I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

for all *intents* and purposes

I don’t like Barney, but he has a point here!

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

At-Ten-HUT!

JT said:
for all *intents* and purposes

I am no longer allowed to write anything about anyone else’s typos. The instant I wrote up that Fox News Holocaust story I was like “I am going to misspell something so quick today…”

Barney has a point? What point would that be?

CAconservative said:
Barney has a point? What point would that be?

He hides it with a hat.

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

CAconservative: Since being gay is a choice, my proposal would be to send all prospective “armed service gays” to one of those Deprogramming Centers run by various churches nationwide. Successful completion of their program would rid them of their disgusting urges. Then they can shower with straight guys and not get a hard-on or feel the primal need to act upon their urges to the determent of our real troops. I think that might work.

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

Are you stupid, bigoted, and a liability to the country? Yes. Should you be allowed to vote? No. Should you learn to spell “apologize”? Yes. Should you apologies for spelling apologize wrong? Nahh. Have you been with a member of the opposite sex in a year that starts with 2? Doubtful. Is your IQ higher than my dogs? Yes, technically speaking. But my dog doesn’t get to influence public policy in even the smallest of ways. Should you killself and save the rest of us from your future misguided votes? Ummm…?? Merry Holidays!

I hope mush mouth didn’t get any on the dude.

Publius219 said:
Are you stupid, bigoted, and a liability to the country? Yes. Should you be allowed to vote? No. Should you learn to spell “apologize”? Yes. Should you apologies for spelling apologize wrong? Nahh. Have you been with a member of the opposite sex in a year that starts with 2? Doubtful. Is your IQ higher than my dogs? Yes, technically speaking. But my dog doesn’t get to influence public policy in even the smallest of ways. Should you killself and save the rest of us from your future misguided votes? Ummm…?? Merry Holidays!

Oooooo spelling nazism…….the last vestiages of a shitty argument.

This reporter is doing his job by posing questions that are newsworthy. The whole showering thing is a big deal on Capitol Hill and he’s getting the sound bytes and clips he needs to disseminate the information to the public. He never divulges his personal views on the subject– NEVER. We can’t make assumptions and put words in his mouth, and we have no idea what he actually thinks about the matter. If you want to know, why don’t you contact him and ask him instead of lambasting him in a public forum? (And by the way, I’m a giant liberal who is vehement about gay rights, to be clear.) Oh, and on that note– CAconservative… how many gay people have you chatted with, sat down with, and asked questions to get their perspective so you can form an intelligent opinion about the subject? *crickets*

Ed Lascar said:
I don’t like Barney, but he has a point here!

Sorry but Barney has no point. In public gyms we don’t know who is gay. That is the point of DADT. That is what the reporter should have said back at Barn. If Barn was taking a shower would YOU join him?

Jon Bershad said:
I am no longer allowed to write anything about anyone else’s typos. The instant I wrote up that Fox News Holocaust story I was like “I am going to misspell something so quick today…”

Everyone here should learn that. People that try to PRETEND they are smart by pointing out typos, spelling and grammar errors just make themselves look like pompous fools.

Jonathan Scott said:
Remember Republican douchebags when you talk to Barney Frank bring your “A” game or you will get buried. He does this so often to unprepared Republicans he should have his own reality show. It could be called “Watch Barney Frank make this Republican douchebag look like a little girl”. I would watch it.

Barney is very quick on his feet. Someone who can go toe to toe with Bill O’Reilly and not lose is a tough cookie! I love his combative style. Funny guy too as evidenced from his recent appearance on Hardball.

If Barn was taking a shower I would have said shower fumigated,
if not burned immediaitely after his use of it!

gordonbloyershow said:
Sorry but Barney has no point. In public gyms we don’t know who is gay. That is the point of DADT. That is what the reporter should have said back at Barn. If Barn was taking a shower would YOU join him?

DADT isn’t going to make gay soldiers put on pride parades or anything. It’s simply protecting the jobs of the men and women in our military if the fact that they are gay is discovered.

gordonbloyershow said:
Sorry but Barney has no point. In public gyms we don’t know who is gay. That is the point of DADT. That is what the reporter should have said back at Barn. If Barn was taking a shower would YOU join him?

