The British are reporting no significant problems since their integration and acceptance of gays in the military in 2000. The process has gone rather smoothly and hasn’t sparked the problems of harassment, blackmail, discord or bullying that many thought would occur.
So is it time for the United States to do the same and allow openly gay soldiers in the military? Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks so. He told the New York Times that when the military is stretched so thin, the United States “must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”
So now it’s OK because we really need them?
Gen. Peter Pace, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune in March that he supports the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays because he thinks homosexuality is immoral.
Posted by Andie Clum
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
231 Comments
USMC Staff Sergeant Eric Alva was the first Marine injured in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As a result of losing his leg to a land mine, he was personally awarded his Purple Heart by President George W. Bush. The Marines have officially declared SSgt Alva a “credit to the Corps” ( http://www.defendamerica.mil/profiles/jul2003/pr072803a.html )
Earlier this year, SSgt Alva, a true American hero, came out. Alva is just one of thousands of gay and lesbian men and women who serve honorably in our nation’s armed forces. They’re forced by a ridiculous policy to live lives of fear – not of the enemy, but of their CO.
It’s time to repeal this ridiculous ban. It’s time to let the men and women who believe in our great nation to live openly and honestly. It’s time to recognize that we all love America, and many of us are willing to give life and limb in its defense.
While I don’t think it is for me, what is so immoral about homosexuality? And since when US Armed Forces choose to defend a specific set morality dogmas instead of the US Constitution?
While acknowledging that the military’s ban on gay people is unfair, the true answer is not in lifting the current ban. It is to continue it and institute a similar ban on heterosexual soldiers. We must make sure that only the most moral and celibate Americans are sent to kill the people who disagree with us!
This is a silly rule, and has been since Clinton enacted it.
The problem, however, comes when people of the same sex are in close quarters that require them to share intimate physical proximity.
As a female, I’ve never felt ill at ease when undressing in the girl’s locker room at the Y. I would, however, feel nervous were I made to undress in the male locker room. And, likewise, I would be nervous undressing in front of lesbian women.
That’s the crux of the problem, folks, being gay lumps one immediately into the ‘opposite’ sex grouping when it comes to intimate privacy.
The answer is private toilet areas, but is that feasible?
I don’t know – you tell me. Gay people have the right to serve in the military. Everybody has the right to intimate privacy.
The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule is ludicrous. Not that I feel gay people SHOULD be forced to tell, but the rule effectively silences them.
Is this a clash of rights?
Do we currently have any co-ed companies? I know some cities have co-ed public restrooms. How does that work? I’m not sure I would be comfortable enough to use them. Has anyone else?
If EVERYTHING in the military goes co-ed I think that would also solve the problem, but I know I would not be comfortable in that situation.
Perhaps it wouldn’t bother young soldiers. I propose we ask them. After all – they’re the ones risking their lives for us.
GS–
Re-read Tom’s post.
Gays are already in the military, and they always have been.
Your baseless fear is not grounds to discriminate against an entire group of people.
Now GS,Why are you recycling that old argument from the early days of the women’s rights movement, that if we give women equal rights, they’re going to want to use our restrooms?Is it that hard to think of legitimate reasons that you have to plagiarize the talking points of past issues? Or is it that you don’t want to admit your real reason-hate!
Capn – did I SAY we should discriminate?
Take a reading comprehension course.
Jed – ditto.
Would either of you care to address the points I made?
Or do you both want to just sling mud?
Answer this – do I (as a woman) have the right to intimate privacy?
Would you force me to undress in front of men?
Would you force me to undress in front of lesbian women?
Put your cards on the table here – enquiring minds want to know.
In Marine Corps Boot Camp, there would be as many as 70 men in the same common showers at the same time. In that situation, it’s not hard to tell who’s gay. You don’t want to be “outed” in the showers with 70 Marines.
So G Sheridan is on record that the US Military should not discriminate against gay personnel.
Great.
Glad to hear it.
“do I (as a woman) have the right to intimate privacy?”
In the company of women, no. You’re government issue.
Should you be forced to undress in front of a known lesbian? There are already laws on the book about sexual harassment.
Should you be forced to undress in front of men? Pretty stupid question, don’t you think? Well, maybe you didn’t.
You’re whole argument is typical neo-con nonsense.
So, JM, and Capn, take the typical ‘bandwagon rider’ stance. They don’t have a clue as how to address the issues – they just spout their agenda line.
Open – swallow.
The question is – how can this problem be solved, without creating further problems?
Does ANYONE have an answer?
What “problem” is there? GLBTs serving openly, or GS being forced to undress or go to unisex restrooms?
Let those who want to put their lives on the line for the country do so without prejudice. And as for forced undressings, is this an airport? The issue of unisex washrooms; well, when you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go… Besides, as many men would do, though much embarrassed to admit, outdoor urinating is always a possibility!
Okay, Roo – are you saying that no one in the military has a right to privacy?
Is that it?
Can’t say as personal experience, having never qualified to join. Off-duty, maybe. But it pretty much boils down to personal respect to others. The golden rule, per se.
But, can the military guarantee privacy at all times? Even in combat zones? Being in the military entails that the country owns the person.
But you are confusing the issues. Are GLBTs undermining the military? Or are they in danger by being there in the first place? If so, from whom?
And what is it that you consider privacy? Being naked together in communal shower? A person’s sexuality indeed is a private matter. But explain to me how that affect the quality of the military? Even ancient Greeks, the model for the Western Civilisations, placed high respect to homosexual warriors.
“Undressing in front of people who find you sexually attractive” is pretty presumptive.
As if every gay man sits in hope that “Republican” or “GSheridan” strips down to his skivies and drops the soap in the shower.
Any of us who has taken a shower at a health club or a locker room, or the military, or the YMCA, or high school has showered with someone whose sexual orientation is different. Count on it.
Anybody who’s flown on a commercial airline has experienced the horrors of uni-sex restrooms.
Anyone who’s lived in a typical American household has experienced life with uni-sex bathrooms. Maybe there’s a lot more rape in your home than mine, but at my place it tends to work out okay.
Maybe it’s just me, but of Scarlett Johanson showed up and asked to use my shower, I think I might restrain myself from breaking into the bathroom and ravaging her. And, if I were gay, and Brad Pitt showed up at my doorstep and asked to use my shower, I just might have the same restraint as he’s shampooing and sudsing up.
People who object to gay people in mainstream society don’t seem to understand that *they* aren’t the targets of every gay person on the planet. What incredibly beautiful and enticing people those folks must be!
This may astound you, but for 99% of the people on the planet, how you get your jollies in bed really doesn’t matter to them unless they’re in bed with you. People don’t choose to be gay anymore than people choose to be left-handed.
You might as well ban military service to anyone who doesn’t have blue eyes.
Talk about a non-issue…
“But you are confusing the issues. Are GLBTs undermining the military? Or are they in danger by being there in the first place? If so, from whom?”———–
I’m not confusing the issues – you are. I doubt any undermining is going on – the question is about rights?
Does one person’s right supersede anothers’?
“Anybody who’s flown on a commercial airline has experienced the horrors of uni-sex restrooms.”———–
Really?
I fly a lot and there has never been a man in the restroom at the same time I have been.
What airline do you frequent?
“I’m not confusing the issues – you are. I doubt any undermining is going on – the question is about ‘rights’?”
And assuming that it is, what ‘rights’ that GLBTs possess that’re trampling on yours?
“I fly a lot and there has never been a man in the restroom at the same time I have been.”
Is THAT your definition of unisex washrooms? Come visit my wife’s family in Finland then. Now that’s UNISEX SAUNA!
“And assuming that it is, what ‘rights’ that GLBTs possess that’re trampling on yours?”—————-
This has nothing to do with me, personally. I asked you a question that you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.
Is there, or isn’t there, any right to intimate privacy in the military? IF there is – how are you going to assure it across the board for everyone?
“Is THAT your definition of unisex washrooms? “——
That was LTP-FTL’s definition. Take it up with him/her.
“In Marine Corps Boot Camp, there would be as many as 70 men in the same common showers at the same time. In that situation, it’s not hard to tell who’s gay. You don’t want to be “outed” in the showers with 70 Marines”
So you think that the gay man in the shower room is obvious? Do you have any idea how many of us are in the shower room that are NOT obvious? The next time you are at the YMCA, think that over.
“Is THAT your definition of unisex washrooms? “——
That was LTP-FTL’s definition. Take it up with him/her.
Posted by: GSheridan | May 24, 2007 at 07:50 AM
Yes, you’re right. I AM mocking you! *sarcastically* I believe the morally accepted definition of Unisex washroom is one that are used by BOTH sexes (maybe three or more, who cares).
“And assuming that it is, what ‘rights’ that GLBTs possess that’re trampling on yours?”—————-
This has nothing to do with me, personally. I asked you a question that you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.
Is there, or isn’t there, any right to intimate privacy in the military? IF there is – how are you going to assure it across the board for everyone?
I HAVE answered it. Then I asked you, what you mean by “intimate privacy”. THAT you have NOT answered. Sorry, but that “international boarding school education” seems to be wasted upon your prejudices.
