Senate Repeals DADTFollow

I haven't forgotten about the other responses, but I had to respond to this nonsense first.


Seriously WTF is so unbelievable about me creating a quota to stop posting to enjoy my Christmas break? Are you really that dense, or is this me acting "defensive" because you're not really saying anything of any value?

Sure it does.

Well, maybe not in regards to Beyonce.

Ding ding ding! And this is why having gay and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all gay men are going to be attracted to all other men.

And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.

So why do we have separate shower facilities for men and women? Not all straight men are going to be attracted to all women either.

Apply your logic to more than just the one case you're arguing and see how it works.



So you support having men and women in the military share showers, barracks, etc? Just checking how far your principles of equality really go.

lolwhat. Id **** the **** out of britney spears but I am not attracted to her, hell Id stick it in Demi Moore too just to say I did. The amount of places my ***** has been compared to the number of girls ive been attracted to is not very close to even. Clearly someone has never worn beer goggles home from the bar, or is still a virgin.

My ***** decides where it wants to go on its own, it doesn't mean the rest of me has to enjoy it.

For the millionth time: the straight and gay men are already showering together. All you straight guys were hanging out in the locker room in high school with at least one gay guy, I'd be willing to bet. And all this time, these gay men haven't out-and-out leered at you or made you uncomfortable, have they? They've been able to control themselves and more likely, they just didn't find you attractive. And if they haven't been able to exercise control, maybe it crosses over into sexual harassment and then it becomes a totally different issue.

A tangent note, but I found it to be interesting since we typically consider men and women in terms of equality. A typical male is about twice as strong in the upper body as a female, and about 50% stronger in the lower body. This isn't just because males tend to be involved in more physical activities, but largely because they have massively more muscle fibers and base muscle mass. Males also have stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments enabling for greater physical exertion.

I was always perplexed by the idea of girl push-ups, but it does make quite a bit of sense.

So you're also frustrated that no gay men have hit on you. Poor thing.

Wait, so you want a source that says that homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men except for sexual interest? That's interesting. How are you fighting for "Equality" if you're doubting the equality? I'm sure I could whip one up, but as I mentioned in previous threads, those types of sources will be biased to whatever you're trying to prove.

What question from page 2? I'm sure I addressed it.



My issue is people calling men bigots for feeling uncomfortable showering with homosexual men. I already explained the difference with the repeal of DADT. No one is denying the existence of homosexuals. Homosexuals don't walk around with a Scarlett Letter, so ANYONE can be a homosexual. It's all psychological, the same psychological thoughts that women have with men. There's no proof that the man next to her is remotely interested in her, yet he is separated as if he causes an increase of a threat.



Read above.



Besides the fact that would contradict the claim that the military welcomes the repeal, the quotes I presented to you stated that he needed time to implement further separation.



Read above. If everyone is "for the repeal", then there wouldn't be any slow moving bureaucracy. If the plan is to implement further separation among servicemen and the rewriting of the UCMJ, I'm sure that will take more than 40 days and probably longer than a year.



I know Mr. Gates, Mr. Mullen and President Obama ultimately decide the new rules, but they aren't the ones that best understand what's going on. That was my point, not who makes the rules, but who is most knowledgeable on the situation. It's the Chiefs of Staff, that's why they advise the President and that's why Mr. Obama is allowing them the time to implement the changes. If the President isn't going to listen to the staff, then there is no point in having a staff.

Of course they are "politicians", that's why they didn't just come out and say that DADT shouldn't be repealed. If they thought the repeal was so necessary, they would have been fighting it all along, not when a new president comes in. FYI: The biggest difference between an officer in the military vs the enlisted, is politics. All Officers are "politicians" on different levels.

Suggesting that no gay man in the history of communal showers would ever sneak a glance or two at someone they find attractive would be pretty silly. Its not very hard to fathom. Personally, were I to share a shower with the opposite gender, i'd be damned hard pressed to not sneak some looks at somebody I found attractive. I'm sure there are a few like-minded gays out there. And if the possibility exists, its then perfectly natural to want some extra privacy options to help alleviate the concern. For better or worse, we've got a lot of social mores that disincline us from being seen nude, particularly by those who are sexually attracted to our gender.

It's a social construct, yes, but there's nothing inherently right or wrong about it. Its certainly got nothing to do with a lack of maturity, nor does it imply a self-consciousness about ones looks or package size. To suggest otherwise is just ad hominem.

But anyway, as I said before, its a poor argument against DADT repeal because gays and straights are already showering together. All I'm saying is that I see nothing wrong with someone making a case for some additional partitions and curtains to go along with the repeal. Nothin' wrong with that, right?

Everything? What, did you just completely fail to understand the scenario? If you break the rules, or there are allegations that you broke the rules, you get investigated. Attempting to take matters into your own hands because someone looked at you sexually is over the line.

The point was about protecting the comfort of soldiers. If soldiers were uncomfortable sharing facilities with black men because they were bigots but had to suck it up, how is that significantly different from having to suck it up and share with gay men (which they're already doing)? Your best argument is that one discomfort is more legitimate than the other, but you haven't really managed to defend it so far.



No, some of them just think it will make the bigots uncomfortable. Otherwise you've yet to make a successful compelling argument that exemplifies these people who are against DADT but aren't bigots.

No, you're allowed to be gay; you're just not allowed to know who is gay.