House Approves Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don‘t Tell’
- Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:34pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
The House of Representatives voted 250-175 Wednesday in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy which has banned gays from openly serving in the United States military since 1993. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the vote as a step in closing “the door on a fundamental unfairness” in America.
Meanwhile, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., took to the floor of the House to condemn Republicans’ opposition to the measure:
The issue will now go before the Senate where it faces an uphill battle for approval as the days of the lame-duck congressional session wind down. The Associated Press reports:
Many Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, argue that it would be a mistake for the military to undergo a major cultural change while the nation is fighting two wars.
Implementation of any new policy should begin “when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
The issue also has split the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior military leaders support lifting the restrictions on gay service, pointing to a recent Pentagon study showing that most people in uniform don’t object to serving with gays. But the head of the Marine Corps, Commandant Gen. James Amos, repeated his opposition this week, saying that lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives. “I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction,” he said.
The repeal has met stiff opposition in the Senate before. In May, the House of Representatives voted 234-194 in favor of legislation that would’ve repealed DADT, but the measure stalled in the Senate on two separate occasions as the controversial measure was tied to larger policy initiatives.
But the House’s vote today was on a stand-alone bill — one Democrats had hoped would avoid complicated partisan gridlock. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., are promoting the stand-alone bill in the Senate and the bill’s supporters claim to have the 60 votes needed for passage.
Still, the measure may not reach the floor before the lame duck session expires as GOP leaders have pledged to block all legislation until the Senate hammers out a deal to extend Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 695 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 508 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 353 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 252 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (398)
ManAtGilgal
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:44pmKeep DADT at it’s current form. No need to repeal or amend it. There is no glory in being GBLT.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:43pmAdd your comments
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:48amOk– I’ll add this the morons who parrot the President , and suggest there was opposition to integration.
Report Post »I remind you Colin Powell -when he was in the Pentagon wrote in Crisis ,1992 Skin color is a benign
characteristic not based in behavior–not so with sexual orientation.comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.He was right then and has not changed his position on that observation.
The fannie fanners want America to believe their orientation is just like race-or sex. But science can distinguish the racial group–or even the sex neither of which a babe in the womb has control over.
There may or may not be “tendencies” that may lead to such ‘orientation” but homosexuality remains a chosen behavior that is unnatural.And doe snot belong in the Military.
Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:00amBullseye!
Report Post »Johnnyp1958
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:39pmGreat, while in the middle of a blazing gunfight you can have your junk sucked on
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:45pmWake up. You’re having the dream again.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:32pmNow, I am stepping into the gender war, arrrg! I believe homosexuality as a definate life choice, and to be degrading and immoral, sorry guys, but that is how I feel. If it was genetic, then HOW could identical twins turn out differently with regard to sexual orientation? It has to do with life experinces, environment and psycology. What I am not saying is they are any less of a person, but they have, shall we say, “…chosen poorly.” If this lifestyle was appropriate, why then can they not naturally procreate? So the choice bothers my on several levels, and if I was next to one in combat, hey maybe they fight better than me, but he/she went through the training and was up to snuff as a soldier, etc, I would be ok with that. Just don’t come on to me, I’ll break your nose! Just my humble opinion, as I try not to judge people on that basis, as it is a major sin, God will do the judging there. As to liberals, they’re just a tax and spend, and are a controlling lot, and I don’t like the ideology, at all! Genocide is not something I could ever agree with, and that is what I think abortion is. And finally, social justice is a farce, there is no right to education, health care or medicad, medicare or social security, especially no right to progressively tax us. Our Constituion hangs in the balance! Yeah, I judge liberal/progressive/socialists, because they need to be!
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:38pmYou speak for MANY of us! Thank You!
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:46pmIf you can look at a SI Swimsuit issue or hear the sweet sound of a woman’s voice and not get even a little turned on by it, then you have not made a choice. There is something different about you. There are genetic problems that can make a chromosomal XY male have the body of a female. It is rare, but it happens. I believe an XY male can have the brain chemistry of a female as well.
Report Post »C.C.D.
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:52pmIt is not just a life style choice. It is proven that some are born with these tendencies, but regardless logic proves it is not natural. The question of some that oppose, is that do these same tendencies effect one that is in battle. Just think about it for a moment. I would rather have a over flowing testosterone jar head running out on the field with me, than some one that may have too much compassion because a hormone imbalance. Who knows? Are we going to study this? We already know that women are nurturer’s and men are providers, and it is human nature for men to kill in order to provide and protect. Intellects often like to get away from the idea that humans are mammals, and not in all of Gods creation do other creatures tolerate homosexual tendencies. As written in my prior post, one of those alligator’s would be eliminated, my bet is on the one with lots of testosterone.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:05pmI don’t know if you read the Bible or not, don’t really care, but God finds homosexuals “detesting”, that’s enough for me. That is why most homosexuals, are not religous, and have to attack the Bible, in order to establish legitimacy. When people are very young, they are hardwired, and so many things can influence that wiring, so that is the environmental, psycological factor, that changes the ‘choice factor’ some how. And it could be a desease possibly, there are far too many homosexuals, for anything to be rare about them!
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:25pmWe cried foul at integrating the military after years of segregation started by Wilson. We cried foul at women in the military. We cried foul at female fighter pilots and combat troops. It all turned out ok. This will be ok.
Report Post »You want to talk about morals and dedication. These guys voluntarily enlisted, when it was against the law to do so. They hid their nature to serve a country that would just as soon spit on them. These same guys were thrown out when they were found out. Now, many want back in to continue to serve people and and organization that cast them out. In the state that this country is in, we should be so lucky to have people like this who are so dedicated to America. They have the traits that Congress lacks. We should welcome them with open arms.
kishmael
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:30am“If it was genetic, then HOW could identical twins turn out differently with regard to sexual orientation?”
Are you suggesting that “identical” twins are exactly identical? Sure, they look pretty identical to us, but they are not genetically identical. Identical twins have different finger prints. And, even though that have very very similar DNA, there are slight differences. Identical twins have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. Considering that DNA was discovered only about 60 years ago, I‘d say we probably don’t know everything about it. It is very likely that identical twins DNA could be more different than we know about…we just haven’t figured out how to know that yet.
Report Post »C.C.D.
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:30pmMissing the big picture. Gays serving in the military shows the caricature of the person. No matter how much empathy and tolerance you may have the fact remains that homosexual tendencies is a freak of nature, period. Humans continue to believe that they are the most inelegant creatures on earth, but the truth is, the alligator was here millions of years before us, and they will be here millions of years after us. Not in a million years will you see a male alligator having sex with another male alligator.What makes an organization strong is the sharing of the same values and morals. Our morals, values, and principles have been diminished in the name of political correctness and tolerance. This is the exact reason the country is in the shape that it is in now.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:43pmNo specific mention of alligators, but there’s LOTS of documented homosexual behaviour in animals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Report Post »C.C.D.
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:03pmI have a feeling these may be the same folks doing the global warming study. We know that some thousands of years ago humans adapted this little known thing “By the Federal Government” called Reason. Now just think for a moment. If every one on the planet became homosexuals tomorrow, how long would the human race last.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:31pmHas anyone suggested that everyone on the planet should “become” homosexual?
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:06pm@C.C.D
There are numerous cases (I mean literally thousands) of homosexuality among animals. Monkeys do it, apes do it, sheep and horses do it, guinea pigs do it… it’s extremely widespread among mammals, really, and quite the norm.
Report Post »NHABE64
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:29pmOur putrid and cowardly Congress does it again.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:28pmJust ONE MORE strike to WEAKEN our great Military! I say, send BARNEY to the front line!
Report Post »SafeguardOurLiberty
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:26pmThis is the right thing to do. It is discrimination. Why in the world in this day and age where military all over the world accepts this and has no problem with it, would this country based on liberty and freedom and equal rights of all be the only western country to have this stupid rule. Our men and women serve and protect our constitution and our rights under the Declaration of Independence. It is contradictory to our basic rights not to have gays and lesbians be able to serve openly. If we truely believe in our freedoms and our liberties then this has to go. We can’t on one hand say we are for the rights of people, and then say except gays and lesbians. I am so disappointed in the republicans when it comes to this issue. If they so believe in freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they can’t pick and choose who should receive it. That goes for anyone serving in the military. I am so disappointed in the Marines. They are mostly against it. What is wrong with them? Do they not fight for everyone’s rights, or just the ones that are not gay. I always respected the Marines, I don’t anymore. My father was a Marine and fought in WW2, I am sure he wouldn’t care if there was a gay soldier fighting next to him,they were all there to do one thing and they did it all together and I am sure there were gays back then. We have to stop this discrimination or it will destroy us.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:31pmBECAUSE the COMBAT TROOPS are OVERWHELMINGLY apposed to repealing it! THAT’S WHY!!!!!! The survey that the left is hailing was a farce…do some research and you’ll learn the TRUTH!
