Gays in the military...

[desertrat]

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?

 

[awpitt]

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.




.

 

[Nanny Pam]

no diff.

 

[bcp]

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

separate berthing areas. the two dont mingle.

 

[This_person]

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".

 

[This_person]

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.

 

[This_person]

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.

 

[desertrat]

separate berthing areas. the two dont mingle.

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

 

[This_person]

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.

 

[This_person]

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?

 

[libertytyranny]

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

 

[This_person]

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

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.

 

[letmetellyou]

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.

 

[letmetellyou]

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

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?

 

[glhs837]

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?

 

[Nickel]

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

OMG.

 

[bcp]

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?

 

[pixiegirl]

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.

 

[bcp]

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.

 

[pixiegirl]

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.