It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

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?

to be honest I dont even know what point you were trying to make. Can you explain it a bit better?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by FarArcher

Why is gay blood in the military any more dangerous than straight blood in the military?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:12 PM
The purpose of any army is to kill people and destroy things.. Pointless teaching things like religion, preference regarding sex or gender etc.. Spend the time training for the job - the rest is irrelevant..
The army isnt a country club.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Xavialune

I got news for you, slick.

I'm not the minority. Gays in combat arms in the military are the distinct minority, and maybe they need to stay out. Do everyone, including themselves a favor.

Note I said COMBAT ARMS.

And by the way, to suggest that whites were killing fellow blacks in the military - your proctologist must love you with the relative ease you're able to reach around and pull crap like that out of your butt.

Whites didn't just kill fellow soldiers. Everyone relied on the man next to him.

Buttholes get shot? It happened. Stupid officers? It happened. Someone everyone hated? It happened. Someone they don't trust? It happened.

Someone that's perceived as a threat to all? It will happen.

That lifestyle is the distinct minority - especially in combat arms. And it will NOT be welcome.

edit on 28-12-2010 by FarArcher because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Allowing soldiers to be openly gay in the military is damaging morale of the heterosexual men and women's strong religious beliefs. Perhaps the gay soldiers have their own unit? When it comes to the battle front these units could be used to do the first sweep in to enemy lines and if they return back alive they should be charged for going AWOL.

Wow, just... wow. I wonder what Jesus would say to someone who makes such a cruel inhumane statement, and professes to do so in his name. I think Gandhi sums up my view of the majority of the Christians who post on this message board: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:15 PM
Wow, what a neat way to condemn someone for standing up for their beliefs. Oh, I forgot, only homosexulas have rights and should be allowed to have a say in anything. If our president had any balls he would have left this up to the military to begin with. In reality, this was just one more step in pushing the gay agenda......ah well, again, nice to see those who condemn hypocrasy practicing is as usual on here.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:22 PM
That would be true, if those beliefs did not promote hatred. As long as a belief promotes hate, it will be looked down upon, and rightfully so.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:34 PM
The argument and the problems with this are far from over, the courts will have to decide on what to do about many issues when it comes to this. The article mentions about a Lt Colonel in the reserves with a strong moral conviction, that he disagrees with the current order. After reading the letter, it does not state that he is wishing to be removed from the military service, rather he is stating that he wishes to be relieved of command, that he can not in good faith execute the orders that are given, in the training of his troops, on how to deal with those people who are gay.
Now some of the posts that followed, stated about an infected person and not getting blood from a gay person on the grounds of fear of contracting HIV. The reality is that many of the blood supplies, as much as they are screened, there is always a chance, depending on how old the supply is, that there is some sort of disease of some kind floating around in the blood system, as no system is 100% fool proof, and safe. It is a risk that everyone must be willing to deal with every time they go into a hospital. After all looking at the state of some of the military hospital, HIV is the least of your worries, there are far worse things that could infect a person or persons that would be brought back by the military personnel from around the world, and some of those things make HIV look like a walk in the park.
There will have to be also rules and codes of conduct that will need to be reviewed, and enforced on both parts, not just those in the military but also those would serve, and have been discharged from the military for their sexual orientation. It is also to include a revising of the military code of conduct that governs the US armed services and those who are having to serve under it. This is just the first step in a very long hard road that the US military will have to take.
Questions are still raising up and the outcome has yet to be determined. Maybe it is time to let those who are gay serve openly in the US military. Take out arguments, all questions of difference, and it boils down to the final question of do you want the best person for the job or not. Too many people are not allowed in for one reason or another. If the US is a nation of Laws, with equality being for every citizen of the country, then to deny the very opportunities to one group for what ever reason, is at the core of it all, discrimination. There needs to be equality and change is something that not many people when told they have to, but there has to be change.
But back to the question at hand, this officer, he did nothing wrong, and it is his right, just cause a person is in the US military, the freedom of religion and the very beliefs do not stop when they put on a uniform, rather they have the right to believe and to worship as they see fit. Take that away, and it will be a very bad day for the military. We need men of consciousness in the US military these days, to question and even willing to resign their commission if they feel the US military has gone to far and it would violate their sense of morality. If not, then it sets a dangerous presidence. There are cases in history, when people of little faith, did not stop and question, and by the time they did, it was too late. We do not want that ever.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:36 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:36 PM
Just because some one has beliefs different than yours does not constitute hatred.

