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

reply to post by Josephus23


Just so you know. I read your LINK. I am reading more on Reich.

What ever floats your boat. Wilhelm Reich - - is not someone - - I personally would use to try to justify anything.

Reich is so extreme - - - he is one you would need to do an in-depth study of the person - - - before even attempting to understand his studies - - and then pass them on in a debate.

IMO

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Perhaps - - you should resurrect a Wilhelm Reich thread on ATS or start a new one. I personally don't see how Wilhelm Reich really fits the OP. Others may have a different opinion.

Maybe you can respond to the poster who stated on linked ATS thread: "It's like the Heterosexual's who ram their breeding's agenda's down people's throats . . .

Wilhelm Reich is good but was brung up a bad soul, ie a Homophobe, so he is just a bad soul really. He had some bad character armour and a possible suppressed same sex leaning's."

As I said in my last post. Reich was raised in extremely sexually repressive Victorian Germany. He was very much subject to sexual control and that is my entire point.
Sexual control.

It goes both ways, and is harmful in both directions.

Reich could not see beyond his own reality tunnel, but his words carry with them the strength of truth if applied correctly.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Annee

 

I am not opposed to anyone doing what they personally wish, but what I am opposed to is the promotion of any type of a lifestyle.

...your stance promotes the heterosexual lifestyle over any other...

Originally posted by Josephus23
the military set standards.

...and the standard has now changed... fair treatment / equality standards in the military have changed often in the last 50yrs... bigots who cant handle the change need to get out of the military... maybe they'll get lucky and find an employer who is as bigoted as they are (like fred phelps and his loonies)...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks


...your stance promotes the heterosexual lifestyle over any other...

That is a complete misstatement of my position. One is only the default position over the other because procreation is the means for continuation of life as we know it.
I do not promote any type of sexual lifestyle, and in my opinion, the military should not either.

...and the standard has now changed... fair treatment / equality standards in the military have changed often in the last 50yrs... bigots who cant handle the change need to get out of the military... maybe they'll get lucky and find an employer who is as bigoted as they are (like fred phelps and his loonies)...

I would think that my position should be crystal clear by now.
I am not a bigot towards homos or heteros.
That is a matter of personal choice and does not have any place in military indoctrination.

Originally posted by Josephus23
As I said in my last post. Reich was raised in extremely sexually repressive Victorian Germany. He was very much subject to sexual control and that is my entire point.
Sexual control.

It goes both ways, and is harmful in both directions.

Can we just leave Reich out of this. He is an extreme nut job.

So are you saying if gays are in the military they will become depressed because they have to suppress their sexual urge?

reply to post by Annee


If a gay becomes depressed because they cannot be openly flamboyant about their lifestyle while being employed by the Armed Forces, then they have a much deeper issue than being "openly gay" about their lifestyle.

People must be in control of their libidinal impulses when their job is to KILL another human being.

And when the State mandates that one type of lifestyle is acceptable, then that leads to Fascism.
Heterosexuality never was, nor has been, promoted as a lifestyle by the US Armed Forces.
Heterosexuality is the natural position by default. We must procreate to sustain life.
That is not the State. That is nature.
Heterosexuality was however mandated by Hitler and this was to create a family unit that represented the core beliefs of the 3rd Reich.
Homosexuals were sent to the concentration camps.
This situation is a slippery slope that leads straight into allowing the State to control our reasoning.

If a person was outed during DADT, then their response should not be to admit anything.
Do you remember the 5th Amendment?

BTW...Reich is not a nut.
He is actually more in line with your reasoning than what I am espousing. I would think that he would heartily disagree with me; however...

The main point that he makes in his seminal/titular work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, is that Fascism is a response. It is a reaction to a situation and very emotional in nature, but it is the State supplying the emotions.

I am more concerned with a march toward Fascism than I am about whether or not a person can be "openly" gay while serving.
And I would hope that a soldier would be patriotic enough to understand my concern.

My opinion has never been that gays are bad.
I live in Midtown, Atlanta, GA.
Where I live is Gay Mecca (sorry if that offends any Muslims).
I know of several homosexuals that understand exactly what I am talking about and agree with me.

Sexual impulses cause irrational behavior, which is not an option when you are in a field of battle.
DADT was the best response to this situation, and very American, in my opinion.

