Sounds like change is coming...

[Spekkio]

Funny I went to college and was never forced to room with a gay man...or anyone for that matter. My Commanding Officer never ordered me into a specific living condition.

Walking into your first semester, living on campus, and you get a gay guy out of the random pool of students...that was grounds for getting a room change at your school?

I actually got placed in a suite on the girls floor my freshman year in college, because there wasn't enough room for the guys on the first floor. We even had a lesbian RA, who shared the girls bathroom with the rest of them, and it wasn't a big deal.

I suppose I wouldn't like it if that happened at that age, just like I didn't like it when the guy training me I mentioned a few pages ago dressed up as a fairy for Halloween my 2nd day on the job, but I'd get over it. Now, I couldn't care less if there's a gay guy around or not.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Walking into your first semester, living on campus, and you get a gay guy out of the random pool of students...that was grounds for getting a room change at your school?

I actually got placed in a suite on the girls floor my freshman year in college, because there wasn't enough room for the guys on the first floor. We even had a lesbian RA, who shared the girls bathroom with the rest of them, and it wasn't a big deal.

This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments ever...

To answer your question, No. I never lived in the dorms. I didn't have to. I wasn't ordered to.

I have lived in the barracks. I had to. I was ordered to.

Hence, ONE is an example of forced cohabitation, and the OTHER is just retarded...HAD you felt uncomfortable living on the all female floor, you had multiple options available at your disposal.

 

[Spekkio]

I have lived in the barracks. I had to. I was ordered to.

And you probably knew that you were going to live in the barracks before you signed up. If it bothered you that much, you could've abstained from joining, just like I knew that dorms at the college I was attending was co-ed.

I suppose I don't see the difference because ultimately joining the military is a free choice, and your future living situation is well publicized.

 

[loadtoad]

I suppose I don't see the difference because ultimately joining the military is a free choice, and your future living situation is well publicized.

So your saying that it will be well publicized that heterosexuals and homosexuals will be taking showers together and sleeping in the same spaces as each other?

 

[exhelodrvr]

Men don't get periods.

Aside from that, it's unlikely that the straight majority is going to sexually harass/molest the gay minority while in the bathroom. However, it becomes much more likely that the male majority would take advantage of the female minority in such a situation. There's also the physical issue that the average woman probably can't take on the average man.

So yes, the logic is still valid.

So the problem is a lack of male self-control? What about if there happened to be a majority of gay men on a ship? (It will eventually happen.)

 

[Spekkio]

So your saying that it will be well publicized that heterosexuals and homosexuals will be taking showers together and sleeping in the same spaces as each other?

Will be? It already is; DADT is pretty common knowledge, but it also means that you accept the fact that the guy bunking with you or showering next to you might be gay. I honestly don't get this head in the sand kind of thinking that as long as the guy who's obviously gay doesn't admit to it, it's totally comfortable bunking with him, but if he does admit it then watch out.

Repealing DADT isn't going to change whether or not gays can serve, or whether or not they can bunk/shit/shower next to heterosexual men. They already do, so the argument about that is rather pointless. The only thing that would change is that they can mention they're gay and not violate the UCMJ.

(Yes, I realize that it is not so easy to pinpoint every single gay person)

So the problem is a lack of male self-control? What about if there happened to be a majority of gay men on a ship? (It will eventually happen.)

If there were a majority of gay men on a ship, I admit I would feel very uncomfortable. However, I would do my best to get over it. As I said before, I'm very interested in women's take on this because they also deal with that kind of situation very often in the military.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I suppose I don't see the difference because ultimately joining the military is a free choice, and your future living situation is well publicized.

If they change the rules after the fact in the civilian world, you can quit. Not so easy to do in the military.

You probably don't see the difference because you're a newbie officer with no real experience. I see you conveniently ignored the post from the experienced submariner telling you this in a more diplomatic manner.

Me, I think you protest to much....in other words you want the rules changed for personal gain.....not that some other people see anything wrong with that....

This argument is like the Jews & Muslims....the war will go on forever. But I've had enough and I'm done. There is more fun to be had elsewhere on airwarriors.com

 

[Spekkio]

Me, I think you protest to much....in other words you want the rules changed for personal gain.....not that some other people see anything wrong with that....

I can assure you that I have nothing personal to gain from repealing DADT, but any forward progress the military can make regarding equal treatment for all subsets of people... be it blacks, women, gays, or whoever... is a good thing.

 

[Slammer2]

There is enough storage space on subs for tampons and pads...

Think disposal...

Do you really want the sub smelling like copper pennies?

 

[exhelodrvr]

Do you really want the sub smelling like copper pennies?

But everyone will be able to go horseback riding, play tennis, go swimming ...

 

[A4sForever]

I, for one, will not be satisfied until .....

EVERYONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL !!!

Or English ... same-o, same-o ...

Then ... we might have some peace around here ...



Are we done here ... ???

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

I'm spent!

 

[exhelodrvr]

I, for one, will not be satisfied until .....

Satisfied? In what context?

 

[CWJones411]

Change! Change!

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

No, what I'm saying is put a ton of naked men around one or a very few naked women, and the laws of probability are going to lend themselves to something bad happening. Put one or a few gay men around a bunch of straight men, and it's more likely the gay guy would have to deal with harassment from the straight guys vs. the straight guys have to worry about being molested.

Terrible argument. Consider this. Sure there might be a guy in there who gets a hard on and is thinking about doing something stupid and may actually attempt it, but I guarantee that there is at least one and probably many other guys there that will beat the shit out of him before he causes damage.

Repealing DADT isn't going to change whether or not gays can serve, or whether or not they can bunk/shit/shower next to heterosexual men. They already do, so the argument about that is rather pointless. The only thing that would change is that they can mention they're gay and not violate the UCMJ.

Actually a repeal of DADT without passing further legislation would make "coming out" a violation of the UCMJ. Also one could ask again.