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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Sheesh on a stick ... they're gay you know they're not contagious.


What's the point of integrating the armed forces only to segregate living quarters?

Didn't we use to do that?

What is this baby steps for sexual preference integration the way we they did it with racial integration?

21st century enlightenment FAIL!




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

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


They can simply leave the military huh??

LOL

I wonder how well that would play out.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


How can people think this is normal? This is not OK!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I have heard also that there is not much of an issue for gays in the military. If the military can train people to do what they already do, then problems would only develop if the soldiers were not trained and allowed their emotions (distrust or disrespect or hate) to do their job.

Example: Try to put an emotional (i.e., anxiety disorder) person in battle with a gun and train them not to disobey a order. It will be like pulling teeth, and that person would be very hard to train and may not be reliable.

I think that American guys are less tolerant of feminine guys as a culture when compared to some European countries, and that that may be the stem of the basis for "we might have a big problem here" since a macho, tough attitude might be thought to conflict with an acceptance of a gay person (regardless of the personality). That is not a concern for men who are secure in their sexuality and behaving as an adult and a team and not like high school punks who has to prove themselves. When I compare to Europeans, you really might need to see them in action to believe it. Our French class had some Belgians over one year. One couple (straight) had sex behind a tree in a local park here, and in full view that one and another or so were very comfortable kissing in front of everyone. The guys there sometimes in tradition in greeting each other brush cheeks or whatever, and it's not considered gay at all of course.

So, I think that if the people and superiors who train these guys keep it to business, which I would consider essential, then there won't be problems. I think people going into the military who are prejudiced, if they know what to expect, will not join in the first place. If I knew I had a problem with an entire class of people I might encounter and knew "that #*$& don't fly" there, then I'd say to myself that I should not join because I don't get the chance to choose who I will be working with. A potential minor problem might be a "rogue" group that misbehaves in general and happens to have a problem with gay people after having sort of established a "clique mentality," then a new gay guy to the group might get flack from them. As a solution to that, maybe some selective mixing could be done. If you add a potential "target" in along with a mature group of guys, I think it'll work. I still think that sexuality might come up eventually because you do have some free time and will talk, but when gays and straights work together at work, it's not professional there and certainly wouldn't be tolerated (shouldn't) in a military setting to bagger over differences. If you don't agree or get along, then you avoid the person by not getting to be friends, but you work together all the same because it's your job. When on personal time, do your own thing if you suspect you won't bond. But as someone here has said from experience, you are trained to work together and rely and trust and be objective on the job.

Kinda rambled. Sorry!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

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


They can simply leave the military huh??

LOL

I wonder how well that would play out.


It would probably do the military some good. Remove all those redneck jarheads with happy trigger fingers.

You know the ones that throw puppies off of cliffs and mock kids they are there to protect?

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
How about a new branch of the military? Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and G-Forceor Gay Force? Don't ask, don't tell won't matter, being open won't matter, offending non-gay military personnel won't be an issue, harrassment lawsuits won't be an issue, separate housing for gay and lesbian personnel won't be an issue.
It's plain nonsense to think that there's going to be no problem with open gay/lesbian sharing the same facilities with non-gay/lesbian. Not fair to any of them really. It'd be much like having co-ed barracks; forcing male and female to sleep, shower, and dress in the same rooms at the same time.
The military is so dang concerned with sexual harrassment as it is. JAG will be swamped with cases from both sides of the swing; Gay-I Joe gets picked on and beat up, or GI Joe gets ogled too long in the shower, or he thinks he gets "felt-up" during hand-hand...etc.. Not necessary and totally avoidable.
Don't ask don't tell is the lesser of two-evils, because for the majority of enlisted, ignorance is bliss.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Give me a platoon of jar heads than a hundred nancy boys any day of the week...

War is for warriors... Aggression, violence, killing and maiming are all part of the job.... Many of the best wariors were gay (Paddy Maine, Alexander the Great et al) but they were not wimps... But aggressive killers of men....

The sooner PC crap gets booted out of the military the better... Lefty scum suckers have been coming in under the guise of all of their health and safety nonesense, and trying to bring the military in line with civilian work policies... However we give them the big finger and will not be told what to do by a bunch of limp wristed cowards in suits.... The Army is NOT the womens institute.. Its a killing machine stacked with ruthless killers... You change that, and say bye bye to your freedom.....



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


Ofcourse.

Cause all the gays currently serving are nancy boys eh?

