Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you've caught any of Ken Burns' War on PBS right now (concerning WWII), they said before the physical they asked the guys some questions. One of the questions was, "do you like girls?"
So what does this prove? It proves bigotry and ignorance goes back a long ways, that's all. Tradition doesn't make a wrong a right. The 20th century saw a lot of wrongs set right in the US and elsewhere. It's a shame that it'll take until this century for gays to have equal rights and also atheists for that matter (there are some states that still deny an atheist the right to hold office).
If you've caught any of Ken Burns' War on PBS right now (concerning WWII), they said before the physical they asked the guys some questions. One of the questions was, "do you like girls?"
These "The War' episodes are phenomenal. Praise God for the DVR
As far as gays in the military are concerned, I am somewhat split on the issue. Having served in the military, and having been deployed to Iraq, in some ways I can see why having gays in the military could be an issue. Now before everyone jumps on me, let me explain that my impression of the military's mindset towards gays was a direct reflection of what Gen. Pace said. I'd also like to note that there were many people who showed their vehement hatred towards gays. But, please, do not get a bad impression of the military based on what I am saying, they truly are some of America's finest, I assure you of this and I do not mean to categorize ALL of the military either when I say this.
Regardless, being in Iraq wasn't the horrible duty the news makes it out to be. Did the enemy fire mortars at our base? Yeah, but they hardly ever came close, and they have to land on top of you to kill you. Big deal, life goes on, it's not something you try to think about every day, if you did it would consume you. Did we have communal showers where all males showered in one location and females all showered in one location? Yes, we did. Did we have separate barracks? Yes, actually as an NCO I only had to share my room with one person.
Now, this is where I feel allowing gays in the military has the potential to hurt the morale of a unit. Going back to my first paragraph I'd like to note that it did seem that homophobia was rampant in the military. Is this fair? No. Is it just? No. But, I can't imagine allowing gays (a small minority of the overall military population) in the military and having a cohesive bond in the unit. In other words, do all males still shower in the same place? The homophobic ones might feel threatened in such a place as stupid as this sounds. Would they be willing to share a bunk with an openly gay person, ESPECIALLY if it was only two to a room? Probably not. But, I don't see the military opening up "Male Showers, Female Showers, and Gay Showers". This also goes without saying, the amount of chastisement a straight member of the military may incur at work from his buddies if he's sharing a room with a gay person. So, in essence, would this be beneficial to the overall morale and welfare of a military fighting unit? It does not seem to me that it would. I see not only the chastisement of a gay individual, but those who have to work with him as well, regardless of their sexual preference. There would be constant inuendo's even if the two were paired up as work partners. People would still crack jokes on the two of them. Why? Who knows, I guess it's just childish behavior, but I see this as a problem.
On the flip side, I think many of these same arguments had been presented about 50 years ago when blacks wanted to be in the military. And, to be quite honest with you, there is no stereotyping of blacks in the military, there is no chuckling because you have to work with a black guy, and in fact, I have had some of the best experiences of my life and gained the utmost respect for people who this same argument had been said 50 years ago.
The only way that the military could seamlessly integrate gays into the military without having the issues I described above is to come down real hard on anyone who stereotypes or discriminates against a gay person in the military. Unfortunately, with the current state of our christian military leadership, I do not see this issue being enforced. I'm sorry, I really don't, and it seems to me that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is the best policy. Although people may question your "straightness" which is in itself childish to me, it is still an even playing field.
The final issue I have is whether or not gays should be allowed in the military, yet not in combat. I suppose one of the popular arguments that women are not allowed in combat could be used for gays in the military. (No, I am not referring to the two as intrinsically feminine, DO NOT get that impression) But, for those who are still with me, I feel that if gays were allowed in the military AND in combat that bonds further than "battlefield buddies" can occur. In other words, all men will develop a close bond with one another on the battlefield. Or at least most all men will. However, when a relationship occurs, whether it be between a man and a man or a woman and a man or whatever the situation may be, it is believed that in time of battle a man and/or a woman will be one the lookout for one another and not the overall welfare of the unit. The military strives to break one of individuality for that very reason. You have to be an essential part of the team, you are a cog, and if any cog goes bad then the whole machine stops working. I think it is with the assumption that if men and men had more than a battlefield bond that they would be more focused on the welfare of their lover than on the "team". Does this make sense? To put it another way, who would you look out for more in a dire situation? Your wife/husband or your best friends? I know it's a terrible thing to think about, but no one said war is easy, and it is with that dire scenario that the military commander must use his best judgement.
