-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
John Guardiano, in column on the main site and a subsequent blog post, laments the lack of a genuine debate over the prospect of allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Part of the difficulty of debating the issue is that that for those opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve openly, it’s self-evident why this would cause problems for the military, while for those who support open service (as I do), it’s a no-brainer that sexual orientation shouldn’t make a difference.
I think a lot of this comes down to a person’s general perception of homosexuality. John rightly points out that Americans have become more tolerant of homosexuality over the years, and suggests:
This is attributable in no small measure to a concerted propaganda campaign waged by Hollywood, television, and the media to depict lesbians and homosexuals in the most favorable light possible. Consequently, it is all but impossible to find a gay character, on TV or in a movie, who is bad or despicable — or who suffers from vices and compulsions that might be more common within the gay community.
I disagree with this characterization, because I don’t need to rely on Hollywood propaganda. I happen to be a heterosexual living in a neighborhood with a large gay population, and don’t feel at all threatened by it. I see gay couples when I buy groceries, eat at nearby restaurants, or enter the elevator to my apartment building. I don’t view them as heroes — I just don’t see it as a big deal one way or the other. So, quite honestly, I have to strain to try and understand why people are so concerned about gays serving in the military.
John makes another argument — that allowing gays to serve openly would require soldiers to affirm homosexuality, which would then be a violation of their religious freedom. Part of the reason I disagree with this assessment is that I have a very narrow reading of the First Amendment. I think the founders were mainly concerned with preventing the establishment of a national religion, like say the Church of America, that all citizens would be forced to belong to. This is why, for instance, I support the right of local schools to allow voluntary prayer. But the other problem with the argument is that it accepts as absolute fact J.E. Dyer’s dire predictions about what would happen if gays were allowed to openly serve. Dyer foresees a military in which soldiers will be forced to express approval for “Gay Pride” celebrations and denied promotions if they don’t openly affirm homosexuality. But those are hypothetical scenarios and thus only serve to reinforce the views of those already opposed to lifting the ban, rather than convince those of us who don’t have a problem with allowing open service.
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol, like others supporting the continuation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” argues that allowing gays to serve openly would hurt “unit morale and cohesion” — but he takes it for granted that everybody will understand what he means, and doesn’t bother explaining to the rest of us specifically why he thinks it would harm morale.
To me, it’s hard to see what the fuss is about. This isn’t about lowering the standards of the military, because everybody would still have to meet all of the physical and other requirements necessary for military service. And it isn’t as if the military will, for the first time, be admitting gays. Homosexuals are already serving in the military. Straight soldiers already have to assume that anybody in their unit could be gay, and likely already have an idea of who is and isn’t. So the only change we’re talking about is whether we should continue to force soldiers who are serving our nation honorably to live a lie and face ejection from the military simply on the basis of whether they’re attracted to boys or girls, or to allow them to be open about their orientation. Like I said, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
UPDATE: Dyer responds in comments (you have to scroll down). I encourage you to read her entire response, but the gist of her argument is that within the civilian context, we’ve already seen an effort to force affirmation of homosexuality, so we should expect the same sort of thing would occur in the military. Yet just because gays want to be able to openly serve in the military, it doesn’t mean that they’ll want to make a public show of it and start holding gay pride marches on military bases. I surely wouldn’t support the scenario Dyer suggests in which “eligibility for promotion or command will be contingent on explicit support for homosexuality,” but I just don’t think there’s a high likelihood of that happening. However, if something like that did happen, any soldiers who were discriminated against because of a refusal to endorse homosexuality would be in a position to challenge the policy. Dyer notes the case of San Deigo firefighters were forced to participate in a gay pride parade. But those firefighters happened to have sued and won.
View all comments (153) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/03/letting-gays-openly-serve
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- The Thatcher Legacy
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 12:50PM
We can have a military without gays, but mot one without the 15 - 20% of straight males and females that would defer service, not re-up, etc. if this goes through. If two male Staff Sergeants hugging and kissing bothers you, what else but getting out (or not joining in the first place) could or would you do? And Kristol is right: If you don't understand that two guys smooching is pretty disgusting to a lot of us, we just can't explain it to you.
ncatty| 2.3.10 @ 1:09PM
In your example of two male staff sgts hugging and kissing are you talking about on duty or off duty?
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 1:31PM
Since bases are like small cities - theaters, bowling allies, pools, etc. - you can't say "keep it at home, off duty." And if some First-shirt does so, will he be kicked out? Sued? Protested? We really need a bunch of Billy Boys threatening lawsuits? The military discriminates against a lot of people (fatties, color blind people, certain illnesses, etc.). What is wrong with DADT? Keep your sex life to yourself - jeez!
mt| 2.4.10 @ 4:10PM
Turning DADT policy into a tell all, without asking
policy is bad public policy.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 12:50PM
I feel that this really reflects poorly on heterosexuals.
Because debating the worthiness of the gay offspring, that heterosexuals alone created, to risk their lives for you and your freedoms, freedoms that you deny your gay offspring, makes heterosexuals assuming moral superiority look pretty darn pathetic.
And highly, highly immoral.
And quite simply sinful and wrong.
Nobama| 2.3.10 @ 7:45PM
You support anal sex and you have the nerve to call others out for being sinful?
Man, that's rich.
Mark| 2.3.10 @ 12:57PM
It is the arugument of many non-military people this would casue harm but when queried, the Joint Chiefs all agree it is time to end this foolish charade. Why?
1) Because gays have always served in the military and most of their peers know they are gay. Some have served honorably and some have not....just like heterosexuals.
2) Many predicted the demise of the military when the argument was made to allow women to serve in combat positions. It has come with challenges but it is safe to say at this point, the military has adjusted beautifully.
3) 25 of the current member nations in the "Coalition of the Willing" allow gays to openly serve in the military. Are we so unique we can't figure out how to do it? And if we can work alongside them with no problems, why can't we implement this within our own ranks.
4) When you put national security on the back burner (which is exactly what you are doing when you say we can live without that Arabic lingguist or fighter pilot because he/she is gay) you are putting our national security at risk. Pay attention you chicken hawks....can't have it both ways.
5) The Joint Chiefs are in their positions because they earned their way....not elected by some fickle electorate. Politicians should not be allowed to play politics with something this important. Case in point, Lt. McCain...."I was for it before I was against it and will fight the President on everything just like I did Bush just to show them I can be mean spirited' Treasonous Bastard!!!!!!!!!!
I am a fiscal conservative but socially liberal and yes, you can be both. Don't listen to the noise machine!!!!!
Sam| 2.3.10 @ 3:59PM
Well said Mark. Couldn't have put it better myself. I especially love your 4th point about how ridiculous it is to kick out Arab linguists and fighter pilots for saying that they're gay. But of course, when a person has an anti-gay bias, doing something like that makes perfect sense...
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 1:00PM
Eric Cartman seems to think that how he feels about gay people should determine their ability to serve their country? Really?????????
At heart, isn't this simply a character-flaw of yours, Eric Cartman???
Do some work on your character and your soul. Both need it.
You say, "If two male Staff Sergeants hugging and kissing bothers you, what else but getting out could or would you do?"
Really, brother? Really??????????
So, ending DADT will give permission for 'two male Staff Sergeants to be hugging and kissing???'
Really, brother? Really??????
I also notice you make no mention of two women 'hugging and kissing.'
That wouldn't be because that gets YOUR rocks off or anything like that, would it Eric?
I know that I for one would feel safer with a million gay and lesbian soldiers serving this country than those like you, who embrace ignorance and stupidity as if they were to be worn as a badge of honor.
You, Eric Cartman, are a putz.
But I suspect you know that already.
If you don't understand that blatant, vulgar discrimination is pretty disgusting to a lot of us, we just can't explain it to you.