You know if our military didn't do so much needless killing, my freedoms would probably be more in tact, cause we wouln't have to worry about Alibaba in a cave planning to Nuke NYC.

Violence creates violence.

This whole, gays are not "macho" enough for the army is just pure BS.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

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


Politics and Country rule the man
Religion and Beliefs rules his destiny



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


Ofcourse.

Cause all the gays currently serving are nancy boys eh?

You know if our military didn't do so much needless killing, my freedoms would probably be more in tact, cause we wouln't have to worry about Alibaba in a cave planning to Nuke NYC.

Violence creates violence.

This whole, gays are not "macho" enough for the army is just pure BS.

~Keeper


You're right, of course they are macho enough:




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Did I say that all the gays seving were nancy boys huh??? No... I even cited known gays, one of them, Paddy Blair Maine, founder of the British SAS in ww2, the most decorated killing machine in history, was indeed gay... So what?? Being gay does not make you a crap soldier... Civvies sticking their noses into the military with all of their nonesense does... They create a division in a unit that was one before their meddling... A "them and us" division which damages units..... Most squaddies could not give a monkey's crap who you sleep with... All that matters is that you do your job and carry your kit.... One rule for everyone end of story.... Your sexuality comes last.... You are a soldier first..

Btw... Its not soldiers who threaten your freedom... Its the ones who send them... Those self same scum suckers in suits who you call leaders...... Dont dis the soldier for doing his/her job, dis the ones who send them in the first place....



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


I apologize, I was under the impression that's what your post was reffering to.

I completely agree with what you've said in this post however.

I do agree to some extent that the "armchair" generals should stay out of it.

Put with this particular issue,I'm happy they got involved.

As you said, makes no difference to the average soldier so long as you do your job.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I am all for gays serving their country in the military, under DADT.

I am 100% opposed to the military openly accepting homosexual relationships and lifestyles.

The reason I feel this way is because the military is the SOLE aspect of government that because of historic precedence and tradition, codify virtuous ideals to govern behavior such as HONOR. Clearly, they are not always practiced by those in the service, but we should not toss those aside and accept anything.

The government and US as a whole, is increasingly going farther and farther away from morality and virtuous behavior. Deviant behavior should be kept private and not be made acceptable by society.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
In another story I read about this issue, I remember a quote from Alexander Nicholson:

“Right now we feel comfortable putting the Chairman and Secretary of Defense in the driver’s seat."

Geez, thanks! Mighty gracious of him.


Seems like all that are in favor of lifting the gay ban aren't in the service. Ever think of asking those that are presently serving what THEY think? And what their opinion of this is?

Nah, that's too hard. It's easier to say, "Shut up, Marine/Airman?Soldier/Sailor. I know what's good for you better than you do!"

Every time I've discussed the "gays in the military" issue with someone that supports it, I've said something like "then any hetero male soldier should be allowed to shower with the female soldiers at any time; hey they control themselves & are professionals, right? How is that any different?".

None of the opposition has ever been able to counter it. They just get angry and call me bad names.


Personally, I think DADT is bull#. Either let them serve, or don't let them serve. DADT encourages lying and deceit, and it forces honest men to accept the deceit. Nobody likes being lied to, and in this profession, your integrity is often used as a gauge as to how you can be trusted downrange. DADT screws that all up.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
i hope some govt lurker sees this.

the solution to the gays in the military is simple make them all prison gaurds and interrogators. how demoralizing to an enemy target. dont talk dont tell has new meaning



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I've heard a good deal from soldiers of the past and present about how women in the military can, often through no fault of their own as individuals, be a major pain in the ass, and really reduce effectiveness on several levels. This is not about the people as much as about the politics and how some situations are dealt with. It would be a shame if this improvement (as I see it) were to have some side-effects akin to the male-female problems.

Initially and in the older wars this was mostly because the women had to be 'protected', e.g. no matter how slammed a tiny unit was in chronic hardship and sleep deprivation, some man had to get up to walk a woman over to pee in the night because if he didn't she might be attacked/raped by some other man on the way, just by nature of being the only female around for that sort of thing. I would hope that combat-trained women and weapons would bring them closer to equal ground in this category (I try to imagine American male soldiers picking on Israeli women soldiers, and commanders waking up to a camp of dead men -- if women cannot protect themselves, they are not well enough trained), and not much of that would still be going on hopefully.

