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.

 

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

page: 36
21
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Ah.. Ya had to reply in 3 posts.. lol
1.


I listen to XM Out-Q radio - - Michelangelo Signorile. Lifestyle and Orientation is something THEY bring up all the time. They are Gay - - it is an important distinction for them. So I pass it along when I can. Its that simple.


So you take the opinions of two people on the radio and use those opinions as the default for anything concerning the subject? So it's their opinion that it's important to THEM and therefore should not be used for the entire LGBT community, there's no hive-mind in that community...That we know of...
lol
I listen to 99.7 FM in the morning and the hosts are gay, and hilarious I might add, who use the words interchangeably so again it's opinion.

2.


Excuse me - - show me where I put emotions into my posts. I make statements in as few words as possible. Did I tell you specifically you were wrong about something? Or did I just state my opinion? Any reaction to my posts - - are your emotions - - they aren't mine. (of course I am human and some of my posts are the exception to my normal style)


Never said you get emotional in your posts, just that you nit-pick with semantics on those who even agree with you. For an example refer to #1 of this post.

3.

My last paragraph wasn't directed as a response to anyone poster in particular but just some thoughts of mine. My bad if it gave you the impression it was.


Funny you brought up religion in your last post because my tolerance for homosexuality was established in my 12 years of Catholic school and growing up Catholic. We were taught that being gay in itself is not a sin. It's when there is intercourse between two men it is because it's sex without procreation but the same also applies to straight people too.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Since when does empirical data have anything to do with "thoughts" about homosexuals in ANY time period?
edit on 30-12-2010 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


My bad on that, I looked back on my post and figure that part about "thoughts" shouldn't be there in that post's context. Rambled on a bit. lol



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The Homeland needs homosexual cannon fodder too! No weapons, pick one up from your dead comrade! Forward comrades and crush the enemy of our Homeland. Praise Comrade Obama! Praise Czarina.....er...Czar Napolitano! Long live the NSA-NKVD! To the Gulag with all of the Kapitalist dogs! Redistribute all wealth to the collective....then to the party members. thepeoplescube.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
reply to post by Annee
 




I listen to XM Out-Q radio - - Michelangelo Signorile. Lifestyle and Orientation is something THEY bring up all the time. They are Gay - - it is an important distinction for them. So I pass it along when I can. Its that simple.


So you take the opinions of two people on the radio and use those opinions as the default for anything concerning the subject? So it's their opinion that it's important to THEM and therefore should not be used for the entire LGBT community, there's no hive-mind in that community...That we know of...
lol
I listen to 99.7 FM in the morning and the hosts are gay, and hilarious I might add, who use the words interchangeably so again it's opinion.


Enough. I politely responded to you - - without emotion or personal affront - - in my usual statement style.

In a previous post I posted a link to the LGBT site that discusses and explains "Lifestyle and Orientation".

Done



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Enough. I politely responded to you - - without emotion or personal affront - - in my usual statement style.

This I know and never thought otherwise.

The only reason this began is you found conflict in my use of "lifestyle" in my posting and wrote this:


I hate to be a nag about this - - but it is NOT Lifestyle - - it is Orientation. Lifestyle - - suggests Choice. Orientation is the preferred term of the LGBT


"Preferred" term by in your opinion is from a radio show and a website both not being indicative of the community as a whole that envelopes the entire globe. I was only asking a question regarding you taking the opinions of a few as your own and using those as THE basis for discussion of the topic and correcting those who even agree with you on such topics even though your opinion of the use of "lifestyle" and "orientation" is not universal and that includes my classmates, coworkers, family and the people I share a beer with at the bar who are gay.
But instead of an answer, I get a reply containing fragments like "Enough." and "Done." which are not constructive to discussion and contradictory to your stated "usual statement style" in which they both show the emotion of someone who is easily frustrated when discussing this topic.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
reply to post by Annee
 



Enough. I politely responded to you - - without emotion or personal affront - - in my usual statement style.

This I know and never thought otherwise.

