Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, worked for the Spartans...

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, worked for the Spartans...

[/ QUOTE ]

Michigan State has a gay only line?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack this debate about homosexuality, but since this is the debate thread, I thought I'd give more info on some of the questioners. It wasn't only the gay General who endorsed Hillary, we are finding out that a bunch of the YouTube questioners have endorsed Democratic candidates or currently or formerly worked for Democrats.

1. The Gay General Kerr endorsed Hillary
2. The guy who asked the qustion about blacks and the GOP supports Edwards.
3. Adam Florzak asked a question about social security. He works for Democratic Senator Durbin of Illinois.
4. Mark Strauss who asked if Ron Paul would run as an independent has endorsed Democrat Bill Richardson
5. Ted Faturos who asked about corn subsidies used to work for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
6. The woman who asked the abortion question has endorsed John Edwards (she has several YouTube videos proclaiming her support of Edwards).
7. David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republican question has endorsed Obama.
8. The woman who asked about lead in Chinese toys supports Edwards.

When CNN re-aired the debate, they edited out the General Kerr question because they were apparently embarrassed that a Democratic plant was allowed to ask a question. If they continue that policy, they will have to edit out 1/3 of the debate.

All CNN had to do was watch some of these questioners other YouTube videos (where they declared there political allegiance), or done a quick google search to discover this info. I'm not saying that these questions weren't legit, but don't you think that the audience deserved to be told that a bunch of the people asking the questions are Democrats? After all, this is a Republican debate. While we're at it, did CNN allow a host of questioners who have endorsed Republicans to ask questions on the Democratic YouTube debate?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you admit that there will be a high level of disruption, but you want to introduce that into military units (especially combat units)? How would deal with sort of disruption as a Unit Commanding Officer? For instance, do you allow openly gay military members use open showers for instance? If so, will you allow male and female service members to use open showers together as well?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, worked for the Spartans...

[/ QUOTE ]

Michigan State has a gay only line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I laughed very hard at this. NH Copernicus.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace gay with black, do you think the same holds true?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to make this clear, it will be very complicated and by no means will this issue be easily resolved by the military. Although don't think that's a good enough reason to deny gays the ability to openly serve in the army.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]


Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont think there is a significant difference between skin color and sexuality?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause people were never afraid of black people wanting to sexually harass them? A lot of homophobia comes from sexist guys being afraid of other guys treating them the way that those sexist guys treat women.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to make this clear, it will be very complicated and by no means will this issue be easily resolved by the military. Although don't think that's a good enough reason to deny gays the ability to openly serve in the army.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I should say that the dont ask dont tell is very much enforced in favor of a gay service member. There is a host of rules covering exactly what constitutes "asking and telling" and you can even "untell" in certain circumstances.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you admit that there will be a high level of disruption, but you want to introduce that into military units (especially combat units)? How would deal with sort of disruption as a Unit Commanding Officer? For instance, do you allow openly gay military members use open showers for instance? If so, will you allow male and female service members to use open showers together as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of that I do not know how it would exactly work out. I only think that there would be an initial disruption...then the policy would be level itself out.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]


Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]


Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course not. Pretty pathetic. Go with that and see how many female recruits there are next year.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]


CC,

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont think there is a significant difference between skin color and sexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

not in this context.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think its just that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you admit that there will be a high level of disruption, but you want to introduce that into military units (especially combat units)? How would deal with sort of disruption as a Unit Commanding Officer? For instance, do you allow openly gay military members use open showers for instance? If so, will you allow male and female service members to use open showers together as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of that I do not know how it would exactly work out. I only think that there would be an initial disruption...then the policy would be level itself out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats easy for you to say. But the CO has to make those decisions as soon as something like that is implemented. If you want to implement something radical, you ought to have some answers. I dont mean you personally necessary, but upper level policy makers who want to implement things like this.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cause people were never afraid of black people wanting to sexually harass them? A lot of homophobia comes from sexist guys being afraid of other guys treating them the way that those sexist guys treat women.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not have been scared of sexual harrassment, but I bet the "worst case scenario" back in 1950 seemed a lot worse - on both sides, BTW - than anything that would happen today. I don't think that repealing DADT would result in people getting killed; that was a legitimate concern in 1950. The armed forces did manage somehow, though.

Also, women in the military had all these same problems *and* needed to get their own barracks, restrooms, etc. at the military's expense. Once again, they managed it with no loss of life or morale. What's the holdup?

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thats easy for you to say. But the CO has to make those decisions as soon as something like that is implemented. If you want to implement something radical, you ought to have some answers. I dont mean you personally necessary, but upper level policy makers who want to implement things like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's pull ourselves out of that massive quote fest.

