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 Man for Navy Secretary?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lizziejayne
 


If I may expand upon YOUR post, lizziejayne?

It has been well-documented that most nations who are a part of NATO (with the exception of the US) have discovered that sexual orientation is NOT an issue iin their militaries.

This 'bias' in the US history is reminiscent of the 'bias' against African-Americans during WWII, in the US Military.

Let's hope that, within this decade, and beyond, we can eliminate bias and stereotypes and move on.......as HUMANS linving on ONE World......



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Dooper, in your opinion, why do you think that some heterosexual males in the army do not/would not trust a homosexual in their unit?

Is it to do with the percieved implications of their sexual orientation (e.g. they think that the chap might fancy them), stereotype (e.g. they think the chap will be weak) or that they don't trust what they don't like/agree with?

I ask because I'm genuinely trying to understand the logic here - and perhaps understand the logic behind some of the replies to the original post.

[edit on 19/12/08 by lizziejayne]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lizziejayne
 


Based on what I've seen and heard, the truth is this: it creeps them out.

They don't understand this behavior. They don't like this behavior, and if someone is willing to engage in this activity, then the reasoning is "what other odd things about this persona do I not know, and will other oddities show up, and will they get me killed?"

I can't find the words to accurately describe the absolute trust that you have to have for one another. We're not talking friends. We're not talking values. We're talking about will that man expend every ounce of his energy, every ounce of his courage, and even every ounce of his blood for me? Because I know I will do the same, and I must rely on him to do the same.

I've been in combat with guys that I personally didn't like. But I also knew that when the chips were down, even if it were just the two of us back to back, I could rely on him to cover my back regardless.

In comes a "gay." Right out of the box, many will say, "keep that SOB away from me." He won't even get the chance to demonstrate himself.

No one has to understand or like it, but that's the way it is.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   


No one has to understand or like it, but that's the way it is.


Actually it's not.

Homophobic dimwits are a shrinking minority, globally and certainly in the USA.

Most .mil folks I've discussed the matter with have said that they knew of gay people in their units, and didn't really give a damn because it didn't affect them.

That's the way it's always been - my dad served with a guy that was basically flamingly gay in a top secret USN courier unit back in the late 1950's, and everyone knew, and nobody cared.

Not two weeks ago I talked to a Navy corpsman who had just returned from a tour in Iraq attached to a Marine unit, who told me that there were gays in their company that everyone knew about, and everybody made a point of helping keep the secret, because they were still, as he put it: "brothers"


It always amazes me when talking to serving .mil folks (a large chunk of the population here in San Diego) how much more sensible they are than the moron far-right militarists I run into online.

A lot of people who are driven by politics to be quite anti-military, should spend the time to sit down and actually talk to some soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen.

Most of them are quite admirable & sensible young men & women, and they shouldn't be blamed for the follies of our political leadership.

[edit on 12/19/08 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Your logic is backwards, and full of ignorance, from reading your post you have a genius hatred against something that you do not understand. I do not see anyone else supporting your sick ideology, go beat your chest somewhere else!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lizziejayne
 


Appreciate your input since that's the reason this thread was created because I was curious to know what others thought.
I understand why you would think it's somewhat petty but maybe I'd like to think image still matters.

Is having a good strong image of a powerful military too much to ask for?

For all we know this guy might be able to handle the job but we don't know just how "openly gay" he happens to be. Being able to handle the job is only part of the job because someone in his position should command respect in more ways than one.

He should possess certain Drill Sergeant-like qualities where intimidation is almost second nature.
There should be no tolerance for anything and no leniency for anyone that will get in your way and keep you from performing your duties.

Having a flimsy posture and giving orders with a lisp is not exactly my idea of someone that will be taken seriously, both by his underlings and especially by the enemy.

There is no time for pushovers, especally in this day and age.


Originally posted by weedwhacker

It has been well-documented that most nations who are a part of NATO (with the exception of the US) have discovered that sexual orientation is NOT an issue iin their militaries.

This 'bias' in the US history is reminiscent of the 'bias' against African-Americans during WWII, in the US Military.

Let's hope that, within this decade, and beyond, we can eliminate bias and stereotypes and move on.......as HUMANS linving on ONE World......



Maybe it's an non issue the world over because maybe the world is reverting back to the days of Alexander the Great.
Are we suppose to love our enemies to death now?

What one generation tolerates the next will accept as the norm, but be careful, you might get in hot water if you are comparing a certain race with homosexuality.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


You are conflating effeminacy with homosexuality, which are two very different things. Go have a couple beers at a gay biker bar, start calling them names, and find out what "pushovers" they are


Most gay men don't live up to the "mincing fairy" stereotype... hell just think of Alexander the Great, whom you happened to mention.

Travel back in time, call him a "wimpy fairy" to his face, and see how many seconds your head stays attached to your body



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Dooper, firstly thanks for your detailed reply - your explanation was much appreciated


In your opinion, wouldn't the allocation of an openly homosexual male into such a prominent position help overcome these perceptions?

I mean say this chap, over the years, proceeded to demonstrate a professional character and traits worthy of the utmost respect from those within his branch. Would that not go some way towards making those within the branch at least consider that homosexual does not equate to something "oddball"?

