Federal judge rules 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unconstitutional

[The Third Man]

The judge plans to issue an injunction preventing the government from barring openly gay service members. The Justice Dept., which defended the policy during the trial, can appeal the decision.


Read more

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0910-gays-military-20100910,0,3185943.story


Serving in the military is not a right, folks are excluded for all types of reasons, including flat feet, being pregnant, irregular heart beat, etc., therefore how can not being allowed to serve be unconstitutional?

[TheSatyr]

Of course it was a California Judge. I am sooooooooo glad to be out of that leftist hell-hole.

Having been there over 40 years I thought I saw it all...I guess not.

[Boris]

I don't get why gay service members are a bad thing... the really really gay guys won't want to serve anyway for fear of getting dirt under their fingernails, and if women are to serve, then it's probably better if they are lesbian as they will be able to act more like men.

[The Third Man]

and if women are to serve, then it's probably better if they are lesbian as they will be able to act more like men.

really?

Navy Inspector General’s Report on Holly Graf

1. That Graf verbally abused subordinates by publicly berating and belittling them in violation of U.S. Navy Regulations Article 802 and 1023. Substantiated
2. That Graf assaulted subordinates in violation of UCMJ Article 128. Substantiated

5. That Graf used her office for personal gain by having a junior officer provide entertainment at a Christmas party. Substantiated

6. That Graf misused her subordinates for personal gain by having them walk her dogs. Substantiated

7. That Graf was derelict in the performance of her duties by failing to qualify the newly-reported Ensigns and Lt. Junior Grade as Surface Warfare Officers in a timely fashion. Substantiated


http://admiraltymaritimelaw.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/navy-inspector-generals-report-on-holly-graf-part-1/

[DarkFish]

Serving in the military is not a right, folks are excluded for all types of reasons, including flat feet, being pregnant, irregular heart beat, etc., therefore how can not being allowed to serve be unconstitutional?Because flat feet, pregnancy and irregular heartbeats can hinder your ability to fight. A gay man can be just as good a soldier as a hetero man. And thus it is discriminatory to bar gays.


It's not much different from barring blacks. Just as your skin color is a feature that doesn't influence your ability to serve, so is your sexual orientation. Yet barring someone for being black is seen as discriminatory, while barring someone for being gay is not?:doh:
Quite a double standard.

[Ducimus]

I don't get why gay service members are a bad thing... .

Let's see. You shower, eat, and sleep together. Might be a little odd if the guy next to you is checking out your ass, or sporting a woody wanting roto rooter the ole poop chute. Same reason why Male and females are housed seperately. Kinda sorta undermines morale IMO. Since attitudes are contagious, anything that undermines moral cannot be tolerated.

Having said that, I really don't care what Gay's do.... so long as they leave me out of it. Gay Marriage? Sure, whatever. Openly Gays in the military. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Don't ask, don't tell was the best compromise.



Heh, i'm reminded of something. A little joke that came about during the Clinton Administration, i remember it being posted everywhere! First time i saw it, was at the front desk of Base supply.

Ballad of the Queen Berets:

Falling fairies from the sky;
I broke a nail, oh I could cry!
Don't you like how my tush sways?
We are the Fags of the Queen Berets!
Bill Clinton's words upon our ears,
"You guys have rights, be proud you're queers!"
I once was scared, now I'm Okay,
Cause I'm a fag in the Queen Berets.
Put silver earclips on our nuts;
We love the pain, now spank our butts!
The way you walk is awfully cute;
I sure would love to pack your chute!
Back at home, a young wife waits,
Her Queen Beret just won't go straight;
For his team he stays undressed,
Spreads his legs, and lies on his chest.
This Army stuff is really slick;
Free clothes, bunk beds, and lots of dicks.
When we retire, we'll still get paid;
We thank you, Bill, from the Queen Berets!

[Skybird]

I don't get why gay service members are a bad thing...

It is not.

What is a bad thing, however, is gay people constantly rubbing it under your nose how very much gay they are and that you are expected to time and again pay tribute and respect to their gayness, and give evidence of how very much tolerant you are towards them. I wonder why somebody thinks he must have the right to join the military and there make it a public thing what his sexual orientation is. Why does he not just join the military - and leaves it to that?

I'm tired of needing to note the public coming out of some gay fella now, and another tomorrow. Why am I expected to even care for it? Why does he even bother others with it? Do I constantly tell other people about me living as a single, or being heterosexual, and demanding them to pay respect to that, and do i demand to give people like me quotas in public services here, equal rights like families with children there?

