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.

 

Navy captain produced, starred in 'raunchy' anti-gay videos

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
As a gay man, this video is NOT very offensive.

It's kind of funny.

I agree with DD though that soldiers have better things to do, but as nother poster pointed out on a scale of 1 to 10, this is like a .5.

The other posters are right though as well, it's a sad sad world when you can't make a joke without being labeled a homophobe or a racist or any other of those lovely words we through around so casually this day and age.

As far as the military falling apart because gays will be allowed to serve openly, I say to you that you do not have much faith in your military.

You think a couple of thousand gays are going to cause the majority of troops to stay out of the army out of irrational fear and uncomfortability?

I certainly hope we have more real "men" in the army that the children you mention who would have a problem.

Edit To Add: Wanna see something that ACTUALLY offends the gay community?



~Keeper
edit on 1/3/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


So only 'real men' wouldn't have a problem?

That implies that there is a problem. And you know that there is, which is why you are playing on people's sense of masculinity by implying they aren't a real man if they have a problem with homos serving openly in the military.

I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that there is a problem.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 


Historical examples are irrelevant? Especially when it was rather customary for Greek men to take boy lovers? As if they somehow had to hide it which is different from today's open society, how?

As a veteran of the Army these last five years, and a combat MOS, which means there are no women allowed, let me say that I would not give a damn if I had a gay man next to me doing his job.

There are the "fairy men" which attract much attention, but there are also a substantial percentage of gay men who would meet your "manly" criteria. These men would, and don't, have any problems serving as homosexuals in the military. There are currently gay men and women in the military right now, and we have had an incredibly successful military up until this point.

America's military is all volunteer, meaning those flamboyantly gay men you like to march out as an example for the entire homosexual populace would not be the ones actively joining the military. Men and women who think they can do the job and have the right mindset would be enlisting.

As for other points about numbers dropping off because of openly homosexual service members--I think that's ludicrous. Again, I served in an all male Airborne Infantry unit, and during our incredible amount of time in the field, these topics would come up. Most people don't give a damn if the person next to them likes rods or holes, so long as they do the job and remain professional, like everyone else is expected to do. Essentially, you're saying that homosexuals can't be professional at work and keep sex out of it.

To that I say, there are men and women in the same units in the Army, and they are expected to be professional, it's their career. All that has to be done is migrate the standards for sexual interaction in a unit to the all male units and expand the existing regulations to cover same sex relationships in units with mixed gender.

Men and women serve side by side in today's Army, and there are issues that arise from it, it's the sexual nature of our species. But to suggest that homosexuals in the military will be more of a detriment is ludicrous.

People are allowed to feel however they want, but the bottom line is as a soldier you have to be professional, which means placing the mission above your own feelings about anything. The only reasonable objection, in my estimation, to this would be on religious grounds, but since our country is founded on freedom of religion and the precedence of none, those people will have to professionally perform their jobs and move the # on, or move the # out. That goes for anyone who opposes this for any reason, you are certainly allowed to refuse to serve and take your punishment as your commander sees fit. I would wager that most service members will continue to be professional and perform their duties, as they have in the past when they serve with homosexual members.
edit on 3-1-2011 by MGriff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


So only 'real men' wouldn't have a problem?

That implies that there is a problem. And you know that there is, which is why you are playing on people's sense of masculinity by implying they aren't a real man if they have a problem with homos serving openly in the military.

I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that there is a problem.


Yes only REAL men who are comfortable with their own sexuality do not feel offended by another man's sexuality.

And there isnt' a problem for people who are sensible and live in THIS day and age, not some draconic 1950's mentality.

The only problem is people like yourself who think that there is somehow going to be a massive exodus of troops because of a silly policy instilled decades ago which made absolutely no sense.

There was never a reason to have DADT as a policy, what good did it do?

I don't understand why you would want somebody defending your country if they aren't capable of looking past a simple think like sexuality. I mean do you honestly think that during a firefight that a soldier will be worrying about if the other soldier is checking him out?

When push comes to shove the army is there to follow orders. The vast MAJORITY of troops who have been polled on this issue have no problems with this.

Ask any 20 year old what they thinkg about DADT and they will be shocked that something like this ever came to be the law of the land.

Those are the people who are inheriting your country, they are the voices to be listened to. Not the scared old folk.

~Keeper
edit on 1/4/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The only problem is people like yourself who think that there is somehow going to be a massive exodus of troops because of a silly policy instilled decades ago which made absolutely no sense.



Mass exodus?

Where did I say 'mass exodus'? I said enlistment would drop, not that there would be a mass exodus. My prediction was quite clear.

Why are you pretending I said something I did not say? Do you not care about your credibility?







edit on 4-1-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The only problem is people like yourself who think that there is somehow going to be a massive exodus of troops because of a silly policy instilled decades ago which made absolutely no sense.



Mass exodus?

Where did I say 'mass exodus'? I said enlistment would drop, not that there would be a mass exodus. My prediction was quite clear.

Why are you pretending I said something I did not say? Do you not care about your credibility?







edit on 4-1-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


Let me just hop in here and say that the drop would be welcome, as the Army is currently overstrengthed, and they are cutting down on reenlistments and enlistments. What that means is that the few people you claim would be turned away or not enlist is not a problem at all, it is actually a solution.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
I watched the video expecting an anti gay rant. Instead I heard one comment in the entire video about the gay guys not being interested in seeing the chicks in the shower scene. I honestly saw nothing to be offended it just looked to me like they were blowing off a little steam in an otherwise tense situation and honestly it seemed quite tame to me... I don't know what all the fuss is about.



I didn't watch the whole thing but I don't think it was too anti-gay. It may have been about gay but not "anti",

What I'm wondering is this video has been well known for a long time (years). Why the sudden big deal?

Who decided they wanted this guy gone?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Looks like the Navy has temporarily removed him from his command:


NORFOLK, Va. — The Navy officer who aired lewd videos for crew of an aircraft carrier will be temporarily relieved of his command as early as Tuesday, Navy sources told NBC News on Monday.

Capt. Owen Honors commands the USS Enterprise and produced the videos while second in command aboard the aircraft carrier.

He is to be relieved while the Navy investigates the incident.

Made in 2006 and 2007, the videos just came to light over the weekend and show the crew got an eyeful on shipboard TV: Gay slurs, suggestive shower scenes and mimicked masturbation.

The Navy said Sunday it will investigate the "clearly inappropriate" videos shown through the nuclear-powered ship's closed-circuit television system as part of an onboard movie night.


Full Story:

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


If the enrollment drops, then good.

We don't need to be policing the world anyway. I'll spend my tax dollars in other areas where they are sorely needed, such as education. Apparently, a failure to educate the American public leads to such ignorance as these videos and other forms of gay bashing.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I'll spend my tax dollars in other areas where they are sorely needed, such as education.


Actually someone else will spend that for you.

*Also, the more money which is spent on education, the stupider the kids get.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
That's nothing, you should see the raging queens that the army has...




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yes only REAL men who are comfortable with their own sexuality do not feel offended by another man's sexuality.


[citation needed]


Originally posted by tothetenthpowerAnd there isnt' a problem for people who are sensible and live in THIS day and age, not some draconic 1950's mentality.


[citation needed]



Originally posted by tothetenthpowerAsk any 20 year old what they thinkg about DADT and they will be shocked that something like this ever came to be the law of the land.


25... not shocked in the least. Let me guess, next you're going to question my sexual orientation?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikappa
Let me guess, next you're going to question my sexual orientation?



Anyone who does anything but agree with the homosexual agenda is either a closet homo or a homophobe...

(I learned this from internet message board arguments.)

Sure you wouldn't call someone who doesn't like communism a 'closet commie' or 'commie-phobe' - but all the rules change when talking about this subject.

*I think point of such name-calling is to stop the debate by either questioning a person's sexuality or implying they have hatred in their hearts if they disagree with the homosexual ideology. It is a cheap, underhanded tactic.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Why do you disagree with the repeal of DADT?

It's certainly your right to disagree with anything and support your position. My support of its repeal stems from my time in the military and my views on rights. While the former legislation never said it was wrong to be homosexual, it stated you weren't allowed to let anyone know you were a homosexual, it was a blatant violation of equal rights for homosexuals in the military. They were treated differently than heterosexual service members who were free to expose their sexual orientation. The military practices equal justice under the law just the same as the United States' legal system. DADT placed ludicrous restrictions on people based on sexual orientation, which is hardly fair in a country supposedly espousing equal rights for all.

While I certainly understand if you just think homosexuals should not be allowed to serve at all, that simply was not the case under DADT. They were allowed to serve, and be homosexual, unless someone found out. I think they should be able to serve their country if they wish, as professionalism is required in the military like any other field.

Not saying you feel this way, but for the people who think that homosexuals are not able to be professional because of their sexual orientation is ridiculous. That is primarily what this is all about. Homosexuals will ruin our military because of the blatant sex that will be going on. There are already males and females serving in the same unit, so sexual tension is already there.

I would love to keep this going and get your views on the subject so I can better understand your opposition.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Well that is a damn shame. I hope that Gay people would participate in getting this guy cleared of all of this hoopla. The media seems to have an agenda at odds with what the gay men on here seem to be saying. Having been in the military I can say that there are bigger issues than these films.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


Sadly the actor playing the RSM was the "gay Python" Graham Chapman who is no longer with us. I mention this because gay people make jokes about their own, as do black people, women and also people from Wisconsin. I think the whole XO matter is largely a media-generated panic.
edit on 4-1-2011 by tiger5 because: typo



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MGriff
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

DADT placed ludicrous restrictions on people based on sexual orientation, which is hardly fair in a country supposedly espousing equal rights for all.



Implying that simply not asking and not telling is somehow ludicrously restrictive...

Implying soldiers are treated the same as civilians re: their rights...

*Also, do you think the USMJ will change after the repeal? Since sodomy is against the rules still?

Also, why do you think repealing DADT is a good thing?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


If it wasn't for a certain amount of political correctness, being a homosexual would probably still be an illegal offence.So before you take a pop at political Correctness, remember that has improved the lives of millions, yours included.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 





sailors dressed in drag;





and simulated masturbation and rectal exams.


Yeah... Sorry but you can't take the boy out of the Navy.

While I agree it seems to a waste of the Americans scarce money to produce such videos, it just makes me think they all have gay-sex afterwards while calling each other a fag.

Just my opinion.

Cheers
Shane



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


IMHO

The only idea that is inappropriate here is that good old american boys, trusting the system, are asked to wake up on a moments notice and face threats to their lives at a command from their skipper.

What happens in the NAVY stays in the Navy. Our boys are asked to risk their lives every day and the expectation that these fine men can not play a joke on themselves, all american style, then what the hell is life worth living for anyway...

I ask you, everyone reading this post, wtf was so wrong with this episode that caused such an uproar...this was not bar room talk or cell phone video...

Our men are in harms way, and the inappropriate thing here is that one day these brave sailors will lay down their lives, ruin their families lives, and impact their children forever...all for duty and a call to arms...

What is inappropriate here is to ask these men to watch as their mates die shells to their heads, arms torn off in battle...all to protect YOUR right to live free and enjoy liberty.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join