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:36pmyou are making things up, within combat troop polled a majority still were fine with serving with gay soldiers and it was only among marines where 56 percent were opposed. Since when did 56 percent become overwhelming?
Though an overwhelming number of soldiers did oppose desegregation in 1948, but they managed. How is this any more difficult?
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:57pmWhat you don’t seem to understand is the military is now fighting islamists – their cult hates homosexuality. It will just further their resolve.
Report Post »It’s also interesting that appx 2% of the American population is gay. How many of those 2% are actually military? The govt is going to literally screw up the fighting troops for a handful of dissidents? Shame on this Congress.
po-boy
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:50pmCognative Go back to HUffin a Post website. They like you over there
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:04pmI don’t even post on huff-po, I think you think I am someone else.
Report Post »po-boy
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:20pmYou should. there is a lot of your kind over there
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:26pmWhat’s the fun in a site without discourse? Echo chambers are boring.
Report Post »kishmael
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:57pmAmen!
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:33amWhen I was an Army Medic I helped out process many many service members who were discriminated against because they failed to maintain Military fitness standards. Don‘t tell me they couldn’t perform their Military Occupational Specialty as well as any homosexual. YET the Military discharges many thousands more discriminating against their weight–or drug /alcohol use– or even for pregnancy than
Report Post »it has ever discharged any for sexual orientation.IF discrimination is bad you ought go after the big guys as well and the butt fanners.
Spawnomite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:26pmI don’t see a problem with having a gay battalion to do all the front line dirty work for their lord savior and semi-American Obama.
Report Post »Better_Red_than_Dead
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:25pm“This will severely harm troop morale.”
How so?
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:35pmBecause they will have sex EVERYWHERE. The bunks, the showers, the tables, the tanks, the trunk of humvees… EVERYWHERE! Also, they’ll start hitting on heterosexual god-fearing soldiers! Because that wouldn’t be reasons for discharge due to misconduct and all, you know?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:35pm@nvrforget – so you’re saying that homosexuals are animals, incapable of controlling their natural urges?
Actually, while I was being sarcastic, I suspect that’s probably exactly the kind of bigoted view you have.
Report Post »Better_Red_than_Dead
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:51pm@Stronge
I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic as well.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:09pmMan, it’s so hard to tell around here. When people are happy to call for gay troops to be beaten and murdered when DADT is repealed, this just seemed so… plausible. So I apologise for misconstruing nvrforget’s intentions. He just played his part so darned well. Sir, I doff my cap to you. You give good bigot.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:01pmHeh. Thanks, I guess. I’ll be here all night people! My next impersonation…
Report Post »GoingBeck
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:22pmThe progressive liberals just keep adding to the list of reasons
Report Post »why they can never be trusted with power ever again. What a
suicidal ideology.
5412
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:21pmHi,
The military is not a social experiment which is something the liberals never quite understand. Their job is difficult enough without having to worry who is eyeballing them in the shower.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:39pmThis isn’t 1942. They don’t all take group showers anymore. Even when they did take group showers, that was 5 minutes of the day. They way people argue about this, you would think that all the military does is take long group showers and snuggle up in a foxhole.
Report Post »sorocialism
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:11pm@TonyD
I don’t know what branch of service you were in, but in My Beloved Corps (2000-2004) they do still have group showers in many training camps and we also did while I was deployed in Iraq/Kuwait. Personnaly, I am sure that I have probably showered with a gay guy before, but i didn’t know that he was gay. If I did know, i would have been uncomfortable and it would have been ackward wondering if he was trying to “sneek a peak” because they are still human, and just like guys peeking on girls, it would happen.
In Bootcamp we were pee’ing 3 people to 1 urinal, last thing i needed there was for one of the guys to be smiling as we did it.
Will they be allotted their own restroom/bath facilities? I have female friends, I don’t think they would be comfortable showering with me.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:21pmSo, you thought the guy was gay, but you were ok showering in front of him because there was some doubt. But, if you knew for sure, it would be a different story.
Report Post »Do you think when DADT is repealed officially, all gays will wear some kind of sash, maybe a pink pin to identify them as such?
No, it will be business as usual after about 6 months.
If you have a nice butt, you should be flattered if he checks it out. Maybe ask him for advice on how to make it more appealing to the ladies. Girls love to have a gay friend for the opposite sex advice.
cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:20pmYou do know there are already gay soldiers in the army, they just aren’t allowed to say they are gay.
Speaking of shower time, do you go to a gym? if so, you’ve probably already showered with someone who is gay.
Report Post »thefisherman
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:19pmWhile I don’t find butt sex appealing, I have nothing against gays. I do feel they should not teach junior high or high school classes. Having been in the education system, I feel that adolescents have challenges. This seems to me a tougher issue to resolve than gays in the military.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:18pmno one is mentioning these vocal scream-in-your-face flaming obama gays want ALL the rules changed to cater to their deviate needs and urges.
wonder if the obama media will report on all the sexual harassment suits that will be filed by the real Men of the Military once the deviate obama gays start trying to hump their legs.
Report Post »Worse, our vets mentioned if they were in there now with these obama gays allowed to start humping each other out in the open on their bunks, there’d be a lot of friendly accidents.
Spawnomite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:21pmAt least when the **** are humping, they are a stationary target.
Sgt.Crust
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:16pmWhat did I tell all you guys a while back, this LAME DUCK Congress is going to jam a bunch of bills down our throats as a goodbye nail in the coffin! Thanks Progressives! Thanks for all your hard work on increasing the debt!!!!!
Report Post »Spawnomite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:09pmBout time.
Report Post »I used to be in the Navy and we had to hide our homosexual acts in fear of repercussion.
Now I wish I was back in. I felt like a little boy on a pirate ship with no ladies being passed around all the time.
SlimnRanger
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:15pmlol now thats funny ,your time in the barrell
Report Post »swalt
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:18pmIf you were still in and this is passed into law, you might have found yourself being rolled up in a blanket late one night and thrown overboard in the middle of the ocean. This law was put into effect to PROTECT gays. This is just one more trick up the progressive’s sleeves to tear our country apart from the inside.
Report Post »Spawnomite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:25pmSWALT, that sounds sexy.
Report Post »Sign me up.
mossbrain
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:07pmI believe that the type of behavior on the link below will become more common;
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-man-admits-conning-baby-sitters-by-posing-as-autistic-and-wearing-diapers/article/3522781
Report Post »Conservativeman
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:06pmThe troops suffer. Army chaplains will have their affiliation pulled by several denominations resulting in no spiritual coverage. This is as much an attack on Christianity as it is on our military. The left has gone too far this time.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:35pmWhat Christian denomination would punish the faithful because the organization they belong to allows homosexuals in its ranks? Besides Westboro Baptist Church, I mean. I think you are making an inflammatory remark that has no basis in reality. The place I work has gays, but my church isn’t about to throw me out because of it.
Report Post »Conservativeman
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:40pmTony D.
Report Post »You should at least google the subject before leaping with your foot in mouth. The Catholic church and the Southern Baptist Convention may pull their chaplains. Some others are considering it.
The Washington Post, Marine Corps Times, and several other publications have covered this issue.
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:24pmI stand by my remark. “What CHRISTIAN denomination would…”
Report Post »Conserving Ink
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:01pmThis will severely harm troop morale. If homosexuals want to serve their country, a noble goal, there are other ways.
Report Post »_____________________________________________________________
http://conserving-ink.blogspot.com/2010/12/political-flocking.html
sorocialism
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:01pmI think it will also affect recruiting….If i knew ahead of time that I would be forced to shower with homosexual men, I would not be as interested in joining the service. I’m sure currently in the service that gays shower next to straights already, but they don’t know its happening, so the ackward and uncomfortable feeling is not there…(that would be me watching over my shoulder to make sure he is not trying to “sneak a peek”)
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:58pmgreat, more “mandatory training” we’ll have to go through. Lets see if it tops the 4 hour sexual harassment briefing
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:05pmThat was a trip. The AF sexual assault awareness video kept zooming in on the girl’s boobs and crotch the whole time she talked about being the victim of sexual assault.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:33pmNope, straights will just have to suck it up (no pun intended).