We value privacy. Why would anyone want to give that up?

Someone mentioned the book/movie Starship Troopers earlier and that is a sterling example for what I am trying to explain.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Annee

 

If a gay becomes depressed because they cannot be openly flamboyant about their lifestyle while being employed by the Armed Forces, then they have a much deeper issue than being "openly gay" about their lifestyle.

Your first sentence is such an insult - - I have no desire to even discuss this topic with you. And I doubt you even know why.

You keep trying to present some odd philosophical point of view. But I think it is pretty obvious by your own words what your true position is.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is DEAD.

Those in the military who can't accept it - - need to leave.

reply to post by Annee


I have a point of view. You are correct.
I do not understand why anyone would think that my statement is an insult.

We are talking about killing other people. We are not talking about circuit parties or parades.
And that is where I have issues with a lifestyle being promoted by the military.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...your stance promotes the heterosexual lifestyle over any other...

Originally posted by Josephus23
That is a complete misstatement of my position.

...no, its an accurate statement... see below...

Originally posted by Josephus23
One is only the default position over the other because procreation is the means for continuation of life as we know it.

...that is a pro-heterosexual statement... its also an incorrect one... homosexuals can and do procreate, always have... its a fact... learn to deal with it... nowadays copulation isnt even required, regardless of your sexuality, and its been that way for decades...

Originally posted by Josephus23
I do not promote any type of sexual lifestyle,

...yes, you do...

Originally posted by Josephus23
and in my opinion, the military should not either.

...you're as confused about the military's new standard as you are about your own promotion of the heterosexual lifestyle being the dominant / default lifestyle...

Originally posted by Josephus23
I would think that my position should be crystal clear by now.

...its clear, just not to you...

Originally posted by Josephus23
I am not a bigot towards homos or heteros.

...you may not be on a one-to-one basis but you most certainly harbor the archaic notion that heterosexuals are the default lifestyle because thats the only lifestyle that perpetuates the species via procreation...

Originally posted by Josephus23
That is a matter of personal choice and does not have any place in military indoctrination.

...you dont get to decide if someone's sexuality is a choice... it is simply none of your biz... you also dont get to decide how military standards are conceived or implemented - neither do i... thats how its goes...

...the current military standards do not support bigotry towards another military person, regardless of whether the bigotry is directed at someone's sexuality, religion or lack of, gender or ethnicity...

Originally posted by Josephus23
Heterosexuality never was, nor has been, promoted as a lifestyle by the US Armed Forces.

...wrong...

...dont ask dont tell was a pro-heterosexual standard... there was no ruling forbiding heterosexuals from yappin about their sexual encounters or flaunting pictures of their women - but - the ruling clearly warned homosexuals not to do the same... if you cant see how bigoted that was (iow - promoting one lifestyle over another), its because you're a bigot...

Originally posted by Josephus23
Heterosexuality is the natural position by default. We must procreate to sustain life.
That is not the State. That is nature.

...no... thats archaic bs thats always been wrong...

Originally posted by Josephus23

I do not understand why anyone would think that my statement is an insult.

We are talking about killing other people. We are not talking about circuit parties or parades.
And that is where I have issues with a lifestyle being promoted by the military.

I know you don't understand why your statement is insulting.

Or anything else you've said - for that matter.

-----------------------------------

Once again - trying to stay on topic - - - "Don't Asked Don't Tell" - has been signed by the President.

Those who do not follow the orders of the Commander in Chief - - have no business in the military.

reply to post by Annee

The military is now run on voluntary enlistment.

What happens when people do not want to enlist because of ethical dilemmas?
Although the vast majority of people in the states do not personally care about this issue on a personal level, many will not enlist.

This is the slippery slope that I am speaking of.
I would rather wait and see how this turns out.

If the soldiers are fine with the repeal of DADT, then I will eat crow, but if the vast majority of conservative individuals who join the army refuse to do so voluntarily, due to them not wanting to be indoctrinated into a lifestyle, then what will happen?
The draft?

Socially shared values lead to a stable social environment.
The homosexual lifestyle, while accepted by the vast majority of Americans, is not embraced personally by the same number.

Let's see who turns out to make the better prediction.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Entertaining post, but completely incorrect.

As I said previously, let's see how this plays out.
These issues are not spurt of the moment decisions made by our military intelligence apparatus.

