It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
[
So women should use the same restrooms and shower in front of male soldiers? I'm sure some would like that but others would not. Our nakedness is ours andit is our right do deny some one who might be aroused by it the ability to see our nakedness/b]. It has nothing to do with bigotry.



So every woman you see you are attracted to?
It does sounds like bigotry, in fact it smacks of it.
I doubt that just because you are a male (assuming this for the sake of this exercise) every homosexual/bisexual will find you attractive, that's just ridiculous!




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I am not assuming that but everyone has the right to deny the ABILITY of some one who MIGHT be attracted to them to see them naked. It is not bigotry just protection of personal space so to speak.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
I am not assuming that but everyone has the right to deny the ABILITY of some one who MIGHT be attracted to them to see them naked. It is not bigotry just protection of personal space so to speak.


If that is so, why even bother with communal showers?
Why not have individual stalls. It's not for lack of money as we know the military has the biggest budget out of everything!



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
There is no problem with communal showers if there is no one there that will get interested or aroused by the free porn. It would only be a small task to put up another set of barracks. Fight together shower separately.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
There is no problem with communal showers if there is no one there that will get interested or aroused by the free porn. It would only be a small task to put up another set of barracks. Fight together shower separately.


Jeepers!
Free porn?
So as soon as someone is naked it is porn?
.....and still you're assuming that they WILL get aroused because they obviously can't keep their libido in check.
May as well get them wearing little pink triangles too, just so that you know when you can get naked around other guys, and when you can't, eh?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


You are arguing speach instead of the issue. Yes if I was looking in on the female shower at a military base I am certain at least one would be attractive enough to arouse me. It is a matter of taking the "possibility" out of the equation. It has nothing to do with lessening of one sexual prefference's rights. It is about protecting rights of those who do not want to have the "possibility" of some one seeing them naked and being arroused or interested.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What is the issue again?

I'm sure that 'Timmy the uphill gardener' and others would be able to hold themselves from cracking a fat in the shower room, or are they bad people who don't have their libido in check?

To my mind this is a non-issue and speaks more about those that want to segregate than anything else....but then we know the army is full of backwards miscreants who only follow orders and have no critical thinking (see, I can make sweeping generalisations too).

So you think the poor wee people in the shower need protecting from the deviant homosexual gawkers and perverts?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What is the issue again?


That would be "open homosexuality" in the military and its legalities. I for one do not feel that they should keep any sexual prefference out of the military, just organize it to make everyone comfortable. This must be done though without restricting any freedoms.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
This must be done though without restricting any freedoms.


Hmmmmm, now there's an impasse!

Whose freedoms?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


See you are taking offense to the idea that others can be or percieve to be violated by some one who may find them attractive just by looking at them. It is protection of those who do not want to be voyuerized so to speak. It is nothing against homosexuals. It is only need to protect sexual privacy in a way.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


That Obama is a piece of work. He has managed to get every gay person in America to vote for him, because they thought he would set them up to be equal and now he has not done a thing for a one of them. I bet they feel a bit stupid now.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


If they do this to open Homosexuals/Lesbians in the Military, where will it stop?

If its one rule for some then it should apply to all. If they segregate Homosexuals/Lesbians in seperate barracks, then you would have people from different religions put in segregated barracks, same with people who are white, black, mexican etc. Would cause more problems than solutions would it not.

As for Obama well there you go, Promises much, but does not act on the policies he promised before he was elected President.




[edit on 9-6-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


Acceptance of religion is alot different then sexual orientation. You can accept a religion and it not affect your mental health. To feel as if you may be getting violated in a sexual manner will affect your mental health. You cannot compare tolerance and acceptance of religion to demeaning of sexual privacy.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


How silly. Obviously the gay service men and women are already sharing barracks (and showers) with heterosexuals and are able to keep their raging, uncontrolable horomones in check. You know, gays do have the same impulse control mechanisms in place as everyone else, right?



[edit on 9-6-2009 by Syphon]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join