Report Post »TheRealMcCoy
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:12pmYeah, cant wait for them to start saying “I didnt get promoted/the award/the leadership position/etc. because im gay”. Makes me sick.
Report Post »poorrichard09
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:57pmSo, it passed. I’ll bet Barney had a h*rd on.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:14pmi doubt he would even know with that belly
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:25pmRemember, he still has a hand.
Report Post »ihveit
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:33pmihv yep and there will probably be a lots of gays running around in the showers admiring all the asses.. how many of them will be doing the same thing…. SOOO WHATS NEXT… HOW ABOUT we repeal the shower/bath deal… one shower for every one.. straight men and women.. gay and lesbians and bisexual all using one place ALL AT THE SAME TIME..
Report Post »will
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:57pmI’m a 16 year AF vet. I have known many gays, they have all served honorably, except for the one drug addict. I think this is much ado about nothing.
Report Post »Every service has gay service-members, that is why there are so may discharge proceedings taking place. They are not being beaten and killed. They are not disrupting morale. It is time to let them serve honorably.
As long as gays are held to the same standards as everyone else, it will be business as usual.
dps7215
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:43pmI feel sorry that someone who has served our country for so long has no moral backbone. Please tell me you fly a desk.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:49pmMoral backbone? How is allowing people who want to serve honorably, serve honorably lacking moral backbone? We are not talking about SF gay parade gay.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 2:23amGay is gay is **** is queer.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:22amSo you wouldn’t have a problem with legal sodomy on base–and like Col.Oliver North said this “change”
Report Post »will ensure continuance of the DADT policy because recruiters will not ask. The rate of sexual assault will increase as the current limiting factor -the 1993 law declaring homosexual behavior is not compatible with Military service. will be removed.Homosexuals will understand their behavior is now legitimate.
I agree with the Marines this distraction will cause combat troops to be maimed.IT will gut the Military.
EP46
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:33am@Tony Did you listen to the Congressional hearings ? I did . The military brass said NOT NOW …NOT DURING WAR. Especially the Marines. They said it CAN ENDANGER our troops during war. This was LIVE on tv…not a recap by someone telling only one side.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:01amThere are homosexuals in the Marines right now. Homosexual sodomy occurs in Marine barracks right now. I would be willing to bet that homosexual sodomy occurs among gay Marines in Afghanistan just as assuredly heterosexual sex and sodomy does. The change to DADT will not change daily life in the service any more than segregation or women did. Public displays of affection are not allowed for heterosexuals, and will not be allowed for homosexuals. So, it’s not as if they will be having sex in the middle of the main street on base, or walking around hand-in-hand. There are dress codes, so they will not be walking around in drag like Klinger, wearing odd hairstyles, or even earrings. Like I said, the gay men and women who do serve and want to serve their country are normal people like you and I. It is not going to be the SF gay pride parade.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:58amIn my experience, whenever somebody says what it’s not gonna be, that‘s exactly what it’s going to be.
The San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.
Gird your loins, men, we’re goin in!
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:17amSo do you have a problem with gay people, or sodomy? According to the UCMJ, if a straight solder gets a ******** or has anal s3x with his girlfriend or wife, he should also be court martialed. Why don’t we enforce that?
And @EP46, you didn’t listen to the military brass at the hearing. They want the repeal plan in place so that they can start preparing. The repeal will not mean next week gays can serve openly, but it will start the process of training and giving the various branches time to adjust until the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs approves. If the courts decide, there is no preparation period.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:58amI agree with Tony, I also served with gays in the air force and as long as
Report Post »the rules are enforced, which prohibit public displays of affection by ANY airmen
while in uniform or on a military post to include husbands and wives.
With no Exceptions, then it really is a non issue.
thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:05pmTony,
“Like I said, the gay men and women who do serve and want to serve their country are normal people like you and I.”
C’mon be honest, you know that statement is NOT true.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:49pmThat is my opinion and I stick with it Patriot-I-Serial-Reply-The-First-Post-Because-I-Think-My-Opinion-Matters-More-Than-Anybody-And-I-Don’t-Want-My-Comments-At-The-Back-Of-The-Line-Dave. Whew!
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:52pmBad move. Bad for everybody. Good for Barney Frank.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:25pmFrank could barely speak, it was so obvious, you could tell how sexually excited he was about the prospect of having all those gay deviates openly humping each other in American uniform now and flaunting it in the faces of real American troops, as well as his excitement over his help in destroying the greatest fighting force on earth, the AMERICAN military.
our relatives in Service said they were NEVER asked about how they felt and that there’s enough gays telling them how it will be when DADT gets repealed. everything will be changed to accomodate the gays deviate way of life. so they THINK.
we do not even want to imagine Franks’ victory party and all his happy little gay deviate troop followers happily disgracing our uniform at his house. where’s a muslim homicide bomber when you need one. just disgusting. total obama, total obama, one more thing to destroy our Military.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:37pm@burnthills – you’re saying there are already openly gay troops? So where’s your problem with repealing DADT?
Report Post »Better_Red_than_Dead
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:30pmPersonally, I can’t think of anything more humiliating to the Taliban than the idea of being beaten back by lesbian American soldiers.
Report Post »MrBaseball
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:51pmThere’s gonna be more discrimination if the repeal becomes law. When gays serve openly in the military, there will be fighting and beating up of gays. I’m not against gays in the military, DADT was created for their own benefit.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:58pmIf we both accepted the GI BILL and the 40k to start a new business to dodge bullets, then why do I need to know whether you’re gay or not?
Irrelevant. I don’t need to know.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 6:59pmI still have a hard time believing that trained military men and women can’t deal with serving with gay troops. It should be remembered that when the military was desegregated in 1948, most members of the military were opposed to it, but they dealt with it and the military should be able to handle this.
Gay soldiers are already there and I don’t think it benefits anyone to have them lie about who they are.
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:01pmI agree. Look for more incidents of ‘friendly fire’.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:04pmI don’t think it benefits the straight soldiers to lie about not wanting a homosexual in the foxhole with them.
Report Post »what4
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:14pmEasier to determine who goes to the front line…….AKA Cannon Fodder!
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:17pmIs everyone here like 15 and still grossed out by someone being gay?
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:27pmSo what’s a guy supposed to do when another soldier gives you the look?
Report Post »79USMC83
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:30pmReid and these people are telling the American people.THEY DO NOT CARE!! TRAITORS: One who betrays anothers trust is false to an obligation or a duty
You wonder if they are trying to incite RIOTS!!
Tax REVOLT April 15,2011. Do not file or send any money into the IRS until they contact you first. Then set up a payment plan for 2011. The fines/penalties will be worth it!!!!
If you usally get money back. That means you have overpaid taxs for that year. This is what the IRS wants. That means the “Government Stupid” had your money instead of you all year. Change your W-2 to more dependants for half the year!! Try to “NOT” get any money back or pay very little in 2012!!
The SSI 2% sounds good The “Govermnet Stupid” wants you to think that they are giving you some extra money. But it is yours to begin with. They are hoping you buy some $100 tennis shoes. Remember though SSI is a retirement Insurance for you IFFFF you live long enought to collect it. The more you pay “INTO” SSI determines how much you get back when and IF you get to collect it!!
TERM LIMITS NOW !!
FAIR TAX NOW !!
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:33pmif it especially aggressive, its sexual harassment and should be reported, but why are you assuming that a gay soldier would even try to pick up a straight soldier? Just because someone is gay does not mean they are attracted to every man and most people who are gay have almost no interest in trying to pick up someone who is straight. It would be like me trying to hook up with someone I know is a lesbian.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:35pmDamn, you people have a pretty low opinion of your own military if you really think they’ll beat and kill their comrades because they no longer have to hide their sexuality. Y‘know this isn’t even an issue in the rest of the world. The civilised world.
dps7215
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:40pmCognitive: I‘d like to know if you’re grown up enough, and if:
a) you’ve been in the Military
b) you’ve been in a Combat Arms Profession.
Having a barracks full of dudes, and some of them able to do something about their pent up frustration, and some not able to do something about it….sounds pretty unfair. Not saying the straight ones would become gay, because I still have faith in Self-Control and morality, but what I’m saying is, THAT predicament is pretty unfair.
