Officer won't sign order for troop pro-homosexual indoctrination

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that allowing gays to openly serve is going to change things dramatically.

Right now there are gays serving and there doesn't seem to be a big problem with it. I doubt that these same guys would start broadcasting their sexuality to everyone because usually their parents don't even know. Yet some people think that magically the infantry is gonna be full of feminine guys sharing waxing tips and singing Lady Gaga.

I think that we probably heard similar arguments when women & african americans were allowed to serve in the military. The same arguments about it hurting morale, etc.

Also you need to think about this... the rest of the world has no problems with gays in their military. On one hand, people here like to say how we have the best, most professional fighting force on the planet. On the other hand, we say that same military isn't as professional as the Serbs, Czechs, Germans, Israelis, etc. who already let gays serve without any major issues. Either we do have the best most professional military on the planet and gays can serve openly here, or we have to admit that our military isn't as professional as the rest of the world's. We can't have it both ways.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Regardless of your opinion of the topic, the fact of the matter is that the Commander in Chief (regardless of personal opinion of the man) signed the reversal of DADT into law therefore making what the officer was told to do a lawful order. In disobeying a lawful order by a superior that officer is being insubordinate and should be court marshaled.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I find it pretty low that this guy signed up the military and draws the line at supporting equality. This is an organization where one of the job requirements is the ability and will to take a human life. This guys moral compass is completely backwards if killing someone is fine but trying to defuse any tension over homosexuality isn't.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ayoss
I find it hard to believe that allowing gays to openly serve is going to change things dramatically.

Right now there are gays serving and there doesn't seem to be a big problem with it. I doubt that these same guys would start broadcasting their sexuality to everyone because usually their parents don't even know. Yet some people think that magically the infantry is gonna be full of feminine guys sharing waxing tips and singing Lady Gaga.

I think that we probably heard similar arguments when women & african americans were allowed to serve in the military. The same arguments about it hurting morale, etc.

Also you need to think about this... the rest of the world has no problems with gays in their military. On one hand, people here like to say how we have the best, most professional fighting force on the planet. On the other hand, we say that same military isn't as professional as the Serbs, Czechs, Germans, Israelis, etc. who already let gays serve without any major issues. Either we do have the best most professional military on the planet and gays can serve openly here, or we have to admit that our military isn't as professional as the rest of the world's. We can't have it both ways.


Here is a link showing the countries that allow openly gay to serve:
en.wikipedia.org...

This shouldn't even be an issue.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The military does fine before politics made a big deal with homosexuals serving openly. There should be NO distinction in the military based on sexuality, race, color, etc. Perhaps, the military would like to go as far as indoctrinating people to accept pedophiles and zoophiles serving opening in the military, too. Would y'all like that for political correctness, huh? Hhh? When will all this madness end?

Anyway, perhaps there should be public disclosure on who has HIV in case fellow combatants gets injured on the field and happen to come in contact with said infected military personnel. As for showers, those should be separated by all means possible. You know what I mean.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
The military does fine before politics made a big deal with homosexuals serving openly. There should be NO distinction in the military based on sexuality, race, color, etc. Perhaps, the military would like to go as far as indoctrinating people to accept pedophiles and zoophiles serving opening in the military, too. Would y'all like that for political correctness, huh? Hhh? When will all this madness end?

Anyway, perhaps there should be public disclosure on who has HIV in case fellow combatants gets injured on the field and happen to come in contact with said infected military personnel. As for showers, those should be separated by all means possible. You know what I mean.


I believe pedophilia and beastiality are illegal. Being gay isn't.
+
Straight people can get hiv too.
I don't think all the other countries with gay people serving make any special provisions such as showers, etc....



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
The military does fine before politics made a big deal with homosexuals serving openly. There should be NO distinction in the military based on sexuality, race, color, etc. Perhaps, the military would like to go as far as indoctrinating people to accept pedophiles and zoophiles serving opening in the military, too. Would y'all like that for political correctness, huh? Hhh? When will all this madness end?

Anyway, perhaps there should be public disclosure on who has HIV in case fellow combatants gets injured on the field and happen to come in contact with said infected military personnel. As for showers, those should be separated by all means possible. You know what I mean.


Firstly, gays arent the only ones with HIV. I can't imagine you're allowed to serve in the military if you have HIV or AIDS anyway...

And secondly, I am SO SICK of this tired argument that goes a little like 'oh if we allow gays we must allow pedos and zoophiles'. BULLCRAP. You and those who make this ridiculous and uninformed argument are grabbing at straws and nothing more. Gays have relations with consenting adults. Nothing wrong with that...pedo's and zoophiles CAN NOT be put in the same category..ever. And if you attempt to do so, you make yourself look extremely uneducated and unintelligent.

