Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Sexuality is a personality trait. So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe? So, you're saying that a man who expresses anxiety about a woman checking him out makes him a heterophobe? The anxiety of being checked out does not mean homophobia/heterophobia, it's about "fear" or "discomfort" of being checked out. Just because that person is of a certain sex doesn't necessarily mean anything. A person could very well only feel comfortable being naked in front of certain people.

Well, it's good that you can admit that you're just an idiot after all.



WTFRU talking about? I said that they are completely different because they are.



You're in denial. Your argument only holds true for young children, not adults. It's ok for two 4 year old brothers to share a bath or get dressed together. At certain ages, it's even ok for both sexes to share baths and get dressed together. As you get older, that isn't the case. You become more private with your body towards both sexes. For every family of adults who aren't married, that share showers together in their home, I can name you a family that is out of the norm.

MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH NUDITY. Period. When you're young, you don't really think about that stuff. When you get older, you become more modest. I would feel very awkward taking a shower with my dad. So, this nonsense that EVERYONE is comfortable with nudity of the same sex is not only stupid, but delusional.

Your first time being naked in front of a group of people should feel different, because it's not what you're accustomed to



That's funny, because that's not what the DoD says in their Homosexual Conduct Policy, so quit making stuff up. According to you, we are allowed to anything I want as long as I don't get caught? So you believe that we are actually allowed to commit adultery, fraternization, oral/**** sex?

Then answer me this? If we're allowed to do those things, then why are we punished if we get caught?

People realized that asking people their sexual orientation "violated" their privacy, so therefore they removed that question. Just like no one ever asks you "Does your wife ever suck your d*ck?". It's the same act of respect, even though they aren't authorized to do either.

I know what you're trying to get at, but you can't say that homosexuality is allowed in the military, if they are chaptered out of the military for being a homosexual.

+1

I gotta get to 30k somehow.

You're confused on the scenario... You're making the assumption that Jon showers with Mark everyday, so what's the point? That's not the case. You nor I know the frequency of a unit going to the field. It can be twice a year or it could be every month. In either case, the fact that you're overlooking is, SGT Thomas, the new guy, can be in a unit for a month or so, then has a field problem. Now he has to shower with homosexuals for x amount of days. You can't make the argument that SGT Thomas showered with Mark before, "so what's the difference now?", because he never showered with Mark before. Just because it doesn't happen everyday doesn't mean it isn't worth looking accommodating. Do you think women would accept open showers during training and while in the field? "Well,listen women, it isn't everyday, so quit complaining!"

You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.

Work with me.. The scenario is that Billy is gay. Pick a way.

Without repealing DADT, when SGT Thomas goes to the field now, he has to shower with gay Billy. see how it makes no difference? The point of my first post that started this tangent is that you're showering with enough guys to know that at some point, you're showering with a gay soldier. Repealing DADT and having that gay soldier come out, just lets you know specifically which soldier is the gay soldier. Now you can make an effort to avoid showering with that soldier whenever possible.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 11:26pm by Uglysasquatch

I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.




What's "enough"? Each person is different. Just because I feel comfortable showering with Ana, doesn't mean I feel comfortable showering with Sarah, no matter how many women I've showered with in the past. For you to think otherwise is silly.

It's a big psychological difference, which is the base for men and women separation to begin with.



I disagree, but I'm not going to go down that tangent (only need 12 posts to 4k). Pick whatever word you choose, at the end of the day, you don't know anything about knowing someone's skin color. On the other hand, you do know something about the person by knowing what they are sexually attracted to.



I didn't say anything about assault, so please answer the question."So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"



Difference was in reference to discrimination of skin color to discrimination of someone's sexuality. The similarity was in reference to the comfort concerns that women have for men and what men have for homosexual men. I'm not sure who mixed up what, but that should clarify up things for you.



This is the thing, people grow out of being exposed to others and they grow into being more conservative with their bodies UNTIL they are introduced to locker rooms. During this time, they have to go through a psychological change of thought. Even in my locker room experiences in middle school and high school, no one got naked, only undressed to their underwear. If that's the case for someone, actually showering in the public is another psychological change of thought.

So, while people like athletes may be accustomed to sharing showers with people throughout their lives, that's not true for everyone else. So, you can't assume the comfort levels for everybody and their past history.



I completely agree that body image is a major factor to be comfortable with nudity, but that doesn't mean that people who are comfortable with their body has no problem with public nudity. Those are two different situations. Rather if it's from shame or sexual attraction, the over theme is that you don't want anyone to see you naked.



I think it's evident now that you actually didn't read the Homosexual Conduct Policy. A homosexual can get discharged out the military for being a homosexual without actually violating any Sodomy laws. This is what we argued in the last DADT thread my image argument. A person can get discharged for simply saying "I'm gay". That is not homosexual conduct, but is considered as such by the DOD. Saying "I'm gay" doesn't make you gay.

I'm not confusing conduct with orientation. You are confusing (probably intentionally) "being able to join" with "being allowed to join". As the DoD stated, your sexual orientation should be kept private, so there is no justification to just ask someone if they're sucking d*ck. That isn't ALLOWING homosexuals, but enables them to join without lying. Even if they asked your sexuality, homosexuals could still join because homosexuals don't walk around with Scarlett Letters.



I'm in the U.S Military, not the Red Ribbon Army of Unicorns and Rainbows. You know, the one you made up.

The problem was that it was too smart an argument for most of you to deal with. You like your politics dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and don't like when someone points this out.

It's funny how uptight some of you get about this though. My observation didn't say anything about the legitimacy of the proposed legal changes at all, but to judge by the response, you'd think I'd just eaten your favorite pet or something. Very very defensive.

Then it's not the fact that the person is gay that the problem but individual comfort level with individual soldiers, which to me sounds like something that you can't and shouldn't cater to. You could make billy at the new unit straight but jon is uncomfortable showering with him. You can't cater to that.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:30pm by Xsarus

Not at all, that is only a possibility.

It could be very possible that Jon knows that Mark isn't interested in him, so it doesn't bother him. Billy may be a little too flamboyant for his comfort, making jokes of sorts or he could just have a "hunch" that Billy might be interested in him. In any case, of numerous possible cases, it is possible that Jon may think that gay Billy might be checking him out while certain that Mark isn't the slightest bit interested in him.

Or... It's labeled as a stupid argument by those who don't want to be reminded that their political positions are pretty much solely based on word manipulation.



I'd say the same. It's not like I invented some new definition of the word "repeal" or anything. Any honest person should be able to quickly conclude that despite the word repeal being used as a label, what we're doing isn't in fact a repeal of DADT.


I'll freely admit that it's a minor point, but that only makes it more interesting to see some people argue so strongly against it. I'm honestly sorta curious why it's so important to some of you that no one realize that "repeal" is not really the correct term for what we're doing?