There's a rock somewhere that misses lying on top of you, fool. Go crawl back under it.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 1:23PM
Bill seems a little upset - maybe he has the vapors. He should sit down hand breath into a bag. Since males make up a majority of the military, I focused on males - big whoop. What, don't ya like men, Billy?
The truth hurt, Billy? I served with a gay guy - actually a couple. Most people knew, but he was a good guy so no one said anything - we knew who to keep his secret from. It doesn't matter, Billy, what I think from a personal view, it matters what happens to the military. You just want a political point made - I want the nation protected. There is a substantial number of troops that don't want to change the policy, ahole. The military needs them, not a controversial policy. And yeah, I think two guys kissing is disgusting. So what? I don't have to like what you do, Billy Boy. Yet, anyway.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 2:18PM
I'm not gay, tool. I have no dog in this fight.
But I WAS raised to know right from wrong.
Now back to your rock, moron.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 2:36PM
You have no dog in this fight, ahole? Well, a lot of servicemen and women do. You're not gay? And why did you have to point that out? Seems you protest a bit too much, Billy Boy.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 2:45PM
I pointed that out simply because you kept inferring that I was a gay American. I am not. Happily married with 3 children living in sunny Beverly Hills, California.
But as a former member of the military, so many of our finest WERE gay and lesbian, that I finally figured out that I had been lied to about gay Americans all of my life. They were among the finest I served with in my 25 years.
Your anger and aggression show the world that you, too, have been lied to about gay Americans.
The difference is that I took the time to correct my character-flaws.
The world can clearly see with your posts that not only have you not done the personal and spiritual growth necessary to realize yourself as a full human being, but that you revel in your ignorance.
How proud you must be.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 3:13PM
Beverly Hills?! That's your problem! That explains it! You think the world revolves around you! Well, Billy, the military has always had wide leeway on "discriminating" against would be toops. Weather a troop is gay and serves proudly (like the guys I served with) is immaterial. Again, my PERSONAL view doesn't matter - I'm a Vet, not active. What does matter is that many in the military (estimates are 15 - 20%) may not serve or may not re-up if the policy is changed. As I said before - we can have a military without openly gay troops - we can't without straight men (many who have religious objections to the gay lifestyle). Its that simple. Really. Really, really. If you can't handle that, well, you need to look inward and ask yourself "am I being self centered? Am I just forcing my political views on people? Who am I? Am I a god? Is this Wednesday?" You know, self reflection.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 3:48PM
A heterosexual male's religious beliefs are not sufficient reason to deny able-bodied individuals the chance to serve their country. And what 'lifestyle' do you refer to? Gay and lesbian Americans serving their country is the 'military lifestyle,' brother.
As religious beliefs seem to be your argument for perpetrating discrimination, I must excuse myself from further debate with you. Justifying discrimination and vile treatment of human beings by suggesting that God would somehow approve of this treatment makes crystal clear your lack of education, your lack of respect for fellow service men and women, and your complete and total disregard for God and humanity themselves.
I will lift you up in prayer at evening services tonight. I really feel you need prayer.
I will pray that God touches your heart, that you may see the light instead of the darkness you clearly live in.
Good luck & God bless.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 4:19PM
Well, thanks for the prayers. Again, my PERSONAL feelings are NOT what I am basing this on. There is no right to serve. Anything - and I mean anything - that detracts from the military mission cannot be considered. Changing the policy will have negative consequences in many spheres of military life. DADT allows people to serve with honor regardless of orientation. In my OPINION ( I am allowed to have one) changing policy will be disruptive of the mission. And to the people who point to the linguists who were discharged or the pilot, they knew the policy. AND there are straight people who can fill those slots (or gays who can live with the policy).
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 3:30PM
And yes, I am proud. I can tell the difference between my personal view and what is good for the country. I would love to have Obama pay my student loan, but that would take money from you, Bill. That's not right.
As for women kissing, it depends on who. Woman kiss all the time when they meet ( I have yet tried to kiss a male friend lol). And if I ever see Janet Reno and Helen Thomas in a passionate kiss, I'm clawing my eyes out!
Nobama| 2.3.10 @ 7:59PM
Who is this god that Bill kneels down and prays to--who approves of anal sex? Bacchus?
Don't believe his BS about Beverly Hills, either--his posts are a pantload.
If we screw up our military we deserve the crap that will rain down on us as a result.
Liberals destroy EVERYTHING they touch--they are the party of death.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 1:52PM
Bill,
"If you don't understand that blatant, vulgar discrimination is pretty disgusting to a lot of us, we just can't explain it to you."
So, you're open to everything, are you? You would NEVER discriminate againsnt anyone, right? That would be "pretty disgusting", huh?
To avoid the labels "liar" and "hypocrite", you must be in favor of the following:
-Adult Incest
-Polygamy
-Necrophilia
-Bestiality
-Any other sick and perverted things adults do
And, since I assume you believe homos are "born that way", you can't discriminate against anyone. Even theives and murderers. Because they were born that way.
I don't want to live in your world.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 2:21PM
Being gay is not criminal, Nick. All of the 'behaviors' that you compared gay people to are criminal behaviors. So, if the only thing you have to compare gay people to are illegal activities to make some point, that not only makes you a bigot, but a fool.
My guess is that you gladly embrace both.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 2:45PM
It used to be, Billy Boy, and not too long ago at that. Still is in Iran and Saudi Arabia (which is too bad because they could use the decorators and fashion designers - I mean, look at Ahmadinejad's outfits! Sheeesh! And those shoes! Ewwwww!)
And I'm sure the polygamists will soon be bitching about their rights - after all, who are they hurting?!
Billy Boy just can't grasp that the policy isn't about him - it's about what is good for the military.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 3:12PM
Again, being gay is not illegal. If you want to debate on the merits of this case, we can do that.
If, on the other hand, you simply came here to gay-bash, than only you can help yourself, Eric. Your soul and your moral compass have sustained serious damage that you need to address in order for you to realize your full human potential.
If that is of any interest to you.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 2:48PM
Bill,
Nice try at obfuscation. I didn't ask about criminal acts. I asked about discrimination.
Until SCOTUS ruled a few years ago, several states still had laws that, rightly, forbade homosexual acts.
These "criminal behaviors"(as you call them), that I listed, are victimless "crimes."
Now, defend your "vulgar discrimination" by labeling them "criminal behaviors", hypocrite.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 3:18PM
Again, Nick, being gay is not illegal. Therefore, for you to compare it to a list of criminal acts does not allow for me to have intelligent debate with you.
Intelligent debate supposes some sort of intelligence of both debaters.
Comparing innocent people to criminals to further your straw-man argument makes you look a lot worse than you think it does.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 3:36PM
Bill,
Is English your second language? I never claimed or implied BEING a homo is illegal, brainiac. Until SCOTUS wrongly ruled, states had laws against homosexual ACTS.
You wrote "[...] that blatant, vulgar discrimination is pretty disgusting to a lot of us [...]"
Defend why it is acceptable to DISCRIMINATE against polygamists, necrophiliacs, brothers and sisters, and sheep lovers by outlawing their acts; but it is "pretty disgusting" to do the same against homos?
It seems you can't.
This makes you a LIAR. You do not think "blatant, vulgar discrimination" is "pretty disgusting", do you?
And, you are a HYPOCRITE. It is okay for you to practice "blatant, vulgar discrimination" against polygamists, necrophiliacs, etc., but not for me to discriminate against homos.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 3:50PM
Call me when the shuttle lands, my brother.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 4:23PM
Willy,
I call you "Willy" for the same reason General Patton called his dog Willy instead of William.
I see by your lack of argument or rebuttal, that you concede my points.
Check and mate, lying hypocrite.
By the way, I'm not sure what "god" you pray to, but it obviously isn't Thee God: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. If it was, then you should know that 3000+ years ago, God commanded the Isrealites to put to death those caught committing homosexual acts.
I hope you get to know Him. Then you will find out it is wrong to tell sinners it is okay to sin. It is an act of love to rebuke the sinner, like Christ constantly did.
