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.

 

A question on gays and the US miltary.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'm wondering if some fellow ATS members would like to clarify or debate the following aspect of the US military gay policy issue:
As several threads on the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy make clear, open homosexuality is currently officially forbidden in the US military, despite massive protests.
One special point of concern across the threads is the contract signed by new recruits, which allegedly somehow requires soldiers to agree that they are not gay (or that they are indeed straight).
What exactly does this ask?
Does it actually ask prospective recruits: "Are you gay"?

Or, does it perhaps ask: "Have you ever been attracted to someone of the same sex"?, or about sex acts themselves?

If it actually asks: "Are you gay/homosexual"? I would say that is non-binding, or only as a farce.
Firstly, these are non-scientific terms from various, changing forms of gender activism. Gay studies are being eclipsed by "Queer Studies", so will it soon ask: "Are you queer"? (lol)
What is the recruitment age?
What is the legal age of gay sex in all US states? Does it vary and always correspond to the recruitment age?

Somebody of 18-22 does not necessarily know or admit their sexual orientation.
Society forbids youngsters of learning about being gay (and that it can be OK), but then expects them to form an honest sexual identity at such a young age?
I was told at that age in South Africa it was just a "phase" and that the army would make me straight (an old trope concerning the military, which it encouraged in all kinds of implicit ways).
Youngsters from homophobic backgrounds may be in denial, or even have gone through religious counselling and therapies that convinced them that they are not gay.
Gay men cannot be expected to be honest about something they have been brainwashed into thinking about dishonestly.
Coming out to oneself can be a long process.
So how can the US miltary expect youngsters to sign such a form?
Somebody sue them!

Perhaps it follows the religious wording: "Are you involved in the gay lifestyle"?
I doubt that however, the current policy backs some very essentialist thinking on homosexuals.
edit on 21-10-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Currently the religious view on homosexuality is that it is a sin. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner who resists temptation. To even speak of gay identity, or a gay person is a paradox in that powerful paradigm.
So, according to this the military could rather help and council the homosexual youngster and socialize him into "real manhood".
But consider the dilemma of a youngster who is gay or "struggling with homosexuality": "It's just a sin, Jesus is helping me, so while I struggle with it, I am not gay, because God didn't make gays".
Could such a youngster answer a question "honestly" on his sexuality?

So now, when this person gets over the religious phase and realizes he is gay, then he must give up his military career?

I'd say, find a "scientific way" (brain scans, penile pressure tests) to exclude people or drop the issue.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
No forms / contracts / etc...ask about a potential recruits sexual orientation / history. Hence the "Don't Ask" part of Don't ask, Don't Tell.

All of the services recruiting manuals are readily available on the Google. Look it all up if you want.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 

Really?
This is from Gseven's thread OP: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If someone signed up under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it actually protected their careers, because once they "came out", then they were subject to the UCMJ under Article 83 for Fraudulent Enlistment, Article 125 for Sodomy, Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (which also includes all ranks and females), Article 134-9 for wrongful cohabitation (if they were living with their lover), Article 134-19 for False Swearing under oath that they swore not to LIE and that all enlistment information was true to the best of their knowledge, and Article 134 for General acts that disrupt the good order and discipline of the armed forces, or brings discredit to the armed forces. All those who KNEW someone was gay and didn't say anything would be charged under Article 77, for knowing that this military member was breaking the above UCMJ laws, but didn't say anything...this falls under Principles. Hence, "don't ask" protected the hetero military member from having knowledge that could implicate him/her, and "don't tell" protected the gay member from being caught in a lie OR from being charged with all the above articles.

Thanks for your feedback, and I'm asking to make sure, because the impression at least seems to be that there is such a policy.
Or perhaps one is expected to be recruited under the assumption that one is straight, and any perceived homosexuality is then used to somehow dismiss people for committing an illegality?
edit on 21-10-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Yes, really. Lemme tell ya'...the UCMJ is a tricky beast.

In regards to what you posted:

Article 125 for Sodomy--- Just so you know, this can apply to heterosexual people as well. The UCMJ states that the only sexual position authorized is Missionary (no joke, look it up). In addition, oral sex is not "allowed".

Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman---Gets lumped into many other articles all the time. Go out, get wasted and punch someone? Bam, Article 133 in addition to others.

Article 77, for knowing that this military member was breaking the above UCMJ laws, but didn't say anything---This can be applied to so many things its not even funny.

Again, and I'm not going to look through the Army, A/F, or MC manual because I see no need; however the Navy at no time ask's anyone if they are gay or straight. I assume the other branches are the same as well.

Don't Ask/Don’t Tell = We don't ask.

I've done the legwork. Here are the manuals.

Navy Recruiting Manual

Army Recruiting Manual

Air Force Recruiting Manual

Marine Corps Recruiting Manual


edit on 10/21/2010 by Juston because: too much coffee



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 

Just read the wiki piece on the "Don't ask, don't tell' policy": en.wikipedia.org...'t_ask,_don't_tell
At least theoretically Clinton's policy over-rides a lot of the above (which means I have been misinformed).
However, it also puts the onus on gays never to reveal their sexuality, and encourages pretty ad hoc judgments by military staff where to find the "telling".
So at least the tacit agreement is for everybody to act heterosexual.
However, as can be seen above there is contractual anxiety about the issue, at least it seems very unclear.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
So at least the tacit agreement is for everybody to act heterosexual.


Not only act heterosexual, but pretend you and your wife are boring stiffs in bed



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is just another way that perverts use "Christianity" to sneak into the pants of the people and take a look around. Before you're allowed to join the military, they also do a genital inspection; that's what God wants, us to discriminate based on your genitals. Yup, people pretty much got Christianity down pat, the Bible is surely all about segregation and condoning genocide
:



Mark 12
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."


Which religion are these baboons actually going by?

edit on 21-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 

And let us not forget the KJV translations of the men Jesus said cannot, and should not marry women:


Matt 19: 10-12: "His disciples say unto Him, If the case of man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry. But He said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be some eunuchs which have made themselves eunuch's for heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


"Eunuch" here is a metaphor for men who do not marry women - unless castrating yourself for heaven's sake is on the agenda. So Jesus had gay men figured out - we were born that way. How much clearer can it be?

In any case, even if somebody acts gay, rather than breaking an older contract, religiously they could still claim that falling into sin does not make them gay.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


If by "genital inspection" you mean "standard physical", then yes...yes they do. If you played any sports in high school, it is the same thing. They also do an HIV test, color blind check, urinalysis, and finger printing.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 

No really, that's it - everybody must just act heterosexual?
Jokes aside, but that's the nitty-gritty!

So maybe they should show videos of desired heterosexuality at induction.
OK, that's Tom Cruise in Top Gun, and that's Kim Kardashian - now all the guys act like Tom, and the girls act like Kim (please, no confusions here).

Keep it up, and we won't ask about OUR assumptions.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I'm really wondering from what must be the straight perspective:
Isn't that really an insult to heterosexuals?
OK let's act straight - it's so superficial anyone can do it!




top topics



 
1

log in

join