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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

I do know people who are in the Navy and we have discussed this issue and they are not ok with it. They have said it has nothing to do with same sex relationships but the reworking of housing on ships and subs and other issues that could come up.


What I think is going to be really shocking is - - just who and how many gays are already in the military.

People really just need to get over themselves.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Divide and conquer.

See you all on the battlefields of the future.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


You are reeeeally generelazing here. Firstly; Can you describe "Normal"? Exactly how do one act to be considered normal and not standing out? Like in 'The Body Snatchers'?
I can tell you right away that a bunch of people would consider YOU to be far from normal only for sitting on a board like this, so already you have fallen in the cathegory of being outside the Norm yourself.

Plus, this one;


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.
This, I have true issues with. Apparently you are only selecting those that you know have the same opinions as you have- Not the other groups, that, for instance, actually outweighs the opponents in this thread. Only a coincidence or is it actually reflecting the balance of the main-vew on this matter? Who knows, but one thing IS certain, and that is that alot of people would NOT have any problem what so ever with "Being on a ship with a Homosexual".
Plus, I can guarantee you that they that have a problem with being on such a ship, already have a number of times anyway, they just don't realise it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
It worked before, why change that now? Oh I forgot, that's what our current president promised.



You and your husband already have your rights to be who you are.

Do you wear jeans? Have you ever worn a men's baseball cap? How about a men's plaid shirt?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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??


You will probably never get any straight(no pun) answer to that at all, or, you will have it explained to you that only heterosexual people have the right to be "perves".

edit on 10-5-2011 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by Annee
 


Divide and conquer.

See you all on the battlefields of the future.



Or - - Accept and Defend.

Battlefields of the future -- more intelligence then brawn. Sex/gender mainly irrelevant.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
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?


You think gay people are those who wear dresses?


A very ignorant comment actually. No gay I know would be caught in a dress. They all consider themselves men and only dress as men.

Are there gays who dress in drag? Yes - - and probably just as many straights are cross dressers.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Having read the article and following this debate as it has unfolded the following can be stated:
While this is a major step forward for the military to embrace change on a social level, perhaps the politicians should take a page from the actual orders and regulations that the military is coming up with. It is up to the military chaplains to do the ceremony in accordance with the tenants of their faith. That means they are not saying yes, or no, but leaving the issue of marriage in the realm of where it should be, in the area of the religious. But, there is a larger issue here, is that if they are going to allow those who are homosexuals to serve openly in the US military, have they changed the UCMJ to accommodate the new personnel? When I last checked, and from being in a military family, served in the US military, the UCMJ is very clear cut on how those in the military are to act. So a gay man or woman can serve, but have no rights to act or do as they see fit in the privacy of a room, as it would still violate the code of conduct that they have to uphold and follow. And until those codes are changed, it will still be a gay man or woman can serve, however can not do as the others can do, and will have to remain partially in the closet when it comes to their actions, while either in or out of uniform. This is going to be a very long drawn out process, as they can not enforce these changes, without making the necessary changes in the various areas and departments. They will also have to upgrade their standards and conducts expected of all of those in uniform and serving.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
So a gay man or woman can serve, but have no rights to act or do as they see fit in the privacy of a room, as it would still violate the code of conduct that they have to uphold and follow. And until those codes are changed, it will still be a gay man or woman can serve, however can not do as the others can do, and will have to remain partially in the closet when it comes to their actions, while either in or out of uniform. This is going to be a very long drawn out process, as they can not enforce these changes, without making the necessary changes in the various areas and departments. They will also have to upgrade their standards and conducts expected of all of those in uniform and serving.


What exactly are you saying?

Upgrade standards and conduct of whom?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
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?


You think gay people are those who wear dresses?


A very ignorant comment actually. No gay I know would be caught in a dress. They all consider themselves men and only dress as men.

Are there gays who dress in drag? Yes - - and probably just as many straights are cross dressers.


They should listen to their goddess, Ga Ga; "Don't be a drag, just be a queen"




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yea obviously you didn't read my comment after that.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by Annee
 


Yea obviously you didn't read my comment after that.


