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

page: 44
21
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


when you are a soldier, you follow orders, correct? you dont have a choice. you have to do what that presidential order says and probably for good reason you dont make those decisions




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
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.



Lesson #1 in posting/reading in a forum: NEVER read emotions into another posters post.

It is not their emotions you are reading - - it is your OWN.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
I think most peoples' outside-of-the-military propensities should be banned. I'll tell ya why. If we're in a foxhole, I don't care if your white or black, jew or christian, muslim or sikh, gay or straight. The only thing that matters in a firefight is whether you can SHOOT what your AIMING AT... and that your NOT aiming at ME. Everything else is just useless drivel, and matters not one iota in a combat situation any more than the color of your undies.

Chrono


Thank you. I have found this to be the sentiment of most soldiers I've read in posting on this subject - here on ATS and other places.

Most say they know who in their unit is gay and as long as they do their job - - they don't care.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You definitely have a point, however, reading another's emotions must still be done. We all do it. And certain phrases do usually indicate at least a spectrum of emotion. And, as you said, often the individuals projecting there own emotions onto you don't have a clue as to your emotional outlook and personal experiences. But some are more emotionally intelligent than others. Even though what you said has a great deal of truth, it can be used as ammo to deflect, offering a sort of carte blanche to play games and then say that one is being read incorrectly.

All that being said, I believe that we are all mysteries to another, with the exception of the few very close people to us that we hold very near and dear. As such, we have every right to remain mysteries so some little troll doesn't try to attack us.
Besides, the world changes, at least in one aspect, through the shifting and changing of labels. It is a tool we all use to have our voices heard. Anyone who doesn't accept this, IMO, has their blinders to a major way in which this world works. And who wants clinical, clockwork perfection anyway? There is no room for advancement or progression.

I will also say, in spite of my posts in this thread, I really do believe that don't ask don't tell being lifted is the correct decision. I just happen to think that a frog being slowly boiled in water does not notice until it is too late. In other words, I think accommodations like separate showers and the like should be offered. Ya know, ease the transition. If one truly wants lasting change of a sort, I think it is better to avoid and dispel a potential backlash.
edit on 4-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: o



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Yeah, I am making a habit of responding to your posts, Annee. I guess I am trying to make amends for trying to play a little bit of devil's advocate and supply what I considered to be somewhat valid reasoning for the side against the lift of DADT. But the post to which you responded was ridiculous. And I am gonna take the risk of going down that hole to explain my view to that poster. To the poster who made the comment about gays having more severe problems than being gay if they cannot hide their flamboyance, shame on you. While I do agree that some gays do exaggerate their personalities, I believe they do so in order that you might just meet them in the middle of the exaggeration, accepting them for who they are. They are testing the waters, so to speak. They realize that you are vehemently opposed to the way in which they think, to their very prism through which they see the world, and they know you are going to resist and fight them and label them. All of us, at least the wise ones, resist negative labels like the plague. So, they naturally take it too far so that you will eventually come to a compromise. The flamboyant gays I knew actually acted less flamboyant the more I knew them. They were seeing if I would take the bait so to speak. They knew if they immediately revealed themselves to the wrong person, that said person would attack their very core, possibly causing them to spiral into depression. And not every man, even MANY of the straight ones, is a ramen noodle from the clone factory. Those of us who are not the replicants that good men and women have been battling forever must be careful with those we meet. Because some people will only be happy if you see the world exactly as they do, as if they are God almighty or something. It is a good thing that Lucifer (metaphorically speaking, that SOB or B who thinks they are the center of it all, the end all be all) always falls. Reality will always eventually slap that person in the face.

Oh, and on top of this, there is this peculiar thing about this world and people around you rising to meet expectations. Change your perspective and interactions, and watch how differently the world unfolds around you. Stop putting people in their boxes, and be amazed at how they come out to play. People are pretty much limited in revealing themselves (unless they are quite bold and confident and very secure, and even then, the other still can place a few limitations on them) to the extent that the person with whom they are interacting can deal with it. If one is closed off, then one will see little more than facades everywhere. Change your perspective of those you deem unworthy, even if only a mental experiment, and watch how differently the world relates to you and how many additional layers of the onion you notice. Peace.
edit on 4-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
reply to post by Annee
 


You definitely have a point, however, reading another's emotions must still be done.