God Bless, Willy.
Liberal Reader| 2.3.10 @ 5:10PM
Nick --
Are you saying instead of throwing Arabic speaking specialists out of military intelligence positions because they're gay we should have executed them on Levitican grounds?
I'd like to hear more about your understanding of charity.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:03PM
Marxist Reader,
Have you really become this obtuse?
Is this what passes as an argument from you these days?
Since your cognitive reasoning seems to be impaired, the point I'm making is you cannot claim to be a Christian and also claim God has no problem with homosexual acts. 3000 years ago, for the good of society, He commanded violators be put to death. He must have had a problem with it, the same way He had a problem with incest, adultery, and murder.
Any sexual act committed outside the valid marriage of a man and a woman is a sin. And any "Christian" who claims it isn't, is not a follower of Christ.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:28PM
I'd love to see Nick explain how this is any difference than Muslims wanting women put to death for voting or learning to read. "My holy prescripts tell me so, and therefore our country's laws need to follow it!" The American Taliban reveals itself again.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:06PM
Easily.
Moslems worship a false god.
Christians and Jews worship the One, True God.
Next time think up a hard one, would ya'?
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 6:28PM
So you admit you want our legal system to enforce religious precepts? Really? Sharia-for-Christians? You do realize that's what you're advocating, right?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:38PM
Do me a favor, would you?
Go take a couple of years off and study U.S. history.
Our system of laws are based on English common law, which was based on the Catholic teachings of Natural Law. Only in the past 60-70 years have bleeding heart libs, like yourself, tried to undo this great foundation of justice.
The Pilgrims (ever heard of them?) passed laws and cited the scripture the law was based on.
Again, go learn some history before you try to debate with adults.
Hornet| 2.3.10 @ 8:01PM
Queerdom brings out the liberal freaks, that's for sure.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:19PM
Is this the argument you wanted me to respond to? Seriously?
Sigh. None of the sexual practices or acts you list here are orientations. It's that simple. Gay and straight are endpointsn on a continuum of sexuality - everything else fits into that scale somewhere. To be really graphic, since you were:
Incest with the same gender or opposite?
Polygamy - many men or many women or both?
Necrophila - dead men or dead women?
Bestiality - comparing gay people to animal sex cost Santorum his job (thank God); you're not really doing that are you?
- Any other sick and perverted (unless you're Ted Haggard) thing that people do - male or female, Nick? Same gender or opposite.
Simple answer - if the behavior is wrong or illegal for male-female, it's the same for same gender pairs. Nothing about being gay implicates or even hints that these things come along with them. Unless you think that we should ban all straight people from the military because some straight people have sex with female corpses?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 5:52PM
So, like Willy, you think it is okay to discriminate against polygamists, bestialitists, necrophiliacs, etc., with laws prohibiting these acts.
What is your basis for discriminating against these people?
Who are YOU to tell a brother and sister (or a sister and sister), who are consenting adults, that they can't engage in perverse sexual activity?
Explain your "vulgar discrimination", pervert lover.
Spicy Joker| 2.3.10 @ 1:33PM
Homosexuals ought to shut the hell up.
Hornet| 2.3.10 @ 8:02PM
Short, sweet and to the point. I like it!
Faffnir| 2.3.10 @ 1:45PM
My philosophy has always been that so long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses, it's no business of mine. However, I have noted that homosexuals so absolutely no desire to be discreet about their orientation. Therefore, to promote good order and discipline, they should be barred from serving in any branch on the grounds of moral turpitude.
Faffnir| 2.3.10 @ 1:47PM
Should read "show absolutely no desire".
Bad keyboard, bad!
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 2:38PM
Don't blame your keyboard for you being a bad person, Faffnir.
God knows your heart, even if you do not.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:23PM
But straight soldiers are extremely quiet about their orientation? They never discuss sex, chase women, have sex, share their interests and conquests? You're going to hang your argument on how quiet straight men are about women? Really?
Derek Leaberry| 2.3.10 @ 1:57PM
Mr. Klein doesn't get it. Homosexuals are immoral and not worthy of respect. They do not deserve to be part of any institution that is worth preserving.
Bill| 2.3.10 @ 2:23PM
Derek Leaberry tells the world everything it needs to know about him with one simple sentence.
Sam| 2.3.10 @ 4:05PM
Bill,
First let me say that I agree with pretty much everything you say. That said, you've fought well on this website, but it's time to stop. The people you're trying to convince will not agree with you no matter how well you reason. Enjoy your time in Beverly Hills- seriously! You earned THAT reward, not having to suffer through the readers of AmSpec!
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:25PM
I'd love to see this brave man tell Dick Cheney his daughter and daughter-in-law, the mothers of his grandchild, are immoral and not worthy of respect. I'm sure he'd say the same thing to Cheney's face.
Tim| 2.3.10 @ 1:58PM
Gay people are out there right now, protecting us in the military and at home as police and firemen and doctors. If you can't respect that fact, you're an ingrate.
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 2:15PM
Philip, since you are a part of AmSpec, people have been nice to you. However, the primary reason people on the extreme right are against this is because they are religious fundamentalists who believe that being gay is immoral. This points out the larger issue -- that social conservatives are hurting the Republican party. Scott Brown is pro-choice and has no problem with gay marriage. The same is true with Kirk in Illinois. Even Sen. Hatch in Utah thinks it is right to repeal DADT.
This only proves the point that in order for the Republican party to grow, it must accept a more libertarian social perspective.
Pete2| 2.3.10 @ 6:00PM
Spoken like a true nitwit.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 2:21PM
I need to see a chart and/or graph on this assertion, Bob.
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 2:54PM
You forgot your link!!!! Perhaps I should explain Eric Cartman.... Cartman is an overweight, spoiled, foul-mouthed, mean-spirited, selfish, and ill-tempered fourth-grader living with his hermaphroditic de facto mother. Do I have that right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cartman
Hmmm.... Sounds like a social conservative to me....
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 3:15PM
Thanks! Knew I forgot something! (This is too easy LOL)
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 3:21PM
And you forgot the quotes that show you're an ignorant hack, 3/5 Bob:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 11:30AM
Baker, you are right. The nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women. After all, women should be barefoot and pregnant, right? These things are, indeed, self-evident. I [ESPECIALLY WANT TO BRING BACK THE PROVISION THAT GIVES BLACKS ONLY 3/5THS OF A VOTE.] That will reduce the impact of minorities on Republican success."
Mr. Baker responded to your stupidity:
"Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 5:25PM
Bob:
If you don't know why 3/5 is in the Constitution. please don't embarrass yourself."
You countered with more ignorance and inanity, Bob:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM
Richard -- so you think it was right to count slaves as 3/5th even if it was for apportionment purposes? How can you justify that under ANY circumstances? Do you have any morality?"
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 3:53PM
Thank you for posting the exact quotes. I invite people to come to their own conclusions. It shows clearly, Nick, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 4:10PM
3/5 Bob,
I think you need another vacation, you're losing it.
I'm the one who put those quotes together, several months ago. As I recall, you weren't to happy when I would post them to show new people how ignorant you are.
Is this some kind of Jedi mind trick?
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 5:35PM
No, those quotes prove my point. But you seem to lack logic, you wouldn't understand. Get someone to explain it to you....
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 5:44PM
3/5 Bob,
What point would that be?
That someone who graduated (did you?) Harvard U. can still be ignorant of the U.S. Constitution?
Eric Cartman | 2.3.10 @ 3:23PM
There. That better?
