So who made a more hate filled statement?: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson or Obama senior advisor John Podesta?

Do I think that a guy sleeping around with multiple women as being on the same level as bestiality?  Hardly.  'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson probably says something that could upset a lot of different people.  To me the strange thing is that those who believe in a consenting adult being able to do whatever he wants seem to be the most offended.  So here are the statements that Robertson made to GQ when he was asked about what he thought was a sin.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” . . .

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” . . . 

By the way, how is what Robertson point any different than Pope Francis would say?  Yet, Pope Francis is Time magazine's Man of the Year.  But compare that to John Podesta's statement about Republicans.  This is from Politico:

Podesta, whose official mandate includes enforcement of numerous executive orders on emissions and the environment, suggested as much when he spoke with me earlier this fall about Obama’s team. “They need to focus on executive action given that they are facing a second term against a cult worthy of Jonestown in charge of one of the houses of Congress,” he told me. . . .

Which statement is most offensive?  It at least seems to me that calling some akin to a mass murder is worse than concerns about who someone is having sex with.  Remember Democrats constant refrain during the Clinton administration that it was just about sex?

Secondly, Robertson was asked about what he thought was a sin.  It may bother some people that the Bible views a man sleeping around with many women or homosexuality as sins, but there is a lot discussion about "hate" that seems inaccurate here, especially since Robertson has gone out of his way to say the standard hate the sin but love the sinner line.

Larry Taunton has a very useful discussion about all this at The Atlantic:

Robertson spoke in explicit terms of the homosexual and heterosexual options available to men and concluded: “She’s [i.e., women in general] got more to offer.” But he didn’t end there. Robertson suggested homosexuality is a sin that could lead to sexual anarchy, the nadir of which is bestiality: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there.”  (He did not actuallyequate homosexual behavior with bestiality, as many have been saying, and tellingly, his catalog of sinful sexual behavior also included heterosexual promiscuity.) . . .  

Robertson wasn’t expressing “his personal views,” but principles that are intrinsic to his religion.  You see, Robertson didn’t simply attack and disparage the sexual preferences of a minority, as Alec Baldwin recently did in a hateful rant. No, Robertson’s opinion—couched as it was in scriptural references that suggest he not only owns a Bible, but also reads it—reflects the teaching and practice of historic Christianity and, by extension, the opinion of a sizable portion of the American public. Indeed, according to a June 2013 Pew Research Center survey, roughly half (45 percent) of Americans polled said they believe homosexual actions are a “sin.”  

In an apparent effort to convince this demographic that homosexual actions are not sinful, GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said Robertson’s views are not Christian. The strategy here seems to be “divide and conquer”—separate Robertson from his religion and let public opinion do the rest. . . .

There seems to me a third point.  Podesta is a senior advisor to the president of the United States.  Robertson is someone who is on a TV show.  In addition, Robertson's TV show focuses heavily on his Christian values.  Yet, the calls for Robertson being fired were overwhelming.  Where are the similar calls for Podesta to resign.  For Robertson, the calls for his removal were almost instantaneous and covered extensively by everyone from Time magazine, Fox News, Mediate, the Hollywood Reporter, and numerous local TV and newspapers.  Searches conducted between 1 and 2 AM on Thursday, December 19th.

Take this statement from GLAD: "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples."  I guess that I am not sure what the "lies" are in Robertson's statements.  Can one disagree with them?  Sure, but where are the lies?

A Google news search over the last 24 hours came up with nothing for Podesta.  A Bing search came up with one hit that is relevant, something from the obscure Patriot Post.

Now Robertson was fired (or put on indefinite suspension, which implies he will only be allowed back if he disavows his Christian views) so that might have generated more coverage.  But groups such as GLAD and others called openly for his firing.  Where are the similar calls for Podesta?  If one is concerned about the coarseness of the political debate, won't Obama be setting an example if he removed Podesta?

Finally, both Robertson and Podesta have issued follow up statements.  Podesta wrote: “In an old interview, my snark got in front of my judgment. I apologize to Speaker Boehner, whom I have always respected."  An "old" interview from just months ago?  "My snark got in front of my judgment"?

