Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy

[ElJuski]

As if taking a piss or a shit is a mating call for the human race.

Haven't spent much time on the net, have you? [/QUOTE]

Good point--we shouldn't let people who get off to pissing and shitting in the military, because they might endanger those who don't get off to pissing and shitting who are in the military.

 

[Biardo]

I've showered with gay guys before after football, I didn't care and neither did they, it's not like they can't control them selves when they see a naked man. I've went to unisex saunas before and I didn't jump the first naked women who walked in either.
I for one support Obama in this case and I do hope he does something about the gay marriages also although I do see why that will be difficult down there, baby steps, baby steps

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

So was this part of Obama's Nobel Potential?

 

[ElJuski]

So was this part of Obama's Nobel Potential?

Considering his nomination was in February...well, he might have been in the bathroom taking a piss at the time and thought, "Hey, I never thought about this--gay people go potty too!"

 

[Espy]

I've showered with gay guys before after football, I didn't care and neither did they, it's not like they can't control them selves when they see a naked man. I've went to unisex saunas before and I didn't jump the first naked women who walked in either.

I agree with you but I think some are missing the point of Stein's argument.
Not everyone WILL be comfortable.
Just like not every woman would be comfortable with men in their shower rooms at the Y.
It doesn't make them bigots or evil or terrible for being uncomfortable. It makes them human and uncomfortable. While I don't think it's enough of an argument to NOT overturn DADT, it's not half as horrible of what some of you are making it out to be. Unless every woman who doesn't want to shower with a man is a evil bigot that is.

 

[SpecialKO]

Espy, is your point about getting the support of people who feel uncomfortable, or actually arguing the validity of the bathroom argument, which Steiny kind of pulled out of nowhere (as others have pointed out)?

 

[Espy]

My point is saying that his argument, that people will be uncomfortable with sharing certain spaces with people of the opposite sexuality is a real thing.
It's not some crazy bigoted argument, there are people who will be uncomfortable with it, much as, like I said, women at the Y aren't going to just let them make their showers gender neutral.

I'm not saying we need the support of those who are uncomfortable, or that we even need to address that uncomfortability. Let's get this stupid law overturned already.
I think it will sort itself out.
But I don't think anyone who is uncomfortable with showering with someone of the opposite sex or of the opposite sexuality is automatically a bigot, which is kind of the vibe I get from some posts here.
Does that make sense?

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Espy, you're getting pretty close to mirroring my sentiments on this subject.

 

[ElJuski]

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly. And that there are many people out there who are using that reason as a projection of some ignorant fears.

Chiefly, this notion that just because a man is gay he wants all other gay men. Or gay women to all women.

But yes, if it is just about the notion, and the person clearly doesn't have any bigoted sense of homosexuality, that's all good...they just have a silly notion of bathrooms.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly. And that there are many people out there who are using that reason as a projection of some ignorant fears.

Chiefly, this notion that just because a man is gay he wants all other gay men. Or gay women to all women.

But yes, if it is just about the notion, and the person clearly doesn't have any bigoted sense of homosexuality, that's all good...they just have a silly notion of bathrooms.

 

[Espy]

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly.

I hope I made it clear, I agree with this.

Oh and @BCC: If you agree with me so much why am I not in your "I love you guys" thread????

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

BCC loves us guys? Gaaaaaay.

 

[Rob King]

I've managed to steer clear of this conversation thus far, but it doesn't seem like that's what Steinman is saying at all. Steinman is coming from the side of segregated bathrooms based on gender. As long as everyone is heterosexual, it serves two functions:

Function 1 - keeping all the equipment built to serve gender A in one place
and
Function 2 - keeping all people attracted to gender B away from gender B while they are "vulnerable"

Throw homosexuals into the mix though, and you've got no guarantees on purpose 2. Now, you can disagree whether Function 2 is necessary or not, but if you stop for a moment and take for a given that it is, then homosexuals pose a problem to the integrity of the system. THAT is where Steiman is coming from. It's not a matter of Steinman thinking homosexual sexuality and heterosexual sexuality are different.