Flee| 2.3.10 @ 3:29PM
DADT allows anyone to serve in the military. How is that discrimination? I was one that was not accepted due to a slight bit of color blindness (and a lack of need for Business Administration majors in the Air Force). If they don't ask whether or not you are hetero or homosexual, then neither are discriminated against. I don't know if I have any gay friends or co-workers because I have not asked them nor do I need to ask. As a Californian I may be a bit more sensitive to this debate since our majority votes are in the process of possible overturn by an extremely vocal minority. Gays have served in the military honorably and in doing so kept their preferences to themselves upon enlistment. Where is the harm in keeping things to themselves if they wish to serve? A soldier might have a taste for Chinese food but only see American food in the mess hall. Should he climb on the nearest soapbox demanding Chinese food? I think he should stay in line and eat all he takes.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:09PM
Sorry, but this is a fantasy.
If a gay man mentions his boyfriend - or even that he had a date with a male - he is out. Period. Compare that to any straight male soldier ever mentioning sex, a wife, his bride at his wedding, or an attractive female. Ever heard a group of soldiers discussing women? Should we throw them out for revealing their preferences?
This has nothing to do with "keeping your preferences to themselves"; it's simply a ridiculous double-standard that does nothing to enhance - in fact, it harms - military readiness. Gay people must live in fear that any aspect of their romantic or sexual lives is ever known to anyone who doesn't like them and can end their career. Accommodating homophobes isn't worth the cost to our military.
J. E. Dyer | 2.3.10 @ 3:29PM
I wonder if Mr. Klein actually read the longer post from July 2009 linked from the "contentions" piece of mine that John Guardiano cited.
The reason I wonder is that the longer post documented thoroughly the kinds of policy issues and lawsuits that have already arisen over gay employees in government and private workplaces. If Mr. Klein considers my predictions "dire," then presumably the past or ongoing disputes represent a "dire" condition as well.
It seems to me that Mr. Klein simply dismisses the high probability of such issues arising, and of their affecting employee administration and leading to lawsuits, without examination or analysis.
As Eric Cartman observes at 1:31 PM, military bases are also enclosed cities in which many military families conduct much of their social life as well. What we may tolerate by simply staying away from it, out in the civilian world, will become a policy issue for military bases. Many people who don't particularly care what gays do in public are nevertheless concerned about some things being done in front of their children. In civilian life they can choose to not take the kids down certain city streets, for example, or stay away from Gay Pride day at the ballpark, and be satisfied that no real problem is being created for them. That's not the case on military bases.
One does not have to hate gays to recognize that the DADT policy allows them to serve without requiring affirmation of their sexual orientation by others. If DADT is repealed, such affirmation will be required, through a series of policy decisions within the military and lawsuits brought against it.
There is no "neutral zone" in the military as there is in civilian life. The military operates on affirmative policy. It will administer open gay service on the basis that homosexuality must be acceptable to everyone in the service. There is no basis for trusting in any quiescent barriers to the full implications of that, as the current plethora of legal issues arising from gay advocacy lawsuits makes clear.
If straight firefighters in San Diego can be required by their supervisor to march in a gay pride parade, why would such an issue not arise in the military? If the State Department decides that gay couples are to be accommodated in married housing overseas, why would that not come up for the Defense Department on all its bases? (In fact, the study DOD is launching will address the question specifically.) If a Los Angeles police officer can be investigated for reading a passage from the Bible while off-duty, and thereafter denied promotion while the gay officers' association expressed its opposition to his Bible-reading, why could that not happen in the military? If a security officer in the San Francisco suburbs, dismissed for substandard performance, sued for damages on the pretext of having been discriminated against because he was gay, why would that not happen in the military?
(Link here to the documentation of these incidents:)
http://theoptimisticconservati...../all-tell-–-no-ask/
It's a miscasting of the issue to make it about tolerance of homosexuality, as if that tolerance doesn't exist yet. Whether we want it to be or not, repealing DADT will, in practical application, be about the affirmative acceptance of homosexuality. It will also be about sexual orientation being a pretext for all kinds of policy confrontations and lawsuits that can't be mounted under DADT.
Merely dismissing a prospect toward which so much evidence points is unpersuasive. One really big question we need to ask ourselves is why our government has this portfolio for ordering our lives and thoughts in the first place. The question whether government should be brokering these societal adjustments is one we haven't seriously asked ourselves in too long a time.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 4:00PM
Great post and links. Exactly my point (you made it better lol). The military exists for one purpose. Anything detracting from that purpose is harmful. Being gay in the civilian world is no big deal - people can take it of leave it. In the military, it may be VERY disruptive. That alone should preclude openly gay members from serving.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 4:10PM
And how does this differ from the "disruption" prophesied when military units were integrated? Should threats of bigotry and "being uncomfortable" interfere with the military' ability to attract and recruit the best and the brightest America has to offer, gay or straight? There will always be bigots - we can't allow one person's "I don't like these people for personal or religious reasons" to stand in front of either equal treatment for our citizens or the military being able to get the soldiers it needs - and to retain the ones it trains!
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 4:24PM
So being black is the same as being gay? Black = Butt Sex? Okay. Good luck with that.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 4:35PM
My favorite part about conservatives' obsession with gays is how sex is all they think about in these discussions. So a straight soldier is a collection of values, faith, actions, and an oath to serve - a gay one is nothing but anal sex? I swear, homophobic conservatives think about anal sex more than gays do.
Your "I don't like facing reality" response didn't answer the question. The country was told the same scare stories about what would happen if black men served with white. Explain to us how it's different. Explain why that bigotry couldn't stand in the way of America's equality and the military's needs; why does this (your) bigotry have so much more power?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 4:48PM
hmm_contrib,
Homosexuality is not conspicuous, being black is. I don't have to ask if someone is black. Apples and oranges.
Explain your own discrimination. See the argument I'm currently having with Bill above. It starts with Bill's post at 1:00 pm.
hmm_contrb| 2.3.10 @ 5:13PM
And what about religion? Religion is a protected class - can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Do atheists, Christians, Muslims and Jews look different? I can't tell by looking - should we allow religious bans in the military too?
Care to tell me what my discrimination is, rather than just assert it?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 5:40PM
So, you admit comparing homosexuality to race was completely wrong, huh? Glad I could show you the error of your ways.
You bleeding heart libs are slippery.
Now that you have made a totally new, albeit wrong, analogy, let us deal with it.
You are comparing sexual ACTS, acts of perversion committed to satisfy one's lust, to a set of beliefs and outward acts and devotions it usually takes a lifetime to learn. Do I have this right?
Have you ever seen a Catholic priest, a Buddhist monk, or an Orthodox Jew?
And, yes, we should ban phony religions like wicca and kwanza from the military.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 6:40PM
"you admit comparing homosexuality to race was completely wrong, huh? "
That went right over your head, didn't it? My point was that whether or not you believe the science pointing to a genetic component in sexuality, even if you full-on, flat-earth believe that heterosexuality is "normal" and homosexuality is a choice - it doesn't matter. Our constitution protects both innate characteristics such as race and gender as well as choices, such as religion or marital status. In either case, discrimination by the majority "because they think it's icky/a sin" simply aren't enough to both discriminate and rob our military of necessary assets. Whether you think gay is a choice or not, it's still irrelevant to military service and not sufficient to support discrimination.
PS: Thanks for the fascist tell on religious tolerance.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:56PM
Where does the constitution protect marital status?
Acts are CHOICES. Religious belief systems belong in the FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE category. They are much more than mere acts. Obviously, this is over your head.
For most of our history, STATES banned homosexual ACTS. The Founders just didn't know as much about liberty as you, huh?
How is it "fascist" to not accommodate PHONY religions?
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 7:42PM
You are aware of civil rights both law and jurisprudence, yes? Several classes identified that the government doesn't get to discriminate against? Marital status is one of them.
The Founders allowed slavery, history buff. That doesn't make it right.
I'm going to type this slowly; try to envision it. Religion is not for you personally to decide upon - you don't get to decide which ones are real and which aren't. You do know what religious freedom means, right? Not "freedom for the religions Nick approves of"?
The states banned interracial marriage for most of our history. Don't you agree that removing that governmental intrusion into the personal sphere made Americans more free?
No religious belief system is threatened because others don't follow it. When people claim gays in the military threatens their religion, what they are saying is, "My religion says I don't have to deal with or look at *those people*." That can't be enough to affect someone else's life.
This country is based on individual freedom, not applying religious precepts to others, constraining their liberty by banning them from parts of civic and military life and calling it freedom. Again, what you're describing sounds like sharia to me.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 7:59PM
You wrote: "Our constitution protects [...] such as religion or [MARITAL STATUS]."
I simply asked where.
The correct answer is: It doesn't.
Marriage is the jurisdiction of the States.
Yes, slavery is one of the two flaws of the original constitution.
You can believe whatever you want in this country. You can found your own church if you want. You can't demand the armed forces accomodate your non-traditional beliefs.
Now, answer my other questions from above.
So, like Willy, you think it is okay to discriminate against polygamists, bestialitists, necrophiliacs, etc., with laws prohibiting these acts.
What is your basis for discriminating against these people?
Who are YOU to tell a brother and sister (or a sister and sister), who are consenting adults, that they can't engage in perverse sexual activity?
Explain your "vulgar discrimination", pervert lover.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 5:54PM
Well, we are talking about sexuality here, aren't we? I understand people are more that the sum of their parts, but SEX is the part we are talking about. And that's a pretty big part of a person.
Look, the problem with this topic is highlighted here. Why bring this into the military. We are fighting two wars, have troops with multiple tours overseas, and this is what should be the topic? It is divisive. No one is saying the military is a religious institution - but many of its members (including Blacks) are religious and think the gay lifestyle is sinful. And others just don't want to be around gays (doesn't matter if they are now or not).
Then there are the activists and lawyers and garbage that will undoubtedly follow. It's a mess, so why burden the military's mission with it?
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 6:43PM
It's already *in* the military, as you said; you just want them to lie and keep lying about it.
You don't think firing Arab translators who we spent millions training is a burden to the military's mission?
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 4:03PM
Dyer, I am an atheist and I object to people going to church in a closed community. What can be done about that? You see, your argument lacks any coherent logical consistency. It is clearly discrimination based upon your religious views. I served in the Army, and as Admiral Mullen stated, we both knew many gays. When people are shooting at you, you really don't care if the person next to you is black, Asian, Jewish, an atheist, or even (God help us), a Christian. DADT only serves to assuage your religious views. And since the military is a government entity, it is Constitutionally prohibited from establishing any religion(s).
It seems that if it were left to your type of thinking, we'd still have separate but equal. Being homosexual is not only legal, but gay marriage is legal in a number of states. How do you have a DADT policy for a gay couple that is married? They must list their partner in military records.
Face it, the world is no longer flat and your arguments belong in a neanderthal world.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 4:26PM
3/5 Bob,
"[...] we both knew many gays."
I bet you KNEW them in the biblical sense, didn't you 3/5 Bob?
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 5:22PM
Nick: "I'll call him gay as an insult in order to prove that my opinions aren't based on animus." (eyeroll)
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 5:39PM
I see your true nature emerges, Nick. Go for it. Perhaps you should go back to your elementary school yard.... Hmmmm......
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:25PM
3/5 Bob,
As long as your "true nature" doesn't "emerge." Gross!
Keep your sicko perversions to yourself, professor! Ha-ha-ha-ha!
Missy| 2.3.10 @ 8:10PM
Nick--LMAO!! Look out, though, 3/5 boy might hurl one his moronic charts at you!
Probably throws like a girl.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 9:11PM
Thanks Missy!
3/5 Bob probably can't throw anything.
He probably has arthritis from all those years of picking up those books and charts!
Pete| 2.3.10 @ 3:46PM
Excellent post and summary of the issue/situation. Thanks.
Sam| 2.3.10 @ 4:06PM
Bob,
I didn't know Scott Brown supported abortion rights and gay marriage. Please direct me toward proof of it. Thank you,
Sam
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 4:12PM
From a few days ago, GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown pro-choice on abortion
You do know what it takes for a politician to be elected in MA, right? Obama or no Obama? Pro-choice is kind of required.
Liberal Reader| 2.3.10 @ 5:08PM
Maybe pick up a newspaper?
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 5:37PM
Sam, you've proved my point. You didn't see that on Fox News, did you?????
Missy| 2.3.10 @ 8:29PM
Bob, cite examples of Fox News' reporting errors.
You complain about them constantly--care to offer some proof with your whine?
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 9:59PM
Two things: errors in FOX news reports have been heavily documented. Try MediaMatters if you're really lost.
Second, Bob wasn't saying FOX got it wrong; he was hinting (I believe) that FOX soft-pedaled (if not outright ignored) Brown's pro-choice beliefs in order to help him win. Compare the station's Obama coverage with respect to abortion and see if you can spot a difference. IOKIYAR.
Missy| 2.3.10 @ 10:56PM
Care to cite some of those 'heavily documented" Fox errors you seem to know so much about?
Hmmm?
Media Matters? You mean the ex-American Spectator writer David Brock's group that is funded by the patriot, George Soros?? The lotion obsessed robots shown on Red Eye? Yeah, sure--I'll hit it up right away to make sure I get the REAL facts about Fox.
Damn, what a loon. Please pardon me while I laugh until I throw up.
Stephen| 2.3.10 @ 4:49PM
I am an openly gay male who works in law enforcement. I do not hide my sexuality, nor do I flaunt it. I do not keep pictures of my partner who I've been with for nearly a decade in my office because I recognize that it would make most people I work with uncomfortable. But I also don't deny his existence. I have many gay friends who have recently served in the military honorably. The gay men and women who choose to serve in our armed forces are not the boa wearing marchers at gay pride events nor are they the tiara wearing Rupaul wannabes. Instead, they are much like me: athletic, masculine, dedicated to their nation. And each of them, to a person, has indicated that many -- if not all -- in their units knew them to be gay. As a pro-life, fiscally conservative Republican, I find it quite interesting to see that conservatives have responded to the President's announcement, for the most part, thoughtfully.
zombyboy | 2.3.10 @ 5:40PM
Thanks for a moment of quiet in this much larger, much uglier conversation. A gay man or women shouldn't have to hide like criminals in order to serve their country.
And thank you for serving your community; we appreciate what you do for us. Unless, of course, you're pulling us over and issuing citations when, fergodsake, I was only going a few miles over the posted speed limit and, seriously, what's the big deal?
Sorry, I’m still feeling a little post-ticket bitterness.
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 6:12PM
Hey Stephen, thanks for your service. The guys I served with weren't the boa wearing type, either. They were good troops and we got along well. We did our time, got discharged and moved on.
But a change in DADT policy is a Rx for disaster. If religious and a lot of straight people defer service, its going to hurt the military more than help. And you can be sure that activism will follow - don't know of any circumstance concerning this topic where it hasn't.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 6:34PM
But all you have are scare stories - "something will totally go wrong because religious people will have a problem with it." Some might. Some had a problem with integrated units, but that wasn't a reason not to do it. And Christian activism has been found in the military; that doesn't mean we should ban Christians.
You already admit that gays are in the military and they can do the job. You don't want that changed - you just want them to hide it? How is that logical? So Christians will only have a problem with it if the policy reflects what everyone already knows? Why aren't those Christian bigots upset now?
Eric Cartman| 2.3.10 @ 7:00PM
That's my point exactly! Activism (on either side) takes away from the mission of the military. I don't want to see either side's activists detracting from the military's mission.
I think when you are serving in the military there are freedoms you give up. My personal wants do not matter. At this time - here and now - this may be a freedom that has to stand aside. If manpower and moral is harmed by changing the program, then DADT should stand.
I don't think it's perfect and it may change in the future. But as it stands today, it works for the most part. If changing the policy harms recruitment or retention, would you be okay with that?
My personal beliefs and friendships with the gay troops I knew play no part in looking at an overall policy - the overall policy may be correct. Time will tell.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 7:46PM
"If manpower and moral is harmed by changing the program, then DADT should stand."
But "something bad might happen" isn't a reason to keep it. If all you have are scary dreams, that's not enough.
"But as it stands today, it works for the most part."
HOW? By catering to bigots and firing people? Explain how it's "working." Was segregation "working" before we changed it? If so/if not, how is this different?
Liberal Reaeder| 2.3.10 @ 5:07PM
I think that openly gay service in the military is not as simple as some advocating it suggest.
One argument against it I firmly reject is the notion that allowing gay men to serve will somehow challenge the religious ideas of other soldiers.
That's absurd. The military is NOT a religious club or organization. To be sure, religious people serve, and we're grateful to them.
But the military is governed by civilian leadership, and policy must not be dictated by clamorous religious factions inside the military or outside it.
In the end, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" requires soldiers to lie by omission. It seems a questionable policy to an organization in which personal integrity and honor play such an important role.
John R. Guardiano| 2.3.10 @ 6:01PM
Liberal Reader,
Thanks for your note.
So you don't think the religious sensibilities and religious beliefs of American servicemen and women should be respected and accommodated? You think that's "absurd"?
Why -- and even if it is "absurd," doesn't the First Amendment protect the free exercise of religion? Why should someone's sexual preferences and lifestyle choices trump a person's religious beliefs? Or is the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment also "absurd"?
V/R
John
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 6:14PM
John, that is a really dumb argument. Have you ever read the first amendment. Let me quote it here for you:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are two aspects of this that are problematic. If the military supports a specific religion over another, then this governmental organization is ESTABLISHING a state religion. Furthermore, the amendment says nothing about forcing your religion on another person, it just protects your right to believe as you do. You need to real the first amendment.
Your argument is clearly absurd...
I'm an atheist and when I was in the Army, I did not expect me to be "accommodated". I further don't think your religion is "sensible".
There have always been gays in the military. We know who most of them are. I certainly did. Therefore, DADT doesn't change a thing -- it's a stupid law.
Face it, what you really want to do when you strip all of your absurd arguments away, is force your religious views on others. With a number of states approving gay marriage or civil unions, DADT doesn't even make legal sense anymore since these individuals must put that fact in their military records.
John R. Guardiano| 2.3.10 @ 6:58PM
Bob,
I'm not sure why you're so angry, but perhaps a few deep breaths will help you to relax!
Did you read what I wrote? I never ever suggested that the military should endorse any one religious denomination over another; quite the contrary: The military, I argue, should respect and accommodate the religious sensibilities of ALL believers -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al.
And, in fact, this is what the military now does. Consequently, we have religious chaplains, religious services and churches (or places of worship) all supported by the military -- for use by, and care of, military service members.
You may not like this; it may bother you; but it's a fact of life -- and it is made possible by virtue of the First Amendment, which respects the religious freedom of all believers, regardless of their particular religious denomination.
The point is not to favor any one religion, but to protect them all. The point is not to establish a religion, but to respect the exercise of religion.
This is not absurd, Bob. Our liberties under the Constitution are not absurd; they are a blessing.
Finally -- yes, gays can and do serve, and that is fine. I salute their service. But allowing gays to serve is very different from forcing open homosexuality upon the U.S. military. We agree about the former -- gays can and do serve -- but we disagree about the latter -- open homosexuality should not be forced upon the U.S. military.
Regards,
John
Missy| 2.3.10 @ 8:13PM
Charming Bob is perennially angry--that's his charm.
Besides, Bob went to Harvard, you know--he's entitled. Just ask him.
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 8:23PM
That is the most clear and concisely written summation of this issue, and I for one, fully agree with it. Thank you. I, and I'm sure most Christians, whether they be evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, etc. probably agree with it.
It seems that no matter how clearly one says it however, the Bobs & Liberal Readers, etc. refuse to be reasonable about it and only insist on trying to paint us in a bad light.
I just wanted to say that.
Thanks again.
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 8:31PM
"The military, I argue, should respect and accommodate the religious sensibilities of ALL believers -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al."
The military "allows" religions, it doesn't "accommodate" religions. You can choose to worship, or not worship. You seem to think that because the military allows religions (and like any community allows chaplains), it lets these religions dictate rules and behaviors. That is NOT a logical conclusion.
By the way, how do I force you to be a homosexual? This argument is a red herring, and I think, if you've ever taken a class in logic, understand that. Why is it that it is acceptable to "force" integration in the military and not "homosexuality"? There are certainly some Christians (Aryan Brotherhood) who don't like integration. And why do you and your other fellows force Jews to see bacon in the mess hall?
Face it, John, you are simply imposing your religious beliefs on others -- it is as simple as that.
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 8:32PM
My post was to Mr. Guardiano. I accidentally left off his name when posting.
Liberal Reader| 2.3.10 @ 7:10PM
John --
As a Catholic, I accept the teachings of the church on this matter. Those teachings do not preclude me from working with gay men.
I cannot think of any religion that teaches merely to work alongside a gay man is a sin. Soldiers follow orders and follow good leaders. With proper leadership, they'll be fine.
Again -- I'm not saying this is a simple civil rights issue. The military is not the same as any employer, and I understand due consideration is necessary.
Sec. Gates -- a very sensible man as far as I can tell -- seems to have it right. Study it for a year, then, if advisable, incrementally lift the restriction.
Smitty| 2.3.10 @ 8:24PM
Sick. The big pro-abort "CATHOLIC." It makes me ill that you hide behind the Church's robes in order to establish your 'credibility'. Absolutely ill.
You can't fool God, though. He knows.
Pete2| 2.3.10 @ 5:58PM
Klein's assumptions are those of a foolish person who hasn't a clue about what the homosexual lifestyle really is all about. You really think it's about love or that they're born that way? Think again. Homosexuality is an abberation of natural behavior brought about by an enviromental situation. Homosexuality is a death culture. It is completely negative and destroys any civilization in which it becomes prevalent. Argue away you bunch of fools, the end result is going to be destruction. We're about there now with that fool in the Whitehouse.
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 6:19PM
Pete, you give yourself away by using the term "homosexual lifestyle". The only people who use that term are religious homophobes. Most of the gay people I know live a normal life. They have jobs (and they make above average incomes), they own homes, they buy cars, they live in the suburbs, and they don't wear boas. You need to get out more and meed the "silent majority" instead of thinking that most gays are like those you find in the gay pride parades. I guess bigotry knows no bounds among religious fundamentalists.
Mary Louise| 2.3.10 @ 6:39PM
Social conservatives, and others, should not give this hill away. Take the hill, if you can, as a Just Warrior takes a village. Not with a belly full of glee, but a determination to conserve what is greater.
The public knows and/or thinks this: Crimes against gays are crimes that should be punished. Sodomy, however repellent, is not a crime between consenting adults. There is no such thing as gay rights, only human rights.
What SoCons need to do is let the militant gay contingent and its apologists be the get-in-your-facers. Like this thread, the emotional arguments are not very persuasive. Remember California immediately following the election? Don’t emulate that. Use reason, and yes, an appeal to tradition to make your argument.
No parent can be happy when his child comes home and says: “Dad, I’m sure I’m gay. I’m attracted to Tom. I think I love him. The first impulse I didn’t seek, it came unbidden. What can I do?” No parent can be glad or prefer that his son seek fulfillment through sodomy and love of another man instead of the love of a woman and the life-giving force of their union.
But when that same child, sensing his parents’ horror, tries to kill himself, that Mother and Father have little choice but to try to understand the child’s situation and draw the child even closer.
You can’t speak to these things in debate, they’re too personal. But you can frame the debate with all of this in mind. To walk away from standards, to allow homosexual love and union to be raised to parity with the sacrosanctity of love and union between man and woman is to deny the truth and to subvert the good.
