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: 40
21
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Annee
"You can't be in the military and defend your country because you have red hair".

Is as ridiculous as it sounds.


Nah it's much worse than that.

They don't care about the hair on your head.

They don't judge you on anything that isn't covered by your underwear.


Don't be so melodramatic. You're sexualizing something that's actually much deeper than that. They're judging based on specific combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine that a person has no control over.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Im still trying to understand it.... but thanks for posting it.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
While I have no bad feelings what-so-ever against homo-sexual people, what I can't figure out is why the military needs to indoctrinate service personel how to deal with this group of people. Why could they not simply continue the "don't ask and don't tell" doctrine? I feel as though this policy could have the exact opposite result of what they were looking for since they are trying to make a big deal out of the entire issue and many people will not put up with it for whatever reason; for example health risks(which may be exaggerated) or deep seated religious values!

If they go ahead with this stupid policy they might as well indoctrinate service personel with dealing with smokers, ex drug addicts, ex-convicts, people with a bad temper, alcoholics, etc. They may unkownigly be opening pandora's box...just live and let live comes to mind...or ban homosexuals from joining the service. This was a very dumb move on their part and will bight them in the ass later.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Annee
"You can't be in the military and defend your country because you have red hair".

Is as ridiculous as it sounds.


Nah it's much worse than that.

They don't care about the hair on your head.

They don't judge you on anything that isn't covered by your underwear.


LOL - - like what is covered by your underwear is of any real importance - - when you consider what defending this country is all about.

"hetero fear" is so absurd in context.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Don't be so melodramatic. You're sexualizing something that's actually much deeper than that. They're judging based on specific combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine that a person has no control over.


If a person has no control they definitely don't need to be in the military.

Let alone carrying a gun in a foreign country.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobBalsamo
Im still trying to understand it.... but thanks for posting it.


What exactly are you trying to understand?

Thanks for posting it.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
While I have no bad feelings what-so-ever against homo-sexual people, . . .


When a person starts out a post like this.

You know the "but" factor is coming in to play.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
The issue here is about same sexed couple demanding more than just freedom to do what they want behind closed doors - they want civil rights within the military culture. There are NO rights when you agree to join the military, other than what they afford you. Why can't you folks grasp this? The military is its OWN CULTURE, in which civilians cannot and SHOULD NOT be allowed to push their agendas.


Wrong, the military is owned by the civilians, it's culture is ultimately up to we the people who pay for it with our taxes. If we decide as a whole that we want them to grant civil rights to a group of people, that's what they have to do. We OWN the military, whether they like it or not.





Exactly, and this is the very reason why DADT was put in place. The military already allowed homosexuals to serve under conditions, which they didn't have to, unless the liberals wanted to be reelected, of course. To take this concept any further by adding in sexual "rights", would be to diminish and contradict this concept. So which is it?


Under conditions that their sexuality never come to light, or their career is over? That's alot to demand of a person, and alot of stress and anxiety for that person to live with. I would argue that stressed soldiers who feel they have to overcompensate to keep their livelihoods safe would be a liability.




There's more, but you get the idea. Upon being signed up, the applicant signed a consent form for the DADT policy, regardless if they were gay or not. This is understood up front, so the military members understood and AGREED to the conditions set forth before joining.


All of those requirements, except the tattoos, make somebody a liability. Either financial, physical, or mental, they are all liabilities and not fit for the demanding structure, and physical requirements of the military. Being gay is not even comparable to those requirements, at all. One can easily be gay, yet be physically, mentally, and emotionally fit for the military, with the exception of the constant fear that their sexual preference will come to light if somebody ever wants them out for whatever reason. That's completely wrong, and apparently others felt that way too, that's why DADT is gone. Of course the unhappy minority is going to make alot of noise, but in the end it doesn't matter. Now sit back and watch nothing bad come of it.


edit on 1-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Gseven

Exactly, and this is the very reason why DADT was put in place. The military already allowed homosexuals to serve under conditions, which they didn't have to, unless the liberals wanted to be reelected, of course. To take this concept any further by adding in sexual "rights", would be to diminish and contradict this concept. So which is it?


Under conditions that their sexuality never come to light, or their career is over? That's a lot to demand of a person, and a lot of stress and anxiety for that person to live with. I would argue that stressed soldiers who feel they have to overcompensate to keep their livelihoods safe would be a liability.



Actually - - the DADT policy that Clinton thought he was putting in place - - is far and removed from his own original understandings. Clinton has been very outspoken about this. He believed gays could openly live their lives as long as they didn't publicly or overtly expound upon it.

It is way beyond the time limit - - that what Clinton envisioned finally becomes reality!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Well your "friend" wasn't your friend much less the idea of "stealing" anyone from anyone is distasteful. That merely made him a lesser human being.

I can tell you that I have never in my life tried to convert someone, steal someone from their woman or anything of the like. I can tell you that there are people like that, but there are just as many women I know who have tried that with a gay guy, an experience I have had happen to me, as well as men who have tried that with lesbians.

