Senate Repeals DADTFollow

The RAND study used in the Pentagon's DADT report is also available in its entirety. From that study...

Horrifying. I can't imagine how our military could possibly cope with the liberal agenda of destroying our armed forces in a quest to call people bigots when all anyone ever wanted was to shower without homos looking at their *****.

I'd explain why this study is irrelevant, but it would take too long and you'd refuse to believe it anyway. When I spoke of public pressure, this is one of the ways it manifests. The military (any military) is not going to report that they are unable to handle or implement a policy change mandated of them. If they were ordered to require all members of the military to wear chicken suits in battle, you'd get a similar report of full compliance with no problems that couldn't be handled at the unit level.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for agreeing with me in the first part of this. Nothing will change. It hasn't in the canadian military. Canadian military refused to provide seperate facilities, based on the equality of all its members. (separate sex aside). So far I can't think of one incident involving gays causing issues in our armed forces.

Nothing is going to change, because the majority of gays will not come out anyway, because they are far more likely to receive more uncomfortable remarks/situational events than straights. If it is anything like society out side of the military these serving members will be shunned, berated, and more or less treated like a minority. Just like in the real world.

As for your silly prediction. How many gay men that currently serve in your military are uncomfortable when the majority of their unit shares stories about how big a chicks tits were, and how she could deep throat a zuccini, or her ***** was so tight. How many gays have had to bite their tounge listening to conversations they did not enjoy, all the while unable to tell anyone they were uncomfortable because they were forbidden to show any sign of being a homosexual. Its the same ******* argument.



My whole point, and the one you and Alma both seem either to illiterate to get, or are just to stupid to understand is that without DADT nothing is going to change for the straight man or woman. Gays are not going to magically come out of the wood work and make good on he fictitious gay agenda. If people are not uncomfortable showering with gays (who they do not know) now, then why would the be showering around the same people who they may or may not know. The fact is currently Gays are not privileged to the same rights as straights, because they can not complain about certain things, (see your above redundant prediction) such as harassment protection, and maybe most importantly being open about their loved ones.

There was applicability aplenty. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

It's funny to watch you do the mental gymnastics, the logical leaps, the wild hoops you jump through to defend your position, and then pretend like you don't see a connection. Making connections where they don't exist is practically your specialty!

So let's move on to the part where you try to explain WHY it's not relevant.

Why isn't it? I am attracted to women with good sense of humor, smart (but not smarter than me), have good hygiene, these are all personality traits. These are the things that I look for in a woman. I hold these things above ***, and tits.

Unless I am drunk, if I am drunk, the only thing that matters is how far she can put her ankles behind her ears.

Alma's comment reminds me a lot of my ex here. We were drifting apart and he started going to the gym. I have to admit he started looking pretty good. But I knew him - and I still didn't want to be with him anymore. He was completely floored to learn that it was his personality, not his looks that were driving me away.

If you think real hard for yourself and try to come up with a reason instead of just quoting what I said and pretending it fits your argument, I'd be willing to listen.

One reason I thought of (and one you'll probably take negatively, but I don't mean it that way) is a guy who is honestly confused about his own sexuality. It may make him uncomfortable to know that there's a homosexual man in that very naked place, while he's still grappling what his own sexuality. That's not homophobic or bigoted, it's just confusion.

Or maybe a guy is ashamed of the size of his... endowment, and he is genuinely worried that a homosexual would be looking and then make fun of him for the size of his junk.

Most likely, though, you're going to run into people who are concerned by this in a mostly bigoted way, because they are disgusted and angered by a man finding another man attractive. This isn't the same as women not wanting to share a shower with men. They aren't disgusted or angry about the attraction. We were just raised to show modesty and not to show our naked bodies to members of the opposite sex.

To be completely honest, I'm not really comfortable being naked at the Y in the ladies locker room. I didn't have the wonderful experience of PE when I was a kid (I was a band nerd and they considered marching band our physical requirement) so I never partook in a group shower. Nakedness is simply something we are taught not to expose, except when at the doctors office or showering in gender specific places after gym or in the military.

Is the gay soldier significantly larger than the straight soldier? Because if so, then yes.

I'm sorry my answer didn't fit your preconceived idea of what you think I was going to say, but you know, maybe you just don't know people as well as you think you do.

I don't think it's working Moe.

Don't be silly, he doesn't go to the gym. He wraps his middle in saran wrap and jump ropes!

Haha, no. I assume the likelihood is that they're smaller and weaker. But, no, not all.

Ah, so you just don't believe that they're plausible. Always a half empty glass with you, isn't it?

Alma's "I hit my posting quota for the day" remark just lost its spot as Saddest Statement in this Thread.