Barack Obama signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal this morning — time to hit the showers, fellas!

From The Blaze:

Not allowing gay military personnel to shower with straight military peronnel would be “discrimination.” That’s the position of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress who is a proponent of banishing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Frank told CNSNews.com that the idea that people might be concerned over gays and straights showering together, and the possible disruption it could case, is a “silly issue.”

In that case, Barney would think I’m very discriminatory, because I don’t want to shower with any men.

If it’s discriminatory to forbid gay men from showering with straight men, does that mean it’s discriminatory to keep straight men from showering with women? God I hope so.

Comments

14 Responses to “Barney Frank Asked if Gay Men Should Be Allowed to Shower With Straight Men — Gee, I Wonder What His Answer Was”

  1. Soul on December 22nd, 2010 4:32 pm

    The showing bit….. I work out early at a gym. And when I finished lifting, many of the guys that work 8 to 5 jobs are busy cleaning up, showering. Who ever designed the locker room at my gym did a poor job because the weigh scale is next to the door. And for what ever reason guys will run from the locker area, to the scale for a nude weighing, and then into the shower. I tell you, there are few scarier things in the morning than to walk casually into a gym locker room and find a big naked dude running straight at you!

  2. Linda on December 22nd, 2010 4:36 pm

    Military men shower together now, which would include gay men, who aren't openly gay showering with straight men.

    Military women shower together now, which would include gay women, who aren't openly gay showering with straight women.

    Why people think repeal of DADT is going to cause this sudden shift in behavior, gay or straight, is beyond me.

  3. Doug on December 22nd, 2010 4:44 pm

    I'll leave the valid opinions on this to those of you who serve or have served, but I think it's going to make a BIG shift. Why? Because it's now a political issue. Frank said it: Discrimination. Where there's discrimination, there's discrimination lawsuits. And where there are discrimination lawsuits, there are discrimination attorneys with clients "pushing the envelope" for actionable cases.

    And the problem won't even necessarily come from those who are serving — gay OR straight — but from outside entities looking for yet another reason to sue for discrimination. Just wait…

    Nobody thinks the radical left homosexual lobby was so thrilled about this repeal because they were just dying to join the Army, do they?

    Veterans or active duty military, the floor is yours.

  4. Marshall_Will on December 22nd, 2010 4:49 pm

    Linda,

    Good question, fair enough. I can't speak for "the grunts" ( I've always been a techno-geek "warrior"! ) but I can see where in spite of BF's flippant response, there could be issues.

    Unlike a civilian 9 to 5 job ( you're kind of stuck w/ one another ) for better or worse. I'll be perfectly honest here, I…'ve never really cared all that much for showering in front of -straight- men. Some of us guys that are honest about it ( and "hung like hamster"! ) prefer to get in.., and get OUT!

    In the military, I'm sure there will be guys ( gals ) that structure their activities 'around' those known gays. 'This' gives them all the power, at least where that part of the work-relationship goes? I realize that sounds kind of primal, but that's just been my experience.

  5. Scott B on December 22nd, 2010 5:24 pm

    "…does that mean it’s discriminatory to keep straight men from showering with women? God I hope so."

    Like the Bud Lite commercials… "Here we go!"

  6. Rob_OK on December 22nd, 2010 5:34 pm

    As a Veteran, I can speak with some level of comfort when I say that there is a huge difference between a military and a so-called civilian job. The difference is that if you can't or ,perhaps more importantly, do not wish to tolerate your co-workers and their proclivities, you always have the choice of seeking employment elsewhere. In addition, there is substantial difference between suspecting the coworker next to you taking a shower is gay and knowing it for an absolute fact.

    If we are to be compelled to tolerate the discomfort of having someone examine our bodies in the most uncomfortable and unwelcome of circumstances, should we not also, in the name of anti-discrimination, force men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, to co-habitate in all regards including berthing, restrooms, showers, etc?

    Could it not be argued that it is discrimination to impose one set of standards on one gender and not the other? If such a measure were to be passed, it could save the military, hence the taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars annually, removing infrastructure hindrances to having women serve in combat roles, such as on submarines and other duty stations where the inability to have separate facilities is problematic or impractical.