So now you're Pro-Segregated Bathrooms? I think we should get Segregated Locker Rooms while we're at it, why stop there? I can think of how much further you can push that line of thinking for hours. rly:[/QUOTE]

Who's 'you' here? Explaining an argument's reasoning doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.[/QUOTE]

Thank you so much. This is where I go wrong in these conversations, it seems. I'm horrifically liberal, but it breaks my heart to see a misunderstood argument wandering the streets alone. I saw Steinman's argument being mistreated, I stepped in to clarify what I though was his obvious point, and I get painted with the same brush.

I personally couldn't care less about sharing a bathroom with homosexuals. As for having only one changing room for men, women and all in-betweens, of each and every sexuality ... whatever. I could dig it. It certainly makes sense to me.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

No, it won't make you a bigot...but I think the reason itself is silly.

I hope I made it clear, I agree with this.

Oh and @BCC: If you agree with me so much why am I not in your "I love you guys" thread????[/QUOTE]

I thought what we had went beyond mere words. I can see now that I am mistaken.

 

[North_Ranger]

Pink shower curtains.

You heard me. At least, that was one solution used by the Finnish Defense Forces - when women were allowed in. I don't know what kind of a shower system the US Army has, but our barracks' wash rooms had small shower cubicles where one went for a quick wash. When women joined in and unisex military units (such as the Rapid Response team) began to appear, they noticed that the usual white shower curtains were a little... see-through.

So they changed the curtains into pink ones that aren't.

Pink. It's the answer.

DISCLAIMER: While pink shower curtains are indeed in use in the FDF, the purpose of this message is humorous. The poster is staying up late and is talking out of his ass. Do not take him seriously.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

GOD WHO FUCKING CARES GUESS WHAT GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHARE BATHROOMS WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER WHAT THE FUCKING SHITTING CHRIST THIS IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVER

 

[AshburnerX]

GOD WHO FUCKING CARES GUESS WHAT GAY PEOPLE ALREADY SHARE BATHROOMS WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER WHAT THE FUCKING SHITTING CHRIST THIS IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVER

This is EXTRA Funny if you imagine Henry Kissinger saying it.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

It's EXTRA EXTRA funny if you imagine yourself walking into a bathroom and see fucking, shitting Jesus Christ.

Sorry, no picture.

 

[strawman]

You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't mean my message to come off that way, but I'm tired and I'm just gonna roll with that...

-Adam

 

[makare]

You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

It depends on what your goal is, if the goal is the denouncement of ridiculous, ignorant "arguments" then I think people in here are doing alright.

Keep on truckin'

 

[ElJuski]

Thanks, makare. My sentiments exactly.

Also, I don't need to call my representatives. It already got changed! It's just a matter of denouncing the absurdly ridiculous notions people seemingly have about homosexuality based on these "hypothetical" arguments.

 

[Rob King]

It depends on what your goal is, if the goal is the denouncement of ridiculous, ignorant "arguments" then I think people in here are doing alright.

As far as I understand it, what Steinman was getting on with was neither ridiculous, ignorant, or even an argument. He was suggesting that we examine a curious, and under-discussed portion of the issue.

Maybe it's a non-issue for the people here in the forum. I've already stated it's mostly a non-issue for me personally. But I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. The bathroom (or locker room, or shower room, or whatever) issue is connected.

 

[Armadillo]

Modern political discourse 101:

Person A: brings up a hypothetical situation that may or may not be crucial to the topic at hand, but they feel it's important to explore, regardless of their personal position.

Persons B through ZZZ: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Person AAAA: "Ah c'mon guys. Person A was just saying it's okay 'cause she was mature for her age"

 

[ElJuski]

It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

---------- Post added at 04:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 AM ----------

Person AAAA: "Ah c'mon guys. Person A was just saying it's okay 'cause she was mature for her age"

oh god

 

[Rob King]

It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

Again, I really don't see this.

Or rather, I see it. But I don't see it as any different from what we do with heterosexual men. See my previous post:

... I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. ...

