quote:

Originally posted by THREEFLYS:
It always amuses me when guys think that ALL gay men MUST be attracted to them... Unless you've got women flocking all over you like Brad Pitt, I highly doubt you're that attractive to men either...

It always amuses me when guys think that ALL gay men have high standards in what they are looking for in another man. Give me a break. Will there only be seperate berthing for atractive gay people?

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
I love it when people use stereotypes to sneak in a shot at some group.

A lisp? Acting frootloop?

Can we have a discussion without obliterating any possibility of it not complying with political correctness?

T

M1,

Political correctness? Excuse me if I think stereotypes are more than a lack of political correctness. If you think a gay DI will have a lisp and a limp wrist so be it.

SA,

quote:

Great ... you used to get a liberty card, throw on yer Sunday best and hit the town with yer buddies ... but now we'll be held up while "Bruce" is trying to find the right "little black dress" to hit the town in.

And fighting over sink time in the head, while "Bruce" is perfecting his lipstick ...

"Bruce" will no doubt get a heel stuck in the gangway.

I guess the only gay men you are acquainted with are on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
M1,

Political correctness? Excuse me if I think stereotypes are more than a lack of political correctness. If you think a gay DI will have a lisp and a limp wrist so be it.

No reason to excuse yourself, we are having a simple discussion. I think we can all agree what I wrote is a possibility with this alleged change. Every day I become more convienced that we are our own worst enemy, and its only a matter of time before we PC ourselves into non existance.

T

if you are worried about serving with openly gay members, ask yourself this: why would the gay member even tell you that they are gay?... I don't know about you but where I work all the heterosexuals don't run around screaming "i'm straight".

also, just because they are gay doesn't mean they won't have to follow rules. You won't have to worry about them hitting on you or feeling you up at work, because that's the same way it is now!

point of clarification y'all. When I was talkign about the "love shack", I was actually thinking of straight males and straight females bunking together, not gay and straight same gender roommates.

My point was that if we have gays and straights in the same area, we might as well have men and women in the same area, and therefore, boys and girls at CGA could have the same room in Chase hall, and all the heads would just be heads, not male, female heads. All the lockerrooms would be the same etc.

So no, I dont want to be comdt of cadets when 18-22 year old kids get to bunk co-ed. That's the love shack I meant.

quote:

If you are a gay man, have class; don't act all froot loop like and try to be a woman. Same goes for gay woman, don't try to act like a man be gender like.

If you want to draft a policy on how one should act, then straight guys need to have class just as much as anyone. And they should start with the dictionary.

Gay, straight, bi, heterosexual, homosexual; whatever we want to call ourselves we are all the same- human. Learn that definition.

Once again, it's not "on duty" that I would be particularly concerned about. I would be concerned that this is what I would be crossin' the brow with ...

You all no this is not true, Obama is not going to allow this.
So if you all want to have fun and laugh, diss or whatever, why not take this to the soapbox.
Just seems very childish acting considering what we are al facing in todays economy.
Reminds me of the worry that the DRAFT is coming back! It's not going to happen.

What Obama is doing is an advance is American society. And whether it happens in Obama's presidency or the next, it will happen.

Any issue that advances the rights of Americans is not childish. What state and federal governments have done in restricting the rights of Americans based on their sexuality is childish as well as unconstitutional.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OSMM_Books,

quote:

Any issue that advances the rights of Americans is not childish.

I disagree. At some point there has to be a line. Not saying it's a gay/straight line, but a line must be drawn. What's the next issue? Nambla's rights? Or maybe someone thinks its their right to marry a donkey. Or maybe polygamy makes a come back.

Yeah, sounds crazy now right? Just ask yourselves, where is the line?

quote:

Originally posted by LEDETOIC:
Yeah, sounds crazy now right? Just ask yourselves, where is the line?

Yeah, the "slippery slope" argument makes a TON of sense!

What ever happened to our nation's values? I mean, we were started by a bunch of rich, white, land-owning males. But then the non-land-owning males wanted to vote, so we had to let them. Then women started complaining. And then the non-whites. My god, can you imagine, we had to let non-white people vote. Crap, they might even elect themselves into the Presidency!

It's really kinda sad to me to know that the Coast Guard is so full of closed-minded, intolerant individuals. I thought we were better than that.

quote:

Originally posted by GromitCU:



It's really kinda sad to me to know that the Coast Guard is so full of closed-minded, intolerant individuals. I thought we were better than that.

Ya, male Coasties who have concerns over dressing or showering with males who are attracted to males. How dare they be so "close-minded".

Why are women allowed seperate berthing and not straight men? It's all about privacy is it not?

Another question...if we are considered "close minded" and the gay community "open-minded", wouldn't you think the gay community would be open-minded when it comes to accepting the rules already in place, you know, DADT?

Don

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 21yrsUSCGUSCS,

quote:

Once again, it's not "on duty" that I would be particularly concerned about. I would be concerned that this is what I would be crossin' the brow with (Pic of a man in a pink feathered tutu, on Coke-cola, making a crazy face)

Assuming you actually don't want to be his date, how about you just let go of his arm as you both are going' off-duty, "crossin' the brow' and let him go his own way.

