Originally Posted by RichieLion

OK, so you two women agree. Why? The answer isn't obvious.

Why do we agree? Because we are right.

Wow vg, if I was taking a shower with a bunch of naked women,I don't think I'd be excited.....I'd be scared....Of course I know my limitations..lol

Originally Posted by hrp01

Wow vg, if I was taking a shower with a bunch of naked women,I don't think I'd be excited.....I'd be scared....Of course I know my limitations..lol

Maybe you should look in the mirror and ....no forget it.

My nephew (by marriage) acted like a regular guy but after he came out of the closet and divorced his wife he acted different. He actually walked different, and talked different. The gays in the military will flaunt their gayness, and try to use it as intimidation and there will be all kinds of talk about discrimination against gays and it will disrupt the military big time. Worse thing that coulf happen. I feel sorry for our troops.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Why didn't you also state that in articles about the incident that the people surrounding the couple of dolts who booed the question immediately shushed them. Didn't fit your agenda?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._the_boos.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46388

No I actually didn't hear or read that. I commend them. Cuz, yes it does fit my agenda.

It has been many, many years since Richie, Village Golfer, and I were in the military. Is basic training still the same with the open squad bays for sleeping and the totally open bathrooms or has it changed to be something a bit more modern? I don't know. Do you?

Sure, there will be a few trouble makers who are gay just over-flaunting to see if they can goad someone into a bad response. (Sort of like a couple of posters trying to do the same thing on this forum?) Those few will be discharged administratively. For the main part, I do not believe most will be open about their sexuality. Most will probably be quiet about sexuality and like other soldiers, just do their job.

Don't worry about it. Gays have been accepted into the military of Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and many other countries for years. It will not hurt morale nor the capibilites of the military.

Originally Posted by buggyone

It has been many, many years since Richie, Village Golfer, and I were in the military. Is basic training still the same with the open squad bays for sleeping and the totally open bathrooms or has it changed to be something a bit more modern? I don't know. Do you?

Sure, there will be a few trouble makers who are gay just over-flaunting to see if they can goad someone into a bad response. (Sort of like a couple of posters trying to do the same thing on this forum?) Those few will be discharged administratively. For the main part, I do not believe most will be open about their sexuality. Most will probably be quiet about sexuality and like other soldiers, just do their job.

Don't worry about it. Gays have been accepted into the military of Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and many other countries for years. It will not hurt morale nor the capibilites of the military.

How can you be so certain? America is different, we are larger and obviously have been in more wars.

How can you be so certain that I am wrong? Remember that integration of African-Americans was frought with the same arguements that you are bringing to the table right now - and I think that worked out okay.

Originally Posted by Barefoot

The answer is obvious. As Ladydoc said, Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. I don't understand why you think that gays serving in the military will suddenly turn into raving sexual predators just because their sexual orientation is known.

Anyway this thread is about the Debate so I apologize for going off topic.

Like I said, everyone has to bring it down to the baser aspects. They want to live OPENLY. They want to live OPENLY AND PROUDLY as men who are sexually attracted to other men and then live in the communal living of the military.

I don't understand how you don't understand this.

Isn't this why women don't live in the no privacy communal living arrangement in the military with heterosexual men?

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself and see why you would have such a problem with a gay man on the toilet next to you. And for the third time, was Eisenhower a liberal when he integrated the military? I will find those stats when you tell me what the basis of your stating that the journal that published that liberals were smarter article was a liberal magazine. You can not just deduce that from the article. Also, you said that a liberal magazine would find that liberals were smarter. There was research backing up that conclusion. Again, were you implying a falsification of data, which is a very serious accusation.

Eisenhower put men together of different races, not of different sexual orientations. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Do you want to sit on a toilet in a room without partitions next to heterosexual males, or take a shower in that same open room with them? Sexual orientation wise, it's the same situation.

You think men should be forced to share this open non-private space with men who are sexually attracted to men. Why shouldn't women share the same space with men who are sexually attracted to women?

I think you must be thinking of someone else in you liberal mag statement, because that wasn't me.

Originally Posted by buggyone

How can you be so certain that I am wrong? Remember that integration of African-Americans was frought with the same arguements that you are bringing to the table right now - and I think that worked out okay.

The comparison is silly. The race issue is non-compatible with forcing men to share their non-private communal living space with men who want to live OPENLY as MEN WHO ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO OTHER MEN.

If they were content to live privately, that's what they've been doing forever. They want to now live OPENLY. Come on, how can you not understand this?

Richie,

This conversation about gays in the military could get really good over a couple or three ice-cold Yeunglings. I am sorry I will not be able to be at the watering hole on Monday with you and the others. I will be out of town but back the following week.

Hopefully, this forum can exist a week without my wit - or is that only half true?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Richie,

This conversation about gays in the military could get really good over a couple or three ice-cold Yeunglings. I am sorry I will not be able to be at the watering hole on Monday with you and the others. I will be out of town but back the following week.

Hopefully, this forum can exist a week without my wit - or is that only half true?

Enjoy your trip and we'll keep the brewskis on ice anticipating your return. I'm sure they'll be even more pressing issues demanding our attention when you return.

Without my wit?......half?.........wait, wait......I'm thinking I'm on this side of some Buggy humor here.........uhhhhhhhhh......no......I lost it.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself and see why you would have such a problem with a gay man on the toilet next to you. And for the third time, was Eisenhower a liberal when he integrated the military? I will find those stats when you tell me what the basis of your stating that the journal that published that liberals were smarter article was a liberal magazine. You can not just deduce that from the article. Also, you said that a liberal magazine would find that liberals were smarter. There was research backing up that conclusion. Again, were you implying a falsification of data, which is a very serious accusation.

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?

I wish you two guys would get it straight(pun intended)

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?

Obviously, you think that sexual orientation is a choice. But you would be wrong.