[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Most straight people don’t have a problem showering/changing in front of gay people.

Who are "most"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

I'm pretty sure this idea isn't based on any kind of polling or real analysis of the facts. Most straight people I know don't want straight or gay people watching them shower if those people could possibly find them sexually attractive unless the feeling is mutual.

This goes for a regular gym or public swimming pool, too. The chances remain the same, whether or not that one per cent is allowed to talk openly about it or not.

And as I said, the shower thing affects a minority of the total military staff—so why is DADT in place for people in administrative jobs or people with regular nine-to-five working hours?

You are right. It effects a tiny minority. It's not unreasonable that this small minority to have to sacrifice if they want to serve, for the good of the rest of those serving and their rights to personal privacy.

Regardless, EVERYONE, even those who have administrative positions have to go through basic training under the assumption that one day they may have to take up a rifle and serve on the field of battle. The thing about the military is that they are all treated the same. When you start giving some special rights (like the right to shower with those who they might find sexually attractive) you are no longer training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force. You've got individuals, and the military strictly forbids treating people as individuals. They are names, ranks and serial numbers, and for a reason.

[SpaceMonkey]

I've showered in front of Oisín many times.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Though, this has little to do with logic, and everything to do with politically correct attempts to socially engineer the natural differences humans have which is part of human nature, out of existence.

I'm not sure what you think is being "socially engineered" here. Care to explain what "natural differences humans have" that will be socially engineered out of existence if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It simply doesn't work unless you have a culture that doesn't value personal privacy, and then you've got a thing called "The Constitution" which kind of protects that in reqards to American culture.

Except when someone joins the US military much of their Constitutional rights are abrogated as a requirement of military service.

Your right to personal, bodily privacy is already limited during boot camp when you are required to take communal showers with other soldiers. So, the shy guy who is uncomfortable with the size of his willy will have to be there in the shower with other guys whether he likes it or not. His desire for personal privacy is not, and is not allowed to be, a consideration when it comes to communal showers during bootcamp. So, I am not sure how someone not wanting to shower with known homosexuals would be any different. Again, a person's personal desires for privacy don't usually extend to them when they are in the military.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are right. It effects a tiny minority. It's not unreasonable that this small minority to have to sacrifice if they want to serve, for the good of the rest of those serving and their rights to personal privacy.

"The rest of those serving [DON'T GET] rights to personal privacy". They get treated like a soldier with a name, rank, and serial number.

[dcmacdaddy]

So, why don't we just allow homosexuals to openly serve and force males and females to shower together. I've got no problem with that notion. It serves to only minimize the differences between individuals. The result would be that the individuals are no longer seen as individuals and are seen only as soldiers "training towards the goal of [being part of] a single, disciplined and united force".

This is a good idea, stupendousman. By forcing all individuality out of the person as they become a soldier then the military can not ever have to worry about dealing with issues of individuality like personal privacy.

[andi*pandi]

frankly, it's a bad idea to even ponder the notion that coworkers are attractive, in any line of work. In the military especially.
Those suggesting mixing the showers entirely are being disengenious... that would be a fine idea if only, say, the men would stop raping their female teammates.

How many homosexual attacks have there been in the military?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Those suggesting mixing the showers entirely are being disengenious... that would be a fine idea if only, say, the men would stop raping their female teammates.

This is, of course, entirely fictitious. Since women are equally capable of performing the job (which is fighting), it's impossible that they wouldn't be capable of beating off any rape attempts.

[besson3c]

Yeah, I don't understand why the thought of somebody being aroused is really an issue to anybody, so long as they don't act upon it. The real heart of the matter to me is acting upon these sexual desires.

How many homosexual attacks have their been in the military or anywhere for that matter? I would bet zero.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I don't understand why the thought of somebody being aroused is really an issue to anybody, so long as they don't act upon it. The real heart of the matter to me is acting upon these sexual desires.

O'Rly ?

I say: slippery slope !

Think about why kiddie pron is banned.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

frankly, it's a bad idea to even ponder the notion that coworkers are attractive, in any line of work. In the military especially.
Those suggesting mixing the showers entirely are being disengenious... that would be a fine idea if only, say, the men would stop raping their female teammates.

