In his "analysis" of Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate, Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s "The Daily Show" noted that none of the 10 candidates spoke up when asked whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military. Not one — despite the current recruitment challenges, a 2006 Pew Research Center pollindicating that 60 percent of Americans support the idea, and a report last month that Britain has had no significant problems since accepting gays in its military in 2000.
"But who needs gay when you’ve got God?" Stewart said, introducing a montage of debaters’ references to God including one from Kansas’ Sam Brownback: "There’s a God of the universe that loves us very much."
"As a friend," Stewart added.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
170 Comments
As homosexuals are part of our society, the ability to participate as members of the Armed Forces should not be impeded.
Strict standards already exist in the military for inappropriate sexual behavior. To have these regulations apply to both heterosexual and homosexuals would not be much of a task.
In fact, they could remove reference to sex as a standard and use the new standards as responsible and lawful behavior.
Stewart then went on to add…”we honor those hero’s that fight in the war against terror….as long as they are not gay”.
Kinda sums up the way the right wingers think….not sending my kid to fight, but I don’t want that gay to fight either.
“we don’t get our rights because we are “gay or women or minorities”, we get our rights as individuals”- Ron Paul
“Ron Paul said he doesn’t think about the policies as they pertain to groups, people are not groups people are themselves individuals and what group you say they belong to doesn’t define them.”
“If homosexual behavior disrupts the military it should be removed and if heterosexual behavior disrupts the military it too should be removed.”charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/ron-paul-and-gay-rights/
Now having served, I don’t think I would like to share a barracks room with an openly gay male. But the last statement above kind of covers that don’t you think?
Mike,The above statement came from a ‘right winger’. You might do well to take his ‘people are not groups’ idea to heart. I will watch how I lump people together as well.
Sol,
Please don’t conflate “homosexual behavior” with “openly gay.” Gay and lesbian Americans in our armed forces are just as concerned with serving our nation as straight Americans. No one signs up for the sex.
Tom,”homosexual behavior” with “openly gay.”
what is the difference?
Maybe they should have posed their “24″ scenario around the gay issue. Terrorists are going to activate a nuclear bomb in a major city and the only person who can stop them is a gay person in the military. Republican candidates, what do you do? Do you give him an honorable or dishonorable discharge?
The Republican party has already proven that they care more about their stupid fundamentalist ideology rather than the safety of the American people when they fired the gay Arabic translators.
Sol: “Tom,
“homosexual behavior” with “openly gay.”
what is the difference?”
Maybe I should leave this alone and let Tom respond to this, but I will take a shot.
Say a male soldier in Iraq is calling his wife, or interacting with his wife on webcam. Or he proudly shows a picture of his wife and children to his fellow soldiers. Are those behaviors “heterosexual” behaviors? The behaviors indicate that the man is in a monogamous straight relationship, but they are not in themselves SEXUAL.
Now change the “wife” to “husband” or “partner”, and consider the same questions. The behaviors indicate that the man is in a monogamous gay relationship, but they are not in themselves SEXUAL.
Was this what you were meaning Tom?
Bravo Doug. Bravo!
Homosexual behavior is doing the Rump Ranger under the covers.Openly gay is without the covers.Class dismissed.
Agnostic,
Close enough ;)
Sol,
Let’s say you and I were to go have a beer in the local blues joint. You know I’m gay. Like an adult, I’m able to keep my hands to myself. Where’s the “homosexual behavior”?
“Where’s the “homosexual behavior”?”
If you act like one of the guys on “Will and Grace”, it would be homosexual behavior.If you act like the other guy on “Will and Grace”, it wouldn’t be.
I guess that doesn’t address the openly gay part.
Fleettwood,
Nice job of stereotyping.
:::huge effin’ eyeroll:::
You know I’m gay.Posted by: Tom | June 07, 2007 at 02:50 PM
I guess that doesn’t address the openly gay part.Posted by: SolDevVB | June 07, 2007 at 02:53 PM
What more do you WANT???
“Nice job of stereotyping.”
Actually, it was perfect. Some gays act like the one guy, some like the other.Do you deny that?
What about John Edward’s hate towards gays. The guy is an admitted homophobe.
Fleettwood,
You’re implying that all men who are flamboyant are engaging in “homosexual behavior” while those are aren’t, aren’t. It’s stereotyping, pure and simple.
“What about John Edward’s hate towards gays. The guy is an admitted homophobe.”
Huh?
I assume that you have something to back that up with, Joe. I am not a John Edwards fan, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he is homophobic.
“It’s stereotyping, pure and simple.”
I am so confused. If a guy acts “flamboyant”, it’s sterotyping to think he’s gay?Gaydar goes off with the one guy on Will, but it doesn’t go off with the other guy.One guy you guess is gay from the first hello, the other wouldn’t be known unless he told you.A little help here!
Sure WSClark
http://washblade.com/2007/6-1/view/editorial/10677.cfm
“I assume that you have something to back that up with, Joe.”
He does.
Jeez, I would be more concerned with the guy that acts like Studly McAction than I would with a gay man or woman.
“Jeez, I would be more concerned with the guy that acts like Studly McAction than I would with a gay man or woman.”
We already knew that, clark.I do like the name, though.
HAHAHAHA
WS Net Nanny, so worried about gay bashing. When one of ‘his own’ is outed has homophobic… aaawwwww. Warm and fuzzies.
Clark = Double Standards Monkey
“He does.” Shut up Fleet, Joe is capable of an intelligent conversation, you’re not.
Joe, if what Schrum says is true, I would like to see Edwards asked that question directly during the next debate. If he can’t support gay rights, or if he is not capable of answering the question directly, he should drop out of the race.
I have other reasons for not wanting to see Edwards get the nomination – chiefly, he and his running mate ran the worst presidential campaign in modern history in 2004. He doesn’t get another chance. Once a loser, always a loser.
Thanks for the info……
Fleettwood,
I’ve met men who are considered flamboyant and/or effeminate, yet are as heterosexual as the day is long. I’ve met men who are 100% exclusively homosexual whose masculinity is beyond doubt or question. The stereotypes DON’T WORK.
Sorry.
You can shut up anytime, Fleet.
“You can shut up anytime, Fleet.”
That’s not nice, ws. You are a mean monkey.
Just when you think “Fleettwood” has moved beyond the pale, he astounds me yet again.
“Fleet,” your problem isn’t with homosexuals, your problem is with sissies.
I know several heterosexual men with solid marriages and kids who — imagine this! — don’t like NFL football or NASCAR races! One likes opera, another runs a flower shop, still another is a fantastic cook. You, “Fleettwood,” obviously think you are God’s gift to homosexual men and think my less-than-macho friends would just love to entice you into a night of sucking and butt-f*cking. Why’s that? Perhaps because you’re just so damned attractive to homosexual men. Or sissies.
I’ve pretty much operated under the belief that it’s no business of mine what a consenting adult does in bed unless I’m in bed with them.
You, “Fleettwood,” must spend a lot of your time imagining what it would be like to share a love bed with homosexuals. Who knows? Try it, you might like it!