It is a human idea of attaining someone that would normally have been considered unattainable.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


LOL I hope your response was tongue in cheek, however, I'll venture that it wasn't.

The control the poster is referring to is the control over the chemicals that make up your DNA - i.e. you have no control over your genes.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Annee
"You can't be in the military and defend your country because you have red hair".

Is as ridiculous as it sounds.


Nah it's much worse than that.

They don't care about the hair on your head.

They don't judge you on anything that isn't covered by your underwear.


Don't be so melodramatic. You're sexualizing something that's actually much deeper than that. They're judging based on specific combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine that a person has no control over.


I'm not improperly sexualizing anything.

When you join the military they actually have to inspect your genitals.

To make sure that your genitals are on par with military standards for America's Military representation of what genitals should be.

Fact.

After all, think about all the crazy stuff that would happen if a woman became a man... and then tried to join the army! Sex changes are just... Un-American! (obvious sarcasm). And we have to keep transsexuals out of the military... for flags, and founding fathers, and... and... and... God Bless America.


edit on 1-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Violater1
This is meant to break-up the military.
I would not want my mind preoccupied with the disgusting thought that some pervert soldier next to me, will be fantasizing about me when I need to relive myself, or will be wanting to see my junk in the shower.
Uggghhhh! Despicably revolting!


Then you should not be "representing our country".

Because you are not an American if you think that being gay means looking at people urinating.

You are the definition of uneducated.

But I guess that's what the military is for.



Your skewed interpretation of what I think is wrong on so many levels.
It never ceases to amaze me when a weak person is losing ground in a debate, they resort to name calling and personal attacks.
If representing my country includes representing the murders, rapists, thieves, and perverts, both in prison and not, being represented by political action committees or not, then so be it. Although they are a sick growing minatory, they are well entrenched within the bowels of our society. But what they want is still is not right.
And when my kind are gone, who will protect them then?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It was Adam and Eve folks. Not Adam and Steve. I'll stand with the colonel.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Your skewed interpretation of what I think is wrong on so many levels.


How is my interpretation skewed? You said you thought they would look at you when you urinate... do they look at you now when you urinate? In the men's washroom? Your paranoia is based on nothing. (Most) gay men do not thing penises are attractive when they are spewing out toxic waste. You're making crap up and saying people will be attracted to you when they won't. Sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear that the truth is quite the opposite of what you wrongly assumed. (If you really don't like being wrong, though, you probably should rethink your enrollment in the military, because they admittedly seriously screw up all of the time)


It never ceases to amaze me when a weak person is losing ground in a debate, they resort to name calling and personal attacks.


Right, and why are u here again? To tell people how they think. Clearly you are much more mature in your totalitarianism.



If representing my country


You do not represent this country. You represent Big Petro.

Truth hurts.

Unfortunately I don't want to hear anything but the truth, so I am omitting what you are saying.

You think you represent me then call me a pervert.... right.... all you represent is the arrogant disgraces of troops that are a "minoraty" among soldiers but a problem in itself. This country is about freedom, which you are fighting against. You represent your own agenda, not the agenda of the people who inhabit this country that you clearly know nothing about, since you are trying to protect it by proudly killing innocent people in the middle east and calling your fellow Americans perverts and pigs and less than you, I think that is rather evident.
edit on 1-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilotdavems
It was Adam and Eve folks. Not Adam and Steve. I'll stand with the colonel.


Almost any real religious group would argue that it was quite literally neither.

But you can just regurgitate nonsense and pretend it is constructive.... It's the new logical revolution of the GOP.

Your dismissive about the rights of your fellow Americans to exist and have a job is paramount to tyranny.
edit on 1-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
In the British TV series, "It Aint Half Hot Mum", there is one gay soldier by the name of Gunner (later Bombardier) 'Gloria' Beaumont. There is an interesting episode which features this soldier entitled: "Gloria's Finest Hour" where certain circumstances cause him to become a fearless warrior.








posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilotdavems
It was Adam and Eve folks. Not Adam and Steve. I'll stand with the colonel.


Checked my bible.

Adama and Eve - check
Thou shalt not kill - check

When the colonel meets Jesus and has blood all over his hands, I am certain pointing out his rejection of the gay will fix any problems with killing god's creations for political reasons and imaginary lines.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I am going to make a broad open statement and say that anyone who thinks that this will "destroy the American Military" is nothing short of an alarmist.

Would you like a list of all of the other countries that had extremely similar civil rights reforms in the military and how it negatively impacted absolutely nothing except the feelings of a few overemotional, totalitarian bigots that don't often shut the hell up about pretty much anything?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I can only make an opinion on the subject......

The only training the soldiers should have in regards to gays is protection of ones self when applying medical attention in case the gay soldier is HIV infected. Yes I know, the military does stringent testing but it would only be a matter of time before one has it.


Yeah. Because HIV is only carried by gays. The same kind of protection should be utilized regardless of an injured person's sexual orientation. Your attitude is disgusting.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join