Again, I'm trying to understand the logic, as I don't understand how sexuality impacts percieved trust. As you say, it currently does - that's how it is. However IMO, the reasoning you experienced is flawed - it's a conclusion based on perception rather than fact. This in itself (if one doesn't believe there's a moral reason here), demands that it's challenged IMO.

The appointment of an openly homosexual male - IF he is the right man for the job - is a step towards challenging this.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



Like I said before I have met a handful of gay, eyebrows painted on cholo
gangbangers who would eat you up... and then some.

If ferocity is the issue, I could introduce you to a slanted boxer who could do the job of tenderizing most anyone...

I suspect it is not, unfortunately I think you will have to eat a wholelotta stuff you don't like.

I just did an eight year stint.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Thanks for your further explanation Alxandro


I understand now what you were trying to say. I had thought that your concerns were wholly regarding sexuality, which I admit I struggled to understand.

However, I appreciate that you wouldn't feel anyone who fell outside these parameters - homosexual or not - to be right for the role


I don't think you have anything to worry about though - I can't see them putting Mr Humphries in post just yet


[edit on 19/12/08 by lizziejayne]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I haven't read all of the replies, so apologies if this has been brought up already - but a gay man on Obama's cabinet could hurt the U.S. as far as foreign relations go when we're dealing with nations who take their religion very seriously, like Muslims. It may or may not be a hindrance to foreign relations with these sorts of countries - time will tell.

And I don't necessarily have a problem with a gay man serving the position as long as he leaves his gayness at the door when he comes in to work in the morning. As long as he doesn't use the post to further any gay agendas or seek any favors on behalf of the gay rights communities, then I say it's fine. When you serve the government, you're a governmental employee and nothing else.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I appreciate what you're saying about maintaining international relations. However, it appears that unless the US sticks to their married male representatives, they're never going to please all of the religions/cultures all of the time.

Perhaps now is the time to offer that slight challenge? After all, there are often representatives of other countries whose actions/beliefs are contrary to the inherent beliefs of others. They are not concerned because it's their heart-held belief. Neither belief is more important - they're equal - and perhaps therein lies the weakness in those who bow to the rights of others without demanding the rights for themselves? I'm feeling like a bit of a Devil's advocate at the moment, can you tell?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Well, sos37...um, as long as YOU leave your bigotry at the door, when you come into work, is that OK too???

See, here it is, plain and simple....and I hope I don't run afoul of ATS parameters...but:

Point One: Men rule the World!

Point Two: Most of (not all) of these 'MEN' are heterosexual.

Point Three: Now that we realize, (thank you Senator Larry Craig) the incredible duality, and ability to deny one's true nature, in order to achieve 'acceptance' in the society one is born into, well we begin to understand what is in Nature.

( I hope that folks will realize that Points One and Two were intended to be a joke, to epitomize the construct of belief...something that certain cultures hope to achieve into the masses.... )

To further explain, I'll use a recent instance from current news....the throwing of shoes.

MOST Americans, unless they've had a chance to read and learn, would NOT have known the significance of a shoe thrown at a person....despite the FACT that is has been broadcast for the last several years that it is a Muslim cultural indication of disgust, and the worst possible form of insult...most Americans go along, blithely unaware.

MOST Americans, if invited into a Muslim house, would not realize that showing the sole of the foot is an insult....of course, most Muslims if invited into an American home would insult the host in a different way, one thst I can't imagine....

And, so it goes....one person's INSULT is laughed at by another....

IT all comes down to culture....and most of the culture is bred by certain religions...and RELIGION is the true enemy, in this mix.

SpirituALITY....all for that!!

religion....'organized religion'....should die, as people understand that they Do NOT need it.....



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Dear GemWolf...as a member I found it amusing that you scolded another Mod for the one-line link, when the NEXT post was just one SENTENCE, that managed to be long enough to create two lines....

I mean, if I wished, I could create a sentence that droned on and on and made no sense then I could drone on and on until I foamed at the mouth...

sorry, a Monty Python reference....

But, back to the subject....I truly HOPE that Barack Obama (did anyone yet realize his initials are B.O.???) a guy I voted for, just recently chose a virulent homophobe, a 'Jerry Falwell in a goatee', to give his Inaugaural invocation ....(AND here, my stupidity as an American, 'believing' in our Constitution, ad the concept of Separation of Church and State) allowing this newly elected President-to-be to use this miserable example of what is generoulsy described as 'religous diversity in America' a chance at a platform to espouse his 'disgust' at nearly 10 percent of the population of the Country.

This, this 'Rick Warren' is going to be allowed to speak, when millions of others' voices are muted??? It's disgusting....I can ONLY hope that the nominee for Sec. of the Navy is Gay, and will stand up to this insult!!!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
We all know that a Secretary is a girl's job.
And fags are a lot like girls.
So what's the problem?

"takes off Archie Bunker hat"










don't kill me...



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Well played.
You hunky hunk you.




posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Wait, this is an issue? I don't get it. Why is this even a thing?

I can't wait for the day when a person being gay isn't part of the story of the person taking an office, or even being considered for one.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   


All I have.
To say.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by cruzion]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join