Me thinks that gay activists very much raise all by themselves the anger they face, by behaving like the narcissistic freaks that they are. The gay people I knew did not like these activists and CSD paraders at all, saying they give a bad name to gay men just because a few dumb egoists jump on the stage and want the spotlight pointing at them. I dare to claim that most gay men just want this: to live a normal life like anyone else, havibg the right for a private life of their choice. Unfortunately, a lot of activiist groups would lack any reason for their own existence if they would leave it to this natural modesty. So they start hitting the drums.

Your private relations and sexual preferences are your private issue. Leave it where it belongs: in the private sphere. no mater whether you are homo- or heterosexual - don't claim a right to constantly bother the wide public with your private things.

[AngusJS]

Why does he not just join the military - and leaves it to that?Because he then has to lead a double life. Other soldiers can discuss their sweethearts back home, while he is forced to lie about his.

I'm tired of needing to note the public coming out of some gay fella now, and another tomorrow. Why am I expected to even care for it? Why does he even bother others with it?Because it's another nail in the coffin for homophobia. And I assume you feel the same way about closeted atheists coming out, right?

[AngusJS]

really?

Navy Inspector General’s Report on Holly Graf
So if I find an example of a similarly bad hetero officer, I'll have shown that heterosexuals are unfit to command too, right? Because obviously one person is representative of the entire group.

[frau kaleun]

Your private relations and sexual preferences are your private issue. Leave it where it belongs: in the private sphere. no mater whether you are homo- or heterosexual - don't claim a right to constantly bother the wide public with your private things.

I agree. I'm tired of other heterosexuals forcing me to know about their heterosexuality. Hardly a day goes by without some woman I know mentioning her husband or boyfriend, or some guy talking about his wife or girlfriend, or somebody making note of the fact that they find this or that member of the opposite sex attractive. And I can't even leave my apartment without seeing heterosexual couples walking around together in public, holding hands, gazing lovingly into each other's eyes, even kissing or worse yet, pushing baby strollers containing children that look just like them and were clearly conceived by the two of them having hetero sex with each other.

It's disgusting and I'm sick of them rubbing my nose in it, and I demand that it be stopped.

/sarcasm

[mookiemookie]

The Israeli army allows gay service members, even in their special forces. They're still pretty much someone you don't want to fuss with. Doesn't seem to hinder them a bit.

We should all just get over ourselves.

[Skybird]

I agree. I'm tired of other heterosexuals forcing me to know about their heterosexuality. Hardly a day goes by without some woman I know mentioning her husband or boyfriend, or some guy talking about his wife or girlfriend, or somebody making note of the fact that they find this or that member of the opposite sex attractive. And I can't even leave my apartment without seeing heterosexual couples walking around together in public, holding hands, gazing lovingly into each other's eyes, even kissing or worse yet, pushing baby strollers containing children that look just like them and were clearly conceived by the two of them having hetero sex with each other.

It's disgusting and I'm sick of them rubbing my nose in it, and I demand that it be stopped.

/sarcasm
You have strange friends if they talk about these things you mentioned as often as you claim. I would recommend to consider to replace them, if they bother you. ;) Mine certainly do not as obsessively focus on their relations as an only subject of conversation - as long as I am not friend with their friends, partners, husbands or wifes, too.

:woot:

And regarding wannabe-VIPs and starlets constantly spamming the media with their latest love sensations - for them I have the same original comment like in my first post. I would not mind if they would fall into a waste-bin and never been seen again with their emotional hysterias and sexual media sensations. :arrgh!:

[frau kaleun]

@ Skybird: You missed the point.

In a heteronormative society, a straight person isn't given a choice between hiding his/her preference or being accused of rubbing someone's nose in it by not doing so. A person who isn't straight is often faced with that choice, as your own post illustrates.

If a gay person is obviously and overtly gay in the exact same way that a straight person is obviously and overtly straight, it's seen as some kind of unwanted intrusion of his/her private life onto the public consciousness. The straight person's obvious and overt heterosexuality is not treated the same way or seen as an intrusion because being straight in public is expected, condoned, accepted, considered the norm.

[antikristuseke]

I think the frau has hit the nail on the head here.