“Do you have any idea how many of us are in the shower room that are NOT obvious? The next time you are at the YMCA, think that over.”————
I’ve considered that many times – and what you are implying is in TOTAL agreement with the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ agenda, isn’t it?
Would I feel nervous if I KNEW a lesbian woman was in the same dressing room with me? Yes. I would feel the same way if a man was there with me?
I’m not in the military, but I am using myself, just to illustrate the situation.
The big question is – does ANYONE have a right to use the restroom, shower, undress, sleep, etc., with only members of their OWN sexual persuasion?
Obviously, if you don’t know – you don’t know, hence Clinton’s reasoning behind the ban. But what if you DO know?
Does it change anything?
“THAT you have NOT answered. Sorry, but that “international boarding school education” seems to be wasted upon your prejudices.”—————
Ah, once again, your true agenda surfaces.
LOL
I have used multi-stall unisex restrooms. The first time I felt kind of self conscious, but got more comfortable with it each time. I think most people feel that way when faced with something new and unfamiliar to them.
As a straight person who has several gay friends, I have also been to gay bars and again have used the ladies room. Frankly every one there was there for the same reasons women go to the restroom at straight bars…to talk about some one they saw who was cute, check their hair or makeup and some had to use the facilities. They weren’t there to try to peek at others using the facilities.
A friend from Fort Lauderdale and I were in Miami one day and decided to spend an hour at the beach. We unknowningly chose the topless section. I noticed it pretty quickly, but didn’t say anything. it took my friend the better part of a half hour to notice it. Her first thought was of her three year old son who was with us. He could care less. Most people were comfortable with it, it wasn’t sexual, except to one middle aged old fart with a video camera going from topless girl to topless girl. He got ran off when the girls noticed him.
My point is that nudity in situations in which nudity is expected is not sexual to most people.
True, one of my traveling partners happens to be gay and we often share a room, it’s no big deal.
People who complain that letting gays serve openly because they’re worried about being sexually assaulted should read an interesting report published by the DoD.
An excerpt from “Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault”http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2004/d20040513SATFReport.pdf
=======”Across DoD, there were 901 and 1012 alleged cases of sexual assault with uniformed service member victims reported to criminal investigations in 2002 and 2003, respectively. These figures include 24 (2002) and 94 (2003) reported cases in the CENTCOM AOR. Sexual assault, as referred to here, includes the alleged offenses of rape, forcible sodomy, assault with intent to commit rape or sodomy, indecent assault or an attempt to commit any of these offenses. There were 2,012 identified service member victims in the 1,913 alleged cases of sexual assault. Males constituted 9% of identified victims in these cases. Of the 1,913 cases of alleged sexual assault across DoD for 2002 and 2003, 1,634 alleged offenders were service members at the time of the incident. Males represented 99% of alleged service member offenders.”===========
So. Where is all the gay rape going on? GSheridan, this report should be particularly interesting to you, given that 99% of the perpetrators are men. So we’re not really looking at girl-on-girl assaults here, are we? Looks like the showers are safe for you ;)
“My point is that nudity in situations in which nudity is expected is not sexual to most people.”————-
I would assume that’s likely true in the instance you cite – topless (or even nude,) beaches.
Question is – should our military expect any privacy in the showers, bathrooms, etc., and if not – then why even have separate bunking quarters for males and females?
Couldn’t we save a lot of money by making the men and women not only bathe and use the restroom together, but also sleep in the same barracks?
“True, one of my traveling partners happens to be gay and we often share a room, it’s no big deal.”————-
So – likewise you would have no problem sharing a room with a male, I assume?
That’s pretty progressive, for sure.
Would you also allow a group of preteen girls to share their room with preteen boys?
“So. Where is all the gay rape going on? GSheridan, this report should be particularly interesting to you, given that 99% of the perpetrators are men. So we’re not really looking at girl-on-girl assaults here, are we? Looks like the showers are safe for you ;)”————-
Who said anything about rape?
Project much?
GSheridan,
Your major concern with letting gay people serve openly in the military is that straight soldiers would then be subject to sexual harassment and assault by said gay soldiers.
A) Gay and lesbian soldiers already serve in the armed forces.
B) Here’s a surprise: Many already serve openly. Their units and CO’s know, and they don’t care. The ban on openly serving is only enforced by people with axes to grind, or as a means of retaliation against specific personnel.
C) The facts, as reported by DoD and by the British military report referenced by this blog entry, do not support your fears that gay and lesbian soldiers are somehow undisciplined sex monsters who want to screw the first naked solder they see.
This isn’t projection. Get a grip.
GS-No, you don;t have a right to/expectation of privacy in the military when it comes to hygiene. At least, you didn;t when I served –1973-1977. The bathroom/shower issue is moot, or it was back in the day. In my day, the stalls had no doors, if there were stalls and not just a line of toilets!
All–There were gays in the military back then and everybody pretty much knew who they were. I am sure there were some who were unknown. They really didn’t cause any problems that I could see, nor did they get hassled by anybody else. It was pretty much live and let live. Of course, I was in the Navy and was not part of any “boots on the ground” service.I do think that there could be issues, but mostly behavior orientated. I think that as long as there was no “fraternization” either while on duty, or within a barracks situation, nobody should care. I think abnoxious behavior can be taken care of rather easily by the troops themselves.
“Your major concern with letting gay people serve openly in the military is that straight soldiers would then be subject to sexual harassment and assault by said gay soldiers.”—–
Wrong again, this is not my concern. I didn’t say I was concerned, I simply questioned whether or not there was a right to privacy.
I never said anything about being afraid – you ARE projecting.
Are you so uncomfortable when discussing this issue that you MUST instantly assume someone is out to get you?
Can’t you discuss it honestly?
Everyone is so worried about a gay looking at them in the shower, while the undress and when they take a leak. Are you really so stupid to think straight folks don’t look. We all want and deserve privacy regardless of who is around us. Personally, I spent 6 years in the Air Force and I don’t recall having to spend 6 years taking showers with the other guys. The ban on gays in the military is as stupid as the reaction to Janet Jackson’s boob….We spend too much time being ashamed of our bodies and sexuality. Maybe we should spend more time worrying about the politics that has so far caused 3500 American soldiers deaths. “No reason to go, no reason to stay” send Fred Phelps and his clan, straight and narrow minded…. good Republican’s if you ask me.
“Everyone is so worried about a gay looking at them in the shower, while the undress and when they take a leak. Are you really so stupid to think straight folks don’t look.”———
OK, Gerald, please explain the difference (if there is any,) between a gay looking at you in the shower – or a person of the opposite sex looking at you in a shower.
“I would be nervous undressing in front of lesbian women.”
“Would you force me to undress in front of lesbian women?”
“Would I feel nervous if I KNEW a lesbian woman was in the same dressing room with me? Yes.”
GSheridan,
You used words like “force” and “nervous” to describe your own, personal reaction to living in close quarters with someone you knew to be a lesbian. To me, this looks like you are expressing your personal fear of this type of situation. This isn’t projection – this is a plain reading of your personal comments of your personal views about your personal reactions.
“Are you so uncomfortable when discussing this issue that you MUST instantly assume someone is out to get you?”
Um…I have friends who have been kicked out of the military for being gay. Not for sexual assault, not even for fraternizing. Just for being. It’s not paranoia when they really *are* out to get us. ;)
“Can’t you discuss it honestly?”
Are you accusing me of being dishonest? If so, please be more specific about my alleged mendacity. If not, I’ll just let this go as overheated rhetoric.
The root of this problem is that Homosexuality is a choice.
How do you grant special rights and privledges based on a choice?
There are males and there are females. You can’t get around that.
How do you tell if someone is gay? Do you ask them? How do you prove that?
So now we have to build an entire infrastructure around accomodating a group of individuals who CHOOSE to be gay?
It is beyond rediculous.
OMG, this thread is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.
You guys are right. GS stupid arguements went from “I’m so beautiful everyone would lust after me” to “unisex bathrooms” to preteen boys and girls sharing a room to some pseudo privacy schtick.
Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh(deep breath)heheheheheheheheheh!
Hee hee hee hee! I actually think lesbians would be LESS likely to ogle anyone in the shower. Most of us have seen it all before. Multiple times. Up close.
Our curiosity about female anatomy is far less than the repressed straights think. Just because THEY wonder about the wonders of other women doesnt mean we do. We already know!
My ex and I were talking about this phenomenon last night. I wish I had a quarter for everytime some straight girl was AFRAID a mean ol’ lezzie would ogle them, then later turned out to be PISSED when we didnt.
Maybe that is why GS hates Rosie so much? I think little miss fossil fuels is secretly “bi-curious” because she sure is obsessed with lesbians and how evil they are. And how they “want” nothing more than GS.
Button up GS. Your hick side is showing…. And none of us are turned on at the sight.
Nathan,
A) 99.9999…% and so on of all gays and lesbians are fairly certain their sexual orientation is _not_ their choice.
B) Let’s pretend it is a choice. So what? Your religion is a choice, and your practice of it is protected by the UMCJ.
C) Find me a serious advocate for LGBT equality who wants separate infrastructures to be built. I’d be interested in hearing/reading what they have to say that would justify something so silly.