I wouldn’t join him, and I DEFINITELY wouldn’t join that gross face (if it is yours). You just made Barney’s point. You shower with gays anyway, the only difference is now you know. The ironic part is the guys that are complaining are so repugnant, that no gays could get aroused or want to look at them. Yuck.

Also stop projecting your own disgusting habits. Because you can’t hug a female without getting a boner (Stick to christian side hugs), doesn’t mean everyone else is as filthy as you are.

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

Its your opinion.. The things in this world will keep changing, and I am sure in couple of generations, Homosexuals won’t be a big deal and people will just all get together.. Things like the repeal of DADT are making way for a much more open society

My gym does have separate showers.

Bawney Fwank is a p.o.s., period and an obnoxious ass.

Gasket said:
Barney is very quick on his feet. Someone who can go toe to toe with Bill O’Reilly and not lose

Fact: You mean The Barney Frank!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqcCPw9VK0&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/06/11/barney-frank-loses-it-on-cnbc-tcot/

redleaf said:
CAconservative: Since being gay is a choice, my proposal would be to send all prospective “armed service gays” to one of those Deprogramming Centers run by various churches nationwide. Successful completion of their program would rid them of their disgusting urges. Then they can shower with straight guys and not get a hard-on or feel the primal need to act upon their urges to the determent of our real troops. I think that might work.

Redleaf, I forget if you are a liberal or not, so I hope that was sarcasm. Sounds like it was…sarcasm is hard to sense on the internets.

gordonbloyershow said:
Sorry but Barney has no point. In public gyms we don’t know who is gay. That is the point of DADT. That is what the reporter should have said back at Barn. If Barn was taking a shower would YOU join him?

You may not know they are gay, but there is a tell-tale sign they show if they are…can you guess what that is?

If I was in need of a shower and Barney Frank happened to be in there, I’d shower and get out. Would I be uncomfortable? Perhaps, but do I think Barney would assault me? I have no reason to. It’s that simple. I’d like to think that our gay soldiers puts their mission before their desires and that they were mature enough to take a shower and get out. I’d like to think that our soldiers are mature and disciplined enough that showering with gay people for a short amount of time would not bother them. And as the Pentagon study indicated, it doesn’t seem to.

CAconservative said:
Am I homophobic

Yes,yes you are.I’m wondering are all the males on here yelling the most about the shower,boner thing, have they had this problem themselves towards other males in the showers and they just can’t deal with it? Caconservitive when you strip down for your Dr. are you sure he isan’t gay and just wants to get in your pants.How about your Dentist afraid he may feel you up when your under?What about when you do business at the bank are you afraid some man is eying your crotch?You people sound like your from another decade.

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question. I’d give him an answer he really doesn’t want to hear. Is it OK to be disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle? HELL YES!! Will I apologies for my personal beliefs? HELL NO! Am I homophobic, afraid of gays…only if I’m outnumbered in the SHOWER!!

And there it is. No one expects you to apologize for your feelings,as long as you realize they’re you’re problem and nobody should be expected to hide who they are to make sure you don’t feel uncomfortable. What you’re saying, and the point Barney is making, is you might shower with a gay person in a gym or in the army on a regular basis and it’s not a problem when you believe he’s straight. If you were to discover he’s gay, suddenly you’re disgusted? We can’t control how we feel but it’s up to us to as adults to deal with out feelings.

It strikes me as odd that soldiers are trained to kill , and be emotionally and mentally strong, but the idea of showering with a gay man is just too much.

DanaB said:

This reporter is doing his job by posing questions that are newsworthy. The whole showering thing is a big deal on Capitol Hill and he’s getting the sound bytes and clips he needs to disseminate the information to the public.

It’s not really newsworthy. Barney told him it was a non issue and and he wanted to keep talking. Asking him a question is fair game.