The only reason this began is you found conflict in my use of "lifestyle" in my posting and wrote this:


I hate to be a nag about this - - but it is NOT Lifestyle - - it is Orientation. Lifestyle - - suggests Choice. Orientation is the preferred term of the LGBT


"Preferred" term by in your opinion is from a radio show and a website both not being indicative of the community as a whole that envelopes the entire globe. I was only asking a question regarding you taking the opinions of a few as your own and using those as THE basis for discussion of the topic and correcting those who even agree with you on such topics even though your opinion of the use of "lifestyle" and "orientation" is not universal and that includes my classmates, coworkers, family and the people I share a beer with at the bar who are gay.
But instead of an answer, I get a reply containing fragments like "Enough." and "Done." which are not constructive to discussion and contradictory to your stated "usual statement style" in which they both show the emotion of someone who is easily frustrated when discussing this topic.


Enough and Done - - because of your approach.

Radio shows have guests. This particular issue has been discussed by guests (both call-ins and known names) on several occasions - - as a valid issue. Actually - it comes up often on the show - - because they bring it to the forefront every time a politician or media person uses the terminology Lifestyle. I doubt you will find many activist gays who aren't adamant about their Orientation not being a Choice. Lifestyle indicates a choice. (of course guys you hang out with and have a beer with - may not care at all).

No frustration at all. Never read emotions into a post - - because they are your own emotions - - not that of the poster.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Fair enough, but I'm not one to follow the point of view from an activist since they routinely take a stance on a position that is black or white. I like gaining my opinions from people that I meet and talk to including the gay guys at the bar I share a beer with.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
reply to post by Annee
 


Fair enough, but I'm not one to follow the point of view from an activist since they routinely take a stance on a position that is black or white. I like gaining my opinions from people that I meet and talk to including the gay guys at the bar I share a beer with.


Well yeah - - that's a whole lot more fun.

However - sad as it is - currently there needs to be Political Activism in support of Gay Rights and understanding.

And one main understanding is the difference between Choice and Born Gay.

Cheers "clink" have a beer.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But why does that have to be like that? I hate using this but for lack of a better phase right now, I know people who are gay and have told me they were born that way and I also know gay people who told me that they chose to be gay. I don't see any difference in the the two because they're both gay. Who am I to say that either one of them are wrong in the way they came to live life?

I just don't understand why it matters what a responsible adult wants to do/be with another consenting adult if the rights of no one else are violated. I can understand that the "born as and choice" discussion can be used as a solidarity tactic for the gay community against those who do not like homosexuals but in the end, what does it matter?

I can take comfort in knowing that my generation and the newer ones are leaning more towards the broadening of personal freedoms (without harm towards another of course) and acceptance of the way people are/want to be. It's only a matter of time before the old way of thinking is replaced and we stop wasting our time trying to dictate how people lawfully live their lives.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
reply to post by Annee
 

I just don't understand why it matters what a responsible adult wants to do/be with another consenting adult if the rights of no one else are violated. I can understand that the "born as and choice" discussion can be used as a solidarity tactic for the gay community against those who do not like homosexuals but in the end, what does it matter?


I guess I can only say - - breaking down "taboos" is the hardest part.

And Education is the best defense against ignorance.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Then the Black troops could be second sweep, right? Oh, no, how could I forget, we can't bring race into this, homosexuality is a choice. Ask me when I chose it. I bet if I think real hard, I can come up with the day and time, right down to the split second of the decision. Civil Rights are to be doled out as some see fit - ironically, rather than being inalienable, becoming man-made and cherry picked. I forgot that is how Civil Rights worked - a certain group of people is allowed to decide if and when another group gets those rights.

As far as the military accepting gays, what do I care? More gays to participate in illegal wars....whoop-dee-do. We can become a more diverse, sensitive, and caring military, bringing freedom and justice for all to the four corners of the globe by capitulation or by deadly force. A regular lah-dee-dah, hands-grasping line of rainbow (in the hippy sense, not the gay sense) soldiers singing kumbayah as they obliterate unborn babies and full-term babies alike, bombing schools and hospitals and water-treatment plants. How wonderful it will all be!

