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.

 

The American Hypocrisy In The Gay Marriage Debate

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
"Don't ask, don't tell" will be one of the first things to go when Obama takes office, in fact IIRC he's already had several discussions with military leaders to work out how to go about ending it. (A different approach than Clinton, who basically sprung things on the military with no consultation.)

Gays serving openly in the military is essentially a done deal, the horse has left the barn - debating it is pointless now.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rightwingnut
 


You are calling gays, lesbians, and bisexual people insane? WTF? This is so so so wrong! Being Gay is NOT a mental illness! It even happens in the wild! Almost as if its... NATURAL! BTW JSO, I don't think making blacks and women 3rd class humans counts as supporting civil rights so no, they don't. it's the "evil" liberals that supported the civil rights of every one.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by GamerGal]



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
BTW JSO, I don't think making blacks and women 3rd class humans counts as supporting civil rights so no, they don't. it's the "evil" liberals that supported the civil rights of every one.

You probably haven't learned about this in school yet; maybe you never will, given the sad liberal state of American schools, but here's some stuff for you to chew on:

I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:

II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:

You can read about them here.

The article is titled

The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
It is in fact true that the majority of the nation's hardcore racists were, in fact, Democrats - from the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After which, most of them made a big show of turning in their D cards for R ones... which the Republicans accepted gleefully, and they've represented a solid chunk of the Republican base ever since, and the core of the current party's dominant far right wing.

Some Republicans, however, bucked the trend - including an idealistic young Congressman from Texas, who almost lost his seat & career trying to take a principled stand against racism - a certain Mr. George Herbert Walker Bush (you may have heard of him) who was roundly despised by the far right after he made a speech saying how awful he felt thinking about the African Americans who put it all on the line for their country in WW2 and came home only to be treated as second class citizens.

There are conservatives out there who still see him as a traitor, in fact, because he publicly rejected and condemned racism and segregation.

Things are rarely simple and clear cut in politics.

Bush Sr. was, in this case, a gutsy guy who risked his career to do the right thing.

Credit where credit is due & all...

[edit on 12/18/08 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


At least you're capable of giving a member of the Bush family credit where it is due. And for that, I salute you, sir.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
When did this thread become and RNC lovefest? This is an issue that affects people no matter what you political persuasion. Let's keep to the topic please.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Gays serving openly in the military is essentially a done deal, the horse has left the barn - debating it is pointless now.


Precisely. This thread was started not necessarily to argue the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but to illustrate the hypocrisy of accepting a gamy man or woman's life for the defense of freedom's and definitions while denying them fair treatment. I am actually appalled at some opf the reaction's that have been posted in opposition to my observation.


Originally posted by rightwingnut
How afraid are some to see the abnormal use of the human body and to understand that these particular human beings need counseling?

You sir, though very sincere and obviously making an effort to understand and integrate, are off base nonetheless. Suggesting that the homosexual community need only counceling to correct genetic impulse is like saying that we need to give midgets an extra few doses of vitamins each day. Ineffective and not the point.

Originally posted by crmanager
But if a person is romantically inclined to you then you want them away from you. If two peopel of any type are involved romantically then they DO NOT belong on a battlefiel together. Ever.


Perhaps then we should seperate the homosexual community from high schools with straight teenagers, you know, raging hormones and all that.


The fact that a gay man is showering with a straight man does not necessitate a romantic involvment. Many gay persons understand that they are in the minority and react accordingly. Indeed, in the military, these humans are just as indoctrinated as their straight counterparts, where the emphasis is placed on unit cohesiveness (pun intended; couldn't help it...
) and conditioned routines/adherence to the heirarchy. I am sure confused feelings may have occurred, but I seriously doubt that it is the rule as many seem to think.


Originally posted by sos37
When you sign up with any of the armed forces, you are no longer an individual when on Uncle Sam's time - you become a soldier.


What happens when a soldier is released from active duty and re-integrated into civilian society? Are they not an individual who has sacrificed for this nation?


Originally posted by sos37
Your contention that a gay soldier who dies in combat ought to be respected as "gay" is a load of crap.


How many times has a soldier, a straight soldier, died and been heralded as an upstanding American Citizen? Many times and in fact this type of post humous recognition has been crucial propaganda to reinforce not only the ugliness of war but the righteous and superior morality of the 'right side', or the American way. There still seems to be plenty of duplicity going on and convenient omittion of details.


Originally posted by sos37
But the Constitution makes no blanket statement about the rights of people based on sexual orientation,


No it doesn't and that isn't the point. The point is that we as a society have allowed this discrepancy to occur based on ignorant fear that somehow someway if we acknowledge that we have something in common with a gay man or women that thier ideals will spill over into our world and we'll have to deal with it...which isn't true. The gay community has no desire to impose their ideals onto other people that do not share their orientation. Why do we feel that we should impose ours?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Those kind of characterizations put people on the defensive, and their responses reflect it.


Were my "generalizations" inaccurate? I don't think so...


Edit for quote tags.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The military "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a simple way to say that being gay is a private matter, but the behavioral aspects of being gay are not. So in this case you can be gay and be in the military, but any form of homosexual behavior is not allowed.

Logistics also plays into this all with the form of four classes instead of two. Would it be ok to house gay and straight together in the close proximity that the military uses? The military frowns on any sexual contact whether it is straight or gay, so how do you house 50 gay men/women together? Would it not be like housing 25 straight women and 25 straight men in the same barracks all using the same open bay shower/toilets?

I’m not smart enough to figure this one out, but I do know I would feel very uncomfortable to be forced to live with gay men or straight women in a way where we would all shower, # and sleep all in the same open living space.

Morals are ever evolving and are based on society as a whole, and are very different throughout the world. Even the morals that we might see as black or white (such as murder) is not so black and white in other parts of the world.

As individuals we all disagree with parts of what society says is morally correct, but the majority rule in this case and we would need to change the majorities view point for change to happen. The reason you can’t marry ten women/men, or marry a 13 year old etc is because society says you can’t even though those 10 women/men really want to marry you, or nature has made that 13 year old able to proliferate.

In America we base much of our society on majority rule. The majority votes for those to represent us in what we want. If government is anti-gay marriage it is because the majority is anti-gay marriage, and whether you agree or disagree with it as an individual means little, for that is how America works.

30 years ago being gay was right up there with pedophilia and bestiality, but since then society has decided that being gay is not so destructive, and so it is accepted pretty much openly today. Where will society be in another 30 years who know? I don’t, but I can tell you it will not be the same as today, and it could easily be for better or for worst.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
You are calling gays, lesbians, and bisexual people insane? WTF? This is so so so wrong! Being Gay is NOT a mental illness!


You may not know this but homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder up until December 15, 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed it from their list of official mental disorders. There are still many psychatrists who claim that this happened due to pressure exerted by gay rights groups and was merely an attempt to be politically correct in the new PC era.



It even happens in the wild! Almost as if its... NATURAL!



That's a weak argument. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder happen in the wild too.



BTW JSO, I don't think making blacks and women 3rd class humans counts as supporting civil rights so no, they don't. it's the "evil" liberals that supported the civil rights of every one.


How does denying the right to marry impact civil rights? Civil unions allow gay couples to exercise the same rights as a married couple. This entire argument seems to be over the right to use the word "marriage" and not the underlying rights themselves. Marriage is a religious sacrament that has been defined for thousands of years as a union of a man and a woman under God. Since the same rights are available under a civil union, it seems like this is just a fight to smack religion in the face which is pretty petty IMO.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


And guess what? In 1953 killing black people in the south wasn't a real crime. In 1803 killing a Native American wasn't a crime. In 1030 killing a Jew wasn't a crime in most of Europe. So I guess today we should be allowed to kill blacks, Native Americans, and Jews because in the past it wasn't considered a crime in one place or another. Next, bipolar is natural? I thought that was already proven to not be natural but a disorder, not like Homosexuality which is natural. Next "How does denying the right to marry impact civil rights?" If one person can do it and not another, that is discrimination. If you allow one person the right to vote and not another, it is discrimination and in violation of their civil rights. If you allow one person to marry and not another that is discrimination and a violation of their civil rights. So you can keep being a bigot and discriminate against people for being gay but this is America, land of the free NOT the land of the "discriminate against any one who don't think like I do!" And to Xtrozero, marrying 13 year olds wasn't always a crime either. Heck in the past if they weren't married with a dozen kids they'd be declared as witches. But as we advance, progress, and run away from conservatists, we become more liberal and better.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by GamerGal]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 



Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by jsobecky
Those kind of characterizations put people on the defensive, and their responses reflect it.


Were my "generalizations" inaccurate? I don't think so...



It's true there there are a very very few people who think like that, but I don't think it applies to the ATS community or to American society. And I doubt very much that it had anything at all to do with the reasons DADT was implemented.

Just my .02



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 



Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


And guess what? In 1953 killing black people in the south wasn't a real crime. In 1803 killing a Native American wasn't a crime. In 1030 killing a Jew wasn't a crime in most of Europe. So I guess today we should be allowed to kill blacks, Native Americans, and Jews because in the past it wasn't considered a crime in one place or another.


You really need to firm up your thinking. There is no comparison between committing murder and declaring marriage a universal right.



Next, bipolar is natural? I thought that was already proven to not be natural but a disorder, not like Homosexuality which is natural.


No, that's not what was said. Bipolar occurs in nature, not only in homo sapiens. That's a far cry from saying it is natural.




Next "How does denying the right to marry impact civil rights?" If one person can do it and not another, that is discrimination.


Forget the word "marriage" for a moment. Consider all the rights that go along with it: the right to cohabitate. The right of property succession. Hospital visitation rights.

Now, if all these rights can be obtained with a civil union, what's the beef?

The beef is, an agenda is being pushed here. Gay marriage is just another tactic in that agenda, the same as forcing gay education in schools is.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Memoryshock this is a good post and very true to the word. You forget one thing though (as have I lately) and that is society moves in baby steps. Much more people are friendly towards me as say compared to 1990.