Why not allow men and women in the armed forces to shower together??? Answer: sexual Urges and making women feel uncomfortable. Why allow straight and gay men to shower together when the straight man feels the same level of uncomfortableness as the female in the first question??? Absolutely NO difference. And the analogy drawn by Barney is showers in the sports programs??? Well, I think maybe because those are not funded by my tax dollars. And maybe, if you haven’t sucked soooo many dicks in the past Barney, you may be able to speak without a lisp.

“DADT isn’t going to make gay soldiers put on pride parades or anything. It’s simply protecting the jobs of the men and women in our military if the fact that they are gay is discovered.”

It is the showers that that become telling for gays. When someone is standing there glass-eyed with a boner, the shower empties fast. They also tend to hang out in the showers causing complete upheaval.

Pokerdude777 said:
Why not allow men and women in the armed forces to shower together??? Answer: sexual Urges and making women feel uncomfortable

Actually it’s more cultural and tradition. There were soldiers who didn’t want to be in the shower or barracks with black men either but they were wrong and we as a society moved past it.

If you’ve showered with a guy you thought was straight several times without any incident , and then discovered he was gay what the hell difference would it make except in your own mind. for crying out loud, soldiers are trained to kill , and endure all kinds of hardships, and to be mentally and emotionally strong, but you think being uncomfortable about a gay man in the shower is asking too much?

Good news: this website (====== (http://)(bingshop).us =====) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied
（=== (http://)(bingshop).us =====）

Wow. The liberals and progressves on here are as ignorant as Barney Frank is. And I doubt any have served any time in an infantry unit, so let me clue you in on a few things. DADT (of which my service pre and post dates) was put in place as protection for gay people. That protection has now been removed. Real smart. I’ll bet you’ll be the first to whine when the first openly gay Marine or soldier is killed. Then you’ll taut how brave he was, and raise him to martydom. Disgusting. But remember this, his blood is on your hands for putting sexually immature people (all 18-20 year olds) and a sexually confused deviant (homosexual) in the situation where their sexualiies clash. Enjoy. And yes, I used the term “deviant” in the literal context. If you think a man having buttsex with another man is not a sexual deviancy, you’re an ignorant fool.
As to Barney’s ridiculous “comeback” the left is tauting as some sort of victory, it’s absurd. In the gym, you can leave whenever you want. Or just not shower. In the military, you do not have that option. With the repeal of DADT, you are in effect being forced to shower with an openly homosexual person, against any personal belief or level of discomfort you may have. This would be exactly like forcing an 18 year old female to shower with 18 year old men. For the idiot who will say it is different, please explain how. Does the elusive “gay gene” give a homosexual superhuman discipline over his sexual urges? I don’t think so. (besides, doesn’t the gay community claim they are just like everyone else?) If they were that disciplined, STD’s wouldn’t be rampant in the gay community. Gay rapes and sexual assaults wouldn’t occur (which are more common than you think. 14 on my ship in a 6 month period, with 1 Marine killed because of his homosexuality).

Now lets look at facts concerning health issues that will now be an increased danger to our troops who have other pressing matters to worry about. 20% of gay men have HIV, with 44% of them not even knowing it. see here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html Put another way, if you know 10 gay men, 2 are HIV positive, and 1 doesn’t even know it and is continuing to spread it (currently over 1 million cases in the US; up from 20 in 1983). Gay men are over 44 times more likely to get HIV than any other group, and are the only group where the HIV rate is steadily increasing (apparently, education on condom use doesn’t work, so that option is out…). 53% of all new HIV cases are in gay men (who make up ~2-3% of the total population, or 4% of males 13 years old and up) see here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf A very telling mental health study from the Netherlands (where there’s no stigma attached to homosexuality, so “homophobic society” is not the cause of gay’s mental disorders) is here: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/58/1/85?view=full&fp=85&vol=58&lookupType=volpage Yeah, just the people we want carrying guns and knowing how to use them, although with the increased phobias, they may be too scared to. 63% of syphills cases in the US are in gay men. Gay men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer (see: http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm). 20 year decrease in life expectency (more dangerous than smoking at 13.5 year decrease). It goes on ad nauseum….
The VA will have to treat and compensate for these health issues when the gay member leaves the military, which puts the taxpayer on the hook for a gay member’s risky beavior all because proponents of repealing DADT let their emotions override rational thought. While in service, the “infected” gay member will be non-deployable while getting treatment or processed out. Put in real life terms, that means if he’s on my fireteam (4 Marines), I lost 25% of my firepower. Since he’ll still be counted on my TO&E, he won’t be replaced until he’s discharged, or cured and sent back to my team. And it’s not like my fireteam won’t be tasked with the same missions just because I’m a man short. In combat, a 25% drop in firepower means dead Marines.
How does Barney feel about Article 125 of the UCMJ? In essence, with DADT repealed, the gay service member can come out of the closet, but he can not have gay sex, period. Or, knowing the health issues, and the personnel shortages imposed by them, would people support getting rid of Article 125 to feed their emotional desires for “fairness” and “equality”, at the expense of military readiness, capability, troop safety, and unit morale?
In short, Barney’s an idiot.