Though I have already given my opnion based on my experience, I think this question does deserve an answer, at least in the theoretical world.OK, Gerald, please explain the difference (if there is any,) between a gay looking at you in the shower – or a person of the opposite sex looking at you in a shower.
Posted by: GSheridan | May 24, 2007 at 09:09 AM ”
In the real world, I think it does not matter that much, at least to me. I would let gay and lesbians serve, and control any behavior–that includes hetereosexual behavior—that would be detrimental to the unit as a whole. Other than that, military men know that gays have always served, and it was pretty much live and let live.
GS
Where feasible the military tries to accomodate a certain amount of right to privacy. In combat zones and basic training (a little help here Nathan) or on Ships (Dave?) it’s not practical or cost efficient) in most of those situations. (It becomes a choice between transporting toilet paper, bath equipment etc and bullets, bombs etc…. I suspect most soldiers would rather have the bullets … they can’t throw tp at the enemy) When you’re back at your home base / port and are single and not authorized to live off base you will probably share a dorm room that will consist of 2-4 bedrooms, and 2 bathrooms and a common living room / small kitchen. You may share a bedroom, and you will may / probably have to share a bath with members of the same sex — usually the dorms / barracks are seperated into men and women floors / areas but not always …. if you choose to not live in the barracks / dorms and get an apartment off base if approved by your chain of command you may receive a housing allowance based on your rank …… but more than likely as long as there is room on base you probably won’t be approved for the allowance and it is out of pocket and in the case of young soldiers a significant drain on your paycheck… some accomodations are made for single occupancy of a bedroom (my son is a firefighter at Fort Hood, Tx and has his own bedroom at the barracks(not bath) because he works rotating shifts). If you choose to live off base without authorization, there is a possibility you can be reprimanded etc ….. So as a matter of efficiency / mission effectiveness the military can and will tell you where to live and who you will be sharing facilities with, but except in rare cases in rear areas you will not be required to share them with members of the opposite sex …. problems can occur though when one of your room mates brings home a boy / girlfriend for an overnighter …. that can / does intrude on your personal space and is often cause for conflict …
If gays are openly allowed into the military, it can create a whole new set of logistic issues — should there be a gay barracks? should there be gay mess (chow halls) areas? Creates a whole new set of budget issues ….. solvable probably but not to the entire satisfaction of gays and straights, but initially would garner a great deal of resistance to acceptance ….
“… likewise, I would be nervous undressing in front of lesbian women.” I don’t quite understand that in that you probably have many times and not known it — I suspect the military would not accept the notion and tell you to get over it. As long as you have the appropriate equipment you will be either male or female …. nervous? why? …. if one hits on you — Just say No —- if it goes beyond that you may have cause for a harassment complaint …
“The big question is – does ANYONE have a right to use the restroom, shower, undress, sleep, etc., with only members of their OWN sexual persuasion?”
In the military, it’s an accomodation you do not have a right to.
You don’t have a constitutional right to it. You may feel you have a “moral / biblical / personal choice” right to that — and you can exercise that right by choice …. but should public areas / restaurants etc ,,, be obligated to have M / W / G / L restrooms — no ….
heh heh heh heheheheheh…..
Still laughing about gs and all those lesbians who are out to get her. I think this thread and her attitude explain tons about why she obsesses about me and my life.
gs, why dont you just get it over with and sleep with a lesbian? I mean, since you worry about it so much. Rosie and I would decline, but heck, I know girls who would do it for the laugh.
And they wouldnt even ask you to take off your clothes…
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
cue germie in 3-2-1….
Our curiosity about female anatomy is far less than the repressed straights think. Just because THEY wonder about the wonders of other women doesnt mean we do. We already know!
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 24, 2007 at 09:19 AM
And this provides the answer to the question. Iknow you didn;t do it in response to my post, but it does indeed (At least I think) answer the question posed by GS that I thought deserved an answer.Bravo!
“C) Find me a serious advocate for LGBT equality who wants separate infrastructures to be built. I’d be interested in hearing/reading what they have to say that would justify something so silly.”
I dont think any extra infrastructure is necessary for the gay folks, nor do they want it.
Separate infrastructure would be demanded by those straight evangelicals who are so scared of homosexuality that they need special protection.
Damn, if gays are that good, that stealthy and that agressive, maybe the military should RECRUIT them instead of the bedwetters who fear them.
I have/had no problem with Gays in the military when I served. Once you put on the uniform it’s all business.
I only had one advance on me and I told the guy not to bother me or he would find himself peckerless in the middle of the night. :)
There was one Lt. Colonel that was openly gay. No one ever did anything about it nor should they. He was a cool guy and knew his stuff.
I think the question by GS is still valid:
What is the point of having seperate Male and Female restrooms, showers, and buildings if not for homosexuals?
If I were gay you would not see me going and fighting to keep America’s people free to keep Constitutions rights from me.
Ditto Delores. I dont understand why any gay person would want to do it, but hey, whatever. Most of them dont understand why I want to farm.
Difference? The farm isnt trying to kill me or make me a second class citizen. The military? Eh, not so much…
hee hee hee
I watched a program on Showtime last week called “The Latin Divas of Comedy” and it was a riot. The last two comics were the best, and one was a latina lesbian.
She noted that if she were in charge of the war in iraq, she would send in the lesbians with their guns and tool belts to finish off the insurgency, send the gay men in to clean up, and then send in the Mexicans to rebuild the whole damn thing.
heheheheheeheheh. Too bad there is so much truth to that….
“What is the point of having seperate Male and Female restrooms, showers, and buildings if not for homosexuals?”
I think it would be because if you’re gay or lesbian you are still either a male or female.
Well Delores,
If you could point out what the Constitution says about rights for people who choose to be gay?
ken,
What is the point of having seperate Male and Female restrooms then?
“I think it would be because if you’re gay or lesbian you are still either a male or female.”———
So why do we separate male from female?
What’s behind that reasoning?
Nathan,
Believe me – they can’t answer that.
Nathan
I don’t know …. maybe it’s because toilet needs are different, those facilities aren’t meant for sexual activity but for hygiene purposes etc and gay men still pee like straight men and lesbians pee the same way straight women do … – it’s an accomodation that has been made for ages
– GS probably has a better answer for that (why m / f?) —
Wow. Do you all really think that every time a gay man or lesbian sees a public restroom, we look at it as another opportunity for a sexual encounter?
LMFGAO
ken,
Alright lets make this easier since you can’t seem to see the forest through the trees.
There are stalls in mens rooms too. The exact same as in the womens. No difference. You can have stalls and urinals in the same bathroom. Nothing new there.
Do you think that women would want to share the same bathroom with men?
Why do you think what you do?
Baby steps…
Despite ReplagiarCon’s many and repeated lies, his above statement that he threatened to cut off someone’s twig and berries in the dark of night sounds about par for him.
Craven, underhanded, deceitful, cowardly.
Yup, that has the ring of truth to it . . .
Well Capn it worked. I could have reported him to our Commander and his 18 year military career would have been over.
Would that have been better Capn?
ahhhh Nathan
Why are you trying to pick a fight? — I’m trying to answer the question as best I can and I said maybe and I think it might be — I did — it’s an accomadation that has been made over the years — OK let me support your logic, I have no objection to sharing a bathroom with women — stalls or no stalls
Now explain to me the question “Why do you think what you do?” Did I discredit you’re or GS opinion — NO — in fact I tried to answer the question with why I thought the practice occurred — I didn’t say it was right or wrong — it just is ….
I didn’t create it –
Ken,
What I meant was this:
If you go to the Warren theater and take a poll of women there on if they cared to share the same restroom with men, what do you think the answer would be and why?
I wasn’t questioning your opinion, seeking you to have deeper thought on to why women would say what they would…
I am intrigued that NOBODY has dealt with GS’ question, which I believe, asked: Is there a right to “Intimate” privacy in the military…
If we knock off “intimate” the obvious answer is NO, but MAYBE…
GS — ALL of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, have been “seen” by members of the same sex as ourselves. That is a fact of existence.
So, unless we want to pretend total ignorance, we cannot, in all sincerity, say that we didnt necessarily KNOW who they were…
As for “Intimate Privacy” I am not totally certain what you mean by that limited definition…
If you are referring to “Intimate Privacy” with reference to conjugal situations, of course the military provides for such matters… it is called “married quarters” or base/post housing…
If you are referring to “Intimate Privacy” as it might relate to certain bodily functions of one of the sexes that occurs monthly, I would say OF COURSE there is, or should be, privacy for such a matter… Even in a combat zone, or training area, such accomodation can and should be made…
I guess that sort of answers your initial question… at least relating to “Intimate Privacy”
If the concern is that gay members of the same sex might look at each other in showers, then I guess I still have to say, It already happens… and has always happened… from the first time we hit a shower room in any school, or YM/YWC/H/A, or health club, or swimming pool area…
OK let me support your logic, I have no objection to sharing a bathroom with women — stalls or no stalls
Posted by: ken | May 24, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Dang, I must be getting old because I sure as hell do. :)
“So why do we separate male from female?
What’s behind that reasoning?”
Those were the questions — I said
“I don’t know …. maybe it’s because toilet needs are different, those facilities aren’t meant for sexual activity but for hygiene purposes etc and gay men still pee like straight men and lesbians pee the same way straight women do.”
