It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


The military law you posted says nothing about homosexuality and it actually refers to anyone who commits sodomy. You can be gay all you want, just do not get caught in that sexual act. The same equal law also goes for hetero. There is no discrimination here.

It is also irrelevant to the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

So does the fact of being gay mean sodomy is always required? What about lesbians? Being gay is not necessarily about just sex, or is it?

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Unmask The Deception]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Unmask The Deception
 


That article is the one normally used in court martial and it has nothing to do with being caught in the act. Any evidence of the act will suffice. Sodomy under the UCMJ has a broad definition to include oral sex and other non conventional activity.

In addition to that the DOD directive I mentioned explicitly forbids homosexuality. It uses the words "homosexuality is not compatible with military service". It can't be any clearer than that and Barack Obama so far is not addressing either Article 125 or the DOD Directive. He is only addressing the Don't ask, Don't tell policy.

If that's all he does. It will be even harder for gays to serve in the military than it is now.

Personally I think he may end up changing the UCMJ and the DOD directive, but not for the reasons people think.

In the near future he, Obama, is probably going to need to conscript, aka draft a large number of males for a future conflict. He will need as many able bodied men as possible. As of right now that may not be possible with gays being excluded from any draft.

When that war comes gays will be begging to be excluded from the military and the draft. I will shrug and simply say well you get what you asked for, now load your bags on the pallet and move to the flight line with the rest of the chalk.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


And how is allowing gays in the military "supporting" us?


They already ARE in the military, you do know this correct?
You honestly think there are no gays in the military?

"Don't ask, don't tell" is essentially "Don't acknowledge, don't tolerate".
If you believe this means no gays are serving because of this, then add "denial" to the plate too.

Removing the policy equals facing reality.

If there are gays in American society, there will be gays in the American military.
They are just not telling because they aren't supposed to.

Why should it matter if they are there?
Anyone complaining and outraged want to go over and take their place?

- Lee



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
When that war comes gays will be begging to be excluded from the military and the draft. I will shrug and simply say well you get what you asked for, now load your bags on the pallet and move to the flight line with the rest of the chalk.


What on earth makes you say this?

War is here.
There are gays in the war right now.
There are gays that have served and fought in the war in the past.

I think what you just said is a macho fantasy really, and based on nothing but a skewed perspective and stereotypes.

- Lee



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Here is an article on the passing of the author who wrote a book on the history of gays in the military and those that served during WWII. He even broke it down statistically to determine just how many at the time were in the military.

Really...some of you should possibly read his book because I am surprised that there are still people that believe there are no gays in the military or they would run away during war time.

Come on...DENY IGNORANCE.


Author wrote on history of gays in U.S. military

By Elaine Woo
December 16, 2007 in print edition B-11

-snip-

Berube interviewed about 70 veterans, including military psychiatrists, but also drew upon government documents, newspaper and magazine clippings, archival photos, diaries and the letters.

He found that gays and lesbians held jobs in the military that defied stereotypes. They served in combat, drove tanks, cared for the wounded, flew bombers, deciphered enemy codes and collected intelligence.

-snip-

Using sex researcher Alfred Kinsey’s surveys of the general population, Berube estimated that the number of gays who served in the war ranged from 650,000 to 1.6 million.
LATimes


My "snip".

- Lee



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Right now in the present there are straight soldiers who claim to be gay to avoid combat and get out of the military.

These people are volunteers. The closet gays you speak of that serve right now are also volunteers.

They are all volunteers and cannot be compared to someone who is drafted.

A World War with a nationwide draft isn't a "Macho Fantasy". With an open gay policy when a draft comes it will grab every able bodied male for combat duty. A number of the guys I go to LSU with, who are more effeminate than many women I know, will get grabbed and there will be nothing they can do about it. The only thing "fantastic" will be watching if these far left pacifists can be turned into modern day Spartans.

I guarantee Obama knows that war is coming. To access every able bodied male for combat, openly gay personnel have to be drafted when the time comes. With a new policy there will be no way out for anyone straight claiming to be gay or actually gay. This has nothing to do with being macho. This is pure cold hard reality.



