No, but where is your proof that the other countries' navys don't go out to sea for extended periods of time? I showed you the Royal Navy specifically because the article I quoted from the earlier post was dealing with specifically the UK's Navy and the reaction to allowing gays to serve openly. The same post which drew this comment from you:
Those quotes that I posted were directly from the article about how the argument from the British military was pretty much the same as the arguments made by people like you in our military who are against allowing gays to serve openly, and all of their arguments proved to be unfounded.
First of all, this 2010, not 1991. And I know that on both my actual cruises, 2000 and 2002, with a ship's crew of around 3000 and an airwing each time from 2500-3000, and 10-15% of that crew was females, we had less than 33 pregnancies between both cruises together that actually occurred during the cruise. We might have reached this number in those girls who got pregnant before a deployment, if you include all my deployments, including the "surge deployment" in 2004. I didn't know of any girl getting pregnant during the 2004 deployment, but I did fly off the ship prior to that one actually ending, however, I can't imagine too many doing much since a few days after I flew off the ship, the tsunami hit the area and the ship was providing relief aid until they left the area to go home.
You know I was going to answer your question on male/female joint berthing, but realized that it is so far out of the realm of possibilities at this time, that it is a stupid comparison. There are so many reasons that the military could not and would not combine male and female living spaces. You really need to stop using this argument. Women and men cannot share spaces where they would be frequently naked for several reasons, most of which I have already listed somewhere on this forum, but I can think of several more. If you would like a full rundown of why this is a horrible argument, please start another thread, because I don't have enough room in this one to go off on this tangent. Straight men living with gay men is not the same as trying to make men and women live together, especially when some of those men and women are married. Straight men in the military already have to live with gay men, and because everyone is aware that DADT is in place in the military, that means that everyone who joins the military knows that there is at least a possibility that they will be living with someone who may find them attractive.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, there might be many people who would simply try to use an offer to get out with compensation, who do not have a problem living with gays at all, they simply don't want to be in the military anymore. I knew several guys who would have taken an offered opportunity to get out of the military, without compensation, simply because they weren't happy in the Navy. So, how exactly would you suggest they determine who truly has a problem living with those who are openly gay and who is just trying to get out of the military with an honorable discharge and a lot of money?
The straight guys in the military do not have a right to not have rules change while they are in the military. They are in the military. Nowhere in any military contract does it say that these guys have a right to not serve with openly gay men. And, no, DADT and the rules against homosexual acts are not a part of the military contract, because if they or any other laws of the UCMJ were considered unchangeable, then the military would have no right to propose a law that will make it against the rules for a servicemember to hire a prostitute even in countries/places where prostitution is legal or for them to propose a military drinking age of 21, even in countries where it is legal to drink at younger ages. And, no, the US drinking age of 21 is not a federal law, it is only that age in every state because the federal government will only give highway funds to states that have a drinking age of 21. And there is no actual right for anyone to not have to share living spaces with someone that may be attracted to them. If the military wanted to make the men and women serving share living spaces, they have every right to do so, they simply won't because of the multiple problems that such an act would cause, not to mention the loss of personnel from both those problems and the disapproval of such a policy by spouses.