 

[Bowielee]

You guys are getting really worked up over this. Sounds like the answer to my questions are, essentially, "SHUT UP IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND IT'S A STUPID ARGUMENT."

I don't recall ever indicating my support for one side or the other - as far as I can tell I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that no one else here appears able to fully engage or appreciate. It is interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at me for even attempting to engage in an interesting point of discussion.

Sorry to stir the pot. Go ahead and keep shouting at the opposition - I'm sure they will take you arguments at least as seriously as you take theirs.

Seriously though. If you are this vehemently opposed to DADT why haven't you written all your representatives? Is this just something you rage about in private, and then move on to the next lolcat? Do you even know who your representatives are? Have you written your local representatives, who may well be your state representatives by the time congress actually pushes a bill around?

Your rage may well be justified, but it's impotent without action.

In other words, you're aiming at the wrong target.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't mean my message to come off that way, but I'm tired and I'm just gonna roll with that...

-Adam

Y'know Steinman, it's easy to be an armchair pundit on an issue like this, but having been an out homosexual (who was actually turned down for military service due to his sexuality, first man in my line to not serve in the army) This is, and always has been a huge sticking point for me.

Your comments do come off as ignorant and vaguely homophobic. As for action, I HAVE lobbied against descrimination against gays in the military for most of my adult life, until I just decided to say fuck it and stopped being an activist because douche nozzles such as yourself think that gay men can't manage to do everything that straight people do without wanting to pounce on every cock we see and I figured I was tired of fighting a losing battle. Nowadays I fight with my votes and that's about it.

Yes, I'm totally biased on this, and I could give two shits less if that bothers you or not.

 

[ElJuski]

It's more like Persons B through ZZZ pretty much slapped down that inane hypothetical each and every time.

Not to mention it was explained a good number of times before how that hypothetical falls flat under the most remote sense of scrutiny, especially calling to light the sexual presumptions of homosexuals being used an assumed basis for the argument.

Again, I really don't see this.

Or rather, I see it. But I don't see it as any different from what we do with heterosexual men. See my previous post:

... I work in homecare, and there are a lot of cases I simply cannot work because the women receiving care are not comfortable with a man helping them. There aren't a whole lot of people dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To me, that screams to be examined. Are those women uncomfortable because I am a different sex, or because I am (at least presumably) attracted to their sex. ...

[/QUOTE]

Well, the whole gender differentiation and anxiety thing is starting to get thrown out the window. This country still holds fast to a lot of social-sexual norms and barriers that don't exactly hold up to rational scrutiny. It would be a good thing is people weren't so apprehensive about the opposite sex.

Which is a lumbering iceberg of a social change, but it's getting there.

 

[strawman]

douche nozzles such as yourself think that gay men can't manage to do everything that straight people do without wanting to pounce on every cock we see

I don't recall making that argument. I'm not sure I can make it any more explicit and clear, but let me try:

In the US culture, hetersexual men don't shower with heterosexual women because it causes unnecessary sexual tension. Most heterosexual males, when they see a naked woman, stops thinking about work, hobbies or whatever and starts thinking about sex. It doesn't make them want to pounce on every girl they see, as you so eloquently put, but it's a distraction, and a daily tension they don't have to deal with.

The converse is true - if there's a one way mirror so the men can't see the women, but the women can see them then the males still have sexual tension that must be dealt with.

Now, EITHER people are arguing that:

1. Gay people are fundamentally different and therefore not subject to sexual urges (ie, heterosexual and homosexual sexuality is fundamentally different)
2. People just get to deal with it (ie, the whole culture needs to change RIGHT THE @#$# NOW)

I didn't think that people would argue in favor of #1, but some here appear to be saying that homosexual males either are not aroused by the sight of naked males, or simply don't get aroused by the sight of naked men the same way that heterosexual males get aroused by the sight of naked women. It's odd that people would say that there's a difference when it seems like they've been trying to tell us it's just as innate and strong a sexual drive as heterosexuality. If #1 is true, that would seemingly preclude the existence of gay porn, but as far as I can tell it's not unpopular.