[Penguin]

A secret: gays are everywhere: you cannot tell how many people in high school or in a sports team have been checking you out under the shower – does everyone knows the orientation of his doctor or the nurse when you are in treatment and get undressed?
Why do so many guys think that every gay man would constantly check them out? Seriously, how many times a day are you hit on by women? See what I mean....
I personally see it as a compliment when I get hit on by any sex, and what is the problem to just say „no, I'm not interested“ - just like you would say to a woman (yeah, as if any guy would :O:).
There are supposed to be professionals in the army. Professionals are supposed to do their job first- everything else later. The guy/girl next to you is first your brother/sister-in-arms, then a sex object. I am sure that the queer medic who treats your shot wound doesn't get a hard-on when he touches you. If there is unconsensual behaviour then a gay guy who grabs your male ass should and will get the same discipline measures as when you smack a female butt.
It is not about special treatment, it's just about having the same rights. (wow, this is a sentence with cobwebs...)

I can understand that you don't want it to have a sexual orientation constantly rubbed into your face, it's silly when you introduce yourself with „Hi I'm Peter and I am gay/hetero/like to dress my wife up as a sheep, etc.“ However when you introcuce you partner it's no rubbing-into-the-face.
The public-coming out was helpful 20 years ago, when it was more of a taboo. It has helped many people who where in the closet to find the courage to stand to their sexuality. In 2010 it's not really necessary anymore, at least in Germany.
The thesis that gay activists are guilty of angering the public – and as a resumee it's their fault when they get attacked is the same as the example with the girl in a short skirt and the rapist...:nope:
Yeah, they are lobbying, so what, I have more hatred against many other groups who do lobby work. When the CSD is here there are approx. Half of the people there who are not gay – they just want to party. What is the problem with this: dont like it, don't go there – same with carnival or other parades.

[krashkart]

Wow, this old debate is still tumbling around in the dryer?

Hey Skybird, go out to a gay bar one night and see how many of those guys actually notice you enough to try to hit on you. Unless you have striking good looks, I doubt you'd have anything to worry about. ;)

[Penguin]

Krashkart, are you crazy? You just sentenced him to death! :o
These wild beasts are unstoppable, once they smell another male!
He will get spray painted in rainbow colours and tortured with music from the Village People.

[CaptainHaplo]

In a HETERONORMATIVE society (emphasis added) - well thats what society is. Sorry some people don't like it. But the vast bulk of society is Heterosexual - and the majority of people do see heterosexuality as normal.

a straight person isn't given a choice between hiding his/her preference - sounds like its the straight people that are being "repressed" since we aren't given a CHOICE.....

If a gay person is obviously and overtly gay in the exact same way that a straight person is obviously and overtly straight, it's seen as some kind of unwanted intrusion of his/her private life onto the public consciousness. The straight person's obvious and overt heterosexuality is not treated the same way or seen as an intrusion because being straight in public is expected, condoned, accepted, considered the norm.

Now this is where society gets it wrong - not because of the "rejection" of the overtly gay person - but because it should be rejecting the overt injection of ANY person's private or sexual life - be they gay or straight - into the limelight. For the record - it doesn't matter if people are homosexual or heterosexual - certain activities need to be kept private. There is that old saying that some of us still use with the youngsters that get overly amorous - "Get a room!" - and it should still be used alot more than it is.

However - comparing a couple pushing their child down the street in a carriage with two homosexuals humping each other's leg in public is more than a stretch. A child is the NATURAL outcome of a heterosexual relationship - its not anyone's fault that 2 girls or 2 guys can't create the same thing - but then again - thats because such relationships are not within the intended design of nature.

Don't blame society for not recognizing a non-natural desire. And yes, I know all the arguements of homosexuality in nature, blah blah blah - there are abberations in everything. And yes - I just said it - homosexuality is an abberation. That doesn't mean its BAD - it means its not within the natural order of things. That doesn't make homosexuals bad people, or less than any other person, though I am sure there will be some here that try to twist that comment.

[frau kaleun]

Now this is where society gets it wrong - not because of the "rejection" of the overtly gay person - but because it should be rejecting the overt injection of ANY person's private or sexual life - be they gay or straight - into the limelight. For the record - it doesn't matter if people are homosexual or heterosexual - certain activities need to be kept private.

I'm not talking about "the limelight" here. There are many things that hetero people in all walks of life do and say every day as a matter of simply living their lives, that reveal their sexual preference to the world at large. A gay person does/says the same things, and they're accused of "forcing" everyone else to bear witness to their gayness.

Straight people "force" everyone around them to bear witness to their heterosexuality on a regular basis. Do they have a choice not to do that? Of course they do. They can pretend to be completely asexual creatures everywhere but behind closed doors. That's exactly what some of them want gays and lesbians to do, in the name of keeping such things private.

