Open sexuality and sexual orientation have always been a part of the military:

Examples:

1. http://military.discovery.com/histor...nups-vote.html

2. The common knowledge that military men were having sex with women (and other men) domestically and abroad.

3. Then when women were able to join the military, some heterosexual military men were thrilled to be able to have sex with some of the heterosexual military women.

4. Heterosexual military men talk to each other about their wives, girlfriends, and other women.

5. Heterosexual military women talk to each other about their husbands and boyfriends, and other men.

"Open sexuality" is only noticed when it isn't heterosexuality. That's what heterocentrism does. I don't think getting rid of DADT will make the sexuality and sexual orientation any more open than it has always been.

Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means here. But well played on making it clear you think I'm including you when I was being general about attitudes of people thinking that someone being just as open about who they are and their life magically makes them a bullet point on the Gay Agenda.

Maybe the new realm of open sexuality is now people can't be persecuted, harassed, and dishonorably discharged by people for being gay & lesbian anymore? People who went after other based on their own ignorance, fears, prejudice, whatever, now can't use DADT and need to accept reality or look into another career.

To inform a previous poster on why the repeal was controversial, as I've said multiple times before.

Actually it does mean what I think it does. You were assuming I was egotistical, and that that had an impact on what my views on the issue are. You made an assumption about my character as part of your argument. Textbook ad homenim.

Oh no, really? You assumed I was talking about you, and I wasn't. I didn't originally quote you, or post your username, so again, it doesn't mean what you think it does, because it wasn't about YOU. Wanting to make it about you, well that's your own problem, as my comment wasn't just about the military, but heterosexual people, mostly men, who have fear of anyone gay automatically wanting them sexually. Projection much?

While it is true that you didn't directly refer to me, you implyed a connection between those that are uncomfortable with the repeal and the egotistical feeling of being "all that". You were stating that we (apparently in our own group) are uncomfortable because we feel that gays will be constantly coming onto us because we think we're so wanted. Since I am among the group that is feeling a bit uncomfortable about the decision, I am, by your logic, guilty of being "all that."

I just don't think you're going to hear me when I'm going to say again "it wasn't just about DADT and the military" and I'm taking it to all kinds of groups and situations. If you want to keep applying it to yourself and choose to be insulted or targeted you can, but it was neither my intention nor the reality of my statement. It applies to Greek orgs., police & fire officers, sports teams, other work places, and so on, not specifically the military.

If there are individuals who have come out and make moves on people of the same sex it should be handled just like it has been for heterosexual people. If women in the military have been come on to for however long, professionals can take a cue from them and handle it the same way for same sex situations. If anyone, male female, same or opposite sex, is not getting the message that their overtures are not welcome, they should be talked to about professionalism and sexual harassment.

A very reasonable point. I believe this is where I'm going to say that we have slightly different interpretations and opinions regarding the DADT policy, but I will leave it at that. This argument has gone on for too long. It was good debating with you though.

I said the same thing during a conversation I was having today at church. I was told that men making unwelcome advances onto men is not sexual harassment.

http://narizdegelatina.files.wordpre...ng?w=320&h=160

My people. smh. :(