hater, nice point dumbass

Jonathan Scott said:
The other really great thing about DADT being repealed is that it makes gay haters like you really angry. The world is passing you by and you cant stand it. Good thing you dont serve anymore.

Fact: The little dog barks at the fence until the gate on that same fence is opened!

cjd ohio 1 said:
hater, nice point dumbass

Fact: Another example here of the barking dog senario!

Well, let me respond to the point raised by Rep. Barney Frank, who is presently the only homosexual man openly serving in the US Congress.

My response:

Those customers who use public gyms do not essentially disclose their sexual preferences, and if they did as the US military will do henceforth, the heterosexual customers not only have the luxury of choosing not to shower with the homosexual members of a gym; but they could actually request for a separate bathing facility for themselves as heterosexuals or quit the gym entirely if they chose to.

Unfortunately,members of the military will not be given that privilege.

@Jonathan Scott, how about refuting any of the facts I presented. Oh, you mean you can’t? So you just go in to personal attacks, because that’s all you’ve got. Your bigotry and ignorance is showing. How sad.
My service was honorable (including a combat tour as a grunt), and you’re very welcome for my sacrifices. You’re free to spout your ignorant BS because of people like me. Were you man enough to fight for other people’s freedoms? For some reason, I doubt it. That would really show your ignorance on the subject matter; not having any military experience that would give you any insight to the issue at hand, yet trying to belittle a man who does. Especially when that experienced man presents irrefutable facts in support of his position, and you have none.

For your edification, I supported Lawrence v Texas (circa 2003). I think SCOTUS got the ruling correct, although the facts cited in the majority opinion were provably wrong. However, the military, by design, necessity, and law, is a different culture. Military members forfeit certain “rights” and freedoms in order to ensure the freedoms of others. This is necessary for something called “good order and discipline”, not to mention the physical safety and security of military assets (material and people). Among these freedoms are the “rights” to speech, asembly, assocation, search and seizure, etc. In the “association” aspect is the forfeiture of your right to fraternize or have sex with the person you desire, even if they are consenting (see Article 125 of the UCMJ for the sex aspect). Preventing the spread of disease in the military is a legitimate state (government) interest. As I showed above ad nauseum, the gay community is rampant with disease. If the facts offend your fragile sensibilities, so be it. I can’t change the facts. If you don’t like them, ask the CDC to change them based on your emotional dislike of them. I’m sure they’ll oblige just for you. But ask nicely.

In short, you’re just mad because you don’t have facts on your side to support your emotionally conceived opinion.

“Gay rapes and sexual assaults wouldn’t occur (which are more common than you think. 14 on my ship in a 6 month period, with 1 Marine killed because of his homosexuality).”

—I have no problem with the DOD prosecuting rapes and assaults of any kind, including the rapes and sexual harassment of suspected lesbian soldiers. Unfortunately, the military is more interested in outing gays who don’t rape and don’t assault. So perhaps now without DADT we’ll finally be discharging people for CONDUCT and not identity or speech.