Why do you think there are seperate facilities?
I have spent the night in the same bed with a woman, no big deal. I’ve been in lots of gay bars and went to the bathroom, again no big deal. Cheri had that right on. And I’ve also slept in the same bed with a man who I had no interest in, more than once. We were cold and there was only one bed. I’ve stayed in a hotel room with a man on a trip that I was not involved with. No problemo. You see them more as a sibling type relationship, so what that your brother or sister would see you in your skivies. You might be a bit modest, but certainly no one is traumatized.GS, you bring a good point to discussion however, every time someone responds to a point, you bring another one up. Ok, no, I don’t think privacy is a guaranteed right in the military, it is what it is, and to start assuring privacy for soldiers for whatever reason, would be ridiculous. So someone’s gay…big deal. You know they are or you don’t, again..so what. You’re ‘nervous’ well, lotsa things make folks nervous, we learn to deal with it and move on. Why make mountains out of molehills? I say live and let live, folks.
Three reasons for separating sexes for hygiene
1)Modesty reasons (yeah, they still exist or at least should)
2) Protection from both the threat of and actual preying upon women by men of a criminal nature
3)physical design
Ken,
Simple: Privacy.
Men and Women are opposites sexually.
Both men and women in general want their privacy concerning exposing themselves in a public restroom.
Even men in a mens restroom prefer to have a stall or wall dividing urinals.
Hence the unwritten rule of leaving one urinal between yourself and someone else if you can.
The tought of sharing a restroom with men would most likely make nearly all women uncomfortable.
I am surprised it is that hard to see for you.
That is why GS and I keep trying to draw the comparison of this with the homosexual issue.
LJ
Let me clarify — if my only choice is a unisex bathroom I would use it. If I had a choice of M / F / U — I would choose M — unless it was crowded and I really had to go then I would choose U — If my choice was only M / F and I couldn’t wait and it was crowded — I would use the F and try to tell any one there that there is a M here … I suspect many women would do the same …
…and the myth of gay people as preditors continues…
Farmgrrl,
Why oh why do they keep trying to make this into a “gay people want to have public bathroom sex” issue? Is that all they’ve got??? Do they really believe we hang around in restrooms, looking for lonely Marines to check out?
Good grief.
And the typical KFG take everyones comments to an extreme they never said continues…
Ken
I would agree with you except for one point, and that only because of fear. I would be scared to death to violate the F only bathroom if it had a bunch of women there. I don;t think any man would get his business done, andwould have lumps on his head. If it was unoccupied, I might try. (as one who has danced the dance of desperation:)
Tom,
Why don’t you start using the womens restroom everywhere you go and see how many people care…
Nathan
You are stating the obvious –
Then you should have said that from the beginning and answer the question yourself first — and not bait people then discredit them because they expressed an opinion / though because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear — Was my opinion wrong? did it discredit yours? No — in fact you were right and so was I ?
GS”Believe me – they can’t answer that.”
You should ask the question and provide “your” answer — and start the debate / discussion.
Ken,
Once again, I already told you I was not trying ti discredit your opinion.
It seemed like a rather obvious answer to the question.
I am surprised that you thought they are seperate primarily because of equipment.
Mountains out of molehills.The separation of sexes exists because of our culture. Go to a factory in China and see that everyone, male or female, uses the same trough…
How in God’s Green Earth did we get from gays in the military, to sharing bathroom facilities with the opposite sex???
WHY did anybody get that far off of point??? I dont think for ONE MINUTE that there are very many gays OR straights that would urge or encourage the use of Unisex restrooms… Normally when there is a Unisex bathroom somewhere, it doesnt have the intention that BOTH sexes use the facility at the same time… just that both sexes use the same Commode(pot). And heaven forbid if the guys dont put the seat down!!! LOL
You know, I am reminded of when the attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment was happening… And Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum attempted to s t r e t c h the ERA to the absurdity that if it was approved, the government would require men and women to use the same bathrooms, at the same time… I couldnt believe that she attempted to use that argument THEN… and I can hardly believe that is where this discussion has led NOW!!!
I think I understand why many live chat rooms have Moderators, in order to keep everybody on Point… LOL
Well Tom, this is typical WE Blog.
“The tought of sharing a restroom with men would most likely make nearly all women uncomfortable.
I am surprised it is that hard to see for you.
That is why GS and I keep trying to draw the comparison of this with the homosexual issue.”
OMG, that may be the most INSANE comment I have ever read here. And that is a high standard to meet.
No, I dont like to share restrooms with men, and I am glad to say why.
They dont put the seat up and they dribble and dont clean up. Or…
They do put the seat up, dribble on the bowl, and forget to put the seat down.
They are incapable of putting a roll of tp on the roll. Or picking it up off the floor.
They NEVER wipe the floor where “accidents” have happened.
They dont wash their hands often, and when they do, they pig up the sink and dont wipe up after themselves THERE either.
I hate whiskers or beard trimmings and dried shaving cream in the sink.
I do not relish the smell of Old Spice in the bathroom.
Hmmmm…. I think that is about it.
Oh yeah, and ALL the above rules go for gay men as well as straight men. :)
But please, feel free, as usual, to make this into some sort of lesbian, sexist, prove gay folks are evil and crazy post….
heheheheh
“That is why GS and I keep trying”
TRYING is the operative word here. You are not succeeding so please, keep trying. heheheheheheh!
If the arguement to keep gays out of the military has to extend to unisex bathrooms, I think it’s time to revist the stupid no gays in the military policy.
Does the word specious come to mind?
Heheheheeheh. And I’m also wondering if gs rampant fear of lesbians has anything to do with that girls bording school she attended? Did she learn something about herself she didnt like?
In Texas, we had a saying about the Hockaday girls….
I’m still ROLLING about this thread.
“Tom,
Why don’t you start using the womens restroom everywhere you go and see how many people care…
Posted by: Nathan | May 24, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Hee hee hee hee. Having shared facilities with Tom, not at the same time, but the same place, I can tell you, he is a good man.
He is polite and cleans up after himself.
And he doesnt wear Old Spice :))
Typical KFG…
Go off on some random tangent not even associated with the point trying to be made in an effort to only obfuscate.
I thought the “point trying to be made” was about men and women sharing restrooms. I answered your question.
If you think the answer sounds stupid, it’s because the questions were even dumber!
Ok, back on topic…
#1 – The military isn’t like being an average citizen. You don’t have the rights and expectations of the average citizen, but that’s inherent with the responsibilities granted to you. Basically, your CO tells you to #2 in a foxhole, you #2 in a foxhole.
#2 (teehee) – You’ve enlisted in an occupation that may or may not involve pointing a weapon at other people and killing them before they kill you. Is the off-chance you might be showering in the same facility with a lesbian really a relative concern?
“#2 (teehee) – You’ve enlisted in an occupation that may or may not involve pointing a weapon at other people and killing them before they kill you. Is the off-chance you might be showering in the same facility with a lesbian really a relative concern?”
Only if you are gs….
GS is worried about undressing in a women’s locker room where she knows lesbians are? How would she feel if she did not know it? Would it make it any different?
The problem here is not the gays in the military, it is the heterosexuals that are making it such a big monumental problem.
If a homosexual is making unwanted advances towards you, that would be just the same as a heterosexual making unwanted advances towards you. It is the behavior of the individual and not the fact they are homosexual.
Geesh, Republicans grow up would you?
Typical WEBlog again. God, guns and gays. And this thread seems to be a trifecta.
Yep. God, guns and gays, guaranteed to get the post numbers up and the wingnuts whipped into a frenzy.
KFG — Toooo funny!!! LOL!!!
KFG,
In our discussions, it is usually you who gets whipped into a frenzy.
Ken asked, “Why do you think there are seperate facilities?”
LOL…I’ll bite. Because men are such slobs?
All I can say is that if I were in a foxhole somewhere surrounded by an enemy with heavy artillery and an intent to blow me into the next three counties, Whether or not the other guy in the foxhole might think I had a cute tush would be relatively far down on my list of things to worry about. In fact if he did (a long shot at best), wouldn’t he be more inclined to do what he could to keep it attached to the rest of me?
KSFGrrrrrrrl
Soooo… Are you saying let God Gun down the Gays???
;->
hee hee hee
The only frenzy for me today is the laughter at the LUNACY exhibited on this thread today.
Jeebus, it’s down in phred phelps territory!
“Soooo… Are you saying let God Gun down the Gays???”
No solly, regretfully, there is always some religious whacko ready to do it FOR god! I guess they’d like to save god the trouble. Pre-emptive strike, ya know? :)
oO0(I’m wondering if the smiley softens that comment?)
I was Active Army when Clinton let in the gays. The “don’t ask don’t tell” thing really worked. There were a few folks outed and discharged, but no real turmoil. Most weren’t happy about it, but no one really knew who to be ‘afraid’ of. Became a non issue.
Sol,
Clinton didn’t “let in the gays.” We have _always_ been serving in the US armed forces. During the Bush Administration, the armed forces have discharged anywhere between 700 and 1200 people per year for their sexual orientation, whether or not they were sexually active.
