Don't ask Don't Tell is dead...

[exlude]

You all seem much more concerned about it than just about anybody in my entire battalion. Doesn't seem to affect anyone too much aside from the passing joke. The pentagon's surveys reflect the same.

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

[Vertnut]

You all seem much more concerned about it than just about anybody in my entire battalion. Doesn't seem to affect anyone too much aside from the passing joke. The pentagon's surveys reflect the same.

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

If you guys are good, I'm good. I don't have the perception that you guys have, and my issues were more about the logistics of many coming back and filing lawsuits for benefits and back-pay.

[YALE]

If you guys are good, I'm good. I don't have the perception that you guys have, and my issues were more about the logistics of many coming back and filing lawsuits for benefits and back-pay.

They really can't. New laws can't be used like that. Take the Ledbetter Act. The lady it's named after waited too long to sue her employer for paying her less than male counterparts under the laws on the books at the time, so she's SOL. The new law is only applicable to situations after its passing. That would be like going back and cutting everyone ever a check because Congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

[Vertnut]

They really can't. New laws can't be used like that. Take the Ledbetter Act. The lady it's named after waited too long to sue her employer for paying her less than male counterparts under the laws on the books at the time, so she's SOL. The new law is only applicable to situations after its passing. That would be like going back and cutting everyone ever a check because Congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

Discrimination suits seem to have different guidelines, and with the judges we have in place (along with the attorney general we have), I'm very concerned. We just payed $60 billion in "restitution" to black farmers.

[ceyko]

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

I hope you're right. Really I do.

You currently have the gays who are used to the old ways. Over a period of time you'll have the open and possibly flaming queers joining. I don't think making a call on it NOW is a proper measure of how it's going to all pan out. I'd say make that call in about 2-3 years.

Then the eye fucking and sexual harrassment may increase male to male...etc

Like I've posted before, MY mind is not going to change on this matter. I still really hope I'm dead wrong and it all turns out 100% perfect. I just foresee problems. Sexual harrassment and beat downs to start with - if the homos don't keep their mouths/attitudes in check.

[GhostTX]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

[Vertnut]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

I'm thinking "soap-on-a-rope" will become government issue...

[YALE]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

Straight people are already showering and bunking with gays.

[davbrucas]

Straight people are already showering and bunking with gays.

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

[Vertnut]

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

This is EXACTLY what the supporters of this DO NOT understand! Not everyone KNEW they were gay. I don't expect them to wear pink tutu's to the shower, but there will be no discretion. Let the lawsuits begin!

[YALE]

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

I'm not in the military, and I'm not gay, but I support equal rights for gays. Honestly, though, this discussion's going in circles. Those that are raising the same questions keep getting the same answers, so we may not ever see eye to eye. An aside: homophobia isn't the same thing as racism, but picking on gays for being gay makes any man a bully all the same.

[davbrucas]

If you were gay, would you admit it on here? Equal rights for gays? As in they should get legislation to change how they are treated solely because of their sexual preference? That's ridiculous and obscene. If you want to be gay, so what...but keep it to your damn self. If it's only about the right to be gay, then why the hell make it a public matter? Be gay in your bedroom...be a normal citizen otherwise.

[GhostTX]

Straight people are already showering and bunking with gays.

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

That's my thinking as well. Further, do you want a "known" gay leering at you in the shower? If women/men are allowed to have separate showers because this (basically), what's to say the same for straight/gay with both sexes? Heck, are even gays gonna want other gays seeing them shower?

Further, what about housing? Some states allow gay-marriage, and some don't. What's going to happen with married gay couples at bases in state that don't recognize gay marriage? The fed going to mandate over the state's laws? Force them to recognize the couple? There's all kinds of legal snafu's coming down this pipe.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

First of all, everyone agrees that gays are already in the military, right? Sounds like every person in the military has most likely already showered with, and slept in the same room with a gay. WTF does this change about that?

SIDE BAR: Were you on the old board?

Ok, so if you absolutely had to shower/change/whatever with a bunch of guys, and there was the possibility that one was gay. Would you rather A. Not know anything about it and just have that hope that none of them might be eyeballing your shaft, or B. Know for a fact that one (or more) of them was gay, and that odds are they were in fact eyeballing your shaft. Me? I'd rather not know. I mean if I absolutely must be nude around another man, I'd like to at least have the hope that he might not be gay. He may do his best to try to hide it, but in his mind he's still looking at you like:

But I feel like you still didn't really address my issue. Cause if we are forced to accept that this is not indeed some kind of lifestyle choice, then wouldn't you agree that a woman has every right to not be looked at by a man when she is nude? Why is being a peeping tom against the law? Should we repeal that now too? And, if a woman has every right to not have some man looking at her while she showers, then certainly a man has that right, when it comes to a woman. Right? That's only fair.

So if those to things are true, and gays really can't help but be gay, then why should women and men have to put up with some gay who is clearly going to be looking at them, at these times? It goes back to the same principle about the opposite sexes having rights to not be ogled by each other. So now what do you arrive at? Segregation. Now how do you think all the little fagots of the world are going to handle that? Are they going to be cool with it? Or will they play the civil rights card, yet again? Thus, trampling the rights of others, so that they can feel a little bit better about themselves. So I stand by my point that to repeal this last little hope of dignity for the straight people in the military, is wrong. For those who look at it my way, gays shouldn't even be allowed in the military, due to this issue. To protect the rights of those that aren't gay.

Yes I was on the old board but I hadn't visited it in well over a year.

[ceyko]

Yes I was on the old board but I hadn't visited it in well over a year.

Good job breaking it down a little further...