Yet, in the same interview with GQ Robertson made this statement: "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," Robertson says. " We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus – whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"   Again, I am sure that probably just makes it worse for those from the organized lobbying groups such as GLAD.  

UPDATE: This is pretty amusing, but it gives some insight into the type of person Robertson is.

UPDATE: So what does Jesus and the Bible say about homosexuality?

The entire segment is available here.

"MIDDLE SCHOOL’S ANTI-BULLYING ACTIVITY: GIRLS ASKED TO KISS GIRLS"

From the Illinois Review:

. . . School administrators . . . held a bullying-prevention workshop for students at Linden Avenue Middle School during which the college facilitators asked girls to kiss girls. 

When confronted by angry parents who were not notified ahead of time about this activity, Principal Dr. Katie Zahedi claimed that “the sessions were…about saying no to unwanted advances….In planning the discussion, we made it clear that absolutely no discussion of any sexual acts is appropriate to middle school, and they used the examples of a kiss….It was…ultimately about respect and safety.” . . .

Here is a marginally related story.

A Riverton High School math teacher and coach of the sophomore girls' basketball team has been arrested and charged with raping a [female] student. . . .

Are the Boy Scout's policies and statements consistent on homosexuality?

Whatever one's views on people who are openly gay being allowed in the Scouts, my question is whether they are being consistent.  If the Boy Scouts of America are really just wanting the policy regarding homosexuality to apply to those members under 18 years of age, why does the organization continue to explaining the concerns over male homosexuals supervising young boys is not objectionable?

The BSA also consulted four experts in the field of child sex abuse prevention. The four conveyed a “nearly universal opinion” within their field that homosexuality is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children. . . .

Interesting patterns in who identifies themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual

In a massive survey of 120,000 people over four months, Gallup claims that 3.4 percent of people identify themselves as either homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.  Among the striking findings are the huge increase in those categorizing themselves this way among the young.

Past surveys that were done a decade or so ago showed a fairly similar percentage across age groups.  I wonder to what extent TV shows showing homosexual stars has played a role in this.  It would be hard to do empirical work on this in the US because you would only have purely time series data to deal with, but I wonder if it could be done across countries.  The relatively low income shown for those in this category is due in significant part to the large percentage of young people who identify themselves as having these preferences.  What is perhaps more surprising is that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to identify themselves this way.

There is some other interesting data at a dating website (though this obviously suffers from self selection problems).  This information indicates that about half of the people who identify themselves as bisexual are really heterosexuals.  The other interesting feature is how the percents change over time.  Men are much more likely to be homosexuals when they are young and women when they are older.  Is this result really surprising given that men find it more difficult to obtain sex when they are young and because of the relative shortage of men the same is true for women when they are older?

It would also be interesting to see whether those who might be less attractive to the opposite sex are more likely to be homosexual.  For example, low income males or those with significant prison histories might fall in this category (it also raises the question of whether criminal records explains the higher rates among blacks and Hispanics).  On the last point there is the whole issue of whether prison turns some people to be BLGT or whether their unattractiveness to others because of their criminal activity is what causes them to be this way.  I wonder if any of these various Gallup surveys that asked this question on homosexuality had information on criminal records.

Final note: It is interesting to note that people think that the share of the population that is "Gay or Lesbian" is much greater than the share of the population that is actually BLGT.  It raises the question of why there is this huge gap and presumably it is because of the amount of attention given to this by the media.

Interestingly, this gap can't really be explained by the person knowledge that people have.  For example, there is relatively little difference between the percentage of the population who are perceived of as homosexual by political affiliation, even though there is a huge gap in what parties homosexuals identify themselves.  Also, people in the South think that there are slightly more homosexuals, but in fact there are fewer people in the South who identify themselves as BLGT.

Univ of Texas backs Sociology Professor in attacks by "gay blogger"

This Sociology Associate Professor is accused of being biased because he is Catholic.  Does that mean that atheists can't do research either or any other group?  Who can do research?  "The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations . . . ."