What’s interesting is that the peak of 1200 discharges in a year has declined to a little less than 700 during the Iraq war. Trust me on this: The discharges haven’t gone down because there are fewer gay and lesbian Americans serving. The numbers have gone down because unit CO’s know they need good people in their command, and they aren’t about to kick needed personnel out.
It WAS just a joke farmie!!! Have a good one and watch out for the gun toting RRers
I found a chart showing the number of discharges since enactment of DADT:
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/3864.pdf
There were thousands of discharges in the Clinton years. Thousands of loyal Americans, willing to fight and if necessary die for our country, were kicked out of the military for no good reason.
Yeah solly I knew you were trying to make a joke. Sorry that I dont find killing gay people to be funny.
“There were a few folks outed and discharged, but no real turmoil.”
Oh yeah, no real turmoil.
Unless you were one of the 1200 “outed and discharged”…
Okay, here’s the deal – we don’t separate babies of the opposite sex until they are old enough to figure out there are ‘differences.’ Toddlers can share the same bathtub in total innocence.
But soon after we teach them to use the ‘male’ or ‘female’ bathroom as they grow.
Why? I would be willing to bet that even gay parents would not allow their seven year old daughter to use the men’s restroom on a regular basis.
Tom tries to put an asexual spin on it – no one in the military even thinks sexual thoughts….yeah, right, Tom. They’re still sprinkling Salt-Peter on their mashed potatoes. lol
The answer to the question lies in each persons’ ‘comfort level’ when changing, using the restroom, or sleeping. Are you comfortable sleeping with any member of the same, or opposite sex, like Wichi?
Or are you more modest?
The comfortable idea that you have the same apparatus as the person next to you totally changes if you discover that person’s sexual orientation is the same as if there were a person of the opposite sex showering next to you.
After all – why would it matter to ANYONE if gay people did not have any sexual drive at all?
In a normal locker room where guys are showering – there is no problem since no one (hopefully) in attendance looks at other men as sexual objects.
But when that element enters – sexual tension enters.
What I’m hearing here is that gay men don’t look at other men sexually.
Is that an accurate assessment?
Tom – are you telling me that although men are the object of your sexual desire you wouldn’t give them a second glance if they are standing naked beside you in the shower?
You should be up for Sainthood.
UMMM… In a NORMAL locker room, as you put it, you can bet your sweet bippy that there are already GAY men there… Thats to be expected in this day and time… Same goes for the women’s locker rooms… GS, they are ALREADY there…. Is there something you are not grasping about this fairly well known fact???
Even if some guy DOES look at another guy with some kind of sexual feelings, it is a PUBLIC shower room… I dont believe for one minute, that other than some crazy person, any Gay man is going to put a move on another guy, in a PUBLIC shower….
Please, cant you take your mind off of sex at all??? You keep insisting on bringing it “up”!!
“Same goes for the women’s locker rooms… GS, they are ALREADY there…. “—————–
You know what? If they ARE there- I don’t know it, and it doesn’t bother me.
But if I DID know a gal was a lesbian in the locker room, I wouldn’t change in front of her.
Would you (assuming you’re straight) just drop your drawers while gay men were around?
You, too, might be able to join Tom in his quest for Sainthood.
GS — I dont think, if I were you, I would suggest that a Gay man standing next to a straight man, naked in a shower, is the same as having a naked FEMALE standing naked in the shower… Now, if that’s not the gist of what you are saying, please enlighten??? Because that is the implication I am reading here:
“The comfortable idea that you have the same apparatus as the person next to you totally changes if you discover that person’s sexual orientation is the same as if there were a person of the opposite sex showering next to you.”
The fallacy of your logic is that the sexual orientation of a GAY man is the same orientation as a person of the opposite sex…
Can you see where that kind of thinking makes NO sense at all??
I mean, think about it…..
“Even if some guy DOES look at another guy with some kind of sexual feelings, it is a PUBLIC shower room… I dont believe for one minute, that other than some crazy person, any Gay man is going to put a move on another guy, in a PUBLIC shower….”—————-
So Chas – do you feel the same way about putting men and women in the showers together????
GS,I have gone on business trips with my gay friends, and sharing a motel room was never an issue that either of us thought about.
“I dont think, if I were you, I would suggest that a Gay man standing next to a straight man, naked in a shower, is the same as having a naked FEMALE standing naked in the shower…”———–
So Chas – gay men no longer have sexual feelings for other men?
Do you KNOW what being ‘gay’ means?
“GS,I have gone on business trips with my gay friends, and sharing a motel room was never an issue that either of us thought about.”—————–
And you KNOW his thoughts?
Man, you’re good.
GSheridan,
Cruising straight men in public showers would be a recipe for getting my ass kicked, no?
But this is just a red-herring. Your 12:35 post puts words into my mouth/keyboard, and then twists them to say things I never typed nor intended. Where did I try to “put an a-sexual spin” on anything? Paste it in. Where did I say gay men don’t look at other men sexually? Paste it in.
What you are implying here is this: Gay men and lesbians have no self-control, and view restrooms as opportunities for sexual encounters. Every time you push this notion, you impugn the integrity of every gay man and woman risking their lives in Iraq right now. You impugn the integrity of Marines like Eric Alva, who left a leg on an Iraqi battlefield. You insult every gay soldier, airman, Marine and sailor who has quietly served, and died, for our nation.
Furthermore, you insult me personally when you assume I would imagine any kind of intimate relationship with any man other than my partner. You insult all gay men and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and who take their oaths of loyalty and monogamy seriously.
I’m not a “saint,” GSheridan, but I do have integrity. Do you understand what that means?
YES I know what being gay means… NO, I dont think anybody on this Blog has suggested, that men and women share the same showers…
YES, I do believe gay men have sexual feelings for other gay men…
NO, I dont think they are going to use a PUBLIC shower to make that feeling known, especially if THEY arent sure if another man IS or ISNT….
Any other questions you want to ask to turn the subject AWAY from what you yourself already posted???
GS,Am I correctly understanding your point to be that the problem with homosexuals in the lockeroom is that because they are attracted to the people that are naked around them sexual tension is created?
(no sarcasm or jest implied, I want to make sure I understand what your are saying)
GS,We’re FRIENDS, remember? We talk! Don’t you have friends?
GS — ONE more time… These were YOUR words:
“…you discover that person’s sexual orientation is the same as if there were a person of the opposite sex showering next to you.”
To YOUR logic, I suggested to you that the fallacy is in YOUR understanding of a GAY man looking at another GAY man, the way a Straight man looks at a woman…
THAT IS YOUR idea… not Tom’s… certainly not MINE!!!
I still think this is funny as hell.
The reason gays shouldnt serve in the military is because some bedwetting straight boy or girl is afraid to shower with members of the SAME sex, just in case someone in there might be gay?
Or it would lead somehow to same sex restrooms?
Jesus wept. Even phred PHELPS must be having a laugh over this.
If you are in a “normal locker room” (whatever TF THAT means?) you can, as said above, bet your sweet bippy there ARE lesbians there.
They have the same probability of being in a “normal” locker room as they do of showing up at Homo Depot.
One hundred percent.
And let’s not even TALK about girls boarding schools and the probability of sharing showers with same.
If I were nathan and gs, I would observe the first rule of holes here. They’re starting to make IAN look good!
Well ya know Chas, we’re such predators, and folks like nathan and gs are such egotists they are convinced the sight of them naked would cause us to lose what little self control we might have ever had….
…and of course, while we are slinging stereotypes here, I’ll tell ya why straight guys wouldnt mind sharing a shower with lesbians.
First of all, they’d think they were going to get to WATCH something and fulfill there fantasy of joining in.
Second, related to the above fantasy, they seem to frequently think all lesbians need is the right weenie.
And they are almost always convinced that THEIRS is the “right” one.
Gay men sharing a shower with lesbians would run screaming from the room, hands over their faces, shouting “my eyes! my eyes! Someone please help me!” (heheheh I know this from experience…)
Lesbians in the shower/restroom/locker room with straight girls would be thinking one thing.
“High maintenance. Glad she’s not mine”.
Oh yeah, and lesbians in the shower with straight guys, would be thinking “hmmm. We have several of those at home in the drawer. Except bigger. I wonder how many batteries his takes…”
Farmgrrl,
Your 1:17 post is making me laugh so hard I’ve scared the household pets.
It’s all true, every word of it.
hee hee hee Tom. I knew SOMEONE would get it!
Who says the lesbian joke book is the shortest book in the world?
Who says the lesbian joke book is the shortest book in the world?
Oh yeah, and gay men in the shower with straight girls would be wondering who did that work on their love handles, and if they’d get slapped for asking.
Ksfarmgrrl-great story!
to the fearful of those gay/lesbian in the shower
You see a few predatory gay and lesbian people, and think they all are. Absolutely not true. Have no fear. Since you are not gay/lesbian, for the most part, they have no interest. The hetero examples you use are not valid because the assumption is always made that they MIGHT be interested.
To the gay/lesbianfaithful
You and your friends are nonpredatory, many in monogomous relationships, and wish to project that on all gay/lesbian folks.Not ture either. Scumbags are in all groups.
Personally, I think the fear is irrational. I have taken showers in a group shower with gay men. I did not feel threatened at all. My take: mind your own business. Military people have always known they were there, and paid little attention to it. What counted was their loyalty to the unit members, their command, and to the US Constituion. I think this whole brouhaha was probably brought about by civilians, if you ask me.