The people arguing for #2 are just clueless. You can't change a culture overnight. It's been a long time since homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, but the reality is that things are actually moving very quickly. The latest polls show a distinct change (which is why Obama is able to at least meet and make promises - I can guarantee you if there were less than 60% support he'd treat homosexuality as every other president has).

I'm sorry to have offended you or anyone else - this is not my intention. But those that don't recognize even the seemingly insignificant barriers to change will eventually trip over them. Many may dismiss this as a stupid argument, but it's completely logical within the framework of the culture at hand, and to dismiss it without examination will prove to be a hindrance to their goals.

-Adam

 

[Espy]

Well, the whole gender differentiation and anxiety thing is starting to get thrown out the window. This country still holds fast to a lot of social-sexual norms and barriers that don't exactly hold up to rational scrutiny. It would be a good thing is people weren't so apprehensive about the opposite sex.

Which is a lumbering iceberg of a social change, but it's getting there.

I agree with you on a lot but not on this. Gender differences, whether they be bathrooms, showers at the Y, clothing stores for one gender, etc, are still a LARGE part of the mainstream, at least here in the US. The homosexual population of the US is what, between 5-10 million after some census searches and thats out of over 300 million, making it a very, VERY small number. Gender is MUCH bigger and from what I see in my every day activities, very much a separation point between people.
Just out of curiosity what exactly do you see failing under logical scrutiny? Showers that are gender specific? Changing room? Bathrooms?
I don't ask to be antagonistic, but because I have honestly NEVER heard anyone offer an argument for logical failure for these gender specific things.

 

[makare]

I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

 

[Espy]

You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

And the reason people say "it CAN change and people CAN deal with it" is because A) We already go to the bathroom and shower with homosexuals, we just probably don't know it and B)they are a VERY small part of the overall population. It's not like trying to integrate blacks and whites.

 

[strawman]

Just out of curiosity what exactly do you see failing under logical scrutiny?

To back you up a bit, Americans have an extraordinarily strong culture of privacy. It's backed up in the constitution, and is the right that was used to strike down anti-abortion laws.

It's no big deal in Europe to run from the bathroom to the bedroom sans towel and being seen by someone.

In the US both the person running and the person who saw it would be embarrassed. Not necessarily by what they saw, or that they were seen, but by the breach of privacy - even when there should have been no expectation of privacy.

The rising generation, and even those in college now, may not be able to fully grasp just how strong this is for the majority of Americans. Until they run across the hallway, and wonder why they felt embarrassed even though no one saw them.

It takes a long time to change a culture without some fantastic outside force (such as world war) pushing the change.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

Are you being tongue in cheek here? Follow that path - why won't they let us? Doesn't it still lead to the same result of unnecessary sexual tension?

-Adam

 

[Espy]

I just don't see it happening, despite sexuality becoming more and more mainstream and acceptable (i.e. you would never have seen a "MAXIM" out on your married friends table 20 years ago) I still don't see a lax of gender specific things/stores/options.

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

You know Adam, the reason men don't shower with women is really because, in general, they won't let us.

Are you being tongue in cheek here? Follow that path - why won't they let us? Doesn't it still lead to the same result of unnecessary sexual tension?

-Adam

I am being extremely silly and for at least some men I now, extremely serious.:biggrin1:

 

[strawman]

I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam

 

[Armadillo]

I really do not think that bathroom separations have anything to do with sexual arousal. It is simply sorting people by gender to have like with like. I think it is bizarre to see that as having anything do with sex the act.

Great. Make it a habit, then, to go into the opposite sex bathroom. When you are charged with breaking the law, see if they are charging you with a sexual crime, or with a, "You are sorting yourself wrong" crime.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

To further the point, when a man goes into a women's bathroom, he is seen as a "pervert," is he not? Now why would that be the case if sex had NOTHING to do with the separation?

Saying that there is a sexual component to male/female separations in bathing and bathroom facilities does not IN ANY WAY indicate support for a policy like DADT or any other homophobic policies.