It’s not about loving or hating gay people. It’s about segregating people by sexual preference. I’m pretty sure males and females are kept in separate quarters for this very reason, and can understand why some men and women would feel uncomfortable living in intimate quarters with people who might have a sexual interest in them (and where they really don’t want to reciprocate).[/quote]
I agree that its not about loving or hating anyone.
However, I think the comfortability factor should not play a bigger policy part in military life than it does in regular life.
You share bathrooms now with homos.
You have gay waiters and doctors.
Like half of your kids’ teachers are gay. Gender segregation is easy because respective genders look and act comparatively differently from one another.
Women generally are of a physically smaller stature and generally have higher voices.
Those are some of their defining characteristics.
The only thing that defines homos is the sentiment of sexual preference.
Segregation based on any preference or sentiment (other than loyalty) is foolish.
You are basically arguing for separation based on the possibility that some soldiers will be afraid that someone will think something about them (that they are attractive) that they don’t like.
The absurdity of catering to that particular sensitivity is part of the reason that the Israeli army doesn’t.
While I am not a fan of Israeli policies, it can’t be argued that they suck at defense generally or unit cohesion in particular.[/quote]
It’s not about “comfort” or “sensitivities” at all. It’s about increased potential for sexual harassment (on both sides) and romantic liasons that are not conducive to the military’s objectives.
As for the bolded part of your comment, I can absolutely assure you that the military doesn’t segragate males and females because one group is smaller and has higher voices. Do you think they make short males with high-pitched voices sleep in the womens’ barracks? Do tall, deep-voiced women sleep in the mens’ barracks? No; the segregation exists solely due to the potential for sexual relationships and all the problems that can entail.
Living and fighting in close quarters in the military is NOTHING like sharing public bathrooms in a restaurant, or being served by a gay waiter, or having a gay teacher working with your kids, etc.
Wouldn’t you agree that (you, straight Dan) sharing office space with a woman as part of your normal 9-5 job is NOT the same as showering with and sleeping with a woman — often literally side-by-side, with perhaps 3-5 women sharing a single showerhead with you, and seeing each other naked on a regular basis? You don’t see a difference there? **That** is why some people have a problem with it.
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
BTW, this is not *my* personal opinion; I’m just playing devil’s advocate and trying to explain the other side’s perspective. I have absolutely no problem with gays or lesbians, and have had many gay/lesbian/bisexual friends, roommates, and coworkers, myself. I fully support gay marriage and can’t for the life of me understand why straight people think that gay marriage is any more destructive to their “holy institution” than divorce is.
Just wanted to explain that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily redneck bigots. There are logistical and practical reasons for their objections.