Anyway, I suppose you could say that because I am more laid back in my views on homosexuals that it wouldn't matter to me even if I was still in the military. If they wanted to keep the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, fine, it's working, but if they wanted to allow gays to come out of the closet, than it wouldn't bother me either. I guess I'm Switzerland on this issue
GCS, I only have one response to your post, and the rest I can sort of understand... my question is, why should we cater to homophobia/intolerance?? If the majority of soldiers were white supremacy types, and said they were "uncomfortable" sharing barracks with non-whites - would you agree to cater to them? Sorry, but I just don't think we should give in to this mindset, especially if it infringes upon the rights of others. I know you already made that connection, so hopefully that's how you ultimately feel too.
Anyway, it's not like gay people are attracted to ALL members of the same sex! I've shared rooms with lesbians, have changed in front of them (not just at the gym), etc. and it's never been an issue... hopefully any soldiers are mature enough to control themselves, whatever their orientation might be. And if a homophobic hetero feels threatened, that's more likely his issue than the gay person's. Besides, it's highly possible that they've showered, peed, and changed clothing in front of a gay person before - unless they've never been in a public restroom or gym locker.
GCS, I only have one response to your post, and the rest I can sort of understand... my question is, why should we cater to homophobia/intolerance?? If the majority of soldiers were white supremacy types, and said they were "uncomfortable" sharing barracks with non-whites - would you agree to cater to them? Sorry, but I just don't think we should give in to this mindset, especially if it infringes upon the rights of others. I know you already made that connection, so hopefully that's how you ultimately feel too.
Anyway, it's not like gay people are attracted to ALL members of the same sex! I've shared rooms with lesbians, have changed in front of them (not just at the gym), etc. and it's never been an issue... hopefully any soldiers are mature enough to control themselves, whatever their orientation might be. And if a homophobic hetero feels threatened, that's more likely his issue than the gay person's. Besides, it's highly possible that they've showered, peed, and changed clothing in front of a gay person before - unless they've never been in a public restroom or gym locker.
Gizmo, I'm glad that you saw I made the connection and that is how I ultimately do feel. Unfortunately, I do not see the rest of the military that way. To put it another way, knowing what Gen. Pace said, and how he feels about homosexuals, would you feel comfortable if you had to go to him as open homosexual because of a problem you had with it? This erases the entire foundation of the military. If you can't trust your leaders who can you trust? Unfortunately, it is not that we should cater to the homophobia, it is that the homophobics will cater to themselves. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Only until times change as a society will the military also change its views, because ultimately the military is just as much a reflection of our society, and our society today sees homosexuals and atheists as the bottom of the barrel.
I also do understand that because someone is gay they are not attracted to all members of the same sex. However, unfortunately, I think that a vast majority of homophobics do not feel this way. And it is this same immaturity that requires a society change to occur. What I really wanted to get at is that until the majority of the population is content with homosexuality, it will only be at that point the military is content with it. As I said, this is really a neutral topic for me, but I'm just telling you from my own experience what I see as problems for the military if this were to happen and the funny part is that it wouldn't be caused by the homosexuals but by the people who are afraid of them in the first place. Kind of ironic.
No, and my point is that their societies are much more accepting of homosexuals than ours are.
I find that very sad, don't you? For a "civilized" nation, we're pretty far behind on certain things... like female presidents/leaders, for which even India has us beaten! If we're supposedly setting an example for other countries, it would be a good idea to start with the military & government - IMO.
I find that very sad, don't you? For a "civilized" nation, we're pretty far behind on certain things... like female presidents/leaders, for which even India has us beaten! If we're supposedly setting an example for other countries, it would be a good idea to start with the military & government - IMO.
Oh I absolutely agree, but you have to recognize that religion in this country is much stronger than many other "accepting" countries and the Christian movement will stop at nothing to try and have it their way. So, yes, it is a shame, but until we as a society change, our military will not either. We are so far behind the power curve with the rest of the world that it just amazes me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we're supposedly setting an example for other countries, it would be a good idea to start with the military & government - IMO.