Absolutely. We need a military that isn't willing to look the other way when cases of sexual abuse/assault occur. Just last week there was a story in the New York Times about female soldiers in Iraq being subject to sexual harassment and/or assault and the minimal effort the local military commanders put into finding and holding accountable those who committed such acts. We need a military that says sexual assault is unacceptable and follows through to punish severely those who engage in sexual assault while in the military.

Although I think you trying to tie in this issue with the question of communal showers is in and of itself disingenuous. Sexual assault is unacceptable and should be punished severely whether men and women shower separately or communally. The two issues aren't really related.

[besson3c]

You'll have to spell out your point and connection to kiddie porn I'm afraid, Turtle.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You'll have to spell out your point and connection to kiddie porn I'm afraid, Turtle.

Wow, you don't even understand your own post ? Amazing.

Anyways, to help your aged brain a bit, here we go, spelled out:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I don't understand why the thought of somebody being aroused by kiddie porn is really an issue to anybody, so long as they don't act upon it. The real heart of the matter to me is acting upon these sexual desires.

You see nothing wrong with this ?

Yes, yes, you're gonna say "this is a different thing".
Sure. How exactly ? Please explain ?

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

O'Rly ?

I say: slippery slope !

Think about why kiddie pron is banned.

-t

Because the creation of kiddie porn necessarily involves the sexual abuse of minors? What does that have to do with a slippery slope or this discussion at all?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You see nothing wrong with this ?

Yes, yes, you're gonna say "this is a different thing".
Sure. How exactly ? Please explain ?

-t

I, for one, see nothing wrong with it. If no one gets hurt, then no one gets hurt.

This, of course, is ignoring the fact that someone gets hurts sheerly through the production of said pornographic materials. That is not ok. But as long as no one is hurt, I have absolutely no problem with anything that people might do.

[Captain Obvious]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon?

No, not until Gen Z are adults... and I don't mean the early 90s ones. Its about 10-15 years out.
And even once it happens it is not going to go over well within the military.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Although I think you trying to tie in this issue with the question of communal showers is in and of itself disingenuous. Sexual assault is unacceptable and should be punished severely whether men and women shower separately or communally. The two issues aren't really related.

I agree, and I could have been clearer.

Part of my point was a) how much is the gay population hurting their fellow soldier vs heteros, and b) connecting the dots between fearing "being seen naked" and fearing "someone jumping your bones without consent" which is the root of this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, you don't even understand your own post ? Amazing.

Anyways, to help your aged brain a bit, here we go, spelled out:

Expect less from me in this new year in terms of carrying on these sorts of childless and completely pointless sort of confrontations. There is nothing dumber than trying to insult and defend yourself from insults over the internet, not to mention utterly childish and pointless.

I really don't understand why you, Crash, Captain Obvious, Railroader and any others I've forgotten insist on constantly being so edgy and confrontational all the damn time. Chill. Learn to control yourself. Control is a good thing.

Yes, yes, you're gonna say "this is a different thing".
Sure. How exactly ? Please explain ?

-t

The problem is not the consumption of the kiddie porn, it is the making of it. You can't make kiddie porn without making kids take off their clothes and doing various things with their clothes off.

[ctt1wbw]

I got into a conversation with a civilian about gays in the military, especially women in subs. Having served 20 years in the Navy and being on 11 surface ships and subs, I felt I was rather knowledgeable about the subject.

She said she didn't have a problem with gays in the military or women on subs. So I asked her if I could sleep in the female berthing compartments on a ship. She was startled and rather offended at this. I asked her why. She said she didn't want me or another man staring at her while she was changing clothes.

There you have it.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

There you have it.

There you have what? The thing nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that gays are already serving in the military. They are already sharing showers. Nothing changes except the fact that if a homosexual decides to make his sexuality known, he/she will not get discharged.

My friend in Iraq is "unofficially" out to most people and nobody seems to care. Hell, my dad says they knew who most of the gays were back when he was a Marine in Korea. It's all about respecting yourself and others.... all this fear about someone lusting after a penis is a joke.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I've showered in front of Oisín many times.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who are "most"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

I'm pretty sure this idea isn't based on any kind of polling or real analysis of the facts.

Of course it’s not based on any kind of polling, just like your statement wasn’t. It’s based on my own personal experience. I shower in communal showers every time I go to a public swimming pool or go do some kind of indoor sports (the gym, badminton, etc.), and I showered in communal showers after every PE lesson in high school, with all the boys from three different classes.

Thus far, only one person (and that was in high school) has indicated to me that he felt uncomfortable showering in my presence—and all that meant was that he usually just waited an extra five minutes and showered after I was done.

So in my experience (and in the experience of those of my friends and acquaintances I’ve happened to talk to about this over the years), the vast majority of straight guys have nothing against showering or changing with gay guys.

[dedalus]

In my experience, ‘real men’ aren’t bothered by homosexuals, anyway; it’s usually the closeted kind who get upset.

[Shaddim]

There is no "gay" "bi" or "straight", there are just people. Once we can finally figure this out we won't have to waste time on this stupid s***.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Highly ironic post, when it comes to strawmen.

The issue isn't about not talking to gay people, or even not liking them.

The issue is about basic personal privacy. Do you want others who may find you sexually appealing to view your naked body without your direct consent, and does that situation cause unwanted and unnecessary distraction and tension. You can't just ignore invasions of privacy and it not be an issue. Most people anyways.

In "civilian life" we normally handle this by having separate male and female changing rooms and bathrooms. For instance, women generally don't allow men to shower with them in communal bathrooms - even in the military. The reason is the same as why most straight people don't want to shower/change in front of gay people. Basic personal privacy.

Of course, there is always the chance that you unknowingly will expose yourself, but that chance is very small. Especially in the military where someone has had to be dishonest or not join. At best maybe a 3 in 100 chance - and if you've got 30 guys in a shower, chances are slimmer than 1 percent that someone is looking at you in a way that violates your privacy.

I'll support gays in the military when civilan opposite sex bathrooms and changing rooms become illegal. Given the track record of the current government, I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried this one as well in order to completely fail and never hold office again.

We've had this "discussion" before. The part you don't get is that males regularly shower with other males in the service, and they don't know if they're gay or not. There is no "consent" required for another male to look at your body; it just happens. The privacy issue you keep blathering on and on about is non-existent. What is different, to you, if a gay guy, whom you know or don't know to be gay, looks at you in the shower, or whether a straight guy looks at you? The answer (and it's real simple, so you should be able to comprehend it) is; None! The only one who's worried about someone looking at his peter is you, which says more about your hang ups than anyone else's.

If I'm showering with a bunch of guys in a gym, I don't give a rat's ass whether they're gay or not, and I don't have to make some imaginary screen of privacy, nor do I fantasize about if one of them is gay, which I think is what the issue really is here.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

In my experience, ‘real men’ aren’t bothered by homosexuals, anyway; it’s usually the closeted kind who get upset.

Bingo. If you're secure in your beliefs, it doesn't matter what others think.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

There you have what? The thing nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that gays are already serving in the military. They are already sharing showers. Nothing changes except the fact that if a homosexual decides to make his sexuality known, he/she will not get discharged.

Men secretly watch women undress all the time as well. Why not just make that legal and okay as well? I mean, if they are going to do it anyways, let's just tell the ladies to get over it and stop making a big deal, right? The only thing that changes is that the guys looking at the naked women without their consent can do so without getting punished. I mean really, what's the big deal?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

We've had this "discussion" before. The part you don't get is that males regularly shower with other males in the service, and they don't know if they're gay or not.

Women get naked all the time. Sometimes men are watching when they don't realize it as well. Based on the logic you use, it should be legal for the men to watch the women get undressed without their permission, since it happens anyways and often times a woman doesn't even know it.

Really, is that the route you want to take with the argument?

Either people have a right to privacy in regards to their bodies - men, woman, straight or gay - or they don't. Those wanting to allow gays in the military without limitation are essentially trying to tell straight people that they don't have the same right to privacy for their bodies that women do in regards to men seeing their nakedness. That's where the argument gets a big: FAIL. Either you take away the right in question for everyone, or just the small minority that is effected by this effect of basic human nature.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Men secretly watch women undress all the time as well. Why not just make that legal and okay as well? I mean, if they are going to do it anyways, let's just tell the ladies to get over it and stop making a big deal, right? The only thing that changes is that the guys looking at the naked women without their consent can do so without getting punished. I mean really, what's the big deal?

You made exactly the same argument in the previously-linked thread, and there was extensive discussion about its logical merits. I thought we had made some progress, but apparently not. It's not worth anyone having this conversation with you.

[andi*pandi]

I think a key word is "secretly." Someone peeping in a private window is much different than someone who has a right to be there.

