and the whole game is off. The news will read what a dumb idea the whole thing was.

Tall, beefy men are built differently than short, skinny men.

Curvy women are built differently than Paris Hiltons.

That they're built differently is not why there are separate facilities. It is that over 95% have a sexual orientation that makes berthing them together stupid from a mission/morale standpoint.

When you have another sexual orientation thrown into the mix OPENLY, you mess with the equation.

Yes it is.

You're missing the point. Seperate facilities are provided for seperate genders, not to seperate beefy from skinny, etc. The orientation thing is a question of conduct which is an issue now with heteros. Sexual harassment, assult, rape, etc. are violations of the UCMJ regardless of a person's orientation.

I have sons and daughters and they use the same bathrooms, and sleep in identically bought beds. Their anatomy has never caused me to install separate bathrooms, or buy separately designed beds.

Please explain your position.

I can't explain it any more simply than I alrady have. If you don't get it, I can't help that.

Most would hope that you don't allow your sons and daughters to shower together or go to the bathroom at the same time or sleep in the same beds. My kids use the same bathroom, just not at the same time. Your analogy is a stretch. Comparing siblings growing up together to adults serving in the military? Totally off base.

I've spent too much time in and around the military to know how they can screw things up policy-wise. This will really be one of the first big policy changes since they integrated blacks back in 1948. That Executive Order wasn’t implemented very well. It took decades to develop policies that addressed all of the racial issues that still exist today.



When's the last time you went to sea? They have integrated women onto combatant ships. Went pretty smoothly. In fact, the only real problems existed before they integrated women, and since they've still done nothing about that problem it still exists.

Same with gays. The problems they will have are no different than the problems they already have. There just won't be as much time and effort wasted prosecuting people for their behavior away from work.

Tell me, did you serve with any gays? Or did you just pretend you didn't?

So, now the official party line is that we separate men and women solely based on the shape of their bodies, and that separation has nothing to do with sex?

My god, you can all swallow a helluva whopper in support of this thing cant you? If that's what you maintain, all sense has left the room, and there's no point in continuing the discussion. You have officially jumped the shark once you say that. :killingme

We separate the sexes becuase of sex, its that simple. Making people share space with folks who might view them as sexual partners is not socially acceptable. Not becuase one gender sits and one stand to pee.

So, now the official party line is that we separate men and women solely based on the shape of their bodies, and that separation has nothing to do with sex?

My god, you can all swallow a helluva whopper in support of this thing cant you? If that's what you maintain, all sense has left the room, and there's no point in continuing the discussion. You have officially jumped the shark once you say that. :killingme

We separate the sexes becuase of sex, its that simple. Making people share space with folks who might view them as sexual partners is not socially acceptable. Not becuase one gender sits and one stand to pee.

Well there went my plans.
I was sorta hoping to go back in, I figure that since I quit lifting weights 20 years ago, and the pecks have turned to moobs, I could have got some living space with the women.

You sir, have busted my bubble.

My point was that if there are already gays, being able to serve openly will not change a thing. If you already shower next to a gay guy who fantasizes about you they will still do it. If you sleep int he same room with a gay guy, he will still bne sleeping there. Chances are you already know who is gay anyway, and DADT being gone is not going to change your average military guy into some flamer and just suprise the heck out of you. gays serving openly will not start gay harrassment..it will not dissolve the world into nothingness, my guess is it will continue to operate much in the same way. Most gays really don't want to announce their gayness for a bunch of fit men to hassle them about.

If you already shower with a gay man..how in the world will it be different now? The only thing that will change is that if you see him entering the gay club, you can't rat him out and have him fired. That's the only difference.

So, now the official party line is that we separate men and women solely based on the shape of their bodies, and that separation has nothing to do with sex?

My god, you can all swallow a helluva whopper in support of this thing cant you? If that's what you maintain, all sense has left the room, and there's no point in continuing the discussion. You have officially jumped the shark once you say that. :killingme

We separate the sexes becuase of sex, its that simple. Making people share space with folks who might view them as sexual partners is not socially acceptable. Not becuase one gender sits and one stand to pee.

And you can be in denial about the fact that we seperate based on gender and not sex all the time. Childen in schools have different gender bathrooms and locker rooms not because we're worried about 5 year olds sexing it up all over the place but because they're differnt. Malls have seperate restrooms based on gender. Gyms have seperate locker rooms and showers based on gender. When you're at the mall and have to take a leak are you going to run out of the rest room screaming because an obvious flamer walks in? No, you're going to act like a grownup and take a leak. Are you going to start using the womens restroom because you're scared a gay man may be in the mens?

