When a woman in the military feels she is sexually harassed, she has recourse through her chain of command and, ultimately, the EO office. If a straight man feels he is being sexually harassed by a gay man (and if you think it doesn't happen even with DADT you are walking around with your eyes closed) you have ZERO recourse. There may be some chains of command out there sympathetic to such complaints but the EO office isn't set up to handle that. Do away with DADT and that will become more pronounced. In fact, given the nature of the people supporting this change and their blissful ignorance of how it will affect peoples' private lives I suspect that a straight man complaining of sexual harassment from a gay man will be, at best labeled a homophobe, and at worst will be charged for harassment himself, all in an effort to pacify gays whose right to serve trumps any else's right to privacy.

"All I care is that I have a qualified and competent serviceman (non-gender specific) beside me in the time of battle."

That's the blissful ignorance I spoke of…sooo, when you're not in battle you don't care that the guy in the rack next to you is wacking off while staring at you, and you won't have the system in place to complain about it, like women do…So, I assume you are also in favor of forcing women to live in barracks with men.

"So what about civilian institution?" How do they handle it for women?

"What about Burger King, Starbucks, etc etc?" How do they handle it for women?

Dumbass, stop creating fictional issues. They were able to provide separate facilities for women, PRIMARILY, to ensure their security. Why can't they do the same after lifting DADT?

"Not like a gay male or female has to state his/her sexual orientation when they enlist" Of course, they don't – ITS CALLED DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!! If they drop that, however, who's to say that stating one's orientation shouldn't be grounds for determining where you sleep and shower.

Bottom line – forcing people to be placed in sexually harassing situations is a violation of privacy. The "they already serve" red herring line doesn't hold water. It's no different than a woman showering when she thinks she is alone but if she found out there was a peep hole in the room she suddenly feels violated…the peep hole has been there all along. Does that make it ok to just go ahead and let the men who were watching through the peep hole into the shower with the woman and she has to accept it because she was already being watched??

Retards, and willing ones at that. I'm still stunned that the same people who advocate DADT being dropped are the same crowd crowing about a woman's right to privacy…hypocrites and retards.

88mm

7:08 am on March 1st, 2010

I’m going to say it. I think homosexuality is disgusting. Be it biological or a lifestyle choice or a mixture of the two, I just do not like it. I think it is unnatural and repulsive. I don’t care if my comments offend some or all of you. Repeal DADT or leave it in place it makes no difference I will still be repulsed by homosexuals. Yes I acknowledge they are people with rights and blah blah blah. I put up with them because I have to. A lot of us do and because of wanting to appear gay friendly or pc we compromise our own personal values or our integrity. I am sure I am not alone in this I am just the only one with the guts to admit I don’t like homosexuality. That being said I don’t hate people individually if they are homosexual, I just find them repulsive. And to finish, I don’t care if you don’t like it or think I’m small minded. I know this comment will bring a lot of flak, I just don’t care.

And once again, here's my question:

I’m curious what you mean by "I put up with them because I have to."

Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of what a person does in order to put up with gay people.

The reason I ask is because I can’t ever think of a situation or time in my life when I had to put up with gays. But since I was career military, I was never knowingly around gays – although I’m sure some of the soldiers I worked with were gay. I’ve been places over the years (big cities usually) where I have seen people who by all appearances were gay. But there wasn’t anything for me to put up with as it was just someone I saw – not someone with whom I ever had any interaction.

I got your six. I agree with you 100% and it needed to be said.

88mm

7:08 am on March 1st, 2010

I put up with them because I have to.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of what a person does in order to put up with gay people.

The reason I ask is because I can't ever think of a situation or time in my life when I had to put up with gays. But since I was career military, I was never knowingly around gays – although I'm sure some of the soldiers I worked with were gay. I've been places over the years (big cities usually) where I have seen people who by all appearances were gay. But there wasn't anything for me to put up with as it was just someone I saw – not someone with whom I ever had any interaction.

The clubs in the ville will never be closed down now. They will import the "ladyboys" from the PI. They will fight over GI cock-a-doodles with the Korean "Ladyboys". Might be quite a show on the weekends.

Well… his commander supports his return…

…so I guess he doesn't suck at his job.

Heh.

As a side note worth considering, Lt. Col. Andonie certainly can see which way the wind is blowing (so to speak).

As soon as Obama starts trying to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, Andonie was quick to demonstrate he is a leader in the new equality.

He must be the first to get his boxes proudly checked for inclusiveness, tolerance and equal opportunity.

Leon is right, you all know… unofficial quotas for homosexuals, insuring that statistic-fearing leadership can't be shown to be anti-gay, is right around the corner.