The study asked thousands of adult children of straight, lesbian and homosexual parents dozens of questions and compared the results. While many questions did not produce statistically-significant differences, the study found major differences in a few categories. Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide. . . . .

The Media's strange coverage of shooting at Family Research Council

So why wasn't there the nonstop coverage of the Family Research Council shooting?  From The Hill Newspaper:

The head of the Family Research Council accused the media Monday of ignoring the shooting last week at the group's Washington headquarters because "it doesn't fit the storyline." 

“It was stunning that most of the coverage, with the exceptions of just a few reports I saw over the weekend, were from Fox,” said Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative organization, in an appearance with the network. 

Perkins went on to say other networks "ignored" the shooting — which wounded a security guard — because it broke with their preferred narrative. 

“I think the reason is, it doesn’t fit the storyline,” Perkins said. “You know, it’s supposed to be conservatives who are angry, who are filled with hate. And that’s not the case.” 

Authorities charged Floyd Corkins of Virginia last week with the shooting of the security guard. According to The Associated Press, Corkins was carrying Chick-fil-A sandwiches and ammunition in his backpack when he entered the organization's lobby; the Family Research Council has opposed gay marriage, as has the fast-food chain's president, Dan Cathy. . . .

The Media Research Center has this:

Neither NBC Nightly News nor CBS Evening News produced a full story on the FRC shooting, instead committing only 17 and 20 seconds respectively for anchor briefs that omitted the shooter’s motive. Only ABC World News produced a full report on this politically motivated act of violence. . . .

and this:

CNN's Brooke Baldwin couldn't find a motive behind the Family Research Council shooting, on Thursday afternoon – despite CNN having earlier reported that "politics" was involved in the shooting at the conservative organization.
"You know, who knows what really was the motive behind this particular individual Floyd Lee Corkins?" Baldwin wondered at 3:10 p.m. EDT, even though anchor Suzanne Malveaux stated at 1:31 p.m. EDT, "Witnesses say that Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the conservative group's headquarters, told the security guard 'I don't like your politics,' and then shot him in the arm." . . .

and this:

Even after the shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council, the Huffington Post can’t stop slamming the pro-family organization as a “hate group.” The Huffington Post waited less than 3 hours before publishing an article which complained about “the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group.” . . .

Children raise by homosexual parents apparently have some real problems

A new study finds significant problems in children raised by homosexual parents.

Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.
Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.
Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact.  For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this). . . .

Keith Ablow has a general discussion beyond what is quoted above about this research.

People massively overestimate the percent of the population that is homosexual: More than 12 times higher than the true number

The article on the survey is available here.  This is a long, long way off from the one percent of the population shown in the early 1990s or more recent evidence.  Constant media coverage of homosexuality on both the news and popular shows may be partly responsible for this false impression.  Here is a discussion in the New York Times from surveys done by NORC at the University of Chicago in the early 1990s.

A new national study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough published since the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows that about 2 percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and that 1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
The figures on homosexuality in the study, released yesterday by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, are significantly lower than the 10 percent figure that was published in the Kinsey report in 1948 and that then became part of the conventional wisdom.
But the new findings are in line with a series of surveys of sexual practices done in each of the last four years by researchers at the University of Chicago, and with recently published reports from Britain, France and Denmark, said Tom W. Smith, who directs the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago. . . .

A more recent April 2011 study put the percent at around 1.7% for both men and women.

The analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are LGB, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. This is split nearly evenly between lesbian/gay and bisexual identified individuals, 1.7% and 1.8%, respectively. . . .

Some have claimed that the percent of "regular" characters on "scripted shows" who were homosexual was as high as 3.9 percent in 2010.  From the NY Times:

In a study released on Wednesday, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said that the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender characters on television had reached a new high in the new season. On the broadcast networks, there are 23 gay characters this season, representing 3.9 percent of all series regulars on scripted shows, the group said, up from 3 percent last year.
The group, which has tabulated the number of gay characters for 15 years, said it was pleased by the progress but pointed to several areas where it felt the networks could improve. On scripted network television this season, it found, there are no gay characters who are black and no transgender characters. . . .