GS- I hate to tell you this. But your point is invalid. If you undress at the Y in the locker room, I just want you to know you have already undressed in front of a lesbian!! You just didn’t know it! I go to the Y. So do several other lesbians, not just one Y, all of them, we are everywhere. But don’t worry, we are not looking at you, it ain’t all that, if you know what I mean! We are just as self conscious as you are, and are not looking at you, in fact, we are also worried that others are looking at us, straight or gay! Get over it! You have been seen naked by a lesbian :)
Where all this bathroom talk is coming from is beyond me. For what it is worth, I have NEVER been turned on by the thought of a girlfriend taking a dump or peeing. I sure as Hell don’t want to watch, thank you. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that basic bodily functions would suddenly turn on a gay or lesbian individual.
That is just flippin’ weird.
We are just as self conscious as you are, and are not looking at you, in fact, we are also worried that others are looking at us, straight or gay!Posted by: iamru75 | May 24, 2007 at 01:31 PM
So many of us are insecure about our bodies,
Littlejohn,
You make some good points in your 1:30 post. There are scumbags and predators everywhere.
There are lesbians I wouldn’t trust alone with my daughter for 5 seconds. There are lesbians I would trust with her life. The same is true of gay men I know. Some are absolute jerks, but most are just decent people.
I think a telling statistic is that 9% of the sexual abuse victims in the DoD study I cited above are men. It shows that, sometimes, men DO target other men for sexual abuse. It’s reprehensible, and those responsible deserve harsh treatment under civilian law and/or the UCMJ.
I do have one question about that 9% number, which is probably unanswerable here: How many of that 9% were gay men sexually abused by straight men _because_of_ their sexual orientation? I know it happens, especially in prisons.
littlejohn,lets see you squeeze out 2 kids and see what your body looks like and see if you like it much. Not all of us were born with genes that make our skin go back to normal.Yes, unfortunately so many of us are uncomfortable with our bodies, society has helped us with that. Wish it weren’t true, but don’t most of us wish something were different? As I get older I get more comfortable.
Gays in the military… If they can pull their weight just like the straight soldiers, bully. It they follow the sexual harassment guidelines just like the straight soldiers, bully. What is the problem?
iamru75-
You get no argument from me. I cover my body at the swimming pool or beach. some bodies are not meant to be seen. Mine is one.
KFG — You got me laughing here too… can hardly type now… Thanks… I needed a great laugh for Thursday!!
And also, this whole line of inquiry needed a HUGE laugh break!! Keep it comin!!
Well Chas, all this talk about being afraid of us in the shower or somehow gays in the military are equal to sharing unisex bathrooms was a real set-up.
A slow pitch right down the middle, to use a lesbian locker room phrase…
(big eye roll here)
Would that have been better Capn?
Posted by: Republican | May 24, 2007 at 10:07 AM
What would have been better is to just say “forget it, I’m straight.”
That’s what everybody else does in a similar situation.
But I guess the threat of violent retribution when no one is looking is more your style.
Capn’, he just should have said that he was saving himself for marriage.
He is still saving, too.
Would have been better Clarkie if it were not for repeated attempts on a daily basis. It got very old and tiresome.
Of course Clarkie, using old and tiresome repetitive ad hominem is your specialty isn’t it?
“The root of this problem is that Homosexuality is a choice.”
Hardly. It is a choice however to be closed minded and discriminate.
“Gay men sharing a shower with lesbians would run screaming from the room, hands over their faces, shouting “my eyes! my eyes! Someone please help me!” (heheheh I know this from experience…)”
OMG. My side hurts from laughing! How true and how funny!
I’m not homosexual and apparently have none of the unproven “homosexual genes.” I’m not homosexual, so for me it is a choice.
Sorry to muddle the issue but thought some facts would be nice:
ZogbyDecember 18, 2006
• 73% of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays• 23% of service members know for sure that someone in their unit is gay, including 21% of those in combat units• 45% of military personnel suspect a member of their unit is gay
Pew Research CenterMarch 2006
• 62% of moderate Republicans support open service, along with 85% of liberal Democrats.• 67% of Catholics support open service, as do 53% of Protestants.• 66% of Americans in the Northeast support open service and 58% of those living in the South do the same.
The Boston GlobeMay 16, 2005
• 79% of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.
FOX NewsAugust 2003
• 64% of those polled support allowing gays to serve openly
http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/record.html?section=143&record=1900
Mafia,
How dare you muddle a perfectly good name-calling contest with facts?
HOW DARE YOU?
I keep having this vision of a company of marines; you know, 10 feet tall, meaner’n cat piss and used to taking out small countries before breakfast. Out in the bush they happen on an enemy patrol which immediately lowers it’s weapons and drops trou, sending our marines screaming in terror off into the jungle!
“I’m not homosexual, so for me it is a choice.”
I am confused, Republican, do you choose every day to be straight, or do you have a “gay” day every once in a while?
As for your virginity question, ‘Puke, you slam folks over the same subject every single day, why should you be exempt?
By your own admission, you have never been married and you claim to be a good Christian.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you still are a virgin.
By the way, you have just attacked to me for saying so, but you have never denied that you are still a virgin, so, using Republican logic, you must be “guilty” as charged.
Right?
You really tired of the Jewish ancestry Clarkie or do you wish me to pursue it further.
You appear to have a double standard when making your posts?
Are you homophobic Clarkie?
I neither confirmed or denied by virginity Clarkie. Perhaps Tom wants to chime in here about whether a person’s sexual activity is anyone’s business.
Or Clarkie would you like to show how you can keep a double standard in your shirt pocket?
Your comments are middle school Clarkie and don’t phase me a bit.
Nathan
Like I said you were stating the obvious about privacy — I thought you might be searching for some other tangible concrete reason …………. end of discussion ….
,,, on another note just got this from Military . com
some what related:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,136750,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
Female Airman Punished for Threesome
SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany — A Spangdahlem-based airman was sentenced Monday to four months confinement for her part in a sexual act with two other airmen.Airman 1st Class Ashley N. Rains pleaded guilty at a court-martial to two indecent acts charges.She had faced rape and sodomy charges but admitted to the lesser charges as part of a plea deal.
SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany — A Spangdahlem-based airman was sentenced Monday to four months confinement for her part in a sexual act with two other airmen.Airman 1st Class Ashley N. Rains pleaded guilty at a court-martial to two indecent acts charges.
She had faced rape and sodomy charges but admitted to the lesser charges as part of a plea deal. Judge (Col.) Gordon Hammock also sentenced Rains, 22, an aircrew life support specialist with the 22nd Fighter Squadron, to reduction to the lowest pay grade.She faced a maximum sentence that included as many as 10 years in a military prison, but Air Force prosecutors argued for a lighter sentence of two years.The alcohol-induced menage a trois on Sept. 24 in Bitburg included a male airman and a female staff sergeant. But both prosecution and defense lawyers debated whether it was consensual among the three.Rains and Airman Christopher D. Hicks are the only airmen charged in the incident because the Air Force lawyers said the staff sergeant was too drunk to give consent.Air Force prosecutor Capt. Mike Felsen said the staff sergeant “appeared drunk” and slipped “in and out of consciousness” while Rains and Hicks performed sexual acts with her. Felsen argued the staff sergeant, who did not testify during the trial, was vulnerable and Rains and Hicks took advantage of her.But Rains’ defense attorney, Capt. Matthew King, called the incident a situation involving three consenting adults with “various degrees of intoxication.”King argued that Rains shouldn’t go to jail for what amounts to a drunken threesome.“Does she really have to go to jail for this?” he asked.The Air Force had charged Rains with rape and sodomy, but prosecutors could not prove the more serious charges, King added, therefore, the question of consent isn’t relevant in Rains’ case.Rains said she was embarrassed by the episode.“I’ve learned from this mistake,” she said during a statement she read at the trial.Hicks faces more serious charges.The airman, who is assigned to the 52nd Civil Engineer Squadron, has been charged with rape and sodomy and will face a court-martial at Spangdahlem Air Base on May 30.
Did you get aroused by posting that ken or do you like to participate in cyber voyeurism?
As usual, Repuke, you have nothing to offer. You attack others, but cry foul when you are attacked in return. You cry like a big baby when your little feelings are hurt, but you seem to think that you can sling shit with impunity, as when you accuse me of wife-beating.
What is worse, ‘Puke, wife-beating or being a virgin?
You are nothing but a hypocrite, ‘Puke, nothing more.
You don’t play by the rules that you claim are in existence, but you expect everyone else to do so.
As usual, you are just another right wing hypocrite.
True, Clark, absolutely true.
But remember how good it is for our side that he’s on THEIR side.
hehehehe
Naw Clarkie, as I said before your attacks don’t phase me.
And besides, I’m not the one who ran from the WE Blog to the Wichita Voice with their tails between their legs. That would be you Clarkie and the main organizer of the retreat of the wimps, CapnAmerica.
You and capn go find a corner to slink into cry and suck your thumbs now. :)
No – but I’m sure you went to the web page hoping there were pictures
Wow – this thread went downhill.
Sadly, no one ever honestly answered my questions.