[edit on 16/1/09 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Hey Mike,
Thank you for all of your truthful knowledge, from one who knows.
Your contributions to this thread Have demonstrated, rational intelligence,
over emotional knee-jerk reactions. I always appreciate what you say.

Your point is a valid one. The only reason I can see, for Obama to repeal
DADT is because of a nation wide draft. I hope you are wrong. Have to wait and see.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
There is absolutely no reason at all for "sexual preference" to be acknowledged in the military.


If that's what you believe, then would you support a policy whereby heterosexuality would not be allowed to be revealed or acknowledged? No posters of women, no pictures of wives, no talk of having sex with anyone, no revealing of marriages or family pictures. Nothing personal about relationships or sexual preferences at all?

If they would institute a policy whereby a male soldier revealing that he likes women would be discharged, I would support it. I'm just looking for equality here.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
There is absolutely no reason at all for "sexual preference" to be acknowledged in the military.


If that's what you believe, then would you support a policy whereby heterosexuality would not be allowed to be revealed or acknowledged? No posters of women, no pictures of wives, no talk of having sex with anyone, no revealing of marriages or family pictures. Nothing personal about relationships or sexual preferences at all?

If they would institute a policy whereby a male soldier revealing that he likes women would be discharged, I would support it. I'm just looking for equality here.


Hi BH,
Why do you think being in the military is equal to living in everyday society?
Please give a reason that having an open policy regarding the acknowledgement of being gay in the military would be a benefit in applicable terms.

In other words how will this HELP and SUPPORT the men and woman who are in the military. We have all heard you regarding civil rights and equality and how it is not fair!! Well not fair is not always the best outcome!
Life is not fair and it is not supposed to be. I don't like it, you don't like it
but sometimes we have to accept it. This is one of those times. Combat cannot be about fair, fair can get you killed. And before you say"Oh, so being homosexual in the military will get others killed" read this.

My explanation as to why fair is not forefront in this decision:

"It has been repeated over and over in this thread that civilian society and what we are used to in our everyday lives is worlds apart than life in the military. As it should be. I am all for civil rights and have several friends who are homosexual, I am not anti gay in any way. I am not trying to take away anyone's freedom. But here is my point, when faced with a life and death situation such as one in combat, there can be no distractions, second thoughts, hesitations, you just can't have that. Peoples lives are depending on you executing the exact plan at the exact time. If for even 1/4th of a second, you hesitate, somebody is going to die. This is a description of what the mindset is and HAS got to be. Clarity and focus is a must to be sucessful in any high stress situation. War, is the most stressful of any of these.

I have worked for years at a Level 1 trauma center. Basically everyone is flown to us because we are top. Meaning the best team around, along with cutting edge technology. We save lives, that's what we do.

I have been in numerous codes where nurses, who were new, panicked, dropped things, froze, cried and ran out of the room!!! People will die, if that behavior happens too much. One must stay sharp, work quickly, and stay focused in order to try and save a critical patient. We cannot afford
distractions of any kind. I am sure that if I was working to save the life of your loved one you would want me 100% there. Why not let these men and women do their jobs and give them all the support they need. They shouldn't have to worry about contracting a potentially fatal blood disease,
among other things, While working in the most stressful job on the planet.
In theory, some of you cannot understand how this could hurt, but it is the same in trauma, theory looks good on paper, theory isn't real life."

Just think about BH?

Thanks,
Pax



[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



I don't want someone that is openly gay giving me mouth to mouth, or blood.

Even if I lived, the teasing would be relentless. "Recall getting some tongue?" and such stupid stuff as that. I don't want HIV, I don't want any of it.


Dooper, you are not afraid of dying or you wouldn't be in the position you are in, but you are afraid of teasing? Almost more afraid of teasing than of dying? I am going to say here you can probably take a lot of teasing about lots of things, but not about homoerotic gay stuff.

and yet, you say


Truly at times a crude, crude bunch. Crude but loyal, honorable, and would drop their shield just to cover you. Brothers in arms are closer than real, blood brothers.

Don't mess it up.


This is some of the most homoerotic language anyone has used here.

