[Kerrigan]

Supposedly, an amendment will be tacked onto the upcoming Defense Budget Authorization Bill which will repeal the ban on gays serving in the military.

This strategy seems like the only way that the ban can be lifted. The bill currently floating around in Congress is going nowhere, and Obama has not come up with his own strategy for repeal.

So far, things have been very quiet. Do you think Democrats will seek to lift the ban when they vote on the FY2011 defense budget this spring?

[stupendousman]

I don't know why they wouldn't try.

They are pretty much making every single mistake Clinton made the last time they controlled all major branches of government. No reason not to tack that one on as well for good measure. Then, as the Emperor said, their "failure will be complete" and they won't have anyone to blame for being out of power but themselves.

[besson3c]

Repealing DADT would be a failure?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Repealing DADT would be a failure?

Yep.

Like it or not, the fact is that most blokes who join the military aren't the type of blokes who would appreciate lathering up in a communal shower with peeps who're openly gay. Since they dropped the UK's version of DADT, they've been having major recruiting issues.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Like it or not, the fact is that most blokes who join the military aren't the type of blokes who would appreciate lathering up in a communal shower with peeps who're openly gay. Since they dropped the UK's version of DADT, they've been having major recruiting issues.

Sounds like another classic example of the euro super-soldier toughguy your so fond of bragging about.

"I'm such a tough guy, but oh noes! The dude next to me might be gay! eeeek! Run away! Run away!"

[Big Mac]

Either way, our military's still going to be better off than France's.

I can see how it can be a thorny issue no matter what choice is made, though. I think soldiers should do they utmost to leave sexuality out of their service. We've seen straight soldiers get into trouble for pregnancies, right?

I think a better policy may be "Don't make sexuality an issue." Straight or gay, keep it private either way as much as possible and express your sexuality when you're on leave, on your own time. Does that make sense?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sounds like another classic example of the euro super-soldier toughguy your so fond of bragging about.

"I'm such a tough guy, but oh noes! The dude next to me might be gay! eeeek! Run away! Run away!"

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

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Either way, our military's still going to be better off than France's.

I can see how it can be a thorny issue no matter what choice is made, though. I think soldiers should do they utmost to leave sexuality out of their service. We've seen straight soldiers get into trouble for pregnancies, right?

I think a better policy may be "Don't make sexuality an issue." Straight or gay, keep it private either way as much as possible and express your sexuality when you're on leave, on your own time. Does that make sense?

Very much (and I don’t often agree so with your posts).

That’s how it’s been here for about twenty-odd years, and it’s always worked fine here. The forces here experienced a steep increase of recruiting difficulties, too, but in the late ’90s. Not in the late ’80s when our version of DADT was repealed.

It’s only a minor part of the military that actually does the whole communal shower thing, and thus far, in my admittedly rather limited experience of showering with a bunch of recruits in their barracks three times, not one single person seemed to have an issue with it. The majority of military personnel (here, at least) is administrative or have other ranks that permit them nine-to-five jobs where communal showers are (usually) rendered unnecessary, anyway.

[OldManMac]

Any one who doesn't join a military force because they think their fellow soldier might be gay is a social misfit as well. What do they do in civilian life; ask everyone they meet if they are gay, and if they are, don't talk to them? How ridiculous. Just another strawman argument put forth by those who obviously have sexual issues of their own.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Any one who doesn't join a military force because they think their fellow soldier might be gay is a social misfit as well. What do they do in civilian life; ask everyone they meet if they are gay, and if they are, don't talk to them? How ridiculous. Just another strawman argument put forth by those who obviously have sexual issues of their own.

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.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The reason is the same as why most straight people don't want to shower/change in front of gay people. Basic personal privacy.

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

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.

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?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Any one who doesn't join a military force because they think their fellow soldier might be gay is a social misfit as well. What do they do in civilian life; ask everyone they meet if they are gay, and if they are, don't talk to them? How ridiculous. Just another strawman argument put forth by those who obviously have sexual issues of their own.

Civilian life is slightly different from military service. You understand that right? You work in an office 8 hrs./day fives days a week and still have 16 hours five days a week, plus 24 hours two days a week to do life. In military service, your job is your life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

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

Maybe over there in Scandi where nude saunas are embedded in the culture. Elsewhere, I'd say that that most straight people do have a problem with it.

[Big Mac]

You also have to be in close quarters with strangers in the military.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Any one who doesn't join a military force because they think their fellow soldier might be gay is a social misfit as well.