It doesn’t really matter – I wasn’t going after gays – I was asking about the feelings of others.
I think it is sad, however, that some folks are so steeped in political correctness that they won’t try to see the issue from an unbiased point of view.
As far as I’m concerned – our soldiers are our heroes, whether they be gay, straight, or bisexual.
I’m sorry some here couldn’t face that there are problems – and because they can’t face them – it will be a long time until they are alleviated. …sigh…
Tom – I think it’s great that you are/have been in the military. There is room for anyone who loves and wants to serve this country.
I would opt for more privacy in the bathing areas – as simple as partitions. No one else thought of that.
Anyway, I have a gay male friend that would be a very good soldier – if he chose to, which he doesn’t, but that’s beside the point.
So, ‘Puke, how can you comment on gays in the military when you yourself are asexual?
As for the boycott, I supported the boycott in deference to my friend Linda Inks, who was called a “slut” by one of the right wingers here.
Funny how that works, friends supporting friends.
You might try that some time, ‘Puke, having a friend I mean.
Christ, what a sorry excuse for a man you are Republican.
GSheridan has nothing to say about our kids getting their legs blown off, but she is terribly concerned about women showering with GASP! lesbians.
Long story short, no thinking person really gives a sh*t.
Let’s worry about saving their lives and limbs and whether their shower water is clean and not who may be looking at them . . .
“I keep having this vision of a company of marines; you know, 10 feet tall, meaner’n cat piss and used to taking out small countries before breakfast. Out in the bush they happen on an enemy patrol which immediately lowers it’s weapons and drops trou, sending our marines screaming in terror off into the jungle!
Posted by: Jed | May 24, 2007 at 03:32 PM
OMG Jed, now I’m HOWLING at that post!
Reminds me of the lesbian comic who said her girlfriend told her she could NOT come out to her family. If she did, her father would have a heart attack.
The comic mused on this and said, “wouldnt it be great if lesbians had that much power? Wouldnt it be great if some guy came up behind you to rob and kill you and all you had to do was say ‘I’m a lesbian’ and he’d drop dead of a heart attack?”
heheheheheh. Yea Jed, I only WISH we had that much power.
“Funny how that works, friends supporting friends.”
Yep, I’m proud of my friends here on the blog. I’d march into hell with guys like Clark.
Oh wait… never mind…. we already have :)
Damn, if that was all it took, Farm Grrl, we wouldn’t need a CC law.
Of course, I would be walking up to select people I know (ex-wife) and loudly declaring that I was a lesbian!
Do ya think it would work?!?!?!
capn and wsclark pretend to know what’s in other people’s hearts and minds?
I think they are jealous because we have standards and stick to them.
Unlike the waffling, run away wimps, pretend ancestry, surrender monkey Liberals that they are.
GSheridan,
I’ve never served in the military, and if I’ve somehow given that impression (possibly in my 12:07 post?), I apologize. When I used “we” in that post, I meant that in a collective sense that includes all gay and lesbian Americans.
That said…if it had been legal for me to serve in 1979, chances are very good that I would have enlisted. I have always been a strong supporter of our military, and have many friends who serve now or have in the past. One of my proudest days as a parent was when our daughter was nominated to the US Naval Academy by Senator Pat Roberts (damn it all, she didn’t get accepted because her vision didn’t pass DODMERB review).
If only one of those standards that you stuck to, ‘Puke-JM-Eier-UncleWilliam, was honesty . . .
“One of my proudest days as a parent was when our daughter was nominated to the US Naval Academy by Senator Pat Roberts (damn it all, she didn’t get accepted because her vision didn’t pass DODMERB review).”
Damn Tom, I didnt know that. Good for her and good for Roberts for nominating her.
Repuke, I thank God everyday that I don’t know what is in your mind. I am a brave man, but I sure as Hell wouldn’t want to venture into the Hell Hole that your mind must be.
You forgot, Golfnut, rightangle and some guy named Durden Capn.
Your no limit of paranoid identity assignment even surpass the crazies in the loony bin.
Republican,
“Unlike the waffling, run away wimps, pretend ancestry, surrender monkey Liberals that they are.”
Looks like you “ran away” from the ‘Governator’ thread,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/governator_want.html#comment-70536190
Republican’s “standards” seem to include lying, making false personal attacks, being unable to defend his opinions, and unable to admit when he’s wrong.
The assignment of bravery Clarkie is mostly done by others,not by the individual claiming to be brave.
However, I understand your wish of self-assignment because of your scarred narcissistic personality disorder.
The Governator thread is old news Cosmos.
But please do continue with your U.N. butt kissing and stop by if you need some chapstick.
GS — any number of posters attempted to answer your original questions — But you either didnt accept the answers, or you changed the questions, and tried to spin your own stuff… Or, did you forget about that??
Republican,
So you publicly admit that there is ZERO peer-reviewed science to support your GW opinion. Thank you.
Actually Cosmos, there are millions of volumes discussing Climate Change that is not man-made.
Obviously there is Cosmos or your “scientists” wouldn’t have anything to base their guesses on.
Nah, I never thought you were GoofNuts. For awhile, I had a suspicion about Dyler Turden, but he–UNLIKE YOU–is capable of criticising republican policy.
So, he’s not you either.
However, JM-Eier-Uncle William are a lock.
I’d bet money on it, but you can only bet money with a man of honor, and that is NOT you.
RightAngle may be one of your nics. He has the same “let me tell you about this amazing thing I did” stories that pop up at too convenient times to be believable, just like you.
He also won’t answer simple questions about old posts–same as you.
Just because some might be wrong about a few of your many nic-names doesn’t mean that all of us are wrong about all of your nic-names.
You are a liar. You lie to cover your lies.
You lied about Clark’s post from the WichitaVoice. You lied when you plagiarized from an on-line source to “prove” that you had read and remembered Dante’s Inferno.
Those are just two that come to mind.
Everybody knows what you are.
“By their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Please, Cosmos and I want just one peer reviewed reference…shouldn’t be a big deal for a renaissance man like you repub.
Wow Capn, you’re good!
Good at what, no one has yet to figure out.
You will never defeat me Capn, because you have chosen a cartoon name which fits your personality profile perfectly.
That is, unrealistic in statement and boorish in an adult environment.
Peer-reviewed? From ReplagiarCon?
HAHAHAHAHA!
His computer only knows how to go to WorldNetDaily and the FreeRepublic.
“boorish in an adult environment.”
Like “accusing” someone of being gay or being a wife-beater?
You mean, stuff like that?
Republican,
“there are millions of volumes discussing Climate Change that is not man-made.”
That’s irrelevant, since Earth is very old, and climate changed naturally BEFORE humans began burning HUGE amounts of coal and oil.
Please provide just one peer-reviewed paper to support your opinion, “CONTRIBUTIONS BY MAN ARE TINY INSIGNIFICANT”.
Did you base YOUR “opinion” on science… or your hatred of the U.N.?
I see Cosmos, the earth is irrelevant when it comes to Climate Change.
Let me write that down Cosmos.
Repub — You feeling left out because you dont have a wife to beat, or what?? And you have this MAJOR problem with gay people… even if you dont KNOW if they are gay… And is “ad hominem” the only Latin words you know how to type??? I think we all deserve some straight answers to a few straight questions… So, how about it??? Come on Fat Boy… let it flow… Give us some answers… It’s hard to try and be nice to the totally UNkind… I gotta LOVE everybody, but by God, I dont have to like or sanction them!!
Why is it that someone is accused of being gay like it’s a BAD THING?
WS, I’ve seen Republican do that – he insinuates that you and I, or sometimes CapnAmerica and I, are having a sexual relationship. I generally just let it go. I don’t get offended when someone thinks I’m gay…heh.
What’s your point Chas?
Or is that splinter in your eye too big you can’t see? :)
You know exactly what the point is… The chip on your shoulder must be twice the size of TX… You cant even answer straight forward questions… But you SURE know how to sling inuendo, and insult… Day after Day after Day… Same old Sh*t… Republican cant debate, so bring on the Sh*t darts over and over and over…
I dont know about the rest of you Bloggers… But I am about tired of this kind of blatant BS that Repub throws around so bloomin-ass sure of himself that nobody can take him apart…
I got a hunch there are plenty here who can take him apart, so far he cant ever get his keyboard to working right again… So, come on, folks… Let’s dish out a little bit of Repub’s own medicine at him for a change!!!
Already been done, Chas.
First, he was posting as JM and after awhile he took the persona ofa black man “Eier” who refused to live on “the Democrat’s plantation of victimhood.”
We kicked his ass so often that he melted down a couple of months ago, screamed insults at everyone like a monkey throwing feces, and claimed he was moving to Mississippi.
Absolutely made a complete and utter fool out of himself–surprisingly, even more so than now.
Then he re-incarnates himself as “RepubliKhan / Republican” and claims he’s never posted here before.
If he’d just play by the rules–i.e., stop lying–then he’d be tolerable.
As it is now though, he deserves to get back everything he dishes out . . . with interest.
AMEN to that Capn!!!
“I don’t get offended when someone thinks I’m gay…heh.”
The Capn’ might not be good looking enough to be gay, Tom, but I am just flat out too freakin’ ugly.
