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.

 

Republicans block efforts in ending 'Don't ask don't tell'

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

You are still in here arguing for more dead Afghani babies?
I personally think neo-cons that want endless war, like yourself, have issues.


Pity you insist on missing the point of the post. You are talking about the beating up of others...the OP is talking about self-inflicted wounds.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
You don’t have clue do you? So you approve of 4 bathrooms vs the 2 for man and women? You approve of allowing us in the military to Have 5 wives as Mormon’s do, how about transsexuals too? You have to be equal and gays are not a “special” alternative.
A bedroom preference has no place making policy.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Steve8511
You don’t have clue do you? So you approve of 4 bathrooms vs the 2 for man and women? You approve of allowing us in the military to Have 5 wives as Mormon’s do, how about transsexuals too? You have to be equal and gays are not a “special” alternative. A bedroom preference has no place making policy.


Sure...it's all about logistics. You just keep drinking that koolade.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Steve8511
You don’t have clue do you? So you approve of 4 bathrooms vs the 2 for man and women?

One of the most bigoted comments I've read recently. Why are 4 bathrooms required if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military?

I can't help but wonder if you had lived in another time you'd be asking "what? now we're going to need 2 bathrooms instead of 1?".


A bedroom preference has no place making policy.

That's right, and it's because of policy right now that gays can't serve openly.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
so if dont ask dont tell is repealed then it will be ask and tell permitted right?

well im sure there are alot of gays that dont want to be asked, and thankfully they curently have the protection that no one should ask them if they are gay, but repealing this will permit people to hound them with "are you gay?"

the question here is should they have the right to broadcast their sexual preference,

by they i dont mean gay service members, i mean only all service members

dont ask dont tell ought to apply to all the straight service members also, they should be just as censored from talking about their wifes or sexual escapades as anyone else.

i'm sure this would keep our military much more focused and equal then repealing DADT


if it becomes permissable to talk about sexual escapades while serving in the military then we cannot stop with homosexuals.

as other posters pointed out we need to take into account transexuals too, but oh does that list go on,

if DADT is repealed then we also must realise our military service members WILL at some point be actively discussing any one of the sexual preferences/fetishes listed below, and many more then that too.

Abasiophilia People with impaired mobility
Acrotomophilia People with amputations
Agalmatophilia Statues, mannequins and immobility
Algolagnia Pain, particularly involving an erogenous zone; differs from masochism as there is a biologically different interpretation of the sensation rather than a subjective interpretation
Andromimetophilia Trans men
Apotemnophilia Having an amputation
Asphyxiophilia Asphyxiation or strangulation
Autagonistophilia Being on stage or on camera
Autassassinophilia Being in life-threatening situations
Autoandrophilia Arousal by a biological female imagining herself as a male
Autoerotic asphixiation Self-induced asphyxiation, sometimes to the point of near unconsciousness
Autogynephilia Arousal by a biological male imagining himself as a female
Biastophilia Arousal based on the rape of an unconsenting person
Chremastistophilia Being robbed or held up
Chronophilia Partners of a widely differing chronological age
Coprophilia Feces; also known as scat, scatophilia or fecophilia
Dacryphilia Tears or crying
Dendrophilia Trees
Emetophilia Vomit
Erotic asphyxiation Asphyxia of oneself or others
Erotophonophilia Murder
Exhibitionism Exposing oneself sexually to others, with or without their consent
Formicophilia Being crawled on by insects
Frotteurism Rubbing against a non-consenting person
Gerontophilia Elderly people
Gynandromorphophilia Women with penises, men cross-dressed as women, or trans women
Hebephilia Pubescent children
Homeovestism Wearing clothing emblematic of one's own sex
Hybristophilia Criminals, particularly for cruel or outrageous crimes
Infantophilia Not in general use. Recently suggested term referring to pedophilia with a focus on children five years old or younger.
Kleptophilia Stealing; also known as kleptolagnia
Klismaphilia Enemas
Lactophilia Breast milk
Liquidophilia Attraction, or desire to immerse genitals in liquids
Maiesiophilia Sexual attraction to pregnant women
Macrophilia Giants, primarily domination by giant women or men
Mammaphilia Breasts; also known as mammagynophilia and mastofact
Masochism The desire to suffer, be beaten, bound or otherwise humiliated
Mechanophilia The sexual attraction to cars or other machines, also stated as "mechaphilia".
Menophilia Menstruation
Morphophilia Particular body shapes or sizes
Mucophilia Mucus
Mysophilia Dirtiness, soiled or decaying things
Narratophilia Obscene words, colloquially known as "talking dirty"
Nasophilia Noses
Necrophilia Cadavers
Olfactophilia Smells
Paraphilic infantilism Being a baby; also referred to as autonepiophilia
Partialism Specific, non-genital body parts
Paedophilia Prepubescent children, also spelled pedophilia
Peodeiktophilia Exposing one's penis
Pedovestism Dressing like a child
Pictophilia Pornography or erotic art, particularly pictures
Podophilia Feet.
Pyrophilia Fire
Raptophilia Committing rape
Sadism Inflicting pain on others
Salirophilia Soiling or dirtying others
Sexual fetishism Nonliving objects
Somnophilia Sleeping or unconscious people
Sthenolagnia Muscles and displays of strength
Stigmatophilia Body piercings and tattoos
Symphorophilia Witnessing or staging disasters such as car accidents
Telephone scatologia Obscene phone calls, particularly to strangers; also known as telephonicophilia
Teratophilia Deformed or monstrous people
Transvestic fetishism Wearing clothes associated with the opposite sex; also known as transvestism
Transvestophilia A transvestite sexual partner
Trichophilia Hair
Troilism Cuckoldism, watching one's partner have sex with someone else, possibly without the third party's knowledge; also known as triolism
Urolagnia Urination, particularly in public, on others, and/or being urinated on
Vampirism Drawing or drinking blood
Vorarephilia Eating or being eaten by others; usually swallowed whole, in one piece
Voyeurism Watching others while naked or having sex, generally without their knowledge; also known as scopophilia or scoptophilia.
Zoophilia Animals (actual, not anthropomorphic)
Zoosadism Inflicting pain on or seeing animals in pain



