The Official End of DADT

[AUJarhead]

Oh what the hell. It worked in "Starship Troopers" it should work in real life.

If the women in the military looked like the women in Starship Troopers, yes.

They say that in the Marine Corps the women are mighty fine
They look Phyllis Diller and walk like Frankenstein
U.A. I wanna go...

[Tarheel]

We might as well bring up the mary j legalization thread again too.

Yes, indeed.  That could be a great topic to warm over...along with 'Gay' Marriage.

[AUTiger1]

Yes, indeed.  That could be a great topic to warm over...along with 'Gay' Marriage.

Oh and don't forget the microbrew beers, abortion, LED light bulbs, taking Confederate Flags off of tombstones,  we have to talk more about those as well.

[Townhallsavoy]

LED light bulbs

These are ruining Christmas.

[GarMan]

These are ruining Christmas.

Exactly!  Bunch o' damn commies...

[Tarheel]

These are ruining Christmas.

So are the damn Athiests and Agnostics.

 

[GH2001]

These are ruining Christmas.

You mean the "winter holiday celebration"?

[AUChizad]

From the black-and-white, core, simplistic perspective, you should be correct.  Unfortunately, this is far from over.  As I have stated before, this introduces a mountain of social issues that the military should not have to address.  These issues are distractions that our military can do without.  One such issue is a challenge to extend military benefits to a homosexual service member's partner-of-the-moment.  Of course, girlfriends and fiances of heterosexual service members are ineligible for such benefits.  The homosexual community is not simply a race or gender.  It's a social community...

Oh the great injustice!!! A gay man might secretly admire my cock if he catches a glimpse at it in the shower! Pretty sure rape, both heterosexual and homosexual, is still frowned upon. Pretty sure if he catches wood and starts jerking off in the showers will deeply staring into your balls, that'll be dealt with as well. I suppose your answer is every establishment needs to start installing four separate bathrooms. Can't have a gay dude accidentally catch a glimpse while I'm pissing into the trough.

If this is your "gotcha" for denying a faction of society the right to protect our country, you're probably deeply ashamed of your cock.

[Townhallsavoy]

I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical. 

If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes. 

Here's a novel idea: individual stalls. 

[AUJarhead]

Here's a novel idea: individual stalls.

Well, this gets back to the core of my opposition to repealing DADT.  Fundamentally, and morally, I don't really give a damn if the guy in the fighting hole is gay. 

But it's the unintended consequences.  If we have to go to individual stalls, what's that going to cost?  What's it going to cost to build new barracks at every base in the country, so we have one for straight, one for gay?

[Townhallsavoy]

Well, we have a few options:

1.  Tell gay people that because they are an inconvenience, they are no longer welcome to protect their country.
2.  Build new barracks.
3.  Renovate current barracks to protect privacy
4.  Get over the fact that a gay dude is turned on by you (refer to my previous post about how this could be a danger)

Seems like option 3 is the easiest transition.  That is until they discover the gene and eradicate....wait, sorry.  Got a little ahead of myself.   

[GarMan]

Oh the great injustice!!! A gay man might secretly admire my cock if he catches a glimpse at it in the shower! Pretty sure rape, both heterosexual and homosexual, is still frowned upon. Pretty sure if he catches wood and starts jerking off in the showers will deeply staring into your balls, that'll be dealt with as well. I suppose your answer is every establishment needs to start installing four separate bathrooms. Can't have a gay dude accidentally catch a glimpse while I'm pissing into the trough.

If this is your "gotcha" for denying a faction of society the right to protect our country, you're probably deeply ashamed of your cock.

Hey Asshole...

Take your Advocate rainbow glasses off and read my post again.  I'm not focusing this to cocksuckers catching glimpses of heterosexual cocks in restrooms.  As my post stated, one of many challenges coming out of this is the request to expand military benefits for homosexual members beyond traditional eligibility for heterosexual service members.  Oh, and now they too want separate barracks and heads/latrines...  (Wait a minute!  That's not the same "head" that you're accustomed to providing.)  Oh, and they also want "bunk privileges" so they can fuck their military partners-of-the-moment in the barracks... 

Seem absurd?  It should...  Unfortunately, it's all true. 

[AUJarhead]

Well, we have a few options:

1.  Tell gay people that because they are an inconvenience, they are no longer welcome to protect their country.
2.  Build new barracks.
3.  Renovate current barracks to protect privacy
4.  Get over the fact that a gay dude is turned on by you (refer to my previous post about how this could be a danger)

Seems like option 3 is the easiest transition.  That is until they discover the gene and eradicate....wait, sorry.  Got a little ahead of myself.   

Oh, I agree that #2 and #3 are the easiest things to do.  But when our country is broke, why incur additional expenses?

[Saniflush]

Bunk privileges do not apply to their heterosexual counterparts.

[GarMan]

I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical. 

If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes. 

Here's a novel idea: individual stalls.

Clearly, you're not as enlightened as Chad.  That guy knows everything, and he scoffs at your concerns...  That dude stands alone... 

But back to an honest and relevant discussion on this, you're exactly right.  Unfortunately, there's no room for traditional common sense in this debate. 

[GH2001]

I do wonder what kind of psychological effect is caused from being sexually aroused even if it doesn't lead and never would lead to anything physical. 

If I was placed in a shower with thirty naked women and found some of them attractive, I doubt I could go out and participate in combat training at the same intensity if I had been in a shower full of dudes. 

The point is: How would THEY feel about it? This has been made all about the poor gay guy. His feelings are hurt. HE/SHE chose to go against the grain of nature, not us. Unnatural actions produce unnatural consequences And if you don't think gayness is unnatural, tell me how humans can reproduce in that manner? A dick and a dick don't go together anatomically and they sure as hell can't produce offspring. There is no getting around that. It's not what we were intended to do.

Unless you are Vandy Vol - he was born to suck a mean cock.

If you go gay, and decide you want to start screwing men and are attracted to them, straight guys should be afforded every right to NOT be subjected to those people who are "attracted" to them. The same way women are afforded the right to not have to shower, dress, etc in the same place as men. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

[GH2001]

Bunk privileges do not apply to their heterosexual counterparts.

Bingo

[GarMan]

Oh, I agree that #2 and #3 are the easiest things to do.  But when our country is broke, why incur additional expenses?

Fuck 'em...  I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns.  We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society.  I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me.  It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.   

[GH2001]

Fuck 'em...  I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns.  We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society.  I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me.  It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.

Quite thinking with your brain GarMan. You don't have enough empathy and sorrow for the disenfranchised.
 

[Townhallsavoy]

Fuck 'em...  I say go with number 1, at least until we have the time and resources to adequately address the social concerns.  We're accommodating for a social group that only makes up approximately 3-5% of our society.  I like to fuck 2-3 women at the same time, but society and government doesn't really accommodate for me.  It makes no sense to make accommodations for queens in the military.

Last I checked, we aren't living in a true democracy but rather a democratic republic.  Therefore, it's the job of the majority to make sure the "3-5%'s" are given equal rights and opportunity.

Will you be as understanding if one day you're the minority in a situation and denied something?