I would suggest you have some issues not about the gay risk to your life, but to your self image, which is peculiarly sensitive in this area. One can't but wonder why. I think a lot of people might come to a conclusion that you would find very scary.
Your plea for understanding that its "different" for fighting men is only a plea to allow the denial of the real issue to continue.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
How about this as being why Gays Shouldn't be in the Military....

Gays at Higher Risk of Mental Disorders.

I guess however the one good thing about that is they are already willing to give up their life, so why not let them server the country (in case some of you are too lazy to read, homosexuals are SIX TIMES more likely to try to kill themselves)

Or here...

2 out of 3 Homosexuals to have mental disorder


Or EVEN the fact that being gay is probably from already being mentally ill

Soo... That said, read up. The military doesn't need at risk men serving the cause, it puts more men at risk, it makes some of the men and women afraid that someone might be checking them out, making them paranoid and losing focus on the job at hand. Its not because they are gay... its because THEY MAKE THE ODDS OF SURVIVAL A HELL OF A LOT LESS.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by rjmelter]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


wayno, i would watch what you say, it sounds like your calling him Gay.

People have the right to protect themselves, You best however watch the accusations your making. If this was in a public room in real life, he could sue you, i guess it may be true that your hiding behind your computer ay?

But what I thought was more interesting is that your telling him he should look inside himself that hes sensitive about the subject... well perhaps your understanding of that proves much more than you wanted it to.....



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Wayno, I'm smiling when I say this, and I'm saying this with a bit of wry humor in mind, but you're perverted.

Some of the actions and activities in combat, on reflection, are some of the most unselfish acts possible. Men do things in combat they aren't even remotely capable of once the shooting stops.

This is difficult to explain. Normally, we use logic in making our decisions, viewing our options, and we generally make decisions that are best for ME.

When the shooting starts, all of this is completely gone. A battlefield has zero room for logic. It's all instinct, it's all teamwork, it's all task oriented toward eliminating the danger of the moment. And yet, I've heard some of the most hilarious comments made at the worst possible times.

Some men, even very young men, have a unique ability to perform under these circumstances, where there is yelling, sometimes screaming, all kinds of gunfire, explosions, cursing, pleading, and just a condition of chaos.

This is based on my personal observation. I thought about this for years, and could never find the words. But then I was reading some obscure texts, and I found a man who long before me, had seen the identical same thing, yet he found the words better than I could ever hope for:

"Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are just targets,
Nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them,
for they make the battle.
Ah, but the one.
One is a warrior,
and he will bring the others back."

Heraclitus, 500 BC

When you go messing around with traditional, proven methods of conducting warfare that WORKS FOR YOUR CULTURE, then you are liable to make a big mistake.

This decision is not going to help the military, nor the men who are in the combat arms, nor those who it is intended to help.

I only speak of the combat arms.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



Wayno, I'm smiling when I say this, and I'm saying this with a bit of wry humor in mind, but you're perverted.

back at ya
I believe I gave you the first star on this post.
You are pretty damn good with words actually, when you want to be, and express a complex situation quite well.
The guy you quoted also said something about opposites being "one" and I think there is something to that, so I will just leave it at that.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Why do you think being in the military is equal to living in everyday society?


I don't.



Please give a reason that having an open policy regarding the acknowledgement of being gay in the military would be a benefit in applicable terms.


Some of those people in the military are gay. It would benefit them to be able to talk about their lives (to those who are open to it), their relationships, see pictures of their loved ones, just like the heterosexual servicemen and women do. As it is, they have to hide who they are and keep their mouths shut about their relationships.

If that's not a real benefit, then straight soldiers should be willing to give it up, too.

I understand you think if a soldier knows that his buddy is gay, he's not going to be able to do his job because of being "distracted", but I don't believe that. I think it's an excuse. What if a he was "distracted" because his fellow service member was from Thailand? What if a he was "distracted" because his fellow service member was a Muslim? Would we tell all the Muslims they had to keep it to themselves?



We have all heard you regarding civil rights and equality and how it is not fair!!


