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: 37
21
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Its troublesome that this is even an issue. Homosexuality has been around in army units since the Spartans, and likely earlier than that even. If someone wants to fight for their country, they should be allowed no matter their religion, sexual preference, race, creed, etc. The only things that should stop someone from enlisting is serious physical limitations due to illness or disablity and mental competency (gotta be careful who you give a gun to).




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I don't understand your point. Everybody that you mentioned hating, did something to you directly. But, to hate people who haven't done anything to you, for no reason other than their own personal preferences between consenting adults, defies all logic, other than them wrestling homosexual tendencies within themselves, and over compensating the other direction. But you're right, I'm sure that's not the case with every bigot, but likely alot of them.

Good choice of color to dye your hair, back when I was a bit younger I used that manic panic, always red. I still listen to metal and industrial metal, and probably will until I die.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexasChem
We don't have to view the right/wrong of homosexuality from a religious viewpoint to prove the case against accepting and promoting it socially.


Nobody needs you to "accept" who they are, if you don't like it, oh well. And nobody is promoting anything, other than tolerance.



Homosexuality by its very nature goes against natural law.


Um, no, it doesn't. Many animals engage in homosexual behavior. Like you said, look it up.



The evolution and continuance of our species depends upon male/female interaction to promote the healthy physical/mental and social advancement of our human race.Therefore male/male and female/female relationships are a negative and go against the natural order or Natural Law if you will of the Universe.


Are you aware of a little thing called "over population"?

www.suite101.com...

Nature has all kinds of ways to deal with it. Homosexuality may very well be one of them.



Costs Americans millions in higher health insurance premiums because increased health costs from homosexual behavior are reflected in those premiums.


Once again, you're picking the WRONG person to get into a health insurance debate with. That is my career, and again, I repeat, cancer, heart disease, and renal disease are the MAJOR killers and drivers of higher health insurance premiums. Those have nothing to do with being gay. I VERY rarely see AIDS cases in my job, which is purely clinical. You say that 2% of the population is gay, so you prove your own argument here wrong. Gays do not drive up insurance premiums. Risky behavior comes in ALL forms. Driving without a seatbelt can result in all kinds of terrible injuries and death. So can smoking, IV drug use, sky diving, drinking, eating fast food, and yes, unprotected sex. Gays can use condoms too. Being gay does not equate to AIDS. Again, if you really did research, instead of hate sites, you'd find that poor people have the highest incidents of AIDS. Straight, gay, whatever.



Studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, major depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders and substance abuse.


Ya think? Maybe cuz they have to hide who they are from just about EVERYBODY. If we lived in a more tolerant society, those numbers would be the same as straight people.

Once again, you don't have to accept them. It's none of your business. Be YOU. Let other consenting adults be THEM.


edit on 30-12-2010 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You are not getting it, with the DADT policy gays and lesbians could serve and as long as they werent making alot of noise the command could ignore it. This is a change of policy, and regardless of what any of us think or feel about it, this is how the military thinks and does things. I assure you it is going to be very interesting to see how they address the billeting/housing situation.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Ah, that is a very good point. That is an angle I never even thought of, thanks



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

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.


Wow, really? You expect me to respond to you when you can't even spell? Even after I spelled "empirical" correctly?

I was talking about the studies quoted about the percentage of gays of the overall population, and the percentage of gays who commit sex crimes. Maybe you should read back a few pages and educate yourself before you mouth off. Data is data, it doesn't care what political persuasion you are, and we all know what you are, don't we?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TexasChem

Do you feel it appropriate to condone and expose children to a lifestyle that by its very nature increases detrimental physical and mental health risks?


It is not a Lifestyle - - it is a birth right.

It is a Natural Birth Right.


Where's your proof that it is indeed a "birthright"? You are confusing "birthright" with "genetics", and "genetics" has yet to be proven adequately by science. The only thing we are given at birth is the right to free will, which we all are given....the right to choose between good and bad.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Data is data, it doesn't care what political persuasion you are, and we all know what you are, don't we?


I wonder where that data comes from. Perhaps you could provide your source, I'm sure it won't be biased.


Here's an interesting read though, examining your empirical data...


Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children.

*snip*

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
psychology.ucdavis.edu...



edit on 30-12-2010 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Data is data, yes true. I was in math for gifted class since 5th grade when I was in school. In 6th grade, the teacher was a really fun and interesting teacher. During the graph plotting and statistics chapter, we were taught how to manipulate numbers to "prove" ideas we knew where false. It was eye opening, and interesting chapter in math. Given enough numbers and data to plot, clip the graph at the right place, and bingo, you can convince most idiots of anything.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Data is data, yes true. I was in math for gifted class since 5th grade when I was in school. In 6th grade, the teacher was a really fun and interesting teacher. During the graph plotting and statistics chapter, we were taught how to manipulate numbers to "prove" ideas we knew where false. It was eye opening, and interesting chapter in math. Given enough numbers and data to plot, clip the graph at the right place, and bingo, you can convince most idiots of anything.


LOL - Love this.

On a forum - not this one - one of the posters had been a designer of polls. Needless to say - - it was enlightening.

Same thing.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You are not getting it, with the DADT policy gays and lesbians could serve and as long as they werent making alot of noise the command could ignore it. This is a change of policy, and regardless of what any of us think or feel about it, this is how the military thinks and does things. I assure you it is going to be very interesting to see how they address the billeting/housing situation.


