Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top.
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote: I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology. Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
I agree we aren't sexual predators but showing in a big open are with women likely might cause me to get aroused simply because I am seeing naked women. This could cause me to be embarrassed and make them feel uncomfortable.
While I was in the military (mainly basic) you didn't have time in showers to really focus on anything besides getting clean asap. If some gay guy had the time to ever check me out I do not know but neither did I care really.
I agree completly with you, but I want to add that a gay man could as easily get aroused by seeing naked man than a heterosexual man by seeing women. Still, only because men can now openly say that they are gay does not mean that suddenly in every shower there will be a few guys with raging boners.
On September 21 2011 21:22 Xedat wrote: Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy.
Yes, and since showers and locker rooms are generally located in bathroom areas, I don't see the need for the military to go out of their way to create unisex showers outside of bathroom areas o.O Do you wish to knock down all the already-existing gender-split bathrooms just to create unisex bathrooms? I doubt it will ever happen just because we already have working bathrooms. It just seems... unnecessary.
My line regarding women taking forever in the bathroom was admittedly a bit tongue-in-cheek, but my first point was that it would be inefficient to have showers in a different location than bathroom areas, because old (and possibly outdated) laws have already allowed the creation of useful facilities. This is an important difference between why it's unnecessary to worry about re-creating unisex bathrooms (if working bathrooms already exist), but it's fine to allow all men (regardless of sexual orientation) to share a bathroom. No one sane is going to argue that gay men are busy checking out other guys instead of washing or going to the bathroom... and that straight men should have that same "right" with women.
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote: Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
Just because you're insecure with your sexuality doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't serve. I'm sure any homosexual who joins the military isn't joining to "stare at your junk." If these are your main concerns, well that is fucking pathetic. The only reasons you state are your own personal issues that make you uncomfortable.
I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
...Are ...you ...serious?
What about women? What about certain ethnicities?
If you can complete military training, then you're fine.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
Haha KwarK!
Why does it seem like 1/3 of the people who have posted in this thread think that, just because DADT has been repealed, suddenly all gay soldiers are going to be walking around with pink glittered camo uniforms, sneak into their bunks at night to cuddle with them, and/or stare at their junk in the showers?
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
rofl, yes, because all straight men are rambo lookin motherfuckers, and all gay men are little thin prancing fairies like richard simmons.
It must be nice to see the world in such black and white clarity as you do.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
rofl, yes, because all straight men are rambo lookin motherfuckers, and all gay men are little thin prancing fairies like richard simmons.
It must be nice to see the world in such black and white clarity as you do.
I could see Richard Simmons ending the war on terror with jazzercise.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
I'm so undecided on how I feel about this. My roommate is gay. He doesn't care one way or another because he's not in the military. I'd like to think that if I was in the military that I'd accept being naked around a homosexual male (showers) and that we were just there for work, but I know I might be a little uncomfortable in certain situations. I look at it this way, if he's willing to die for me, it doesn't matter who gender, sexuality, color or creed you are.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
*Taliban Commander*
Oh no!, the US Army is coming, they have tanks, missiles and stealth bombers, we can't beat them!
*Random soldier*
But sir, didn't you hear?, some of their soldiers are gay.
*T.C.*
HA!, losers, let's go kick their asses with our AK-47s and RPGs.
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
so what your saying is that female soldiers are bad because they might want to have sex with you at any moment! or that gay men who have worked along side you just fine up until now without telling you they were gay, will suddenly get all up in 'your junk' now you know they are gay? sounds to me like you have the problem, not the gay soldier next to you whos been doing his job for the last 3 years without you knowing about it.
EPT