Right, because people who wake up one morning and decide that they'd quite like a job where they kill people for the sake of an artificial construct flying a flag are properly socially adjusted in the first place, eh?

[Wiskedjak]

Ironically, the male soldiers most likely to feel threatened at the thought of a gay soldier seeing them naked are probably the same guys who'll be first to harass a female soldier.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Any one who doesn't join a military force because they think their fellow soldier might be gay is a social misfit as well.

Wow, nice judging of people that maybe just want some privacy in an environment where they can't make choices because they have given up that right when hey decided to fight for their country.

I wonder how many of our soldiers would like to die for people like you that hold so obnoxious views about them.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ironically, the male soldiers most likely to feel threatened at the thought of a gay soldier seeing them naked are probably the same guys who'll be first to harass a female soldier.

How does that follow?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, nice judging of people that maybe just want some privacy in an environment where they can't make choices because they have given up that right when hey decided to fight for their country.

I wonder how many of our soldiers would like to die for people like you that hold so obnoxious views about them.

-t

Also ironic in a thread about judging people who want to defend their country unfit for military service because of their sexual preference. People who would like to die for people like you.

[Doofy]

I'm sure we had this thread a few months ago. Didn't we?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Either way, our military's still going to be better off than France's.

I can see how it can be a thorny issue no matter what choice is made, though. I think soldiers should do they utmost to leave sexuality out of their service. We've seen straight soldiers get into trouble for pregnancies, right?

I think a better policy may be "Don't make sexuality an issue." Straight or gay, keep it private either way as much as possible and express your sexuality when you're on leave, on your own time. Does that make sense?

I'm totally with you on this one Big Mac. This should be a non-issue. Allowing gays in the military doesn't mean that suddenly they will be walking around with name tags: "Hi! I'm teh gay!". Gay men and women are already serving in the military and know how to comport themselves. The only thing that will change is they will no longer be living in fear each day that they will be exposed or become the subject of a witch hunt.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I can see how it can be a thorny issue no matter what choice is made, though. I think soldiers should do they utmost to leave sexuality out of their service. We've seen straight soldiers get into trouble for pregnancies, right?

Yes. Both pregnancy and sexual assault.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think a better policy may be "Don't make sexuality an issue." Straight or gay, keep it private either way as much as possible and express your sexuality when you're on leave, on your own time. Does that make sense?

"express your sexuality when you're on leave, on your own time" is an excellent suggestion for a policy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, nice judging of people that maybe just want some privacy in an environment where they can't make choices because they have given up that right when hey decided to fight for their country.

Your statement is internally inconsistent. You talk about people "that maybe just want some privacy" who exist in an "environment where they can't make choice" about things like their own privacy. In the US military you give up the right to privacy along with many other rights one would have in the non-military world. In a more general sense you give up the right to make most personal choices when you join the military. So, while OldManMac's judgmental statement about US soldiers may be offensive your reply is illogical and irrelevant as US soldiers don't get the right to privacy nor the right to make most choices for themselves while serving in the US military.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I wonder how many of our soldiers would like to die for people like you that hold so obnoxious views about them.
-t

I would hope all of them seeing as how it is their job and their duty to defend ALL the citizens of the United States, not just the citizens they may like or agree with.

[andi*pandi]

Perhaps the problem is not with the gays, but with communal showers. I would not want to shower in a group, no matter who is in the group, gay or straight, men or women.

Ban communal showers and let's get on with having arabic translators again.

[Railroader]

If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, then it makes sense to either segregate them or eliminate sexual segregation all together.

Heterosexual women are not allowed to bunk and shower with heterosexual men, why should gay women be allowed to bunk with gay women?

Why would the sexes be separated at all?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your statement is internally inconsistent. You talk about people "that maybe just want some privacy" who exist in an "environment where they can't make choice" about things like their own privacy. In the US military you give up the right to privacy along with many other rights one would have in the non-military world. In a more general sense you give up the right to make most personal choices when you join the military. So, while OldManMac's judgmental statement about US soldiers may be offensive your reply is illogical and irrelevant as US soldiers don't get the right to privacy nor the right to make most choices for themselves while serving in the US military.

Huh ? Nothing illogical here.

When those soldiers signed up, they knew the parameters; those were 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', and under those, they were willing to enlist.

I'm sure many would re-think their position if they suddenly were forced to share rooms and showers.

I don't know about you, but I have plenty of family members serving in the military. While they have no problems with gays in general (they have gay freinds), they are against repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for good reasons.