Take the theater world for instance. Frequent costume changes, men and women backstage rushing to get onstage for the next number, nakedness happens. And not all men in theater are gay, or women straight. How do they deal with this? They make it not a big deal.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You made exactly the same argument in the previously-linked thread, and there was extensive discussion about its logical merits. I thought we had made some progress, but apparently not. It's not worth anyone having this conversation with you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think a key word is "secretly." Someone peeping in a private window is much different than someone who has a right to be there.

For a gay man to watch a straight man in the shower, while in the military, he'd have to do it "secretly" as well right now. Gay people aren't supposed to be in the military, but if they are, they are supposed to keep it a secret.

If people don't have a problem getting naked around others and decline their right to privacy, that's their business. People will walk naked down the street and not care. That's not the norm for our culture and society though. Most people don't want the opposite sex or those who might become aroused by them to look at their naked bodies without their consent, and often times don't want to look at others naked unless they happed to find them sexually attractive as well. That's why we have laws in regards to nudity, and non-communal showers separated by gender.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There is no "gay" "bi" or "straight", there are just people. Once we can finally figure this out we won't have to waste time on this stupid s***.

When we finally figure that shizz out we prolly won't need the military either.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Either people have a right to privacy in regards to their bodies - men, woman, straight or gay - or they don't.

Except this does NOT apply to soldiers. Soldiers do NOT "have a right to privacy in regards to their bodies".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's where the argument gets a big: FAIL. Either you take away the right in question for everyone, or just the small minority that is effected by this effect of basic human nature.

Easy solution: Take "away the right in question for everyone" in the military.

Make men and women, gay and straight, take communal showers together during basic training. It will help with the "training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force" by stripping away soldiers' individuality so they can be treated as "names, ranks and serial numbers".

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Women get naked all the time. Sometimes men are watching when they don't realize it as well. Based on the logic you use, it should be legal for the men to watch the women get undressed without their permission, since it happens anyways and often times a woman doesn't even know it.

Really, is that the route you want to take with the argument?

No, I don't, because men watching women undress without their permission is an entirely different discussion, and either you can't grasp that, or more likely, you're grabbing at straws.

Either people have a right to privacy in regards to their bodies - men, woman, straight or gay - or they don't. Those wanting to allow gays in the military without limitation are essentially trying to tell straight people that they don't have the same right to privacy for their bodies that women do in regards to men seeing their nakedness.

No, they're not telling straight people any such thing! When you join the military (or for that matter, a gym), you give up your right to not have somebody of the same sex look at your body, without your permission, the minute you step into a barracks shower! If you don't want someone to look at your body in a communal shower, don't join the ****ing military!

That's where the argument gets a big: FAIL. Either you take away the right in question for everyone, or just the small minority that is effected by this effect of basic human nature.

Your argument is one gigantic FAIL! You keep bringing women into the discussion when they have nothing to do with it all! Are you always this obtuse, or do you have to work on it? You're telling us all an awful lot about how secure you are in your sexual disposition.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, this line of discussion is pretty boring, isn't it? Everyone can read it in the previous thread.

[besson3c]

It would seem to me that nobody being able to understand stupendousman's rationale towards why he doesn't want gay people to marry and serve in the military might have some commonality...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're telling us all an awful lot about how secure you are in your sexual disposition.

FAIL.

Resorting to incorrect age-old tactics of "if anyone says anything negative about alternative sexuality then they must be rampant closet cases" is on a par with Godwin's.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It would seem to me that nobody being able to understand stupendousman's rationale towards why he doesn't want gay people to marry and serve in the military might have some commonality...

I understand the military thing perfectly.

In a nutshell: The type of people who want to kill people for a living also tend to be the type of people who don't want to shower with gay folks.

Now, we can bang on about "they'll have to put up with it" all we like, but the fact is that as soon as DADT is dropped recruiting figures for the very type of people who you actually want standing on that wall will drop. And you'll be left with people who don't mind... Who also generally happen to be people who tend to have a conscience towards killing people on orders.

All that will happen is that you'll weaken your military. Unless you start with the conscripted national service. In which case the rest of the world will laugh at you some more for being a little more "free" than you were before. And most of the people touting a gay friendly military will head to Canuckistan for the duration of their "eligible for service" years.

Your military is there to preserve democracy, not practice it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I understand the military thing perfectly.