I respond to the individual comment - - not the poster.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Respectfully... who cares... There are gay people serving in the military with honor asw we speak now. The concern that it would lead to a breakdown of good discipline and order is a joke. Even more so when we review other incidents, with tailhook coming to mind.

The idea that gay people cant keep their hands to themselves is based on ignorance.

The simple fact that the military, which is based on honesty, would force some of its own members to lie is a contradiciton. For a country with a consitution that guarantees its citizens the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and that all are created equal, to treat others as something less, is hypocrisy at its finest.

What people do in their privacy of their own lives, is no one elses business, including the Governments.

They are American, they are loyal and they took the same oath as the others.

This same type of argument existed back in the 40's, except then it dealt with black people. The military adapted to that, and became a better entity because of it.

Then it was women... The military adapted to that, and became a better entity because of it.

This is no different. When we stop adapting, when we stop trying to improve things, when we stop accepting more than one view point, then we have failed.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm glad that the Navy is trying to take steps in the right direction.

For those who have brought it up: Sacred Band of Thebes was the Spartan military group comprised entirely of gay men and their partners. They were also considered some of the fiercest and most formidable warriors to have ever existed.




Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


My husband's in the military, and doesn't agree with it. Of course we respect eachother, and 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. 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? 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.

It worked before, why change that now? Oh I forgot, that's what our current president promised.




You know, funny you should mention that, we recently had a disturbing case in Canada. A colonel in our military was caught breaking into the homes of women and children, dressing up in their clothing (including undergarments) and taking pictures of himself. He eventually escalated and killed a young woman.

Oh, and the kicker? He's straight. Link to article

But let's just continue to worry about gays.


(PS Pinkgomo653 I have offered this challenge to everyone and none have taken it. Direct your "gay" and "lesbian" friends to this website, to this thread, and let them read your comments about their lifestyles and see if they remain your "friend" afterwards.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
For those interested, this is the training -verbatim- for the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

outserve.org...


This brief is informative in nature. It is meant to bring Sailors up-to-speed on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, its effect on DoD policies, and how these changes may affect you, your organization and the Navy community.
This brief is NOT an attempt to change anyone’s opinion about the subject of homosexuality.



Sexual misconduct, regardless of sexual orientation, that violates a Service standard, rule, regulation, policy or law, will still be considered grounds for administrative or legal action, to include possible discharge.



Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter. Service members and applicants to military service will NOT be asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 20, p. 58)
Sexual orientation is NOT a bar to service entry or continued service.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 20, p. 58)
Service members will NOT be subject to administrative separation for otherwise lawful homosexual acts, statements or marriage.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 20, p. 58)
The Military Services do NOT tolerate harassment or violence against any Service member, for any reason.



Sodomy under the proposed change to Article 125 of the UCMJ may be punishable if it is without consent (forcible). In light of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, private acts of sodomy between consenting adults, regardless of their sex, are NOT punishable -absent factors unique to the military environment (such as a senior-subordinate relationship or other circumstance adverse to good order and discipline). In light of these decisions, and the repeal of 10 USC § 654, Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, conforming amendments to Article 125 of the UCMJ may be considered for presentation to the Congress and/or action by President.


The UCMJ is being amended to handle the previously mentioned issue.


Service in the Navy makes it necessary at times for you to accept living and working conditions characterized by little or no privacy.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 7, p. 53; Topic 10, p. 54)
The Navy shall not establish quarters or berthing assignment regulations or policies that segregate Sailors according to sexual orientation.



The DoD provides the Navy discretion to consider dual military spouse status in matters of duty assignment. The term “spouse” can refer only to opposite-sex married couples under the Defense of Marriage Act. As a result, a Sailor in a same-sex relationship with another Service member is NOT eligible for co-location consideration.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 12, p. 55)
Gay, lesbian and bisexual Sailors in committed same-sex relationships, like their unmarried heterosexual counterparts, can make an individualized, hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 12, p. 55)


This, in light of all of the "rights" issues, is the most ironic and humorous part of the whole deal.

The link has much more detail - I was just highlighting some issues.

Honestly - this is going about as I thought it would. There's not going to be any dancing around a may-pole under rainbows with bunnies in clover-fields. There is a functional reason homosexuality was not encouraged in the military and we're going to see that rear its ugly head.