If you were to know me in the real word, then I would be most likely called a "liberal" or a "progressive", but what I am doing here is making a prediction based upon trends.
And that prediction is also based upon the theories of academics.

This is not a personal opinion. This is a statement about our country.

As I said previously, let's see how long our "military might" lasts after the repeal.

I got twenty bucks on the draft. Fascism. It is sad that more people do not see this happening to Amerika.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Annee

 

The military is now run on voluntary enlistment.

What happens when people do not want to enlist because of ethical dilemmas?

I don't care. Its really their problem.

If we have to go back to the Draft - - then we have to go back to the Draft.

It SUCKS that Equality has to be Forced. Thank the Universe - - we are continuing the fight and progressing.

Whatever, sayanora, arevaderci, sierra del fuego, buh-bye, don't let the door, etc.

It'd be interesting to dig up old records, compare things like this with cases from when they first integrated the military, see how many similarities you'd find.

I'm betting there'd e more than a few.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


This officer is protecting his retirement. There is a clause in the UCMJ that makes it illegal to give someone an order that you know he will not obey. By putting this in writing (and getting it widely distributed) he is preventing any of his superiors from court-martialing him for refusing to comply with something he cannot do in good conscience.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Josephus23

I do not understand why anyone would think that my statement is an insult.

We are talking about killing other people. We are not talking about circuit parties or parades.
And that is where I have issues with a lifestyle being promoted by the military.

I know you don't understand why your statement is insulting.

Or anything else you've said - for that matter.

-----------------------------------

Once again - trying to stay on topic - - - "Don't Asked Don't Tell" - has been signed by the President.

Those who do not follow the orders of the Commander in Chief - - have no business in the military.

Well, our military is subject to laws. In basic training and officer training the military members are told that following orders is not an excuse for violating laws. It is illegal to give someone an order that you know they will not obey as a matter of conscience even if it would otherwise be legal. We don't want a military of non-thinking robots.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
Well, our military is subject to laws. In basic training and officer training the military members are told that following orders is not an excuse for violating laws. It is illegal to give someone an order that you know they will not obey as a matter of conscience even if it would otherwise be legal. We don't want a military of non-thinking robots.

Believe what you want.

How sad that Equality must be forced.

Annee,

Believe what you want.

How sad that Equality must be forced.

Are you even real...getting real? Do you not realize what you are doing...what you have done here in the name of equality or even equity?? Have you a clue as to what your emotions are doing here?? How they are controlling you to irrational behavior to get what you think and believe in your devout religion/belief system is rational behavior??

Your statements as well as Wyn Hawks are full of emotional entitlements as well as textbook labeling. The very stereotyping language of which so many disapprove. You use this stereotyping in like manner to today's body politic to establish the moral ethical high ground. Then you conclude by proving the very fascism of which Josephus 23 describes. I don't believe you even realize what you are doing here in your emotional state.

Which is also what Josephus 23 is describing.

This is not leadership on both of your parts. Nor is it the moral ethical high ground to those out here who can see the technique for what it is. It is also not leadership on the part of the body politic.

You are being fascist here to default through..just as does the body politic.

This is non representative government while claiming democracy.
What is actually happening is predatory intentions on the public for votes and power from selected culled out groups. Culled out/divided by the body politic.

I also agree with Josephus 23...that many will not join the military because of this and eventually the draft must come back.
The event which will change this will be bad economic times ..and this too is coming and does not make for the best people in the military. Freeloaders yes..the best caliber ..no.

Josephus 23 is also correct here.

The homosexual lifestyle, while accepted by the vast majority of Americans, is not embraced personally by the same number.

This is also a concept and knowledge not spoken about by the body politic nor the controlled media as well as public education who shill for them.

I had not thought of you being facist...Annee..but Josephus has a definite point for a liberal....and I am very very conservative. I've learned something here today and shall file this away for future reference..for spotting it often as I believe Josephus23 is on to something...as is a hound with their nose to the ground. Not just on to something on this issue..but in the overall religion..the zealousness, and devoutness we call politics.

In due time some of us will began to question the source of this religion.

In due course the military will pay the price for the purposes of supporting this religion. And eventually so too will the public.

Thanks,
Orangetom

edit on 4-1-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)