Latino activists attack Fox Broadcast.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/latino-activists-attack-fox-broadcast/

I agree that all rapes and sexual assaults should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I don’t think the military is more interested in outing gays than prosecuting rapes and sexual assaults. What the media has not covered, is of the 13,000 who have been discharged since 1993 for being homosexual, how many violated Article 125 of the UCMJ? Article 125 is “Sodomy”, equally applicable to males, females, heterosexuals, & homosexuals. Would be interesting to see how many gays were kicked out just for proclaiming they were gay. The media has an interest in sensationalizing the “unfairness” of DADT, and I believe they would be inclined to just report a number discharged for “being gay”, without revealing the persons were actually caught violating a sodomy statute or having sex on ship. In any case, the person discharged did violate a federal law, and had due process through a court-martial, even if they had only openly proclaimed their homosexuality. Should the miltary courts only enforce the parts of the UCMJ they personally agree with? Aren’t they supposed to follow orders without question? As to witch hunts for homosexuals, that was expressly prohibited under DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass). If any of that had ocurred, the gay member could have challenged that witch hunt in the Article 32 hearing or court-martial. Once again, I think the media is being a lot dis-ingenuous with their reporting because they haven’t reported any solid facts (ie, charges and findings of Art 32 hearings), just a “sensational” number. Unfortunately, most Americans (and even veterans) don’t know enough about the military courts to understand the courts-martial procedures or that there is a lot of missing, but pertinent information.
Of the 14 I mentioned during a Med cruise (1 was my squad leader who was “manually manipulating” our platoon’s mechanic while he was passed out in his rack), all were caught engaging in sodomy and engaging in sex acts on a naval vessel, with a few charged with a sexual assault..
Do you propose we repeal Article 125? I don’t think that would be smart because of the inherent dangers associated with anal sex (regardless of male or female). Infections and anal tears are immediate reasons for a person to become non-deployable. Not to mention STD’s prevalent in gay anal sex. A 17 fold increase in anal cancer and other anal problems (including chronic anal leakage) would permanently render a person non-deployable (therefore unfit for military duty, and expensive for the taxpayer in VA compensation, medical treatment, and costs associated with recruiting/training a replacement). “Rimming” carries obvious infection risks (parasitic and bacterial), and is prevalent enough to have its own medical syndrome, “Gay Bowel Syndrome”, found predominately in gay men.
Here’s a good link to describe a lot of the medical dangers associated with gay sex: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf The medical information is unchanged. However, some of the stats are outdated, with current stats avaialble on CDC.gov. Suffice to say, Dr Diggs’s stats in the .pdf file are much lower than the current stats from more recent studies at the CDC. The numbers related to hazards encountered in gay sex are steadily increasing.
For those who supported repealing DADT, what percentage of gay men infected with HIV or other diseases would be the “magic” number to prohibit gays from serving? It’s at 20% with HIV now. How about 50%? Or would some say it doesn’t matter if 100% are infected, it is their “right” to serve, regardless of danger to other members of the service or detriment to military readines?
The military is for one purpose. To win wars. Anything that distracts or hinders them in any way from that one purpose should be avoided at all costs. That includes social experiments with clear hazards that serve only to satisfy the emotional desires of politicians courting a small, yet vocal constituency.

Your link to the Latino broadcasts is interesting. Why aren’t Anglos “properly” represented on Telemundo, Univision, and BET, out of concern for “fairness”? Are those your remarks in bullet points?

Loved it, lol. He tried to trap Frank and got trapped himself. Hee.

BTW, we can only embed YouTube videos here. All others have to be viewed at the source. That’s why you were having trouble.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SOEQYKETDNUGCN4OAXYQDTAUUY/blog/articles/217818?listPage=index&bb=0

Fact: I fell for one of those crap advertisements and hit the fucking link! Son of a bitch! Fuck! I felt like a lttle pussy democrat!

Very interesting comments. From what I can see, they should have left the military alone. Are there going to be “gay brigades” and special medals handed out? It will just divide the military and end up killing people while we either lose or can’t win as fast as we used to.

I know other countries allow gays to serve, but some of the military’s in these other countries are little more than social programs anyways.