If they care that much about keeping these things private, then let them start by walking the same walk or else admit that what they have a problem with is something else entirely.

[tater]

Clearly the military should be able to discriminate as a general rule. For example, between people who are physically fit, and those who are not. Some fat people "can't help it" they actually have a genetic issue (very, very few, for most it's their own, lazy choice). Still, should it be illegal for the military to disallow the (morbidly) obese? The same would be true for the more obvious stuff like intelligence, or lack of major congenital defects.

Once you agree that they are allowed to discriminate, at all, even for things that the applicant has no control over, then the grounds for claiming that rights are being violated becomes rather thin, IMHO.

Generally speaking, I think the military should be as open as possible. That said, there should also be no double standards at all. That means ONE physical set of standards to meet for each branch. If that leaves most women out, they should be SOL as well. This is not a "sport" where the women compete against each other, they should compete against all.

Regarding gays, presumably their point (the military) is that gays can have sex in situations where straight folks cannot (when there are no women around). Assuming the rules are strict in forbidding this regardless of orientation, I'm not sure I see a problem. Get caught on duty (on base, whatever) and get in trouble.

Legally though, I have trouble seeing discrimination as a big issue since they are clearly allowed to discriminate.

[SteamWake]

Hooray more legislation from the bench !!! :woot:

[Ducimus]

Clearly the military should be able to discriminate as a general rule. For example, between people who are physically fit, and those who are not. Some fat people "can't help it" they actually have a genetic issue (very, very few, for most it's their own, lazy choice). Still, should it be illegal for the military to disallow the (morbidly) obese? The same would be true for the more obvious stuff like intelligence, or lack of major congenital defects.
.

This.

Plus, if you start allowing open gayness, you might as well start allowing men and women to eat, sleep, and shower together. Which in itself is VERY bad idea, and yet it's the same god damn thing as allowing an openly gay military.

Plus.... newsflash...
THE MILITARY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Just in case people weren't aware of that. :shifty:

IMO anyone who supports, or doesn't see the problem with openly gay's in the military, and hasn't been in the military to know the environment, culture and lifestyle of military life....... is talking out of their ass. Sorry, but, there it is.

[antikristuseke]

Hooray more legislation from the bench !!! :woot:

Yeah, damn them judges for giving citizens more freedoms.:doh:

Edit: The military has basic to weed out the wheat from the chaff. And yes, I have served with homosexuals, it is a non issue.

[mookiemookie]

Dozens of countries allow openly gay soldiers to serve. Why is it that we don't hear about any of those armies having the problems that are trotted out as arguments against allowing homosexuals to serve? No one else seems to have a morale issue, or an issue with rampant homosex going on in the middle of a foxhole?

It's been done and antikristuseke's right - it's a non-issue. All the kicking and screaming is really over nothing.

[tater]

Should there be any separation of men and women in the military? By any, I mean any as ducimus suggests? Why? If you have to piss, ****, and bathe unseparated from your fellow man in peacetime, why should women not have to use the same gang showers, open toilets, etc?

I've very serious. In the field, private toilets are a non-existent luxury. Why not women in the gang shower? Are there any jobs women don;t have in the military? Are women equally represented among those kicking doors down and clearing buildings? Yes, or no?

If they are separated, why is this tolerable instead of being discriminatory?

[antikristuseke]

It isn't. If he woman in question is capable of doing all those things on par with the men there is no reason to exclude her. But that means she has to live up to the standards that have been set, not that the standards should be lowered.
As for gang showers, I see no problem there, but then, estonian society doesnt really have a problem with nudity as much as the american one seems to. Which is kind of weird as the largest porn industry resides in the states.

Edit: There were some women from another batallion housed with our batallions staff company for part of their training, recon shares the same baracs building with staff there. They showered with the rest of us and went to the sauna with us.

[Platapus]

In 1988-89, I was roommates with a homosexual man when I was stationed in South Korea. Never had any problems. We both respected each other. It worked out great.

[Ducimus]

In 1988-89, I was roommates with a homosexual man when I was stationed in South Korea. Never had any problems. We both respected each other. It worked out great.

You sure the Either Bunny didn't pay you a visit at night while you were sleeping? :haha:

[AngusJS]

Edit: There were some women from another batallion housed with our batallions staff company for part of their training, recon shares the same baracs building with staff there. They showered with the rest of us and went to the sauna with us.Do the Estonian armed forces accept foreign recruits? :D

[antikristuseke]

You need to be a citizen to sign up and women in the armed forces are a rarity, but military service is compulsory for men. Besides, you dont need to join the military to get estonian girls naked in the sauna, you just need a sauna.

