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 plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkgomo653
 


Gaaaaagh!


MOST gays cross dress.


"MOST"? Where did you pull that from? Certainly you don't have a valid source for that....just an ignorant misconception, in your own mind?

I would feel it is safe to predict that, when looking into the actual science (of those who have responded to such polling events) you will find that heterosexual males might have the slight edge....




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Lol okay..maybe I exaggerated there. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't mean to say most. But I do know a few outof the few gays I know.

That wasn't even my point.
My point was our appearance as a whole.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
One day people will look back at these issues and talk about how primitive the times were, when some love-couples were not allowed to marry because they had the wrong gender.
In the old days, people of different races were not allowed to marry either, in some parts of the World.

See, even Obama have realized the need for a fair treating of Gay Bi and Transpersons and have thus hired a Transgendered person in a very highleading position; "Last January, Obama named Amanda Simpson the Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department. Simpson, who served as a test pilot and longtime employee of Raytheon before becoming a “woman,” sits on NCTE’s board of directors. The move was thought to be the first-ever transgender presidential appointment."
Sources: www.impeachobamacampaign.com...

habledash.com...:meet-amanda-simpson-obamas-transgender-appointee&catid=47:newsflash&Itemid=65

abcnews.go.com...



My advice to the opponents are to simply get over it. And before you say it; No, if you allow samesex marriage it is not the same as allowing Pedophilia.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinkgomo653
 


What you have in some Gay circles are gender-confusion issues, leading to a desire to see how the "other half" lives.

With hetero men, there are some sort of deep-seated sexual fantasy issues, going on....I am generalizing, I realize. But, this is the sense I get, from observation over years.

Then, there is just the sheer whimsy and FUN that some derive. Much lke dressing up for Hallowe'en.....:





edit on 10 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Won't this result in an influx of gay people joining the navy?

Oh wait...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


... the NCOIC is in fact lesbian and wears a ring, and talks about living with her girlfriend, but he just feels that it will make our country look even weaker ...


I can hear Iran arming their weapons right now with new found confidence knowing that lesbians are in the military. How can they lose since America started to encourage pillow biting? Can you elaborate on how this makes a country look weak?


Yes, there are already homosexual people serving,
but how does it look when you see a man in uniform and later that night dressed like a woman?


I imagine it's no different to when you see him dressed as a goth, emo, punk, clown, redneck etc ... Uniform is good in the army because it keeps people's minds on the job and not on their fashion sense or on their prejudices.

From this logic we should ban masculine looking women from serving too just in case it makes you feel uncomfortable. Perhaps even men with slightly elevated voices. Should we have vocal cord checks prior to enlisting? Where does it stop? Slippery slope goes both ways.


As I respect evryone, and have friends who are gay/lesbian, I just don't think "showing the world" is the best thing for us right now.


I see. So you're going to be okay with it later? Just it's not convenient for you right now? That doesn't make sense.

I just have to wonder why armed forces care? Honestly, if America's recruits biggest fear is that Pvt. Harold might enjoy fabulous curtains and checks Sgt. Peters out in the shower it's probably a pretty good day. If recruits can't put their differences aside and get on with it then something is wrong with the organization as a whole.

I'm assuming the opposition to same sex marriage on Navy bases would also have problems with various other sexual acts/relationships on Navy bases as well, but its just no ones business.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If that was one of the basic tenets our country made, then it would've happened along time ago,don't you think?

I'm not going to argue. There is nothing wrong with our beliefs. We said what we feel and that's that..


The reason for this is that around 50-60 years ago we lived in an era with our entire legal system centered around radical Christianity. We had what were known as the Blue Laws, where no business could be open on Sunday, where uttering blasphemy was a jailing sentence, and where sodomy was punishable by prison.

People are beginning to remember now that the United States was founded on the basis of a separation of church and state, such that no religion could become an official religion and so that the Pope could not run our country. Too many people unfortunately still allow religion to bleed into their lawmaking, and that is the huge problem right now. Homosexuality only seems to be an issue because people aren't afraid to hide it anymore. If anything, it makes us a stronger nation, not a weaker one. The dichotomy of male/dominance and female/submissiveness is an outdated concept which we can abolish completely in favor of a powerful nation where everyone has a voice, equal rights under law, and an attitude which will kick anyone's butt who messes with us.

And that's about all I have to say about that.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinkgomo653
 


Please you are making assumptions that all gay males cross dress that is not the case. Also people need to realize that just because someone is gay or lesbian it doesn't mean they are going to hit on everyone they see of the same sex they are. That is also not the case.


Also I don't care what sex someone chooses to love if they want to fight for their country let them. It should't matter their sexual preference. If people have a problem with gays in the military then maybe they should sign up in their place. These people sign up to protect your rights and freedoms, does it really matter who they choose to go to bed with?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


The situation is this.The PTB have decided that people of the homosexual orientation will be able to serve openly,but there had not been a discussion of changing the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice)



925. ART. 125. SODOMY (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Military personnel not only have to obey all Federal and states laws that are applicable they also are subjected to the UCMJ.

Civilians who have never been in the military can not comprehend how this code is ingrained in the psyche of new members of the military, both officers and enlisted .

Thousands of military personnel have spent years in prison and even the death penalty because of allegations of violating the UCMJ.

Now ,the government has determined that a certain sexual orientation of our society can openly serve while blatantly violating the UCMJ while others of the dominate sexual orientation still believes correctly it is still in effect.

The USA at one time was a nation of laws and "most" of our society followed them.

If a individual felt it was necessary to violate the law they did it privately not publicly.

Now the branch of our country that was always and is assigned under oath and penalty of death to defend the all the laws of this country,is being pressured to ignore one section of the regulations they have to also follow.

To successfully integrate this one part of our society, the congress needs to pass a law signed by the President making marriage of homosexuals legal in all states and territory's of this union.

But we know they won't

This is a issue they have left to the states.

I am retired military.

Let me put this out there.

There were MANY people I served with, who all us in the unit knew they were homosexual.

Most were ambivalent to them and their life style.

Another member posted information concerning the ancient Greek army and the society's attitude toward homosexuality.

Actually if you were to study the society they lived in most people were bisexual!

I believe that most people in our society are also bisexual.

I also believe that there is a large group of the military that is also bisexual,but live their life as a heterosexual because of the UCMJ penalty.

Heck I believe that a large majority of our present three branches of our government is bisexual.

And since they are drawn the general populace then it must be that way to.

How many politicians,religious leaders,celebrity's have been found to actually be of favoring the other sexual persuasion?

They are all actually bisexual.

There was a Master Chief of the Navy,the highest enlisted rank to can be ,who after retiring ,moved to San Diego.

There is a rumor among certain "community" in San Diego that this man did not drown accidentally in a river while scuba diving.

It was a suicide because he had learned he was going to be "Outed" by the gay community.

He did this to save his wife the pain and humility.

I have provided you a link so those who may be interested to learn of the societal turmoil

going on with in the Navy community during the early 70's.

Read what this man had to do to get the senior members of the military to accept a new paradigm shift of thinking.

Was it an
accident or actualy something else.


This progressive social experiment allowing homosexuals into the military to serve openly with out changing the prevailing laws and regulations that forbids that activity will lead to disaster.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Won't this result in an influx of gay people joining the navy?

Oh wait...



Ignorant statement don't you think??



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


Let me ask this....re: the UCMJ definition of "sodomy"...

How is it interpreted? (Besides the obvious, of course)....is fellatio included in that definition?

(Do you see where I'm going with this?)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
ATTENTION:
The topic of the thread is: Navy plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition.
Do not post jokes in any way shape or form or your post will be removed! If you want to post jokes, visit the lighter side to ATS....



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I am all for equal rights and same sex marriage but as a veteran of the Navy I am concerned that this will lead to more "contract" marriages. A junior enlisted service member can double their pay by getting married because they will be eligible for BAH(basic allowance for housing), if single they would be provided quarters on base but when married are allowed to live off base with their spouse and collect BAH. When I was in I knew many of my fellow sailors got married just for the extra pay.

While I think most rational service members are okay with homosexuality there are still a few bigots and some of them have rank that will gripe about this. I think it is a step in the right direction but will have the undesired consequence of sailors using marriage as a way get paid more.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Is this really important?

Do gays just have to be as gay as possible everywhere and anyhow that they can?

Can't you just be normal and still be gay?

Is it possible that there are more important things than mass organized homosexuality?

How do you think the rest of us look when we get grouped in with you?

I never disliked homosexuals until recently and not because I'm homophobic, it's because this crap is being taken too far. Nobody wants to be on a ship with a homosexual, being surrounded by straight men it seems the resentment alone would be too much for the homosexual himself.

In a combat environment you have to trust the people next to you like a brother, not a sexual object. We have already went through this with women, anyone who has been in the military recently can tell you about all the trouble this causes. Same reason it's not a good idea to put a woman on a construction crew full of men, you obviously can tell what is going to happen, no one will benefit and the operation is highly likely to fail because of the complications.
edit on 10-5-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


Let me ask this....re: the UCMJ definition of "sodomy"...

How is it interpreted? (Besides the obvious, of course)....is fellatio included in that definition?

(Do you see where I'm going with this?)


Not to mention that Sodomy these days seems to be practised more by Heterosexual Couples than Homosexual couples because of the silly Porn-movies, so it has to mean that they will have to give the boot to any heteroguy or heterogal practising it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightchild
 


I wanted to know how "far" the UMCJ can be applied.....beyond the pseudo-chrisitan "ideal" stereotype of male/female 'missionary' position sex. (as it's called...)

Adults are well aware of a wide variety of more "creative" forms.....where is the "line"...and who has the right to draw it??



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Please you are making assumptions that all gay males cross dress that is not the case.


And even if it were true, since when do we have to be comfortable with what everyone else is wearing?



Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ignorant statement don't you think??


I think that was a joke. I laughed my ass off, anyway.


reply to post by RSF77
 


Equality is equality. There's no such thing as "almost equal". And yes, gay people can be gay and just be normal. Normal people love each other and get married and have kids. Gay is being NORMALIZED. Some people just need a moment to catch up.

edit on 5/10/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Is this really important?

Do gays just have to be as gay as possible everywhere and anyhow that they can?

Can't you just be normal and still be gay?

Is it possible that there are more important things than mass organized homosexuality?


Plenty of gay persons walk past you every day and you don't notice.

This would be like a person basing their idea of heterosexuality on a BDSM goth club.


Same reason it's not a good idea to put a woman on a construction crew full of men, you obviously can tell what is going to happen, no one will benefit and the operation is highly likely to fail because of the complications.
edit on 10-5-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


There have been gay people fighting since the dawn of time. Plus the UK actually had these fears, and reported on the results of homosexuals in the army after lifting their ban. The result is here:


The MOD's policy is now to allow homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.[14] It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out. All personnel are subject to the same rules against sexual harassment, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Since the military began allowing homosexuals to serve, none of its fears about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness have come to pass, according to the MOD, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a non-issue. The MOD deliberately does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, as it is not an issue, but does believe that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low compared to the national norm. It is however clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them. The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians, all three services have deployed recruiting teams to gay pride events, and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, since 2006, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride marches. British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes until 2008, now all military personnel are permitted to attend Gay Pride marches in uniform.[51]


From: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 10-5-2011 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 



Thanks for sharing that


Lots of information there.







 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join