-t

[sek929]

99% of the people I've met serving in the military are usually womanizing swaggering heteros who brag about their sexual conquests across the globe like battle stories. The real issue here is that most of those men are also severe homophobics, so the military institutes a rule to 'ban' sexuality in the military when all it does is ban homosexuals from acting, well, homosexual.

I'm willing to place my bets that the majority of people who join a military institution are very intolerant of gay behavior.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, then it makes sense to either segregate them or eliminate sexual segregation all together.

Heterosexual women are not allowed to bunk and shower with heterosexual men, why should gay women be allowed to bunk with gay women?

Why would the sexes be separated at all?

Because gays are a fraction of the general population, and desegregating mostly heterosexual forces won't do anything to reduce sexual concerns, regardless of the policy toward homosexuals?

[nonhuman]

I have never served in the military, so perhaps one of our veteran members can correct me on this, but from what I've heard from my friends who are and have served the communal showers aren't even really an issue anyway. As I understand it, pretty much the only time you will ever see a communal shower is during basic training. And during basic training it is highly unlikely that anyone would have the time or inclination to think about anything other than showering and getting on with their day during the extremely small amount of time they are alloted for such matters as personal hygiene.

Also, as I've pointed out in previous threads on this issue, even with extremely liberal estimates of what percentage of the population is gay, the odds of there being a gay person in the same shower as you are extremely low.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'm willing to place my bets that the majority of people who join a military institution are very intolerant of gay behavior.

W/o going into the reasons and arguments for or against soldier's tolerance for gays, if your assessment was true (that the majority is very intolerant), wouldn't repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' have devastating effects on our military's morale ?

In that regard, I can see how Obama will push this through. One more stupid thing where a minority pushes their agenda on the majority. Welcome to the world of minorty opinion terror.

-t

[Doofy]

I don't know about you blokes, but I've still never met a gay person who actually wants to join the military.

Unless we're talking 3 Para Mortar, of course.

Unit Motto: Take us in the rear and we'll give you a good spanking.
Rumours of strange goings on in 3 Para Mortars date back to the 1980s when a member was found to be supplementing his meagre military salary by working as a 'rent boy'. Oh how the rest of the army laughed! Oh how The Parachute Regiment clapped their hands to their heads and wished the ground would swallow them up!
Since those halcyon days, the boys from mortars have become synonymous with all things gay. It's all good fun-poking of course, but it is the perfect example of one singular event having extremely long mileage.
However it may not all be in the past. With the Parachute Regiment deployment to Afghanistan it was only a matter of time till their deviancy made the papers. After a heated firefight, a member of the mortars' platoon said: "The Taliban took us from the rear and we gave them a good spanking." Nice to see the unit motto quoted in the press.

3 Para Mortar Platoon - ARRSEpedia

[sek929]

I think if we can teach young men to fight and kill we can teach them not to give a rat's ass about who is fighting next to them as long as that person does his/her job. I'm certain there was some devastated morale when we allowed women to vote and blacks to no be enslaved, but that shouldn't be a detriment towards progress.

A flamboyantly gay man willing to die for his country should get the same respect as the hetero man. Nonhuman hit it right on the head, communal showers are during basic, which, as my friends in the army have told me, leaves no time at all to wonder about anything besides the ass-kicking they are about to receive from the drill sergeant. DADT was instituted to mask the inherent intolerance in the military, nothing else.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know about you blokes, but I've still never met a gay person who actually wants to join the military.

I know plenty of gay men that were/are in the military. Just to name a few:

My ex was in the army.
A dear friend of mine is currently serving in Iraq.
Two friends from high school prior to DADT. They were both the victims of witch hunts. Although they both worked very hard to keep their personal life private, a superior (who was also gay) ratted them out to save his own ass. They received dishonorable discharges, the superior was promoted. They were given the option of turning in other gays in return for a general discharge but declined.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

DADT was instituted to mask the inherent intolerance in the military, nothing else.

And that's the fact of the matter.

In order to create a good fighting unit, one needs to have a good, tight bond between members of that unit. The fastest way to create such a bond is to create a universal object of ridicule. At the moment this is gays. What's it going to be in future? Ragheads? Ooops, no, can't have that. The enemy? Ooops, no, they're just misunderstood people doing a job. Women? Ooops, no, there's women in the team.

There's always going to be a certain style of gentleman attracted to a life in the military. And that certain style of gentleman is always going to take the mick out of the unit's chosen object of ridicule. Goes with the job. Period.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh ? Nothing illogical here.

When those soldiers signed up, they knew the parameters; those were 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', and under those, they were willing to enlist.

