Republicans block efforts in ending 'Don't ask don't tell'

I wonder after this foolish argument is over by allowing gays to serve and then providing all their “needs” what’s next? You know are we have multiple or one bathroom…..
Will it be against the law to ask what gender a person is? Male and female prisoners together, dog lovers, any “identified” “special” sect –on and on…
Like I said in my first post what about the Mormons? Multiple wives right?
How are gay people special in terms of special groups?

Originally posted by Steve8511
I wonder after this foolish argument is over by allowing gays to serve and then providing all their “needs” what’s next? You know are we have multiple or one bathroom…..
Will it be against the law to ask what gender a person is? Male and female prisoners together, dog lovers, any “identified” “special” sect –on and on…
Like I said in my first post what about the Mormons? Multiple wives right?
How are gay people special in terms of special groups?

Read the ending of the previous page...its already being discussed overall...the bathroom/shower thing is anyhow.

reply to post by Steve8511


The Mormons aren't allowed to have multiple wives, they haven't been for along time. You'll need to find another example, but keep going, maybe you'll find something.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

As I understand you, it seems your objection to repealing DADT mainly centers around your anxiety about what service personnel will discuss. You have even provided a list of the dread fetishes they might talk about.

I do not serve in the military, but I can assure you that from what I know men and women in uniform discuss all sorts of topics with each other and in the company of other soldiers. They can talk about whatever they want to and they do.

I am guessing (I may be wrong) that your objections are primarily moral. You fear a "slippery slope" of socially taboo topics down which our soldiers might slide.

You are entitled to your own moral code, but you probably cannot enforce it on others, and I for one would resist you if you tried, especially if it pertained only to what can be talked about.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Why do women need to be provided separate facilities at all?

I want to know why women should expect to have them? ( and the women have larger restrooms on almost every floorplan you look at!)

edit on 22-9-2010 by butcherguy because: Because someone is trying to make me out to be a homophobe!

Honestly...Private facilities for rest-rooms should and often are available. Not to be overly crude, but aiming at honesty...women menstruate and have "Feminine needs" and men masturbate...niether need to be seen by anyone.

Showers...I think precedent is the easiest answer.

Ever wonder why in many tribes where the women go topless, the men aren't ogling them? Sexuality is a mental state, not physical one. I once met a tribe of folks in Papua New Guinea where the men were considered "dressed" if the end of thier penis was held by a thin thread up around thier waist. THAT was considered "wearing clothes" to them. I mean everything was still there and visible! Now when one of those tribe members would untie that thread and let things hang naturally...THAT was a public scandal and girls would scream, giggle and cover thier eyes. It was like streaking! I saw a young man get dragged away by an old woman by his ear for demonstrating to me what happens if they didn't wear the penis thread.

Nudity is cultural.

Sorry for my assumptions about your post. Hope this post helps explain my view on the topic.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

I do not serve in the military, but I can assure you that from what I know men and women in uniform discuss all sorts of topics with each other and in the company of other soldiers. They can talk about whatever they want to and they do.

edit on 22-9-2010 by Sestias because: word choice

Spoken like a true civilian and like 99% of civilians who try to assure someone how the military works.

You are wrong.

Sure they can talk about whatever they want in private, but even that can get you in trouble. For instance if I told someone in the privacy of my own home that you had a birth mark on your butt that looked like an arrow pointing to your garbage shoot. You might get a little beefed if that person told another and that person told another.

You then take your complaint to your squad leader and it climbs up and up. Now I could be looking at possible reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay.

Think of the military as a huge factory that runs and operates 24/7. The employees are always on duty and are held to the rules of the factory every waking and sleeping moment. But I know its hard for you to wrap your brain around it, because you are a civilian.

It would be like me telling a rocket scientist how to best send the next shuttle or satellite in space.

reply to post by maybereal11
Thanks for the clarification. I do feel what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so I think I should be able to stroll into the ladies room at the local restaurant and sue them if they scream.



