- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?
So you are saying that DADT should be in place for heterosexuals, also. Good to know.
I think gays should be allowed to serve, but we should keep DADT. why is it so important to disclose one's sexual orientation?
The point is, that gays would not have to be in constant fear of being outed. They don't have to pretend to be heterosexual, just to be able to serve.
No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.
A strait person can talk bout their significant other, bring them to command functions, introduce them to people, and so on. A gay person cannot even be seen in public holding hands with their significant other.
No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.
That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve. On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually? It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together. I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.
Sure. I don't think the army should ever ask someone's sexual orientation and neither should people go around disclosing it.
Should we also then allow heterosexual males to bunk and shower with women in the army?
No one has to pretend to be heterosexual, they don't have to go around having sex with women or talking about girls. They just have to put sex aside and serve there country. What about the heterosexual men that would be uncomfortable with a homosexual showering with them and bunking with them? I support homosexuals being allowed to serve, but I also think they should not disclose their sexual orientation nor should they be asked about it. One's orientation is irrelevant to military service.
The problem people fail to look at is that it will create divisiveness amongst units, especially in combat arms where only men are allowed to serve, and often have to share hygiene facilities.
That's just a sacrifice they will have to take if they want to serve.
On the flip side, should heterosexuals have to shower and bunk with someone who is attracted to them sexually? It would be the same as having males and females showering and bunking together. I don't like that homosexuals can't bring their partners to functions or talk about them, but it's just a sacrifice that must be made for the greater good.
So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.Thjere is a difference between thoughts and actions. Thinking "oh, that person looks good" is fine, acting on it in an inapropriate manner is not, and there are rules already in place to handle this outside DADT.
One's sexuality doesn't have anything to do with their military service. But we shouldn't be so naive to pretend that it doesn't come up. LGBT people in the military shouldn't have to announce it to everyone, but if asked they should be able to be honest, and not scared that their sexuality will be something that may jeopardize their ability to serve in the military.
Also about the people who would be uncomfortable showering, and bunking with homosexuals, the answer is that they need to get over it. It's nothing that the homosexuals should be ashamed of, and it's not their problem. It's the problem of the people who are uncomfortable, and they need to get over it.
And as far as your comment in regards to a homosexual being attracted to a heterosexual, are you sexually attracted to each and every female you see? Where do you get the notion that every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual of the same sex?
So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.
So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.
So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.
I believe gay men are sexually attracted to penises?Gay men are not women, gay women are not men. The biological difference is not there. Gay men can see a penis any time they want by looking down.
How so? I think sexual orientation shouldn't be something that is asked when someone enlists and isn't a qualifying aspect of being a soldier. However, what I am saying is that sexual orientation becomes an issue when it violates the rights and privacy of the vast majority of other soldiers.This is the entire problem with your position. It becomes hypocritical at this point for you to say that sexual orientation should not be an issue. Your comment demonstrates that you SEE it as an issue.
There is a greater good. Homosexuals can still serve and no one has to feel sexually violated or have their privacy infringed on. Personally, I would be fine with having soldiers not allowing their wives/husbands to events in order to make thing "fair."There is no "greater good" here. This is just hypocrisy on your part. If sexual orientation should not be an issue in the military, how can you justify it being OK for a heterosexual to bring their partners to funcitons, and not homosexuals?
And as far as your comment in regards to a homosexual being attracted to a heterosexual, are you sexually attracted to each and every female you see? Where do you get the notion that every homosexual is attracted to every heterosexual of the same sex?
So we should allow men to shower and bunk with women? They might think it, but as long as they don't do anything is it ok? It's not just about if homosexuals will do something or not, it's about how other soldiers feel. It's not right to have many heterosexuals feel uncomfortable by being forced to shower and bunk with someone they know is openly gay.
So hetero soldiers should just "get over it?" Should I be allowed to jump into a female showering facility and bathe with them and say to them to just "get over it"? That isn't right. I am not anti-homosexuals and I feel that they should be allowed to serve. However, I think DADT is a good and necessary thing so that heteros won't feel violated and homosexuals can still serve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?