And you can be in denial about the fact that we seperate based on gender and not sex all the time. Childen in schools have different gender bathrooms and locker rooms not because we're worried about 5 year olds sexing it up all over the place but because they're differnt. Malls have seperate restrooms based on gender. Gyms have seperate locker rooms and showers based on gender. When you're at the mall and have to take a leak are you going to run out of the rest room screaming because an obvious flamer walks in? No, you're going to act like a grownup and take a leak. Are you going to start using the womens restroom because you're scared a gay man may be in the mens?

:yeahthat:

Bathrooms and gyms are separated because of gender, not sexuality. Hence the lack of urinals in the ladies room and the lack of tampon dispensers in the mens room.
Soldiers are already showering and berthing with homosexuals, they will be doing the same tomorrow and forever more. Some people just need a reality check and get over their stupid prejudices. If a man isn't man enough to take showering in the company of a homosexual he probably isn't man enough to serve.

LT, basing what will happen when its openly allowed on what has happened when its banned is not a valid comparison, I dont think. And again, you avoid the question of male/female and go off into the surprise buttsecks realm. That really isn't the issue.

pixie, we separate children based on gender because we are teaching them how it will be in the adult world, when sex is a factor. If I am at the mall and a homosexual comes in, doesnt change my behavior at all. But I have the freedom to choose to use another bathroom if it did. Would I have a complaint in most folks eyes if a woman came into the mens room? Sure would. Why is that?

Try an experiment, next time you are at the mall, use the mens room, see if the men behavior changes. Bet it does. If you can find male volunteer, ask him to use the ladies room. Think the ladies might change their behavior?

Why is it okay to require a hetero to share spaces with someone who might view them sexually, but not women? Again, we keep sliding to the side, making arguments about other things, but not that basic point. You can tell the female servicemembers all day long that the males in question are disciplined, and wont make any untoward advances, think it would make a difference? Hell, its only innies and outies, no reason we cant make it all gender/orientation neutral, right. Unisex everything. No problems.

:yeahthat:

Bathrooms and gyms are separated because of gender, not sexuality. Hence the lack of urinals in the ladies room and the lack of tampon dispensers in the mens room.
Soldiers are already showering and berthing with homosexuals, they will be doing the same tomorrow and forever more. Some people just need a reality check and get over their stupid prejudices. If a man isn't man enough to take showering in the company of a homosexual he probably isn't man enough to serve.
I had to share toilets with men overseas. Not the shower, thank the stars... guys are just nasty. lol I think that's why they should keep them separate. :lol:

On the gay issue.. I could careless who I'm serving with as long as they don't shove the acceptance of their issues down my throat. Do your job=good evaluation from me. That's all I care about.

Why is it okay to require a hetero to share spaces with someone who might view them sexually, but not women?

are you implying that there will be no lesbians coming out in the ranks?

I had to share toilets with men overseas. Not the shower, thank the stars... guys are just nasty. lol I think that's why they should keep them separate. :lol:

On the gay issue.. I could careless who I'm serving with as long as they don't shove the acceptance of their issues down my throat. Do your job=good evaluation from me. That's all I care about.


...and that's the way it should be. Unfortunately, there are some who are sexually insecure enough that a homosexual in their presence is viewed as some sort of threat.




.

are you implying that there will be no lesbians coming out in the ranks?

Not at all, but arguing that men might quail at being forced to room with women doesnt seem like a good position:killingme

Try an experiment, next time you are at the mall, use the mens room, see if the men behavior changes. Bet it does. If you can find male volunteer, ask him to use the ladies room. Think the ladies might change their behavior?



I went to plenty of concerts in my younger days and have used the mens room many times opposed to waiting in line for the ladies room. You know what happens when a woman walks in the mens room? The men make an effort to cover their stuff. I'm certain it's because I don't have a wanker and has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The same reason my young boys cover themselves around their step sisters but not around other boys.

I went to plenty of concerts in my younger days and have used the mens room many times opposed to waiting in line for the ladies room. You know what happens when a woman walks in the mens room? The men make an effort to cover their stuff. I'm certain it's because I don't have a wanker and has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The same reason my young boys cover themselves around their step sisters but not around other boys.

maybe they thought you were a crossdresser and didnt want to excite you

:yay:
Agreed. This issue will be amplified on a USN ship.

This bothers me, the assumption that becuase a person might not want to share a room with a homosexual they must be a bigot or a homophobe?

maybe they thought you were a crossdresser and didnt want to excite you

Maybe but doubtful. At 5'4" and 110#s I'd have been the smallest crossdresser ever.

Maybe but doubtful. At 5'4" and 110#s I'd have been the smallest crossdresser ever.

Although I am not overly knowledgeable in cross dressing, I will admit that I was not aware of a minimum size requirement.

then on the other hand, at that size, they could have thought you to be a child and were afraid of being arrested for exposing themselves.

Off topic though.
I was in a mens room at a rest stop one time, the ladies room was evidently shut down for cleaning. So this woman walked in.

guy using the urinal down the other end must have got upset so he turned to her and with his crank out he said, what do you think of this?

she said,, How sad, did it stop growing when you were 2?

I laughed for the next 20 miles down the road.

Recruitment will remain.

However, this "perfect world" mentality (the ideal that all people are going to live harmoneously regardless of the reality that other people are involved) should be used wisely.

I was in a mens room at a rest stop one time, the ladies room was evidently shut down for cleaning. So this woman walked in.

guy using the urinal down the other end must have got upset so he turned to her and with his crank out he said, what do you think of this?

she said,, How sad, did it stop growing when you were 2?

I laughed for the next 20 miles down the road.

:killingme

[QUOTE=bcp;4454219]Although I am not overly knowledgeable in cross dressing, I will admit that I was not aware of a minimum size requirement.

then on the other hand, at that size, they could have thought you to be a child and were afraid of being arrested for exposing themselves.

[QUOTE]

Now you're just being ignorant and trying to be ugly. The average height of an American man is 5'9.5" and men typically have a broader/heavier frame than women. So 5'4", 110#s would be a pretty tiny dude.

The average height of American women is 5'4". Have you ever dated or slept with a woman 5'4" or under? Are you a pedo? By your above statement being of small stature makes one childlike.

I only see three issues with this:

Gays are occasionally killed in the military now merely because they are gay. We can expect that to increase.

Sometimes people fight, and sometimes they are killed. If someone happens to be "out" will it now be treated differently? Will it become a hate crime instead of manslaughter? Will there be outrage? (of course there will.)

The question being asked is "will this hurt the military." The question being asked should be "what is best for the military." If doing away with DADT is the answer then fine. But starting with the answer then formulating the question is the wrong way to go about this.

[QUOTE=bcp;4454219]Although I am not overly knowledgeable in cross dressing, I will admit that I was not aware of a minimum size requirement.

then on the other hand, at that size, they could have thought you to be a child and were afraid of being arrested for exposing themselves.

[QUOTE]

Now you're just being ignorant and trying to be ugly. The average height of an American man is 5'9.5" and men typically have a broader/heavier frame than women. So 5'4", 110#s would be a pretty tiny dude.

The average height of American women is 5'4". Have you ever dated or slept with a woman 5'4" or under? Are you a pedo? By your above statement being of small stature makes one childlike.

First
Might I suggest some Thorazine for you?
Next, 5.9 is pretty short for the average guy
no, I dont think I have ever dated or slept with a midget.
and yes, normally, children are short.

If there is anything else that you really need cleared up, please do not hesitate to use your tiny little fingers to type it out.

I only see three issues with this:

Gays are occasionally killed in the military now merely because they are gay. We can expect that to increase. do you have statistics on this? Im betting that more military are killed by their own due to being ignorant or putting the troops in danger than they are for being gay.

Sometimes people fight, and sometimes they are killed. If someone happens to be "out" will it now be treated differently? Will it become a hate crime instead of manslaughter? Will there be outrage? (of course there will.) My thought is that once they are allowed to be openly gay, they will feel as though it is ok to ask others about the possibility of maybe "dating" this is where the fights are going to come from.

The question being asked is "will this hurt the military." The question being asked should be "what is best for the military." If doing away with DADT is the answer then fine. But starting with the answer then formulating the question is the wrong way to go about this.
the answer is yes, it will hurt the military for a period of time until all of the issues have been worked out and the boundry lines clearly drawn and followed.
Will it be long term damage? I dont think so. Will it make a difference on the fighting field? I doubt it, at least not if people are halfway thinking. I would rather have a live gay guy backing me up than no back up. Thoughts and actions during stress are much different than when sitting around the berthing area watching so you think you can prance.

[QUOTE=pixiegirl;4454331][QUOTE=bcp;4454219]Although I am not overly knowledgeable in cross dressing, I will admit that I was not aware of a minimum size requirement.

then on the other hand, at that size, they could have thought you to be a child and were afraid of being arrested for exposing themselves.



First
Might I suggest some Thorazine for you?
Next, 5.9 is pretty short for the average guy
no, I dont think I have ever dated or slept with a midget.
and yes, normally, children are short.

If there is anything else that you really need cleared up, please do not hesitate to use your tiny little fingers to type it out.

Would you like me to order you a butt plug while I'm ordering my meds?