I empathize with what you're saying. It certainly would be hell for these COs to have to implement this rule change. The showering, barracks, hazing, and a litany of other things would come up because of it. I certainly don't have all the answers for how to make this work, and I am probably the last person the military would look to for answers on this subject. Separate quarters and things would not be a bad idea in my opinion. I guess this debate really comes to a conclusion here? Since we are at a bit of an impasse, you want more answers for implementation that I can't give you.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights?

This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an openly gay roomate with a heterosexual one in the military doesn't necesarily mean that the gay person will be attracted to, or want to have sexual relations with their rommate.

I can think of lots of examples of gay and straight people living together as roomates - in fact, one of my own roomates might even be gay, I don't feel that he is sexually attracted to me, and if he was, he wouldn't act on it. The same could be said for different-gendered rommates. Just because a man chooses to live with a woman (this happens a lot in college) doesn't mean they are sexually attracted to each other, or if they were, any sexual relations between them would result.

I think the average American, especially the standard conservative-minded soldier, still has strong homophobic feelings, which is why we won't see (IMO) an openly pro-gay policy in the military. This is unfortunate and unequal for gays and lesbians, but it will take some time before the general public gets acclimated to having homosexuals in the military. The military is a conservative institution, conservative don't approve of homosexual behvaior, therefore we won't see a pro-gay military structure until this trend changes.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

I really can't see having a gay roommate being a problem. If it is a problem for someone I think there could be the option to request not to have a gay roommate.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of lots of examples of gay and straight people living together as roomates - in fact, one of my own roomates might even be gay

[/ QUOTE ]

I lived in a 2BR apartment with my fiancee (now wife) and gay best friend for a year and change. Somehow, no threesomes or cheating was involved and everyone still liked each other afterwards!

(which was impressive, considering everyone involved usually hates roommates)

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

For the people using the black soldier analogy, don't you agree that there was a time when it would not have been worth the trouble to try to integrate the army, say 1900? If I was sent back in time and my task was to make the US army stronger I would not demand integration until much later. The question is whether we are in 1950 or 1900. I think we are in 1950 but some people may disagree. I think everybody with a brain realizes that it will happen one day.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

I like Max's post.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like Max's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Max's "post" also... if by "post" you mean penis and by "like" you mean pounding me with.

also the 1900/1950 analogy isn't bad

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

I think the biggest problem would be coming up with enough guns so that they could always be color coordinated no matter what camo pattern they're wearing.

Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem would be coming up with enough guns so that they could always be color coordinated no matter what camo pattern they're wearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Stay tuned for a preview of next week's Queer Eye for the Miltary Guy, where the boys will be updating the barracks from yesterday's olive green to a more vibrant and eclectic living quarters"

Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hijack this debate about homosexuality, but since this is the debate thread, I thought I'd give more info on some of the questioners. It wasn't only the gay General who endorsed Hillary, we are finding out that a bunch of the YouTube questioners have endorsed Democratic candidates or currently or formerly worked for Democrats.

1. The Gay General Kerr endorsed Hillary
2. The guy who asked the qustion about blacks and the GOP supports Edwards.
3. Adam Florzak asked a question about social security. He works for Democratic Senator Durbin of Illinois.
4. Mark Strauss who asked if Ron Paul would run as an independent has endorsed Democrat Bill Richardson
5. Ted Faturos who asked about corn subsidies used to work for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman
6. The woman who asked the abortion question has endorsed John Edwards (she has several YouTube videos proclaiming her support of Edwards).
7. David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republican question has endorsed Obama.
8. The woman who asked about lead in Chinese toys supports Edwards.

When CNN re-aired the debate, they edited out the General Kerr question because they were apparently embarrassed that a Democratic plant was allowed to ask a question. If they continue that policy, they will have to edit out 1/3 of the debate.

All CNN had to do was watch some of these questioners other YouTube videos (where they declared there political allegiance), or done a quick google search to discover this info. I'm not saying that these questions weren't legit, but don't you think that the audience deserved to be told that a bunch of the people asking the questions are Democrats? After all, this is a Republican debate. While we're at it, did CNN allow a host of questioners who have endorsed Republicans to ask questions on the Democratic YouTube debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asymmetry in media coverage is the rule. THis is mostly ignored since those best positioned to report on the asymmetry commit the most egregious offenses. That leaves secondary media dropping the dime on CNN bias. AM radio was all over it. Hugh Hewitt eats it up with a spoon.

But the sad truth is that there are so many sheep.

Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
 

How come "OMG, having a gay roommate" is such a big deal in the military when it's not a big deal in colleges at all? The freshmen in the dorms are the same age as the young recruits and no one would even consider telling gays they have to live off-campus. I think if they allowed openly gay soldiers in the military, some homophobes would whine for a year or two, and then no one would really care.

Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
 

I am not getting the part of this thread about gays in the army!

Would you not expect to have more gays in the army than in the rest of the population, percentage wise?

It seems obvious to me that it would be so. But so what, those a valiant soldiers defending their country!?