Wrong again!

Apart from the initial length of service agreed to an enlistment, the military has every right to change the parameters of a soldiers enlistment even after the soldier enlists. That's part of being a soldier, you have to accept whatever dictate the military imposes upon you whether or not you like it. So, if the parameters to DADT change the enlisted just have to deal with it. Just like if the parameters changed for the length of tour of duty in Iraq--remember the uproar when tours were lengthened from 12 to 15 months--or how long you must serve in a given rank before being eligible for promotion. The military has to let you out after your initial agreed upon length of service, everything else regarding a soldier's enlistment is flexible at the discretion of the military NOT the soldier.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And that's the fact of the matter.

In order to create a good fighting unit, one needs to have a good, tight bond between members of that unit. The fastest way to create such a bond is to create a universal object of ridicule. At the moment this is gays. What's it going to be in future? Ragheads? Ooops, no, can't have that. The enemy? Ooops, no, they're just misunderstood people doing a job. Women? Ooops, no, there's women in the team.

There's always going to be a certain style of gentleman attracted to a life in the military. And that certain style of gentleman is always going to take the mick out of the unit's chosen object of ridicule. Goes with the job. Period.

Well, that has to change.

Blacks weren't even allowed to fight in any fashion at first, I'd imagine there were plenty of racist pricks that used the blacks as their punching bag around the ol watering hole. Now we have a mixed race, mixed gender military....kinda seems like resisting gays is pretty retarded at this point.

Yes yes, people love to be stuck in their ignorant little ways, and those same people may be the only thing saving the US from destruction by our enemies but ultimately they are grunts, and have no say in how the military should enact regulations. People will rarely change on their own, they'll need to be forced to do so.

First day of bootcamp:

Sarge: "Alright you ladies! No we've got gays in our unit, and If I hear anyone complain you'll be running 20 miles in your big honking boots until your goddamn toenails squirt blood. AM I UNDERSTOOD?!?"

Conversely, gays will (the ones enlisted now already do I assume) have to grow a very thick skin for the time being, until they are accepted and the next thing is not allowing people with blue hair or some sh!t in the army.

Jimmy Joe-Bob called you a fag? Well make him eat your boot and see if you gain any respect.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, then it makes sense to either segregate them or eliminate sexual segregation all together.

Why do you think it "makes sense to either segregate [gays] or eliminate sexual segregation all together"?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Wrong again!

Apart from the initial length of service agreed to an enlistment, the military has every right to change the parameters of a soldiers enlistment even after the soldier enlists. That's part of being a soldier, you have to accept whatever dictate the military imposes upon you whether or not you like it. So, if the parameters to DADT change the enlisted just have to deal with it. Just like if the parameters changed for the length of tour of duty in Iraq--remember the uproar when tours were lengthened from 12 to 15 months--or how long you must serve in a given rank before being eligible for promotion. The military has to let you out after your initial agreed upon length of service, everything else regarding a soldier's enlistment is flexible at the discretion of the military NOT the soldier.

Huh ?

Did say it was illegal, or that it couldn't be changed. No.

I said that's NOT what the enlisting soldiers expected, and for them, it would cause a decrease in morale. Sure you can say "deal with it". But that's not gonna change the fact that some of them are going to be pissed of.

You really need to stop projecting things into my posts.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

W/o going into the reasons and arguments for or against soldier's tolerance for gays, if your assessment was true (that the majority is very intolerant), wouldn't repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' have devastating effects on our military's morale ?

Probably.

But it will take a few years, maybe a decade or two, to change military attitudes. Just like what happened when the military was forcibly desegregated based on race. There was quite a while afterwards where the open and not-so-open racists were NOT happy being forced to commingle with blacks, but over time that attitude went away. The same thing happened when women were allowed to serve and the same thing will happen after DADT get repealed. There will be a big initial hullaballoo and then over a few years the matter will subside.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I said that's NOT what the enlisting soldiers expected, and for them, it would cause a decrease in morale. Sure you can say "deal with it". But that's not gonna change the fact that some of them are going to be pissed of.

So what if they are pissed off. They will have to "deal with it" whether they like it or not. Just like they have to deal with every other change the military imposes on them.

You know, kinda like how we made racist soldiers "deal with it" when the military was forcibly integrated for race.
Or, kinda like how we made anti-women soldiers "deal with it" when the military was forcibly integrated for gender.

