I thought a lot of college dorms were now "unisex". But I'm probably wrong.
My husband is a firefighter. They now have female firefighters who share 24 hour shifts at the firehall with men. I'm sure there are some homosexual men there as well. Seems to work out for everyone.

Your can bet your last dollar that you shared your bunkhouse, your group shower and your group bathroom with a homosexual soldier, but that you didn't know it or look for it. That's just the way it was. It's the "open service" which is going to agitate the system......or not. We shall see, I guess, as our elitist liberal know better than anyone else social engineers continue to tinker with our fighting forces.

Now Richie, that is not much of a thought. A gay man in the military is not analagous to a heterosexual man in a woman's bathroom. Really now.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military and somehow they managed to control themselves around the straight guys. Being facetious there. They have fought and died besides their comrades. In this day and age to even have this as an issue is ridiculous. I guess now I get to be a social engineering elitist! You know, just cause you throw a little phrase at something does not make it true or make those of us who REALLY believe in equality bad. When Eisenhower intergrated the troops he made it happen...just did it. It was an order. And the military did not curl up and die.

Do these firemen and women share the same group bathrooms, group showers and group bunk space? In college co-ed dorms they generally don't. They do share a building, but that's about the extent of it.

When I was in basic training the bathroom was one big room with no partitions and no walls. The showers, toilets, urinals and sinks were just there. You went in to do whatever "chore" you came to do and were in full view of everyone else who was doing anything else.

The bunkhouse was an open room where you slept a couple of feet below or above someone and a couple of feet next to someone else. This is where you dressed and undressed.

This is the situation I'm speaking about.

Homosexual men had to control their actions in the military because of the rules that applied. With the law changed so that they can live "openly", don't doubt that they will. It's a new ballgame.

What's the difference in just lumping all the people together if the issue isn't the sexuality of the soldier? My query is not ridiculous. It's only your unwillingness to consider all angles that is.

Of course, tonight, NBC played a clip of the marine video last night and the "boo" that followed.
The statement of the thread origin was:

"Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq....."

Addressing the thread as presented, there should be no booing. And after watching and listening to the NBC clip one would be hard pressed to determine if there were anymore than one or two...make it three or four. As some have said it is not the number it was the act. However, to state "...these 'Patriotic
Americans' booed a soldier..." asserts a much broader intent....which it definitely was not. Said more accurately on this subject at last nights Republican debate, Patriotic Americans in attendance were disturbed by a handful of disrespectfuls in the audience. This was in fact the reality of the incident!

As far as the criticism of those who did not jab back at the "handful" of those who booed...I learned a long time ago in public speaking to not be swayed from the intent by isolated jeers or commentary. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and not give any recognition/distinction to the isolated three or four.

And given the super microscope and listening devices on every word, in this case not said....if they would have said something then we no doubt would be debating/arguing/wrangling over the Republicans who were stomping on the audiences first amendment rights.....I betcha!!!

No matter how it is painted/presented, the booing did in no way have anything to do with the character of the audience or the debate participants.

Too bad more time was not spent here on the merits/demerits of the content of the debate.

btk

Sorry....

The character of the debate participants was noted when they remained in silence. Now some of them have said they didn't hear the boos or the debate was moving on.

But the character of the people that booed cannot be denied or spun.

Don't you have a grandaughter in the Marines....what if that was your grandaughter who asked some question?

It might be easier than you think....as said before they are already there. Now to be fair I can give you the family military vote on DADT. USMC-Not Happy Navy So What Army Who Cares. Just an FYI

Any homosexual in the Army will most likely be discreet about it. There are still plenty of guys who would be giving the GI Shower or the Blanket Party if any gay soldier tried grabbing at their privates (no pun) or gays had sex in the barracks.

Chances are, I believe, that just as when we were in the Army, there were gays but we did not know for sure, it will mostly the same. Of course, there will be some showing off just to make trouble as with any group.

It has worked for a long time in other countries - it will work here.

On the surface the change in policy seems okay...except that I thought the problem would be one of a sexual relationship going on in the same unit, causing a lot of distraction.

Are male/female lovers allowed to openly display their physical attraction for each other when working together in the same unit??

Is a heterosexual couple, consisting of an officer and a soldier, allowed to display their attraction for each other in the workplace??

If not, why would a homosexual couple be given that opportunity? I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace.

That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....

Let me see if I have this right.I am a heterosexual person and if if I took a shower with a bunch of naked women, I would really get excited. Now if a homosexual person took a shower with the same sex, would not he/she get excited?

I am lost, how is this going to play out?

The point I'm trying to make is not the acting out and/or controlling of their actions. Why is everybody go full out crazy on me. If someone is going to live "openly" they're going to live openly, right? If not, whats all this about?

If they're living "openly", it's to be able to live "openly" as the homosexual that they are. Correct?

Now the "homosexual that they are" is going to live in my communal world of complete lack of privacy and I'm supposed to be OK with that.

Why is this okay, but men and women sharing the same lack of privacy is not. I won't accept another "oh, that's just ridiculous" nonsense answer, because that's not an answer.

Well said LadyDoc.

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

"I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace."

Some just need to puff up and have something to show or brag about. And some will take up a cause just because it is a cause.

Again the need to display, show, play what the sexual bent is, again represents only the few....the majority are quite happy to remain not telling and or being discreet.

This is another minority subject with political implications....VOTES!!! If there were no political gain it would not even make the lawmakers list of considerations.

Not mixing the men and women just shows the inconsistency of the application.
Very typical...because it will not affect the women's vote!!!

btk

How do you know that some aren't there to pick up men?

