To begin this post, I would like to say I am in no way against homosexuality; one of my closest friends is gay and I have no issue with her being in the military whatsoever, I don't mind showering with her, rooming with her, etc.
HOWEVER, in an environment where we routinely room and shower with many other people we do not know well, repealing the DADT policy would create many complications. I have personally witnessed women making out in the locker rooms, have been blatantly checked out by other women after showering and I hate it. I'm not saying it will get be an immediate frenzy and everyone will be allowed to hit on everyone, but why should I be made to feel uncomfortable in these environments? I've never brought my boyfriend into the locker room to make out in front of others who are showering/changing. And I know that not every gay person will do this, but it will happen more often than it already does.
I do not feel comfortable showering in front of a gay person I do not know well; it would be similar to showering in front of men. The common argument for this is that not every gay person checks out every member of the same sex, and not every man checks out every woman, but it is still inappropriate and awkward to shower together in a community environment.
The same argument goes for having to be roommates. Just as I would not want a male roommate, I would not exactly be jumping for joy at the idea of a lesbian roommate. I know many guys would have a huge issue with this.
If the policy is revoked, what rights would straight people incur? Will there be seperate shared housing/showers for gay people as there are with genders?
I do believe in gay marriage and that anyone has a right to marry whomever they choose. However, unfortunately there will be many more fraudulent marriages in the military in an attempt to gain the benefits such as BAH, health insurance, etc. These already occur in straight marriages of course, but think of how many close friends will get married so they can live off post.
I agree another policy needs to be in place, and I don't believe one should be punished for their orientation, however I do not believe I should be punished for someone else's orientation either. I may be stuck in a conservative mindset, but so are many others as I do not see women openly waltzing into men's locker rooms to shower and vice versa...
1. As you noted but then ignored, straight soldiers are already showering with and bunking with gay soldiers - they simply may not know which ones. Making the reality known does not require additional facilities just to pander to the unreasonable fears of some of the straight troops.
2. Showering with or rooming with a straight person is not unusual for a gay person. They shower together in high school gym class, in civilian fitness centers, etc. They room together in college dorms. They are able to control themselves in those environments - military showers and billets are little different.
3. Any inappropriate behavior - including acts far less extreme than the b-movie shower fantasies you describe - fall under the existing sexual harassment regulations. Frankly, I have trouble believing that in a military still under DADT, your fellow soldiers are so stupid as to make out together in a public shower, where they could be seen and reported - but even if DADT is repealed, that would be inappropriate and subject to military discipline. In fact, you could report such activity NOW under those regulations.
4. The current efforts to repeal DADT do not allow for gay marriage benefits even if the partners are in a state that allows it, as DOMA prevents any portion of the Federal government (including DoD) from recognizing the marriage. If and when that changes, then fraudulent marriages will be investigated as they are now. As homosexuals make up 10% or less of the population, it is hard to imagine there being a massive increase in such crime. Besides, most gay people are not criminals, and would refrain from such crimes simply out of ethics and professionalism - just like straight people.
You seem to assume that any homosexual of your own gender will not be able to control themselves around you. Perhaps you really are that incredibly attractive, but if so I would suspect you'd be too busy fending off the opposite sex to notice the same-sex attempts. In the general case, such an inability for gay people to control their urges is demonstrably untrue, and is little more than an insult to gay people.
Originally posted by PrincessRachel2006: To begin this post, I would like to say I am in no way against homosexuality; one of my closest friends is gay and I have no issue with her being in the military whatsoever, I don't mind showering with her, rooming with her, etc.
HOWEVER, in an environment where we routinely room and shower with many other people we do not know well, repealing the DADT policy would create many complications. I have personally witnessed women making out in the locker rooms, have been blatantly checked out by other women after showering and I hate it. I'm not saying it will get be an immediate frenzy and everyone will be allowed to hit on everyone, but why should I be made to feel uncomfortable in these environments? I've never brought my boyfriend into the locker room to make out in front of others who are showering/changing. And I know that not every gay person will do this, but it will happen more often than it already does.
I do not feel comfortable showering in front of a gay person I do not know well; it would be similar to showering in front of men. The common argument for this is that not every gay person checks out every member of the same sex, and not every man checks out every woman, but it is still inappropriate and awkward to shower together in a community environment.
The same argument goes for having to be roommates. Just as I would not want a male roommate, I would not exactly be jumping for joy at the idea of a lesbian roommate. I know many guys would have a huge issue with this.
If the policy is revoked, what rights would straight people incur? Will there be seperate shared housing/showers for gay people as there are with genders?
I do believe in gay marriage and that anyone has a right to marry whomever they choose. However, unfortunately there will be many more fraudulent marriages in the military in an attempt to gain the benefits such as BAH, health insurance, etc. These already occur in straight marriages of course, but think of how many close friends will get married so they can live off post.
