Alma, legitimate question (and I'm not even going to insult you in this post).
You say that soldiers won't want to room/shower with a *** guy because he is sexually attracted to men, right? You think that would make him uncomfortable? And you think the gays should have separate quarters?
Okay, then let me ask you this. What about the *** men and women who are now living exclusively with *** men/women?
They are now in a situation where everyone would be attracted to everyone (insofar as *** alone is an attractor).
Why is it okay to segregate them into another situation where they alone might be super uncomfortable? Unless you attribute blame to them for making the others uncomfortable, you have no right to do this. And if you *do* attribute blame to them, it can only be because you are prejudiced in favor of straight units.
*All this has been assuming you are right and it is the sexual attraction, not the sexuality itself, that people object to.*
So you would be choosing to place two groups into super awkward situations to save the rest from being in a slightly awkward situation. How is that going to encourage combat unity? It seems to me like having one or two *** guys using the same shower is less awkward for everyone.
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.
If by "only idiots" you mean "every *** person on the planet and many, many straight ones" then fine.
But the fact is that we have no scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as a choice, and a veritable ton of evidence saying it is.
-*** men react to male pheromones and lesbians to female ones. This is subconscious and occurs once puberty starts. Straight men/women react to the opposite sexes'.
-When dealing with identical twins, if one of the two is *** the other is also 70% of the time.
-Genetic transplants in fruit flies from "***" to "straight" ones have managed to turn the "straight" ones "***."
-The x chromosomes in a mother switch on and off (one on, one off). This is normally a random process. But data of women with *** sons shows that their switches are far skewed. I don't know what that means specifically, but it is a sign of another factor).
-The more male children a mother has, the more likely a latter one will be ***. It is believed this is because the mother's system works up an auto-immune defense to males. So, one potential factor (remember that sexuality is the result of many different things, and there are multiple ways a child could end up ***) is that the mother's antibodies attack an antibody known as the HY antibody, which has been linked to sexuality. The reduced number of these causes the male's sexuality to remain unchanged, rather than emasculation (remember that the female is the standard state of a human fetus and that the Y chromosome changes the genetic blueprint).
-Evolution is able to tell a story involving how homosexual men contribute the good of the family group (as social animals) which has led them survive against natural selection despite not passing on their own genes. Even in modern times, sisters with *** brothers are more likely to have more children.
-Then there are specific studies that show differences in the brain.
I'm not criticizing you for not knowing this--few straight people bother trying to. But there's literally no evidence for homosexuality being a choice but a ton for it being the result of involuntary biological processes.
It isn't something a *** guy can change, and it isn't something he chooses. It's part of who he is--no different than your *** or your race. It all boils down to the biological processes that make you who you are.
If you are interested, I will give you sources. I didn't bother here because you haven't read anything else I've linked. Edited, Dec 20th 2010 12:24pm by idiggory