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.

 

Repeal of Military Gay Ban Clears Final Senate Hurdle Before Passage

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Consider the motto of ATS:


Deny Ignorance


And consider that you wrote:


I'm ignorant and damn well proud of it.


Are you sure you're in the right place?

If not, please don't leave... you're very entertaining.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


That depends on what you mean by progressive.

The progressive Era under Progressive Woodrow Wilson saw the segregation of the Armed forces. It saw the first use of zoning laws to create what is now known as the ghetto. A practice created and championed by well known "social-justice" progressives of the era like Baltimore Mayor J. Barry Mahool. These people were mostly made up of the Robert Byrd's of the era...Most KKK members..How do we know this? Because well known Progressive President Wilson(again) screened Birth of a Nation in the White House in 1915, and progressives didn't seem to mind that much...Hell most of them attended. Early 20th century Progressivism brought us Eugenics and the concept of the Master Race which later well known global jerks would use as the center of their ideological propaganda, a guy from Germany comes to mind....

These people, the progressive ideologues left over by the end of the progressive reign(After FDR) began to infiltrate both parties, and now we're living in the end result of several decades of neo-con, and neo-libs tyranny brought about by the poison of the early progressive movement. The scars of which we're barely starting to get over.

How can I say this? Well, Wilson got the black vote. How if he was so racist? He was a good liar and saw minorities, gays, and anything not "white and right", as pawns...He lied to them and immediately betrayed them.

Policies like DADT, segregation, women's suffrage are all causes the progressives were there to pander to while they used the votes to concentrate more power in their favor. Make no mistake, these people are all about elitism. It's not about race anymore but a sort of pseudo-intellectual superiority complex. I don't think the end results will be any different than if they just declared all gays enemies of the state tomorrow.
edit on 18-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's quite possible you may be right. I don't know the sexual preferences of people I meet everyday. I work in an environment that's mostly male oriented. I don't have any idea of their sexual desires. We concentrate on work. I can say that when I frequented a bar in my drinking days, there'd be guys there bragging on some girl he took off, what they did and what she did. I find this highly disrespectful to the girl. I don't want to hear this from a straight person or gay person.

I just find it disgusting for a man to brag about his exploits while demeaning the poor girl. I mean, he took her off and had his way with her so she means something to her.

I just find it inappropriate to discuss sexual preferences or encounters in any situation. These things are to be left private. I don't discuss what my wife and I do in the bedroom. We're married. That's our business yet I'll hear guys just slamming their wives like she's a piece of trash. I mean, where's the honoring your wife part there?

What I'm trying to say is that gays shouldn't come out and openly admit their gay just because this law says they can. If someone in the military is found to be gay and they're performing thier job in a professional manner, then they should be allowed continue their service. But the moment they want special treatment, that's when I'll say kick them out. The military doesn't have time for special treatment to any groups' individual preferences.

I don't hate gays because they're gay. I hate the attention many gays demand. I hate the attentiopn that many straight people demand. Blacks, whites, straights or gays. Once any one of these groups start demanding special treatment is when I will start blasting their efforts for attention.

You may be right. I may "know" some gays without knowing they're gay. Let's just keep it that way.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


No movement is pure. all issues for the people are games for the elites.

As far as eugenics are concerned...one of the saddest losses of ideals and discussion was just that. Hitler tarnished the conversation with his actions and will for quite awhile not allow a good debate over it.

Hitler had a good idea...purify the race. but not the "white race" or anything like that...rather, with technology, to eliminate genetic disorders and diseases, make blindness a thing of the past, etc...remove the destructive impurities within the human genetics.

now if you start discussing this, someone is eventually bound to bring up hitler...

meh, perhaps a serious discussion about it can be had in 50 or so years.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Don't confuse modern medicine with eugenics. Even renowned early Eugenicist Margaret Sanger believed in the concept of a master race. That was the premise by which that ideology was started, and it is the premise by which it "died", at least in history books anyway.

Eugenics requires killing your way to the top. Anything not perceived as perfect in any capacity is eliminated. What if tomorrow they found the gene that makes one gay? Would eugenicists accept that discovery as an argument in favor of homosexuality being as much a part of the individual as being heterosexual? Or would they simply view it as an imperfection and seek to either eliminate the gene or simply eradicate the gene carrier?

Eugenics isn't a science, it is a twisted point of view.
edit on 18-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Consider the motto of ATS:


Deny Ignorance


And consider that you wrote:


I'm ignorant and damn well proud of it.


Are you sure you're in the right place?

If not, please don't leave... you're very entertaining.


Well, I was trying to be sarcastic in my reply.