Shows just about how smart you are....

Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height)

[QUOTE=bcp;4454352][QUOTE=pixiegirl;4454331]

Would you like me to order you a butt plug while I'm ordering my meds?

Shows just about how smart you are....

Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height)

No thank you on the butt plug.
Im trying to lose about 25 lbs to reduce strain on my twice broken back, Ive cut out meat for a while and am using beans to get my proteins, I fear a butt plug could become a deadly projectile.. but again, thank you so much for your concern.

Im 6' most people I know are my height or taller than I am, so I figure that the 5'9 number is either old or off for some reason.

I will however conceed the average height based on your link.

Damn heightists!!! Short folks are everywhere, if only you would look down from time to time!!!!:cds:

she is correct.
5'9.2" is the average height of the adult male in the U.S.

and all this time I thought I was short.

and for the record, I have always found that the most attractive women, (to me) have been short and petite.

she is correct.
5'9.2" is the average height of the adult male in the U.S.

and all this time I thought I was short.

and for the record, I have always found that the most attractive women, (to me) have been short and petite.


Soooo, you do like midgets. :geek: :lol:

I get called short all the time. I work in an office with 6 other women and only 2 are taller than me. 1 is the same height, the other 3 aren't much shorter (maybe an inch or so). I bet if you asked anyone who didn't pay great attention who the smallest was they'd say me. Being of slighter frame gets associated with being short.

Soooo, you do like midgets. :geek: :lol:

I get called short all the time. I work in an office with 6 other women and only 2 are taller than me. 1 is the same height, the other 3 aren't much shorter (maybe an inch or so). I bet if you asked anyone who didn't pay great attention who the smallest was they'd say me. Being of slighter frame gets associated with being short.

Of course I do. Who doesnt?

I just like to joke them from time to time.:killingme


:buddies:

Of course I do. Who doesnt?

I just like to joke them from time to time.:killingme


:buddies:

A bald guy walks into a bar, turns to the noticably short bartender, and says "Hey midget, gimme a beer!"

The bartender gives the man a beer, but tells the man not to refer to him as a midget.

A few drinks later, the guy turns to the bartender and again says, "hey midget... gimme another beer!"

The bartender gets upset and warns the man about calling him a midget, but gives him his beer.

After the thrid time this happens, the bartender says, "Hey! I told you to stop calling me a midget! How would you like it if I called you 'baldy' if our positions were reversed?"

The guy thinks about it and admits that he wouldn't mind. The bartender disagrees, and ultimately they agree to switch positions to let the man see how it feels.

The bartender moves to the front of the bar, and the guy moves to the back. The bartender says, "Hey baldy, gimme a beer!"

The guy leans over the bar and says, "Sorry, but we don't serve midgets here."

Yes it is.

You're missing the point. Seperate facilities are provided for seperate genders, not to seperate beefy from skinny, etc. The orientation thing is a question of conduct which is an issue now with heteros. Sexual harassment, assult, rape, etc. are violations of the UCMJ regardless of a person's orientation.

Include sodomy in the 'etc.' part of UCMJ violations.

I had to share toilets with men overseas. Not the shower, thank the stars... guys are just nasty. lol I think that's why they should keep them separate. :lol:

On the gay issue.. I could careless who I'm serving with as long as they don't shove the acceptance of their issues down my throat. Do your job=good evaluation from me. That's all I care about.


:dingding:

I'd like to hear from the 2 people who voted for "more volunteers". I just wonder if that's their real opinion, or if they just thought that it looked forlorn with no votes?

Include sodomy in the 'etc.' part of UCMJ violations.

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....


Yep.










.

I'd like to hear from the 2 people who voted for "more volunteers". I just wonder if that's their real opinion, or if they just thought that it looked forlorn with no votes?

I've spoken to people who seem to believe that there are legions of gays who want to join but don't because of DADT. They believe that if DADT goes away these people will join.

I see any slight increase due to DADT going away will be offset by those who are so scared of temptation that they won't join.

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....

Until laws are changed, does it make it any less a crime?

By the way, according to Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com), it does not include "more than a few..." It is anal and/or oral copulation, or bestiality.

Don't care if they are gay or straight, just shoot straight.

:yeahthat:

Until laws are changed, does it make it any less a crime?

By the way, according to Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com), it does not include "more than a few..." It is anal and/or oral copulation, or bestiality.

If laws are not enforced equally are they really laws? The point is that those laws apply equally to many hetero and homo acts. The military cannot prosecute one group of people under the UCMJ if they have a policy of overlooking that crime among all of his (or her) peers.

And I can think of at least a dozen acts that meet your definition without having to even consider what you and ewe do. That's more than a few.