I don't like the proliferation of extreme political correctness, either. But thats NOT what this is about. This is about giving groups of people the respect they deserve. Thewy're not asking for people to LIKE what they do, they are only asking for equal rights and tolerance. If you can't allow and give that, you are no better than the white supremacist who hates jews and blacks.

"Mood: Ashamed"? You should be.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Xavialune because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
Perhaps, the military would like to go as far as indoctrinating people to accept pedophiles and zoophiles serving opening in the military, too. Would y'all like that for political correctness, huh? Hhh? When will all this madness end?


Yeah... Well the problem with the pedophiles and zoophiles is that both of those lifestyle choices are illegal for good reason too which comes down to one major point:

1. Consent

Our country states that there is a certain age in which a person can legally consent to intercourse. Any intercourse with someone under the age of consent in the majority of situations is rape because the person under the age of consent can not legally consent to sexual intercourse.
As for consent with the animals, as of now, there is no way to verify that the animal is capable of consenting to intercourse so with that intercourse with an animal is illegal.

Even claiming one's self as a pedophile or zoophile is showing intent to commit a crime because the very nature of their lifestyle is illegal. This is different with homosexuals because, like heterosexuals, there's nothing illegal about intercourse between two consenting adult individuals.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xavialune
exactly! like the soldier who raped the iraqi girl and said he didnt see them as 'human'...that kind of indoctrination is ok, but when it comes to 'homos'...thats just cause for resignation!


One thing to keep in mind though

Alot of people, mainly liberals, are anti-war but are pro-gays in the military.

Doesn't that also mean that gay rights in the military is more important than being anti-immoral-wars?

I'm just playing devil's advocate, there are two sides of the coin.

And perhaps such people are as dumb as this guy in this article.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Xavialune
exactly! like the soldier who raped the iraqi girl and said he didnt see them as 'human'...that kind of indoctrination is ok, but when it comes to 'homos'...thats just cause for resignation!


One thing to keep in mind though

Alot of people, mainly liberals, are anti-war but are pro-gays in the military.

Doesn't that also mean that gay rights in the military is more important than being anti-immoral-wars?

I'm just playing devil's advocate, there are two sides of the coin.

And perhaps such people are as dumb as this guy in this article.


What? I'm sorry, your post confuses me...if they are anti-war and pro-gay what makes you think gay rights are more important to them than fighting an unjust war? gays in the military is all encompassing, it doesnt just have to do with being in THIS war. Just because they are progays in the military doesnt mean they're ignoring the fact we go to war for unjust reasons. The issue here is gays should be able to join the military and serve their country if they want to, and not be discriminated against.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

My opinions is that they should give everyone access to private showers, that's the first and foremost initiative that needs to be done.


GOOD! Get his ass out of the military.

They don't need separate showers.

If men and women shared showers - - they'd giggle for a few days then get over it - - as it became the norm.

People just need to grow up and get over it.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I say that there are already gay men and women in the military. They have just been forced to stay in hiding, so to speak.... This guys soldiers are not in any more danger than they were before.... If I could, I would tell him to get over it.

Besides, it's the military.... How about worrying about the safety of the country rather than the sexual orientation of the people that are keeping us safe?

Just one of many close minded people in the military.... There are always people who are terrified of change. Terrified of people different than them. This man needs to realize.... Every one is different and gay men and women have been serving in the military as long as military's have existed.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I do not know why on earth the gays want to make this a big bloody story? Did the military have a little chat when the Hispanics and Afro-Americans joined up? They got hell for years in the military. Well, the gays can either put up or shut up. I'm sick and tired of them making such a big bloody fuss to the masses over their choice of lifestyle....WE DON'T CARE so why make such a bloody fuss? Get over it and take it on the chin like a real man instead of a sissy. Seriously....if they want to come out of the closet, first they should get over their own denial and lies that put them there in the first place.

I think what alot of the military is most afraid of is the fact that they know the habits of gay men; public toilets for a quick fix etc . That would be bloody embarrassing for any heterosexual man to walk in on.

I think the gay men should also be spoken to and what line not never ever to cross - period!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I don't blame him. I'd resign first too.

I served in combat. I can tell you that I wouldn't want any gays in my combat outfit. Now before someone suggests that I may have had gays serving with me and didn't know it - that's BS. I was in Special Ops and we were screened very thoroughly for a number of reasons.

Some gay gets hit by a bullet, his leg ripped open? He's on his own. I'm not touching him.