It’s up to the Just Warriors, who have a stake in maintaining that heterosexuality is infinitely superior to homosexuality, to make the best argument they can for the preservation of this truth.
One of my two bosses is gay. When I first began working for him he couldn’t help but stare at my breasts and do it frequently. Not at all in an approving way, more in a fit of discomfiture. I had the same experience many times, in restaurants and shops that I frequented when I lived in the gay section of town. A couple of times the stares and vibe were aggressive. In one shop, the proprietor would slam my change on the counter as if to say, 'don’t come back.'
I will never forget the kindness my gay boss showed me recently during a family trauma. He came to Church for a Mass, and I ran down the nave to embrace him when he arrived. I was told he didn’t really want to come because of the Church’s stance on homosexuality. But he came just the same. That’s affection.
Again, the argument should revolve around standards. What it is you’re going to teach your children. And not just the standards the emotional arguments on this thread are trying to inculcate. Standards, what should or shouldn’t be at parity for today and for tomorrow.
The same is true for the protection of the unborn. Every woman, and man who begs her to eliminate and destroy their offspring, does so with an urgency. Her mission is to prevent the conception from blossoming. She can’t undo conception she can only destroy it. Every one knows this. It’s the reason polls show people preferring to call themselves pro-life as opposed to pro-choice. Roe vs. Wade is probably here to stay for some time yet. But you have the law written on a person’s heart to chip away at the inhumanity of Roe.
Fight. But fight like Just Warriors.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 6:47PM
"No parent can be happy when his child comes home and says: “Dad, I’m sure I’m gay. "
Full stop - You're simply assuming your prejudices are shared by everyone. There are plenty of parents - thank God - that are completely indifferent to which team their kid bats for and know that their child pretending to be something they're not is a far worse crime against humanity.
Mary Louise| 2.3.10 @ 6:53PM
Full stop? I'm not so sure.
Get some of those parents to post here, if you can. I'm serious. I'd be interested in their thoughts, and I'd be pefectly willing to admit error and change no parent to most parents.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 10:06PM
I assumed you would have heard of PFLAG. Check it out and hopefully you'll see your error.
Mary Louise| 2.4.10 @ 1:01AM
Your link does nothing to address the point(s) I made. I'll gladly change no parent to most parents, but I'm going to need more proof than you provided.
Mary Louise| 2.3.10 @ 6:57PM
"... and know that their child pretending to be something they're not is a far worse crime against humanity."
If I'm understanding you, that pretending to be what you are not is a much worse crime that taking the life of your unborn child, you've made my point about standards.
SoCon| 2.3.10 @ 8:48PM
Mary Louise, thank you for your wisdom. Your posts are brilliant but it's your goodness that I most admire.
Our civilization is at stake right now and we could surely lose it.
We'd better think very hard before we proceed on this path because we won't be able to close Pandora's box (jar) once we open it.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 10:02PM
Letting gays serve as they do in Israel and Britain puts our civilization at risk? Really?
SoCon| 2.3.10 @ 11:02PM
Yes, it does.
Let's put it to a vote--let the American people decide if we want an openly gay military.
National security affects ALL of us, right?
Mary Louise| 2.4.10 @ 1:22AM
Thanks, SoCon.
John Paul II looked a lot like my Dad. He said, quoting Scripture, 'be not afraid.' And that's an important thing to remember.
He worked in a quarry when Poland came under Communist rule. He was a very special Pope in that he knew some things, personally, that probably a lot of Popes who proceeded him did not.
So, my friend, it's good to remind ourselves to be not afraid.
SoCon| 2.4.10 @ 3:37AM
Ah, Venerable Karol Woytilya, Pope John Paul II; at home, my children and I always called him 'Popie'. Such a good and gentle man, I loved his sweet countenance. I miss him.
Isa 43:5 "Fear not: for I am with thee...."
Written on my heart, this passage has sustained me through the darkness more than once in my life.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 10:07PM
You're not understanding me. I'm not talking about abortion (I've always been prolife), but saying that to pretend to be straight harms yourself, your family, and society far more than simply being gay does.
Liberal Reader| 2.3.10 @ 7:54PM
What is a little disturbing is the INTENSITY of religious -- indeed, sanctimonious -- hostility to homosexuals.
I understand that the teachings of the church, and I know the Bible forbids it.
However, there's also a consideration of PROPORTION.
Jesus himself never once -- not once! -- directly comments on the issue. He preaches against divorce, however, in a way that is impossible to misinterpret. Indeed, his teaching against divorce is probably one of his teachings least amenable to multiple interpretations.
Yet we find the teachings of Jesus on divorce inconvenient, and yuck it up with the thrice divorced Limbaugh when he covorts with absurd tarts as they dance around on a stage in Las Vegas.
Perhaps it's possible that the HUNDREDS of injunctions to remedy the sufferings of the poor and sick deserve much more ardent religious fervor.
3 out of 5 people on earth have inadequate access to fresh water. Here is our own country, 1 out of 8 people last year used food banks.
Were any one of us to give a tenth of what we should to address these problems, how much energy would we have left over for other concerns?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 8:16PM
Marxist Reader,
Bleeding heart liberals shouldn't talk about things like God and the Bible, they don't believe in them or understand them.
You claim to be a Catholic. You state Christ NEVER directly comments on the issue.
You are aware that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He is the Word made Flesh. He is Eternal.
So, 3000 years ago when God commanded the Israelites (in Exodus, by the way) to put to death those caught committing sexual crimes, Christ was saying it.
God also commanded everyone not to steal. God was for private property. He didn't want our money taken from us to be wasted on welfare programs. Especially programs that promote evil.
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 8:29PM
Wow. That's excellent, Nick. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He was there always, and everything that was made was made through Him! Rev.22:13, Jn. 1:3.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 8:46PM
Thanks Margie!
SoCon| 2.3.10 @ 8:52PM
Beautiful post, Nick. Now there's a REAL Catholic boy!! As a fellow Catholic, you make me proud.
God bless you. You, too, Margie!
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 9:00PM
SoCon,
Thanks, so much. I appreciate it.
God Bless!
Liberal Reader| 2.3.10 @ 9:13PM
Actually, Nick, that's pretty LAME.
Clearly I meant that Jesus in the Gospels never directly comments on homosexuality, and I'm correct. Paul mentions it ONCE, and I think it's also mentioned once or twice in Leviticus.
I am NOT making a case for the holiness of homosexuality. I'm talking about proportion here, and right reason.
If you can find me someplace in the Gospels -- in any of the FOUR books in which Jesus had all the time in the WORLD to tell us how horrible homosexuals are -- I'd be grateful for the reference.
I'd also appreciate a response on the substantive point that I made:
Jesus went OUT OF HIS WAY to prohibit divorce, yet divorce never rises to this level of controversy. Why?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 9:53PM
Marxist Reader,
I love letting the Holy Spirit use me to pass on the faith.
Christ didn't speak about many, many things. Do you believe the Gospels recorded every word He spoke? If so, you had better read the end of the Gospel of Saint John.
You didn't qualify your statement with "in the Gospels", you wrote: "Jesus himself never once -- not once! -- directly comments on the issue." That is just bad theology.
To answer your question, Christ prohibited divorce because under Mosaic Law, divorce was allowed. But, as Christ explained, this was not God's plan. He created Adam and Eve to be help-mates forever.
It was well known by Jews of the period that homosexual acts were forbiden, so why would Jesus spend time teaching something they already knew? Remember, the Gospels were written for specific audiences, at specific times, to help introduce Jesus Christ to these audiences.
How many times did he mention murder? Or stealing? Or adultery? Your argument is flawed. Lack of condemnation in writing doesn't mean Christ thought something was no big deal.
Catholics hold to the teachings of the Apostles, "[...] both by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter." (2 Thes. 2:15)
Where does Jesus mention the cornerstone of Christian belief, the Holy Trinity?
Answer: Nowhere.