I agree another policy needs to be in place, and I don't believe one should be punished for their orientation, however I do not believe I should be punished for someone else's orientation either. I may be stuck in a conservative mindset, but so are many others as I do not see women openly waltzing into men's locker rooms to shower and vice versa...
Your profile says that you are a Sgt. Is this not the truth? Have things changed so drastically since I was on active duty, because as a Sgt, you get your very own room in the barracks! Lower enlisted have "roommates", sometimes multiple roommates. However, unless there is a shortage of housing, the upper enlisted have their own. As for showering with a lesbian, girl, when you know who they are for certain...just don't walk in there when they are showering! Good grief, I can not believe you caught two lesbians "making out" in the locker room. (I take it this was at the gym...because barracks shower facilities don't include lockers.) The worst behavior I've witnessed was when my straight room mate brought her boyfriend into our room and they had sex on the bunk bed above me. That was pretty uncalled for...but I just made a bunch of noise to alert them that I wasn't asleep.
First, I have been checked out in the locker room at the gym on post by other girls. Not all do, obviously; as not all men check out all women, I addressed that; but why should I as a straight woman have to feel uncomfortable at all? I would never shower in men's locker room, why would I want to shower with someone who is attracted to my gender?
I am an E5, and I had 3 roommates (2 e5's and an e4) in the barracks, I had a bed, wall locker and about 2 x 7 ft to myself. Those are very close quarters, as are most army barracks.
You seem to assume that any homosexual of your own gender will not be able to control themselves around you.
I have seen this defense used so many times it is ridiculous. Obviously that is not the case and no where did I state that. I said that not all men check out all women but that doesnt mean we shower together.
Also, I never said gays were criminals, I said that STRAIGHT people will take advantage of the system if same sex marriages recieve marital benefits in order to live off post. I am for same sex marriages, but unfortunately there will be people who will take advantage of it, just as there are those in the military who get married for its benefits, straight, gay, whatever.
This is pretty pathetic! This “person” can’t decide if s/he’s an officer, NCO or enlisted, nor even what gender they are!
It all depends on what profile they use at the time.
My recommendation is to Yellow Triangle for multiple accounts and ignore them. The battlefield has its own values, starting with courage. Sexual orientation falls somewhere below musical taste. - Major Owen West
Originally posted by PrincessRachel2006: First, I have been checked out in the locker room at the gym on post by other girls. Not all do, obviously; as not all men check out all women, I addressed that; but why should I as a straight woman have to feel uncomfortable at all? I would never shower in men’s locker room, why would I want to shower with someone who is attracted to my gender?
I am an E5, and I had 3 roommates (2 e5’s and an e4) in the barracks, I had a bed, wall locker and about 2 x 7 ft to myself. Those are very close quarters, as are most army barracks.
Princess “Kathy”, sir;
The only reason I’m wasting time responding to you is to show you just how pathetic your “knowledge” of the Army is. The only place I’ve seen quarters that small, outside of a GP medium or GP Small, was in basic training, back in 1975.
You state that you have “a bed, wall locker and about 2 x 7 ft” to yourself. I don’t have the exact dimensions at my disposal, so I’ll be generous, just to give you the benefit of the doubt: ....Bed:....4 x 7....= 28 sqft ....Locker: 3 x 4....= 12 sqft ....Free:....2 x 7....= 14 sqft ........Total:....= 54 sqft
54 sqft * 4 people = 216 sqft
That is less than the square footage authorized for one E-5! I was going to supply you with the actual tables, but I see no reason to make it easier for your next incarnation here.
Anyone who wishes to know the source of my information can email me for it, though it wasn’t terribly difficult to Google. The battlefield has its own values, starting with courage. Sexual orientation falls somewhere below musical taste. - Major Owen West
Is it that madding to believe people are thinking "dirty" thoughts about you? But what can you do about it? Nothing. All kinds of thoughts are flying around about all kinds of people and such. To try and control that is insane and produces insanity. It can’t be done. Fantasy and imagination are unstoppable. So someone of the same sex fantasizes about you or simply judges you are attractive or not (maybe the real fear is they won’t find you attractive?) What are you going to do? Really, now, military personnel have "dirty" thoughts and often express them in exaggerated or negative terms frequently. What are you going to do? Quit? Attack them? How can you be sure preventing physical people you disapprove of in some fashion are going to control what anyone is thinking about you? Grow up.
Originally posted by reducetension: Is it that madding to believe people are thinking “dirty” thoughts about you? But what can you do about it? Nothing. All kinds of thoughts are flying around about all kinds of people and such. To try and control that is insane and produces insanity. It can’t be done. Fantasy and imagination are unstoppable.
So someone of the same sex fantasizes about you or simply judges you are attractive or not (maybe the real fear is they won’t find you attractive?) What are you going to do?
Really, now, military personnel have “dirty” thoughts and often express them in exaggerated or negative terms frequently. What are you going to do? Quit? Attack them? How can you be sure preventing physical people you disapprove of in some fashion are going to control what anyone is thinking about you? Grow up.
