Obama pledges to end restrictions on Gays in the United States Millitary, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 09:32 AM by j2000
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Flighty
If no one was asked about their sexuality before, then why make it an issue now??


If you truly don't get it, let me explain.

Under "Don't ask, don't tell", heterosexual people can talk about their relationships and have a picture of their spouse on their wall. The men can freely express their sexuality by flirting with the girls and discussing with the other straight men who is "hot" or whatever.

On the other hand, gays are not permitted to have pictures of their partners, talk about their relationship or in any way reveal that they are gay. In other words, they can ACT like they're straight (concealing their true selves) or ACT like they don't have any sexuality at all (concealing their true selves).

It's not that sexuality is a "big deal", but as human beings, it is part of who we are and does come into discussions and the every day living of our lives, whether we're in the military or not. I don't know how many times I've talked about my husband here on ATS. And I'm not even talking about my sexuality. He's just a big part of my life and as such, he comes into the discussion. But in the military, gay people have to keep quiet about that.

Hope that helps.


I think you are the one that does not get it.
The majority of people don't care for homosexuals and it's even higher in the Military. The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy protects them if anything.
If you have been in the Military, you would know what I mean.
Blanket party anyone?
You can't cram too much close quarter stuff down the Militaries throat, because they will re-act to it.

In the general sence it might not be completely fair. But you are asking a lot of someone in the Military. You are asking them to do what you will not do.
Unless you are willing to do what they do for you, don't tell them how to do it, and what the rules of the game must be.

Most people have in mind an office setting. Even the one's that do this, must go thru the same hard crap in training as the rest.


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 09:42 AM by marg6043
reply to post by grover



Oh Grover, You have been Flagged and your are shinning red

I never seen you with so many flags before.

I tell you, while I don't see any problem with gays or lesbian in the service as they have been serving the country for a long time, I wonder if them been vocal will bring a whole set of issues about those in the service that tend to actually be violent when it comes to gender preferences by others.

Because actually the problems doesn't reside with the person that is different in their preferences with the society standards but with those that made others a target.

I hope that the discipline of military servince has not deteriorated enough to cause some ugly results if people are encouraged to show their true selves, even when they are not causing harm to anybody.



reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 09:45 AM by grover
reply to post by marg6043


Yeah I got it for waving red capes at the right wing out of bull fighting season.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by grover]


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 11:27 AM by Flighty
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Thanks for that explanation. I honestly had never heard of it before.

Now it makes sense. The term that is.
The actual practice is harsh though.


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 11:32 AM by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Eye On War




Obama makes a lot of promises, he tells people what they want to hear.

Did he set a date?

Gays question Obama 'don't ask, don't tell' pledge

apnews.myway.com...

[edit on 113131p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 08:58 PM by sdcigarpig
I come from a military family, and did serve 4 years in the military. The question of the don't ask, don't tell policy is pretty moot. For as long as there have been military forces, there have been homosexuals in the military. It is change that people are scared of. If you look at military history in retrospect, and go back, to the start of the United States Military, during the Revolutionary war, both African Americans fought along side of the rest of the militias and died with them. Then the military split into 2 groups, the Colored Corps and the White Corps. During World War II, both services were joined under one flag, and the exact same arguments were given, at one time a black officer was not given the same respect as his white counterpart. But after World War II, going into the Korean conflict, the forces joined together, intergrated and thus were able to show that it did not matter what the color of skin was, in the military when the chips are down, it was the capacity of the person to do the job is all that mattered. In Vietnam, there was no more of the black military man being considered different, just another military individual. I was told a story about a man who was drafted, he told the draft board he was a homosexual, had it in his record. He served his country with honors, and in the end the same country, that he served, kicked him out, cause an officer objected to him being a gay man. The entire point being, to those who are fighting and serving in the US military is not the sexuality of the person with them, but that they are capable of doing the job.
But here is the real question, lets say President Obama does end this, opens the military up for those who are gay to come and serve the country, what will he do for all of the service men and women who were discharged cause they were found out to be gay, what will he do for them?
Personally until I see something happen, all President Obama is doing is just standard politics, nothing more, nothing less. He is the commander in chief, and does have the power to state, let those who are homosexual in as policy, and work on changing the UCMJ.


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 09:09 PM by stander
reply to post by detachedindividual


It's obvious that you and the military are light years apart. Woman are not suitable for combat duties not just because of their lesser physical statue, but also for their feminine psychology -- they are less aggressive than men. Gay women in the US or other military are not the problem -- they can handle non-combat duties. But I just don't want to go and take Hamburger Hill with a guy who has built-in feminine inclinations; I need to know who is who before we go up there.

Your out-of-real-life insights are quite amusing.


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 12:15 AM by sdcigarpig
Originally posted by stander
reply to
post by detachedindividual


It's obvious that you and the military are light years apart. Woman are not suitable for combat duties not just because of their lesser physical statue, but also for their feminine psychology -- they are less aggressive than men. Gay women in the US or other military are not the problem -- they can handle non-combat duties. But I just don't want to go and take Hamburger Hill with a guy who has built-in feminine inclinations; I need to know who is who before we go up there.

Your out-of-real-life insights are quite amusing.


Now that is an unenlightened point of view. What does having a lesser physical statue and psychology have to do with taking a gun and pulling the triggure or flying a combat aircraft? I have known women that were highly accurate with a gun, nail a small target at 300 yards, and had better endurance than some men. And not all gay men have built in feminine inclinations, and can put a straight man to shame when it comes to physical fitness. When push comes to shove, if in a combat situation, the survival instinct will kick in and you would be surprised at how far a person is capable of going or how much they can do. It is a mindset and pushing yourself to meet the challenges and go the distance.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^