I also understand those who disagree with me here would rather just toss the Constitution aside when it comes to the military because the military is a special circumstance. I don't buy that, either. It IS special circumstances, but it doesn't follow that the Constitution they are sworn to protect should be ignored.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Hey, here's another perspective.
Don't know if this will make you like or dislike Obama.
But...
If there is a draft, and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is still in place, all people have to say to the drafters is "Hey dude, I'm a homosexual, and very open about it," and they don't have to go into the military!
Back in the last draft, it was very shameful to be known as gay, so if you were drafted, even if you WERE gay, you probably wouldn't tell anyone anyways.
Nowadays, the gays are everywhere, and it's practically a trend.
Anyone will be able to say "I'm a gay person" to get out of being drafted.

Hell. I'd do it.

So really. I don't think it's even about gay rights at all (even though all the gays will be very happy about it, including me)
I think it's about a draft.

There's my perspective.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
I personally can't see how he can take on something so controversial at the beginning of his term. Wonder what the military has to say? We didn't become the strongest military
in the world without strict guidelines.


Are you insinuating that to allow gays into the army would weaken it?

If so, why?

The British Army has allowed gays to serve for a long time and some serving members (one an Officer in the Para's) have even undergone gender reallignment surgery and continued to serve. Are you implying the British Army is weak?

Whats your point, exactly?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Personally I'm happy only "straight" Christians are allowed to server .. The less the better IMO ..

Kick all the Atheists/gays out .. Bring out friends home .. This is another holy war anyway .


BUT if they want to die for a LOST cause . So be it . I don't care if they have 2 penises and dance the Congo .

hmmm...
Maybe there mad that the "gays" all have bigger penises and they cant stand looking at them in the showers ?


[edit on 16-1-2009 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by paxnatus
Why do you think being in the military is equal to living in everyday society?


I don't.



Please give a reason that having an open policy regarding the acknowledgement of being gay in the military would be a benefit in applicable terms.


Some of those people in the military are gay. It would benefit them to be able to talk about their lives (to those who are open to it), their relationships, see pictures of their loved ones, just like the heterosexual servicemen and women do. As it is, they have to hide who they are and keep their mouths shut about their relationships.

If that's not a real benefit, then straight soldiers should be willing to give it up, too.

I understand you think if a soldier knows that his buddy is gay, he's not going to be able to do his job because of being "distracted", but I don't believe that. I think it's an excuse. What if a he was "distracted" because his fellow service member was from Thailand? What if a he was "distracted" because his fellow service member was a Muslim? Would we tell all the Muslims they had to keep it to themselves?



We have all heard you regarding civil rights and equality and how it is not fair!!


I also understand those who disagree with me here would rather just toss the Constitution aside when it comes to the military because the military is a special circumstance. I don't buy that, either. It IS special circumstances, but it doesn't follow that the Constitution they are sworn to protect should be ignored.


"Some of those people in the military are gay. It would benefit them to be able to talk about their lives (to those who are open to it), their relationships, see pictures of their loved ones, just like the heterosexual servicemen and women do. As it is, they have to hide who they are and keep their mouths shut about their relationships."

I totally get what you are saying. And (never thought I would say this) I do
agree with you to a point. I am a relationship oriented girl myself. And by that I mean I love people and love to help others. I feel deeply for other people, and I get that sense from you also. But here's the thing, I truly believe that the military lifestyle is such a polar opposite than general society. That is the very essence of the differentiation. The circumstances are so extenuating that you cannot expect to have the same laws in the military as you do in general society. If you do then nothing sets them apart. In this one area we must keep the two separate, to preserve the mind set of what it takes to engage in combat. You and I can only imagine some of the horrors that they have seen. I can only relate in my 'minds eye', based on my own experience as a trauma nurse and seeing unspeakable tragedies.

Working in an extremely chaotic, high stress job, I could not allow personal feelings to interfere with working on a patient. If I did, quite literally someone may die. I had to leave my emotions about anything at the door.
It was not a suggestion, it was a requirement!

Now picture the same scenario only step it up a notch, and include the outcome could mean your death or your buddies.

The whole controversy that surrounds homosexuality is an emotional charged issue for most men. It will have an affect on them whether they want it to or not. Our U.S. military doesn't have the luxury of carrying any extra baggage. This is not a trial and error type situation.

Obama boy, needs to realize this before it's too late. Not worried though
It's never going to fly!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Pax, I'm interested in your answer to this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join