OT: Gay Marriage

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

Brian, if you are going to back me up, try not to be such a homo. (Homophobic AND hypocritical. I even impress myself sometimes.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

Brian, if you are going to back me up, try not to be such a homo. (Homophobic AND hypocritical. I even impress myself sometimes.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

Brian, if you are going to back me up, try not to be such a homo. (Homophobic AND hypocritical. I even impress myself sometimes.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

Brian, if you are going to back me up, try not to be such a homo. (Homophobic AND hypocritical. I even impress myself sometimes.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1”, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

Brian, if you are going to back me up, try not to be such a homo. (Homophobic AND hypocritical. I even impress myself sometimes.)

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1″, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

FWIW, I like Dan well enough.

I questioned Dan’s bias based on his, what appears to me, exceptionally gay friendly attitude and posts on piggingtons.He seems to go well out of his way. Not sure it is dependent on where his office is. Brian, adding you to the comment in question was for fun. I was teasing you.I didn’t think you would mind….

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights to marry, be taxed and have other privileges,like people who do, and carry on in anyway that straight people can in a mixed world. Straight people are not allowed to populate the opposite sex bathrooms and berthing quarters in pretty much any institution. Again you can give examples where we do interact incidentally, but they are not nearly as intimate or even remotely provoke the same possible level of concern. I am not saying exclusion is right.”Gay pride meet the troop berthing areas” may have consequences worse than exist with the current , turn a somewhat blind eye keep a low profile . Maybe that is giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as it is?I don’t think it hurt the effectiveness and morale of the groups I was deployed with to a large degree, but there were challenges. I can totally understand many heterosexuals feeling it does cause significant problems. It may only be tolerable to them and not bad for comaraderie,morale to the degree “don’t ask don’t tell” imposes “checks and balances” on gay demonstrations, fraternization and targeting of young recruits by older gays and any premptive abuse or retaliation. It is safe to assume for now that the military is very serious about strength, cohesiveness, morale etc. and that homosexuals are wanted in the military and very much so at this time. I think military leadership has to look at the problems that arise with the recipe as a result of the ingredients and manage to its goals. It is possible that ultimately the rest of us are armchair quarterbacks,at best. Cheerleaders in Dan’s case.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1″, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

FWIW, I like Dan well enough.

I questioned Dan’s bias based on his, what appears to me, exceptionally gay friendly attitude and posts on piggingtons.He seems to go well out of his way. Not sure it is dependent on where his office is. Brian, adding you to the comment in question was for fun. I was teasing you.I didn’t think you would mind….

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights to marry, be taxed and have other privileges,like people who do, and carry on in anyway that straight people can in a mixed world. Straight people are not allowed to populate the opposite sex bathrooms and berthing quarters in pretty much any institution. Again you can give examples where we do interact incidentally, but they are not nearly as intimate or even remotely provoke the same possible level of concern. I am not saying exclusion is right.”Gay pride meet the troop berthing areas” may have consequences worse than exist with the current , turn a somewhat blind eye keep a low profile . Maybe that is giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as it is?I don’t think it hurt the effectiveness and morale of the groups I was deployed with to a large degree, but there were challenges. I can totally understand many heterosexuals feeling it does cause significant problems. It may only be tolerable to them and not bad for comaraderie,morale to the degree “don’t ask don’t tell” imposes “checks and balances” on gay demonstrations, fraternization and targeting of young recruits by older gays and any premptive abuse or retaliation. It is safe to assume for now that the military is very serious about strength, cohesiveness, morale etc. and that homosexuals are wanted in the military and very much so at this time. I think military leadership has to look at the problems that arise with the recipe as a result of the ingredients and manage to its goals. It is possible that ultimately the rest of us are armchair quarterbacks,at best. Cheerleaders in Dan’s case.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1″, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

FWIW, I like Dan well enough.

I questioned Dan’s bias based on his, what appears to me, exceptionally gay friendly attitude and posts on piggingtons.He seems to go well out of his way. Not sure it is dependent on where his office is. Brian, adding you to the comment in question was for fun. I was teasing you.I didn’t think you would mind….

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights to marry, be taxed and have other privileges,like people who do, and carry on in anyway that straight people can in a mixed world. Straight people are not allowed to populate the opposite sex bathrooms and berthing quarters in pretty much any institution. Again you can give examples where we do interact incidentally, but they are not nearly as intimate or even remotely provoke the same possible level of concern. I am not saying exclusion is right.”Gay pride meet the troop berthing areas” may have consequences worse than exist with the current , turn a somewhat blind eye keep a low profile . Maybe that is giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as it is?I don’t think it hurt the effectiveness and morale of the groups I was deployed with to a large degree, but there were challenges. I can totally understand many heterosexuals feeling it does cause significant problems. It may only be tolerable to them and not bad for comaraderie,morale to the degree “don’t ask don’t tell” imposes “checks and balances” on gay demonstrations, fraternization and targeting of young recruits by older gays and any premptive abuse or retaliation. It is safe to assume for now that the military is very serious about strength, cohesiveness, morale etc. and that homosexuals are wanted in the military and very much so at this time. I think military leadership has to look at the problems that arise with the recipe as a result of the ingredients and manage to its goals. It is possible that ultimately the rest of us are armchair quarterbacks,at best. Cheerleaders in Dan’s case.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1″, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

FWIW, I like Dan well enough.

