[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[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.)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]If someone got caught masturbating with a blue boy magazine or couldn’t help but grope someone, or demand they be made queen of the unit, there could be trouble to varying degrees.[/quote]

Okay but again you are talking about disruptive behavior and I am not.
I agree that disruptive behavior should be addressed.
All I am saying is that behavior should be the referent and sentiment should not.
Perhaps that is because, while gay-friendly as you say (though I would characterize it as not giving a shit), I do not like it when people hit me over the head with their sexuality.
Whatever.
The point is that if someone is acting inappropriately, that affects unit cohesion.
The thoughts that run around in their head do not.
Most service men would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to serve with Liberace.
Most would be proud to serve with Rob Halford.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]If someone got caught masturbating with a blue boy magazine or couldn’t help but grope someone, or demand they be made queen of the unit, there could be trouble to varying degrees.[/quote]

Okay but again you are talking about disruptive behavior and I am not.
I agree that disruptive behavior should be addressed.
All I am saying is that behavior should be the referent and sentiment should not.
Perhaps that is because, while gay-friendly as you say (though I would characterize it as not giving a shit), I do not like it when people hit me over the head with their sexuality.
Whatever.
The point is that if someone is acting inappropriately, that affects unit cohesion.
The thoughts that run around in their head do not.
Most service men would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to serve with Liberace.
Most would be proud to serve with Rob Halford.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]If someone got caught masturbating with a blue boy magazine or couldn’t help but grope someone, or demand they be made queen of the unit, there could be trouble to varying degrees.[/quote]

Okay but again you are talking about disruptive behavior and I am not.
I agree that disruptive behavior should be addressed.
All I am saying is that behavior should be the referent and sentiment should not.
Perhaps that is because, while gay-friendly as you say (though I would characterize it as not giving a shit), I do not like it when people hit me over the head with their sexuality.
Whatever.
The point is that if someone is acting inappropriately, that affects unit cohesion.
The thoughts that run around in their head do not.
Most service men would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to serve with Liberace.
Most would be proud to serve with Rob Halford.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]If someone got caught masturbating with a blue boy magazine or couldn’t help but grope someone, or demand they be made queen of the unit, there could be trouble to varying degrees.[/quote]

Okay but again you are talking about disruptive behavior and I am not.
I agree that disruptive behavior should be addressed.
All I am saying is that behavior should be the referent and sentiment should not.
Perhaps that is because, while gay-friendly as you say (though I would characterize it as not giving a shit), I do not like it when people hit me over the head with their sexuality.
Whatever.
The point is that if someone is acting inappropriately, that affects unit cohesion.
The thoughts that run around in their head do not.
Most service men would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to serve with Liberace.
Most would be proud to serve with Rob Halford.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]If someone got caught masturbating with a blue boy magazine or couldn’t help but grope someone, or demand they be made queen of the unit, there could be trouble to varying degrees.[/quote]

Okay but again you are talking about disruptive behavior and I am not.
I agree that disruptive behavior should be addressed.
All I am saying is that behavior should be the referent and sentiment should not.
Perhaps that is because, while gay-friendly as you say (though I would characterize it as not giving a shit), I do not like it when people hit me over the head with their sexuality.
Whatever.
The point is that if someone is acting inappropriately, that affects unit cohesion.
The thoughts that run around in their head do not.
Most service men would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to serve with Liberace.
Most would be proud to serve with Rob Halford.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts