IMO, taking that comment and calling it an insult to soldiers is just silly. I basically read it as, 'Were supposed to believe that a soldier who is brave enough to fight our enemies would be scared, squeamish, uncomfortable (whatever word you want to use) around gays?' I don't think that comment is an insult. If anything, the thought that our military is too fragile to handle openly gay soldiers is more of an insult.
Now on to other matters. I have a correction to one of my earlier posts. I shared a story about something my husband experienced while serving in Iraq and I just want to make sure I give the correct details. Apparently the other soldier did not say "suck my ____" but rather, "eat a ____". I don't see much of a difference but according to my husband "eat a ____" is actually much nicer (who knew?), particularly given the circumstances in which it was used.
I don't think it is so much being "scared" of someone who is gay, but the same discomfort that some would feel being required to share sleeping for bathing facilities with someone of the opposite sex. While one is considered to be an acceptable feeling and is validated by gender specific accommodations, the other is denigrated and dismissed as homophobia. And so while I fully support gays being able to serve openly, the issue of berthing has to be addressed with respect for all parties.
Resolution should not fall upon gay folk, who are innocent in this. The issue is solved by allowing gay folk to serve and those who have issues finding a way to overcome their emotional handicap.
**Resolution should not fall upon gay folk, who are innocent in this**
Resolution does not fall upon gay folk, it falls on those who make policy decisions. As we have discussed, there is no physical reason behind gender segregation in berthing areas, and yet we have it. So it would seem to me that if we are going to provide separate accommodations based on gender, they should also provide them based on sexual orientation or do away with all segregated facilities. The issue is not working with openly gay service members, but in forced living situations. And if a straight person has an emotional handicap, as you put it, in sharing intimate space with someone who is openly gay then the same must be said of those who are uncomfortable sharing that same space with someone of the opposite gender. And again, the responsibility for a solutions is not with the gay service member, or the straight one for that matter, but with the people charged with making policy. They must find a way to do away with DADT and still be respectful of all parties involved.
To me, the racial segregation argument would have more in common with ending all gender based segregation. After all, while men and women have a few physical differences, they do not require different facilities.
Pages
IMO, taking that comment and calling it an insult to soldiers is just silly. I basically read it as, 'Were supposed to believe that a soldier who is brave enough to fight our enemies would be scared, squeamish, uncomfortable (whatever word you want to use) around gays?' I don't think that comment is an insult. If anything, the thought that our military is too fragile to handle openly gay soldiers is more of an insult.
Now on to other matters. I have a correction to one of my earlier posts. I shared a story about something my husband experienced while serving in Iraq and I just want to make sure I give the correct details. Apparently the other soldier did not say "suck my ____" but rather, "eat a ____". I don't see much of a difference but according to my husband "eat a ____" is actually much nicer (who knew?), particularly given the circumstances in which it was used.
Chrissy
That is a bit different, and I don't have issue with the comment.
I don't think that comment is an insult. If anything, the thought that our military is too fragile to handle openly gay soldiers is more of an insult.
Well said.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Thanks for the clarification...(you can't see me, but I'm rolling my eyes at men, lol).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I don't think it is so much being "scared" of someone who is gay, but the same discomfort that some would feel being required to share sleeping for bathing facilities with someone of the opposite sex. While one is considered to be an acceptable feeling and is validated by gender specific accommodations, the other is denigrated and dismissed as homophobia. And so while I fully support gays being able to serve openly, the issue of berthing has to be addressed with respect for all parties.
Sheri
Resolution should not fall upon gay folk, who are innocent in this. The issue is solved by allowing gay folk to serve and those who have issues finding a way to overcome their emotional handicap.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
I'd be more prone to agree, except there was a big ole outcry when blacks were allowed to join the military.
Big brave soldiers wanted them segregated too.....
We tend to blame /punish the victim over and over and over.
I find it sad.
**Resolution should not fall upon gay folk, who are innocent in this**
Resolution does not fall upon gay folk, it falls on those who make policy decisions. As we have discussed, there is no physical reason behind gender segregation in berthing areas, and yet we have it. So it would seem to me that if we are going to provide separate accommodations based on gender, they should also provide them based on sexual orientation or do away with all segregated facilities. The issue is not working with openly gay service members, but in forced living situations. And if a straight person has an emotional handicap, as you put it, in sharing intimate space with someone who is openly gay then the same must be said of those who are uncomfortable sharing that same space with someone of the opposite gender. And again, the responsibility for a solutions is not with the gay service member, or the straight one for that matter, but with the people charged with making policy. They must find a way to do away with DADT and still be respectful of all parties involved.
Sheri
To me, the racial segregation argument would have more in common with ending all gender based segregation. After all, while men and women have a few physical differences, they do not require different facilities.
Sheri
Resolution does not fall upon gay folk, it falls on those who make policy decisions.
Wrong. It is gay folk who carry this burden now, and have right along. Decision makers have the easy part.
It is foolish to segregate based on potential love interest. I would hope we *all* are more mature than that implies.
As I've mentioned before, we had coed restrooms in our dorm
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Pages