Attacking someone because of their point of view is different than yours, and calling them immature and 15? Sounds like you don’t have a moral fiber about you, and nothing to stand on. I could say the same about someone giving into their homosexual desires and something about them being mentally disturbed. I think it is you with some growing up to do.
Any correlation between the homosexual civil rights movement, and the Black civil rights movement, is a covering up of facts and human nature. I also believe it is an insult to anyone in the Black civil rights movement who stood up to something that was not deemed unholy. Do you think people have finally become enlightened? I would endorse the notion that people are blinded much easier these days. May God save us from our evil and wicked ways.
Why don’t you grow up, and stop living the progressive idealogical dream?
Where is your breaking point?
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:42pmCommunist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
#26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:42pmThe military will handle the fairies the same way it always has throughout history. If a homosexual keeps his mouth shut, pulls his weight does his job, and does not disturb any straight soldiers with his preferences then he will get along just fine. If he is a raging queen he will get his azz kicked at every turn. Such is the natural order of things and as things should be.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:43pmCOG – so should co-ed dorms and showers be okay now too?
Report Post »GeauxAlready
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:54pmGot two words for ya! Friendly Fire…………..
Report Post »american1st
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:57pmDADT is inevitable…. and our military can handle the switch — IF they are allowed to do it on their own, and aren’t forced into it on some activist congress or activist judges time table,
if you let the military do it in a way that doesn’t interfere with their ability to fight… ITS NO BIG DEAL
cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:04pmIf you think that soldiers will simply murder other soldiers and Americans simply because you are gay you truly have the dimmest view on those who serve in the military. To make such claims and then accuse those who are on the left side of the political spectrum of trying to undermine the armed forces is simply shocking hypocrisy.
This should not be a difficult problem, gay soldiers and straight soldiers have always worked and fought together and it is simply unnecessary for those who are gay to have to lie about who they are.
I accuse people here of being 15 because their perspectives on this issue are truly immature and I think history will view those who stand opposed to the repeal of DADT the same way it looks upon those who opposed the end of desegregation and Jim Crow laws; ignorant and stubborn people on the wrong side of history.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:26pmDon’t know if it has changed, but when I was on AD, they concealed HIV+ stattus from all but CO and XO, plus senior NCO if HIV+ was enlisted. With that in mind, the scariest words I remember was the call onboard ship to “activate the walking blood bank”. Sorry, but if I had any reason to believe you might be HIV+ or a member of such a high-risk group, you’d have bled out before I went hands on. Sorry Barney, but you can kiss my un-PC butt on this one.
Report Post »what4
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:29pm@ cognitwit.
Report Post »Being Gay and having to lie about who they are……that is what being gay is, lying about who you are! and the Jim Crow issue is a whole different can of worms that doesn’t even compare!
po-boy
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:45pmHey Cognative Aren’t you the one that tried on a tuxedo in Ft.Worth & put the vest on under your shirt and then couldn’t find the vest? didn’t know how to put on a cumberbun? Learn to dress Ya idiot
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:50pmI have a real problem with a Congress that not only ignores what the people want, but seems to think they know better about what’s good for our military, than it’s own commanders.
cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 8:56pm@po-boy
you wrote some words there, but I don’t even know what they mean.
I’ve never even been to Ft. Worth.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:03pm@txpilot – you understand the bit where your military and its leaders have come out in favour of this, don’t you?
Report Post »bulletsinthegun
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:28pmBarney Frank, what a great role model, when did you serve in the military, what do you know except that you are one wierd person. I am a vet having server from 1971 to 1973. I now would love to share a fox hole with you and show you why you are wrong.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:30pmThese gay soldiers won’t/don’t act like adults, they want this to push the envelope, most if not all were abused as kids, mentally, physically, and usually both. They will rub it in the faces of straights, having sex in the barracks, in the showers, walking around the base holding hands, pushing until someone snaps, then the ACLU will spring to their rescue. We need to stop following the crap lies spread by a few radicals that paid people to molest their kids, paid them to produce false data, then spread the lies faster than the global warming falsifiers, and actually help these poor people to get over the abuse that brought on this disease, not just pretend their affection is normal and ignore it.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:32pm@Stronge
You understand the bit where the Civilian Leadership will have removed anyone who disagrees with their policy of jamming the acceptance of muslims and homos down our throats….
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:36pm@sinista mace – no, no I don’t. But your bigotry is noted.
Report Post »dps7215
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:41pmYour bigotry against the correct point of view is definitely noted. You’ve been brainwashed by the left my friend, and don’t even know it. Your tolerance is our undoing. Death by a 1,000 cuts….so sad
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:48pmTrolltrainer said, “If a homosexual keeps his mouth shut… and does not disturb any straight soldiers..”
I don’t think you intended the double meaning, but I couldn’t let it pass without comment. What if a homosexual doesn’t keep his mouth shut? And why are those cases on the rise?
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 9:50pm@Stronge,
I can tell by your name that you are going to be hypersensitive on this issue, but I did’nt know you had a case of oppositional defiance as well.
The fact of the matter is, I haven’t demonstrated any bigottry.
If you would kindly provide an example or shut the hell up, I would greatly appreaciate it.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:16pmOkay the Libs win…. Mandatory combat for all homosexuals!
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:19pmStronge, stats, please. I want the stats on the privacy questions. Where are they, man? All I got from the wily libs was a broad statement that straights don’t mind gays serving openly in the military. That is typical liberal lack of transparency. Moreover, we need essential data on their sample population.
Now explain, if you will, why gays are openly opposed (sarc intended) to separate barracks. What’s the hidden agenda, dude?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:23pm@sinista mace
“jamming the acceptance of muslims and homos down our throats”
That right there is bigotry. Do you need me to explain exactly how it shows bigotry? The fact that you’re resistant to accepting muslims and “homos”. And accept them as what?
And what was that about my name? I don’t understand.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 10:52pm@kryptonite
The defence department’s report can be read here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DADT_Defense_Department_report.pdf
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:11pmKryptonite wrote:
“I don’t think you intended the double meaning, but I couldn’t let it pass without comment. What if a homosexual doesn’t keep his mouth shut? And why are those cases on the rise?”
I thought I explained that in the very next sentence after the one you quoted? But let me clarify it for you. What usually happens when queers act like flaming fairy queens around a bunch of hard ass, straight, no-nonsense soldier types? They either wind up hurt real bad or dead. Just the way of things, dontcha know…
Go ahead and repeal DADT. As has been mentioned several times, it was created to protect the ****, not the straights.
Report Post »GeauxAlready
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:21pmCan see it now a whole platoon skipp’in along singing this is my gun, and this is for fun…..
Report Post »Big Bob
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:29pmNow if memory serves me right prior to don‘t ask don’t tell gays were banned from the military period. if they even suspected you of being gay you would get booted. So to repeal something would mean to go back to the old ways. I really don’t see what they are trying to accomplish. It would seem to me that they are better off the way it is rather than the way it was. I really don‘t see what the big deal is your not supposed to fraternize anyway and normal people don’t flaunt their sexuality I’m kind of lost at what the big deal is.
Report Post »Donald J
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 11:44pmAnd you can try and tell these nutjob civilians that all day and they do not understand. I see no point in changing policy other than an agenda to provide the gays of America equal rights. Gays currently have the same rights that are granted them in the Consitution, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Women still to this day are not able to serve in certain jobs within the military. These people chose to join the military well aware of the policies they must adhere to and if there lifestyle does not meet the laws of UCMJ, which they dont because Sodomy is a crime, then they cannot join. I do not need to know some servicemeber is a butt-plugger because that alone degradates what was once a Godly country and Godly military.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:00amStronge,
Report Post »I was talking about sexual assault, once the straight guy has said his prayers and is having sweet, sweet dreams. Those cases are on the rise. Ask yourself why and then share your thoughts with me.
kryptonite
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:03amStronge, Thanks for the URL. Will check it out and get back to you tomorrow. Gotta go.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:12amStronge,
Report says: “Typically, between 60% and
80% of Service members we talked to at information exchanges forums and small focus
group discussions believed they had served alongside a gay or lesbian Service member. Many
shared their belief that today the military performs its mission with gay men and lesbians
and repeal would have no affect on performance—either personally or as a unit.”
Read a bit before laying me to bed. Bad, very bad. For starters, no anonymity in exchange forums and small focus groups, and “many” is not a statistical measurement. The only percentage they give is for those who believe they have served with gays. Duh!