Because guys get hit in combat with regularity, I don't even want to be near a gay, as his getting wounded will usually be accompanied by a large spray pattern of blood and other bodily fluids that come from a multitude of areas sometimes, and I don't want the additional risk.

We with more uncommon blood were often drafted on the spot to give emergency blood to a wounded brother, and that goes out the window with a homosexual.

You want to stick gays in data processing - knock yourself out.

Combat units?

I'm telling you now how it works. Not as it should be, nor how it could be, but how it works. In combat, ***holes and SOB's and other oddities are frequently gunshot victims.

After all, in combat, with everyone shooting at everyone else, the screaming, the yelling, the explosions, the confusion, sometimes these are taken advantage of - and the mind-set of these rugged individuals will not be changed by a Presidential order.

If they openly go to combat units, and serve in combat, I fully expect their casualty percentage to be astronomically high.

And folks can wish and long for understanding until their butt sags, but that's the way it is.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The Military is a Government Job.

They do seem to have a problem understanding separation of Church and State.

If religious belief is the problem preventing Equality - - that is far more an issue for me.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


If I was a man in the military and I needed blood on the battle field....I don't want blood of a gay man either. The only way this is going to work is for them to have their own units separated from heterosexual men.

I'm not even comfortable having women in the military except in nursing or administration jobs.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by FarArcher
 


If I was a man in the military and I needed blood on the battle field....I don't want blood of a gay man either. The only way this is going to work is for them to have their own units separated from heterosexual men.

I'm not even comfortable having women in the military except in nursing or administration jobs.


Ah Yes! There was a time in the military when some injured soldiers didn't want "black" blood.

I know what I'd tell them.

If a Special Ops is so heavily screened and tested - - - I'd take that gay blood in a nano-second.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
I don't blame him. I'd resign first too.

I served in combat. I can tell you that I wouldn't want any gays in my combat outfit. Now before someone suggests that I may have had gays serving with me and didn't know it - that's BS. I was in Special Ops and we were screened very thoroughly for a number of reasons.

Some gay gets hit by a bullet, his leg ripped open? He's on his own. I'm not touching him.

Because guys get hit in combat with regularity, I don't even want to be near a gay, as his getting wounded will usually be accompanied by a large spray pattern of blood and other bodily fluids that come from a multitude of areas sometimes, and I don't want the additional risk.

We with more uncommon blood were often drafted on the spot to give emergency blood to a wounded brother, and that goes out the window with a homosexual.

You want to stick gays in data processing - knock yourself out.

Combat units?

I'm telling you now how it works. Not as it should be, nor how it could be, but how it works. In combat, ***holes and SOB's and other oddities are frequently gunshot victims.

After all, in combat, with everyone shooting at everyone else, the screaming, the yelling, the explosions, the confusion, sometimes these are taken advantage of - and the mind-set of these rugged individuals will not be changed by a Presidential order.

If they openly go to combat units, and serve in combat, I fully expect their casualty percentage to be astronomically high.

And folks can wish and long for understanding until their butt sags, but that's the way it is.


I will point out, again, that gays are not the only people with HIV. It is an infection spread across all groups. So while you may not want to touch someone who is gay for fear of infection, who is to say the straight man you're tending to doesnt have HIV as well? you wouldnt know, and to use this as an argument means nothing.

you make the assertion that there are going to be backlashes when gays are openly serving, nevermind the horror behind your suggestion that people on the same side frequently shoot each other because they don't like the person..that may be true, as it was true when blacks started serving. But get the hell over it, and pretty soon most people will and your views wont be supported by many anymore...your prejudice is unjustified and unwanted. The ones who keep this bullcrap going are the ones who need to resign from the military. And pretty soon after gays are integrated, it'll be the norm for them to serve alongside everyone else, as it should be, and as I said those with your opinion will be in the minority, if you aren't already.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

You know, the last time I checked, willful stupidity was not a virtue.

Black blood? I don't give a tinker's damn about a man's color, his ethnicity, his religion, nor his address. I only cared that they would stick when the going got downright hopeless.

I think for you to equate the blood of a black man with the blood of a gay that may be of a blood-plague is stretching things quite a bit;.

You want to wallow in that gay blood - you knock yourself out.

Not me.

I don't want to be near them in combat. I would not touch their wounds, and even though I intellectually know there is no risk, I'd shoot one if I caught him drinking out of my canteen.

It's a basic health risk.

I don't want any bodily fluids anywhere near me, no sneezing, no coughing, and sure as hell, no blood.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xavialune
, it doesnt just have to do with being in THIS war. Just because they are progays in the military doesnt mean they're ignoring the fact we go to war for unjust reasons.


Okay, and what wars have been just in since WWII?





new topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join