I have 10 years experience in forums. I started with ICQ.

I post straight forward statements. You are not reading emotions from me. You are reading (transferring) your own emotions.

edit on 4-1-2011 by Annee because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Your statements as well as Wyn Hawks are full of emotional entitlements as well as textbook labeling.


...but when you, tom, call people "emotional fascist labelers" you dont consider that to be labeling or being full of emotional entitlements... got it... glad we got that cleared up...



Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is not leadership on both of your parts.


...presumptious often?... i bet you are...



Originally posted by orangetom1999
You are being fascist here


...dang them labelers...



Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am very very conservative.


...so am i but, i'm sure, my version of conservatism is nothing like yours...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment
 


I appreciate what you are trying to say.

Humans are not a group think. Humans are individuals. ALL Humans are diverse in their interests and behaviors.

Stereotyping a whole group that has only one thing in common - - attraction to same gender - - is unacceptable.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I wasn't talking about you, Annee. I was just speaking in general terms. Besides, no matter how straightforward, there are emotions behind it all. We are not robots. And trust me, I basically agreed with you, albeit with some wiggle room. I said we often project our emotions onto another. Sometimes emotions do sync up, however. But I guess there is no way of noticing this over this sort of medium. There is no eye contact, etc. Come on, you must admit that sometimes people, even over the internet, can at least make somewhat educated guesses. With all of this, I must say that I do not think this was the case with the guy projecting his emotions onto you. You both clearly see the world through entirely different lenses, so obviously he is not going to be able to read the emotions even remotely accurately behind your post. I wasn't saying you were emotional to a fault or some related nonsense. I was just saying that there are definitely emotions behind all posts, your being no exception. But that is no negative. There are emotions behind all of our posts I hope. I don't want to get info from or into a discussion with a paranoid android.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
reply to post by Annee
 


I wasn't talking about you, Annee.


Where did I indicate or even hint you were talking about me?

I made statements about Humanity. That is all I did - - other then acknowledge your post out of courtesy.

You really need to stop reading "in to posts". Take them at face value.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xavialune

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Allowing soldiers to be openly gay in the military is damaging morale of the heterosexual men and women's strong religious beliefs.


When you voluntarily travel vast distances to kill people that are not a threat to your life, which religious values do you get to stand behind again?


People who are against gays will use whatever reason in their grasp to justify it. But I'm not sorry to say that it just isn't justifiable to hate a group of people based on their sexuality. Just because you don't like it does not justify prejudice against them, they are not hurting anyone being gay. Gays aren't going to start molesting straights just because they are going to be allowed to be openly gay..it is merely a case of unjustifiable homophobia and religious elitism that is the problem here.

But hey, we can be indoctrinated and sent to kill our enemies based on lies, but watch out for that homo...he might grab your arse while you're in the middle of a fight!

COME ON PEOPLE! This crap is nothing more than trying to justify bigoted viewpoints. The world is changing, and if people don't stop having ridiculous and hateful views (I dont care what anyone says...homophobia be it for religious or other reasons is hateful and seriously outdated) you are going to be left in the dust when the world moves on without you.


So what I gather from that last statement is that people should just conform to anything that the world is doing? Sounds like US indoctrination has won you over "Follow all the latest trends and everything will be great!"

You claim its hateful and bigotry for people to disagree with a homosexual lifestyle...yet what do you do when you say that people are bigots and all because they believe differently from you, the world, or the latest fad beliefs? (I am not just talking about the homosexual aspect of this thread but all aspects involved with what I just said).

Bigotry definition = A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Grabbing asses in combat isn't the "rational" concern and those who are concerned with those kinds of things will believe whatever they will until a personal experience makes them see differently (more often then not). Cant change that no matter how much indoctrination you put them through. People have every right to believe what they want and no one can stop them. If they act in an illegal manner based on this belief then it becomes criminal action which is what justice systems are in place for (yes I know they are flawed miserably in many cases but its what we have).

Personally I believe that sexual harassment laws and general harassment laws that already protect people from unwanted sexual acts/advancements or harassment can protect homosexuals without needing adjusted (and vice versa).

This homosexual thing is way beyond anything I understand. If people are gay then so be it! Who they love and all is there business. I see it like smoking...you might do it but not everyone around you does, so there are things in place and things you can do to help minimize encroaching on peoples space. You might be homosexual but not everyone around you is so respect that by not necessarily displaying it every chance you get! (I am talking about when they advertise this on purpose).

If straight military personal must be put through sensitivity training for how to conduct themselves when dealing with homosexuals shouldn't homosexuals have to go through similar training so they know how to be able to deal with straights?

This whole thing is turning into reverse discrimination...IE there will be so many things in place protecting them that it will be unfair for everyone else.

Most arguments thrown around on issues like this are extreme ones based on what if scenarios and its rather annoying because it looks immature and stupid. Not to mention the whole premise of 90% of these posts is a matter of "My belief is better than yours". Quit trying to control people and believe your own thing. Its one thing to share but when it becomes a matter of bigotry then its a problem (notice how I shared my beliefs without bashing everyone who doesn't agree with me?)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Dennislp3,

Unbelievable...just unbelievable. Someone else gets it. Hallelujah.

From what you are posting from page one Dennislp.

Posted by Xavialune on page one of this thread...

People who are against gays will use whatever reason in their grasp to justify it. But I'm not sorry to say that it just isn't justifiable to hate a group of people based on their sexuality.


This is textbook of today's rationalization that people who are against gays and gay beliefs are haters. This is standard M1A textbook indoctrination technique. I call this the standard default setting. I see this very often today in self justification to label those with whom they disagree. And they believe that anyone who disagrees can be labeled a hater. Even politics is want to take advantage of this to get votes from many groups..not just this one group.

I see this as a way to denigrate those who use free speech to make their point of view. This type of labeling is in fact hatred.

I note that it is often the exact opposite in its workings. That those who demand tolerance from others are in fact not tolerant of the thinking and free speech of others...and quite vehement/passionate, emotional about it. A very interesting contrast.

And this template in operation is now infecting the military with politics..in lieu of military disciplines/requirements.

I can tell you now..I have spent alot of years working/building submarines. This is just not going to work out with submarine crews. I have been around enough sub crews to know and see how they think and operate.
They are a hard salty bunch amongst themselves who will cull out those who cannot make the grade and properly qualify. The emotional Victim dictum will not work among submarine crews. You make the grade or they get rid of you. Anything less amongst them is an invitation to death and destruction out at sea and at depth.


Personally I believe that sexual harassment laws and general harassment laws that already protect people from unwanted sexual acts/advancements or harassment can protect homosexuals without needing adjusted (and vice versa).


I believe this too, which is why I think it very improper for anyone to define themselves by their sex,sexuality, or sexual orientation.


This whole thing is turning into reverse discrimination...IE there will be so many things in place protecting them that it will be unfair for everyone else.


Agree totally. The body politic will take advantage of this to the point that what you describe will happen. It will be special discrimination. Which is exactly what the body politic is doing in England to the native English peoples to support their votes, monies, and politics/careers.

Annee,

posted by Annee,


Believe what you want.

How sad that Equality must be forced.


Lesson #1 in posting/reading in a forum: NEVER read emotions into another posters post.

It is not their emotions you are reading - - it is your OWN.



This is twice you have done this method or technique. No problem. I merely make note of it.

As you can see by my post above to Dennislp..building submarines does not lend itself to alot of emotional satisfaction or catering to ones emotions. Discipline is the order of the day. Catering to emotions are a luxury to me. I am also qualified to load nuclear fuel into reactors..once again..emotions and drama values and thinking will not make it in this arena...it calls for discipline not drama. I don't change my thinking and understanding because I get off work.

However ...continuing on the quote of yours above that Equality must be forced. Once again ..twice ...this goes way over your head.

Sex and sexuality..even sexual orientation is a private personal thing. You do not legislate/force this. One has to go to school and major in emotional justification to get this naturally dumbed down. Ordinary people left to their own devices are not this dumb.

And yet we have here Government educated legislators and executives entering into this arena and trying to legislate/force this.

This is extremely ignorant....because forced acceptance of sexuality, sex, and sexual orientation is tantamount to rape. Thinking peoples know this. Emotional justification peoples do not. It does not matter how nicely or emotionally this is attempted to be presented. You don't force acceptance of sexuality in any manner on other peoples. You do not force social constructs of acceptability on people. Especially political social constructs.

You have to go to public school to not understand this about how people think in lieu of ones own emotional fulfillment/justification.

The only reason government would possibly be interested in this is the votes/power they would get from this group of voters/contributors in high electoral vote states. Especially in close elections.
The methods of government in recent years has been to use/misuse social issues to divide a nation and peoples rather than unite them. This is obvious as a political technique in this issue..though it can be seen in others as well. Variations of the Victim Dictum are textbook of governments seeking more power over their peoples.
And now government is attemting to divide the military in this...to turn the military into a social services testing ground...ie...politic.

Drama Queens of any type do not survive long in the military. It takes discipline as the first requirement.
And some arenas of the military require way more discipline and ability than mere sexuality. This is known by those who have served and have seriously taken their service.

The prime arena of our military is not as a social testing ground...ie social services.

This social services template is taking over the military more and more as the years go by.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom
edit on 5-1-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
those who demand tolerance from others are in fact not tolerant of the thinking and free speech of others...and quite vehement/passionate, emotional about it. A very interesting contrast.


...especially when they dont see that behavior in themselves OR when they see it but pretend their agression is something good... (ie: those throwing a hissy fit over DADT being revoked)...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
And this template in operation is now infecting the military with politics..in lieu of military disciplines/requirements.


...the military has always been affected by politics and social mores... military disciplines and/or requirements are not written in stone but, instead, change with the times...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Sex and sexuality..even sexual orientation is a private personal thing. You do not legislate/force this.


...monogamous heterosexuals have been legislating / forcing their ways on everyone else for eons...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
And yet we have here Government educated legislators and executives entering into this arena and trying to legislate/force this.


...i bet you didnt gripe about that when they were legislating and/or forcing views that you approve of (heterosexuality or monogamy)...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
forced acceptance of sexuality, sex, and sexual orientation is tantamount to rape.


...except when monogamous heterosexuals are doing the forcing...

...the military's new standard is not forcing acceptance... it is reinforcing long standing "control yourself" standards... the new standard does not say you have to like a gay soldier or approve of the gay lifestyle... in simplistic terms, the new standard says that no one has to hide in a closet because your beliefs are so fragile that you cannot be civilized to someone who has a different sexual orientation than you...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
You don't force acceptance of sexuality in any manner on other peoples. You do not force social constructs of acceptability on people. Especially political social constructs.


...you keep saying that but you're not applying it to yourself or monogamous heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is wrong and should be demonized and legislated against...


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Drama Queens of any type do not survive long in the military.


...general george s patton - enough said...



Originally posted by orangetom1999
It takes discipline as the first requirement.


...correct - discipline to follow orders and abide by the current standards...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Sex and sexuality..even sexual orientation is a private personal thing. You do not legislate/force this.


Force it? How is lifting DADT forcing anything on anybody? All it is doing, is lifting the fear many good soldiers have that their careers will be ripped out from under them if somehow their sexual preference comes to light because another soldier doesn't like them, or whatever reason. In the unlikely event a soldier is so openly gay and overbearing, that they barrage other soldiers with their sexuality, I'm sure they would face discipline for harrassing others. And DADT was legislating sexuality, if it applied to all soldiers, and all soldiers were held to a standard of not revealing their sexuality whether it be gay or straight, it would at least have been fair, stupid but fair. Good riddance to a bigoted policy.

Your posts are way too long and repetetive, BTW. Like some rambling old guy that corners you, and wants to tell you his opinion in a hundred different ways. No need to type out a 10 paragraph response to everybody, even those who agree with you.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I don't get the whole problem.

You sign up, you swear the oath, you do basic and then tech school. And then onto and into the field.