If laws are not enforced equally are they really laws? The point is that those laws apply equally to many hetero and homo acts. The military cannot prosecute one group of people under the UCMJ if they have a policy of overlooking that crime among all of his (or her) peers.How is it overlooked? What enforcement mechanism is there?

How is it overlooked? What enforcement mechanism is there?

Damn you are obtuse. You try to argue the most irrelevant, inane crap.

Article 125 was raised noting that it would still be illegal for gays to have sex. The point is that it is illegal for straights to engage in acts that most people consider normal and non-deviant. There are people who think that article 125 can be used to prosecute gays, bypassing the intent of ending DADT.

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.

Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex. It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice. Therefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.

I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I am disgusted by the thought of gay sex. It is thoroughly repulsive to me. But then again, I know some women who repulse me too. But the thought of violating someone's constitutional rights by prosecuting them for something that is allowed for their peers is even more disgusting to me.

Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?

Wouldn't life be so much better if the government just got out of the morality business all together? After all, is there any virtue in being moral if you face the threat of punishment if you aren't?

Damn you are obtuse. You try to argue the most irrelevant, inane crap.

Article 125 was raised noting that it would still be illegal for gays to have sex. The point is that it is illegal for straights to engage in acts that most people consider normal and non-deviant. There are people who think that article 125 can be used to prosecute gays, bypassing the intent of ending DADT.

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.

Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex. It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice. Therefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.

I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I am disgusted by the thought of gay sex. It is thoroughly repulsive to me. But then again, I know some women who repulse me too. But the thought of violating someone's constitutional rights by prosecuting them for something that is allowed for their peers is even more disgusting to me.

Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?

Wouldn't life be so much better if the government just got out of the morality business all together? After all, is there any virtue in being moral if you face the threat of punishment if you aren't?

Well said.:buddies:

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.So, they happen only when there's some form of proof....Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex.No, the dictionary does.It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice.So, it's not discriminatory based on sexual orientation onlyTherefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.You realize heteros and homos are both able to be prosecuted, and have been prosecuted, then say it's not equal. See, there has to be a level of reasonable proof. Since one of the two pieces is missing for there to be non-sodomy sex in homosexuals, wouldn't that be proof?

If you argue sodomy laws are stupid, I'd agree. If you argue it would be acceptable for one and not for the other, you're wrong. It's a simple matter of enforcability.I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.And, you are 100% wrong on what you think you understand about me! :buddies:Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?
:confused: again, you just don't get me

No, the dictionary does.


Wrong. I have a Webster's II New College Dictionary right here at my desk.

Sodomy - A form of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal copulation or copulation with an animal.

Says nothing about gender.

Wrong. I have a Webster's II New College Dictionary right here at my desk.

Sodomy - A form of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal copulation or copulation with an animal.

Says nothing about gender.
having sex with the same gender is unnatural and abnormal, doesnt matter if you think its now acceptable, it is not what the organs were designed for, and regardless of how many people are engaging in the act, it is not normal.

so, the definition works with homosexuality.

having sex with the same gender is unnatural and abnormal, doesnt matter if you think its now acceptable, it is not what the organs were designed for, and regardless of how many people are engaging in the act, it is not normal.

so, the definition works with homosexuality.

It works with homosexuality but is not homosexually specific which was my point. Anal sex between a man and woman just as easily fits the definition.

It works with homosexuality but is not homosexually specific which was my point. Anal sex between a man and woman just as easily fits the definition.

Yes it does.
and I have never or will I ever engage in any activity as filthy and possibly harmful as that.

But this is about homosexuality, and based on the actual biological purpose of the genitals as far as sex goes, homosexuality can only be considered as unnatural.

Yes it does.
and I have never or will I ever engage in any activity as filthy and possibly harmful as that.

But this is about homosexuality, and based on the actual biological purpose of the genitals as far as sex goes, homosexuality can only be considered as unnatural.

No one is saying that homosexual sex is normal. The point MM was making was that Article 125 states the "act" not the gender or sexuality. If sodomy is illegal for 2 men its also illegal for a man/woman.

No one is saying that homosexual sex is normal. The point MM was making was that Article 125 states the "act" not the gender or sexuality. If sodomy is illegal for 2 men its also illegal for a man/woman.
yes it is. no question.

the problem here is that it is possible for a man and woman to actually be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

it is not possible on the part of two homosexuals to be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

yes it is. no question.

the problem here is that it is possible for a man and woman to actually be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

it is not possible on the part of two homosexuals to be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

Nope....