I questioned Dan’s bias based on his, what appears to me, exceptionally gay friendly attitude and posts on piggingtons.He seems to go well out of his way. Not sure it is dependent on where his office is. Brian, adding you to the comment in question was for fun. I was teasing you.I didn’t think you would mind….

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights to marry, be taxed and have other privileges,like people who do, and carry on in anyway that straight people can in a mixed world. Straight people are not allowed to populate the opposite sex bathrooms and berthing quarters in pretty much any institution. Again you can give examples where we do interact incidentally, but they are not nearly as intimate or even remotely provoke the same possible level of concern. I am not saying exclusion is right.”Gay pride meet the troop berthing areas” may have consequences worse than exist with the current , turn a somewhat blind eye keep a low profile . Maybe that is giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as it is?I don’t think it hurt the effectiveness and morale of the groups I was deployed with to a large degree, but there were challenges. I can totally understand many heterosexuals feeling it does cause significant problems. It may only be tolerable to them and not bad for comaraderie,morale to the degree “don’t ask don’t tell” imposes “checks and balances” on gay demonstrations, fraternization and targeting of young recruits by older gays and any premptive abuse or retaliation. It is safe to assume for now that the military is very serious about strength, cohesiveness, morale etc. and that homosexuals are wanted in the military and very much so at this time. I think military leadership has to look at the problems that arise with the recipe as a result of the ingredients and manage to its goals. It is possible that ultimately the rest of us are armchair quarterbacks,at best. Cheerleaders in Dan’s case.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I have plenty of life experience with lots of different people. Live and let live doesn’t necessarily exclude my opinions does it? Brian,It sounds like you are saying someone who entertains the views I am doesn’t interact cordially and in support of variety of individuals, the same as you do? That sounds like reverse intolerance or something like that. “You can’t possibly be as cultural value added as me, because I don’t like your opinions”… and you live in a different place than I do… [/quote]

I’m sorry that my response didn’t come across as I intended.

When you wrote “from a super gay friendly Hillcrest Realtor….and brian1″, I felt like you were dismissive of urbanrealtor’s opinion because he services a gay neighborhood.

I’m saying that those who live with or near gay people know better that gay equality does not, in any way, infringe upon the rights of straights, nor will equality for all result in the collapse of family values, unit cohesion and the like.[/quote]

FWIW, I like Dan well enough.

I questioned Dan’s bias based on his, what appears to me, exceptionally gay friendly attitude and posts on piggingtons.He seems to go well out of his way. Not sure it is dependent on where his office is. Brian, adding you to the comment in question was for fun. I was teasing you.I didn’t think you would mind….

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights to marry, be taxed and have other privileges,like people who do, and carry on in anyway that straight people can in a mixed world. Straight people are not allowed to populate the opposite sex bathrooms and berthing quarters in pretty much any institution. Again you can give examples where we do interact incidentally, but they are not nearly as intimate or even remotely provoke the same possible level of concern. I am not saying exclusion is right.”Gay pride meet the troop berthing areas” may have consequences worse than exist with the current , turn a somewhat blind eye keep a low profile . Maybe that is giving homosexuals the benefit of the doubt as it is?I don’t think it hurt the effectiveness and morale of the groups I was deployed with to a large degree, but there were challenges. I can totally understand many heterosexuals feeling it does cause significant problems. It may only be tolerable to them and not bad for comaraderie,morale to the degree “don’t ask don’t tell” imposes “checks and balances” on gay demonstrations, fraternization and targeting of young recruits by older gays and any premptive abuse or retaliation. It is safe to assume for now that the military is very serious about strength, cohesiveness, morale etc. and that homosexuals are wanted in the military and very much so at this time. I think military leadership has to look at the problems that arise with the recipe as a result of the ingredients and manage to its goals. It is possible that ultimately the rest of us are armchair quarterbacks,at best. Cheerleaders in Dan’s case.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

Both.

IMHO, Russel’s point is exactly on target.

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.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

Both.

IMHO, Russel’s point is exactly on target.

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.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

Both.

IMHO, Russel’s point is exactly on target.

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.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

Both.

IMHO, Russel’s point is exactly on target.

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.

[Author]

Posts