If someone is thinking such “dirty” thoughts about me, who cares? Even if you’re around someone with a strange smirk on their face, why would you think they were thinking of you? They may be a thousand miles away, and not even realize you’re in the room!
The only reason I can think of to get upset about it is if they were so uncouth* as to tell me they were having such thoughts. So far, in my 50-odd years, no one has done this. * for those who don’t know what “uncouth” means, it means lacking in, or devoid of, couth.
Originally posted by PrincessRachel2006: First, I have been checked out in the locker room at the gym on post by other girls. Not all do, obviously; as not all men check out all women, I addressed that; but why should I as a straight woman have to feel uncomfortable at all? I would never shower in men’s locker room, why would I want to shower with someone who is attracted to my gender?
I am an E5, and I had 3 roommates (2 e5’s and an e4) in the barracks, I had a bed, wall locker and about 2 x 7 ft to myself. Those are very close quarters, as are most army barracks.
Princess “Kathy”, sir;
The only reason I’m wasting time responding to you is to show you just how pathetic your “knowledge” of the Army is. The only place I’ve seen quarters that small, outside of a GP medium or GP Small, was in basic training, back in 1975.
You state that you have “a bed, wall locker and about 2 x 7 ft” to yourself. I don’t have the exact dimensions at my disposal, so I’ll be generous, just to give you the benefit of the doubt: ....Bed:....4 x 7....= 28 sqft ....Locker: 3 x 4....= 12 sqft ....Free:....2 x 7....= 14 sqft ........Total:....= 54 sqft
54 sqft * 4 people = 216 sqft
That is less than the square footage authorized for one E-5! I was going to supply you with the actual tables, but I see no reason to make it easier for your next incarnation here.
Anyone who wishes to know the source of my information can email me for it, though it wasn’t terribly difficult to Google. The battlefield has its own values, starting with courage. Sexual orientation falls somewhere below musical taste. - Major Owen West
Opps, you're paranoia is on the loose again; this person is NOT....ME.
However, I'm VERY amused by your fear of those among your ranks who don't 'think' as you do....so MUCH so that your ONLY response is to challenge their stated identity. BTW....HOW do we know that YOU...are who you SAY you are?
Originally posted by pipedreamsandbabies: For the record. PrincessRachel2006 and 21194237 are NOT one in the same. PrincessRachel2006, is not banned. My apolgizes.
You're right. One of them is ICorps, and the other is someone else.
Not that I care. Why ban people? Let's just live and let laugh.
Originally posted by PrincessRachel2006: I have seen this defense used so many times it is ridiculous. Obviously that is not the case and no where did I state that. I said that not all men check out all women but that doesnt mean we shower together.
Okay, fine - so you believe a woman is checking you out. As with any other form of sexual harassment, the proper action is to first, confront the harasser. The regulations apply, same sex or opposite sex, with DADT or without.
quote:
Also, I never said gays were criminals, I said that STRAIGHT people will take advantage of the system if same sex marriages recieve marital benefits in order to live off post.
Ah, my mistake. So you honestly think there's going to be a lot of straight folks entering into same-sex marriages to get BAH or live off post? Maybe you hadn't noticed, but there is still a little social stigma to being gay...even if you're just pretending.
Meanwhile, you haven't addressed my other points - that shared showers are common in the civilian world, and that sexual harassment policies will still apply.
Originally posted by pipedreamsandbabies: For the record. PrincessRachel2006 and 21194237 are NOT one in the same. PrincessRachel2006, is not banned. My apolgizes.
You're right. One of them is ICorps, and the other is someone else.
Not that I care. Why ban people? Let's just live and let laugh.
There is help available for persons who are "uncomfortable" being in close quarters with homosexuals. See a qualified mental health professional, Phobias are curable.
Originally posted by JimCrackCorn: There is help available for persons who are "uncomfortable" being in close quarters with homosexuals. See a qualified mental health professional, Phobias are curable.
Even if it IS a 'phobia'....I seriously doubt that the military would permit treatment for it, nor should it when DADT is working quite well.
Originally posted by JimCrackCorn: There is help available for persons who are "uncomfortable" being in close quarters with homosexuals. See a qualified mental health professional, Phobias are curable.
Even if it IS a 'phobia'....I seriously doubt that the military would permit treatment for it, nor should it when DADT is working quite well.
There are many mental health professionals in the military, I see no reason why they can't treat a phobia. In fact, one of the common treatments for a phobia is to have the individual face his/her fears, confront those uncomfortable feelings head on by surrounding oneself with that which they fear. By repealing DADT and replacing it with a non-discrimination policy, those who feel uncomfortable being in close quarters with homosexuals will finally have a chance to face those uncomfortable feelings/fears by interacting and befriending as many gays and lesbians as possible while on duty. I think that's a win-win situation.