If the officer has religious (laugh) beliefs that prohibit him from such training, maybe he should search his religious morality a bit deeper and ask himself why he is in the army in the first place. Maybe the officer could quote some scripture where Jesus was explicitly giving a sermon against homosexuality and then possibly try to compile the list that discusses all the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" type stuff and see which list is longer.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


That officer is part of the crazy minority that didn't support the repeal. Best to ignore bigot idiots like that


To quote Schiffer: We need to move past the village idiots if we want to move the US forward.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Since when does empirical data have anything to do with "thoughts" about homosexuals in ANY time period?
edit on 30-12-2010 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


What "imperical data?" are we talking about? Right wing blog lies that claim the FBI has an accurate count of gay people? I would like to see this imerical data because I am still waiting for it.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
This is going to cost Taxpayers alot of money, they are going to have to build new barracks to house gays and lesbians



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Umm, no they are not... Seriously, is there such a lack of maturity in this country in this day and age? And we should not only expect, but DEMAND a higher level of maturity in those who operate and control multi-million dollar weapons systems. If a soldier or sailor cannot demonstrate that level of maturity, then they do not belong in the service of this country. We like to say we have high standards for our fighting men and women, it's time to show that we do...

And as to this officer's religious objections, I have just two things to say. One, he is serving his country in this case, not his God. If he cannot and will not do so, then he needs to resign, or be prepared to face a Court Martial for disobeying a direct order from his Commander in Chief. Secondly:

"Suppose there was an intelligence, vast and unknowable. Suppose it lit the big bang, suppose it wrote the laws of physics, and has been subtly moulding the universe for 14 billion years. Now keep a straight face and tell me that it cares where you stick your dick."
-Dr. Michio Kaku



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Oh yes it is. Just as males and females are not allowed to share rooms in the barracks. They are not going to let gays and lesbians share rooms, because it would promote romantic relationships among the ranks wich is bad for unit cohesion and moral. (this is a fact it causes drama) wich reduces a units combat effectiveness. and you cant put the gays with the lesbians because you would have males and females saying they were gay/lesbian so they could live with the opposite sex. And what do you do with the transvestites. You could pay them all to live out in town but that would also cost taxpayers a lot of money. It is going to be a big mess All the Sergeants Major had a meeting about this a few months ago and they decided not to make a decision because it is such a pain in the ass to find a workable solution to this.
edit on 30-12-2010 by watchitburn because: grammer



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I hate to break it to you, but Gays and Lesbians have already been serving since the founding of this nation. The lack of having to lie about it is not going to make these earthshattering differences you and the other 'chicken littles' are purporting....



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
This is really so stupid.

Its the military. You kill people - people might kill you. You might step on a land mine. You might get captured and tortured. You jump out of a plane and your chute might not open. Blah Blah Blah

But NO!!!!!!!! We have "Major Crisis in the Shower".

The antiquated fear mongers need to just get over themselves and say: "Deal With It".


edit on 30-12-2010 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
They are not going to let gays and lesbians share rooms, because it would promote romantic relationships among the ranks wich is bad for unit cohesion and moral.


That may be one of the only semi-valid points I've heard coming from those against this, however it would be much easier to enforce strict rules against romantic relationships within combat units, than it would to build gay barracks. And anyway, who are we kidding? There are lots of straight romantic relationships in the military as it is. I don't think lifting 'don't ask don't tell' is going to result in masses of gay people enlisting, anybody who wants to enlist now can and probably has, they just can't say that they're gay.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Question:


How is the mind-set that believes Gays and Lesbians serving openly in the military will require the military to build separate (but equal?) facilities for said Gay and Lesbian servicemembers (to forestall lapses in unit morale and/or cohesion) any different from those "backward" cultures Westerners often deride due to their "cultural" instance that women be segregated from men (other than close family members) at all times, and be covered, head-to-toe, when in public?


Sheesh!

And if "fraternization" within the ranks is to be avoided, doesn't it seem like the last thing you would want to do is bunk a horny group of like-minded "homos" all in the same barracks?


I mean, doesn't that scenario sound like the basis of a Gay porno flick?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join