[Platapus]

The fact that we, in the US, have a voluntary military force may make the unconstitutionality call more difficult to demonstrate.

While the First Amendment aspect is interesting, I believe this is more an issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment takes precedence over Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution?

An argument could be made that an amendment takes precedence over the base constitution. Whether in this instance the 14th takes precedence over Article 1 would be an interesting debate.

However, I am also not convinced that the 14th would pertain to DADT. Personally I believe that Article 1 Section 8 would be the applicable constitutional citation in this issue.

A most interesting issue. :yep:

[August]

It's been done and antikristuseke's right - it's a non-issue. All the kicking and screaming is really over nothing.

Well I must say that it's awfully nice of you to decide the living arrangements of others for them. I mean after all having to share a room, shower and toilet with a person who sees you as a potential sex partner will be easy enough seeing as how you personally don't have to deal with that situation right?

[TLAM Strike]

Plus, if you start allowing open gayness, you might as well start allowing men and women to eat...together.

OMG Heaven forbid!! Men and women eating together! That can lead to other things!

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4752/navygalley.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/navygalley.jpg/)

[ETR3(SS)]

In her 85-page ruling, Phillips offered a scathing critique of the ban on gays serving openly. She noted that the military has since permitted more convicted felons to enlist...I'm not a recruiter, but I'm pretty sure the military won't take a felon unless it's WWIII.

During the trial, Justice Department attorney Paul G. Freeborne argued that Congress — not a federal court — should have the authority and the responsibility to enact military policy. I agree with this. If the Judicial Branch would like to start commenting on what should and shouldn't be policy in the military perhaps they could start with the invasion of Iraq by looking at Congress.

Oh and I would just like to add that the military is discriminatory by nature, otherwise there wouldn't be the Chief's Quarters/Mess, Officer Country and the Wardroom, and Dirty Blue Shirt bunkrooms and Crew's Mess.

[antikristuseke]

Well I must say that it's awfully nice of you to decide the living arrangements of others for them. I mean after all having to share a room, shower and toilet with a person who sees you as a potential sex partner will be easy enough seeing as how you personally don't have to deal with that situation right?

Homosexuals arent a bunch of perverts who can not controll their urges, just sitting in the shadows, waiting to ravish you. Most homosexuals are not too overt about it, they are just like any other guy exept that they prefer romantic love with members of their own sex.
It is a non issue, those who can not conduct themselves as professionals will get reprimanded and if need be dishonourably discharged. There really aren't any reasons to not allow gay men and women to serve other than biggotry.

[Tribesman]

I'm not a recruiter, but I'm pretty sure the military won't take a felon unless it's WWIII.

Moral waivers were running at 12% of all army recruits in 2007.
A convicted felon requires a moral waiver as does someone with lots of misdemeanor convictions

[Platapus]

Well I must say that it's awfully nice of you to decide the living arrangements of others for them. I mean after all having to share a room, shower and toilet with a person who sees you as a potential sex partner will be easy enough seeing as how you personally don't have to deal with that situation right?


Why would you assume that a homosexual person would consider their military roommate a "potential sex partner". Mine didn't. This is one of the myths of homosexuality -- every homosexual man will find every heterosexual man sexually attractive. It just does not work that way.

[August]

Why would you assume that a homosexual person would consider their military roommate a "potential sex partner". Mine didn't. This is one of the myths of homosexuality -- every homosexual man will find every heterosexual man sexually attractive. It just does not work that way.

I'm not assuming that, hence my use of the word "potential".

After all you might not consider a good looking female Soldier as a "potential sex partner" either but that doesn't mean it'd be ok to force her to share a bunk bed with you.

[tater]

Again, why does the military waste a penny on segregated bathrooms, etc? Is it because they demand talking a shower away from men? How is that different than August (who is apparently so hot to gay guys they can't keep their hands off ;) ) wanting to take a shower away from them?

If they are going to not discriminate, they should start by equalizing all requirements and facilities by sex, not just sexual orientation.

[Aramike]

Why would you assume that a homosexual person would consider their military roommate a "potential sex partner". Mine didn't. This is one of the myths of homosexuality -- every homosexual man will find every heterosexual man sexually attractive. It just does not work that way.So then why not allow men and women to cohabitate, share the same facilities, etc? (Answer: it wouldn't make sense). Or is this just yet another example of having to bend over backwards to suit a minority population's special interests?