you should not support repeal of DADT UNLESS you can honestly say you wouldnt mind our military also talking and engaging in all of the above also, or else your not being equal.

and you cant say that homosexuality doesnt compare,

fetishes often turn into life styles for many practitioners and you can bet they are already in our military, only difference is THEY DONT ASK AND DONT TELL!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 

Your argument is based on a faulty assumption -- no, it won't be "ask and tell". The military won't ask anyone about their sexual preferences. Repealing DADT means that people who have admitted being gay, or admit while in active duty, won't be rejected or kicked out of the military for it.

You can list those sexual preferences and fetishes all you want but it's completely irrelevant if you or me find them repugnant -- it's none of our business and it absolutely has nothing to do with the ability to serve in the military.

I'm sure many of the people you deal with daily have fetishes. Should what they do in private alone disqualify them from their jobs? Or mean they are less capable of performing them?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I am surprised at the seemingly common assumption by some of the American public regarding gays in the military. By and large the general theme is that they will distract the hetersexual soldier and are a reasonable "threat".

A threat to who, precisely? The straight soldier? Are people actually succumbing to some old, 1950's stereotype a homosexual will "pounce" on a straight individual and rape them? Or that gays will suddenly drop ranks and engage in sex? Is homosexuality really perceived like that in America?

I mean, if we want to point fingers, a quick Google of Iraq and/or Afghan reports of rape and abuse seem to be very "straight" based. I'm surprised they are so concerned about the effects of a gay individual in a wartime situation.

I wonder how "strict" the American war machine would be should China decide to invade and Conscription was brought back....



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

if DADT is repealed then we also must realise our military service members WILL at some point be actively discussing any one of the sexual preferences/fetishes listed below, and many more then that too.


Sorry...you miss the point entirely. Your whole post is based on the premise that homosexuality is a fetish. I think you should educate yourself a little better...mind you, I'm going to assume that you learned a little something about fetishism in preparing your post.

In addition, DODT is not about telling stories of 'sexual escapades' (which is simply a matter of manners), it's about not having to live a lie.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Anyone arguing in favor of a war spending bill is a neo-con.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anyone arguing in favor of a war spending bill is a neo-con.


Bravo!
Now how about addressing the actual subject of the original post?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Ok, so I have several issues with some of the posts that are on here.

But first of all, let me state my position which is that I wish that anyone, 18 and over, could serve in the military, regardless of any type of bias in regards to sexual orientation or gender.

Oops, did I say gender? That is my first issue, and it really ticks me off.

As a NCO serving in Saudi Arabia in a Patriot Missle Battalion in the 90's, I had the privledge to serve with some of the toughest women I have ever met in my life. There are a lot of women serving in Patriot battalions since it is not deemed a direct combat operation.

Soo, my point that really irks me here is that right now, there is this big issue with gays openly serving in the military. THE FACT is that male GAYS can serve in a front-line combat unit, so long as they don't 'tell'. The can serve in any role of the military, but not a woman.

A woman is not allowed to be equal with men in the military, and we are all more concerned about Gays being able to openly serve? Really?!?!

Before we stop the so-called 'evil' persecution of gays in the military, we need to look at the issue of women, gay or not, being able to be equal. As a Male, former Airborne NCO, I know of many women that I would prefer guarding my backside if I ever had to be in a combat situation over many males, gay or not.

In fact, every gay, disgruntled male in the military in a combat unit, really should take a good, hard look at the fairness of military doctrine towards women first.

Ok, so my second issue with all of this is how partisan these attacks are right now, both in the media, and here on ATS. Deny Ignorance people, isn't that the jingle around here?

Does the GOP suck for not passing this? Yes, as do the two Democrats who sided with them. But at the shame time, Shame on the Democrats for not doing this when they had complete control of Congress, like they did with Health Care. And back to shame on the GOP for not pointing out the problems of forcing this issue 'as is'.

I am not in support of either party, as I think both really screw us on just about everything. And for the record, I think the two worst presidents of the last 100 years are Bush and Obama (dead tie), while the two best were Kennedy and Reagan (IMO).

But shouldn't this have been an issue last year? Wasn't that the campaign promise of the 'Chosen One'?

Last point about the Gay thing, if it is that important right now, and not just an election stunt to intentionally set-it up now to have it fail like it did, why couldn't they at least put some time and effort into how the policy would be implemented?

If a miracle went off right now, and women were suddenly allowed to serve in front-line infantry foxholes in Afghanistan tomorrow, I would not allow them to just jump in a foxhole with a guy, out of fear getting either of them killed. They need to have at least some experience working with each other through training to learn how to be compatible. Hell, once a month I am not compatible with my own wife here in the land of the big PX. What this means, is that there has to be a plan in place, with how to assimilate different groups into the insane reality of combat.

As a Vet, I think it would be great to give anyone a chance to serve in combat..hell, the idea of a battalion of PMS'ing women charging over the hill towards me in combat is absolutely scary, and didn't the Roman Legions have an all gay legion that kicked major butt (no pun intended here, really)...but let's make it work by making the military do this the right way.

And I am sorry to any gay person out there, but as far as the military goes, at least you have the choice to serve in a combat unit...a woman has no right. And obviously, gay women have the hardest time of all in the military.

The Demorats and Repunklicans both are using this as a way to divide the people even more before the elections...and judging by this thread...it's working.

Deny Ignorance


edit on 22-9-2010 by lasertaglover because: typos and stuff



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The origional topic is misleading.....again, the dems passes healthcare without the republicans, and didn't pass this. Seems more like the correct title and topic should be bipartisan effort fails to pass this.....if we want to be fair.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with war spending.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
This has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with war spending.



When is the last time republicans dissapproved a military spending bill? It has nothing to with war spending and everything to do with DADT.

When I was in the service I knew many open lesbians that had no problems, however gay men had to play along to DADT.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by lasertaglover
Soo, my point that really irks me here is that right now, there is this big issue with gays openly serving in the military. THE FACT is that male GAYS can serve in a front-line combat unit, so long as they don't 'tell'. The can serve in any role of the military, but not a woman.

A woman is not allowed to be equal with men in the military, and we are all more concerned about Gays being able to openly serve? Really?!?!


Your post makes a lot of sense, and I've starred it. But, loathe as I am to set myself up for a flaming...
I personally don't agree with having women in a front line combat unit, based upon an old fashioned notion that us big strong men have a responsibility to protect the womenfolk. Yah...me and the dinosaurs, but it's a sticking point for me and I am uncomfortable with the idea.

Don't waste a lot of time telling me how wrong I am, especially our female ATSers. Let's just consider as it the last vestiges of chivalry.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Here we go again, comparing gays to a minority race. It is people like you who dishonor my ancestors (who where slaves) and marginalize the civil rights movement that made us equal. Gays are not a minority group, but only people from differnt races with a sick sexual fetish. Yes a fetish, that is all you are. The American people are clear on this issue, we do not accept you. You may not stare at our enlisted young men a women in the shower to satisfy your sick perversion. As far as marriage, you have the same rights as anyone else; you can marry any member of the opposite sex you want. Equal rights is not what you are after it is special rights.
So go ahead and flame me, it doesn't matter. Nothing you or I say will ever change any politician's mind, nor will it enable you to shove this issue upon the people. Better yet, go ahead and cry, have one of your marches in your underwear, wave rainbow flags around, it doesn't matter. The American people have spoken, loud and clear.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
I am surprised at the seemingly common assumption by some of the American public regarding gays in the military. By and large the general theme is that they will distract the hetersexual soldier and are a reasonable "threat".

A threat to who, precisely? The straight soldier? Are people actually succumbing to some old, 1950's stereotype a homosexual will "pounce" on a straight individual and rape them? Or that gays will suddenly drop ranks and engage in sex? Is homosexuality really perceived like that in America?
Are you surprised that women tend to enjoy women-only workout facilities? They don't always like to be oggled by men in a sexual way.

Why do women have separate locker rooms and restrooms in most cases, to the point that the government mandates them?

Why should a hetero man or woman in the military be forced to put up with showering with someone that is
sexually attracted to them, when it is not asked of civilians in a public setting?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
The Major couldn't help but noticed yet another misleading thread title, and a gross distortion of facts. The reason this bill didn't pass the Cloture Motion is because Democrats jumped ship.



NAYs ---43

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)

Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)


What's this recruit? The head rat, excuse the Major, the Senate Majority leader voted against it? Shouldn't that be the headline? It would be if the recruit didn't have an agenda. To their credit, the Republicans were voting on conviction; Lincoln, Pryor and Reid were voting to save their miserable necks in the upcoming election.

The Major would assign the recruit to latrine duty, but the Major fears a similarly botched job with far more disastrous results.

Dismissed.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


I pointed this out, but no one wants to talk about it, just more right bashing with no foundation....People on here talk about how much better one side is than the other aand yet when something like this happens they bury their head in the sand.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptron


Here we go again, comparing gays to a minority race. It is people like you who dishonor my ancestors (who where slaves) and marginalize the civil rights movement that made us equal. Gays are not a minority group, but only people from differnt races with a sick sexual fetish. Yes a fetish, that is all you are. The American people are clear on this issue, we do not accept you. You may not stare at our enlisted young men a women in the shower to satisfy your sick perversion. As far as marriage, you have the same rights as anyone else; you can marry any member of the opposite sex you want. Equal rights is not what you are after it is special rights.
So go ahead and flame me, it doesn't matter. Nothing you or I say will ever change any politician's mind, nor will it enable you to shove this issue upon the people. Better yet, go ahead and cry, have one of your marches in your underwear, wave rainbow flags around, it doesn't matter. The American people have spoken, loud and clear.


Now hold on a darn minute!

I respect your belief 100%, in that you have the right to believe whatever you will.

What makes America so great is that people have the right to hate gays, love gays, or not care either way, but must accept them as fellow Americans.

We do have so many problems that I think are wrose, but we also have this idea that we all have certain rights, and it is those rights, that so many Americans have given there life for while serving this great country.

So,
I am perfectly alright with you believing in what you believe, it is your right.

And,
I am perfectly ok with you saying that 'a lot' of Americans agree with you, it is your right, and maybe closer to the truth than we all realize.

But you have NO right to clump me, or many other Americans into the same category that you proclaim have 'spoken, loud and clear'.

Besides being an American and having the right to maintain my own personal beliefs, which I am about to express very clearly, I served my country in uniform for three years and was sent to places that I do not believe in, and defended policies that I am agaisnt spirtually and morally, but I did my duty to my country and obeyed my orders.

You do not have the right to classify me with your version of America. You do not have the right to say that 'all Americans' believe your own particular, secular views on life.

Not this American, not now, and not ever. I love this country, and if a black, gay, woman wants to serve on the front lines, I think she should have the same right of anyone of any gender, religion, creed, color, sexual preference, or anything else if that person loves this country so much, that they are willing to give their own life.

Hate them if you want to, but I am an American sir, and I am not part of your beliefs.

You do have the right to believe in it, but I am an American who believes in Denying Ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join