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:13amI would imagine the military is not much different than most walks of life, except maybe hollyweird or the interior decorating business, or cruise ship personnel…But the fact is I have never cared if the people around me were gay, straight, Muslim, green, space alien, dog humpers…hey, whatever…I am sure I am probably one of the most annoying people in any group as I am an evangelical Christian and I do not hide the fact. I try not to be one of the snobby, judgmental types where I don’t point my finger at the druggies or the cursers or the gays…But when the opportunity opens I will jump right in there with the gospel…Anyway…Most gays I have known were decent guys that got along fine in my world. As have been the Mexicans, blacks, and Muslims,,,,I take people at face value. If you act like a pansy you do not get very far in my world, even the other gays will disown you.
I imagine the military is not much different. I would imagine that the majority of our servicemen (and women) are just decent, everyday people that do their best to do their jobs and get along without creating any hassle for themselves. I would bet (and the polls show) that most do not care if their workmates are gay or not, as long as they are not offensive and do their job. That is all I am trying to say. No army in history has ever kept gays out. They have always been there and always will be. You do not have to like it or condone it, but they are not going away. As long as they keep it to themselves I really could not care less what they do off duty. But they just better keep the hamsters off the base!
Report Post »C.ChristieJ.Bolton2012
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:15amI am in Baghdad, Iraq right now (are you? …) and I can tell you that we don’t need any more distractions form our mission. Distractions get people killed. It’s not worth lives so one or two troops can skip during PT instead of jogging.
Report Post »This decision should be made by congress (not some activist judge) after Iraq and Afghanistan operations are complete.
My .02 is that it’s fine the way it is and the article is written slightly misleading – “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a policy which has banned gays from openly serving in the United States military since 1993” – The way this sentence is written makes it seem like before 1993 it was ok to serve openly gay. It was not. Before 1993, “are you a homosexual” was a question that the recruiters asked forthright to an applicant and if he/she said yes then they were not allowed to join.
kryptonite
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:17amTrolltrainer,
Report Post »Sorry, the sexual assault comment was meant for you.
ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:24amWhat are you supposed to do?
The same think you, KRYPTONITE, do in real life. Return that special look and get busy with that wang!
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:31amDid putting large round things in his mouth affect Barney Frank’s inability to pronounce english words?
Report Post »Sounds like he was having pwobwhems
trolltrainer
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:33amKryptonite,
Then I do not get what you are saying. Do you mean what happens if a gay decided to assault me? It has not happened in fifty odd years and I have been around more than a few. But what if they tried? They would have to be pretty bad because I am 6′4″ 230lbs and none of it fat. I can still hold my own even at my age. But if I really had to defend myself I have my CCW and Florida has decent gun laws.
C.ChristieL…
Thank you for your service. No, I am not in the military. And I appreciate the job you are doing. But are you honestly distracted by other people’s personal sex lives? How many people have you met who skip during PT? But if you do then I suggest you scroll up and read the couple posts I wrote before the one you are replying to. I would not blame you for anything you might have to do for the good of your unit. Again, that is my whole point. There have always been queers in the military. The smart ones, the ones that survive, keep it quite and do their jobs. The ones that cause problems usually get what they deserve. I can guarantee you that you have contact with at least 1 gay in the normal course of your day. You might be aware of him, you probably are not,
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:39amTrolltrainer,
Report Post »I really do have to log out. But listen, these cases happened when the straight soldier was fast, fast asleep. Of course they woke up at some point. Don’t ask me when. I’m a freaking light sleeper. It wouldn’t happen to me.
trolltrainer
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:49amKryptonite,
I would want to see some verification of any case like that. But I do not doubt it has happened. I cannot see how, in a military unit, the ****** did not end up murdered. If not then it is sexual assault and I am sure charges were filed. But this is taking an isolated incident or two (maybe) and applying this behavior to all gays. I am sorry, most gays…most people…would not act this way. As a serviceman you stand a greater chance of getting shot in a freak accident than this, or being rolled by a druggie looking for a few bucks for their next rock…I am sorry, this just is not a rational argument, and really, is it even relevant to DADT as it sounds like the policy was in place when this happened.
But anyway…I am not going to get suckered into defending the queers, even though most of them are just ordinary people just like you except they prefer the same sex. But I do not want them to repeal DADT, I think it is a good policy that has worked. All I am saying here is that repealing it is not going to make any difference in the real world. Soldiers are not going to start wearing flowers and pink undies and dressing like Klinger on MASH…
thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:10amLord forgive them for they know not what they do!
This will NOT go well.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:11amcognitivedissonance,
Then you lack good logical thinking skills.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:15amcognitivedissonance,
What does the age of 15 have to do with it? If you were raised in a moral manner and you did your homework as an adult, then there is nothing childish about not liking the gay sexstyle choices.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:18am79USMC83,
Bravo! Your tax ideas are the only way we will get our congresscritters to stop spending our money like drunken sailors.
Money is what is feeding the monster so cut off the source of food and the monster dies.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:23amStronge,
You do know that the branches of military that don’t share front-line fox holes are the ones that are ok with this, right? And you understand why, right?
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 1:25amdps7215,
Yep.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 2:14amSTRONGE
You said:
“That right there is bigotry. Do you need me to explain exactly how it shows bigotry? The fact that you’re resistant to accepting muslims and “homos”. And accept them as what?
And what was that about my name? I don’t understand.”
I don‘t have to act like I’m not disgusted by homos and their practices nor do I have to act like I’m not disgusted by muslims and their practices.
And everybody who knows better knows what the hell “STRONGE” means.
It’s a **** way of saying strange.
Are you a **** by any chance?
Report Post »CopterDoctor
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 2:58amAs a 20+ year veteran I can tell you that a lot of social abnormalities exist in the military. They exist because they are not publicly known except through their own groups or when they mistakenly step out into the light, such as swingers for example. If DADT is repealed it will bring from the shadows to the forefront something that is in reality a social abnormality and place it in the faces of those who don’t except or condone that behavior. One way in particular of looking at it, is the common sight of soldiers returning from war zones who rush to their loved ones embrace and kiss after the long separation as it is commonly viewed on the nightly news. As for myself and my family I am not prepared to see other couples after they have embraced to move over to the friends spouse and repeat the process. It will all be enabled by our desensitizing when we grow accustomed to seeing same gender holding hands and kissing at these same ceremonies. It isn’t a social norm and only serves to destroy the family unit being condoned by our government. To use segregation as an argument is way off the mark. To each his own and keep it that way.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 3:30am@sinista mace
“I don‘t have to act like I’m not disgusted by homos and their practices nor do I have to act like I’m not disgusted by muslims and their practices.”
Fair enough. Just don‘t deny that you’re a bigot when your own words prove you are.
“And everybody who knows better knows what the hell “STRONGE” means.
It’s a **** way of saying strange.”
What? Where? Since when? I can honestly say I have no idea what you’re talking about.
“Are you a **** by any chance?”
Why, are you?
Report Post »ThinkAgain
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 3:37amAny soldier who would be beating up a soldier who‘s there to complete the mission and protect them is the one who’s lacking in character.
I do agree there’s going to be problems — but the military needs to turn their attention to the soldiers who would rape and beat their own. I read a Veterans Administration stat which said that over 48,000 of the 1.3 million female vets had experienced a sexual assault — and that that number was too low. How is it that the military has no problem keeping rapists in the military — but wants to keep gays out?
If I had my way, every soldier would contribute a DNA sample when they enlist — for identification of body parts and to put them on notice that they can be easily prosecuted if they dare rape one of the women who have signed up to serve.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 5:14amJust because I‘m disgusted by homos and their prectices and muslims and their practices don’t make me a bigot.
It makes you a idiot for not understanding the definition of bigottry.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexual orientation or gender.
I’m not obstinately or intolerantly devoted to my own opinions or prejudices towards homos and muslims, on the contrary, I listen to and have discussion with homos and muslims, and I feel they have a right to have their opinions, and I haven’t exhibited intolerance or animosity towards those of differing beliefs.
I don’t have a lack of toleration towards homos and muslims, I tolerate them just fine, doesn‘t mean I’m not disgusted by them.
Or are you being a bigot towards me based by not allowing me to have my opinion that differs from yours….
BTW, maybe I’m the only one who knows, I am a genius with an exceptional vocabulary, but STRONGE is a queer way of saying ‘strange” with a french accent, used by homos to refer to each other as…well..homos. I‘ve heard it used in sentences by some homos in a bus stop when referring to each other’s musty body odor also.