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? You’re horribly afraid you might like it. Of course, your attraction wouldn’t be to skinny, thin-wristed designers who know the lyrics of several Broadway shows. No, you’d go for he-man body-builders who *look* and *talk* and *act* like a man!
(I’m not sure about the details, but I suspect that makes you a “bottom.”)
If you’ve ever belonged to a gym, or have been in a team locker room, or have participated in a Physical Education class in school, the odds are slam-dunk you’ve been in a communal shower with someone who’s gay. Did they butt-f*ck you, “Fleettwood?” Why not? Aren’t you attractive enough? Or is it possible that they’re not interested in you?
Consider a parllel universe with unisex shower rooms. Are you telling us, “Fleettwood” that you’d hop on any female form that emerged from the communal shower? Or do you fantasize that every woman would see your masculine magnificance and insist on sexual congress?
Keep dreaming, “Fleettwood.”
Perhaps your dream will come true.
Frankly, when DADT was proposed and put into place, I thought it was the right choice, in that homosexuals openly serving in the close confines of military service would cause unit cohesion issues and be disruptive.
I’ve concluded I was wrong. The experience of our allies tells me I was wrong, for one thing.
Behavior matters. That is true no matter the sexual orientation of the soldier. Some gays will be disruptive or a problem, buy “hitting” on others inappropriately or sexualizing situations. But that is certianly true of straights too, in a military that is more and more co-ed. And that behavior is no less disruptive.
We could go back to an all-male, all straight combat service, like we once had (or more realistically, liked to believe we had). But that’s long gone, will not be back, and not only was always an illusion, but one which excluded a lot of talent in the name of an illusory “esprit de corp.” So that’s out.
Whether we think homosexual behavior is “wrong” or a sin isn’t the point, and doesn’t matter. One is entitled to that belief, of course; personally, I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin (and no, that’s not subject to debate – it’s not my call to make). So is adultery, but we don’t exclude adulterors. And if we exclude sinners in general, NO ONE, quite literally, will serve.
The fact is we don’t get to set our own moral judgements into law. There is no rational legal justification for gays to be not be fully part of the military, just as there is no justification for gays to not be fully a part of society at large.
So here we are. While DADT was an improvement over the previous rigid policy, it’s time for it to go.
Just when you think “Fleettwood” has moved beyond the pale, he astounds me yet again.
“Fleet,” your problem isn’t with homosexuals, your problem is with sissies.
I know several heterosexual men with solid marriages and kids who — imagine this! — don’t like NFL football or NASCAR races! One likes opera, another runs a flower shop, still another is a fantastic cook. You, “Fleettwood,” obviously think you are God’s gift to homosexual men and think my less-than-macho friends would just love to entice you into a night of sucking and butt-f*cking. Why’s that? Perhaps because you’re just so damned attractive to homosexual men. Or sissies.
I’ve pretty much operated under the belief that it’s no business of mine what a consenting adult does in bed unless I’m in bed with them.
You, “Fleettwood,” must spend a lot of your time imagining what it would be like to share a love bed with homosexuals. Who knows? Try it, you might like it!
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? You’re horribly afraid you might like it. Of course, your attraction wouldn’t be to skinny, thin-wristed designers who know the lyrics of several Broadway shows. No, you’d go for he-man body-builders who *look* and *talk* and *act* like a man!
(I’m not sure about the details, but I suspect that makes you a “bottom.”)
If you’ve ever belonged to a gym, or have been in a team locker room, or have participated in a Physical Education class in school, the odds are slam-dunk you’ve been in a communal shower with someone who’s gay. Did they butt-f*ck you, “Fleettwood?” Why not? Aren’t you attractive enough? Or is it possible that they’re not interested in you?
Consider a parllel universe with unisex shower rooms. Are you telling us, “Fleettwood” that you’d hop on any female form that emerged from the communal shower? Or do you fantasize that every woman would see your masculine magnificance and insist on sexual congress?
Keep dreaming, “Fleettwood.”
Perhaps your dream will come true.
My verify comment entry code was:clarksuxWhat are the odds of that?
fleettwood:
Shut up.
gmc- F*ck You
GMC,
Thank you for your 4:07 post.
You are certainly right that the ranks of the military would be quite thin if all sinners were banned, GMC!
Longtimeposter,
I think you nailed it.
GMC – good ideas above. I have no problem being around a guy who is gay as long as he keeps his hands to himself (DUH!). The same thing I am sure applies to the women I work with; they tolerate me as long as I keep my hands to myself.
I heard a good one on this topic long ago: I don’t care if he is straight or not as long as he can SHOOT straight!
Fleetwood-
There have been times you made some sort of sense. This is not one of those times. You would be wise to just shut up.
fleet-
Not even if you beg.
littlejohn-Below me
Fleettwood-
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! You just revealed yourself to what you really want. I told you it was better if you had just shut up. ANd no, sorry, not interested
Ben,
There’s an incident where I was grabbed at in a work situation by another guy. He apparently thought that since my partner didn’t happen to be in the room at the moment, that made me “fair game.” He learned an unfortunate lesson that day.
The fact is, no one likes to be sexually harassed at work, and it doesn’t matter what sexual orientation you are, or the orientation of the harasser. Some people are predators, plain and simple.
The original point was brought up by Joe Williams, and that was John Edwards “issues” with gays. To go back to that. On the off chance that Edwards could get the nomination, I would want o know what he REALLY thought about gays and gay rights.
Just as I would want to know ANY candidates position on issues of discrimination and equal rights, it would be important to have those things out in the open.
I don’t care if Edwards is a Democrat – I will not vote for someone that approves, tacitly or actively, of discrimination.
And, again, thanks to Joe for the link.
Mr. Edwards has some questions to answer.
Actually, it’s the heterosexual soldiers who have fathered illegitimate kids all over the world and refuse to be responsible for them. They’re the ones who traditionally consider rape the spoils of war. They should be kept out of the military too!With a military that excludes heterosexuals and homosexuals, we just might have to sharpen our diplomatic skills.
Jeez, Jed, if we exclude heterosexuals and homosexuals, the only folks in the military would be Michael Jackson and Richard Simmons.
Tom – agreed 100%.
“Don’t ask- Don’t tell” seems to have worked well. I don’t know for sure, not being in the military.
But the military’s purpose is to defend this nation. It is not a social conscience experiment. Anything that could impede it’s efficiency should be avoided. Thus, I support the current compromise.
WS,Wouldn’t that be enough to scare any enemy half to death?
Thank you, GMC70, for bringing the voice of reason.
There is a bizarre assumption that homosexuals will somehow be less able to control themselves than heterosexuals. It would seem that appropriate military justice for offenders of sexual code would sove the problem for all.
When DADT was first installed I remember my dad relating having this same converstaion with an ex-military fellow at the office. When the ex-military ran out of logical arguments he concluded, “Well, I just don’t want them in my army.”