C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation eitherwith another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age.Depending upon the facts of the particular case at hand, two elements in aggravation may beadded to the requisite elements of the crime. One such element is added when the act is done with achild under the age of 16 years, and the other element is added when the act is done by force and withoutthe consent of the other person.It should be noted that the offense of sodomy may be committed between a husband andwife. Such cases, however, would be difficult to prosecute. Coltner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1968). In practical terms, it would be difficult to successfully argue that a governmental purpose forprohibiting consensual sodomy within a marriage outweighs the constitutional right to marital privacy.However, Congress has seen fit not to exempt consensual sodomy committed by husband and wife.

Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ) (http://www.tpub.com/content/armymilitarypolice/mp1019c/mp1019c0027.htm)

Nope....

C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation eitherwith another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age.Depending upon the facts of the particular case at hand, two elements in aggravation may beadded to the requisite elements of the crime. One such element is added when the act is done with achild under the age of 16 years, and the other element is added when the act is done by force and withoutthe consent of the other person.It should be noted that the offense of sodomy may be committed between a husband andwife. Such cases, however, would be difficult to prosecute. Coltner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1968). In practical terms, it would be difficult to successfully argue that a governmental purpose forprohibiting consensual sodomy within a marriage outweighs the constitutional right to marital privacy.However, Congress has seen fit not to exempt consensual sodomy committed by husband and wife.

Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ) (http://www.tpub.com/content/armymilitarypolice/mp1019c/mp1019c0027.htm)

This is all true but I think BCP is trying to point out that only a man and women are physically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse in the missionary position which is not categorized as sodomy.

This is all true but I think BCP is trying to point out that only a man and women are physically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse in the missionary position which is not categorized as sodomy.


Ah, got it.

This is all silly and getting watered down anyway. DADT isn't about the act of sex its about sexual orientation. Is a gay man any less gay if he's celebate? Is it ok for men to "court" one another and "date" without engaging in sex acts?

This is all true but I think BCP is trying to point out that only a man and women are physically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse in the missionary position which is not categorized as sodomy.

Pixie knows what Im saying, and knows that Im right.
its just that as the law reads right now, what she wants is not there.

all I can say is, fight to change the law.

This is all silly and getting watered down anyway. DADT isn't about the act of sex its about sexual orientation. Is a gay man any less gay if he's celebate? Is it ok for men to "court" one another and "date" without engaging in sex acts?

So I think about chopping someone up and floating the body parts down the river.

or

I chop someone up and float them down the river.

when did I become a murderer? when I thought about it, or when I actually did it.

So I think about chopping someone up and floating the body parts down the river.

or

I chop someone up and float them down the river.

when did I become a murderer? when I thought about it, or when I actually did it.

Look up homosexual in the dictionary.

If a man dates, makes-out with, fantasizes about another man but doesn't have sex with him he's still gay. Would you be comfortable sharing your shower with a man that does all these things?

Pixie knows what Im saying, and knows that Im right.
its just that as the law reads right now, what she wants is not there.

all I can say is, fight to change the law.

Good thing for you they took narcissism off the list of personality disorders. :lol: The law in question speaks specifically of sodomy which is illegal for all sexes, sexualities.

So I think about chopping someone up and floating the body parts down the river.

or

I chop someone up and float them down the river.

when did I become a murderer? when I thought about it, or when I actually did it.

And murder is an act while sexual orientation is not.

I love me some anal sex...just saying..:coffee:

Look up homosexual in the dictionary.

If a man dates, makes-out with, fantasizes about another man but doesn't have sex with him he's still gay. Would you be comfortable sharing your shower with a man that does all these things?

Now you are just being silly

I would not share a shower with any other man regardless of his gayness score.

I love me some anal sex...just saying..:coffee:


Well so much for us sharing a shower.

No, the dictionary does.

As Pixie already pointed out, you are wrong. But in any case, we are discussing the military, so it doesn't matter what the dictionary says. The only thing that matters is what the UCMJ and regulations say.

So, they happen only when there's some form of proof....

No, it's only prosecuted as part of another greater crime, like fraternization, conduct unbecoming, adultry, dereliction of duty, etc.

It hasn't been prosecuted alone in decades.

:blahblah:

Looks like you need to take a reading comprehension course. I am able to understand what you write, and I am able to draw logical conclusions from that.

I told you that the military almost never (since they have in the past but not now) prosecutes straights for sodomy. I then said that prosecuting gays for sodomy would not be equal protection. You said that since they prosecute straights (they don't) then it would be equal.

You should probably wait to debate until JPC runs again. He's a good match for you.

As Pixie already pointed out, you are wrong. But in any case, we are discussing the military, so it doesn't matter what the dictionary says. The only thing that matters is what the UCMJ and regulations say.