People simply don't understand that there is no such thing as equality, much less rights. Rights are merely actions and choices we believe should not be inhibited based on some moral or ethical relativism. In reality - you are a human being with limited amounts of influence, authority, and ability. If you are able to do something - it's your right to make the decision to do it (the only thing someone cannot interfere with). If you're unable to do something, claiming it is your right to do it is not going to make you more or less capable.

That's my perspective on homosexual marriage. It's like my perspective on racism. If I go to some mythical town of black people who kill and eat white people (legally or not) - I have no rights there as a pasty white cracker.

Similarly - in the military, if I want to get married and have kids, I don't always have the luxury of being able to say "I don't want to move and uproot my family." Tough cookies.

Our military is 100% volunteer. I know people who would really like to join the military - they just don't want to give up smoking pot and dabbling with hallucinogenic fungus to serve.

In either case - be it homosexual relationships or drug use - I really don't care, so long as the guy fueling the plane isn't doped up and hallucinating on the job, and guys aren't nailing each other in the open-bay, I really couldn't care less - disagree with their lifestyle choices as I may.

That said - I can't say I empathize with homosexuals or "rights activists" on this issue. It seems to be a needless aggravation of the issue. The military should -never- be forced to lead social trends. It should always lag social trends. When the rest of the country gets this whole "gays and lesbians" issue straightened out, and people are at least mildly agreeable, then we should start setting military policy based off of that.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I am curious what you mean here. What behavior would have to be changed? Gay people will have to behave under the same restrictions as straight people. Can you speak plainly about what you see as the problem or potential problem? Thanks.


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



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Well, gender, and sexual orientation is something very complex and diverse.

It is as well something where our military is leading the way according to Obama's wishes.

I've never believed in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell nonsense personally.

What two people do in their bedroom is no one else's business whatsoever.

Church people keep your damn mouths shut about what others choose to do.

...AND...

Homosexual or lesbians keep your damn mouths shut about what you choose to do.

Both sides are wrong in forcing their views and perspectives upon other people.

Sexuality, as far as the Bible goes, is about procreation and continuing the species.

During the time the Bible was written about the Hebrew nation was small.

And God said "Be fruitful and multiply..."

It was about not starving off the then known entire community of the Hebrews.

According to that one religion.

When Christianity came onto the scene they did not consider the time difference.

How many years after that was originally written did it end up being taught by Christians?

Sodom and Gomorrah : You Probably Have No Clue What "God" Really Meant...

One of my threads on homosexuality and the original meaning.

Spycraft : Being Homosexual, the Subversive Government Element, and Espionage...

One of my other threads about sexual repression and espionage.

Being a heterosexual, single, white male I cannot abide other people sometimes.

They tend to piss me off telling other people what to do and what to think.

Meanwhile they are not doing the right thing nor are they actually thinking.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The road was paved for this action when Obama and Holder decided to ignore the law and stop enforcing DOMA. They did not attempt to legislatively change or eliminate the law. They just simply ignored it and rose above the law. Hence this action by the Navy. They are just following the example of the Commander in Chief.

Go through the legislative process FIRST and then move on with the policy changes. Enough of the blatant ignorance of the LAW as it currently stands. They want to get married so be it. Just be prepared for whatever may come their way. Its an old school system for the most part and has all of the trappings to go with it.

Until then, follow the law or properly try to change it in accordance with procedure.

Thank You!
edit on 10-5-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by jibeho because: spelling



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


There are many examples of state law contradicting federal law. One of the most prevalent examples right now is medicinal marijuana use because while some states have enacted laws allowing for the growing, selling, and use of marijuana for medical purposes BUT federal law is still firmly pitted in marijuana being a drug and thus in totality is illegal. Should Obama start sending the DEA to the AIDS/HIV, Cancer, and MS patients to arrest them because federal law says so?

When talking about unconstitutional laws, yes, government officials should ignore them because people come before the laws. The government is suppose to protect, support, and represent the people and by ignoring/abolishing/changing legislation that discriminates against citizens they are doing just that.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

And might ask you who has bestowed upon you the authority to make such a decision for others?

"Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" - 1 Corinthians 10:29


Actually, i cant be bothered.
edit on 10-5-2011 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join