Gay Man for Navy Secretary?

reply to post by stardust1955


stardust....hope you're still online...

While I get your intent, and thanks....PLEASE remember ONE thing....being GAY is not a preference!!!!

It's like saying that being straight is a 'preference'.......

Think about it.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by stardust1955

 

stardust....hope you're still online...

While I get your intent, and thanks....PLEASE remember ONE thing....being GAY is not a preference!!!!

It's like saying that being straight is a 'preference'.......

Think about it.....

Think about this ...

Being "straight" is a condition for the survival of the species - any species that doesn't reproduce by cell division. Does that make being gay a "lifestyle" that depends on "straights" to carry on the human race?

I'm concerned that by rubbing the military's face in this coupled with past slights, obama could be setting himself up to be toppled by a coup.

Some folks just don't get it.

Men in the military as a group - a normal group - look down and detest homosexuals anywhere around them. They don't like this behavior/lifestyle, they have no respect for it, and it is a distraction.

It is a distraction that takes away from good military order.

Yes, there have been closet gays in the military, but the DADO policy is there for a very good reason.

I don't care how badly you may want homosexuality to become acceptable, to the general public, it is generally considered aberrant behavior, unacceptable, and among testosterone-pumped heterosexual males, it's even more unacceptable and aberrant.

Just not a good idea. The military is not a frigging social experiment.

reply to post by centurion1211


centurion....you are correct!

IF EVERY denizen of a particular species decided to be homosexual then, indeed, that species, or even sub-species would die out.

BUT, that is contrary to the laws of Natural Selection....which may include, the Survival of the Species....

By YOUR attempt at (at least, what it appears is your attempt) you'd rather 'cull' those you don't like, as if you were applying the law of 'Natural Selection'......when, instead, wouldn't it just be easier, for you, to allow something that you consider 'unnatural' to just fester and die on the vine, so to speak?????

How to you incorparate the obvious fact that the Earth is being over-run, with too many people??

Try to expand your conscienous away from just America.....Oh, what's the use? Others can come along and show you why you're just a bigot, I don't have the time.....

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by stardust1955

 

stardust....hope you're still online...

While I get your intent, and thanks....PLEASE remember ONE thing....being GAY is not a preference!!!!

It's like saying that being straight is a 'preference'.......

Think about it.....

I'm concerned that by rubbing the military's face in this coupled with past slights, obama could be setting himself up to be toppled by a coup.

YOU WOULD LIKE THAT.

The moment that happens I'm going HUTU on conservatives in general.

Just on principle...

I'll bust out my BBQ...

Obama dies... You should leave the semi west in a hurry RUSH.

We had to endure BUSH who was forced to fail by the libral conspiracy.

Anyhow they will have to roll over me and eat my heart buddy.

Originally posted by dooper

I don't care how badly you may want homosexuality to become acceptable, to the general public, it is generally considered aberrant behavior, unacceptable, and among testosterone-pumped heterosexual males, it's even more unacceptable and aberrant.

The funny thing is your ideas in five hundred years will be about as relevant as burning a woman on a stake, for a facial mole...

The urgency of your logic is buckshot with some scat on point. However all the blow back you cite will be socially unacceptable one day, forgotten like a fart!

The anti gay sentiment will diminish with each generation, this will occur in a cycle like
AA struggle. Mankind is resistant to status quo by nature. Slavery, international genocide/persecution and other devises have all but vanished. Once there is a portion
of unaffected man in the corner of the persecuted it is just a matter of time. Individual
hatred will always remain however society undoubtedly grows and becomes more tolerant. Once that seal is broken dog's, bullets and bombs cannot stop it.


On another note - toughest feller I ever knew could careless about gayness. [Marine parachuting, pinched after service and tougher than 90 year olds backside] actively bashed over bigots for pleasure. I've run up some half cocked ESE gangbangers who could give a nasty blood bath like no other! I've seen many gays who would be a good fit for killing anyone they had too. A dogpack doesn't kill it homosexual member for
its oddness, the gay mutt achieves its social status with teeth and moxy.

reply to post by dooper

Men in the military as a group - a normal group - look down and detest homosexuals anywhere around them.

I do not know where “you” come from, but men who are comfortable with their sexuality have no problem working and training with gay men, maybe you are not comfortable with your own sexuality and it sound like you are afraid of gay men because you are afraid they might turn you gay. There are many gay men in the Military. Not all gay men want to ware a dress or mommy’s lipstick, however if that is your idea of what gay men are then you have a lot to learn. I have dated many Military men in my day and some of these guys where so straight acting you would have never known.

They don't like this behavior/lifestyle, they have no respect for it, and it is a distraction.

It is a distraction that takes away from good military order.

My opinion is it is a distraction for you! You do not like their lifestyle! You say “they” have no respect for it! What is it they have no respect for? So while you where in the Military, you went to every officer and did a pole all about homosexuals can you please summit that as your proof that all Military men hate gays? I would have to think your ego is to big for your brain.

Yes, there have been closet gays in the military, but the DADO policy is there for a very good reason.

Would you mind telling us what that good reason is?

I don't care how badly you may want homosexuality to become acceptable, to the general public, it is generally considered aberrant behavior, unacceptable, and among testosterone-pumped heterosexual males, it's even more unacceptable and aberrant.

Really! Well if this Country was run on your thinking skills, and your ideas we would not be any different from Russia, or North Korea. You have a lot to learn. Gays are everywhere and in every work force in the world, whether you like it or not! And there have been “gay” generals in a many Military’s across the world a lot of the Greek Military men, took young men with them to war to help carry their gear and to bed down with them. that is a fact!

Just not a good idea. The military is not a frigging social experiment.

Who said it was a “social” experiment YOU! Gays have been in the Military since it was started and you are not going to change a thing.

So what if he's gay? If he's good at his job, who cares?
As opposed of course to the heck of a job that Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rumsfeld have done...you know, being all straight men and all.

Que the Village People.

I mean really, why did it have to be the Sec of the Navy?

Let’s try to reinforce all the stereotypes we can, umkay?

This would be fantastic!

America wanted change, and change is what you're getting. Now all those hypocrites and bashers already in the military can either come out or shut up.

Being gay has no bearing on your ability to do a job. Anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously an idiot beyond measure.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
My question is this.....

How can there be an openly GAY Secretary of the Navy, when there is a do not ask, do not tell policy in the military

Because the SecNav isn't "in the navy" That don't ask don't tell only applies to members serving in the military, not secnav.

Originally posted by dooper
Some folks just don't get it.

From the rest of your post... it seems like the one who doesn't "get it" is you.

Men in the military as a group - a normal group - look down and detest homosexuals anywhere around them. They don't like this behavior/lifestyle, they have no respect for it, and it is a distraction.

That's not true at all. I was in the military and yes there are those who detest it, and there are those who have no issue with it.

It is a distraction that takes away from good military order.

How does this take away from good military order when we have females serving in combat roles? Isn't that a distraction?

Just not a good idea. The military is not a frigging social experiment.

No but the military is nothing more than a representation of our society.

Some of y'all are missing the point.

While it's true that "being gay has no bearing on your ability to do the job", there is just something to be said when the head of one of our Military branches happens to live a lifestyle that our enemies consider extremely abhorent.

They shoot gays don't they?

♬
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
♬

Originally posted by Alxandro
Some of y'all are missing the point.

While it's true that "being gay has no bearing on your ability to do the job", there is just something to be said when the head of one of our Military branches happens to live a lifestyle that our enemies consider extremely abhorent.

I don't get your logic.

They are OUR ENEMIES so why would we care What they thought? Personally I believe the US should flaunt homosexuality as socially acceptable from the hilltops just to piss off Iran.

You aren't sympathizing with our enemies are you?

reply to post by Alxandro


Ridiculous, idiotic, and basically homophobic.

Your enemy is going to shoot at you whether you are gay or not! And unless you wear a pink badge or carry a banner stating your sexuality, how would they know?

FFS!

How do people like you know how to breathe?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Quite frankly, after my disappointment with Obama's choice of Rick Warren for his 'Invocation' for the Inaugaural....

I would find Pres-Elect Obama's appointment of a Gay Navy man to his Cabinet as a sign of inclusion....

So, you're disappointed that Obama would choose Rick Warren, but choosing a gay man is "inclusive"?

Why aren't both choices seen as "inclusive"? I think it depends on one's perspective. From the far right, the Rick Warren choice is a sign of inclusiveness and the choice of a gay person is "disappointing".

BOTH choices are INCLUSIVE

Inclusive - including much or everything; and especially including stated limits;

Inclusive doesn't just mean including one's own extreme. It means including BOTH extremes (within the stated limits - I mean, we're not talking Taliban here, we're talking about Americans and their legal lifestyles, INCLUDING Hard-core Evangelicals to Flaming Gay People) THAT'S Inclusive.

Way to go Obama! That's keeping your promise, practicing what you preach and that's change I can believe in!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Personally I believe the US should flaunt homosexuality as socially acceptable from the hilltops just to piss off Iran.