In the current stuff I hear about, it's a combination of:

1 - strength and endurance issues. Such as men carrying and setting up gear for the women because them lagging behind with it or having issues with it is just a bigger pain for everyone than the men helping and getting it done. In sympathy, I remember a CA Highway Patrolman once changing my back tire in about 3 minutes flat just to get me the hell off the side of the road at rush hour. There is something to this logic I suppose. Still, that doesn't mean it's entirely fair to the men obviously who have a hard enough time in bad conditions without having to be the workhorses for someone else, too.

2 - distribution issues. Like that men and women don't share tents and latrines mostly, although I'm not entirely sure why (I'm sure it's better that way, but in close small-unit situations, especially in severe cold, the ability to climb in a bag with someone is pretty important). (Men, bless their hearts, are often kinda gross comparatively, probably a generalized-cultural thing, so I'm sure the women appreciate this separation.) But dealing with multiple versions of everything is not practical in frontline or fast moving stuff.

3 - sexism and rape issues. This is the hot one and I'd worry about the homosexuality factor when it comes to this. First, that the men I've known who've been the most violently-biased against gays were, quite obviously, dealing with suppressing some sexuality of their own, which makes rape of gays possibly more likely in that situation. Secondly, our culture until not long ago tended to ignore or slightly encourage bias against gays (now you can only hate, mock and discriminate against Fat People(tm), everything else is illegal...) which means that the older generations in-service may have a bigger problem with it than the younger men.

Third, and this is really the more serious issue, there is still the political problem of women filing claim against men for sexist remarks or physical behavior they find sexist. While as a woman who grew up around men I do have some sympathy for this as a legit situation at times, I think the problem is that in my opinion, in the military, unless it can be implied to have cost a woman a promotion or gotten her physically mistreated and by that I mean REALLY mistreated, war-endangered, or raped, it ought to be something that even bitching about is frowned upon, rather than something that gets political backing. I mean you know, when people are in the middle of a horrible situation fighting for their lives, the last friggin thing they need to worry about is whether some woman's feelings were hurt when frankly it probably wasn't even about her most the time, let alone that IF they even survive to return they could end up demoted, fined or worse. Yes, men are sexist often--and because this is so cultural, they are often genuinely oblivious to it, or unconcerned when they do see it, depending on their family/locale culture. (I also think legalizing prostitution in the armed forces would be very helpful, but since the military tends to be very conservative, this is unlikely to happen. Well it does happen in many countries with the locals, but not in the mil itself far as I know.)

I think there needs to be some forms of complaint and censure that allow combat-etc. to go forward without severe results on individuals (short of actual crimes) or major dramas, when this kind of thing comes up, so that over time it simply becomes less acceptable and less common. When we make major court dramas out of little stuff it's a problem.

I'm all for any woman crazy enough to want to go possibly get shot to do it and spare some guy who doesn't want to back home, rather than have a draft (I abhor drafts). I want women -- and gays -- to be at home in the military if that's what they want to do, our country needs them and they deserve that option like anybody else.

But I think a stern, even severe "act right to buddies-in-arms and get over it" kind of response needs to be had by military leaders from the lowest to highest level, both to prevent abuse, and to minimize the 'whine-'factor likely to be in place as a result of even mild 'verbal abuse'. People didn't complain before about being called a fag because they weren't allowed to BE one but I think once it's legal and not a secret, more retaliatory complaints, similar to those women often have, may be seen at times.

Like many things, this could be 'dealt with' ok by "good management." Whether anything government-run is good management is another story.

I doubt this is an issue with the women. Even in the CA Conservation Corps, when I was in it (back when it was all residential in the early 80s) like 8 out of 10 women were lesbians. (Since about 8-9 out of 10 people were men, this made me so immensely popular, LOL.) My current corp has a rather stunning % of lesbians (it's in the SF area of CA so maybe that is related in some way). I've seldom seen any issue with women working together, regardless of sexuality. I suspect this is mostly a touchy topic for the men.

RC



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
My Bible tells me that homosexuality is
a sin against God.


Your bible makes me laugh

Its this type of religious based prejudice that makes the world a bad place. They are not satans army



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


That was a nice and insightful post. I have to agree with a lot of what you said there. The only thing that I'm worried with gays open in the military, is if they create some of the same problems that women in the military have, to no fault of most of the women.

Because of the rules set up for women in the military, it provides for a dangerous environment for men. Now I was not mis/fortunate enough to serve with that many females but when I was an instructor for a couple of years, I did get a taste of it, though I'll remind you that this was no fault of the women who served.