In a sentence: (BOY says to another boy) “Girl, you smell stronge”.
That’s my experience in hearing the word used by random homos while waiting for a bus in Public Square. I suppose I thought it was a common word used regularly by homos everywhere. Perhaps it is something Cleveland (more specifically, Lakewood) based.
All I know is that when I see or hear the word, my gaydar goes off.
Seeing as you are vehemently and vociferously defending homos tenaciously, it makes me wonder if you are a ****.
I’m not, are you, and if it doesn’t matter, then why not answer?
Because my gaydar is bleeping like crazy…
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:16amThe twin principles of Religion and Morality were once central to being an American Patriot.The corrupt House has refused to listen to Gen.Amos , USMC Commandant. This “change” risks maimed Marines who will be harmed because of this distraction. I agree with the Pentagon this “change” will “legalize sodomy on our military bases. And will cause problems with recruitment and retention.I served form 69-77 before DADT -and the ban on open homosexuality within the ranks was beneficial to everyone .Yes we had homosexuals but the law declaring homosexual behavior is not compatible with Military service reminded them their choice of behavior so indelible to their identity would not be tolerated. And that law passed in 1993 kept a lot of homosexuals from being hurt -or from hurting others.I will not support any mere politician who is so Immoral and Irreligious they support this harmful “change”
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:22amSeems to me the correct answer would be DADT but NO discharge of the soldier who is found out.
Also, has been proven that homosexuality is from genes and chromosomes beeing off kilter. It is by birth, not choice. You need only look at all of the families with gay kids all over the world. Not all of these kids have been abused, molested or ETC. in their lives. You have gays from rich families, poor families, middle families. White, black, brown, red, yellow skin color. You have 3 kids in a family but only one is gay. ETC ETC. You have male and female as gay.
If you look at it in a logical way, without the hate, you see that gay is from birth.
I have more faith in our military men and women to be soldiers. And to honor themselves and their fellow soldiers.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:31amDADT with no discharge has no reason to exist, what you are saying doesn’t even make sense.
Also, I would like to see someone give an argument against DADT that is based on actual reason, not religious morality, absurd supposition (friendly fire etc.), and outright bigotry.
Report Post »UPSETVET
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 7:37amSpeaking as a former Marine who served in combat in Vietnam I believe the repeal of DADT would be detrimental to our military forces. Personally, I believe gays or homosexuals should be banned from US military service.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 8:25amWhen fully clothed men “turn on” gay men then all hell will break loose when open gays are confronted with fully naked men and be able to take advantage of their proctected status as a gay. But the Dems hate the military anyway and this will help them even the score. They want chaos and weakness everywhere else so why not the military?
Report Post »ME
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 8:45am@cognitivedissonance
God calls homosexuality an abomination. Wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sin. I really don’t care what sin you or anyone else wants to commit not for me to judge (God will) but sex of any kind does not belong on the battlefield why is it an issue at all? I have never known a strait person to run around with a flags all over saying that they are straight. When was the last time a straight couple got in your face about there sexuality. I don’t want to know what, gays, sadomasochism, necrophiliacs, or zoophiles or any other pervert does with there time or who they are I would rather God judge them and I never have to know.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 8:57amI asked for logic and reason, not more religious arguments. If you never want to see or hear things you don‘t like may I suggest living in an isolated cave away from society because living within a society often involves seeing and hearing things you don’t agree with.
also, i find the way you portray gay people kind of unbelievable. You have to know at least a few people who are gay and I‘m sure their lives aren’t a constant gay pride parade.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:03am@sinista mace
“Just because I‘m disgusted by homos and their prectices and muslims and their practices don’t make me a bigot.”
It actually kinda does. Pretty much by definition.
tol·er·ance
–noun
1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Would you say that describes your attitude to homosexuals and Muslims? Fair? Objective? Permissive? Free from bigotry?
“It makes you a idiot for not understanding the definition of bigottry.”
I’ll gloss over “a idiot” and “bigottry”.
“A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexual orientation or gender.”
I refer you back to your reference to: “jamming the acceptance of muslims and homos down our throats”.
“I’m not obstinately or intolerantly devoted to my own opinions or prejudices towards homos and muslims, on the contrary, I listen to and have discussion with homos and muslims, and I feel they have a right to have their opinions, and I haven’t exhibited intolerance or animosity towards those of differing beliefs.”
Really? What do you think you’re doing here?
“I don’t have a lack of toleration towards homos and muslims, I tolerate them just fine, doesn‘t mean I’m not disgusted by them.”
Perhaps away from the safety of a computer screen you’re all sweetness and light and butter-wouldn’t-melt, but your words here belie this claim.
“Or are you being a bigot towards me based by not allowing me to have my opinion that differs from yours….”
You’re absolutely allowed to have an opinion that differs from mine. And I‘m absolutely allowed to call you out when you’re being bigoted.
“Seeing as you are vehemently and vociferously defending homos tenaciously, it makes me wonder if you are a ****.
I’m not, are you, and if it doesn’t matter, then why not answer?
Because my gaydar is bleeping like crazy…”
I don‘t answer because it doesn’t matter. If I told you I were straight, would that change the way you read my words? And if I said I were gay, what effect would that have? Does it matter if I’m male or female? Christian, atheist, or muslim? Black? White?
Report Post »Dukemaster
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:20amStronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 7:35pm
Damn, you people have a pretty low opinion of your own military if you really think they’ll beat and kill their comrades because they no longer have to hide their sexuality. Y‘know this isn’t even an issue in the rest of the world. The civilised world.
Look at your last two sentances.:Y‘know this isn’t even an issue in the rest of the world. The civilised world.
This is The United State of America. Not the rest of the world. In the words of YODA
Report Post »“That is why you FAIL.“ Ref” 1939-1945 for more info.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:25am**So what’s a guy supposed to do when another soldier gives you the look?**
The same thing you’d do with any other untoward sexual suggestion, you’d ask for the behavior to stop as you do not feel it is professional, and if it continues, you report it. This is already the standard in the military, and unwarranted unprofessional sexual misconduct is already dealt with (ask any guy who served with a woman).
I don‘t think you’ll see big “coming out” parties over this. Every homosexual person I served with in the military was competent and professional and I usually didn’t know they were homosexual until I was told by somebody else, who usually got it from some source that was intruding on the homosexual’s private life. One of the best unit sergeants I served with was a pretty “clearly homosexual” woman, who was crisp, professional, took no crap nor gave any crap, and who performed her duties honorably and meticulously.
They’re already there, they’ve always been there, they’ll always be there. Gays are not people to fear simply by the fact that they’re different. There are plenty of honorable gay people who wish to serve their nation and pay back the debt they feel they owe for their freedom, just as there are for the rest of us. Decriminalizing, so to speak, being gay is simply a way to keep them from being punished if, through various channels, it gets back to an intolerant CO that they’re gay I think.
Think about it, if you’re straight like most of us, can you imagine “hey, look at us, we’re straight!” parties and events sponsored to display our straightness, along with rampant sexual harassment, being tolerated in the military?
If free men and women wish to serve in an honorable and professional capacity in the military service, I say, good for them.
Report Post »ardua76
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:29am@ ‘sinista’
Because if the military can‘t discriminate on lifestyles that people can’t change, then how is it then lawful to discriminate against someone with a heart condition. That slope is too slippery to start down. We have a clause for discharging people from the military: “Incompatible with military life”. How are we to maintain our force if everyone has the RIGHT to joint the military? THIS IS A PRIVILEDGE. WE ARE AT WAR. LEAVE US ALONE TO DO OUR JOB! This is an issue for peace time, not when everyone is trying to make us do everything at once. Just like businessman can choose who to employ (until some racists abused that right and it was stolen), WE have the RIGHT to decide who is in our service, you DON’T have a right to serve . . .
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:47am@STRONGE
Actually, it doesn’t.
The definition of tolerance is not synonymous with the definition of acceptance.
I’m not being unfair towards your opinion, but you are being unfair with your opinion, because your opinion is not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law.
I’m not being unobjective towards your opinion, actually I‘m being objective because I’m expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as I perceive them without distortion by my personal feelings towards you, any prejudices I might harbor, or interpretations I choose. I’m also permitting you to live whatever sexual lifestyle you choose to live and have your opinion, therefor, I’m not being intolerant.
The same applies for your accusation of “bigot”.
I think I see where your mental breakdown occurs.
Acceptance is not synonymous with tolerance.
I tolerate you and your ilk daily.
I NEVER had to accept you.
I never agreed to experience homosexual flamboyantry in any situation, I never agreed to follow their process or place myself under their conditions (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit.
Seeing as you are vehemently and vociferously defending homos tenaciously, and additionally won‘t provide any additional information about yourself in order to give folks some better context and help people understand where your’e coming from, it becomes apparent that you are probably homosexual.
“If I told you I were straight, would that change the way you read my words? And if I said I were gay, what effect would that have? Does it matter if I’m male or female? Christian, atheist, or muslim? Black? White?”
Yes, those things do matter, because it provides additional context for people to draw an accurate conclusion. You don’t want somebody feeling like “Ok, I guess I could deal with homos and muslims in the military…”, and then they’re walking into the shower to Little Shop of Horrors, and all they hear is “Feed me, Seymore.”, or they’re going to bed or waking up or eating lunch and a guy whips out the rug puts on his beanie and start saying “Alahu Ackbar!” loudly while in the middle of a group of soldiers in enemy territory, all wired up on killing some muslim extremists, with loaded weapons at their disposal.
You’re going to have “friendly fire” incidents.
So feel gay and free, or whatever, but be prepared to deal with the not-so-apparent (to idiots) consequences.
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 9:49amI agree with you, Ardua76.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:15amI would be ok with the repeal if we add the death penalty for Pedophiles.
Report Post »That would end the debate and repubs could look good
http://www.franklinscandal.com/
But I am sure neither side wants to discuss Pedophilia in the congress.
TEIN
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:23amAre you going into the military to serve your country or serve your cause?? If the DADT get overturned, then I see gay activist joining the military to use it as a grandstand for the cause. If you want to serve the country in the military, then serve as an American, not a gay activist. After you have served then go and support your cause within the freedoms granted to you within this country.
Report Post »GayDem4Beck
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 11:05amI’m a little conflicted with this issue: In my humble opinion, if your in the military doing a great job and they happen to find out that you’re gay, you should NOT be kicked out just for being gay. Your private life is your private life. There’s also allot more bi/gays serving in the military today than anyone would ever guess. I know lots of people that are active and former military who hid the fact or came out after leaving the military. If people knew the real number of gays serving or served in the military, it might actually be a non issue today.
I also think that most gays wanting to join the military, ARE NOT, the half naked people that dance/prance around in the streets and on floats every gay pride. They may attend gay pride but they are not the people the media likes to put front and center on TV. In fact the prancing around in your face people are only a SMALL fraction of the gay population, they just get the most air time.
On the other hand, I don’t see any reason for blasting the fact that someone is gay and throwing it in the face of others, just to say look at me I’m gay and in the military. I myself would NOT want to serve with them.
{I know, I know, look at myself first and my screen name. This screen name is not to put it in anyone’s face, but to show everyone that not all gays support Obama or the Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Marxist that have infiltrated our way of life.} There are allies across the isle that you should embrace for the right reasons.
Report Post »JoeySocal
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 12:18pmThe get ready for friendly fire comments are insulting. Troops will die for each other. There is an unbreakable bond. However, when it comes to who goes through the door first to clear a building might be another story. Get ready for the discrimination suits.
Report Post »Lantern
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 2:46pmSinista, but they WANT you to know. They NEED to put it right in your face, have gay parades, and flaunt it around.
Report Post »Then there are the “normal” gay people who work, pay taxes, and keep what they do in the bedroom, in the bedroom.
I don’t have a problem with gays, I have a problem with people putting this in my face.
thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 5:33pmOokspay,
Now that’s funny!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 5:55pmAPatriotFirst,
“Also, has been proven that homosexuality is from genes and chromosomes beeing off kilter. It is by birth, not choice.”
Actually, this is NOT true. There are some examples of confusion at birth because the genes/chromosome stew being screwed up, but these cases are very low in number. The vast majority of homosexual activity is nothing more than a lifestyle choice, or what I call a ‘sexstyle’ choice.
I don’t go out of my way to associate with gays, but I also don’t go out of my way to not associate with them. They live in their world, I live in mine. The problem I have is that they want their immoral behavior to be accepted by everyone so they don’t have to feel guilty about doing what they do. Well I know what they do is immoral and I’m not willing to let them off so easy. Doing the right things is just that!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 5:58pmTEIN,
Perfect!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:09pmGayDem4Beck,
“Your private life is your private life.”
News flash… Not in the military!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »dps7215
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:40pm@Firebug
LOL…..
You make my side look bad…..I enjoy your point of view…..I agree with you at your core, you just come across wrong, and solidify the other side’s view that “the Right is full of ignorant bigots”. *Sigh*….we do need more people who think as simply and as easily as you. I love you man, you’re not weighed down by indoctrination by the left. Frankly, I envy you, I used to be in your shoes. Luckily, I still agree with your base cause. Death by 1,000 cuts my friend. Look up the reference, we let this pass, and Al-Qaida wins once again.
Report Post »sorocialism
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 6:48pmWhy is it so important to the gay community that everyone else knows that they are gay? I really don’t think that they need to “serve openly”. DADT allows gays to serve, it just prevents the advertisement of their sexual orientation to all the people they shower next to. (I really wouldn’t want to shower with another guy that may be sexually attracted to me.)
The next problem Gay male Bathrooms/Gay Female Bathrooms Straight Male bathrooms/straight female bathrooms……or will it all go “Co-ed” if so, active duty pregnancy may* rise.
Report Post »ptofaim
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 8:28pmThe whole idea that , we here and we are queer , get used it , makes me wanna puke ! First , I don’t care about ones sextual preference , Secondly , I don’t want hear about these people being proud ofthier sextual preference ! If you want to serve this country , good for you ! Stop shoving your sextual preference on the public , I , for one , don’t want to know !!!!
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 10:16pm@sinista mace
If I might quote you:
“A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexual orientation or gender.”
tol·er·ance – noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Would you really say your attitude towards people whose opinions, practices, race, and religion are different from your own are fair, objective and permissive? Bear in mind you said “I‘m disgusted by homos and their prectices and muslims and their practices”. Bear in mind that you have an issue with having “acceptance of homos and muslims” jammed down your throat. Think of how someone who were gay or Muslim might feel on reading those words. Do you think they’d find you to be fair and objective?
Let me keep this simple, in words that offer no room for confusion or semantic games. The fact that you talk of ‘accepting’ homosexuals and muslims makes you a bigot. This isn’t an issue for people who aren’t bigoted.
“I’m not being unfair towards your opinion, but you are being unfair with your opinion, because your opinion is not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law.”
Are you quoting a thesaurus? No, not a thesaurus, that’s straight from dictionary.com!
And I’m not being unfair in my opinion, I’m quoting your words back at you to demonstrate that you’re displaying bigotry. If you’re not a bigot, you might want to rethink how you express yourself.
“I’m not being unobjective towards your opinion, actually I‘m being objective because I’m expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as I perceive them without distortion by my personal feelings towards you, any prejudices I might harbor, or interpretations I choose. “
Is this dictionary.com again?
“I’m also permitting you to live whatever sexual lifestyle you choose to live and have your opinion, therefor, I’m not being intolerant.”
Wrong form of tolerance. In this context, we’re not using tolerant in the sense of tolerating pain. The fact that you don’t go around killing people who are different doesn’t make you tolerant.
Would you rather you lived in a world (or at least a country) without homosexuals and Muslims?
“The same applies for your accusation of “bigot”.
I think I see where your mental breakdown occurs.
Acceptance is not synonymous with tolerance.
I tolerate you and your ilk daily.”
My mental breakdown? Me and my ilk? And what is my ilk, pray tell?
Oh, and tolerance actually IS a synonym of acceptance (this is from thesaurus.com).
Main Entry: tolerance
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: open-mindedness
Synonyms: acceptance, altruism, benevolence, charitableness, charity, clemency, compassion, endurance, generousness, good will, grace, humanity, kindness, leniency, lenity, mercy, patience, sensitivity, sympathy, toleration, understanding
Antonyms: bias, bigotry, disapproval, intolerance, prejudice
“I never agreed to experience homosexual flamboyantry in any situation, I never agreed to follow their process or place myself under their conditions (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit.”
I don’t recall anyone asking you to do so. I’d be intrigued to know how you’d define “homosexual flamboyantry (sic)”, though. Because that sounds potentially pretty intolerant. Would 2 men kissing count? What about a peck on the cheek? Or holding hands? Or are you just opposed to Gay Pride parades? What about 2 men living together, would that make you uncomfortable?
“Seeing as you are vehemently and vociferously defending homos tenaciously, and additionally won‘t provide any additional information about yourself in order to give folks some better context and help people understand where your’e coming from, it becomes apparent that you are probably homosexual.”
Does it really? It’s interesting how you jump to conclusions like that.
OK, so if I told you I’m a straight, white male, how would that affect the way you read my words?
“You don’t want somebody feeling like “Ok, I guess I could deal with homos and muslims in the military…”, and then they’re walking into the shower to Little Shop of Horrors, and all they hear is “Feed me, Seymore.”, or they’re going to bed or waking up or eating lunch and a guy whips out the rug puts on his beanie and start saying “Alahu Ackbar!” loudly while in the middle of a group of soldiers in enemy territory, all wired up on killing some muslim extremists, with loaded weapons at their disposal.
You’re going to have “friendly fire” incidents.
So feel gay and free, or whatever, but be prepared to deal with the not-so-apparent (to idiots) consequences.”
What? Do you really have such a low opinion of the professionalism of your military that you think any of the above scenarios would happen? And do you really think your troops are a bunch of murderers? Because that kinda seems to be what you’re saying.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 2:41amTrolltrainer,
Sorry I could not reply sooner, I had a hectic day. Hope you check back.
No, it was not an isolated incident (see website below). If you read my initial post, my challenge to you (and others) was to explain why same-sex sexual assault is on the rise. Considering the percentage of gays in the military, it is a disturbing trend, and one which should be looked into. Yes, it happened when DADT was in place, but my point is that gays who are in the military for the wrong reasons seem to be getting more brazen, and repealing DADT will only make things worse.
I don’t have a problem with gays who mind their own business. However, cases of same-sex sexual assault in the military are especially egregious. A soldier who is sexually assaulted will not only have to live with the shame, but also with the anger and frustration of having been unable to defend himself properly because of his military status (ironic, isn’t it?). None of our soldiers should be at risk of being sexually assaulted by one of their own. Instead of catering to dissolute liberals, the military should focus on better ways to safeguard the bodily integrity of our troops while on base.
Report Post »http://www.scribd.com/doc/32006286/Homosexual-Assault-in-the-Military
kryptonite
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 4:24amGhost,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I invite you to check the website I sent Trolltrainer.
True to your military training you supplied a Manual course of action in case of harassment. That was exactly the response I did not want to elicit. I wanted supporters of repealing DADT to put themselves in a straight soldier’s shoes and vicariously live the situation. We often forget that soldiers are not zombies, so even though there is a code of conduct, situations and reactions to them will vary greatly.
Have you noticed that we never get to hear a straight soldier recount how he felt harassed, confused, bewildered, distracted, angry, etc., when a gay buddy decided to hit on him? All the media ever sends our way are the heart-wrenching stories of gays pining away in the military.
I feel this debate is stacked against conservatives and straights, as per usual. How is it that gays refuse to compromise and accept separate living quarters? That would resolve some of the major concerns voiced by opponents of DADT repeal. Yet gays adamantly refuse to segregate by gender in the same manner that straights segregate by sex. To me that signals both a hidden agenda to destabilize the military and our war efforts, as well as a very selfish and unreasonable attitude. Liberals are taking away our freedoms, one by one. I am surprised that you are OK with them stripping away yet another cherished right. Don’t you think straight soldiers have a right to privacy?
Report Post »Sinista Mace
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 1:06pm@STRONGE
You said:
“Would you really say your attitude towards people whose opinions, practices, race, and religion are different from your own are fair, objective and permissive?”
My attitude is not a criteria for the definition of a bigot. I can have whatever attitude I want towards homosexuals or muslims.
I can express disgust towards their lifestyles without you trying to claim that I’m intolerant or a bigot, the fact is, I’m not being intolerant, but you’re being intolerant towards my expression of my opinion.
I don’t really care what homos or muslims think about my opinion of their practices. It’s my prerogative, and I’m entitled to my opinion, without being called intolerant or a bigot, which I am not.
You said:
“The fact that you talk of ‘accepting’ homosexuals and muslims makes you a bigot. This isn’t an issue for people who aren’t bigoted.”
You keep making the false assertion that acceptance is synonymous with tolerance. It is not.
“Are you quoting a thesaurus? No, not a thesaurus, that’s straight from dictionary.com!”
That’s the point, your delusional interpretation of the definition of the word bigot doesn’t stand up to the wording of the definition.
Dicitonaries are a wonderful thing, when you know how to use them.
I don’t think you have the right to determine in what context the word tolerance is used. In this specific case, tolerance is used in the strict definition of the word and is used to strictly define another word (bigot).
Synonyms are different words with almost identical or similar meanings. They are not words that are 100% identical with the same definition.
Your folly is trying to use a thesaurus to define a word. Tolerance is synonymous with acceptance, but acceptance is NOT synonymous with tolerance, and they have strictly defined meanings which set them apart.
From your own source, find me the word “tolerate”, “tolerant”, or “tolerance” on this page, it doesn’t exist!
http://thesaurus.com/browse/acceptance
You said:
“Would you rather you lived in a world (or at least a country) without homosexuals and Muslims?”
Doesn’t matter, I’m living in this world.
You said:
“My mental breakdown? Me and my ilk? And what is my ilk, pray tell?”
Your mental breakdown: Acceptance is not synonymous with tolerance.
your Ilk: People who try to twist the definition of words to support their weak arguments.
You said:
“I don’t recall anyone asking you to do so. I’d be intrigued to know how you’d define “homosexual flamboyantry (sic)”, though. Because that sounds potentially pretty intolerant. Would 2 men kissing count? What about a peck on the cheek? Or holding hands? Or are you just opposed to Gay Pride parades? What about 2 men living together, would that make you uncomfortable?”
When you conflate two different words and use them to support your argument, and call me a bigot for not “accepting” homos and muslims, then yea, you aren’t asking me to do so, you’re demanding that I do so.
And yes, that type of homosexual flamboyantry would indeed make me feel awkward, as it ought to, because it is abnormal.
“OK, so if I told you I’m a straight, white male, how would that affect the way you read my words?”
After reading your posts, I would come to the conclusion that you’re probably lying, and that you‘re probably a flaming flamboyant homosexual decieving the forum into thinking you’re an objective person with a legitimate interest, by concealing your true demographic information.
You said:
“What? Do you really have such a low opinion of the professionalism of your military that you think any of the above scenarios would happen? And do you really think your troops are a bunch of murderers? Because that kinda seems to be what you’re saying.”
Absolutely not. I have a great deal of confidence in 18-24 yr old men who’re away from their families fighting for American values, who haven’t been laid in months, watching two homos kiss it up and skip around, or while they’re in the middle of enemy territory, and one of the dudes next to them are saying muslim prayers and stuff while they’re out there shooting muslim extremists.
I’m TOTALLY convinced, NOTHING will happen.
Report Post »RiverratJG
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 3:04pmI am confused. I thought the military was the purview of the President, i.e. he is the commander in chief. By what constitutional authority does congress have to tell the president how to run the military?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 17, 2010 at 10:18pm@sinista mace
“I can express disgust towards their lifestyles without you trying to claim that I’m intolerant or a bigot, the fact is, I’m not being intolerant, but you’re being intolerant towards my expression of my opinion.”
What would you call someone who is disgusted by black people?
“You keep making the false assertion that acceptance is synonymous with tolerance. It is not.”
But your own definition of bigot was ”a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexual orientation or gender.” You’re the one who brought tolerance into this. And the problem isn’t acceptance, it’s the resistance to it that makes you bigoted.
tol·er·ance – noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Again, does this describe your position with regard to homosexuals and Muslims? Fair, objective, and permissive?
Please explain to me what behaviour you feel you would need to demonstrate in order to be accurately described as a bigot.
“OK, so if I told you I’m a straight, white male, how would that affect the way you read my words?”
After reading your posts, I would come to the conclusion that you’re probably lying, and that you‘re probably a flaming flamboyant homosexual decieving the forum into thinking you’re an objective person with a legitimate interest, by concealing your true demographic information.”
I guess you’re not as smart as you think you are, then.
Report Post »