The word is not in Scripture. It was taught by the Apostles.
Hope I could clear this up for you.
God Bless!
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 10:12PM
Marxist Reader,
Also, I never claimed or implied that Christ said homosexuals ARE "horrible."
Homosexual ACTS are horrible. Evil, in fact.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Don't shove the sin under the carpet or pretend it doesn't exist.
Margie| 2.4.10 @ 12:07AM
SoCon,
Psa 20:4~"May He grant you your heart's desire, and fulfil all your plans!"
Bob| 2.3.10 @ 8:37PM
Wow, Nick, I thought most religions took donations and helped the poor (i.e., welfare). Why waste the money???? You know, if you give those people food and shelter they won't be inclined to work.....
By the way, how do you know "god" commanded anything? Because it is in a book written by men? How does that make sense. Do you really know how the books in the bible were chosen? Do you know how many books were not chosen because the church leaders didn't want to confuse their worshipers? And why do many of the same books differ depending on where they were found? Hmmmmm.......
The History Channel had a great series on how the bible was formed presented by many religious leaders. You should look it up....
Meanwhile, keep on praying to your mythical creature in the sky...
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 8:56PM
3/5 Bob,
Why must you insist on making a fool of yourself?
And why does an anti-Christian bigot like yourself care what I believe?
Christ said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and render unto God the things that are God's."
He didn't say, "Demand that Ceasar feed, house, and clothe the poor with higher taxes."
The poor are our individual responsibility, not the state's.
Did you learn your biblical history and theology while you were translating the Bible from the original Aramiac, professor?
SoCon| 2.3.10 @ 8:56PM
Bob, I haven't figured out if you're a plague, scourge or pestilence--I guess I'll have to go with all three.
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 8:41PM
Pro 19:3 "When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD."
Nobama| 2.3.10 @ 9:34PM
The U.S. Military is NOT a social experiment; if we screw it up we deserve all the crap that most certainly will rain down on us as a result.
Straights should be given the option of leaving early if congress forces this on them. I'm sure a lot of them didn't sign up for an openly gay military. I wouldn't.
hmm_contrib| 2.3.10 @ 10:04PM
And if soldiers had demanded to be let out of an integrated military, what would your response be? They didn't sign up for an an openly integrated military - should they be able to quit because they didn't like serving with black people?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 10:19PM
Explain your "vulgar discrimination", pervert lover.
Nobama| 2.3.10 @ 11:05PM
Liberal intolerance rears its ugly head once again.
Scratch the surface of a liberal and you'll always find a Marxist just itching to get out.
mt| 2.3.10 @ 9:34PM
Some good comments here on both sides. My two cents:
Mr. Klein writes that those offended and forced to participate in gay parades and the like can sue, just like the firemen in San Diego. Really, do we want to force that into the command structure? Put such a burden on the conscience of many service men? Such disorder seems to undermine the argument.
Old Soldier| 2.4.10 @ 12:41AM
So much vitriol, so little sense.
So the Joint Chiefs all said DADT has to go? What did you expect them to say in this administration? What do you think would happen to one of them who spoke against it? Generals are political animals. Remember the Army Chief of Staff who said that damage to "diversity" would be worse than the 14 lives lost at Ft. Hood?
Military service is a privilege, not a right. No one has a "right" in America to serve in the Armed Forces. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court!
Homosexuality is a statistical abnormality. What's the percentage of homosexuals in the general society? 2%? Less? It's also a biological abnormality. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce. If you believe in evolution and natural selection, then you can't also believe that homosexuality is a "natural" condition. It is naturally self-extinguishing.
I remember a favorite saying of the 60's Lefties, "Just because you have silenced a person doesn't mean that you have convinced him." Now those same Lefties want to silence the majority who oppose the homosexual agenda. But they call us hypocrites....
Derek Leaberry| 2.4.10 @ 9:19AM
George Washington never had open homosexuals in his army. Nor did Winfiled Scott. Nor did Andrew Jackson. Nor did Robert E. Lee. Nor did U.S. Grant. Nor did Stonewall Jackson. Nor did Black Jack Pershing. Nor did Dwight Eisenhower. Nor did George Patton. So Philip Klein thinks he's wiser than George Washington and company. Or perhaps Dupont Circle, sodomite heaven in DC, has grown on Mr. Klein. Or maybe Klein wants to get an invitation from homosexual Washington Post dining critic Tom Sietsema to dine with him at Komi's.
Klein is a fool and is not a conservative of any kind. Like David Brooks and David Frum, Klein is a cancer in the conservative body and needs to be extracted.
Bob| 2.4.10 @ 9:31AM
The real cancer in the Republican party are bigots like you who use their religion to justify their bigotry. Hitler used his Christian religion to justify his actions. We should value liberty in this country. Gays do not encroach on your life just as blacks or Asians don't encroach on your life. Face it, you have a real hang-up. Go see a shrink.
SoCon| 2.4.10 @ 2:40PM
You don't have a 'party' without us, Bob--get used to it 'cuz we're not going anywhere.
Interesting that you omit the mass-murdering ATHEISTS who terrorized the twentieth century: Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, etc.--these are your brethren, Bob. How many hundreds of millions have been slaughtered by atheists?
BTW, Hitler was a satanist--look it up.
Bob| 2.4.10 @ 2:52PM
And how many people were killed in the Crusades? I did look it up, by the way....
http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....itler.html
Your information about Hitler is from a denier. Again, the truth shall set you free.
SoCon| 2.4.10 @ 3:10PM
Pitiful old fool; at least you've provided some laughs for us today--and, need I remind you, Bob, they're always AT you.
Bob| 2.4.10 @ 3:25PM
I'm sure that loving mythological creature in the sky appreciates your hateful attitude.... By the way, here is Hitler's quote on atheism:
Hitler stated in a speech to the Stuttgart February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."
Live and learn, SoCon....
SoCon| 2.4.10 @ 4:38PM
"My" hateful attitude? Why, because I have a good sense of humor? Wow, pot call kettle.
Must be a bad day for you, Bob--the old rheumatism acting up again?
Put a heating pad on it, cranky old man; maybe you'll feel better.
Derek Leaberry| 2.4.10 @ 12:11PM
There you go again with Hitler and his "christian religion." Bob, you are a dishonest person. A liar. Consider this my last post to you.
Bob| 2.4.10 @ 1:23PM
http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....itler.html
The truth shall set you free....
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 12:37PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Letting Gays Openly Serve | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 8:44PM
John Kerry: Republicans Attack Military Leadership to Defend Ban … | Management Busin links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ron| 6.16.10 @ 2:18PM
Ha, ha, ha!!! NO, you cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's like having your hero's be Mao and Mother Theresa. Social liberalism leads to financial ruin every time. Look at your history books, ie ancient Rome, Greece, etc.
Liberal life styles like drugs, sex outside of marriage, alcoholism, divorce, etc. leads to financial debt and dependency on government handouts. Breakdown of marriage (family) leads to troubled offspring which includes sexual problems like loss of normal sexual identity (homosexual attitudes) that will then lead to more gov. programs and eventual massive debt. Children NEED a mother and father or else you run the risk of troubled teens with all of its perverse and dark life styles. Just look at the statistics of family counselors and researchers and not the latest "cultural phase" or style.
Since when do we (courts, gov., citizens, military) ever listen to "younger people" with less life experience's AND to Hollywood, TV, and reality shows to form our way of life anchored in history and Constitutional law.
Be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing. To be a true conservative, means living a life of constraint, individual choices (not forcing them on the majority by changing the definition of marriage that homosexual's had no part in the first place), responsible behavior, and strong families. This greatly limits the risk of needing help from gov.
Our forefathers knew that unless "We the People" were mature, responsible, and God fearing, our nation would not survive.
Lets grow up and not fall to some "latest irresponsible fad" that causes child-like dependence on someone or something like...THE GOVERNMENT.