Practically speaking, they have no place in combat units.

I recall one day two mortar rounds hit the rear area of our 4-hole outhouse, blowing it apart into sticks, and the two men inside were blown ten feet out front, covered in every kind of filth and diesel one can imagine.

I was one of those who ran over, and due to my normal place in the unit, some guys looked to me and asked me if I'd see if they were alive.

I looked at the men covered in every kind of **** one can imagine, and told them, "I'm not touching them. If they're dead, they'll still be dead. If they're alive, that's the medic's job."

I don't think you fully appreciate what bullets and shrapnel do to a human body. There's no neat little hole!

The body is frequently shredded, and even a simple in and out in a leg will have shreds and tendrils of torn muscle. The blood mass is frequently extensive, and in the best of circumstances has an odor that will knock a buzzard off a puke wagon.

Add to that the body fluids from livers, bladders, spleens, intestines, stomachs, and it's a real mess.

Unpleasant and difficult under the best of circumstances.


Gays shredded like this? Guys won't touch them, and the Medic's will be taking their time.

It has nothing to do with hatred.

It has everything to do with aversion.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by FarArcher

So you don't mind shooting someone and blowing off their face, but your scared of body fluids?
You're a brave one.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by FarArcher

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;.

I was thinking Human.

No one is going to get blood that is not screened. This isn't the old days.

Your fear of gays is a prejudice.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by thirdeyeaware

Thirdeye, I understand that gays are out in the world. Gays don't frighten me in the least.

English is apparently not your first language, or you'd have understood I spoke of COMBAT ARMS.

And as far as you shooting me, well, many have tried on many occasions, and every single time, we were vastly outnumbered.

And I'm still here.

I'd not bet on your chances of surviving such an attempt, just based on the record.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by Torgo

I don't believe in this Jesus anymore than the tooth fairy. Nice try.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by thirdeyeaware

Thirdeye, I never made a practice of blowing off faces, and I think it only occurred on one occasion.

Yes, bodily fluids of gays is statistically more dangerous than the blood of heterosexuals.

Don't you read the literature?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

My thoughts are: questionable source
full with extreme right-wing propaganda garbage.
Also, I thought the change in legislation was about ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and to allow homosexuals to enjoy equal rights without any discrimination while they serve their country. How did it turn to lets indoctrinate the troops to turn gay? Am I missing something?

edit on 28/12/2010 by WalterRatlos because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:45 PM
That's fine, let him. At the same time, discharge him punitively for disobeying a lawful order.

I couldn't care one wit for the opinions of the men and women in the armed forces, as they aren't paid to have opinions really provided the action is lawful, and it is.

The fewer people we have in the military like this guy the better in my estimation.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Wow...everything on that website is a lie...yet you knowingly try to pass it off as real!
He does in fact take an oath to obey his commander in cheif(If he was real...which he isn't...)
Which he states flat out ...he is ready to violate,by not following the law of the land and his direct orders....
If he was real...which he isn't....Fail.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:50 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
I don't think the troops need a lot of grab assing going on.

When I was in the service we did not have to worry about gays bugging us.

Its not good.

We need people that will kill the enemy, not check out their butts.

Does that mean as a man you have animalistic uncontrollable thoughts and actions when around women? That you cannot be trusted around any women because you may sexually assault or harass them in some way?

You make no sense. Just because someone is gay does not mean they will be attracted to you and checking out your arse.

I do not get the idea some have that people who are gay are a bunch of animalistic horny people who cant control thoughts, urges and actions. As if straight people are perfect and in absolute control of themselves at all times.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in