Do I give a rat's ass about the sexual preference of the the guy or girl keeping me safe on my team? Hell no, I just want them to be damned good at their jobs!

Co-ed showers?

Why not - who here hasn't seen the opposite sex naked? It's not like an invitation, it is just what is. So I get a hardon looking at a woman in my unit, big deal. So a gay guy gets a hardon looking at me, again big deal.

Who gives a damn if the guy or girl in the shower next to you appreciates you body?

We need to grow up as a society.

I can guarantee you, guys and girls in the service, that you have showered with gays and lesbians.

So? We have to vet all homos and lesbians? I think not.

Pardon me Mods, I am a navy guy. We give it straight up and no compromises.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
While your post makes some amounts of sense (its also why I made a point earlier that worries about people getting there ass grabbed in combat is ridiculous and not the issue), Most people don't like having other people look at them so freely...especially in a sexual way.

I was in the Marine Corps and in most cases you can still have plenty of privacy (not every shower is a mass shower).

To say though that no one should care about what other people look at them like/for is a bit naive....that's like saying that you shouldn't mind (insert something you are completely uncomfortable with) because it doesn't matter! Which if you follow that logic on something like whether or not you have the right/chance to have some semblance of privacy and the opportunity to shower without people gawking at you for sexual pleasure then why does any form of sexual harassment matter? I mean who cares if the creepy hobo following you around likes to stare at you all for sexual gratification?

By making it clear what your sexuality is (no matter if you are straight or not) you are inviting discomfort and problems no matter how you look at it. And when its brought into light in such are stark and drastic manner it just makes it harder for everyone because it dictates for everyone how you are supposed to act and whatever and it gives people the ability to hit you with legal charges if they don't like what you said or whatever.

Wyn Hawks
You stated that "...monogamous heterosexuals have been legislating / forcing their ways on everyone else for eons... "

I don't disagree with you in many ways but I also wonder if you are using simply reverting to circular logic. Perhaps you could provide a few more specific examples? Something to show that drastic measures to ensure "acceptance" has been used perhaps?

27jd

I don't think he was referring to the removal of DADT as forcing anything on anyone...more the core issue of being required to do things like "sensitivity" training or lose your job. Because DADT is obviously restrictive. But It is also voluntary. No one has to join the military. Its like anything you choose in life. Any organization you can enter has certain stipulations that YOU accept. When I was in the Marine Corps there were plenty of homosexuals...and it didn't matter because they were respectful and mindful. In the end that's all it takes (from all parties of course).
edit on 6-1-2011 by Dennislp3 because: Amended post



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dennislp3
I don't think he was referring to the removal of DADT as forcing anything on anyone...more the core issue of being required to do things like "sensitivity" training or lose your job.


I agree about sensitivity training, that shouldn't be mandated, just tell everybody to mind their business and be professionals.



Because DADT is obviously restrictive. But It is also voluntary. No one has to join the military. Its like anything you choose in life. Any organization you can enter has certain stipulations that YOU accept.


You're right, nobody has to. But every able bodied, law abiding American should have the right to without the fear of losing their job should their sexuality ever come to light. There have been many high profile stories of otherwise outstanding soldiers, being discharged because they admitted they were gay. In demand Arabic interpreters, in the middle of a war in an Arab country no less. Not because they were harassing anybody, or walking around calling straight guys "girlfriend", but just because they were admittedly gay. That is unacceptable to this tax paying American.



When I was in the Marine Corps there were plenty of homosexuals...and it didn't matter because they were respectful and mindful. In the end that's all it takes (from all parties of course).


Right, and I'm sure you would hate to see them lose everything they worked for if one of them slipped up around the wrong person and simply admitted they were gay. If somebody is obnoxious, and harasses others, then they should be disciplined, regardless of their sexuality.
edit on 6-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rolljas
 

Since you don't know diddly squat about the military, I can tell you first hand that the President can give all kinds of orders that may be disobeyed. Just because someone gives a dumbass order doesn't mean you HAVE to follow it.

And then there's the other option. You can technically follow an order in such a manner as is absolutely 180 degrees out from it's intention.

I had a dumbass officer order me to follow a trail. I told I wasn't about to, that I would parallel the trail, or criss-cross the trail, but I wasn't about to walk it.