Outlander,
Under DADT, the discharges for homosexuality have ranged between 800 and 1300 per year. This isn’t for people having sex in the barracks, either. It’s for things as simple as marching (out of uniform) in a gay pride parade, receiving a love letter from one’s partner while deployed overseas, or being “outed” by a fellow servicemember with an ax to grind. These are real examples, not made-up scenarios.
DADT “works” only if you think people’s lives should be torn apart, that our military readiness should be sacrificed, for an outdated policy.
Here’s an interesting tidbit: The people in power who oppose gay and lesbian American’s service say it affects unit cohesion on the battlefield. But do you know that if you’re outed while in-theater, the DoD has you complete your deployment? You’re not discharged until your regular rotation back to the states.
DADT is founded on a lie.
…As if somehow it was HIS army at all.
I’ve said all I think I need to, except one thing. There has been a poster here in the past who has reveled in charging those who believe homosexuality to be a sin as “hating” gays. If it’s not clear, there is simply no substance to that association.
We are ALL sinners; there’s no heirarchy of sins that I’m aware of. I’m no less guilty than anyone, and more so than most (like Paul, I’d consider myself foremost among sinners), and am in no position to hate anyone because of a sin.
In fact, the hatred of anyone, whether gay, straight, etc. is in itself sin. That’s not hard to figure out. As has been said, the two fundamantals of Christianity are 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart; and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. All else flows from that.
But, if you’re reading along, we love you anyway, KFG.
GMC,
The loudest voices proclaiming gay and lesbian Americans as sinners are usually those of people who really, truly, absolutely hate us. It’s become a Really Big Button for many of us; push it and off we go.
I think, however, that people like you and others who believe as you aren’t saying that to push our buttons. If you were, you could never have written the 4:07 post.
“DADT is founded on a lie.”
You are absolutely correct, Tom. I marvel at the thought process behind discharging Arabic translators because the are gay. If memory serves, there have been 58 discharged since 2001, despite having been trained in Arabic by the military.
Now, if you ask me, I would much rather have a gay translator protecting this country by deciphering transmission from al Qaeda than to have no translator at all.
The military, however, sees it differently.
Damn – that must be why they call it Military Intelligence.
If I knew a gay gay in the military, why i would…..I would…..I would…Thank him for his service. And maybe buy him a beer if the opportunity presented itself.
WS,
Thousands of gay and lesbian men and women are, at this minutes, serving openly. Their CO’s know, their non-coms know, their buddies in their units know. DADT is arbitrarily enforced and arbitrarily observed. It all depends on who your non-coms and CO’s are.
Oh, and one more thing. Recruiters _right here in Wichita_ are knowingly letting gay kids enlist. One young man told me that he went into one of the Wichita recruiting offices, filled out the forms, and told the recruiter he’s gay. The recruiter just kept pretending he didn’t hear what the kid was telling him. This isn’t an isolated incident, either.
LITTLEJOHN! TRAITOR! UN-AMERICAN!!! SOVIET SPY!!! YOU’RE JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!
And now, a return to sanity, currently in progress.
Gay men have been in the military forever. Some openly. Nobody cared, at least when i was in. I think civilians on both sides care more than the soldiers themselves
“This isn’t an isolated incident, either.”
It’s a bit like it was back in the Sixties, Tom. They really don’t care, unless someone has a personal agenda – then it matters.
To paraphrase the Grrl, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay, unless it does.
Sad.
WS:
I’d agree, with one minor nit to pic. It’s not the military’s policy, it’s Congress’ policy. Congress has constitutional authority to set that policy, and did so. DADT was a compromise engineered by the Clinton administration, passed by law as a lessening of the previous absolute ban on gays.
So don’t blame the military for it. They have the policy that was imposed on them. As individuals, I have no doubt that members of the services’ opinions run the gamut, just as ours do outside the military. But opinions are not law. The law is this policy, and they are bound by that policy.
In what I do, I am in the position from time to time of prosecuting cases I don’t agree with. While I do have discretion, in my opinion that discretion does not reach to refusing to enforce a law I don’t like. My job is not to rewrite what the legislature did, but to prosecute cases under the law. The military is in the same position.
And why wait for ‘08? Congress can change the policy now. I doubt Bush would veto it; he’s vetoed almost nothing else, and it plays into the “compassionate conservative” image he ran on. He doesn’t need the fundamantalist right that sees this issue as defining anymore.
In short, your party’s in control on this one. Pass it now.
“In short, your party’s in control on this one. Pass it now.”
Good idea, GMC. I’ll write my Congressman. Whoops, that would be Tiahrt and he hates gay rights.
Crap, I’ll write Boyda and Moore.
In all seriousness, you are correct, GMC and the Dems should do something about it.
Bush will veto it, however, he is going to veto the stem cell funding bill, so he is still playing to the base.
I wish it was as easy as just getting Congress to do the right thing. Sometimes the damned Democrats tick me off even more so than the Republicans.
Stem bill? Didn’t you here the news from Australia about using stem cells? It puts the embryonic stem cell folks out of business.
Walk on by……………………..
Homosexual acts were wrong and always will be wrong. It doesn’t depend on what liberals feel about it. What is sad is that homosexuals believe liberals and when they have to face the consequences, they will blame religion for all the problems they face. It is the liberals who lied in the first place.Before this liberals lied to people telling sex before marriage is okay. And when unwanted pregnancies happen, they have to kill the child. So the liberals said killing children is okay and my word have the liberals killed millions, not only here but around the world.Actions have consequences that have to be borne. There will be consequences for wrong actions, I hope people don’t blindly listen to liberals. They are never happy and will not allow others to be happy.
“They are never happy and will not allow others to be happy.”
Oh, bullshit. That is today’s nomination for the Dumbest Post of the Day.
Congratulations – you beat out Fleet in a close vote.
Damn, I am a liberal, quite happy, thank you, and I really, really, really want other people to be happy also.
Let’s start by not discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.
Sodomites have enough to deal with, living a life of disease, degradation, and shame, without being shot at and blown up.
Jeez, I would have thought better of you Parkay, slamming sodomites like that.
Of course, you are aware that sodomy is not just for gays, right? Sodomy includes any non-genital sexual relations, such as oral sex between heterosexuals.
Are you down on oral sex, too, Parkay?
(Pun, however bad, is intended.)
Yes, WSClark is ambidextrous, he can play bed circus puppet all night long with either hand while discussing gay issues.
Foolish pride, is all that he has left, so let him hide, the tears and the sadness we gave him, when we said goodbye, so walk on by……….
“As homosexuals are part of our society, the ability to participate as members of the Armed Forces should not be impeded.”No way, i have to take a look outside, there has to be pigs flying. Repub said something that actually makes sense and warrants an agreement. Keep up the good work there repub, it wasn’t hard, you lived through it and really wasn’t that painfull now, was it?
Bill Clinton was a coward on this issue and his wife will be too. That is why we need somebody like Obama who has the guts to order the military to accept all applicants without regard to sexual orientation. If he is sworn into office at noon, by 12:05 PM this should be the law. It doesn’t require Congress to enact.
First Timer, my viewpoint on the matter has never changed about Homosexuals being allowed unimpeded into the Military.
Who else would we send if we have to capture “Brokeback Mountain” from the Canadians?
“Gay men have been in the military forever. Some openly. Nobody cared, at least when i was in. I think civilians on both sides care more than the soldiers themselves”
They certainly do in the USAF but Air Force people don’t care about it. It is not important to them. Marines might be a bit more hostile to the idea but I would rather be in a foxhole with a queer than a Christian Fundamentalist nutcase anyday!
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in March 2006 showed that 60% favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, with 32% opposed. [1] Over recent years, while the American public has begun to favor the idea of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, the military remains largely opposed.
An Army Times poll of military members only found 25% in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
Oh sorry. This is from Wikipedia article on DA-DT.
In this country CIVILIANS tell the military what to do and not vice versa. If it is the policy of the United States not to discriminate then members of the military have no choice but to accept it. They also didn’t want blacks in there at one time either.
The military is a culture in and of itself. It is not a reflection of civilian life. Nor should it be.
The military justice system is actually a very good, fair system.
The problem with any justice system is that it is administered my people that bring their own preconcieved notions and biases to it. that being said the military system has many safeguards to protect the individual.
It would not be easy for congress to fix the ‘gay problem’ with the UCMJ. Sorry.
Most gays before DADT were discharged under Article 83, Fraudulent Enlistment. Before DADT you signed a paper at your enlistment that swore you weren’t gay or ever had a homosexual experience. If you later were determined to be ‘gay’ it was easier to get rid of you by convicting you of lying at your enlistment than proving you had done something disgusting.
To allow homosexuals to serve in the military the UCMJ would have to be overhauled in a major way. It would have to be done by congress, the president doesn’t have the authority to change it. That’s why DADT is such a cruel, political joke.
I’ve served on many submarines, and I know that we had a few gays on every one of them. I didn’t care. When you are on a submarine every man has one or two primary duties and several colateral duties. If you did your job and relieved the watch on time I loved you. If not, I and others would systematically work to get rid of your sorry as. Sexual orientation had nothing to do with it.
Hank
Don’t ask! Don’t tell!
Hank – well put! Like I said above – all I ask is they can shoot straight! (Or in your case whatever it is you do in that tin can!)
Kind of like where I work now – your orientation, religion, politics are a heck of a lot less important than your competance and work ethic.
Ah now I know Parkay is one of the Phelp’s clan.
Joe, this is why you’re not a liberal. Liberals don’t support ‘don’t ask, don’t tell”.
Oh ok!
So is it Ask and Tell?
John, do you live in the real world? Liberals do, that’s why we say ‘we know this happens regardless of the efforts to regulate it, so since it’s normal behavior in the first place, why not own up to it instead of trying to shame people into hiding?”
Sad that you feel other people’s behavior has anything to do with you. Get off your high horse, I’m sure you’ve got your own demons too.
This is why I am a liberal.
I don’t think any person should be kicked out or denied military service for being gay.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is from William Clinton.
While there is some specific language of that policy that is unwarranted, I do think in principle, that if you’re applying to go into military service, that the military shouldn’t ask you about your sexual orientation, nor do you have to reveal that. It’s a private matter and it has nothing to do with military service.
So! I’m still a Liberal. Still trying to disprove me p-mom? You hate that I’m in your camp?
John,Maybe you can explain your reasoning behind you remark that “Homosexual acts were wrong and always will be wrong.”I want actual reasons, not “It’s in the bible” or “My daddy told me.”Now get your little grey cells in gear and tell us what prompted you to make such a hateful remark!
When the military starts clamping down on the openly straight people for their sexual behavior unbecoming a soldier, then they can start on the openly gay people. What is with you people that you cannot separate the orientation from behavior?
Until there is some action taken, then sexual orientation should not even be an issue. Unless, some of your right-wingers are so unsecure in your own masculinity?
“The military is a culture in and of itself. It is not a reflection of civilian life. Nor should it be.”
That is true. However at times certain people in the military seem to forget who their bosses are. We the citizens are their bosses. It doesn’t work the other way around. They don’t tell us what they will or will not “accept”. We tell them how things are going to be done in the military. They serve us (which is why it is called “the service”) and not the other way around. And if we say though the President of the United States that gays will be accepted, you follow the directive and don’t argue about it.
Kev:
I’m generally in agreement with you. But this is not a decision the president can make unilaterally. Congress passed DADT. Congress must change it.
and should do so.
This thread reveals one of the reasons so-called “conservatives” are losing influence in government.
There’s nothing “conservative” about imposing personal theology and biases on others through the power of government.
If anything, that’s the milieu of us so-called “pinko-commie-leftist-liberals.” As when Harry Truman listened to all the military brass who thought integrating races in the military would somehow disrupt its culture. Harry said, “Bullshit.
Homophobia is just another bullshit issue. When “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell” was endorsed by Bill Clinton he revealed himself to be what he was, and is, and has always been: a moderate. DADT was a compromise which was intended to make sexual orientation a non-issue. It didn’t work out that way, however, and now it’s time for the policy to be refined to make sexuality officially the non-issue it really is in all practical terms.
If you don’t want to join an Army that accepts gay recruits, don’t join. Go get a job where they’re not likely to attract gay applicants. (Like, I dunno, a Hell’s Angels biker bar; but don’t count on it. The clergy is right out.)
I’ve worked with people more than half my life. Some of my co-workers have been fey and had encylopedic knowledge of Broadway lyrics; some have been machismo-obsessed he-men. I’m sure some of them might have been gay, I just don’t know which ones. And, frankly, I don’t care.
It makes no difference what other people do in bed unless you’re in bed with them.
John,I’m still waiting! Come on and shift that thing into second gear and give us an answer! Inquiring minds want to know.
As I said, homosexual acts are always wrong not for hateful reasons but because it is true. From a human anatomy point of view it is wrong. If you say it is right then what about sex with kids, animals and dead people. It is wrong because of health reasons too. Gay marriage is not stable, it is just a way to try and escape from reality and it is not marriage. I just hope they don’t listen to you because from past experience (explained in previous post) all your ways to liberate the world are just a mirage.
Damn, I think I will let Tom take this one……
Outing the Out of TouchBy Maureen DowdThe New York Times
Sunday 10 June 2007
Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney?
A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters – even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.
They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.
But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.
Peter Pace, whose job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff became a casualty of Iraq on Friday, asserted in March that homosexual acts “are immoral.” Yet in May, he wrote a letter to the judge in the Scooter Libby case, pleading for leniency for the Cheney aide. Scooter always looked for “the right way to proceed – both legally and morally,” General Pace wrote of the man who lied to a grand jury about the outing of a spy, after he pumped up the fake case for the war that has claimed the lives of 3,500 young men and women serving under the general.
At the G.O.P. debate in New Hampshire last week, the contenders were more homophobic than the mobsters on “The Sopranos,” unanimously supporting the inane “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Even Rudy Giuliani, who loves to cross-dress and who stayed with old friends, a gay couple, to avoid Gracie Mansion when his second marriage was disintegrating, had an antediluvian answer.
Wolf Blitzer asked him about the Arabic linguists trained by the government who have been ousted from the military after being outed.
Mr. Giuliani, who procured three deferments to avoid Vietnam, replied that, with the war in Iraq raging, “This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this.”
If he’s so concerned with disruptive issues, maybe he should start worrying about this one: Two straight guys who slithered out of going to Vietnam are devising a losing strategy in Iraq year after year. W. and Dick Cheney have fouled things up so badly that Robert Gates and Tony Snow are now pointing to South Korea – where American troops have stayed for over half a century – as a model.
Mitt Romney agreed with Rudy on the issue. Instead of going to Vietnam, Mr. Romney spent two and a half years doing Mormon missionary work in France. Isn’t that like doing Peace Corps work in Monte Carlo?
At the memorial for Mark Bingham, the gay 6-foot-5 rugby player who was on Flight 93 on 9/11, John McCain said he might owe his life to the young man who helped fight the hijackers, bringing down the plane aiming to crash into the Capitol.
But Senator McCain wants gay troops to stay closeted. The policy, he said, is “working.” But it’s not. The Army in Iraq is like that exhausted nag Scarlett O’Hara whipped on to Tara. Yet Republicans surge on, even as they expel gays.
In a Times Op-Ed piece Friday, Stephen Benjamin, a gay Arabic translator eager to go to Iraq, told how he was dismissed when the Navy learned his status. “Consider,” he wrote. “More than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm’s way?”
He noted that 11,000 other service members have been shoved out since 1993 and speculated that if the Army had not been so short of Arabic translators, the cables that went untranslated on Sept. 10, 2001, might have been translated, preventing 9/11.
In 2000, the British military began letting anyone who served say if they were “a poof,” as one squadron leader put it. Sarah Lyall wrote in The Times that the military reports that none of its fears “about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness have come to pass.”
America has been Will-and-Graced since Bill Clinton had his kerfuffle on the issue in 1993. Tolerance has blossomed, especially among younger Americans. According to a Pew poll, 4-in-10 Americans say they have close friends or relatives who are gay.
The Republican field seems stale and out of sync. They should have listened to the inimitable Barry Goldwater, who told it true: You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.
John,I’m still waiting for a reason, not talking points from Fred Phelps. C’mon, even that little two-bit brain of yours should be able to do better than that! And yes, it’s still just hateful remarks that have no factual basis.
“Gay marriage is not stable”
Have you checked divorce rates for heterosexuals lately? Especially among good family-values people like Rush Limbaugh and newt Gingrich?
Ben,
The radical-conservatives blame the _heterosexual_ divorce rate on gays, did you know that? According to them, it’s our assault on marriage that has cheapened marriage, and has made it easier for people not to take their own vows seriously.
Damn, I forgot to use “it’s the gays” fault excuse for my two failed marriages.
I will have to remember that in the future.
john is too stupid to even warrant a reply. People who “think” like him (and I use the term generously)can never be convinced of anything by facts.
Responding to him and his ilk would be a total waste of bandwidth.
But he does help our cause when he posts stuff like that. You know we always say, phred is the best recruiter and fundraiser the gay community has….
Tom,We had many gay and lesbian friends, and backed gay marriage long before the recent push for it. I don’t recall it weakening our marriage a bit; in fact they made the last six years of it possible!
I have not always backed gay and lesbian marriages. Because I believe by it’s nature that homosexuality is wrong, (not WRONG, just wrong) I believed that the state should not sanction wrong. However, I waver a bit on the wrong part, and besides, I have come to believe the state should only prohibit something when there is an urgent or compelling need to protect it’s citizens, or the state itself. Gay/Lesbian marriage threatens neither. It is time to acknowledge that fact, authorize it at the state level, and move on. Far too much time, money, and emotion is spent on this issue that could be redirected to something that actually matters.
Farm Gal,”john is too stupid to even warrant a reply.”
Of course he is, and I know he’ll never change his mind; what mind he’s got has no trade-in value. But as a straight man, in both senses of the word, he posts exactly the anti-gay propaganda that must be answered!
Tom – so if I cheat on my wife I can blame you? COOL …
;^)
Legalize Gay Marriage so that our gay and lesbian friends can also share in the glory and financial ruin of Gay Divorce.
(sarcasm, deep, heartfelt sarcasm)
John,
Sex involves the consent of 2 (or more) people legally able to consent. Sex with animals, children, or corpses, violates this fundamental limitation on consensual sex. What’s the problem, then?
Ben,
That depends on who you’re cheating with. Are you hitting on me?
Oh Jed, no criticism of you, I was just musing out loud. I was thinking of responding and then just concluded “why bother?”.
But please carry on in your defense of equal justice!
You’re not my type … ;^)
WS,”Legalize Gay Marriage so that our gay and lesbian friends can also share in the glory and financial ruin of Gay Divorce.”
Wouldn’t work! Of the straight couples I have known for more than ten years, only two or three are now with the partners I met them with. Of the gay couples, only two are not with their original partners!
Actually, I would replace the term ‘marriage’ with ‘union’ in our legal lexicon. Then I would allow ‘unions’ for both gay and straight couples.
Leave ‘marriage’ to the Churches to deal with.
Ben,
I’m not your type? We know you’re just saying that to spare yourself the rejection.
(kidding!!!)
Seriously – contrary to the myths perpetuated by the radicons, we don’t all sleep around and cheat on our partners. No more than heterosexuals, actually.
Ben,That might still leave a door open for discrimination. Marriage is the traditional term; simply open it for everyone and let the churches decide if they want the business. The Unitarians will clean up!
“Seriously – contrary to the myths perpetuated by the radicons, we don’t all sleep around and cheat on our partners. No more than heterosexuals, actually.”
Ever so true Tom. In fact, I think as we get older, our marriages tend to be more stable and we cling to each other.
It’s not easy being alone in a world so hostile to both gays and age.
From observation, to me it appears that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is definately more promiscous untila “committed couple” is formed. After that, there is either little difference, or the gay couples seem to be a bit more committed. Hard for me to tell, knowing so few committed couple gays.
Littlejohn,
One look at the number of unmarried moms out there should give you an idea of heterosexual promiscuity.
Almost all prostitutes are females serving heterosexual males.
There’s more evidence buried in the divorce statistics – how many of those marriages have failed because of extramarital affairs?
There’s plenty of promiscuity among unpartnered gay men. Not so much at _all_ among unpartnered lesbians. Promiscuity is a _male_ issue, for the most part, and has little to do with the sexual orientation of the men “sowing their seed” so to speak.
I go with Tom on this, of all the gay and lesbian people I know, almost all of them have been in very long term relationships.
Promiscuity is a _male_ issue, for the most part, and has little to do with the sexual orientation of the men “sowing their seed” so to speak.