[August]

So then why not allow men and women to cohabitate, share the same facilities, etc? (Answer: it wouldn't make sense). Or is this just yet another example of having to bend over backwards to suit a minority population's special interests?

Even that misses the essential point Mike that i'm not sure the proponents of this understand. It's not "allowing" men and women or hetros and homos to cohabitate, it's "forcing" them to cohabitate that makes this a bad idea.

Soldiers do not pick their room mates. Soldiers do not decide to share communal bathrooms. They are assigned them.

And Tater, yes I am extremely hot and females of both sexes tend to be very attracted to me. It's a burden but we all have our crosses to bear right? I mean what's it like to be so butt ugly? :)

[tater]

Maybe their gaydar is goin off in your case ;)

Actually, I'm arguing your side in case you missed it. My point is that if the military has women not 100% mixed with men, then that is the demonstrable standard for dealing with sexual orientation. I'd say they either need the same sort of silly "separate but equal" they have for women (though women only have to meet lower physical standards, right?), or they should set one standard, and lump men and women together regardless of sexual orientation, AND have zero difference between any of them. Identical physical standards, ONE bathroom, ONE shower, etc.

The gay guys could go to bed dreaming of you after taking a shower with you, but you'd at least be distracted and dreaming of the hot chick next to you in the shower, instead :)

Since that won't happen, the military having a policy on gays seems OK to me in the meantime.

[Platapus]

So then why not allow men and women to cohabitate, share the same facilities, etc? (Answer: it wouldn't make sense). Or is this just yet another example of having to bend over backwards to suit a minority population's special interests?


Well in my military career I have slept with women and showered (decon) with them and nothing seemed to happen. :nope:

I am but one data point but I hardly think my experiences were that different from others in my situation.

[antikristuseke]

Same for me, but two data points is not that much better.

[CCIP]

I don't know, I think the view that people can't stay away from each other sexually is a little odd.

Seriously, if you don't have the discipline to stay off the objects of your sexual attraction while serving, you shouldn't be in the military. The whole point of military discipline is well, discipline. You suppress your natural reactions and follow orders. If you can suppress fear and discomfort, why shouldn't you be able to suppress that boner? (at least from going to your brain...)

Seriously, men (or women for that matter) aren't animals. If the government trusts you enough to give you a gun to shoot people, stipulating that you never shoot it at whoever you want without orders, it can sure as hell stipulate that it trusts you not to sleep with every person you can while in the service. Nothing is a problem for discipline unless you allow it to be a problem for discipline.

[Aramike]

Well in my military career I have slept with women and showered (decon) with them and nothing seemed to happen. :nope:

I am but one data point but I hardly think my experiences were that different from others in my situation.In general this practice is not was happens regularly - to imply that it would be the same situation is flat-out deceptive.

Quite frankly, in my military experience, most (read: vast majority) units are quite separate by gender as far as accomodations are concerned. Apart from the obvious sexual reasoning, there is the concern for spouse's perception as well. And yet, even while accomodations are kept separate based upon gender, we still every year see many women impregnated while deployed. It would be hopelessly naive (perhaps mere wishful thinking) to believe that this number would not rise if cohabitation were to occur. Furthermore, it would be insane to believe that pregnancy represents every woman carrying on a romantic relationship while deployed - meaning that there are MANY relationships occurring that cannot be tracked.

So, for practical, pragmatic reasons we keep the genders separate. We know that there's an unavoidable sexual attraction component between heterosexual men and women (this whole idea that anyone's implying that a gay male would be attracted to every other male is absurd), so we take meaningful steps to limit the negative impacts this has on readiness. However, what's being suggested here (which is typical when it comes to gays) is that such meaningful steps shouldn't apply to them.

[Platapus]

We know that there's an unavoidable sexual attraction component between heterosexual men and women .....


We don't know this. I have met many many women who I have not been sexually attracted to at all. To imply that all men with respect to all women have an "unavoidable sexual attraction component" is not accurate. :nope:

[Aramike]

We don't know this. I have met many many women who I have not been sexually attracted to at all. To imply that all men with respect to all women have an "unavoidable sexual attraction component" is not accurate. :nope:*Sigh*

You make that assumption which I labelled absurd in my last post.

It's not about "all" being attracted to "all". It's about all being attracted to SOME, and if you put the potential out there the evolution of detracting relationships become likely.

[Ducimus]

" A Senate bill to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was defeated..." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39286687/ns/politics-capitol_hill?GT1=43001)


Good!