It was a dumbass order. I derived a great satisfaction when after doing this, he got mad, took off on his own, and the mine blew both legs off right at the knee.

This BS order is just another example of a small, loud group being able to rub their unorthodox behavior in the nose of the majority of folks who find their behavior an aberration.

I personally don't want gays in combat outfits, anymore than I don't want obese guys in combat outfits, or cripples, or homicidal maniacs, or little people, or females.

Each one brings baggage and their own particular threat to the group.

Put the fat people, gays, females, little people and such in non-combat units.

That way, they don't get themselves killed get others killed.

A gay gets hit and is bleeding?

He's on his own.

I'm not touching him.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
A gay gets hit and is bleeding?

He's on his own.

I'm not touching him.


The military conducts medical tests before entry, and HIV is most prevelant in poor folks, straight men included. Poor people also join the military often. You should probably pull your head out of your butt, and carry rubber gloves into combat if you're scared of blood though, because you have no idea if somebody is gay, straight, used IV drugs, etc.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


Wyn Hawks,


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Your statements as well as Wyn Hawks are full of emotional entitlements as well as textbook labeling.


...but when you, tom, call people "emotional fascist labelers" you dont consider that to be labeling or being full of emotional entitlements... got it... glad we got that cleared up...


LOL LOL In likeness to Annee and others...this goes over your head. I am referring to the standard M1A predictable format of calling others homophobe, haters, and bigot to seemingly strengthen your posts. I posted this concept not for you or Annee per se..but for other readers such that some of them will recognize the drama pattern to denigrate those with whom you disagree. This format of calling or labeling others who disagree with your stance is textbook predictable as is your response/responses when light it put upon it,

That you take what others post in disagreement as personal when doing the same and often to others is the very concept I am speaking about and which our body politic is today doing to the public and even our military. It is not tolerant...while expecting and demanding tolerance from others...very interesting behavior to me and others who will recognize it. I am not interested in "Guilt Politics " which is become the standard format of pseudo leadership of today.

Sexual politics is personal private politics. It should not be in the public arena or mandated by the body politic.
Hetero or homo. People should keep their sexuality to themselves and not mind the sexuality of others...nor pry into it. It is private business.
What people still capable of thinking know about politics...is that once they get hold of an issue..any issue... they will whore it out or sell it for votes and power. And this is why the body politic will make a mess out of this private issue as well and to the betterment of no one.


Agree with orwellianunenlightenment here..


Humans are not a group think. Humans are individuals. ALL Humans are diverse in their interests and behaviors.

Stereotyping a whole group that has only one thing in common - - attraction to same gender - - is unacceptable.


I will add here that stereotyping another group who have attraction to opposite sexes is also unacceptable.

What is common here is that people should not identify themselves by their sexuality, sex, sexual orientation. This is to me very strange behavior. I am not debating here against sex, sexuality or sexual orientation. I am saying that people are so much more than this. Why would individual thinking peoples be so dumb as to limit themselves to this one fingerprint to excess or ridiculousness.

Also another fingerprint often made in assumption and in order to seemingly strengthen labeling without others being aware of it is the term Hate and Haters. Many assume incorrectly that people who disagree are haters and hate. And now this fingerprint is attempting to steer the military in "entitlement politics." Disagreement is not hatred..it is disagreement. What shows hatred and intolerance is labeling others who disagree in an attempt to default through...unquestioned and unchallenged. More people need to recognize this for the manipulation propaganda it is.

This is politics of the cheapest type. And individual thinking peoples know this. It is an attempt to stroke the emotions for the support of others who cannot think for themselves...but can be seduced through their "guilt emotions" to this cause.

This labeling does not work on me. I have seen way to much of this guilt template being done in the last 20 years. It too gets predictable. And this is very common today by politics on a number of issues..not just this one. Guilt politics...labeling...stereotyping through labeling.
Once again..I am not interested and do not post this for you or Anne..but for those out here who can still think....individually. Once the pattern or template is presented to them ..some of them will hopefully recognize this for themselves and see it often in the news and or media outlets for the propaganda and seduction it is.