I know I spew a lot of crap here but that's just letting my emotions get the best of me. I don't understand the big deal about what's so important about repealing the DADT policy. It's not like it's going to give a free ticket for the gay community to start parading around their sexual preference in front of the brass. This would be unprofessional conduct to the highest.

You know? The funny thing about ATS is when someone doesn't agree with a commnet you've made, they're quick to say "you're ignorant," It's about like saying I'm a racist because I don't like Obama.

On many things, I choose to ignore what someone is trying to tell me. Now this is in real life. I do this because I totally disagree with what they're saying and I just don't want to hear it. It's just that some things are better left unsaid. I don't want to know what a person did last night or last week and why they did it. I'm not a lawyer ot investigator so it's none of my business.

ATS is entertaining though. Breaks the pace of research, which I need to get back to.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


No, this is not like saying you're racist because you dislike Obama.

What many here are having trouble with is that you acknowledge that you know nothing about gay people other than what is represented by the prejudices of a third party account. You say that you have no desire or any inclination whatsoever to get to know anyone who is gay despite the accounts by MOST PEOPLE, many of which are a contradiction to your blanket assertions that only gays and liberals win with this one, and that soon America will be destroyed as a result.

That isn't just ignorance, that's willful ignorance, sir.
edit on 18-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations.[2] Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disfavor after having become associated with Nazi Germany and with the discovery of molecular evolution


See, you immediately seen it as a negative verses a serious discussion point.

Thanks alot Hitler, you schmuck

meh, maybe a chat in 50 years once people can get the social eugenics out of their mind.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


OK fella, so you're backing down a bit and saying you don't hate gays, but you hate them asking for special treatment and 'parading their sexual preferences around'.
1. Equality is not 'special treatment' is it? Equality is 'the same treatment'. The clue is in the word. Equal. The same as. Equivalent.
2. I think you're confusing being able to be open about sexual preferences with 'being able to act in a sexual manner and/or talk about what sexual practices you get up to in the bedroom'.
The fact that you can refer to your wife or your marriage means that, every time you do so, you are telling people that you are heterosexual. But this doesn't occur to you, because for you, heterosexuality is such a default position that you can't see that. If I refer to my 'partner' as 'he', then I'm being open about the fact that I'm gay. That's all. Is that 'parading my sexual preferences'? Or is it me being allowed to make chit chat about my life in the same way as anyone else can? It would never occur to me to start talking about sex - nor would it to my heterosexual colleagues.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I'm just going by the history of the early proponents of eugenics...

Why were all of these proponents racist? Why did they all believe that
the "Negro" was a subhuman species in need of culling? This was the attitude
of most early 20th century Progressives, and it was early 20th century Progressives who
embraced Eugenics as a means a racial purification...While Hitler was a huge proponent
of eugenics, he certainly was not the one who formed the eugenics we know today.

My distaste for the pseudo-science extends far before Hitler, and into the 1820s when the
idea first started floating about, progressives made it famous, and Hitler used it to its logical conclusion. It was just as imperative then, as it was in the early 1900s, as it is today, to purify the race and remove any genetic imperfections from the gene pool.

This kind of pseudo-scientific philosophy is a very dangerous one because racial perfection
however you wish to clothe it, always seems to wind up getting a lot of innocent people killed
or discriminated against. So again, if they find the gay gene how do you suppose this discovery
will be received by eugenicists?
edit on 19-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Cynical gay here. Just can't bring myself to cheer until I've decided whether the struggle for gay equality has inched forward or whether the military industrial complex has simply realized the cost-effectiveness of using cannon fodder that doesn't require any spousal benefits.
"One step at a time" or "Follow the money". Which idiom applies?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 23refugee
 



With the amount of push back by many in the top military brass I'd say this is more a move forward than not. If a gay man wants to put on the uniform and serve his country he should be able to. As to the rest, there are more changes to come and they all have to come in time and with patience.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The only problem I have with this is the shower room
And that's a BIG issue though, not a small one

Liberals though, when you bring this up they just say what's the big deal
However they would be against unisex shower rooms
This makes them inconsistent
Just a bunch of zombies following today's current social issues and planting their feet on the left side but not knowing why



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This could be the gayest story of the year. #2 would be the gay flight attendent freaking out...then of course Julian Assange.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The only problem I have with this is the shower room
And that's a BIG issue though, not a small one

Liberals though, when you bring this up they just say what's the big deal
However they would be against unisex shower rooms
This makes them inconsistent
Just a bunch of zombies following today's current social issues and planting their feet on the left side but not knowing why


I would argue that religious conservatives are the ones who would be against unisex showers, but that's beside the point.