Posted by: Tom | June 11, 2007 at 01:47 PM
You certainly could be right about that part. I never thought of that. My observations are of course, ancetotal, and include secondhand knowledge of tha SF bathhouse scene. i simply attributed it to the fact that 1) they were young 2) They were in a place that they could “let their hair down” so to speak, and 3) since they were being villified by the general public, it was at least in part an “in your face” kinda thing. I don;t think that there is anything inherently more promiscous about gay/lesbian people than others. Just a byproduct of the above. There is unfortunatly, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, enough promiscuity to go around for all.
Littlejohn,
Unfortunately, you’re probably right about the SF bathhouse scene of the late 70s, early 80s. There’s a whole group of men born in the late 40s to mid 60s who never made it to 1990. Hopefully that’s an isolated event in time, and people have grown since then.
LJ,Having known a lot of gay and lesbian singles and couples, I can’t say that gays are more likely than straights to be promiscuous; in fact, the hazards of gay life in a homophobic world make gay promiscuity somewhat rarer than the straight variety.The gay couples I know are much more committed than their straight counterparts.I imagine though, that as acceptance of gay people in our culture grows and their isolation ends, both figures will begin to even out and parallel the straight relationships.
Jed – I don’t think I would have a discrimination issue. I would do away with ‘marraige’ altogether in ‘Caeser’s world’. ALL couples would look to ‘union’ as the civil state we now use ‘marriage’ to describe.
Just as I do not go to the Courthouse to Baptise a child I would remove this sacrament from the civil regime.
THanks for your insights. As I said, my observations can only be ancedotal, and limited since I don;t know that many gay couples, and i can only think of one lesbian couple. Maybe more and I just don’t know. Makes no difference, my hope for all couples is a long an prosperous committted relationship.
Ben,Marriage is currently a civil institution where a couple can choose a county clerk, ship’s captain or church to perform the ceremony. Ultimately though, it depends on a state marriage certificate to be valid. The state issues the certificate, and the couple chooses who officiates. It’s still a marriage!
I stand by what I said and I can guarentee you that even after a hundred years it will remain true. Liberals are still in denial about the wrong of abortion and now you want to ruin the life of people with homosexual tendencies. Unfortunately when faced with the consequences, you blame religion and try to convince people that some other bad act is right. I will say that promiscuity on the heterosexual side is also wrong and always will be wrong. That is what leads to instability in marriage. With all the confusion about marriage nowadays, gay ‘marriage’ will just add to it. It will not strengthen marriage, you can take a look at the countries that have legalized it. It has not strengthened marriage there, you expect anything different here?And BFAH what about adultery…is that good?Jed if you don’t have any reason for your beliefs you resort to name calling. You took the easy way out. I am glad there are many not like you. If you cannot stand to hear something that is opposing what you believe, don’t try to label it as hate speech.
Umm, John,
What does adultery have to do with anything?
You’re confusing legal issues with religious issues.
You may condemn adulterers as “going to hell” for immorality. Maybe that’s true…but generally, we accept that the government has no business legislating private acts between consenting individuals older than the age of consent.
BFAH…Is adultery right or wrong?
Do you want to make adultery a crime, John?
Where do you want to draw the line? Oral sex? Anal sex? Masturbation? Playboy magazine? National Geographic?
Now who is confusing moral and legal issues? Is adultery right or wrong in the moral sense.
Adultery is legal in most states. Legal and moral are different things, John.
That’s why the Founders were smart enough to keep religious zealotry like yours as much out of government as possible.
As I’ve pointed out many times…things can be legal and immoral; things can also be illegal and moral.
Ultimately, it is not YOUR place to decide what is morally right for other people. If you believe they will face their creator, then it is up to them to explain their actions.
John,
If a married couple agrees to be exclusive, and one partner goes outside the relationship for sex, then the lie is immoral. If the couple has a different arrangement, that’s _their business_, not yours or mind or the governments.
Better said than mine, Tom.
In the same coin, it is not upto liberals like you to decide what is morally right for all people or how people should think.
John,
EXACTLY. Which is why “liberals” like me (ha ha) oppose _every attempt_ to legislate private relationships.
You’re almost a “liberal” yourself, John.
Who said we did, John? The point is that any strictly moral choice is a personal choice. The government should not be involved. That goes for heterosexuals, homosexuals or adulterers.
John,
You got it…So now what legislation have the “liberals” foisted on you that violate your morals? Are you free NOT to be adulterous, or a necrophiliac, or into bestiality, or child pornography? How does a gay couple down the street violate your freedom not to be gay? How does an adulterous couple violate your freedom not to be adulterous?
But that is exactly what you are doing. You are legislating private relationships by trying to ram down gay ‘marriage’. You are asking the government to follow your liberal zealotry.Thankfully now a sexual act being moral is more than just having two consenting adults. I agree with you there.
John,
A) No one is going to make you have a “gay” marriage.
B) There’s no such thing as “gay marriage.” There’s marriage, and gay and lesbian Americans deserve to participate in the same rights our neighbors enjoy.
How is it that what gay folks do in private affects you, John? I can assure you that what YOU do privately with a consenting adult has no effect on me.
No, John,
You are trying to legislate the private activities of two consenting adults.
Let’s make clear here that marriage is a civil contract, first and foremost. It is a religious bond for some secondarily.
People get married all the time in civil ceremonies. Are they “living in sin”?
If you accept the fact that marriage is, legally speaking, nothing more than a civil contract…two people contracting to certain obligations to one another, what’s the beef?
If you are holding “gay marriage” up as an abomination in God’s sight, you need to get over it.
There is no freedom to do a wrong act. It is an enslaving act that affects the person doing it and the people around him. It doesn’t bring about any good. Are you going to ask the government now to teach that bestiality, necrophilia and other things you listed are okay? Are you going to shove legislation to make those a ‘right’.
“Are you going to ask the government now to teach that bestiality, necrophilia and other things you listed are okay?”
The operative words are CONSENTING ADULTS.
Easy. What happens between consenting adults is their business, not yours or mine.
Rather than go around in circles, John, the following has already been posted
“Sex involves the consent of 2 (or more) people legally able to consent. Sex with animals, children, or corpses, violates this fundamental limitation on consensual sex. What’s the problem, then?”
1) do you accept that the above activities do not involve 2 legally consenting HUMAN adults?
2) If you do, then these actions will be outlawed on that basis alone.
What people do privately has consequences. Look at all the children growing up without both parents. Look at all the divorces that are happening because of adulterous private acts. It definitely has effects.
“The operative words are CONSENTING ADULTS.” You say this as of now. Ten years from now you will be singing a different tune. Like ten years back you were not singing this tune.
Yes, how people grow up has effects. Have you ever thought that being religiously judgmental can lead to some of those bad effects…just something to consider.
So, John,
What’s in it for us? Why are we trying to bring down this country via moral subversion?
For any crime, motive must be present. What’s our motivation? Answer that and we may have something to discuss.
I guess you’d condem all the abolitionists of the 19th century for singing a different tune after slavery was written into the Constitution…those were the good ole days!!
John,
Here’s an interesting fact for you: My partner and I do not have “outside” relationships of the kind you would consider adulterous.
Here’s another interesting fact for you: Our daughter, now away at college, was raised in a two-parent home. Additionally, I chose to work part-time from home so that our daughter would always have a parent at home for her.
As an aside, when our daughter started dating, her boyfriends found out that there is one thing more terrifying than having a girlfriend with a pissed-off dad: Having a girlfriend with TWO pissed-off dads. :)
“You say this as of now. Ten years from now you will be singing a different tune. Like ten years back you were not singing this tune.”
Ten years ago I actively campaigned for gay rights, despite that fact that I am not gay and have never had a homosexual experience.
Ten years from now, I will be doing the same.
I only mention that I am not gay, not because it would be something I would be ashamed of, but only to negate any charge of having a “hidden agenda.”
I have never been one to tolerate discrimination in any form. Actually, I am quite the pain in the ass when I see discrimination.
Just ask around……………….
Have you ever thought that being liberally judgmental can lead to some of those bad effects…just something to consider.
“liberally judgmental”
You mean like wanting all people to be treated equally, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, nationality or sexual orientation?
Liberally judgmental like THAT?
John,
Every change in social outlook has been seen as the end of civilization by the generation(s) preceding the change. Guess what? It’s never happened.
Be honest, are you better off now than people were 200 years ago? 150 years ago? 100 years ago?
Just when did society go into this terrible moral decay?
John,’Way back upthread, I asked you for a rational explanation of your statement that homosexuality was wrong. So far, all you’ve done is repeat endless variations of that same statement. I hate to tell you, but that does not constitute a rational explanation. It’s time to either put up or shut up!
I can say that about you too. You just rely on ‘consenting adults’ argument because that is what supports what you feel about homosexuality. But consenting adults is not what makes a sexual act moral. It requires the sexes to be complimentary and the adults to be in a stable relationship because a sexaul act is both unitive and procreative. Otherwise it can be anything as you are just proving. What is there to limit partners to just two and ask the government to shove that down peoples throats? Why can’t the people who don’t think about two consenting adults ask the government to legalize what they think is right?”liberally judgmental” is far from treating different people equally, it is trying to force people to believe a wrong act is right. And be arrogant enough to think you are right.Society always keeps changing and there are good changes and bad changes. Each change falls into a different category.Time will tell whether you will be relying on ‘consenting adult’ theory ten or twenty years from now. I am pretty sure you wont
john….
Make the distinction between moral and legal…. It isn’t moral for Hindus to eat meat, but I’m sure you do it all the time. Muslims are allowed to have up to 4 wives, although I’m sure you never would.
Your morality is not everyone’s morality.
So, just for fun, john, where would you take this?
I assume you’d ban gay marriages. I assume you’d ban adultery. I further assume you’d get rid of divorce and abortion…and I bet you’d want the 10 commandments scattered around town.
I assume you’re against illicit drugs, so you’d allow the police to use infrared detectors outside of peoples’ homes to detect “greenhouses”.
And I guess you’d be against terrorism, so illegal wiretaps would also be OK.
Is that where you stand??
John,You still aren’t justifying anything rationally.”But consenting adults is not what makes a sexual act moral. It requires the sexes to be complimentary and the adults to be in a stable relationship because a sexaul act is both unitive and procreative.”
Morality “requires the sexes to be complimentary” Why? Because that’s the way your daddy did it? I’m asking you to reason this through. Give me a rational justification!
“adults to be in a stable relationship because a sexaul act is both unitive and procreative.” I agree that stable relationships are a nice thing. But there is nothing here that proves only heterosexual relationships are stable. In fact, they’re at least as unstable as any other kind; note the divorce rate. As far as being procreative, sex is, sometimes. And sometimes it’s not. Are you denying marriage to infertile or post-menopausal hetero couples? What about couples who simply don’t want children? And what about gay couples who have children, their own or adoptive? Shouldn’t they be allowed to sanctify their relationship to provide a stable environment in which to raise their children?
Don’t you see? what you are doing is simply reciting a particular set of rules you learned by rote as a child, and calling that morality. You aren’t actually thinking them through. In fact, you appear to be saying that thinking critically about morality is an immoral act in itself!Another thing, I get my information about gay people from the many I have known, and known well in my life. I would guess from the tone of your arguments that you have never really known a gay person, and get your information about gay people from others who don’t know gay people. The information is quite a bit different first hand. You ought to try it!
Homosexual acts are considered immoral in Hinduism and Islam. So your liberal morality is not everyone’s morality. Where would you like to take this then… legalize gay marriage, teach children in school about it, put people who do not agree with you in jail, sue them for money, shut down orphanages who do not think it is right to put children in gay households, in short ram your morality down peoples throats?Jed…the way you look at it is different from the way I look at it. I don’t think anything I say will make you change your mind but here goes. Again you base your beliefs on ‘consenting adult’ theory. I say that your theory is not the only thing that makes a sexual act okay. A sexual act is a unifying act, the sexes have to be complimentary for it to be unifying. The anatomy of the human body also gives a clue to it but I will not go there. There is a deeper meaning to it than just fleeting pleasure. It is also a life giving act. It is an act which allows the continuation of life on the planet. Men and women are different in many ways but equal in dignity. It requires them to work together for life to continue. Male and female abilities are required to compliment each other in marriage and raising a child. This is what will bring happiness and meaning to life. I know there are many variations to this some that are not by choice.Again I don’t think your ‘consenting adult’ theory will hold for the next ten years. Sometimes you can pose all the ‘intellectual’ arguments that you want but reality will be very different. Let us look back…some decades ago many of you would not have disagreed with me that sex within marriage is moral. Then it became that sex with two adults is okay, marriage was not necessary but sexes had to be different. Then recently it is the ‘consenting adult’ theory, where sexes need not be different. So I am saying that within the next decade it will be something different. People who want to make polygamy, pedophilia, etc. legal can base their argument on anything that bolsters their case. They can even show a few examples of how they live normal lives. And liberals will be the first to believe them and change the ‘consenting adult’ thing. So my point is that sex is unifying and procreative or it can be anything that people can want it to be. And if you don’t change your ‘consenting adults’ and ‘marriage limited to two’ theories within the next 15 years, please accept my apology in advance.Now to answer the specific questions you posed. “Morality requires the sexes to be complimentary Why?” Let me answer it with a question. Why do you think morality requires ‘consenting adults’? Is it just because you feel so? But look at the past and I hope you see that you are standing on moving ground. “Are you denying marriage to infertile or post-menopausal hetero couples?” No it is not by choice they are like that. “What about couples who simply don’t want children?” Many are just selfish, some have good reason but no denying marriage to them. “And what about gay couples who have children, their own or adoptive?” How do they have their own children? And children should grow up in an environment where they are in contact with both the sexes. It shouldn’t be just to satisfy the feelings of adults. “Shouldn’t they be allowed to sanctify their relationship to provide a stable environment in which to raise their children?” gay relationships are different from marriage which requires different sexes. I am sure after you legalize gay marriage, many gay and straight won’t even ask for it. Look at Scandanavian countries and tell me how gay ‘marriage’ strengthened marriage there? I agree marriage was cheapened much before gay ‘marriage’ but gay ‘marriage’ did not help marriage there, it just cheapened it and made it more meaningless for Scandanavians.“Don’t you see what you are doing is simply reciting a particular set of rules you learned by rote as a child, and calling that morality. You aren’t actually thinking them through.” Actually you are letting your feeling dictate what reality is. You cannot compare a stable gay relationship with an unstable marriage and bolster your case for gay ‘marriage’. You said ’sanctify their relationship’; marriage is sanctified only because of the sacrifice and love of many married men and women, which I hope includes your dad and mom. “In fact, you appear to be saying that thinking critically about morality is an immoral act in itself!” No if some guy makes a persuasive argument about the morality of murder, I will still call it wrong because he is misguided. His intention may be right but the act is still wrong.”Another thing, I get my information about gay people from the many I have known, and known well in my life. I would guess from the tone of your arguments that you have never really known a gay person and get your information about gay people from others who don’t know gay people. The information is quite a bit different first hand. You ought to try it!” I will certainly try it when I get a chance. I hope you also get to know gay people who think differently from the gay people you know.I don’t think this will end the debate but I hope it helps
John,I really don’t expect to change your mind; you will probably hang on to your prejudices until death. What I do want to do is allow you to demonstrate to the world how warped and bigoted your viewpoint is. I have seen too many friends beaten and killed by bastards who share that hate of yours. I have friends who have been fired from jobs, evicted from apartments, even raped, for no other reason than their orientation.What I want, and what I have fought for for decades is to have a world where my friends are safe from your kind of hatred, where they can lead their lives openly with the same rights everyone else has, where their children are not persecuted for their parents orientation, where they can live without the daily fear your kind inflict on them.My personal convictions have not changed in more than fifty years, except to strengthen with each hateful act I’ve witnessed, and I doubt that the next fifteen are going to make a difference in them. Apology accepted.
” How do they have their own children? And children should grow up in an environment where they are in contact with both the sexes.”
Actually about half of my gay friends have children of their own (they have them the same way you do), and I’ve watched them grow up to be fine people. The only difference I’ve noticed is that they tend to be a lot less bigoted that yours.You said ’sanctify their relationship’; marriage is sanctified only because of the sacrifice and love of many married men and women, which I hope includes your dad and mom.”
It did, and it also includes the relationships of many gay and lesbian couples I’ve known, who sacrificed much more for their love than most heterosexual couples.
“I will certainly try it when I get a chance. I hope you also get to know gay people who think differently from the gay people you know.”
Actually, you’ve no doubt had the chance, but your obvious prejudice got in the way, and you never knew about it. As far as getting to know gay people who think differently from those I know, I really don’t have a clue as to what you mean. My gay and lesbian friends are as diverse as any you could find anywhere. They range in age from late teens to eighty-somethings, from fairly conservative to quite liberal, of most racial and ethnic and religious backgrounds, from poor to quite financially well off, and all points in between. While I have run into a few gay people who are as homophobic as you, I can’t really count them as friends.
JedI also don’t expect you to change your mind; you will probably hang on to your prejudices until death. Wait for fifteen years, I will guarentee you that you will change your personal convictions about this and try to force something else down peoples throats. You have done that for the past fifty years and you will continue to do it. Only thing don’t whine and curse when people with differing opinions pass laws that you don’t like. I am sure you are also fighting to pass laws that put people who disagree with you on this topic in jail. In more liberal countries, people have been sued for saying marriage is between a man and a woman. In massachusetts they shut down catholic orphanages because they don’t think it is right to put children in gay households. People who oppose gay marriage have been threatened with death. Some tolerance you have, it only applies to your beliefs.I do not condone any evil (I am being judgemental here) actions that hurts gay people, but that still does not make a homosexual act moral. Now the opposite is happening where you are persecuting people who do not agree with you. I will be surprised if you condemn the actions of the homosexual lobby becuase you are a bigot who thinks you are right about everything. You have run into homosexuals who do not agree with you on this and because of your small mindedness you cannot count them as friends. You would have learnt a lot from them but I am sure that will undermine what you belive, so you resort to namecalling. As I said before you are tolerant of only your views.
Blow it out your fleetwood, John.
Wow.
john_s is a perfect example of why theocracy would be very bad for the USA. Would in fact be the end of the USA as we know it.
This is why I say that for pro-lifers abortion is a red herring. The “death” of a fetus is a means to their end, and their end is to garner sympathy sufficient to amass the political power (votes) to control the sexual behavior of Americans.
john_s is out to control what consenting adults can do and may not do, even in the privacy of their own home. Period.
These guys are utterly incapable of being objective, of objective thought.
But here’s the kicker: they’re not aware of it at all. In fact, they appear to believe they’re about as objective as a human can be.
Woe be to the US if guys like john_s ever attain any real power here. This is why men like James Dobson and Sam Brownback are so dangerous, *incredibly* dangerous: they’re totally playing with fire in their obsession to control American sexual behavior, and are apparently just begging, blindly crying out in fact, for somebody to douse the country in high octane.
You are just arrogant closed minded liberals, not wanting to hear something that opposes what you believe. You need the government to sanction what you believe so that you don’t hear any opposing view. As I suspected you do not condemn any bad thing done by liberals. Why would you, they are using the power of the state to forward your view of morality.
“You are just arrogant closed minded liberals, not wanting to hear something that opposes what you believe.”
You can say it all you want, homophobe, but that doesn’t mean we have to believe it or allow it to affect our judgment.
Answer this, John S Homophobe, what is it about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes that threatens you so much?
As a notorious heterosexual, I could care less what other people do behind closed doors.
That is their business – why does it matter to you?
As far as abortion is concerned, it is the liberals who are trying to control the sexual morality of people. With abortion you can effectively remove the procreative aspect of sex, thereby forwarding your view of it. It doens’t matter to you that you kill the life outright. All that matters to you is that people don’t blame you for the lies you told them.
WSClark just likes to stick hisHomo fastosus out in public john s, to show the world he is an authority on any subject and everyone else is wrong. :)
You can say it all you want liberal but that doesn’t mean I have to believe it or allow it to affect my judgment. Let the name calling begin. Just don’t start crying.
Here’s a novel idea. How about we let the military handle military matters?
And Republank, there is a reason that we just walk on by……….
And your last post is a good reason.
John,Feel free to be just as hateful as you wish; I’m not in the least interested in putting you in jail for talking trash. You’re not worth the effort or expense. You’re just one more tiny excuse for a man with a tiny prejudice who’ll be gone without the world ever knowing you were there.One thing does pique my curiousity slightly though- what’s this fifteen years from now date that you seem so utterly fixated on? Please don’t disappoint me by saying it’s the second coming. That’s been wrongly predicted so many times before, and by smarter men than you. C’mon, tell us, we could use a laugh!