The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

The facts aren't with you there. Declining fertility is already a serious problem among the mostly European countries that have so embraced the progressive policies you admire. They now face truly serious demographic issues, particularly including the near-term unsustainability of their generous socuial welfare problems, and the chronic difficulties they encounter in assimilating the increasing numbers of immigrants they need tio sustain their economies (and who often have far more "regressive" views on these social issues.)

Some countries such as Germany are scrambling now to find new ways to provide economic incentives to child rearing couples.

As for the rest, you are merely prejudging the thoughts and attitudes of those who disagree with you, and doing so without any factual basis for such sweeping judgements. In short you are merely substituting a new set of self-serving hypocritical prejudgements for an old one. Hardly an improvement.

The way to win the DADT debate - hand the other side a microphone

Americans have come a long way on gays in the military

I have no problem with a gay man or woman serving their country while being open about their sexuality. Their blood is as precious as a straight soldier's, and I don't think they should be required to deny an important part of their identities if they are going to potentially sacrifice all for their nation.

However, I also can understand why straight men and women in the military might be uncomfortable with sharing close living quarters with homosexuals.

I doubt there are too many people arguing that we should require female soldiers to bunk and shower with male soldiers (or the reverse), so why should heterosexual soldiers be required to bunk and shower with homosexuals?

Of course the majority of gay soldiers are not going to jump the bones of someone of their same sex while in the showers, but the same can be said of heterosexual soldiers required to co-habitat with soldiers of the opposite sex. Never-the-less, I can clearly imagine the hue and cry that would be heard across the nation if the military required women to co-habitat with men.

I know that if I found myself showering with a bunch of women I would become aroused. I also know I wouldn't assault or harass these women, but I doubt that would make them feel very comfortable.

Why should it be any different for heterosexuals co-habitating with homosexuals? If the argument is that homosexuality is "normal" than we should expect the same "normal" responses from gays that we would from straights.

It's not right to elevate the rights and sensibilities of gays over straights.

Allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military, but also allow straight men and women the option to be segregated.

Seems like a fair and simple solution. Can we agree upon it?

JTT--

When men and women are segregated into barracks, which group is being deemed second class? Some things are just sensible. I think giving a thought to sexual orientation--at least considering it--in bed assignments is NOT synonymous with some -ism.

there is a certain dishonesty about the current policy, as it is well know that there are gays in the military, most of whom are known to those with whom they serve. However, it does demand that gays be discrete, which I think is a good thing. "do what you want so long as it does not become an issue for me or my unit" is the right place to be. If Gays are legally able to serve then they will legally be ale to flaunt their homosexual behaviour, which would be messing with the ecosystem in a dangerous way.

hawkeye10 wrote:

there is a certain dishonesty about the current policy, as it is well know that there are gays in the military, most of whom are known to those with whom they serve. However, it does demand that gays be discrete, which I think is a good thing. "do what you want so long as it does not become an issue for me or my unit" is the right place to be. If Gays are legally able to serve then they will legally be able to flaunt their homosexual behaviour, which would be messing with the ecosystem in a dangerous way.

Jesus wept.


Is there no end to this stuff?

dlowan wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

there is a certain dishonesty about the current policy, as it is well know that there are gays in the military, most of whom are known to those with whom they serve. However, it does demand that gays be discrete, which I think is a good thing. "do what you want so long as it does not become an issue for me or my unit" is the right place to be. If Gays are legally able to serve then they will legally be able to flaunt their homosexual behaviour, which would be messing with the ecosystem in a dangerous way.

Jesus wept.


Is there no end to this stuff?

You don't like what I have to say....so what. IF you have a counter argument feel free to make it. I am confident that I can make a persuasive defense of my position.

dlowan wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

there is a certain dishonesty about the current policy, as it is well know that there are gays in the military, most of whom are known to those with whom they serve. However, it does demand that gays be discrete, which I think is a good thing. "do what you want so long as it does not become an issue for me or my unit" is the right place to be. If Gays are legally able to serve then they will legally be able to flaunt their homosexual behaviour, which would be messing with the ecosystem in a dangerous way.

Jesus wept.


Is there no end to this stuff?

You don't like what I have to say....so what. IF you have a counter argument feel free to make it. I am confident that I can make a persuasive defense of my position.

Lash wrote:

JTT--

When men and women are segregated into barracks, which group is being deemed second class? Some things are just sensible. I think giving a thought to sexual orientation--at least considering it--in bed assignments is NOT synonymous with some -ism.

Not the same thing at all, Lash. Who do you think would be deemed second class?
If we're talking about segregating people in groups that shower together, it IS the same thing. This is why men and women are separate. People with different orientations complicate it a bit. I don't think your injection of classism belongs here.
I don't crave every woman's parts just because I'm heterosexual. You make it sound like people who are gay have no self restraint, that they are simply sex fiends.
I knew you'd say this. This is why I stipulated that I didn't anticipate nightly rapings. I merely said I'd be uncomfy living in that situation. It would be the same if men were showering with me.

It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that your parts have been craved numerous times already unless you've never been to a public swimming pool, gym, etc.
I am very happy to be in possession of crave-inducing parts, but I don't take showers with people who are oriented to crave me parts...unless I mean business.

WHAT position...except some nonsensical meanderings about "ecosystems"


Oh please reason out how gays "flaunting their homosexual behaviour" is

a. Likely. Do you flaunt your heterosexual behaviour at work? If s, is it "dangerous"? (Well, for you it may well be, given your ideas about the okness of **** kids and raping. but I digress....I speak of normal people.) Is it dangerous for all the gays who are already in the military to have people flaunting their heterosexuality (except where pathetically inadequate men feel the need to flaunt it by being grossly homophobic?)

b. How....even IF they did...it would mess dangerously with the ecosystem?

Your only defense is that the presnce of gays around you tempts you to act on your latnet homosexuality and that bothers you.

I know that if I found myself showering with a bunch of women I would become aroused. I also know I wouldn't assault or harass these women, but I doubt that would make them feel very comfortable.

Why should it be any different for heterosexuals co-habitating with homosexuals? If the argument is that homosexuality is "normal" than we should expect the same "normal" responses from gays that we would from straights.