    Somehow, I believe that if these types of arguments had been raised, the push back would have been substantial by both genders. The law of unintended consequences is going to bite some on the buttocks in ways that they had not anticipated due to this decision. I am also interested in how the opinion poll might have changed if these arguments had been included in the polling process. Policy and procedure are great things, but cannot be forced on the operators. Such an undertaking by policy or political will is tantamount to legislating morality, which has been tried in the past, and failed miserably…can anyone remember prohibition?

  7. Marshall_Will on December 22nd, 2010 5:53 pm

    "because they are just *DYING TO JOIN* the Army" ( there… fixed! )

    What I meant to say was that "I've never really cared all that much for showering in front of [other] -straight- men" is what I 'meant' to say. I was kidding about that other part 'too'. ( 'It' actually throws my back out! )

    Kidding aside, I would have -never- thought of the whole Lawsuit angle! But here's yet 'another' social justice-landmine no one is going to be willing to sacrifice their CAREER over! Save for (1) everyone I answer to at my Base is Female, and I don't think gals that have already served in Iraq are going to be all that sympathetic b/c you 'think' someone is crotch-gazing you?

  8. OK_Loyalist on December 22nd, 2010 6:53 pm

    Fwrank is a perverted reprobate that should of been expelled from the House years ago!

  9. SignPainterGuy on December 22nd, 2010 8:27 pm

    Ditto ! Eeeyepuh !

  10. veteransinpol on December 23rd, 2010 10:01 pm

    Contact: Nick Starling (702) 409-1499
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    We Are Against Homosexuals Serving Openly in the Military
    Veterans In Politics International wonders how would the logistics be worked out as the President signed the repeal bill “don’t ask, don’t tell”

    Las Vegas, NV – December 22, 2010 – “We don’t need homosexuals to serve openly in the military,” said Steve Sanson, President of Veterans In Politics International and Host of the Veterans In Politics Talk Show, until all logistical factors are worked out. Sanson said “are you kidding me” with regard to the President of the United States signing the repeal bill “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibits open homosexuals from serving in the military.

  11. veteransinpol on December 23rd, 2010 10:02 pm

    Sanson and his membership are totally against this repeal for homosexuals to serve openly in our military with questions left unanswered. Sanson a former US Marine that served in Desert Storm and the US Army said that there is a reason man and women have separate living spaces and restrooms. Sanson said that men are naturally attractive to women and chemicals develop within the body that causes arousals that are natural between men and women. If this same type of arousal happens in homosexuals are we going to have separate living quarters and restrooms for homosexuals as well?

    Sanson wants to know if our politicians in Washington ever served in the military and don’t realize the close quarters that our military share. Sanson said is our government willing to fund separate quarters for homosexuals that develop the same type of aerosols men and women develop for each other.

  12. veteransinpol on December 23rd, 2010 10:02 pm

    Sanson said that we need to start developing policy that are going to protect our military in combat and serve them when they come home instead of wasting tax payer’s money trying to force open homosexuality in our military.
    ###

    For more information, contact Nick Starling CEO/Public Relations Officer
    702-409-1499 http://www.veteransinpolitics.com

  13. Wow on December 24th, 2010 7:57 pm

    Perhaps thestraight guy can tell if he's showering with a gay if the gay man gets an erection then he can run or stay no problem.

  14. @blandinbasement on December 26th, 2010 6:44 pm

    We legislate morality all of the time–it's illegal to kill, is it not? That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. In the military, their function should be simple, and free from the political nuance of discrimination. Frankly, discrimination can be a wise thing…I discriminate against men when I use the bathroom, no? If I were serving in the military, and gay females in the military could be open, and were open—I would then require the military to PROTECT me! I don't want to shower with men, nor do I want to shower with gay women. How do you negotiate that can of worms being opened by DADT??

    It would solve a lot of issues if people just admitted that homosexuality is morally wrong—and shouldn't be pandered to. Alas, this is the world we live in…legally obliging the naked emperor….if the public notices, just provide a framework compelling them to accept it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.