First, we were no allowed to single a female out for discipline due to fear of sexual harassment. We were also not allowed to focus on a female if she was lacking the ability to complete any given task. We were also not allowed to focus on a female in uniform for any reason. This caused a lot of the females to lack the discipline necessary to fight effectively. This puts the whole military unit in jeopardy because the unit is only as strong as the weakest link. Females were basically allowed to get away with just about anything and not have to do anything but show up. Men are basically being made to carry the burden of their female counterparts, due to no fault of the men or women in uniform, rather that of the civilian policy makers.

Take for instance that young lady (Private Jessica Lynch) who was taken captive at the beginning of OIF. This should have never happened and would have never happened if the females in that unit, including Private Lynch would have been trained properly. Their lack of training and discipline put everyone else, including the Delta team sent to rescue them, in jeopardy. Now I'm sure this wasn't Private Lynch's fault as I'm sure she never complained of sexual harassment but that is the way the cookie crumbled.

Also the physical aspect of it. The achievements that a man has to work his butt off for, a woman only has to show up. Granted, I have known many female soldiers to want the same standards or equivalent standards set for men but that's just not the way it is.

Many people don't know this but females in the Army, get paid more than males. A female with the same rank and time in service of a male, will make a couple hundred dollars a year more than a male. I have known this to anger many men who have had to pick up the slack of those same women.

Then you get into the behaviors necessary to be around women in uniform. It takes several days of intense instruction on what you can't say or do around females in uniform with most being an over exaggeration. Such things as never using the word "girl" even when not speaking of the female in question, no talking about your wife or daughters not even when talking to another male, not talking about your plans for after work, no jokes of any kind, no exclusion of any female in conversation - what little conversation you can now have, no using your hands in gestures because it can be mistaken for a "pass" and absolutely no touching, not even to assist. There are so many things that male soldiers can not do or say around women and so many things that soldiers have to do differently around women, that it becomes the greatest obstacle in the modern military. Soldiers literally have to walk on egg-shells around a female in uniform and any slip up could be a huge deal. This not only takes important training time but it also hurts the moral of both the women and men while causing them to focus on things other than the job at hand. It creates much undue anxiety.

I have known many male soldiers to refuse respect to women of higher rank and tell them to buzz off because they feel as if that female superior didn't earn it. This is not good for anyone's military.

The thing about your military unit when your heading into a deployment is that you trust the guy on either side of you. You know that this guy has got the same training as you and his abilities are the same as well. With women, they do not receive the same training and their ability does not have to be the same as yours. This creates unnecessary anxiety and makes one lose his confidence with the people on either side of him.

Now of course, there are many women who are just as capable, if not more so than many men but they are not required to live up to that ability so it is a big unknown.

Again, this is not the fault of the females in uniform but it is the way it is, due to the civilian leadership and the problem of women getting angry and yelling sexual harassment to get even. The military just took the grey area out of the equation so that this can't happen and they are less likely to be sued. What happens when gay men start to do the same thing? Are we then going to cast the same eggshells before the feet of men serving with homosexuals? I would hope not but it is a more than real possibility.

Personally, I'm all for both women and gays in the military but something has to be done, not only about the different standards but also the different protocols that come attached with them. Our current protocols surrounding women in the military have definitely created a less effective fighting force and many people, both men and women would agree. If we do the same thing for gay men in the military, if we go about it the same way, we are going to be in big trouble.

--airspoon


Note: Their are also many positive things about women in the military, even with the current standards and protocols, that I have not listed up top due to relevance. Also, I have not mentioned many women who meet or exceed not only the physical standards set for men but also the disciplinary standards, though I have found that not to be typical.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by airspoon]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I'm gay and lived in the barracks with a straight roomie. The roomie constantly had girls in room and having sex right in front of me. Not only did I have to endure the sounds and smells, I was totally disgusted by straight behavior. Yep, gays need their own rooms, cause young straights can't walk a straight line. They should be put in their own barracks. Disgusting straight people.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by brilab45
I'm gay and lived in the barracks with a straight roomie. The roomie constantly had girls in room and having sex right in front of me. Not only did I have to endure the sounds and smells, I was totally disgusted by straight behavior. Yep, gays need their own rooms, cause young straights can't walk a straight line. They should be put in their own barracks. Disgusting straight people.


What?

I personally find sex between two men repulsive, but I dont see the need to segregate society even more by rooming people with the same sexual orientation in the same areas. Thats simply homophobia gone backwards

Im happy to stick up for those ridiculed for being minorities, but what you just said was ridiculous



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join