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.

 

Report: Pentagon mulls ’separate but equal’ gay policy

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
rawstory.com...


Gay rights activists are sounding the alarm about a Pentagon legal memo that advocates delaying any decision about the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy until 2011, as well as a news report that military brass are considering separate facilities for gay soldiers.

The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reported Friday that the Department of Defense is "stepping up internal discussions" on the military 17-year-old DADT policy in anticipation of a push to repeal the law this year. Those discussions are targeting "the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality."

John Avarosis at AmericaBlog describes this as the seeds of a "separate but equal" policy for gays in the military, referring to the legal term used by US courts prior to the Civil Rights Act to justify segregation of blacks and whites.


I say abolish all discrimination of everyone in the Military. The private sector deals with homosexuality in the work place; usually in a mature manner. Why does the Military feel the need to make such a big deal out of it?




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Gays in the military are like oil and water.
They just don't mix well.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Gays in the military are like oil and water.
They just don't mix well.


Typical Response from Bigots .. Thanks for stereotyping a whole group of people ..




[edit on 16-1-2010 by Polynomial C]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 



Merriam-Webster defines Bigot as such:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
www.merriam-webster.com...
I do not hate homosexuals. Therefore your comment is not only fallacious but prejudiced as well.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Dying for your country,and Not being "allowed" to be your self in the process ,DON'T MIX



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rory27
Dying for your country,and Not being "allowed" to be your self in the process ,DON'T MIX



Mind you, should women shower with men in the military?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Polynomial C
 



Merriam-Webster defines Bigot as such:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
www.merriam-webster.com...
I do not hate homosexuals. Therefore your comment is not only fallacious but prejudiced as well.


Right, only it is/was a bigoted response.
As for a direct challenge of the statement how about: The Sacred Band of Thebes One of the most successful historical units until Alexander the Great came along.



The traditional hoplite infantry was no match for the novel long-speared Macedonian phalanx: the Theban army and its allies broke and fled, but the Sacred Band, although surrounded and overwhelmed, refused to surrender. It held its ground and fell where it stood. Plutarch records that Philip II, on encountering the corpses "heaped one upon another", understanding who they were, exclaimed"

Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
It's hypocrisy, if the military doesn't want to accept gays, they should ask whether the person is gay and refuse them right at the beginning. But that's not what they do, they accept gays and tell them to hush hush.

I don't see anything wrong if gays want to join the military and defend their country, why it has to be oh so secret.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
It's hypocrisy, if the military doesn't want to accept gays, they should ask whether the person is gay and refuse them right at the beginning. But that's not what they do, they accept gays and tell them to hush hush.

I don't see anything wrong if gays want to join the military and defend their country, why it has to be oh so secret.


does anyone know what the application process involves, does it ask the question?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I think the real issue with the whole "gays in the military" controversy really boils down to the endemic religious affiliations. The U.S. Military hammers home the "God and Country" motif and uses faith as a motivator. Until the religion accepts, there will be a huge fight.

Please consider this list that shows countries that allow gays to serve and then consider the religious aspects.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I do not have an issue with a gay person being in the army as such, the only issue I can see is that a gay man is attracted to other men, so if he is sleeping/showering in close proximity to other men then relationships, problems etc could arise?

THat is why I was making reference to the male/female thing- should men and women be allowed to shower and "sleep" together in the military?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Back in the 80s when I was a recruiter, we asked. I don't know about now with the 'don't ask don't tell' program. I think the problem with gays in the military has to do with large numbers of people cramed into small spaces. Mature individuals would be able to cope, but not everyone is mature whether gay or straight.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I do not have an issue with a gay person being in the army as such, the only issue I can see is that a gay man is attracted to other men, so if he is sleeping/showering in close proximity to other men then relationships, problems etc could arise?

THat is why I was making reference to the male/female thing- should men and women be allowed to shower and "sleep" together in the military?


They already do. In the U.S. it's just required to be secret: They don't care if you are gay and shower, sleep and drill with other soldiers. So long as they don't know.

Other countries are more mature about such things and don't care-and have no problems.

If you've ever been to a gym and showered, chances are you have showered at the same time as a gay guy.

I am sure you didn't mean it in this way (at least I hope): It seems like you are insinuating that the enlisted gays would not be able to stop themselves from getting puppy crushes and raping other soldiers. Adults generally don't act that way. Those who are severely repressed can go a little whacko of course. But 'open' individuals are not exactly known for being repressed.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
They already do. In the U.S. it's just required to be secret: They don't care if you are gay and shower, sleep and drill with other soldiers. So long as they don't know.

Other countries are more mature about such things and don't care-and have no problems.



I know what you are saying, but the view could be "legitimising" it is worse




If you've ever been to a gym and showered, chances are you have showered at the same time as a gay guy.


ABsoloutely, and I showered at school with guys who I now know are gay (they never made a move on me though, feel a bit ugly now lol)

Bit different from the constant living together the army brings





I am sure you didn't mean it in this way (at least I hope): It seems like you are insinuating that the enlisted gays would not be able to stop themselves from getting puppy crushes and raping other soldiers. Adults generally don't act that way. Those who are severely repressed can go a little whacko of course. But 'open' individuals are not exactly known for being repressed.



I don't see it like that- gays are human beings, the same way as putting hetero men and women together in close proximity would result in relationships occurring, whether mature or not



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I didn't quite understand:


I know what you are saying, but the view could be "legitimising" it is worse


Is that: Legitimizing gays in the military making the.. insecurities(?) worse?

If so, a couple responses back I linked countries that allow... Look down the list: Israel allows.

Israel is fine with it when their religion is pure OT, none of that "love everyone" stuff in the NT. But.. Israel is fine, but America is squeamish


I think the mainstream fear is the potential of the military to get liberal tendencies. Since the right wing is the bigger controller of the military-industrial complex, it is something that they fear (the liberalizing that is).



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Seriously, I dont think people really realize the implications of putting gays openly in the military, especially those who have never even been in the military. The military is NOTHING like the civilian life, AT ALL.
The Military setting is nowhere near the same as the private sector and anyone who really thinks thisis only fooling themselves. This can be a really dangerous move not only for the gays, but for the rest of the marines/soldiers/airman/squids as well. I dont hate gays, I can really care less, Im just trying to help you all understand the implications of thismove with a non-biased view(if thats ok).
One word- Hazing.
Majority of the time, you wont hear about hazing in the military because when it does happen, it usually stays amongst the ranks in the military, very rarely do these acts get reported because of fear of what could happen to those who have been hazed after the fact(You know, the whole "if you tell, you will get it worse next time" crap. People get hazed in the military for all sorts of reasons, and it will continue to happen till the days we dont have a military. If you think that hazing is bad now, just wait until(if) the gays can openly state that they are, well what they are.
Not only will they get hazed, but I guarantee you that when they do, it wont be pretty, and I can also guarantee when it does happen, you will probably only hear about 2% of the actual acts. Sucide rates right now for the military are very high, just think about what they will be like if they allow gays in the military. Think about all of the "training accidents" that could/and will happen. Not only that, also think about what that will do to troop moral. People who are not comfortable being around gays will more than likely be paired up with one. That is dangerous in and of itself.
Now with that said, I can really care less if gays do or do not get into the military, it doesnt effect me one bit. I knew of a couple soldiers/marines who were gay/bi in the military when I was in, but it took a long time of getting to know them before they were comfortable enough telling me that they were(because they knew what would happen to them if they did). Even they knew by telling the rest of the marines that they were was a serious risk on their part. There are still a lot of people in this country who do not hold the same views as those that think that its ok to be gay and in the military, and those are the people who the gays are going to have to answer to for the first few years until they get enough rank to where they wont have to worry about being hazed or anything like that. No matter what side of the coin you are on this issue, its a very risky move for not only the gays, but for everyone else around them. It WILL effect moral amongst other troops, both for the good and the bad(eventhough truthfully I cant see the good in it besides the fact that gays will be allowed to serve). My opinions on gays or anyone elses opinions on gays in the civilian world means squat when it comes to this issue. This is not about is being gay right or wrong, its about whether letting gays in the military is the best move our military can make. Sure, they will now be able to state that they are gay, but when they are around 1000 other male peers, things could get ugly. Service men are known to be vulgar, kick ass, gun toting,die hard mo fos who dont give a damn about anything except kicking ass(well,notalways,but the majority). Is that really the environment gays want to be around openly? I really dont think that a lot of people put that much thought into it, they just want equal rights in a system that is almost foreign to our civilian way of life. Oh and BTW, one of those friends of mine that was gay and in the military I was telling you about earlier, well, he got his ass whooped constantly until he had enough and decided he wanted out. He did some drugs, went awol for a while, came back, and when he did, he was discharged with a other than honorable discharge. Just something to think about.


Edit-

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Common Good]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0I think the mainstream fear is the potential of the military to get liberal tendencies. Since the right wing is the bigger controller of the military-industrial complex, it is something that they fear (the liberalizing that is).



Don't know about labelling them "right wing"- to me "right wing", in it's truest sense is for a smaller state, those behind the military-industrial complex seem intent on an ever expanding state



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Is hazing more common in the U.S. military? At least 31 countries allow including Germany, the U.K., Australia, Finland etc. etc.

Though I get what you are saying, I see it as more an example of the societal issues that abound. To say "This opens them to get picked on" while there is a situation where they are already under a gag order, have to hide from everyone. Many have already gone through physical attacks as well as emotional, countless times on T.V. they are already told they are sub human and at best: second class citizens.

This rationale reminds me of The Onion: Gays too precious

Because of always being held down by almost every facet of society: Homosexuals tend to excel more because of survival instinct, there is the constant drive to prove ones worth.

If you allowed gays to enlist openly, I guarantee they would earn the respect.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


do you get my point though, homsosexuals are just human- if men and women "bunked" together in the military relationships and issues would arise (so I am not just labelling homosexuals are uncontrollable sex fiends)

I have no doubt that there has always been homosexuals fighting and dying bravely in the various armies of the world, but can you not see the potential for such issues with the "legitimising" (for want of a better word) their status?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by lordtyp0I think the mainstream fear is the potential of the military to get liberal tendencies. Since the right wing is the bigger controller of the military-industrial complex, it is something that they fear (the liberalizing that is).



Don't know about labelling them "right wing"- to me "right wing", in it's truest sense is for a smaller state, those behind the military-industrial complex seem intent on an ever expanding state


Many of the companies in the Mil-ind-complex have controlling interests by those who identify as "Neo-Conservative" etc.

For example: Haliburton, Lockheed, Boeing, XE/Blackwater etc. etc.

The significance in this case is more that those who identify as 'right wing' tend to hold more conservative views and religious sentiment. Was less about the politics of left v right and more a general consensus of the people that comprise each side. Obviously in a generalized manner as many on the Right have no issues with gays, many on the Left do.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join