Wouldn't the secretly gay men already be checking out their fellow soldiers assets in the showers if they were interested in doing such things? Add to that how may anti-gay individuals turn out to be gay. How would we really know which person may be checking out their fellow soldiers. That shining example of anti-gay heterosexual may be the one ogling their fellow soldiers private parts in the shower. Would a solution be private showers or making everyone shower with their clothes on?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
I would argue that religious conservatives are the ones who would be against unisex showers, but that's beside the point.

They both would, liberals and conservatives
So they should agree on this


Originally posted by Kaploink
Wouldn't the secretly gay men already be checking out their fellow soldiers assets in the showers if they were interested in doing such things?

Yes, and that's wrong
Don't be too obsessed with duality
There can be many different scenarios


Originally posted by Kaploink
Add to that how may anti-gay individuals turn out to be gay. How would we really know which person may be checking out their fellow soldiers. That shining example of anti-gay heterosexual may be the one ogling their fellow soldiers private parts in the shower. Would a solution be private showers or making everyone shower with their clothes on?


I think private showers are long overdue
Even if there were only heterosexuals in the army, still.. long overdue!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I'm just going by the history of the early proponents of eugenics...
Its best to not refer to a field based on how things were done long ago


Why were all of these proponents racist? Why did they all believe that
the "Negro" was a subhuman species in need of culling? This was the attitude
of most early 20th century Progressives, and it was early 20th century Progressives who
embraced Eugenics as a means a racial purification...
Racism and racial purification is social eugenics..which I do not agree with.
There are some biological aspects of a black man that is superior, some of white, some of asian, etc. If a person can stop demanding that such science is racist by nature and simply see things from a biological standpoint, then things can start progressing forward. Find the traits that allows for denser mass of muscles, or more neural connections, longevity, resistance from cancers, easier weight control, etc...then start creating genetic therapys based on the studies to come up with a "more perfect human species". This does not mean kill off a race..rather, enhance a race...(there is only one race on earth..the human race..we are all in this together regardless of skin color).

As far as using historical information to paint a whole area as taboo...well, we used to drill holes in heads of people whom had headaches to let the bad spirits out..this was medicine. Does that mean all of medicine should therefore be considered barbaric and never to be tried again? Luckily the initial nonsense attributed to the field was disregarded as nieve.

Being gay, in my opinion, is having blue eyes. Having blue eyes, in my opinion, is simply who you are. I do not see it as being any more or less valid than anything else.

As a hetrosexual, to the point of being slightly...ever so slightly homophobic...I actually would see value in a discussion (if it came up) as a positive outcome for all to be bisexual. This would create a environment where people would no longer judge another based on preference and love would come simply from an enjoyment of mindset.
The concept is alien to me, but I do see its effectiveness for progression overall. however, my slight homophobic view demands we simply let sexual preference be the dice roll verses tailor made for progression



While Hitler was a huge proponent
of eugenics, he certainly was not the one who formed the eugenics we know today.

My distaste for the pseudo-science extends far before Hitler, and into the 1820s when the
idea first started floating about, progressives made it famous, and Hitler used it to its logical conclusion. It was just as imperative then, as it was in the early 1900s, as it is today, to purify the race and remove any genetic imperfections from the gene pool.
And that is exactly what I am a fan of...but not by extermination, and a decision on what is imperfect needs to be addressed
genetic disorders such as blindness, brittle bones, sickle cell, etc..things that taint our species and cause disasterous consequences...additionally, modify the genes over time to add proven benefits (high resistance to diseases, longevity, etc)..
I appear to be repeating myself



This kind of pseudo-scientific philosophy is a very dangerous one because racial perfection
however you wish to clothe it, always seems to wind up getting a lot of innocent people killed
or discriminated against. So again, if they find the gay gene how do you suppose this discovery
will be received by eugenicists?
edit on 19-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


And so ya...drop the social eugenics and focus in on the actual discussion going on today...genetic eugenics.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I think private showers are long overdue
Even if there were only heterosexuals in the army, still.. long overdue!


And I think simple community showers are in order.
What statement are we saying that we trust these men and women to compose themself professionally in a battlefield, but if they see each other nude, they will suddenly go into some berzerk rapefest.

its insulting, treating the military like children that cannot see a pair of boobs or a winky without losing their training and composure.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
And I think simple community showers are in order.
What statement are we saying that we trust these men and women to compose themself professionally in a battlefield, but if they see each other nude, they will suddenly go into some berzerk rapefest.


Tell me something
Have you ever heard of "reductio ad absurdum"?

Because that's exactly what you are doing and it's pathetic



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Please don't ever disrespect John Lennon like that.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join