(wink!!!)
I’ve been to Mississippi now Capn?
How am I doing down there? Am I eating shrimp and rice now?
Please do inform me of my Mississippi life.
I think CapnAmerica gets erections talking about who he thinks I am or otherwise he wouldn’t do it.
Is that right Capn? Do you get erect when you think about me?
Is that right Capn? Do you get erect when you think about me?Posted by: Republican | May 24, 2007 at 05:13 PM
Wow, right on cue, Republican insinuates CapnAmerica is gay. The insult here isn’t that CapnAmerica might play for my team, but that Republican thinks Capn would get hot for HIM. I’d be insulted, I can tell you that!
Ummm Capn??? Isnt that slanderous, or libelous, or something else offensive??? Talking about another man’s sex organ like that??? I have heard of places where a man could get hurt REAL bad talking like that about another man….
“Do you get erect when you think about me?”
That is the single most disgusting sentence that I have ever read.
Pardon me while I vomit.
Republican,
I’m sorry to hear that you never learned what the word “and” means. Or did you learn, then forget?
“since Earth is very old, AND climate changed naturally BEFORE humans began burning HUGE amounts of coal and oil.”
He’s melting down again.
Pretty soon he’ll be going back to Mississippi or his black grandmother or Turkey or Thailand.
BTW, how’s the movie so far, ‘Puke?
Cosmos, the word “and” has nothing to do with Sex, Race, Religion, Ethnicity, or Bigotry… That is why Repub doesnt know what it means…
You know, Capn, it could possibly be a brain tumor in disguise… sniff, sniff… Then we could all feel real….. NAWWWWWW let him have it!!! LOL
That’s right Cosmos, there was Climate Change before man appeared and after man appeared. Only the Alarmists are making more of what anthropometric climate than it actually is.
Or are you a Natural Climate Change denier Cosmos?
…and they wonder why people think Kansas is full of crackpots & religious zealots…
Peer reviewed links, ‘Puke.
Peer reviewed links.
Put up or shut up on Global Warming.
OK… That’s it.. Now we have Proof… Republican cant read, or he needs new glasses… READ THIS:
“since Earth is very old, AND climate changed naturally BEFORE humans began burning HUGE amounts of coal and oil.”
Posted by: cosmos
Good grief people, leave the parasitic/sucking of the government teat/old reprobate alone. I figure this is the only attention a guy like Republican gets. God knows nobody would deal with the whining hypocrite in real life. Be nice to him…he’s disabled you know. Military thing.
Republican pushes your buttons and you perform.
It’s like Ian used to do.
Think about it.
Ummm XXX??? He might be disabled, but he has said HIMSELF, that his disability is NOT military related…. He said that as recently as last week…
Yeah, you’re right, XXX.
Thought maybe he was going to melt down like last time . . .
He’s living proof that negative attention is better than no attention at all.
Republican,
So give us links/references to the peer-reviewed science papers PROVING that the peer-reviewed scientists “are making more of what anthropometric climate than it actually is”.
Or admit that your opinion is wrong.Or post some more lies about your fictional “Alarmists”.Or go watch a movie.
Could take a while Capn… if he is looking for peer reviewed articles and such… LOL
Sorry Chas,I honestly don’t read Republican’s posts very closely. Come on man, the guy’s posts are so patently ridiculous.
Alas, true, XXX… true…
so much for letting Republican dominate the conversation. He’s now on my iggy list. I’d suggest everyone else do the same.
Hard to believe that Republican would claim to be from the same party as Lincoln, who said
“…as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to theextent of the difference, is no democracy.”
or
or DDE who’d prepared this note if DDay had failed…
“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”
The republican party sure has fallen on hard times and slim pickings.
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sci/papers.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109Here is a description from one of Cosmos’ favoritehyperlinks:
“Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.”
And of course, the hundreds of Universities who have millions of peer-reviewed documents on Natural Climate Change. Do your own research.
Well, its been fun… time to fix dinner now… Catch ya all later on!!! Have a good evening!!
God, I do so hope that Republican goes into a JM-style meltdown. It is hilarious to see, live and up close.
First he starts calling everyone a bunch of totally unrelated names and making all sorts of outlandish claims about folks, then he states that he is never coming back to the blog because of the way he is being treated, then he bitches about pagans and heathens mistreating good Christians like him, then he storms off, never to be seen again….
…. until the next day, when he acts like nothing ever happened.
Nothing did happen WSClark -
You Libs got into a “Yo Mama” name calling contest, you couldn’t possibly win.
Wow…
What on earth did you say to get them all riled up Republican?
I will have to read through this stuff to see what all the fuss is about around here.
Don’t get me wrong, I am assuming like most things, it is the typical liberal meltdown and nothing you did Republican.
Of course, I am curious.
And now, Repub… the REST of your “partial quote” —
“The “leaks” in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work (especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or assessed by the community). Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community.”
I was providing them entertainment Nathan.
They don’t realize that in the military, we hone our skills razor sharp on put downs when we are bored and “under the cover of fire.”
XXX,
You gotta admit that it’s funny. I post “since Earth is very old, AND climate changed naturally BEFORE humans…”(Hint: I’m saying Earth’s climate changed naturally.)
And he replies, “Or are you a Natural Climate Change denier Cosmos?”
Now, my kitchen calls me… loudly this time… later all!!!
Go for it Chas, here’s a chance to explain your expertise on a Peer Review Report of your choice.
If you can’t and won’t Chas, then you are just another Op-Ed Alarmist with zero scientific background.
Just like Cosmos, the drop out. :)
“when we are bored and “under the cover of fire.”"
You were never in combat, Repuke, you have already stated as much.
Don’t pretend that you are something you are not.
Wait. You do that everyday. My bad.
“Zero scientific background”
Hmmm I dont think I have ever proffered a claim to BE of a scientific background… However, I know full well what a peer reviewed/refereed journal article is… even published a few… in MY fields, of course…
Republican,
“I was providing them entertainment Nathan.”
No… you’re proving that you cannot defend your opinion.
And you’re proving that you’re ignorant, and/or a liar.For example, the IPCC reports do NOT say that there is no “natural” climate change occuring now.
You’re back to posting lies about my education again? That’s a very weak way to defend your opinion.
It’s Ok Cosmos… the brainless hack probably doesnt even know HOW to find/locate/quote from a peer reviewed journal article…
Chas,
Check out the 5th paragraph (”accompanied by heavy publicity campaigns”) of Republican’s link,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109
And paragraphs after that, with examples of skeptics on his side.
Republican, thank you for that link!
Cosmos”XXX,
You gotta admit that it’s funny.”
oh, without question. It’s a riot!
Maybe just not in the sense you mean.
U.S. military continues to discharge gay Arab linguists, and Congress members seek hearing
FYIhttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Military-Gays.php
Gen. Peter Pace – what can be more immoral than the killing of innocent civilians and then referring to them as collateral damage? Gen. Pace – what is more immoral than killing? Gen. Pace – how is love and attraction between any two people a problem and killing, lying, torture, and being a general of a military not a problem for you?Is this really because you were taunted by straight kids growing up? Huh, Peter?
XXX,
Good point. I failed to explain that post (and many others) were “funny” in more than one sense.
This blog definitely needs a credibility rating system.
This must be gay (happy)day at the old blog. I’m not quite sure the opinions of the blog’s lefty majority regarding “happy” issues reflect the opinions of a cross section of society In fact, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. But just as long as everybody’s happy and/or gay.
I’m still perturbed about the theft of the word “gay”. I think that, before the hijacking of the word, I was even gay at times. But sadly, no more.
Did anyone ever get charged anything for taking the word? “Gay” was a really good word. A word used in Christmas songs and children’s books should have been worth a lot. Another less useful word would have sufficed. Or one could have been made up. There could have been a contest. Name that sexual preference. Win a trip to Frisco.
In order to pay for the loss of the word, I call for a luxury tax on anyone who calls themselves gay.
And everyone was happy and gay the live long day.
My, Outlander, your “loss” of the word “gay” as used in Christmas Carols pales in comparison to the discrimination and violence that has been perpetrated on homosexuals by straight people.
I am sure that they would gladly give you the word back, if you would take back the hatred that has been focused on the innocent homosexual community.
Fair enough?
Deal WS. That was easier than I thought.
Now what do we call the people formerly known as gay?
Clinton should have had the guts to do the right thing and dump the ban totally. Hopefully the next president will. If I was elected, it owuld be my very first official act because it does not require Congressional approval.
Outlander — How about just calling them People… I mean, what other group is recognized/defined by sexual preference?? Why should these people??
My first official act would be to avoid those big expensive swearing in parties that the presidents allow.Homosexuals in the military should not be an issue but being a coward in the face of the enemy, not doing what you have signed up for should be an issue.Homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, transsexual or try-sexual it does not matter; I would trust any above cowardliness.
They can’t all have “Hummers”
If all I knew about our military was what I’ve read in these posts, I’d think it was one giant latrine and shower complex.
I wrote an award-winning thesis at West Point about this subject. Copy and paste:
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/west_pointer_wins_first_ever_military_award_for_challenging_gay_ban
Or just google “Raggio thesis.” The transcript is available at the Palm Center site above.
Good paper, Alex!