Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

Trying to stay the hell out of this one, but...



Wrong how? I know that Alma responded to the couples side of this, but unless they are giving gay soldiers their own private quarters, then gay soldiers will be barracked with other soldiers of their own sex, while straight soldiers will not be barracked with soldiers of the opposite sex (barring actual married couples, usually in off-base housing of course).

My issue with this has always been the selectiveness of it. If we're doing away with the idea that soldiers should worry about being housed with other soldiers who may find them attractive, why not do away with it entirely? Get rid of sex-based housing as well. Everyone's a soldier. Everyone bunks in the same rooms. Everyone showers in the same facilities. Everyone takes a dump in the same toilets. Isn't the principle being argued here that a soldier shouldn't care if a gay soldier sees their private parts apply equally to opposite sexes as well?


It just seems odd to me to make an argument based on a pretty clear principle, but only apply it in one case while ignoring the far more obvious one. The amount of effort being expended over whether a gay soldier can tell people he's gay just seems silly to me in this context.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about recognized couples. I'm talking about everyone else. Right now, quarters are divided by sex. Men and women are not housed in the same bays normally. This is done out of a combination of the sexual activity which may result *and* that most people are uncomfortable being housed in the same bay with someone of the opposite sex.

Those concerns are specific to the assumption of men and women seeing the other sex as potential sexual partners. If they didn't, we wouldn't need to separate them, right? My question is why the same exact concerns are effectively ignored in the case of homosexuals. If the argument for why there should be no concerns about openly gay soldiers living in the same bays with other men is because they should just get over it and not worry about it, then why do we still separate men and women?


The military spends a hell of a lot of money providing separate facilities for men and women. Women are excluded from many (mostly combat) positions specifically because of the impracticality of providing separate facilities. Surely, this is a far far greater cost and problem than the handful of closeted gays serving in the military who might lose their jobs if found out, yet despite the fact that the solution is identical in both cases, we're only applying it to gay soldiers.

Why not just eliminate all sex based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were gay, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

There are? I'd love to hear them cause I can't think of anything else which would justify the need for completely separate housing facilities. But knock yourself out!

Lol! Um... No. What part of this statement (which you quoted no less!) made you think I was talking about recognized "couples" in the military? I went out of my way to say (twice!) that I wasn't talking about couples, yet you somehow completely ignored that and pretended I was anyway.




I'm speaking specifically of the general population of soldiers and where they live while on base. Those quarters are separated by sex. My question is pretty straightforward. If the argument for allowing openly gay soldiers to barrack with other soldiers of their own sex is based on the assumption that soldiers should just be able to deal with this, why isn't the same argument applied to opposite sex soldiers? Why do we continue to separate men and women?

Regardless of what you think I was asking, this is my question. Do you have an answer? Because to me, the exact same argument for allowing openly gay soldiers to live in the same bays with other soldiers of the same sex should apply to an argument for allowing straight male soldiers to live in the same bays with soldiers who are female. I can't for the life of me see why one would treat those cases differently.

Edited, Sep 27th 2011 6:37pm by gbaji

So you really want to be hanging out while a woman changes her tampon? You're a bigger freak than I thought.

You have "combat" shits & combat ****** the femmes get combat tampon re-supply.

Hu-Rah!

You mainly get to look at them in the trash can.

Let me know when homosexual sex gets people pregnant.

No, because sex doesn't equal sexuality.

Just ask Tailmon.

They're separated by gender, just like at camp. Which is just another place straights & gays have bunked together for years.
If you want to watch a documentary on the subject, I'd recommend Wet Hot American Summer.

This is why officers are as useless as civilians when talking about how soldiers feel about topics. This argument hinges on the assumption that homosexual didn't exist and weren't already showering, or that they're just SO WILY that the rest of us were just too stupid to realize they were there.

But hey. Officer. Not knowing anything about soldiers. Nothing new.

Edited, Sep 28th 2011 11:44am by lolgaxe

What does this even have to do with DADT? I mean, I'll respect that people are uncomfortable stuff and all, sure. But really, it not like they weren't there before. Only difference is now there's a chance you may actually know who they are.

I'd imagine chances are pretty good you were getting lusty-eyed behind your back for years.