I told you that the military almost never (since they have in the past but not now) prosecutes straights for sodomy. I then said that prosecuting gays for sodomy would not be equal protection. You said that since they prosecute straights (they don't) then it would be equal.

You should probably wait to debate until JPC runs again. He's a good match for you.

You first say that it only matters what the UCMJ and regulations say. I agree.

then you refer to equal protection. Can you find this in the UCMJ?
didn't think so.

and right now, gays would not be prosecuted for sodomy unless it was performed on the ship or on base etc.. and straights would not be prosecuted except under the same situations.
then we have fraternization rules that could apply to the straights even off base if between to opposite sex individuals should one be of a higher rank than the other and in a position of power over the other.

and right now, gays would not be prosecuted for sodomy unless it was performed on the ship or on base etc.. and straights would not be prosecuted except under the same situations.


That's my point!!! People on here want to use Article 125 as a way to prosecute gays if DADT is repealed. I'm saying that they would have to prosecute all sodomy, not just gay sodomy.

That's my point!!! People on here want to use Article 125 as a way to prosecute gays if DADT is repealed. I'm saying that they would have to prosecute all sodomy, not just gay sodomy.

Then we agree
under the UCMJ, they can suck all the crank they want as long as they dont get caught doing it on military property, or get caught doing it in a public place while wearing a uniform.

then you refer to equal protection. Can you find this in the UCMJ?
didn't think so.



Explicitly? No. But.......

Under Lawerence v. Texas, the Supreme Court essentially invalidated sodomy laws based on the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has found that the Lawerence decision applies to Article 125 in all but some very narrowly applied cases.

The military has exceptions to the due process clause, but there must be a good reason for it. Using Article 125 in order to get around a DADT repeal would not be a valid reason.

Then we agree
under the UCMJ, they can suck all the crank they want as long as they dont get caught doing it on military property, or get caught doing it in a public place while wearing a uniform.

Yep. If it is illegal for a man and woman to do it, it would be illegal for two men or two women to do it.

In my 20 years I only knew of one gay. Aboard a ship and he made the mistake of attempting to openly demonstrate it on another. He received a blanket party and the next day was no longer a crew member.

Yep. If it is illegal for a man and woman to do it, it would be illegal for two men or two women to do it.

Of course, unless its changed since I was in, if a male and female were to be caught alone in berthing, or some other place that could appear to look inappropriate, they would have been in some deep doo doo.

how are you going to insure that two gays are not in the same place at the same time where possible exchange of body fluids could take place.

Of course, unless its changed since I was in, if a male and female were to be caught alone in berthing, or some other place that could appear to look inappropriate, they would have been in some deep doo doo.

how are you going to insure that two gays are not in the same place at the same time where possible exchange of body fluids could take place.

Do you see a sudden mass enlistment of flaming homos or something?

They're already there. Sometimes they work together - just like straight people. Sometimes they do things they shouldn't - just like straight people. Sometimes they get caught and get punished - just like straight people. The rules against pole smoking in berthing are not changing.

The only thing that might change is that gays wouldn't be prosecuted if someone found out they are gay or if they admit they are gay.

I understand there are two sides of the issue, but can't we at least talk about the issue and not some off the wall tangent? There is no effort by anyone to make gay sex on duty or on ships legal. The only thing that repealing DADT would affect is off duty conduct or past conduct.

I went to plenty of concerts in my younger days and have used the mens room many times opposed to waiting in line for the ladies room. You know what happens when a woman walks in the mens room? The men make an effort to cover their stuff. I'm certain it's because I don't have a wanker and has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The same reason my young boys cover themselves around their step sisters but not around other boys.

I have a male buddy who is in the desert right now, men and women are using the same, no stall latrine, He told me it was kind of weird when she asked him for paper, but then it seemed normal, cause everyone has to go at one time or another, unless you get a weird a$$ who is into "bathroom-exotic-erotic-golden shower-poopoo fetish" wich affects both males and females, and don't forget the boot lickers, and pillow mashers....I don't know why people can't understand that gay people are not attracted to EVERYBODY...!

We do get that. Would we expect that men and women be bunked together, knowing that not all men are attracted to every woman?

Wrong. I have a Webster's II New College Dictionary right here at my desk.

Sodomy - A form of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal copulation or copulation with an animal.

Says nothing about gender.

From dictionary.com:
sod·om·y   /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled
[sod-uh-mee] Show IPA

–noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality ( def. 4 ) .

Not the only definition (as I said), but one of the definitions.

As Pixie already pointed out, you are wrong. But in any case, we are discussing the military, so it doesn't matter what the dictionary says. The only thing that matters is what the UCMJ and regulations say.As I pointed out above, Pixie was right for her dictionary, but not all.