Aren't they there mainly to have a JOB and possibly a CAREER?? And their workplace happens to be a military base/installation??

In any other workplace, open displays of sexual attraction and intimacy are prohibited in the workplace and often, there is outright prohibition of such relationships between co-workers.

Why should open displays and talk of homosexuals' sex lives be appropriate in the military workplace???

Sex lives should not be talked about or shown in ANY workplace!! Is there no such thing as PRIVACY anymore?

And why should other military co-workers have this thrown in their face at work?

Oh. I forgot. The matter is a POLITICAL platform of a bloc of voters.

I am not being factious here but have you ever been to basic training? Have you been in the service? I still say social experiments do not belong in the military and civilians are wrong to assume anything unless they have been there.

I appears that the issue of homosexuals in the service definitely needs to be ironed out prior to the draft being reinstated...

It appears the military has already given into the liberal social engineers, and will force acceptance of the integration of openly homosexual people into the confining communal living arrangement that is the military experience.

In our civilian world it's not really an issue as everyone is able to live their private lives as they see fit. The military life is a whole other issue.

I was only attempting to provoke a dialogue to see how others might view this, but it so far has descended into the baser aspects of what people fear, and not the social and privacy issues relevant to military life that I was hoping would be addressed.

Amen...if you haven't been there (military quarters) YOU are NOT ABLE to comment...you can imagine or wish or speculate but you do not know the environment. And for seniors who haven't been there to try to even imagine what the galloping hormones of a bunch of teens and lower 20 somethings is even more ridiculous.

Keep it simple, not political, not bleeding heart, not permissive this or that......there is a reason why they won't let the men and women cohabitate in the military....and the same holds for those of the same sex preference ilk...it is that simple.

There was nothing wrong with the way it was for 100's of years. And when the media and the special interest groups let this subject die it's own natural depth, life in the military will go back to some norm.

You cannot intellectualize something as complex as the sex drives of different types of people and you certainly can't comment with any accuracy whatso ever if you have never been there. Opinions? Have all you want but most are not knowledge or any other foundation based.

And those are my opinions on the matter.

btk

Don't you think the military will care more about if he/she can shoot straight then what their sexual orientation is? Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. They are not stupid. Overcoming prejudice requires some action, not just verbalization. As I said, Eisenhower intergrated the troops on an order and that worked pretty well. Male military sexual predatory behavior against female military is much worse. Is there any progressive idea that you don't label "liberal social engineering?" Change is a good thing...There is no "expectation of privacy" in the military...this according to my hubby who was career military.

Social engineering does not belong in military, Period. I still associate with a circle of military people including an a couple of officers and and an ex POW and I can tell you for certain that most in the military do not want to change DADT. And contrary to popular beliefs the military had to lower the standards as the women could not pass basic training.

There has been homosexuals in the military since the military started, maybe even before there was a formal military. Privacy in the military. You have to be joking unless you happen to wear stars. In a few years this will be as common as an intergrated military is today. I personally believe that every US citizen should be required to give at least 2 years in service of their country, that includes, handicapped, homosexuals, straights, transgengered, females, males and those that are still confused about what they are.

The all volunteer military is a joke as only the "poor" are serving. Don't get me wrong, the all vol force is awesome and the US has the best fighting force in the world, but an all vol force is NOT the way to go. Get those senator's kids and the representative's kids in uniform and watch how we, IE., the US, stops sending our youth off to foreign counties to make the Industrial-Military Complex rich.

Then pass a law that if you want to be in public service, from local to federal, you have to have serviced in the military.

Now Rick Santorum claims he would have said something to defend gay soldiers service to their country if he had only heard the crowd reaction. Ya right!!!...So where was he that he couldn't hear the boos? :cus:

Wow, was there that much hype when Obama made fun of Special Olympic people?

proud dem (moonbat)
 

figmo...both are excellent posts..I agree 100 percent...that will bring you trouble on this forum though..

hrp01, as someone else one said "Bring it on." Folks have to start looking at the truth of the matter and stop do what is not good for our country or we will not have a country much longer.

Just look at the current criminal activity of the senate. No budget for almost 3 years now and now they are saying the current bill to keep the government running is DOA, according to Knight Harry Reid. There needs to be another line on the ballot form "None of the Above, Start Over."

proud dem (moonbat)
 

My feeling is that we ought to install term limits...Without legislation..All it would take is everyone to vote the incumbents out in the next three elections. I'd give up the senate,and white house, and take the house (tea party out)..Imagine the message that would send..Way too much partisan and non comprimising politics..a poster (vg) here said,the rep is their to fight for his district only,no room for comprimise...So a few can take over and stop the majority..Something basically wrong with that concept..we are a diverse people and no one among us is entitled to his view only, and at any cost,and with questionable rationale( read bigotry).

If I vote for someone who said he will never vote for a tax increase, I should think that he will hold his end of the bargain and vote no on tax increases. I think it is very prudent of him to vote for what his constituents voted for.

It will definitely change the behavior of everyone else though.

Since you brought it up, how about providing those statistics of the greater predatory instincts of male heterosexuals as opposed to male homosexuals. I haven't read those findings or seen an analysis.

Sorry if you don't like the term "liberal social engineering", but that's what it is and your aversion to the term doesn't make it any less true.

I glad your husband has no trouble sitting on the toilet next to the openly gay male sitting on his toilet next to him, and taking a shower with him, and all the others daily activities we do. I'm pretty sure I would have a problem with it. That's just me though.

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

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.

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.

Why do we agree? Because we are right.:laugh:

proud dem (moonbat)
 

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.

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

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.