From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:31:35 GMT

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>| 
>| No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When 
>| women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in 
>| order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have 
>| to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer, 
>| "They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will 
>| decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with 
>| heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the 
>| active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  This leads us right 
>| back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how 
>| the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.

>This is really weird to me.

>When I went to college, I rapidly found out that, although our floor was
>ostensibly male-only, there were women living in various rooms on the
>floor.  There was one communal bathroom with two shower stalls, toilets,
>sinks, etc.  I would be shaving and a woman would walk out of the shower.
>So what?  

>What the fuck is with people?  I like looking at naked women -- so what
>do you think I am going to do, tackle the first one out of the shower
>stall?  I like looking at men -- so am I supposed to tackle them too?

>At most Pagan camping-gatherings, bathrooms (and shower facilities) are
>communal.  I have never heard anyone complain.

>If you are in the military, you should probably be more concerned
>at how well the person next to you is trained than whether that person
>admires your genitalia.

>   Fritz

Y'all are gettin pretty hypocritical... according to all you PC feminist
folk, sexual harassment is ANY BEHAVIOR OF ANY KIND THAT A WOMAN FINDS
OFFENSIVE INCLUDING LOOKING AT SOMEONE.

Double edged sword here liberal folk, wake up and smell your own hypocrisy.

I would be VERY offended and uncomfortable to have to shower with a gay
guy staring at MY tush... therefore by you PC people's own definition this
constitutes sexual harassment.

Also, there's another consideration which you are all ignoring and that is
this:

Let's assume that 80% of the military are "prejudiced" against homosexuals,
and that in combat this fact WILL endanger the group because they are not
cohesive.  Now, even if we assume gays are correct that they should not be
ostracized for their sexuality, is it REALLY worth letting tons of people
die for this?  I think not.  No offense, but when it comes to war, when
thousands of people are already dying, I think the "caring liberals" oughtta
sacrifice this ridiculous ideal to save actual lives.  But of course, they
only want the "symbol" of being the more caring side of society, but when
it comes to proving it, they are without "substance" in their actions.

I'd rather have some pissed off gays then a bunch of dead Americans.

Have a nice day,


Me

no sig cause I don't really care

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh