Marines Chief Warns Most Are Uncomfortable Serving With Openly Gay Troops

So even though it will disrupt our military, and quite possibly our national security the military is still gonna abide by a ruling made by a biased judge? When did it all go wrong? Those in the military follow a different set of laws and answer to a different judicial system, the WH doesn't agree with the judge and yet she is still allowed to do this? I think the military needs to disregard her biased opinion as it has no bearing, and continue on its own path If the DADT is going to be repealed by the military after necessary adjustments and arrangements have been made, anything else is not only stupid, it's borderline criminal.






www.foxnews.com...

On one hand, I don't see why gay people feel that they have to tell everyone they are gay. I honestly don't care either way, as long as you aren't trying to get in my pants, you know? I just don't understand why people feel the need to be "proud" of being gay. They say it is something they are born with, so it doesn't make them anymore special than straight people.
On the other hand, as long as gay people aren't running around in pink camo, and not doing their jobs, what is the big deal? They went through and passed the training required, same as the straight soldiers. Before you found out someone is gay, if you trusted them, why should it be any different? Being gay, straight, asexual etc just doesn't change anyone's abilities to do their job.

The same argument used to be said about women serving in the military. Outspoken military leaders vehemently complained that most men would be uncomfortable serving with women. Yet after women have openly served, it was discovered that such wasn't the case (although granted rape in the military is a *MAJOR* problem now, affecting 25% of all enlisted females).

The same argument used to be said about blacks serving in the military. Outspoken military leaders vehemently complained that most white men would be uncomfortable serving alongside blacks. Yet, such again proved to be wrong, and more inroads were made towards desegregation in the military more so than in civil society. Harry S. Truman desegregated the military 15 years before the Voting Act of 1965 which gave blacks the right to vote, and 18 years before schools were desegregated in the United States.

Eventually, if you use the same lame argument too many times you become nothing more than the boy who cried wolf and everyone stops listening.

Seriously, is the Military going to complain about most being uncomfortable serving with Arab-Americans or Hispanics? At this point, we are running out of demographic groups for the Military to continue being prejudiced against!

when i was in the army, HOOOOAAA... there was "gay's" all over the bases and diseases , too.
alot of fine looking lesbiens in the military but sux for me though

So what? Bigotry is no excuse for discrimination. I wouldn't be comfortable serving with openly religious troops, but everyone has a right to be openly religious.

We have a right to be who we are, let the homosexuals be who they are. I doubt there would be a particularly high level of 'flamboyance' from the homosexuals in the military anyway.

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, the fact is that the culture of the Marines is that of young, Alpha male pack. These young men are still socially immature, most often going directly from high school into the artificial social structure of the military. Often young men are not yet secure in their sexuality, and homosexuality poses a perceived threat to their (limited) understanding of sexuality. (It seems to be less of an issue for young women, who have proven to be more tolerant and accepting of lesbians in the armed forces. When I served 18 years ago, it was no secret that there was a large lesbian population, but no one 'outed' them, at least during my time.)

Military life is a very intimate life...You sleep, shower, train, fight, eat and party with your peers. Forced introduction of openly homosexual members to the male pack would breed anger, resentment, mistrust and rejection. As much as it is unfair to homosexuals to have to "not tell", it is equally unfair to set up the young hetero men to fail. They simply aren't capable of this kind of integration yet.

What I don't get is why a gay male would want to enter in to this situation to begin with...Knowing the mentality of the typical young marine (probably the same type of boys who harassed him in high school), it is not only a dangerous position, but at best a lonely and outcast one as well.

Notes: All armed forces are not created equal: The truth is different branches recruit different types to fill their roles: I would expect the Air Force and Coast Guard to be the most tolerant, and I think could easily accept integration. The Air Force, because it seeks more intelligent recruits to fill technical roles. The Coast Guard from all accounts is much more integrated into a semi-civilian mindset. The CG bases are generally small and integrated into the local communities.

I think there are going to be alot of violent reactions to this.

My fiance' and my brother both served, and they seem to think this is going to get really ugly.

I dont see the point in parading your sexuality around, either. (As someone pointed out in an earlier post). It's not like I hold parades and rallies for my heterosexuality. But regardless, I can see both sides of this situation.

So a troop of girls are showering. One is a lesbian. She checks the other girls out. Things get uncomfortable. I get it. But the only solution to this problem, in intimate situations such as showering, is to segregate gays. That isnt fair, though.

There's no way to be fair on either side. But I dont think anyone should get special treatment. Not straight people-because theyre "normal". Not gays-because they feel persecuted or they are the minority.

It's a bad situation, but I think the media has hyped it up so much, that now it will be an even bigger issue.

Personally, when I hear : "hey! Youre kinda hot"....i get flattered no matter which sex I am garnering such attention from, but thats just me

well- we wouldnt want marines to be uncomfortable..

this i just a wedge-issue for an election year.

a has been already noted, the same tired arguments have been used against allowing other minorities in the military.

Characterizing this as it being about gays 'parading their sexuality' is absurd. No one is looking to 'parade their sexuality'. They are merely looking to not have the law say they can be REMOVED from the military merely for the sexual orientation. Everything else is spin.

reply to post by justadood

Wasn't that the whole point of the DADT policy? So that no one that was gay were forced to tell anyone, and they weren't put in that situation? I thought their whole fighting DADT, was so that they could tell. Of course I could be way off base, but I am sure there is spin from both sides like usual. I just don't see what the point is of being openly gay in the military. You are not there to try to find a date.

You can call me a bigot I guess but then I can call you stupid on this issue.
I am a Marine and we all know it isn’t as simple as letting gays say they are gay and all is well.
How you do house a platoon? Do gays get a special head because they will be essentially getting the same status as another gender in the eyes of the Corps? How about different uniforms? Do they get their own boot camp because we Marines train man and women separately because we know men and women are different and need to be trained differently as will the needs of gays?
And why are gay people the “special” alternative whatever? What about animal lovers, transsexuals, transvestites, Mormons because I’d like a few more wives?!
But I bet none of you so called culturally superior people out there have any answers.
And we in the Marines just want to kill the bad guys so you can do whatever back here in the US. BUT again society thinks we need gays to improve our standings with the emotion driven fringe groups, while you all forget what out ultimate purpose is.
I await your replies.

Originally posted by Steve8511
You can call me a bigot I guess but then I can call you stupid on this issue.

Who called you a bigot?

Also, a 'bigot' is not the same as 'stupid'. Not even comparable, really.
\

And we in the Marines just want to kill the bad guys so you can do whatever back here in the US. BUT again society thinks we need gays to improve our standings with the emotion driven fringe groups, while you all forget what out ultimate purpose is.
I await your replies.

So gay people can't kill bad guys? How will making it not illegal to be gay in the military effect your ability to fight?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by justadood

 

Wasn't that the whole point of the DADT policy? So that no one that was gay were forced to tell anyone, and they weren't put in that situation? I thought their whole fighting DADT, was so that they could tell. Of course I could be way off base, but I am sure there is spin from both sides like usual. I just don't see what the point is of being openly gay in the military. You are not there to try to find a date.

Well, what's the point of being openly 'heterosexual' in the military?

The point is, DADT didnt make it legal to be gay. It meant one could not have their sexuality formally questioned. One can still be dishonorably discharged if it is discovered they are gay. This new change will remove that ridiculous rule, and allow people to serve their country without having to lie about who they are

reply to post by Steve8511

you are a piece of equipment/ govt property -you dont need to think.
follow orders. just worry about shooting straight. not if the shooter is straight.

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by Steve8511
You can call me a bigot I guess but then I can call you stupid on this issue.

Who called you a bigot?

Also, a 'bigot' is not the same as 'stupid'. Not even comparable, really.
\

And we in the Marines just want to kill the bad guys so you can do whatever back here in the US. BUT again society thinks we need gays to improve our standings with the emotion driven fringe groups, while you all forget what out ultimate purpose is.
I await youingo! That’s where you don’t understand what we do and how we do it. Our training and lifestyle doesn’t have room for the special and correct way of handling another gender or legalized fetish.
Sorry.
r replies.

So gay people can't kill bad guys? How will making it not illegal to be gay in the military effect your ability to fight?

Bingo! That’s where you don’t understand what we do and how we do it. Our training and lifestyle doesn’t have room for the special and correct way of handling another gender or legalized fetish.
Sorry.

If been gay wasnt frowned upon so badly, maybe the people who are gay-wouldnt want to make a statement about been gay? Hence been camp, outspoken and dressing different. Been gay, realy isnt ...anything, its not wrong it not rights - its a persons choice to do as they please in life, and when people object to something you do as a choice of life, people rebel, and make a counter statement


Anyway back to the OP. I can 100% understand the feeling of the people serving at the side of a man, who finds another man attractive. If they have grown up around people who object to this, they no doubt feel the same way and frown upon homosexuality, simple. Its hard to change that, but its life and just another product of thier enviroment. Easiest way to change a man beliefs is to change the enviroment he is in.

Or you could just put all the homosexuals in a sqaud, full of only homosexuals, im sure a few religious countires would give up thier land and gold with the fear of been "attacked" my this sqaud (sarcasm)

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Why shouldn't someone be able to serve their country, especially if they're openly gay?

I still don't understand why denying someone the ability to do so is acceptable in today's society.

reply to post by fraterormus


That is a nonsensical argument. By definition, homosexuals view others of the same sex as desirable and potential sexual partners in the same manner that heterosexuals view members of the other sex as potentially desirable and sexual partners. Enabling gays to serve openly in the military is absolutely no different than integrating men and women in the military. Men and women in the showers together, in the toilet together, sleeping right next to each other. Were we to implement the male/female integration on that basis, it would likely lead to increased enlistment, but regardless, it would be a poor policy.

To suggest that gays can not be impacted by being in close proximity of those of the sex to which they are attracted suggests that homosexual proclivities are no the same as hetrosexual proclivities, which by definition suggests that homosexual proclivities are abberant.

Let gays serve openly in the military. Place them in homosexual quarters for living and don't force hetrosexuals to live in an environment where they are forced to be in an intimate environment with people who view them as sex objects.

this is a tough call for me to make..........

if your a dude i cant see how you dont like women...............and yeah straight people are born straight for the simple fact we have two sexes............to procreate..

here comes "they were born gay" mother nature says otherwise remember procreation

I`m against it and here is why.
I served in the Navy as a Sea Bee while doing my 5 year service I had to stand watch on a base in the main bases sleeping facility. Over 100 men trying to get a good nights sleep in a open bay. Well this watch should be boring to say the least. But no some gay guy in the service couldn`t keep his gay hands off the non-gay guys while they slept touching them in private areas. So when I go to the watch I`m told of this and sent to a empty bunk at 2am to watch for this gay sneaking around. I`m not good at acting like I`m sleeping without really doing it is how my story ends though. So I myself say give them their own showers and facilities along with sleeping areas.

Now this occurred when you shouldn`t have them there so I only see this trouble getting much worse.
Think this will also require more man overboard practice for the Navy and friendly fire accident paperwork for the Army and Marines..