Announcement

**Patroklos** · December 17, 2007, 18:21

You brought up, as a rebuttal, that every gay person in these militaries may not have come out, so these countries' experiences are not relevant.

I didn't say that, I said your article was irrelevant because without numbers, there is no way to measure combat effectivness.

**Wezil** · December 17, 2007, 18:21

Originally posted by MrFun

Well to be honest, I am having difficulty articulating why it is different to have separate facilities for men and women, but not separate facilities for straight men and gay men, and for straight women and lesbians.

Then we'll have even more people sneaking into the wrong showers.

**Patroklos** · December 17, 2007, 18:24

I can and have proven you wrong simply by illustrating there's no known issues in the entire world about openly gay military members serving in their unit.

Thats not an apology or you recognizing that no attack on the courage/commintment of the Canadian Forces took place, as put forward by you, happened.

Try again.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me the stats that contradict reports from the dozens of countries that permit it. Do something other than talk down about the military of other countries just because their numbers are fewer.

Did I talk down about another country's military?

Try again

Do something other than arrogantly talk about your vast experience on a ship and how it somehow relates to countries that have the policy we're referring to.

You do something other than simply make up what you think that experiance has to be. Or at least let us know about what makes gay men superior to straight men and woen so such a degree they have zero personal problems with their comrades related to sex.

**PLATO** · December 17, 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by Dis
The thing is I knew a guy in the Navy who was gay. Thinking back, it really doesn't bother me if he might have saw me shower. What's the big deal?

That is exactly the point. It isn't a big deal.

Unless it is to you. The reason why we segregate women? Because it is a big deal to them? Seriously...why do we segregate people based on sexuality? If you aren't adult enough to handle that, then maybe you shouldn't be handling a billion dollars of hardware eithier.

So the question comes down to...Do we seperate people based upon their sexuality? The answer right now is obviously "yes" (women being the de facto example). If that is the policy then it should apply across the board.

If we decide it is a bad policy, then it should be done away with for all...not just a select group.

**Ramo** · December 17, 2007, 18:27

I didn't say that, I said your article was irrelevant because without numbers, there is no way to measure combat effectivness.

It's pretty clear that combat effectiveness problems are insignificant if you need an insanely complicated regression analysis (I don't see how you could possibly control for time, for instance) to find any issues whatsoever...

**PLATO** · December 17, 2007, 18:27

Originally posted by Ramo

I don't think they should be segregated...

It always makes my day when we find something to agree on.

**Imran Siddiqui** · December 17, 2007, 18:28

Oh oh! I agree with the both of you

.

**Ramo** · December 17, 2007, 18:30

**PLATO** · December 17, 2007, 18:31

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh oh! I agree with the both of you

.

See...There you have it.

If Imran, Ramo, and PLATO can agree on something then it should be CASE CLOSED!

One shower for all!

**Dis** · December 17, 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by PLATO

That is exactly the point. It isn't a big deal.

Unless it is to you. The reason why we segregate women? Because it is a big deal to them? Seriously...why do we segregate people based on sexuality? If you aren't adult enough to handle that, then maybe you shouldn't be handling a billion dollars of hardware eithier.

So the question comes down to...Do we seperate people based upon their sexuality? The answer right now is obviously "yes" (women being the de facto example). If that is the policy then it should apply across the board.

If we decide it is a bad policy, then it should be done away with for all...not just a select group.

Ya, doesn't bother me if a gay man looks at me. But as I said, the only time I'm really visible is when I'm getting out of the shower (we have shower curtains after all). I might be a bit uncomfortable if he's standing there with a hard on. But I don't think that would ever happen.

The main thing about separating women and men is men are pigs and would sexually harrass the women.

. In my case, I would be uncomfortable not because women would be looking at me (doubtful

), but because I'd have a hard on showering with women. I'd be uncomfortable looking at them.

As long as everything stays professional and there is no sexual harrassment (and we already have regulations against that), I see no reason why gays can't openly serve. If they get out of line in private situations, boot them. But I think peer pressure would be enough to keep everyone in line.

**Patroklos** · December 17, 2007, 18:38

So the question comes down to...Do we seperate people based upon their sexuality? The answer right now is obviously "yes" (women being the de facto example). If that is the policy then it should apply across the board.

If we decide it is a bad policy, then it should be done away with for all...not just a select group.

And this is what Asher can't explain. At least Mr. Fun had the courage to say he didn't know a reason even if he feld one way.

Asher just assumes his view is selfevident.

**PLATO** · December 17, 2007, 18:52

Originally posted by Dis

The main thing about separating women and men is men are pigs and would sexually harrass the women.

. In my case, I would be uncomfortable not because women would be looking at me (doubtful

), but because I'd have a hard on showering with women. I'd be uncomfortable looking at them.

Gay men are men also. There fore under your definition they would be "pigs" as well.

If the issue is that these "pigs" can't control themselves when looking at someone they have a sexual preference for then I fail to see how there is any difference if it is a man or a woman.

It comes down, once again, to a maturity issue. If you are sexually mature and comfortable with your orientation (gay or straight) then it really shouldn't matter.

**Wezil** · December 17, 2007, 18:53

Originally posted by Dis

Ya, doesn't bother me if a gay man looks at me. ...I might be a bit uncomfortable if he's standing there with a hard on. But I don't think that would ever happen.

... but because I'd have a hard on showering with women. I'd be uncomfortable looking at them.

There's that double standard again. Gays are able to suppress their "urges" but heteros are walking stiffies.

**Dis** · December 17, 2007, 18:53

Originally posted by PLATO

Gay men are men also. There fore under your definition they would be "pigs" as well.

If the issue is that these "pigs" can't control themselves when looking at someone they have a sexual preference for then I fail to see how there is any difference if it is a man or a woman.

It comes down, once again, to a maturity issue. If you are sexually mature and comfortable with your orientation (gay or straight) then it really shouldn't matter.

I suppose. It's just hard for me to imagine anyone actually being attracted to the mail body. Even gay men.

**Patroklos** · December 17, 2007, 18:54

It comes down, once again, to a maturity issue. If you are sexually mature and comfortable with your orientation (gay or straight) then it really shouldn't matter.

Which leads us directly to the 17 year old horn ball issue

I suppose. It's just hard for me to imagine anyone actually being attracted to the mail body. Even gay men

Mail men are pretty gross.

Announcement

CBS News Report on U.S. Military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment