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.

 

Gay barracks? Military faces thorny questions

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Gay barracks? Military faces thorny questions


www.msnbc.msn.com

For opponents of the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, the steps by Congress this week to repeal the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” were a major victory.

But now they are girding for what may be an equally difficult task: the transition to a force where straight and openly gay servicemen and women live, work and fight alongside one other.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Hmm, well after reading the article, I can see the point about changes needing to be made, although they would be easy changes.

I don't like they used an un-named source in reference to a currently serving lesbian in that armed forces.

To me, I don't see the problem. The idea should not change, I bet every soldier knows a soldier who is gay in the Military, why treat them any differently?

I don't see how the insecurities of straight men have to be the problem of gay ones.

As for the housing debate, why not let them live together on base? Why not provide the same rights as hetero couples do?

I grow tired of this whole debate as the issue is becoming a non issue when you look at the facts.

The love between two people is the same, regardless of it's homosexual or heterosexual.

The sooner we all learn to get along the better.

No need for this Gay Barracks, or Gay Units. Those who have a problem can simply leave the military.

I'd rather not have soldiers who are worried about such trivial things like whose sleeping with who when they are suppose to be protecting my interestests and each other.

~Keeper

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I think the one positive thing I see for this is safety of the ones who are gay. Ive been close to the military for a long time now - and all those I know personally have no problem with someone who is gay being in the military. But there are a vast majority who will have issues with it. Unfortunately, I think the safety needs to be factored in. Grant it if something were to happen to them - those responsible should be held accountable, but until its been implemented for awhile - maybe its best?

Now that I read it, it sounds ridiculous to even type it out. But I guess im just concerned with those who may flip out about this. Just thinking out loud really.

With that said, I agree with you completely. Unfortunately not all those who serve do too.


[edit on May 29th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I could probably reverse your argument about worrying about trivial things.

The military's existence is devoted to war. Thats it. Anything else beyond that like sexuality, religion, politics, speech, or identity is all trivial.

In order for the military to function as effeciently as possible, each service member has to function as part of the machine. "I" becomes irrelevant. Only "We", the team, the mission, and the objective are relevant.

I personally have no problem with gays in the military. Just like religion, politics, or any other identity it needs to be kept at home and off duty. The only identity while on duty and deployed that needs to be maintained is the identity as a soldier, marine, airmen or sailor in the service of the United States. Anything else is really trivial and unnecessary.

Anyone who does not understand that really should not be in the military.

Hope that didn't come off sounding too harsh or anything. My intention isn't to offend anyone.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
In my military unit, we had at least two gay dudes and everyone knew it and was cool with it. Nobody had issues with sharing a fart sack, much less a room. The only people who seem to be having an issue with this are the politicians and policy makers who won't even have to deal with it.

The people in your unit become your brothers and your respect for them is based upon how they do their job, not where they stick their body parts. I have a feeling this is going to be such a non-issue, much to the dismay of the religious right and certain politicians who would rather it create turmoil for their own self-interests.

--airspoon



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I think the one positive thing I see for this is safety of the ones who are gay. Ive been close to the military for a long time now - and all those I know personally have no problem with someone who is gay being in the military. But there are a vast majority who will have issues with it. Unfortunately, I think the safety needs to be factored in. Grant it if something were to happen to them - those responsible should be held accountable, but until its been implemented for awhile - maybe its best?

Now that I read it, it sounds ridiculous to even type it out. But I guess im just concerned with those who may flip out about this. Just thinking out loud really.

With that said, I agree with you completely. Unfortunately not all those who serve do too.


[edit on May 29th 2010 by greeneyedleo]


Yes I agree there are safety concerns from those who fly off the handle so the speak.

I just think this idea of the Military being a "macho" job is kind of out dated and untrue at this point.

At least I'd like to think so.

With the comments above in mind, they are suppose to act as one, in a combat situation I doubt even the most homophobic man will think about whether the guy next to him is gay or not.

That's the question that needs to be asked. Will it impact operations on the ground, or will it just affect people when they are on base.

If it's the ladder then that would happen regardless of whether or not homosexuals serve openly, as it's hard to hide your "gayness". Trust me I know.

Those who are against "open" gays, usually pick on the "closet" ones as well.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I have talked at length with those I know who are 'in'. Those I talked to were in various branches, jobs and ranks. All of them said they know some who are gay that they serve with and they have deployed with them and never had any issues.

I personally just dont see how it could affect the job they have to do. The only way it would affect the job - is if someone has an issue with someone who is gay and they CHOSE to focus on that rather than the job itself. That is where I can see it causing issues. It should not be a problem, but reality is, it will be for many.

Question is - how do you force everyone to accept and focus on the job not what gender someone is in a relationship with.

Ive never been in the military - so I can only speak from my opinion and those I have spoken with. *shrug*



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The whole Middle-East, Russia AND China are afraid of the U.S Military...
I don't think a few homosexuals will be making any sudden gestures.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I don't think it's a matter of forcing them to accept.

I dont' think that if you had "open" homos in the military that they would act any differnently.

It's not like all of the sudden there are going to be a bunch of fairies running around the base.

These aren't your average gays, I am assuming they are quite the straight acting ones.

I look at this as giving a soldier the right to say " It's none of your business".

Those who don't understand or don't want to, can simply ignore the issue as again, I don't think you will see a "gayer" military because of this.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Wouldn't that be called a bathhouse?




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Soldiers are there to do fighting, take & follow orders & not question strategy.

Thinking about sexuality of fellow soldiers could be too much for this limited thought spectrum to allow.

Not sure. But other militaries do seem to manage it ok.
I am gay, but don't advocate being shallow or glib about this.

Face it, the military is full of mental midgetry. Religious bigotry, dishonesty, mindless male aggression, for the sheer wanton glee of it.

I am sure they will figure out some methodology as long as they don't want to fabricate it into a larger issue than it really may be.

Despite all the stupid ideas that soldiers are 'patriotic heros' one has to look at the reality that it is an organism devoted to certain functions.

It won't change the fact that the Pentagon is a treasonous organization in any event & having a standing army is a recipe for horrible, unnecessary profiteering wars, & not having a draft is a complete dodge of responsibility both by public officials & the population at large.

A draft has a direct, organic connection & all the healthy attendant questions of why & is it worth it.
Paying for war with taxes instead of robbing unborn babies is similarly a dodge & irresponsible disconnect for the why's & worthiness questions.

But the United States is not only not a mature society, it is in fact becoming more crass, mercenary & juvenile with passing time.

If you don't use your minds, you lose your minds,
& the US lost its a couple of decades ago, around the time of Reagan imo.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



That's the question that needs to be asked. Will it impact operations on the ground, or will it just affect people when they are on base.

The answer is neither. There are already many gay dudes in the military and you get to know your "brothers in arms" so well, you know who is gay and who isn't. The problem is, most soldiers don't care. It's the people who would never join the military who seem to care. The only thing this new policy will do, is make it easier for gay people to live a normal life in the military and make it harder for dirt-bags to use being gay as an excuse to quit.

In fact, for the most part, "gay discharges" from the military were only used by people who couldn't hack the military training or lifestyle. A commander would never put a person out for solely being gay if that person was an excellent soldier. Truth is, you want someone by your side that you can rely on and most soldiers realize that this has nothing to do with your sexual preference.

The only drawback that I see from this, is worrying about sexual harassment accusations. With women in the military, the rules have gotten so strict that it's hard to even talk to any woman in uniform, much less perform your job around them. The military gets around this by having all male units so they can stay effective. If these crazy, strict, non-sense rules get extended to cover guys as well, the US military is finished.

--airspoon



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Good points.

But...

I don't think we will need to worry about male soldiers reporting other male soldiers for sexual harrasment.

I think that would not be something a soldier would want to be known for. Much like male rape being very under reported because of shame and what not.

Also, I don't see a lot of gay soldiers wanting to hit on their fellow straight ones. They, more than anybody would know what kind of reprocussion would come along with such behaviour.

I don't condone it, but being gay myself, If I was hassling a straight guy continuously, and he punched me in the face at some point, it would have been deserved.

You don't cross that line with sexuality as far as I am concerned.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If it were up to the soldiers maybe but usually these policies are handed down by congressmen or civilian policy makers. We had to spend valuable time teaching our soldiers what they could or couldn't say if they encountered a woman in uniform. Such words as "girl" are off limits, completely when a female is present even if she is further away but still in the building. Also, a look for more than 3 seconds is prohibited. There are all these stupid and pointless rules that we have to be teaching the soldiers, instead of teaching them how to fight. I'm sure these aren't rules that the females wanted but they were passed down because of all the sexual harassment lawsuits. Could you imagine if these rules were extended to guys?

--airspoon

p.s. - these were the rules for Fort Drum, though I think they are different everywhere but the same general pointlessness.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
My Bible tells me that homosexuality is
a sin against God. If you allow it to
occur in the US Military and facilitate
it's development, then we are no longer
God's Army but Satan's Army.

I think Gay's should be banned
from the military, not only is it
a sin in God's eyes but to the world,
it makes us the laughing stock.
A stigma which cannot be erased.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

What did i say but there is a lot of mental midgetry focused around the military.

I hope they are US military & not God's military, because i am not paying taxes or supporting a tyrant, religious or otherwise.

Why can people not think clearly in a disciplined, intellectually honest manner?
Maybe that is impossible & it is time to quit kidding myself.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I guess it's good that we don't live with a complete theocratic government, like Iran or the Taliban. Good thing we are an army for the US and not for anyone's god. I guess it's a good thing that we have freedom of religion in the country, including freedom from religion.

Isn't this theocratic garbage what we get on Iran about? Is not what is used to justify an ongoing war against the Taliban? How is it so bad for them to do such things but not America?

Truth is, we are supposed to have a secular government and the soldiers fighting for our country are doing so, at least in part, to keep it that way. Christians and muslims alike, don't have to push their god on others. If homosexuality is against your religion, then don't become a homosexual. There is no need to force others to abide by your god or what you perceive to be your god.

--airspoon



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


If we go the Theonomic route, aka Dominionist theocracy, then why single out just gays?

A Theocracy would have to outlaw Pagans, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. The Catholics would probably have to go as well.

The thing is, thats not what Jesus wanted.

We can't turn America, Rome or anywhere else into the Kingdom of G-d. Only G-d can do that.

Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto G-d what is G-d's.

The Church sticks with helping to spread the Gospel and bring people to Salvation, while the Government continues down the path of Mammon.

In the end its all going to work out, trust me.

[edit on 29/5/10 by MikeboydUS]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
But there are reports of religious ostracization, against atheists, non-Christians in the military.

That is part of the reason i think it & we have gone so far afield from actually taking care of this nation, instead of vitriolic adventurism.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I sure am glad everyone doesn't bow to the whims of a bronze age petty god. Long story short, screw the bible and those who can't reason past it. They are dinosaurs, like racists, who are steadily becoming extinct to the betterment of mankind.

I suggest gender, race, and sexual neutrality in the military so it can get back to it's utilitarian roots. It has one job, to kill those who seek to oppose or attack the US.

How small-minded civilians and soldiers feel about this doesn't matter one bit as it does not affect individual ability or intelligence.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by KrazyJethro]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join