EXACTLY! Not to mention the "dependent" situation. What people don't realize is that this DADT issue alone will bleed over into every other gay issue that affects the entire country. I foresee the Federal Government revoking the rights of the states to make their own laws regarding gay marriage, simply due to the fact that there WILL be issues arising where "fairness" cannot be experienced in the military. Why? Because couple "A" is from such-and-such state and is legally married, but couples "B", "C", and "D" are from other states that don't allow gay marriage. Let's face it...being married in the military is a good thing in terms of benefits and housing. I can see it now....a gay couple gets housing, and a hetero couple with 2 1/2 kids and one income gets denied due to lack of availability (which is ALREADY a problem). Imagine the evening news getting a hold of that one! The shock waves of this issue will hit far and wide for years to come.

Like so many have tried to convey already, this is opening Pandora's Box....where will it end? As much as I support my friends living the way they want to live, as I do with anyone, I think DADT was the perfect solution that upheld the military standard....gays are not the only group of people that the military keeps out, however, they are the only group they allowed in under certain conditions. It kept everyone equal, and kept the military's standard of not singling out particular groups, except by respect of gender differences.

As another poster mentioned, and I fully concur, this is NOT a civilian organization. It is the military, and as such, members are not allowed to be individuals. The very lifestyle of conforming to regulations with uniforms, hairstyles, etiquette, customs, and even off-duty behavior and dress says that anyone who identifies too much with what makes them different should NOT be considered a proper candidate for the military, REGARDLESS of their sexual preferences.
edit on 30-12-2010 by Gseven because: typos



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Really? You feel good that you noticed a typo? Some people needs those kinds of lifts.
I will still be waiting for that evidence, ANY EVIDENCE.

You sit there laughing at typos. We should get far.
edit on 31-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Under DADT, gays serving in the military were forced to lie about who they were as people. They no longer have to lie. Why you think how they sleep will change due to that eludes me.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Well I believe this will be my last post on this thread I can not stand the emotional appeal fallacies any longer. I've pretty much stated everything I could to inform and educate those willing to listen to logic rather than Politically Correct dogma.

The acceptance of the repeal of DADT and homosexual lifestyle in western civilization is simply stated.
Cultural Marxism.
Incidentally I started a thread on that very topic if any would care to join me over there!





posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
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.


He's a moron and unqualified to run a country. Beating a dead horse, but that community leader has only damaged the country, should be ignored, and not shown respect as he didn't earn it.

You do temporarily sign away your rights while serving in the military. No freedom of speech, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No rights to practice an alternate sexual preference. Homosexual acts are still against military law (UCMJ). People in the military do get worked up in their urges during long training (basic training) and long deployments at sea or far away. There are group showers. Military folk have strong self defensive traits. A sexual advance is an assault and will be dealt with immediately or timed.


edit on 31-12-2010 by dbriefed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Reminds me of the debate involving religeous education in government schools (Australia) in the early 80's, yes it's nice, whatever....just don't try to ram this down my throat....at every opportunity you get...but hey they may need something as a stop gap to keep peace within the ranks, when conscription starts again for the upcoming engagement in Iran......



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Under DADT, gays serving in the military were forced to lie about who they were as people. They no longer have to lie. Why you think how they sleep will change due to that eludes me.


Wrong. They didn't have to lie. They simply kept it private....no one will ask, and you don't tell. And even then, DADT was merely a guidance system for those who wanted to use it. I will ask the same question of you....why will the fact that they can now talk about their sex life at work make them, or anyone around them for that matter, do their jobs any better? The logic works both ways. I knew LOTS of gay folks that I never reported....but I could have. If they were as much as a pain in the ass as some here, I probably would have considered it. Who would want to work around this day in and day out, regardless of what the topic is about?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
Wrong. They didn't have to lie. They simply kept it private....no one will ask, and you don't tell.


Wrong, in the real world, people did indeed ask. It was asked under DADT and no one would get fired for asking. That is what has been happening in the real world.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Gseven
Wrong. They didn't have to lie. They simply kept it private....no one will ask, and you don't tell.


Wrong, in the real world, people did indeed ask. It was asked under DADT and no one would get fired for asking. That is what has been happening in the real world.


Well, there ya go....the people that asked had no legal footing to do so. The people who confided in me had no legal footing to do so and trusted me. I had no legal footing to not report what I knew. So we all kind of broke that rule, didn't we? The bottom line was, DADT was meant to keep the subject out of the unit, because by it's very nature, it individualizes that person and breaks up unit cohesiveness. I get that you don't understand that concept, but that's part of the problem. Even some that are active duty or were active duty don't even get this concept, but those who have been in for a few decades and are in huge leadership positions, know and understand the ramifications. The reason why some active duty people don't have a problem with the changes is because they see things functioning fine already and don't see the problems coming down the pike.

The same way that civilian feminists made it so difficult for female active duty members, civilian gay activists are making it difficult for many gays who have no desire to be "outed" in their work environment. The only ones making a stink about this are the civilians, and frankly, civilians need to butt out and let the military do what it does best. If people don't like how its run, then they can get out and be as "individual" and "special" as they want to be in the civilian world. LOTS of straights can't adjust either and get out....so really, this isn't a gay issue at all. The military needs to be able to set a standard and keep it, and civilians need to stop telling them how to do their jobs.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Gseven
Wrong. They didn't have to lie. They simply kept it private....no one will ask, and you don't tell.


Wrong, in the real world, people did indeed ask. It was asked under DADT and no one would get fired for asking. That is what has been happening in the real world.


Well, there ya go....the people that asked had no legal footing to do so.


But they did ask. The result was people had to choose between being honest and keeping their job. Tsk tsk. The only change being made is that now, you can ask and no one has to lie. You have had plenty of chances to explain how that will affect sleeping arrangements and have failed to make that case. Good luck in the future though.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join