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

page: 49
21
<< 46  47  48    50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Lol...

Your post made me laugh because the most used complaints for wrongful termination in my area are:

(In order of use)

1) It's because I'm (insert colour of choice here)
2) It's because I'm (insert sex here)

Unfortunately people tend to use ANY advantage they can.

So now you will have another group that has an extra "advantage".

It was never supposed to happen that way, but as stated we are all human.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSafety
 


I fully agree. It shouldn't matter one way or the other. Soldiers should act professionally, do their jobs, and keep their sex lives to themselves. No argument there. I'm just as repelled by homosexuality (between men, admittedly I don't mind the woman on woman action) as Far Archer, but I don't hate them because they do something I think is gross. It's not my business, and since HIV dies on contact with oxygen, it's not the risk is a risk is a risk issue he stated it to be in a combat situation. That's just a cop out and a bad attempt to cover bigotry. Again, I fully agree with you. People should keep their sexuality, and their religions to themselves, but nobody should be fired for either one.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee
 


Lol...

Your post made me laugh because the most used complaints for wrongful termination in my area are:

(In order of use)

1) It's because I'm (insert colour of choice here)
2) It's because I'm (insert sex here)


Great - - and now they can use the excuse "I'm Straight".

I've raised 2 kids and am now raising 2 grandkids - - - believe me I know all about excuses



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by FreeSafety
 


I fully agree. It shouldn't matter one way or the other. Soldiers should act professionally, do their jobs, and keep their sex lives to themselves.


Now - - what exactly constitutes sex life?

Showing a picture of your girlfriend/boyfriend?

Talking about your girlfriend/boyfriend?

Keeping copies of Playboy/Playgirl in your locker?

Commenting on someone's Boobs/Shoulders?

I'm straight and I really don't want to hear about your Straight Sex that goes on behind closed doors.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


A sex life constitutes somebody's sexual preferences, habits, etc. Personal information, that may make other people uncomfortable, and as with any job one doesn't go around offering it up to people who aren't interested, or they'll likely be in HR real quick for sexual harassment. It's fine that you're not interested in my straight sex life, I'm fine not telling you about it. Just as homophobic people need to grow up and be professional, the same should be expected of gays. I'm sure most will have no problem with that, and serve professionally as they do in Israel, and many other effective military forces around the world. I support gays serving in the military without fear of discharge simply for being gay, but I don't support them rubbing anybody's face in it. It seems though, that you are wanting to push it even further and encourage them to be flamboyant, and demand everybody else give them a big hug? The military isn't a place for individuality or self expression, everybody needs to be professional and focused on their duties.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
. It seems though, that you are wanting to push it even further and encourage them to be flamboyant, and demand everybody else give them a big hug?


How did you get that out of what I said?

I doubt any flamboyant gay will be joining the military.

I am basically saying the same thing you are. All need to be responsible.

But - you know how they say "a lesbian just hasn't met the right man yet"? Everyone keeps focusing on how Gays are going to act. What about the straight guy shoving naked females and porno in a gays face - trying to make him straight? And you know that is going to happen.

I'm just trying to be fair and see both sides.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Again, HIV/AIDS dies when it comes into contact with oxygen. That's why risk factors for HIV, are unprotected sex, sharing needles, and bad blood transfusions. Not contact with injured and bleeding people. That's not on the risk factor list, otherwise nobody would help car accident victims, etc. You don't know who's gay and who isn' t. Please give me a hypathetical, or real life situation in your experience, where another soldiers blood has entered your blood stream directly, without contacting air first.


Ever been on a field exercise? Or deployed? If you ever were, you'd know that you're always cutting yourself. Diving for cover and scrape your knee. Cutting yourself setting up equipment. Rope burns. You name it; it seems like I always had a cut or scrape healing (and you found every one of them when you were using hand sanitizer entering the chow hall!
)

Anyway, if someone with HIV gets hit, and the blood get into the cut, you have a chance. It's slim, but it's still a chance. Or if the blood of a wounded Troop gets into your eyes, mouth or nose. Which can happen.

Or, if a Troop is HIV positive and has to do buddy care on you. Know how to lube an airway and you don't have anything to lube it with? Saliva. Then it's inserted into your nose.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Well, straight troops have just as much chance to contact HIV as gay ones. Anybody who engages in risky sexual behavior, is throwing the dice. Everybody is HIV free upon entry to the military, a straight soldier can then have a drunken night of R&R with a knock out gal overseas, and contract it. And what about straight soldiers that like to take the "back door" with the ladies? They are just as much at risk as a gay soldier for contracting HIV. HIV used to be more prevelant among the gay community, but it has since declined greatly, and is now more prevelant in poor African American communities among straight black men. As you said, the chances are very slim though that you will contract HIV from blood that has had contact with oxygen. The conditions would have to be so perfect, the blood would have to flow directly into an open, sucking wound that will actually pull the other person's blood into your blood stream. Most wounds are pumping blood out, not sucking in. If all those conditions were met, and the person had contracted HIV at some point after enlisting, then you were meant to get HIV. And it does NOT transmit through saliva.

Again, it comes down to risky behavior, not sexual orientation. It just seems disingenuous that a soldier would fear an extremely minuscule chance of contracting a virus that is no longer a death sentence, when the same soldier bravely marches into war where people are trying to kill them. I don't buy that at all. But, if that is truly their fear, they need to look into a career where there is less blood spraying, because HIV knows no sexual preference.

Oh, and I definitely agree with finding wounds when using the hand sanitizer...ouch, lol.
edit on 12-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Oh, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying...my bad.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I wish it worked that way..or at least in my area I REALLY wish they actually punished people for frivolous complaints...anywho.

The sad fact of the matter is that it wont be treated the same.

I live in an area that is approx 70% white, my workforce is easily 90% male (the area that issues the most complaints for me is 99% male) but the only complainst that EVER get investigated (brought to me officially form the Labour Board) are either any other colour male or any colour female.

I have NEVER (15 years now) seen a complaint issued from a white male. Is it because white males don't complain...I don't think so...they complain all the time...so what is it?

The law of averages would state that I should get equal numbers of complaints from all the demographics that work for me...

So either the system is fair for everybody or it isn't...these are unfortunate facts of our current world.

I would love to give you full stats on complaints through Labour Board, however, I can't. They are literally not legally allowed to publish anything except what pertains to my company and our employess (for my eyes anyways).

I don't see this happening any differently in the US military.

Edit to add:

I very much prefer how our local OH&S (Occupational Health and Safety) Board handles matters. However, OH&S follows a structure that is very similar to DADT. They don't want your gender, colour, orientation. They only want your name, employers name, location of incident, and medical OH&S form as filled by your doctor. They investigate EVERY case with the same tenactity, which leads me to believe that DADT should have been expanded, not repealed...it should have been expanded to include everybody, hetero, homo, plain and simple no sex talk on duty.

I know this is unrealistic for the military as it is much easier when you leave work behind at the end of the day, but it is interesting non the less.
edit on 13-1-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-1-2011 by peck420 because: Because I need to retake 4th grade grammar and spelling



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee
 


I wish it worked that way..or at least in my area I REALLY wish they actually punished people for frivolous complaints...anywho.

The sad fact of the matter is that it wont be treated the same.



I grew up in Los Angeles. I am 64 years old. When I was born there were big signs across Main Street in my LA suburb that stated "No Colored After Dark".

We went through forced busing. I have lost a job because I didn't speak Spanish (which I had many opportunities to learn).

Life must progress. Equality is a fight that must be part of this country/world - - no matter what.

Majority CAN NOT interfere with Equality of a minority.

No matter what.

I keep trying to believe and focus that Human is evolving intellectually and spiritually beyond its animal instincts.

There is raw reality - - - and then there is Progression on where/how human needs to aspire to.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


And in equal measure, minority rights can not overide overall rights.

All persons in my country are to be treated equally, supposedly by law. However, that is not the reality, now if you are a member of the majority you will immediately be at a disadvantage.

That tells me right there that what we are doing is wrong.

You can't remove rights of one to placate another, in EITHER direction.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee
 


And in equal measure, minority rights can not overide overall rights.

All persons in my country are to be treated equally, supposedly by law. However, that is not the reality, now if you are a member of the majority you will immediately be at a disadvantage.

That tells me right there that what we are doing is wrong.

You can't remove rights of one to placate another, in EITHER direction.


I think this is the best way for me to endorse and reenforce what you are saying: It is a difference between individualist and collectivist thinking.



Often the unintended consequence of leveling the playing field for minorities is in fact not making things equal for everyone at all rather the same discrimination exists - just at the expense of a different group.

This is a great series of videos about modern issues...
edit on 13/1/2011 by Golf66 because:




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Fully agreed. Just as I don't support anybody being fired solely for being a minority, I'm equally opposed to somebody being hired for the same reason. Affirmative action is just as wrong, in my view, as DADT. We should all be hired and fired based on our qualifications, and our performance and nothing else.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
That's BS.

There ARE differences.

I can just see a Viking movie with Vikings played by Julio and Tyrone.

Get serious.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


What? Where did viking movies come into the discussion? We're talking about actual jobs, not acting gigs. Besides, if Angelina Jolie can play Cleopatra, then Julio can play a viking. It may not look very historically accurate, but I'm sure Julio can do a good job playing one. Get over your bigotry man.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 

Why does common sense suddenly have to be labeled "bigotry" by such as you?

I hate to tell you this, but you're not the defining criteria Grand PooBah.

All this pretense that who a person is never matters in any aspect, that everyone should be able to interchange with everyone else is BS.

Folks are different.

Not homogenized, as some would pretend to desire.

This unrealistic attempt to stretch folks into the same little pods, all alike, all equal, all similar, all qualified equally, all equally capable, fitting into interchangeable pods like eggs in a carton is BS.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

You can't remove rights of one to placate another, in EITHER direction.


Well actually - - yes you can. Just from this one discussion - - - you can see how equality has to be Forced.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Often the unintended consequence of leveling the playing field for minorities is in fact not making things equal for everyone at all rather the same discrimination exists - just at the expense of a different group.


Oh - I am fully aware of that. It is definitely an ongoing process.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by peck420

You can't remove rights of one to placate another, in EITHER direction.


Well actually - - yes you can. Just from this one discussion - - - you can see how equality has to be Forced.




I'm open to debate; please tell me how giving one group preferential treatment under the law is forced equality.

If one group has more or different rights and privileges than another under the law that is inequality just as much as if you placed limitations or restrictions on a group like the example you used earlier "No blacks after dark"?

Until we are just American's rather than African, Hispanic, Asian, handicapped or whatever hyphenated group wants’ special redress today there will be inequality - just towards a different victim.

I don't see how this is hard to understand?

You cannot have equality under the law until all groups are removed from their special protected status and each individual is looked at as well, an individual who is responsible for his/her own actions rather than a member of a group.





 
21
<< 46  47  48    50  51 >>

log in

join