This will probably go down in history as a big mistake.

CAconservative said:
I wish he would ask me that question.

Me too. Anything that might protect people from the trauma of seeing Barney Frank naked is a good and helpful thing and ought to be mandatory.

Jonathan Scott said:
It is our country going into other countries who really cant defend themselves and seeing how many brown people you can kill.

I’m truly stuck in trying to determine whether you’re more ignorant or reprehensible. You’ve got loads of both, jackass.

Jonathan Scott said:
yeah right you know you want to see Barney naked. Come out the closet.

Nobody wants to see Barney naked, Jackass. Even the gayest of the gay look at Barney and go “Ewwwwww….” So unless you know different, I’d suggest that you keep your sick little fantasies in your putrid little brain you repulsive sack of rat excrement. Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Pubic 219:

I’m sorry I misspelled “apologize”. Would it offend you if I mixed roses with sunflowers, or trouble you if I did not having doilies in my house? Apparently, I gored your ox…sorry? Or should I have said “gay-ox”? As with most gays, you have the mistaken belief that your mental, and emotional disability should be accepted. We do accept that fact. The problem is, you want to force it on us and then get upset when we tell you to keep it to yourself. You want to be gay, fine, but don’t try to tell us something that is that foreign to our sensibilities is normal, and should be warmly accepted. It’s not, it’s tolerated! The whole point being, no your place, stay within your circles and above all, except the fact that you are not among the norm but, will be treated with respect as long as you treat us with respect. That in essence is what DADT enforced.

Jon Bershad said:> Just in text, it doesn’t seem like Ballasy had a problem here. The interview wasn’t about him. However, in terms of confidence, it looks like Frank just steamrolled him. And, when you’re asking pointed questions like the ones Ballasy was asking, the desired result is most likely the very opposite. Let this be a lesson to all the reporters out there.

Yes, Barney Frank had a point there. It’s obvious that we should have Unisex facilities throughout the country (we can start in the Capitol building). Things are whatever Washington says they are. This political correctness is getting to be absurd.

@Jonathan Scott, I still see you haven’t refuted any of the facts I presented. But instead, you go on a tirade against the entire US miltary, which includes people of all walks of life. Classy.
Please post up a link from a reputable source that validates your statement that 1/3 of women in the US military were “raped, sexully molested, or threatened”.
To the whole respect thing. I don’t care if I get your respect. Respect from people with the character flaws you’ve exhibited is worthless.
You still haven’t answered my question about being man enough to fight for other people’s freedoms. After reading more of your drivel, I doubt you’re man enough to fight for your own, let alone being selfless enough to sacrifice anything for someone else. But hey, that’s OK. There will always be those who are willing to sacrifice everything to guarantee your freedom to be a complete ass. Some will pay the ultimate sacrifice this Christmas season doing just that. But in your feable little mind, they are just dumb racists not worthy of your respect. You really are a pathetic little boy….
“For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know”- author unknown

Pablo says:
“Me too. Anything that might protect people from the trauma of seeing Barney Frank naked”

All homophobes like you need to do is stay the hell away from Congress. That should be easy.

GBR, are you implying you would like to see Barney Frank naked?

Dave Holmes says:
“GBR, are you implying you would like to see Barney Frank naked?”

I’m implying that Pablo needs to stay out of Congress, not that there’s any possibility of him ever getting there. As a basketball player and member of the local YMCA, it doesn’t concern me who I shower with. I support full civil rights for homosexuals; that’s what I’m implying.

Dave, are you implying that I’m gay?

This line of questioning … and some of the bigoted comments in this thread… is about as dirt stupid as can be imagined.

It’s not like there are NO gay people in the military now. They’re just closeted. Many are probably known to their military peers, but not the higher-ups. They are ALREADY showering with straight people.

The only thing that’s gonna change is now the gay military personnel can call their partners by name and be open about having them. It’s not like suddenly the showers are going to turn into Christopher Street or Castro discos. That’s just a closet-cases’ wet dream.

How about we talk about the number of female military personnel raped each year by male comrades in arms? Oh, right, cuz that actually exists…