In a nutshell: The type of people who want to kill people for a living also tend to be the type of people who don't want to shower with gay folks.

Now, we can bang on about "they'll have to put up with it" all we like, but the fact is that as soon as DADT is dropped recruiting figures for the very type of people who you actually want standing on that wall will drop. And you'll be left with people who don't mind... Who also generally happen to be people who tend to have a conscience towards killing people on orders.

All that will happen is that you'll weaken your military. Unless you start with the conscripted national service. In which case the rest of the world will laugh at you some more for being a little more "free" than you were before. And most of the people touting a gay friendly military will head to Canuckistan for the duration of their "eligible for service" years.

Your military is there to preserve democracy, not practice it.

After all these years DADT has been in effect, any one of these guys could have been showering with gay guys for years without knowing it. It's not like repealing this law will open the floodgates to people announcing being gay. The issue here is not people being gay, but it's knowing about people being gay.

Besides, as has been discussed, it is not a given that there is showering with other men going on anyway.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

FAIL.

Resorting to incorrect age-old tactics of "if anyone says anything negative about alternative sexuality then they must be rampant closet cases" is on a par with Godwin's.

No, not FAIL. There's a difference between saying anything negatively about something, and constantly attempting to justify one's position, especially in light of the fact that having gays in the military only affects those who allow it to. If I'm in the military (which I was, for 4 years), and a gay man showers in the same communal shower (which I know did happen when I was in), it only affects me if I allow it to, and since I'm 100% sure of my sexual identity, I couldn't care less about whether someone's checking out my package. It just doesn't affect my life, and I don't need to start making up all manner of reasons to stop that person from showering in the same area, unless I'm not so sure about who I am. People constantly prattle on about taking personal responsibility for your actions; that extends to what you believe as well. No one, not even a naked gay man, can make me change who I am, unless I'm unsure of who I am. And you can take that to the bank.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, this line of discussion is pretty boring, isn't it? Everyone can read it in the previous thread.

No one is forcing you to participate. If you choose to take part in something you find so boring, you simply must be a bore yourself.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Except this does NOT apply to soldiers. Soldiers do NOT "have a right to privacy in regards to their bodies".

Then female soldiers bunk and shower with the males, right? If not, why - if there is no "right to privacy in regards to their bodies?"

Easy solution: Take "away the right in question for everyone" in the military.

..and THERE YOU HAVE IT.

If a tiny minority who are different from everyone else can't have something, then no one can. You have to deny people basic human rights in order to cater to a small minority who are different and can't fit in with the norms of society. Great solution!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one is forcing you to participate. If you choose to take part in something you find so boring, you simply must be a bore yourself.

Yes, and my chosen form of participation was to make sure that everyone saw the link to the exact same discussion we had 8 months ago that I think captures whatever you are about to say here, and refutes it. I don't plan to contribute further, as you're obviously just regurgitating your own talking points and not interested in honest discussion. Enjoy your rerun.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, I don't, because men watching women undress without their permission is an entirely different discussion, and either you can't grasp that, or more likely, you're grabbing at straws.

It's entirely the same, and you simply can't refute the logic. In both cases, you have a situation where people are looking at another person naked who they may be sexually attracted in a way that might arouse them, without the consent of the person in question. It doesn't matter if it's a man or woman, gay or straight.

No, they're not telling straight people any such thing! When you join the military (or for that matter, a gym), you give up your right to not have somebody of the same sex look at your body, without your permission, the minute you step into a barracks shower! If you don't want someone to look at your body in a communal shower, don't join the ****ing military!

Then men and woman have to shower and bunk together, right? Or....is there a right to privacy that some want to only be excercised for heterosexuals of different genders, but homosexuals be given special rights?

For the argument to work logically, you have to either keep the right to privacy and disallow homosexuals, or do away with it totally. You can't rationally argue that women should have the right not to be looked at by men, but men don't have the right not to be looked at sexually by other men. It simply is a big logically fallacious FAIL.

Your argument is one gigantic FAIL! You keep bringing women into the discussion when they have nothing to do with it all! Are you always this obtuse, or do you have to work on it? You're telling us all an awful lot about how secure you are in your sexual disposition.

HAHAHA.