Some television commentators have claimed that more than 10 percent of the US is homosexual.  From CNN:

BEGALA: She should be asked about this theory. She's a candidate for president. One out of 10 Americans is gay. She should be asked if she wants to lead a country where at least 10 percent of us are gay or lesbian, does she believe in this crackpot, bigoted theory that somehow there's something to be repaired in our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who happen to be born gay? . . .

Another reason why people's donations should be anonymous

From the Weekly Standard:

Businessman Frank Vandersloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, has been targeted by the Obama campaign after donating money to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. . . . Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being 'litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"
The attacks are working. Vandersloot revealed in an interview on Fox News that his business practice is being hurt by the attacks from the Obama team.
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," said Vandersloot. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
"Really?," the Fox News host asked. "How many did that?"
"A couple hundred that we can track," Vandersloot replied.
Again, the host asked, "Really? Do you have any grounds to sue?"
"I suppose we do," Vandersloot said. The businessman says he's been accused of being anti-gay, an accusation he says that couldn't be further from the truth. . . .

Is it serious that people who oppose Obama must be doing this because they are anti-gay?

Apple pulls "anti-gay" App

It would be interesting to see if Apple pulls any pro-gay Apps.

Apple has removed a widely-criticized anti-gay app from the App Store. The title was created by Exodus International, a group that claims to "provide support for individuals who want to recover from homosexuality." It quickly drew the ire of the public however, fueled by attention from gay rights groups including Truth Wins Out and PFLAG.

The driving factor in the removal may have been Truth Wins Out's petition, which was highly publicized, and accumulated more than 146,000 names by the time its goals were met. TWO has called Exodus "hateful and bigoted," and charged that the group's supposed therapies are opposed by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. PFLAG is better known than TWO, however, and its open letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs may have got his attention. . . .

This wasn't the first time that if an anti-gay app has been pulled. This other app was pulled even though it had no derogatory statements about homosexuals.

Buchanan said that given that the "pro-gay" Metropolitan Community Church of New York has a place in Apple's online store (with a podcast app), Exodus should be allowed to distribute its application there as well.

Since the online protests started, he said, his group has not had any response from Apple.

But this isn't the first "anti-gay" app to cause a flap in Apple's iTunes store. In November, Apple pulled another controversial application after just 7,000 people signed an online petition at Change.org.

The application, called Manhattan Declaration, was a "call of Christian Conscience" that advocated "the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and religious liberty," according to its website. . . .

Obama administration "Promoting Homosexuality Overseas"?

Democrats get upset about the promotion of US views regarding abortion, though that simply means that we wouldn't fund them. In this case, the Obama administration is taking a more activist stand regarding homosexuality.

signals emanating from the State Department indicate that the U.S. government may be engaged in its own evangelistic efforts -- to help legitimize homosexual practices in those socially traditional countries. . . .
At the event, which was organized by the group "Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies," Clinton said the State Department is supporting efforts to advance homosexual rights around the world. "We celebrate the progress of advancing the rights of LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] in our country, as we continue to advance the rights of all people around the world," Clinton gushed before the receptive audience, adding that the "struggle for equality is never, ever finished."
The State Department's increasing interest in homosexual rights comes as critics -- such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom --have accused the Obama Administration of weakening their commitment to the freedom of religion in favor of a more narrowly defined "freedom of worship." The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter. . . .
the Obama administration seems to have decided that policy initiatives including outreach to Muslim governments and advancing gay rights would be compromised by vigorous advocacy for religious freedom.
"In fact, such a decision would harm the victims of religious persecution, hamstring key Obama initiatives, and undermine U.S. national interests," Farr writes. . . . .

"Pentagon’s Gay Poll Was A Sham"

Ann Coulter has these points:

The Pentagon's poll on "don't ask, don't tell" is beyond idiotic. Instead of asking whether the troops support repeal of DADT, the Pentagon asked only if they can learn to play nice with the gays.

Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" -- and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV. . . .

Obama and Democrats pushing too much in Lame Duck

On the one hand, Obama promised the Russians that the Start treaty would be his priority.

President Obama said on Sunday that he has told Congress that passing the new START treaty during the lame duck session is a “top priority.”

