Should the sexually disoriented share a separate barracks within the millitary?

[stopNgoBeau 0]

Quote

...instead they should've considered the soldiers and what they would consider a comfortable living quarters and the possible long term effects/concerns of the DADT repeal.

I don't really give a damn if they are comfortable with it or not. DADT was discrimination. I suggest they either learn to adapt or resign their commissions/enlistments for the betterment of the unit.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

well, if you mean gay soldiers, then the answer is no. why build them now? they've been sharing barracks with straight soldiers for a couple hundred years.

hell, one of my roommates at the AFA was/is a lesbian. Oh...and she's still on active duty. Heaven forbid...

So I have to ask, how did you feel rooming with her knowing she may be sexualy attracted to you?

Would you feel the same way sharing a room like that with a man? How do you feel about co-eding the barracks?

The reason I ask is because I have a few female freinds that are uncomfortable showering with lesbians. Don't mind working with them, just not comfortable naked in front of them.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[normiss 855]

Men have had to "tolerate" that for a very long time.
Tell 'em to SIUCC.

They ain't out to convert us hetero's.

[billvon 3,076]

>So I have to ask, how did you feel rooming with her knowing she may be
>sexualy attracted to you?

At WT04 my roommate was gay. It's really not that big of a deal. They're not all that scary.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

DADT was discrimination.

DADT was applicable to gay men/women only?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DanG 1]

Quote

DADT was applicable to gay men/women only?

Of course it was. How could it be applied to straight people? Being a straight man, if I told my commander about my sexual orientation, I would not have been thrown out of the Army. If I were gay, the same could not be said,

- Dan G

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

Quote

DADT was discrimination.

DADT was applicable to gay men/women only?

No, but noone ever got booted out for saying they're straight, or having their spouse/bf/gf (of opposite sex) show up at unit family day.

However, people did get booted out for claiming they're gay or having the unit find out they have a same-sex bf/gf.

So, yeah, DADT was discrimination.

[freddysdaddy 0]

disoriented??

Come on, he is way too old for the army

http://jalopnik.com/373884/f1-boss-max-mosley-caught-with-five-hookers-in-nazi-orgy-video-scandal

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

DADT was discrimination.

DADT was applicable to gay men/women only?

Well, the argument could be made that DADT applied to straight people in that it prohibited them from actively looking for evidence that other servicemen were gay, but that's not really what's being discussed.

DADT was an instruction on how to apply the law that prescribed the termination of a servicemember known to be gay. A law which even contained exemptions for servicemembers who claim to be gay but actually aren't. It's pretty tough to see how the following would apply to straight people:

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[stopNgoBeau 0]

Yes, applicable to homosexual people only. What else would it be applicable to?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Yes, applicable to homosexual people only. What else would it be applicable to?

Bisexuals, ey?

Owned by Remi #?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Yes, applicable to homosexual people only. What else would it be applicable to?

Ummmm....would it be unreasonable to think that it should apply to everybody?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, applicable to homosexual people only. What else would it be applicable to?

Ummmm....would it be unreasonable to think that it should apply to everybody?

How so? Are you saying it did apply to everyone? Cause it did not and it was not intended to apply to straights folks, only to homosexuals.

"I hope my BNCO or OIC does not see my wife and ask how many kids I have, he may know I'm straight!"

Yeah, us straight folks really had it tough in the military. [/sarcasm]

At least I could hang up pics of my significant other and leave my personal letters out without fear of some nosey ass d-bag reading my shit and reporting me up the chain.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Yes, applicable to homosexual people only. What else would it be applicable to?

Ummmm....would it be unreasonable to think that it should apply to everybody?

Sure. It applied to everyone. No one was allowed to talk about their homosexual relationships. And everyone could talk about their hetero relationships all they wanted. Very fair, no?

Remster

[labrys 0]

Quote

Sure. It applied to everyone. No one was allowed to talk about their homosexual relationships. And everyone could talk about their hetero relationships all they wanted. Very fair, no?

Owned by Remi #?

[popsjumper 2]

Since Lost&confused is getting angry and you are being civil...

What I said was,
"Ummmm....would it be unreasonable to think that it should apply to everybody?"

In order to be a NON-discriminatory directive, or whatever, it SHOULD apply across the board.

Don't tell me about your beautiful, petite, blond, blue-eyed coed of a wife and what yall do in bed at night....with the lights on....and the video running....and the midgets....and I won't ask.

Oh, nevermind.

The whole idea of DADT was all fucked up from the get-go anyway.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military", Rick Santorum, GOP candidate.

I'd think a lot of heterosexuals in the military would be upset by that.

I'm pretty sure he meant between unit members.
In order to be fair to both sides of the house, I'd go along with that.

"No soldier bangs another soldier."
Sounds fair to me.



"Unit", "Members"? did I just say that?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[TriGirl 333]

Quote

Quote

Quote

DADT was discrimination.

DADT was applicable to gay men/women only?

Well, the argument could be made that DADT applied to straight people in that it prohibited them from actively looking for evidence that other servicemen were gay, but that's not really what's being discussed.

It's pretty tough to see how the following would apply to straight people:

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

One word: threesome.

Or (and I did see at least one case like this), two hetero couples are out on the town (at least one woman and one man are active duty service members). Later that evening, the two men ask the two women to engage in certain acts with each other, to get the guys "turned on." In one case that I know of, the information was relayed in a military court, under oath and on the record. No one stopped the line of questioning when it was obvious where it was going, and the very junior rank woman answered the question about what happened that evening (she didn't know to refuse to answer). I knew the lawyers were going to recommend discharge for the homosexual behavior (not coerced), but I don't know how that ended.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

What I said was,
"Ummmm....would it be unreasonable to think that it should apply to everybody?"

Yes, that is unreasonable.

"Hey Ted, hows your wife?"

"I can neither confirm nor deny that I have a wife."

Quote

In order to be a NON-discriminatory directive, or whatever, it SHOULD apply across the board.

Uh, right, but newsflash: DADT was not about being non-discriminatory. It was about being slightly less discriminatory.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[fossg 0]

DADT made it possible to segue if you will to where we are today. Was it perfect? No not even. Hopefully the gay issue will become a non issue soon. There are more important things to worry about than who sleeps with whom. In the 30 plus years I served I can not recall any incidents involving sexual misconduct involving gay soldiers. I was witness to several witch hunts where soldiers were accused of being gay and then being forced out. It was wrong and I hope that society as a whole will eventually move beyond this.