And, as I pointed out previously, the UCMJ defines it both ways (for male/male and for heterosexual). No, it's only prosecuted as part of another greater crime, like fraternization, conduct unbecoming, adultry, dereliction of duty, etc.

It hasn't been prosecuted alone in decades.Why hasn't it? Is there a problem with proving it? How does one discover sodomy?Looks like you need to take a reading comprehension course. I am able to understand what you write, and I am able to draw logical conclusions from that.Then why :blah: me? :lol:I told you that the military almost never (since they have in the past but not now) prosecutes straights for sodomy. I then said that prosecuting gays for sodomy would not be equal protection. You said that since they prosecute straights (they don't) then it would be equal.They prosecute those that they catch in the act, as far as I can tell. Again, how do they know to prosecute? Do they set up bedroom cams, or is there some other form of "tell"?

If you "tell" that's what you do, shouldn't you be prosecuted equally? Can you show some time that a chain of command was informed in some official fashion and failed to prosecute because of sexual orientation?You should probably wait to debate until JPC runs again. He's a good match for you.I see no difference.....

I for one know that gays have been and still are serving in the military and I thank them for their service. They are Patriots one and all. I just find the timing off for a law to be passed to undo DADT. This is not something to jump into while combat operations are going on. This has a greater impact on the military to figure out how to implement a new policy to handle openly gay members of our armed forces. Look how long it took to put women in combatant ships and then in combat roles. How can the military handle this with no guidance from the rest of the country? Gay people can't be married in almost every state in the union, so if they have no rights in the states they live in then why is it we ask the military to recognize and accept what the rest of the country doesn't want to. The military is voluntary and all gay members joined under DADT. And someone please tell me what are the guide lines and restrictions of being openly gay. I'm not against gays serving in the military, but how do you set a policy and regulations for this when gays can be married in some states and not others, but the military has to suddenly have to accomodate same sex spouses before the state and federal levels have to...Not the time for this to happen in my opinion. Should have no impact on people fullfilling their patriotic duties.

Why hasn't it? Is there a problem with proving it? How does one discover sodomy?Then why :blah: me? :lol:They prosecute those that they catch in the act, as far as I can tell. Again, how do they know to prosecute? Do they set up bedroom cams, or is there some other form of "tell"?



Under Lawerence v. Texas, the Supreme Court essentially invalidated sodomy laws based on the due proces clause of the 14th Amendment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has found that the Lawerence decision applies to Article 125 in all but some very narrowly applied cases.

The military has exceptions to the due process clause, but there must be a good reason for it. Using Article 125 in order to get around a DADT repeal would not be a valid reason.

Witnesses tend to be a start for proof. The only cases I am aware of involved public acts. For example, at a party, a guy passes out and his drunk buddy starts performing on him. Someone walks in. It was a sexual assault, prosecuted under Article 120, but the sodomy was also prosecuted under Article 125.

And, as I pointed out previously, the UCMJ defines it both ways (for male/male and for heterosexual).

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."

You keep on saying it separates the charges. Where? It clearly states that it is sodomy if it is same or opposite sex. It does not make a distinction, it removes any distinction. It says the exact opposite of what you claim.

You should really try learning about the topic before throwing in your baseless and unfounded theories.

Did you ever serve? You don't seem to understand the way the military works at all.

So your on the ship come out of the shower stall and a gay man is looking at your ass, NOT. I see nothing but trouble, it will be trouble that we won't hear about either.

I just had an inspired idea;

An experimental all gay regiment.

I just had an inspired idea;

An experimental all gay regiment.
The Greeks beat you to it by 24 centuries
Sacred Band of Thebes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)

Witnesses tend to be a start for proof.My point exactly. Someone has to "tell".You keep on saying it separates the charges. Where? It clearly states that it is sodomy if it is same or opposite sex. It does not make a distinction, it removes any distinction. It says the exact opposite of what you claim.Well, let's look at what I claim:And, as I pointed out previously, the UCMJ defines it both ways (for male/male and for heterosexual).Nope, seems you're mistaking me for someone else. Seems I've said all along it applies to all sexual orientations equally.

Sucks to be you.You should really try learning about the topic before throwing in your baseless and unfounded theories.:lmao: Huh, based on you continuously getting my argument wrong, even after I state it very clearly, I wonder if you want to rethink that statement!Did you ever serve? You don't seem to understand the way the military works at all.Yes, as a matter of fact I did. I have a very good understanding of how it works. You?

The Greeks beat you to it by 24 centuries
Sacred Band of Thebes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)

They musta read my posts! :lol: