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.

 

Marine Top Gen: Gays would get their own room!!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Article:

The Marine Corps' top officer said March 25 that even if the ban on openly-serving gays in the services is lifted, he would draw the line at forcing heterosexual Marines to bunk with gays on base.


Source: www.military.com...

Sounds like it is going to get pretty confusing in the Military-real quick.

I think the battle is long from over. Wait till the mass exodus that comes next.

Anyway, the reply/posts at the end of the story tell it all-from the ones who are in the military.




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Well.. they don't have men bunk with women.

It's not exactly the same, but I think they are following the same premise.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Yeah, I was in the Army when the first "Don't Ask" policy was implemented. So we had separate barracks for men and women. Women were not allowed in the male barracks and vice-versa. You could get an article 15 if caught in a females room.... so.... if your hetro, you can't be with a chick unless you go get a hotel but the non-hetros can "bunk up" nightly with no threat of getting into trouble...... some things would have to change... but that opens a WHOLE NEW can of worms.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Strewth, pretty soon you will need to be queer to even get into the US military.

The US marines needs "a few good men", will turn into:

The US marines needs "a few cute pansies".



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Strewth, pretty soon you will need to be queer to even get into the US military.

The US marines needs "a few good men", will turn into:

The US marines needs "a few cute pansies".


I'll have a beer or 24 t' that! I ain't havin' no sissy boy queer in mah military. I'm a gurrddamn patriot!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Look, human beings are human beings, they're going to fornicate and masturbate, regardless of their enlistment in the service of the nation. What the military does is remove the self-centered concerns that you once assigned such high priority. The military removes your selfishness, removes your conceit and phony bravado and scrubs you clean of all that muck; the military then reinvents you as a team-player, okay?

THAT is the key in the homosexuals-in-the-military debate. Being a TEAM PLAYER.

If you need special consideration because of your sexual preference, then YOU ARE NOT A TEAM PLAYER. Your hunger for -Snip- or -Snip- should be waaaay down on the list of your priorities, especially as a Marine. I mean, you may as well forget about getting your -Snip- on until you're given leave and liberty to do so.

So, WHY is homosexuality a problem in the -Snip- Corps? The Corps should be able to resolve this controversy in one hour, without very much discussion. Just DO YER -Snip- JOB and keep yer genitalia in your pants, troop!

See, the magic of the Marine Corps has always been cutting through the crap. That's how they talk and that's how they walk. So, don't bring these whining complaints for special treatment to the Corps — the increasingly liberal legislation that has been reshaping Marine policy for the last 20 years is WEAKENING the Corps, okay?

We do not need to WEAKEN the Corps with political correctness and special considerations for homosexuals. We do not want to blunt the Spear Tip, right?

If you are a queer who wants to be a Marine, then GO FOR IT, but you must understand that the Marines aren't there to hold your hand and massage your self-esteem. They're gonna tear EVERYBODY'S ass UP and REINVENT you as a Marine.

Period.

The KEY to success in the Marines is TEAMWORK. Right? When you come in with these "special considerations," you are UNDERMINING the teamwork. It's throwing the system out of balance.

Look, I have no problems with gays of any stripe. My wife and I hobnob with gay folks every -Snip- day. But I'm also from a law-enforcement and military family, and I understand the imperative of the chain-of-command and obeying orders and TEAMWORK. And I know that you can't have an effective, spontaneous fighting force when the troops are pissed off and fighting each other over personal issues such as homosexuality.

God DAMN.

Look, I think "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is fine. It works okay, but only as long as the homosexuals remain anonymous. When the gays are openly identified and given special consideration, that's when these redneck kids in their teens in bootcamp get hot under the collar and start kicking gay ass. FIGURE IT OUT.

Make sexual orientation a NON-ISSUE, first and foremost. The Marines do not care whose crotch you are eating on your own time. The Marines DO CARE that you DO YOUR JOB and WORK WITH THE TEAM.

How simple is that?

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 3/27/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Mod Edit - To Edit Graphic References And Circumvention Of Censors. Please Review The Following.



1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.

Terms And Conditions
ABOUT ATS: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors

[edit on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:01:21 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

So, WHY is homosexuality a problem in the fekking Corps?
— Doc Velocity



Simple old chap.

Most warriors would rather have real men around them, watching their backs in battle.

People that can trusted and whose courage and honor can be depended upon when the bullets start flying, and the bleeding starts..

A nancy boy homosexual, is just a weak moral degenerate with no character.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I think it would be wise to allow Corpsmen to decide for themselves. If someone feels uncomfortable bunking and showering with a homosexual, then they should be able to do these things separate.

People should be able to opt out of a bunking arrangement if they feel uncomfortable, and be able to do so without the stigma of being called a bigot. At the same time, people should not be able to harass homosexuals due to their sexual preference.

Basically, people need to realize that homosexuals in the military are a reality, deal with it, and move on. At the same time, homosexuals need to realize that there are people that do not agree with their lifestyle choice and be respectful accordingly.

Mutual respect and consideration will be the best possible answer.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
No it is not about human rights.

It is about staying alive in the military, and winning wars.

You cannot win wars with inferior people.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
What I think is this.

A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with that person's bravery and competence.

Are we going to try and drum all gays out of the military? If so, the military will be losing a lot of highly competent officers.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
What I think is this.

A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with that person's bravery and competence.


If a person's sexual orientation "has nothing to do with...", then why the hell are they making this an ISSUE?

Seriously, the military isn't a dating club, it's a FIGHTING club. I mean, do people normally bring up their sexual orientation when interviewing for a job? Does their sexual orientation even matter, when applying for a job (outside craigslist)?

If sex is so in the fore-front of your mind, to the point that you're made to second-guess the field you are going into...then, you've chosen the wrong FIELD and need to find something else.

EDIT: BTW, 'you' is hypothetical and not necessarily directed at you, cat.




[edit on 27-3-2010 by SourGrapes]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Why not start up military units especially for gays ?

If they are such great leaders and all so very competent, why not ?

Segregation of sodomites may even start some friendly rivalry.

The all queers military football team dressed in pink, against the all macho Special Forces team.
Should be an interesting game.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SourGrapes
 


Hey, Sour, I so agree.

The world consists of a lot of different people, a lot of whom, unfortunately hate each other.

But I stick by what I said - a lot of gay people are very brave and they are in the forefront.

What I would like to get rid of is this - do you think that because someone is gay they could not fight for your country, or save you in a fire, or act as a nurse, or a doctor or a gifted surgeon?

End the discrimination about gays right now!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I don't see why this is even an issue at all. The military has had gay members since George Washington crossed the Potomac.

If you are gay and want to defend this country, you should be able to do so. I thank you all for your service.

I would bet that in the heat of battle most folks won't care what kind of person is pulling the trigger for them.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by HERACAT]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
But I stick by what I said - a lot of gay people are very brave and they are in the forefront.


Yes, I agree. We have many brave people in the forefront. I'm sure many of them are gay. The point is, this isn't usually used as a pronoun. Like, when I read the headlines, they don't say, "A brave gay soldier...".

I believe that when someone brings attention to a certain characteristic, trait, issue (whatever), it's usually because they feel the _____(insert issue) makes them inferior and thus they bring it up at times they feel it will include/exclude themselves. What we perceive to be our own strengths or weaknesses are just that...our OWN.

Like, it's been pointed out(too many times to remember) that I'm a girl; therefore, I can't do _____(blah, blah). You know, this very statement has been said so often, yet I'm always taken back. Every time I hear it I'm just as shocked as the first time, because it's just so preposterous to me. I always answer,

"THE HELL I CAN'T"!

Hell, dare me to write my name in the snow!

Now, I'm not an angel so obviously I've used this to my advantage, when I need to. Like, "huh? I can't do that, I'm a GIRL"...always to get out of doing something that I may not want to do.


So, the point I'm trying to make is that the issue is usually an issue with the person that is requesting special treatment (or, in my case.. elimination) in certain circumstances.

If we are to treat everyone the same, then we can't be focused on the differences.



What I would like to get rid of is this - do you think that because someone is gay they could not fight for your country, or save you in a fire, or act as a nurse, or a doctor or a gifted surgeon?


Well, it's not up to me. It totally depends on the person who is fighting for my country. Does this person fight for my country, save people in fires, save lives? If so, them I'm all for it! If I have to sign a waiver prior to treatment, due to someone's insecurities, then I have a problem.

(BTW, since ATS seems to have become the playground for the easily offended, I feel that I must add this:

I'm perfectly aware that no where in OP's post, nor the article, does it say anything about a 'waiver'. I just used the 'waiver' as an inflated example.)



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
This should not be an issue.

Is it an issue that a lot of married men in the forces had affairs?

So, all I am saying is that gay people can be gay and brave.

Never judge a person by their sexual predelition.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I'm embedded with the Marines right now in Afghanistan and there is no such thing as your own room. They are here from eight months to a year rather packed in tents or cans. Very close quarters in both the sleeping areas and showering areas.

I'm not smart enough to figure this out but where do you house/shower gays so that there is no sexual tension on both sides? If you think about it not only could a heterosexual person feel extremely uncomfortable being forced to shower with gays, but gays themselves could have the same issue being forced to shower with other gays.

Would not all of this be the same as having unisex living/showering areas? The problem is I don’t think we are really for that just yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I salute you, and I salute all of the brave people fighting alongside you.

Gays can shower with men without jumping on them.

I am just trying to say that gays can be heroes if you let them be.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I think it would be wise to allow Corpsmen to decide for themselves. If someone feels uncomfortable bunking and showering with a homosexual, then they should be able to do these things separate.

People should be able to opt out of a bunking arrangement if they feel uncomfortable, and be able to do so without the stigma of being called a bigot. At the same time, people should not be able to harass homosexuals due to their sexual preference.

Basically, people need to realize that homosexuals in the military are a reality, deal with it, and move on. At the same time, homosexuals need to realize that there are people that do not agree with their lifestyle choice and be respectful accordingly.



The problem is the military needs to be a "one size sits all" mentality, and the closer they can get to that the cheaper and more efficient they become. There are lots of people discriminated on that are outside of a narrow envelope of desires/qualifications/needs the military is looking for.
Your post suggests that there are enough tents to give people options in with whom/where they want to sleep. When you start to deal with a very large number of people personal choices take a back seat to the point you have none. As it is right now an openly gay man will need to #/shower/sleep right next to everyone else. Also, all you would need to have is one class in Social psychology to see that segregation is also not the answer.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I salute you, and I salute all of the brave people fighting alongside you.

Gays can shower with men without jumping on them.

I am just trying to say that gays can be heroes if you let them be.


I agree, but do you have a problem if I walked into the female showers to take my shower, and to look negitive on those females that scream at me?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join