“I reiterated my commitment to get the start treaty done during the lame duck session,” the president said after a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “And I’ve communicated to Congress it is a top priority.” . . . .

Here he is again.

President Obama made another plea for the ratification of the arms deal with Russia on Friday, arguing that a failure to approve START “would put at risk the substantial progress that has been made” on national security.

“Nobody is more aware of a need for a strong, secure and democratic Europe than our eastern and central European allies,” Obama told reporters in Lisbon.

He added, "Just as this is a national security priority for the United States, the message that I’ve received since I’ve arrived from my fellow leaders here at NATO could not be clearer: New START will strengthen our alliance, and it will strengthen European security." . . .

He also is promising to push amnesty for illegal aliens. Pelosi and Reid have also made promises on amnesty also.

President Obama met privately in the Oval Office Tuesday with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration reform, and aides say his hope that Congress will approve the DREAM Act during the lame duck session. . . .

Pelosi has also made other promises:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reassured representatives of several LGBT organizations this week that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and a measure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) will get votes this year.

Pelosi made her comments in an hour-long telephone conference call with representatives of six LGBT groups on Monday. . . .

She renewed her promise to homosexual groups on passing Enda (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) here.

Senator Harry Reid will also be pushing for a vote on DADT.

Passing extensions to unemployment benefits is moving forward and it is quite controversial in that Republicans will support it only if the spending is paid for. Keeping middle class taxes from going up is also a big priority. And of course, congress hasn't passed any of the spending bills for the budget this year. The lame duck session only lasts for a month. I think that this session could be a real mess for the Democrats.

Openly homosexual troops in the military?: About 95 percent of Marines say "no"

The problem of having homosexuals in a fighting force is that it creates the potential of romantic relationships and jealousy -- this could lead to problems in soldiers trusting the actions of others. Would a soldier follow orders and abandon someone they are romantically involved with if they were ordered to do so? Just the possibility of doubt can raise problems when lives are on the line. The head of the Marine Corps has his concerns. The current rules don't stop homosexuals from serving in the military, the rules just stop them from serving openly.

As many as 95 percent of Marines would be uncomfortable serving alongside openly gay troops, the retiring commandant of the Marine Corps told Fox News in an exclusive interview.

Gen. James Conway told Fox News' Jennifer Griffin that a majority of his men and women think a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy barring gays from serving openly will be problematic, so he has to believe that, too.

"When we take a survey of our Marines, by and large, they say that they are concerned that it will cause potential problems with regard to their order and discipline -- that it will impact their sense of unit cohesion," Conway said.

Gen. Conway was the first member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to speak out against a repeal earlier this year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen publicly endorsed President Obama's desire to change the law.

Conway plans to retire Oct. 22 after 40 years of service with the Marines. . . . . And wartime, he said, is "probably not the time" to change the military's policy on gays. . . . .

Dems move to eliminate "don't ask, don't tell"

There is a real problem with unit cohesion when you can have romantic relationships form. But that doesn't seem to ever be mentioned as a concern.

President Obama has endorsed a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1. . . .

Most service members oppose letting openly homosexual people serve in the military

I thought that congressmen wanted the military let their feelings known on this issue. From Fox News:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters Thursday it's "inappropriate" for active duty officers to comment on potential changes to the law that bans gays from openly serving in the military. Those comments were a direct response to a March 8th letter written to the "Stars and Stripes " by Lieutenant General Benjamin Mixon, commanding general of the US Army Pacific, which clearly stated his opinion that most servicemembers are opposed to repealing the policy.

In the letter Mixon wrote: "It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate." He went on to say, "Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy." . . .

UPDATE: The Marine Corps' commandant is pretty strong on this. Coming out on this must risk political retaliation from Obama.

The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

President Obama says the ban is unfair, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has launched a lengthy study to determine how to allow gays to serve openly without hurting military effectiveness.

Among the questions to be answered is whether changes to housing policies would even be necessary.

Conway, a known opponent of repealing the law, suggested in an interview published Friday by Military.com that he already knows it would be a logistical hurdle. On base, Marines typically bunk two-to-a-room. . . .