You don't want women brought into the discussion because the observation that they are given an absolute "right to privacy" pretty much decimates the argument that there is no "right to privacy" in the military. Either people get it or they don't. When gays have been disallowed, everyone in the military got it equally. The only way to allow homosexuals and make everyone equal is to totally do away with any rights to privacy and bunk and shower EVERYONE together. I'll buy the argument when that's what Democrats and the supporters of gays in the military are proposing. I won't agree with it, but I'll buy it logically. Given the fact that this will never happen, there likely will never be a logical and fair basis for allowing gays in the military.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, not FAIL. There's a difference between saying anything negatively about something, and constantly attempting to justify one's position, especially in light of the fact that having gays in the military only affects those who allow it to.

That's a totally ignorant comment. Again, it's like telling a woman that if she has a problem with men watching her shower, that it's just because she's allowing it to bother her and that she shouldn't have a problem.

These arguments get funnier by the minute!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then female soldiers bunk and shower with the males, right? If not, why - if there is no "right to privacy in regards to their bodies?"

Sure, why not. Again, the military is all about creating soldiers and NOT individuals. By removing any last vestige of personal identity from the individual the military should be better able to achieve the "goal of having a single, disciplined and united force" where soldiers are treated as "names, ranks and serial numbers".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and THERE YOU HAVE IT.

If a tiny minority who are different from everyone else can't have something, then no one can. You have to deny people basic human rights in order to cater to a small minority who are different and can't fit in with the norms of society. Great solution!

Umm, who says this is about allowing a tiny minority to dictate what the majority can have. This is about making sure the military treats everyone the same. Remember, "when you start giving [soldiers] special rights (like the right to privacy) you are no longer training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force. You've got individuals, and the military strictly forbids treating people as individuals. They are names, ranks and serial numbers, and for a reason."

And for the millionth freaking time soldiers DO NOT GET the same "basic human rights" as civilians. So, you really need to stop with this line of reasoning as it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. In the military soldiers DO NOT HAVE a right to privacy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then men and woman have to shower and bunk together, right? Or....is there a right to privacy that some want to only be excercised for heterosexuals of different genders, but homosexuals be given special rights?

For the argument to work logically, you have to either keep the right to privacy and disallow homosexuals, or do away with it totally. You can't rationally argue that women should have the right not to be looked at by men, but men don't have the right not to be looked at sexually by other men. It simply is a big logically fallacious FAIL.

Correct. That is why we all should be advocating for co-ed communal living in the military. Anything that does away with individuality and "treating people as individuals" should help foster "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force".

This is a good thing in my book (doing away with individuality) and apparently in yours as well (seeing as how you made all the above quoted statements).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then female soldiers bunk and shower with the males, right? If not, why - if there is no "right to privacy in regards to their bodies?"

Absolutely. Joining the military isn't a game and men and women, homosexual and straight, shouldn't expect any special treatment. But, anyone caught sexually harassing somebody else should be severely punished.

[Kerrigan]

In my view, both sides of the argument have valid points.

Homosexual soldiers deserve a more ethical policy (one that does not legally compel them to lie to physicians, chaplains, and close confidants).

But open expression of homosexuality presents problems, all of which have been mentioned here.

It's my opinion that DADT should be reformed. Homosexual soldiers should still be required to keep quiet about their orientation, but they should not have to fear investigations into their orientation, nor should they have to fear being discharged for being open to people like chaplains and physicians. In other words, the law needs to be loosened up a bit to make it ethical.

[besson3c]

What's wrong with female soldiers bunking with the men? It's not like they share the same bed...

If this is really all about showering, wouldn't it be easier to just change the shower situation if there are those that are so worried about this (if this problem even exists) rather than deny openly gay people from serving in the military?

I just don't see why this is a problem and why some of you are making such a big deal over this. It seems like whatever problems you claim exist would be easy to solve. It seems like some of you are looking for ways to deny gays into the military.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Whereas US soldiers wouldn't mind at all since they're all already that way inclined anyways.

Yeah, gee, that must be it.

Or maybe... it's only complete retards with sexual insecurity issues that really believe not having a DADT policy makes SQUAT worth of difference as to there *actually* being gay people serving in the military or not.

So if complete retards aren't joining the military because they think DADT has a ****ing thing to do with the chances of their fellow soldiers being gay or not, then why is that a bad thing? Why should we want complete retards with sexual insecurity issues joining the military? If repealing DADT keeps these types away from military service and shoveling shit or whatever else they may happen to quality for instead, then by all means, let's repeal the DADT policy ASAP.