Just a sugestion.

By the way, I've seen worse at Chief's Call to Initiation, especially in the older days.

I'm just sayin'.

I'm not sure that asking the question of where to draw the line is closed minded at all. Don't confuse asking questions (which is how we evaluate positions) with arriving at conclusions. This is a discussion, not a policy making session. In fact, calling me closed minded actually reflects that someone has closed their mind to my ideas.

We have to ask what our own limits of acceptance are. Do Neo-nazi's have a right to peacefully demonstrate thier beleifs? Does that right extend to federal employment? Are there other examples of obectional conduct by our current mores and values that those who practice said behavior assert as a "right"? What does society say to organizations like NAMBLA? My question is where is the limit? Is there anything left in this world that we can identify as unquestionably right or wrong? In 50 years, will society have changed (devolved) to the point that what we know now to be wrong has become socially acceptable?

Again, I'm not saying the line is the straight/gay issue. Personally, I could really care less about gays in the military. My concern on this topic is ruthless efficiency, and until the service goes truly co-ed, we're talking about barriers to efficency and unnecessary logistical cost in real dollars.

But at some point, efficiency aside, there has to be a limit on right and wrong. In the end, if anything goes, everything will. History has already taught us this lesson. Look to Roman decadence and the rise and fall of the 3rd reich as 101 level examples. Unfortunately, humans are not only emotionally fickle, we're also poor students of history.

quote:

Males who have concerns over dressing or showering with males who are attracted to males. . .

Well, or course there is this tradition that p*n*ses should be in the p*n*s (auto censor won't accept full spelling) room; vaginas should be in the vagina room... Whatever floats their boat is irrelevant; whatever they screw in their spare time is irrelevant.

But that’s not the case all over the world. Even in some cultures very comparable to our’s, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and other some other European countries – they generally do not feel such necessity to have separate male/female dressing or showering facilities.

It seems odd at first to come from our so separate American culture, and experience mixed gender locker rooms and showers. And I’ll admit, as a younger man, I found it difficult (no, I’m not going to use the word hard here) not to sneak a few looks at some of the naked women, without being caught doing so.

But you soon realize that it’s not acceptable to sneak very many of those looks. It’s considered to be very impolite or worse, to do so. I expect that anybody noticed to be repeatedly gawking would be drummed out as a pervert.

And wouldn’t that be the same way in our U.S. culture, too. Not just in a military male or female only locker room, but also in the civilian commercial health and fitness clubs or gym locker rooms, right? I mean, if there’s somebody who is noticed to repeatedly stare at somebody else while they’re dressing or showering in some public or military facility, then that’s wrong anywhere, isn’t it. . .

Do you think there’s really a reliable way to identify gays when mixed among the general population, unless they are obviously exaggerating their behavior in a sexual way? Clearly, all should know that there are already gays in the military who have been sharing locker rooms with everyone else, just like they do in the civilian fitness centers and gyms. Life goes on, just as it always has.

In another discussion someone mentioned history recalls that the Spartan, Alexander The Great was homosexual as were most of his men, and they conquered the known world in their time.

Someone else mentioned that the TV show, Ally Mcbeal or whatever it was called, had Unisex restrooms, and that worked OK, without a whole lot of protests or boycotts from the U.S. viewing public. Show hit the tops of the ratings, as I recall it.

Some psychologists say that those who protest the most about such things may have the most unresolved sexual issues about their own unresolved sexual identities, images, fears, etc.

I don’t happen to be a psychologist, but I’ve read the following, “It’s usually the male cheerleader eating a hot dog with mayonnaise on it in the front row of a George Michael concert, who can’t or won’t seem to face what or who he really is.”

And again, I’m just saying. . .

Regardless of the "how's and why's", DADT is ridiculous policy. PERSMAN 8-H, CG REGS, Shipboard REGS and all other regulations are applicable. 8-H is a gender neutral directive and is easily understood and quite clear. Construction or modification of berthing is a challenge the service will have to address, but is certainly subordinate to the civil rights of all members of the Armed Forces.

We cannot restrict the privledge of serving our nation only to those who "fit the mold". Women serve with honor; minorities serve with honor; muslims serve with honor; and gay Americans can and do serve with honor (unless they express a thought).

This is a national issue with problems that can be reasonably addressed by the service. Again, we cannot and should not legislate thought, but we can regulate conduct and performance.

QMCM sends

M1,

quote:

No reason to excuse yourself, we are having a simple discussion. I think we can all agree what I wrote is a possibility with this alleged change.

Perhaps my facetious use of excuse me was misinterpreted. I don't agree that a lisp is sexually orientation associated. You are right, it is a simple discussion, you made what I thought was a gratuitous remark and made reference to it. That is not political correctness, it is calling a spade a shovel.

quote:

I disagree. At some point there has to be a line. Not saying it's a gay/straight line, but a line must be drawn. What's the next issue? Nambla's rights? Or maybe someone thinks its their right to marry a donkey. Or maybe polygamy makes a come back.

This same sorry argument comes up every time. NAMBLA is not even close. If you want to include that then include what is now called statutory rape. We should let straight folks have sex with children. Hey, equal is equal right? Not!