You aren't sympathizing with our enemies are you?

Hail no, I ain't sympathyzing with anyone.
I'm just pointing out the irony of it all, so let me connect the dots for you.

Pacifist gays want to make peace with a group of people that would waste no time in persecuting/killing them, while at the same time bashing the very military that continue to protect them from this same enemy.

Now a gay man might become the leader of our military branch?

Where is the logic is that?
What makes you think flaunting it will piss them off?

If anything we will be the butt [no pun] of jokes the world over, once again.

OUR ENEMIES already hate US because they think we are a decadent society and we continue to proove them right.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Wanted to add on...

WHY is there a need of an 'invocation' anyway???

Because, as I understand, it is a 'tradition' within a State, a 'Republic by the People, and For the People' --- yet, our 'Head of State', or more familiarly, our 'Commander-in-Chief' must have an 'invocation'????

Even though we are established, as a Nation, to be 'separated' from the 'church'?

Some History: Yes, the Colonists, from Great Britain, desired a form of 'self-rule'....BUT the original reason for getting away FROM the UK was primarily for religious freedom, especially freedom from the Church of England.

SO, splinter groups of Christianity were free to form, and prosper....such is the wont in a land this large.....(I know, Lutherans began in Europe...I'm trying to over-simplify)

My point, and I'm getting to it is this: It is 2008. We have seen, in the past, and certainly are seeing currently, horrible events that are waged for many reasons.....but, most seem to be ideological, in nature. Yes, some are simply greed-based, but most conflicts among Humans are based on ideology, or in other words, "RELIGION".

It is the 'religious', the ones who think THEY are such ideologues that there IS NO WAY their viewpoint could be wrong, they are the ones that contribute to the hampering of Humanities' growth.

To think that an 'openly' Gay Man, or Woman, would be somehow a 'second-class' citizen is repulsive, to me. It as repulsive as the notions of the past, that women couldn't vote, or that a (sorry) 'negroe' was only 3/5 of a person.....this is the 'HISTORY OF OUR GREAT NATION' --- at certain times in History....in the PAST!!!!!

I've added more than I meant to, in this post....it was supposed to be about the alleged separation of 'church' and 'state'....and the upcoming 'invocation' for the Inaugaration.....I only hope people stop, and think about WHAT it means to have a religious 'invocation' when we have already voted for a 'change'....

All I want this new President to do is FIX the mess of the last eight years!!!!

We wanted CHANGE!!!!!!! Drop the religious BS, and just get to work!!!! (After the one requiste, of course....the 'Swearing-in Ceremony'.....DONE!! GO TO WORK!!!!!!!

A majority of this country says the belive in christian-judeo principles, even our new president profess the same faith. So until these people become a minority we will still see this things happen, wither you like it or not. If you dont want to here his prayer mute it or change the TV.


I served in the Army for 6 years saw 2 and 1/2 years of combat in Iraq. I served with men who were gay and had no problem with them. The were able to carry there weight and help kept us all safe and alive. except one little sissy boy whos chromosomes got mixed up. This are the ones that should be kept off the combat line. If this guy his smart an understands 21st warfare then by all means bringing him on. He cant be as bad as dumbsfield i mean rumsfeild

[edit on 19-12-2008 by poedxsoldiervet]

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Dear Sir.

I admire, and value your service, of which NO ONE could ever dispute.

My point was, however, that what you served for should be accorded the honor of applying to ALL peoples of our Country...

I realize that, within a society, if the laws OF that society are broken by an individual, then that individual should be held accountable. And, thusly, be incarcerate or kill offenders...., as dictated by whatever system of justice prevails...at the time.

There was no way, in my post, an indication (at least I hope not) that I directed a disparaging comment at you, or your service in the Military.

I would simply like to turn the discussion back-on-track and ask: Given the recent 'broohaha' about Pres-Elec Obama's chice for the Invocation, would a Gay man as Secretary of the Navy smooth over that gaffe????

edit...minor typo...

[edit on 12/19/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Alxandro


Serious question - why are you so concerned that a homosexual in that role would be grounds for mockery from other countries? Even if people did point and poke fun, so what? As long as the chap is doing his job well, what's the issue? Surely it's like reasoning you can't have a rotund chap in the role, lest people start using the fat American stereotype to poke fun. School yard stuff, surely... unless I'm missing the point?

As for someone in the role having a lifestyle that your enemies consider to be abhorrent, surely many heterosexuals tick that box? I mean, you could have a Christian heterosexual in post. Your extremist follower of Islam is hardly going to love that is he?

Not trying to be contrary, but I'm honestly not getting the thinking here.