Probably because in the latter case the ‘afflicted minority’ actually wants the discrimination.

It’s okay, guys. You can come out now. Especially Santorum. Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.

#32 Chris in AL

Other countries have unisex bathrooms, coed saunas at the gym and nudity on TV because they have moved past these stupid hangups.

I’ve always wondered how “separate but equal” is wrong when it comes to race, but no one bats an eyelash about it when it comes to sex.

Balko, you owe me a box of monitor wipes. That is, IMO, one of the funniest things I’ve seen from you.

Queer Fear needs to be flushed out of the officer corps.

But, as a society, we are stupidly prudish and behind the times. This is the country where Janet Jackson’s 1/4 second partial nipple flash was a really big fucking deal. Where ER cut an episode that showed an elderly woman get a breast exam. Where a blurry photo of some celebrity’s coochie in a limo is worth millions and where they digitally reduced Lindsay Lohan’s boobs for a Herbie movie. Where a woman breast feeding a baby in public is still a big scandal.

All of these things are embarrassing for us as a country, but they are all connected. They are all the same issue. Further more, that same mindset carries forward into locker rooms and showers. Now, we all know that just because some one is gay it does not mean that they ‘want’ every person of the same gender that they meet. It is a bit of a sitcom joke. But at the same time, we also know that not every straight man wants every woman he meets. Does that mean that fat and/or ugly women do not have a right to a locker room or a shower without men in it? But somehow they are supposed to accept a lesbian who may, or may not, be viewing them the same way a man would? (at least in their mind)

Should she worry about it? Of course not. But her body issues and privacy issues are a part of her, imparted to her by the overriding, if ridiculous, societal rules that nudity itself is the first part of sexuality and you are only supposed to get nude in front of your lover, your doctor, or people of the same gender who don’t view you as a potential partner.

So you are not asking these people “Should gays have the same rights as everyone else?” You are asking them to set aside issues that are ingrained in them even though they shouldn’t be issues. Other countries have unisex bathrooms, coed saunas at the gym and nudity on TV because they have moved past these stupid hangups. And I totally agree that we should too. Women in our society should not be worried that every man around them will go all retarded just because we see their boobs. And men in this country shouldn’t go all retarded because we see some boobs. We have to grow up and beyond that now. When we do, these asshole congressmen will all be dead, and issues of ‘distraction’ in the military will not be a problem.

You ever notice how often when we see sci-fi movies about the military in the future the locker rooms and showers and barracks are unisex? I think if we already had that, then the gays in the military issue would be smaller.

I apologize for the length of my post. ba-doom, ching!

Which makes me wonder how anyone like he or Hunter could make such ridiculous statements and believe them. I don’t think they do. They’re just pandering to a small portion of their base without fear of alienating the other GOP factions that don’t buy this “hate gays” crap. They aren’t going to do it for much longer. Everyone in this country sees the writing on the wall, gays are going to be excepted whether they like it or not.

Just so everyone knows, there is a Libertarian running against him who was Marine Aviator is doesn’t think that the military should discriminate. He also doesn’t say ridiculous shit like Chambliss.

My point about the experiment is that while gay people are still kicked out, they are nevertheless allowed to serve in the military until discovered. Since both their performance in their assignments and their sexual preferences are part of the record, social scientists now have a vast collection of data regarding the performance of gays in the military. Thus hypothetical concerns about gays ruining the military can be answered with the empirical response that they haven’t.

While I would not oppose out-of-the-closet gays in the military, I would hope that military discipline would not suffer as a result.

Radley, your link labeled “once questioned the patriotism” did not support your accusation. The link said Chambliss criticized Cleland
“for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”

As a VN vet myself, I see no reason to exempt VN vets from all political criticism on the basis of their military service, even if they lose three limbs in an accident while in VN. Unless, of course, you disagree with me. Then, yeah, clearly you’re a scumbag.

Sorry, I was just snarking at Mike Leatherwood’s 3:13 comment and messed up the HTML tag on the quote that I lifted.

[Radley: Edit function, please. I promise not to flame more than one person per hour, I mean day, make that week.]

Actually, gays and lesbians were discharged (and proactively investigated) at higher rates after DADT than before.

I would be willing to bet that it would reduce recruitment.

It would certainly reduce the enrollment of knee-jerk bigots, which is a positive thing. The fewer dipshit bigots working for the state while using firearms, the better.

But it was a performance issue and still is. Captains regularly have to deal with relationship fallouts, pregnancies and other issues, especially aboard ships. They are willing to put up with the disruption because of orders and the fact that ~50% of the population is female and and they gain access to a much bigger pool of applicants.

I see the disruption potential at least as high with gays considering the typical military member’s age and motivation, but the benefit to to the military is neglegible with respect to changing DADT. I would be willing to bet that it would reduce recruitment.