Sir Xsarus wrote:
My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men.
So what are those reasons, and why are they the same as the ones between men and women?
Comfort. It's the same for men and women, because it's the same. I'm not sure how you can break it down any further. I gave you a chance to explain otherwise and you have failed to give any other reason. Segregation preferences are because of comfort levels.
I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.
Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.
My entire argument is that it's possible for people not to want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots. My proof is that women have the same reasons against doing those same activities with men and they aren't frown upon. For whatever reason, men are called names for expressing the same exact feelings towards homosexual men. This double standard proves that it is possible to not want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots, which is what women do all of the time, which is my point. Therefore, that is 115% relevant.
I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.
I'm not naive, I realize that there might be scenarios where double standards maybe "better", but you wont even admit that it exists in this situation or that it is relevant.
Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.
Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in... Wow, you guys are really agreeing with me now.. 2011 is going to be a good year. That's two 40+ threads that has ended in agreement.
You're still failing to make an argument.
I'm not failing at all. You're just ignoring all the points and labeling them as "irrelevant" when you can't counter them.
You stated that men have been sharing with homosexuals all the time before so it wouldn't be any different.
I countered to say that they have been sharing rooms and showers, but under the assumption that they were heterosexual and that was the whole point of DADT.
You countered with the nonsense that DADT was stating "You WILL be showering with homosexuals"..
I countered that nonsense to point out that wasn't the point of DADT, else sodomy and homosexuality wouldn't be punishable under UCMJ. Instead of you admitting that you were wrong on the concept of DADT, you decided to say that the rules will change anyway, which was never the point of the discussion.
Nice try. It really isn't that hard to say "My bad, I was wrong". You actually become more credible that way.
The difference being that men are men and women are not men. Women have vagina's men have penises. All men be they **** or straight have penises. Do you understand the difference?
As I told Sir X earlier. The point in equality is to treat everyone the same unless there is some form of justification. Your only reason is that men are men and women are women. What is the justification of the discrimination? If we start treating people different because they have vaginas and plump, tender, nice and round breasts, where does it stop? There has to be some justification beyond that.
Side story.. I was talking with a co-worker and she was saying that she hopes that she doesn't get put in admin because she doesn't have a penis. Typically, women do that position more than men. According to your logic, you approve of such nonsense. "Administration.. That's a WOMAN's Job! We can't have men and women sharing jobs or offices!" Taking a step back aren't we?
I'd say it's more about fear/ignorance but either way you have failed to make any sort of argument - right or wrong, that there is a reason to maintain a DADT policy that doesn't involve 'feelings'.
You're right, I didn't make an argument to maintain DADT because that was never my goal. You're just attaching your own feelings to my argument. Once again, my point is that it is possible for people not to want to room and shower with homosexuals and not be a bigot.
Omega Vegeta wrote:
You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) **** whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the **** that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.
But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little **** about it?
My entire point is for these posters just accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with a man not wanting to shower or room with a homosexual. That's all.. Nothing more and nothing less. People are just making a big deal out of nothing.