Let me rephrase it for you in long form: "Sexually disruptive behavior" is "sexually disruptive behavior", period -- no place in the military, same discipline regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual.
Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.
Good grief, if I have to spell this one out for you, then you have no business debating anything that requires actual use of brain synapses:
Because women don't have the physical equipment to use urinals. Because women have menstrual periods. Because it takes a woman on average longer to use the bathroom than it does a man. One of the reasons to separate male and female restrooms in large venues is efficiency -- you can turn over more men needing to urinate by installing urinals than you can turn over women using a stall. Physiological differences.
My thoughts yesterday were correct. Waste of time and energy.
You want to concentrate on “sexually disruptive behavior” as if homosexuality is normal and not disruptive? That is your perverted morality. Homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality and should not be forced as acceptable in public. It is disruptive. You and Paul want to use the federal government to force your perverted morality on others. You claim to be Constitutionalists who want to secure our liberty but the gig is up. Paul is pushing a fascist agenda to force his perverted morality on our Armed Services.
And uh you do know idiot that bathrooms have stalls? That woman can use. And you claim that menstrual cycles make it so men cannot use the same facilities? I guess you should enlighten all of the men who share a bathroom with woman in their home. And woman take more time? Get real. You haven’t given one real reason for discriminating in regards to heterosexual behavior when not doing the same in regards to homosexual behavior.
It is you who are a waste of time. You want to push for treating types of behavior as being equal as if the Constitution calls for that when it does not. The Founders would have never supported your agenda to force this perversion upon the People.
“sexual orientation of the individual.”
I noticed that you used this BS term created by the left-wing to make homosexual behavior seem more natural. Thus you are arguing for the federal government to force others to accept you perversions.
You really are a waste of time.