[dcmacdaddy]

The funny thing about this subject is all of those individuals claiming repealing DADT will negatively effect morale seem to think this is the only issue that could possibly effect a soldier's morale, as if everything is puppy dogs and roses for soldiers in the US military and not a single soldier can complain about anything effecting their morale.

Well, that idea--that morale is great apart from the idea of allowing homosexuals to serve--is ludicrous. Soldiers in all the armed services have a variety of reasons for low morale and yet the soldiers have to "just deal with it" for whatever is causing their low morale. It's funny how soldiers can be made to "just deal with it" for other issues related to low morale but if they are made to "just deal with it" when it comes to the subject of homosexuals in the military they have to be coddled and protected.

[dcmacdaddy]

As for me, I will state what I have said many many times when it comes to the matter of military service in this country. I think ALL* able-bodied individuals should be required to perform a minimum of two years of military service between the ages of 18 and 26 (meaning, you could go to college before or after your two years of service but you could not use your time in college as a substitute for your two years of service). This would go a long ways toward getting every citizen in this country a better sense of what it means to be a soldier and forcing every citizen to meet and commingle with other citizens who they might not otherwise meet.



*Those wishing not to serve for reasons of religious beliefs related to pacifism would be required to perform two years of public service in some other capacity, maybe in Teach For America, or some other similar nationwide public service program. (Think of a program like Bush Senior's Thousand Points of Lights Initiative.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The funny thing about this subject is all of those individuals claiming repealing DADT will negatively effect morale seem to think this is the only issue that could possibly effect a soldier's morale

Nobody said that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nobody said that.

Well then, tell me what other issues cause low morale among UK soldiers. And how are those issues of low morale dealt with by the soldiers? Or are they forced to "just deal" with whatever issues might be causing low morale?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for me, I will state what I have said many many times when it comes to the matter of military service in this country. I think ALL* able-bodied individuals should be required to perform a minimum of two years of military service between the ages of 18 and 26 (meaning, you could go to college before or after your two years of service but you could not use your time in college as a substitute for your two years of service). This would go a long ways toward getting every citizen in this country a better sense of what it means to be a soldier and forcing every citizen to meet and commingle with other citizens who they might not otherwise meet.

Oh dear.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well then, tell me what other issues cause low morale among UK soldiers.

Lack of beer, lack of tang, lack of proper kit (not a lack of funding - the MoD just seem to buy the wrong product all the time), lack of ability to fire on the enemy because some ponce politician in the US who's in charge of the joint mission has decided that the enemy must be treated with kid gloves, etc..

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And how are those issues of low morale dealt with by the soldiers?

Ummm. They take the piss out of people suspected of being gay. Like 3 Para.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, then it makes sense to either segregate them or eliminate sexual segregation all together.

Heterosexual women are not allowed to bunk and shower with heterosexual men, why should gay women be allowed to bunk with gay women?

Why would the sexes be separated at all?

This is the logical question. Either people have an expectation of privacy or they don't. If straight people can't expect that privacy in regards to homosexuals (or homosexuals not wanting to be oogled by other homosexuals even), then it doesn't follow logically that women be allowed this expectation when it comes to being unclothed in front of men.

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. 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.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I'm totally with you on this one Big Mac. This should be a non-issue. Allowing gays in the military doesn't mean that suddenly they will be walking around with name tags: "Hi! I'm teh gay!". Gay men and women are already serving in the military and know how to comport themselves. The only thing that will change is they will no longer be living in fear each day that they will be exposed or become the subject of a witch hunt.

Live in fear of what? That people will know they've been getting in the showers with people who really don't want them there, violating their right to basic privacy?

Oh..yeah, maybe they should do the right thing and simply choose not the engage in a profession which would require such a disregard for others.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm sure we had this thread a few months ago. Didn't we?

Yep. Here it is. It contains all the expected strained analogies.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because gays are a fraction of the general population, and desegregating mostly heterosexual forces won't do anything to reduce sexual concerns, regardless of the policy toward homosexuals?

Heterosexuals are also a fraction of the population. Why would there be any segregation if certain groups are allowed to be around people who they find sexually arousing but other groups are not?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why do you think it "makes sense to either segregate [gays] or eliminate sexual segregation all together"?

If you are forced to shower and bunk with people who find you sexually attractive, but happen to be of the same sex, why should there be any separation of anything?

If DADT is repealed and gays allowed to serve openly:
Heterosexual men find women sexually = segregate
Heterosexual women find men sexually arousing = segregate
Homosexual men find men sexually arousing = don't segregate
Lesbian women find women sexually arousing = don't segregate

Do you see a double standard or a slightly badly thought out pattern here?