Wyn Hawks,


......especially when they dont see that behavior in themselves OR when they see it but pretend their agression is something good... (ie: those throwing a hissy fit over DADT being revoked)...


...the military has always been affected by politics and social mores... military disciplines and/or requirements are not written in stone but, instead, change with the times...


These two statements quoted show entitlement thinking along the social arena. It does not show consideration for the primary function of the military. It also shows entitlement thinking along the social arena which is precisely the arena required by the body politic. It also shows public education standards and beliefs while limiting the bigger picture.

There are those here who's posted views are primarily and always of social fabric and belief systems. This is not the primary view of the military. In the military ones social beliefs are subordinate to the job required.
It also shows immaturity in the way one mocks to make a point...which is my point previously about the technique and intolerance methods.

There are also those here who have served and know of what I post about military discipline/disciplines and that the function in the military is not primarily social.


...monogamous heterosexuals have been legislating / forcing their ways on everyone else for eons...

...i bet you didnt gripe about that when they were legislating and/or forcing views that you approve of (heterosexuality or monogamy)...


Cannot get beyond sex, sexuality, sexual orientation?? More guilt politics. No thanks ..not for me.


...the military's new standard is not forcing acceptance... it is reinforcing long standing "control yourself" standards... the new standard does not say you have to like a gay soldier or approve of the gay lifestyle... in simplistic terms, the new standard says that no one has to hide in a closet because your beliefs are so fragile that you cannot be civilized to someone who has a different sexual orientation than you...


Peoples sex and sexuality are private matters. It should not be flaunted no matter what their sex, sexuality, sexual orientation. They should control this for themselves and never make it public. People should have such common sense..but public education/television/movie standards..ie.. politics has turned this upside down...and for lucre.

When government forces this control yourself template ..they are forcing and legislating. No rocket material needed here. It is not difficult to see where this is going and will go. All you have to do is look at the UK and Europe.






Originally posted by orangetom1999
You don't force acceptance of sexuality in any manner on other peoples. You do not force social constructs of acceptability on people. Especially political social constructs.

...you keep saying that but you're not applying it to yourself or monogamous heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is wrong and should be demonized and legislated against...


You are making an assumption in your devout guilt politics beliefs/education...ie..your religion. I do not believe this issue should be legislated against or for..particularly by politics looking for lucre and willing to sell both sides down the drain for votes. Both sides will come out short here...and so too will the military.
I also agree with another poster ..that there are current standards in place for this.

I do believe that ones sexuality is a private matter and not to be flaunted as a social or political issue.

Oh..I forgot to post this about the whorish nature of politics in illustration of my point about public education/television/movie standards. Today, in politics, in order to get at the opposition they want to know about ones sex life. In years past people had more discretion than this. They used to examine ones tax records. Not today..they cannot wait to post about someones sex laundry. This clearly illustrates how far down the drain we have become as a people as well as how far down the drain the body politic has flushed.

Now this about George S, Patton....


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Drama Queens of any type do not survive long in the military.


...general george s patton - enough said...


You need to seriously think this through...in the scope of the entire history. George did not survive the war.
Enough has not been said here. Some of us do know some history.


...correct - discipline to follow orders and abide by the current standards...


What??? Like Annee...your public school education is showing here. Drama, emotions, entitlement. Textbook of todays changing winds for convience and instant gratification...ie politics. I dont believe many are even aware of this ..they think themselves so entitled.

The interesting thing about standards is that they are standards. You use the term " current standards." This is textbook of politics and a political/public/movie/television education.

Standards implies fixed...not changing. Current Standards implies that it changes like the wind. This is seduction politics. Thinking...individual peoples know this unless they have been seduced by public education non standards..meaning a television and movie education based in entitlement and social instant gratification.

Instant gratification is not the template of the Military disciplines. This is a significant difference and thinking peoples know this. It is "the" significant difference. And this is why sex, sexuality, sexual orientation is a private matter..not a public matter. Discretion is only achieved on the individual level..not on the public level..and thinking peoples know this as well.

Drama peoples do not know this and will attempt to turn this template upside down for instant gratification..ie politics.

Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 7-1-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
21
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join