More of the old guard has to pass on before things change. People themselves rarely change. I've got an uncle that is part of the leftover old guard of racism. While in essence he is a kind man towards people he knows he is completely illogical towards Blacks making up reasons why he hates them out of his own mind. He is 70 and for the most part he is avoided by family because all he knows to spew is that hate.

It may take more time because the difference in loving someone of the same sex isn't as obvious because the gay person in essence looks like the straight person so it assumed we should act like the straight person. Sure it might be easier if we had a monkey tail or scorpion claws. Even if the messiah were to drift down from the sky and said, "You have it wrong, I like gays!" Nothing would really change.

Military yeah I have know five gay guys in the military. One died in Iraq from a helicopter crash a little while back. He had decided that since he had been to Iraq during Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and back to Iraq that after this tour he was going to end his military service while he was lucky and get married to his partner of many years. California's marriage law at the time excited him. It'll get there eventually.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u
Memoryshock this is a good post and very true to the word. You forget one thing though (as have I lately) and that is society moves in baby steps.


Oh I haven't forgotten that. Society usually evolves through the sociological concept of "Fundamentalism" with extreme changes happening on occassion.

But if noone talks about the extremes than change may occur more slowly...



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Homosexuals are not singled out but the UCMJ. You are not allowed to commit adultery, you are not allowed to date a superior. The list goes on and on. When you sign that paper and take an oath, you become U.S. government property. I've seen people get in trouble for getting a sunburn. Anything that hampers the mission is disallowed. Homosexuality can cause dissension among the troops, thus it is disallowed. If there were some benefit to being a homosexual, the Army would be the first one to embrace it. You can bet your life on that.

The same goes for the civil government. If it was proven that there were some civil benefit for homosexuals to marry, no doubt they would be given marriage licenses. Homosexuals can live together, give each other a power of attorney, sign an apartment lease together, and take out joint loans on a house. Why do they need the marriage license?

The people who speak up against homosexuality are not closet homosexuals any more than the members of Mother's Against Drunk Driving are closet drunks. This logic is junk science and has no hold on reality. If California votes no for homosexuality, then how much more does the majority of America just not see how homosexuality benefits them personally. Why do we need to encourage homosexuality? People can do this if they wish but there is no merit to encourage it.

Homosexuals need to quit having pity parades and protests, and start showing the actual benefit of their lifestyle if they want it to be embraced by America.

Let's play a question game...

Man/woman unions are a civil benefit because they are the only union that produce children for future generations. The civil contract helps promote the proper support of the child as it matures.

Homosexual unions are a benefit because they are the only union that....

...searching for answer



[edit on 5-2-2009 by dbates]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
If there were some benefit to being a homosexual, the Army would be the first one to embrace it. You can bet your life on that.


Hhmmm....you do know that the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy will be overturned based on recommendations from the military...right?



Why do they need the marriage license?


Why do people accept their risking of their lives in combat and have to fight what is essentially a non issue? Homosexual marriage does nothing to hetero-sexual couples...no affect at all save for an irrational need to place their values on other people...many of whom they will never interact with through the course of their lives.



Why do we need to encourage homosexuality? People can do this if they wish but there is no merit to encourage it.


Who is encouraging it? You make it sound as if there is a campaign to convert people to homosexuality. It's not a recruiting process.

I know of many heterosexual couples that should actually prove in a court of law the benefit they have on society as they are technically worthless in societal practice. Yet they are allotted an implicit superiority because of a gentic distinction?

Again...people aren't forcing people to do anything but get passed their own labeling system. This controversy strikes me as an incredible waste of time, save for the process of getting beyond it...



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Let's play a question game...


One mustn't be in a unique situation to to benefit society. It's true that man/woman unions are a civil benefit because they produce children for future generations.

However, what about infertile man/woman unions that are unable to produce children for future generations? What is their benefit to society? Shouldn't we disallow them that union under your scenario?

Let's ask this. Infertile man/woman unions are a benefit because they are the only union that...

...searching for answer



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

It would be cost prohibitive to test every couple's fertility before issuing a license. If it were practical they would probably test regular marriages too. Of course the same sex unions are a guaranteed no child scenario, so that's not even a good argument.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
Why do people accept their risking of their lives in combat and have to fight what is essentially a non issue?

I hear the same argument about drinking under 21. People can risk their life, shoot .50 caliber machine gun, or command a tank so they should be able to enjoy a beer.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by dbates]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Why do people accept their risking of their lives in combat and have to fight what is essentially a non issue?


I hear the same argument about drinking under 21. People can risk their life, shoot .50 caliber machine gun, or command a tank so they should be able to enjoy a beer.


Not the same.

An uneducated and underage drinker runs the risk of killing someone in their 'decadence'.

A homosexual marriage has the risk of what?

Offending an abstract ideal?

Definitely not the same.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
They are men and women who are willing to fight and die for our country and our rights.

Why should they be denied any of the rights that they fight and/or die to protect and preserve?

And, who is anyone to say that gay people and/or gay marriage adds nothing to our society? They are no less and no more than any of the rest of us. That being the case, they should be treated the same as everyone else and have every opportunity, freedom, and right that everyone else has....including the right to get married.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join