It is of course because of the sexual mores that have been in place and evolving in our culture, that these things are the way that they are with rest rooms and showers.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Thanks for the clarification. I do feel what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so I think I should be able to stroll into the ladies room at the local restaurant and sue them if they scream.

If you really wanted to entertain yourself...do the above and when confronted by management...flat out claim you are a woman and act very hurt and offended that anyone would think otherwise. You'd have to dead-pan it and not crack a smile.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Still skirting the core issue of the thread, just like the Republicans? I'll ask you again, do you support the efforts of the Republicans blocking DODT from being removed? Do you support DODT?

reply to post by maybereal11
That's a good one!

I may have to try it. (really.)

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
@@: I'll ask you again, do you support the efforts of the Republicans blocking DODT from being removed? Do you support DODT?

I do not support unisex bathrooms/showerooms especially if installed AFTER someone enlisted.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Still skirting the core issue of the thread, just like the Republicans?

I'll ask you again, do you support the efforts of the Republicans blocking DODT from being removed? Do you support DODT?

They aren't blocking anything.

They are giving the Pentagon what they want, which is time to do an internal investigation so as they can better perpare the military as a whole. Both gay and straight. This policy will be repealed around April of next year and the Dems know this. Besides, this should never have been put into the defense budget. It was a ploy for they used to look as if they are the only ones that cares about the homosexual community.

Do you support the dems using soldiers as bargaining pieces?

Do you support the efforts of the dems to use this policy as a political step, even though the Pentagon is pretty much gearing up to get rid of it?

Originally posted by Becoming
Spoken like a true civilian and like 99% of civilians who try to assure someone how the military works.

Sorry...we sometimes get confused because the military actually works for...and answers to...US!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Yea, sorry to tell you this, but I don't and never will answer to you.

Now I have had civilians who were my superiors, but they got there because they worked in an area for a certain length of time and knew what they were talking about.

Civilians are people who owns 1 stock in a company (they all share the same stock). Sure they get to voice their opinions, but shouldn't be taken seriously and is best if they let people who know what they are talking about run it.

But the next time you see a soldier, try and give him an order. Make sure you get it on video, because I would love to see the reaction.

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Yea, sorry to tell you this, but I don't and never will answer to you.

Now I have had civilians who were my superiors, but they got there because they worked in an area for a certain length of time and knew what they were talking about.

Civilians are people who owns 1 stock in a company (they all share the same stock). Sure they get to voice their opinions, but shouldn't be taken seriously and is best if they let people who know what they are talking about run it.

But the next time you see a soldier, try and give him an order. Make sure you get it on video, because I would love to see the reaction.

Sorry Sparky...but my elected representative issues that order. That's how the chain of command goes. You might want to keep that in mind.

Of course, I refer to our Canadian military. You answer to your fellow Americans.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Like I said, if you think you're in charge then give a soldier an order.

Please get it on video so that we can see the reaction.

By the way the chain of command doesn't have civilians listed anywhere.

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Like I said, if you think you're in charge then give a soldier an order.
Please get it on video so that we can see the reaction.
By the way the chain of command doesn't have civilians listed anywhere.

So, you a telling me that your country is a military dictatorship, that they call all the shots and are answerable to no public official?

Seems to me more than one general has had to fall on his sword for such thoughts. Maybe you can tell me, then, why is your democratically elected President called the Commander in Chief?

Like I said...better take a look at who holds the other end of that leash. It's that very fact that allows you to hold that gun in the name of your citizens. The day you forget it is the day you become a menace that needs to be taken out behind the barn.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


The President is not a civilian.

Once again civilians are not part of the chain of command. No matter how you try and spin it, that is a fact.

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The President is not a civilian.

Once again civilians are not part of the chain of command. No matter how you try and spin it, that is a fact.

Neither do you elect Generals...you can't see the connection, or you being obtuse?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Generals rise through the ranks and are all part of a chain of command for a specific area of the military. Civilians are not part of any chain of command. If you want to think you're in charge of the military that is fine. It really doesn't bother me since it doesn't matter.

That is enough of this off topic banter, if you want to continue me telling you that you are wrong make another thread.