Ron Paul: The Only White Male Republican to Vote For Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/14876591650

[JosephTheLibertarian]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

[FrankRep]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Does the Military have to right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

When you join you voluntarily agree to it.

[TonySutton]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

Initially maybe, but things would settle down in short order. Any persistent issues would be a leadership issue. Good leaders do not let little problems become big problems.

I remember when we first started getting females in our forward units. There were minor issues here and there but the leaders made sure everyone knew anything short of professional behavior would not be tolerated. Minor problems were addressed immediately and everyone quickly understood the UCMJ would be enforced.

[FreeTraveler]

Good for Ron, standing up for civil rights once again.

[BuddyRey]

Though I am slightly surprised that there was only one white, male Republican to vote for the repeal of DADT, I'm certainly not surprised that it was Dr. Paul. I wish the rest of the party could really "get it" in terms of individual liberty, both personal and economic, the way he does. I don't think the gulf between the party establishment and Ron Paul Republicanism has ever been wider, and yet simultaneously traversable in the near future.

[brandon]

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.

[Kludge]

(Christian, too - allegedly)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.

Yep, I remember that!

[erowe1]

Why did RP do that?

Every time it came up in the 2008 presidential campaign it sounded like he supported DADT.

[erowe1]

I wish the rest of the party could really "get it" in terms of individual liberty, both personal and economic, the way he does.

I fail to see how this has anything at all to do with individual liberty.

If anything, then I suppose that, when it comes to the military, any policy that results in fewer people in our standing army is more pro-liberty than any policy that results in more people in it. Going back to excluding women from the military would also be a step in the right direction in terms of individual liberty.

[Cowlesy]

I'm still confused over this whole debate.

Couldn't you be homosexual and still be in the military as long as you didn't tell anyone you were, effectively meaning they were not banned from the military?

I don't mean to gin up stereotypes, but is it conducive to an effective combat team to have them out in the open wearing their sexual preferences on their sleeves in a group of straight guys trained to be killers where they need to rely on each other?

I don't know. I just feel like this is one of their situations where we are trying to institute "fairness."

[seeker4sho]

The fact is gays in the military tend to associate with their own kind. During my 22 year military career I never had a problem with gays. They serve their country just like the rest of us heterosexuals. IMO, the controversy over gays serving in the military is merely a political ploy to garner votes.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Couldn't you be homosexual and still be in the military as long as you didn't tell anyone you were, effectively meaning they were not banned from the military?


What do you think "Don't Tell" means?


I don't mean to gin up stereotypes, but is it conducive to an effective combat team to have them out in the open wearing their sexual preferences on their sleeves in a group of straight guys trained to be killers where they need to rely on each other?

Of course, but what happens when this occurs amongst straight soldiers? I'm sure it happens!


I don't know. I just feel like this is one of their situations where we are trying to institute "fairness."

Obama is tossing his base a bone. Personally, I don't care. But..hey

[Kludge]

Personally, I think it would be best if they were simply segregated.

... ... ...

http://www.flydv.com/img/gaybrams.jpg

... The Muslims would be terrified into submission.

[erowe1]

During my 22 year military career I never had a problem with gays. They serve their country government just like the rest of us heterosexuals.

Fixed it.

[emazur]

Couldn't you be homosexual and still be in the military as long as you didn't tell anyone you were, effectively meaning they were not banned from the military?

Couldn't you be Jewish and still be in the military as long as you didn't tell anyone you were, effectively meaning they were not banned from the military?


I don't mean to gin up stereotypes, but is it conducive to an effective combat team to have them out in the open wearing their sexual preferences on their sleeves in a group of straight guys trained to be killers where they need to rely on each other? Not hiding that they are gay doesn't mean they'll go around wearing a sandwich board saying "kiss me, I'm gay". As a straight guy w/ some some somewhat old fashioned ideas about mean and women, I get a little offended when I hear another straight guy talk about his sexual exploitations with women. Does that mean we should ban anyone in the military from showing any sign of any sexual preference?

[specsaregood]

Why did RP do that?

Every time it came up in the 2008 presidential campaign it sounded like he supported DADT.

No, initially he said it was a "fair" policy. And then later he talked to people affected by it and discovered it was not being enforced as a "fair" policy. My interpretation was that he thought it was being enforced as a type of "no fraternization" policy and when he found out it was being used as a discrimination policy he changed his position and said he would change such a policy.

[angelatc]

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.

I agree with erowe. I seem to recall that he said it shouldn't matter, and having the impression that he would vote to overturn it. I thought he said if a member of the armed services was misbehaving sexually then the behavior should be punished.

[specsaregood]

No, initially he said it was a "fair" policy. And then later he talked to people affected by it and discovered it was not being enforced as a "fair" policy. My interpretation was that he thought it was being enforced as a type of "no fraternization" policy and when he found out it was being used as a discrimination policy he changed his position and said he would change such a policy.

Here is where he addresses it:
35minutes into the google interview:
YouTube - Candidates@Google: Ron Paul (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg)

From that:
"Everybody should be treated equally, they shouldn't be discriminated because of that (homosexuality) alone. Which means, even though those words are not offensive to me...'Don't ask Don't tell'...doesn't sound so bad...I think the way it is enforced is bad."

[sluggo]

nvm

[Carole]

If the military commits to enforcing its no fraternization policy, then this should be enough to deal with infringements.

Like the hate crimes law is superfluous because the other laws on the books cover these same crimes. No one should be unequally prosecuted for (or unequally protected by special laws for) the same crime, for example, because it has been labeled a hate crime.

A particular crime is a particular crime; it does not require different and unequal rules for determining justice.

Not to suggest that "fraternization" rises to the same level as a crime, but trying to supply a useful analogy. The military needs to enforce its own rules. If ANYONE breaks a rule he has sworn to uphold, then the military has procedures for the infringement.

My personal feeling is that there could be a loss of morale in the military, but loss of morale can happen under many circumstances. If you are in a foxhole or on a team with someone in whom you have no trust, no matter who that person is, there can be morale problems. That person could be: An incompentent, a troublemaker, a woman, another man, a homosexual, a bad leader or any number of other people; morale could become a problem.

On the other hand one could be in a foxhole or teamed with someone who inspires morale: A competent person of any sex or psychological makeup, having the best qualities that lead to the best results in a given situation. It seems to me that the military does have the responsibility in developing these excellent people and weeding out those who do not meet their standards without regard to outside interference by the government and collective groups with their own agendas.

[polomertz]

I remember that Ron said he didn't think it was a bad policy but if we're going to go by it, it should apply to everybody. The problem is, it's only applied to homosexuals. I remember him saying that if there's disruptive homosexual activity, it needs to be dealt with, but I clearly remember him going on to say if there's disruptive heterosexual activity, it needs to be dealt with in the same manner.

[Carole]

Well said. :)

[HOLLYWOOD]

NO PDA or Fraternization has always been the policy of the military and now affects Homosexuals/Lesbians as it has heterosexuals.

[Southron]

I guess once we invade Iran they won't be able to say there aren't gays in the country.

The American Empire. Spreading homosexuality....er democracy abroad.:eek:

[sratiug]

Don't ask don't tell sucked ass, good for Ron. With what the supposedly straight guys have done at Abu Grhaib (piling naked Iraqis up, raping young boys) I don't see how this is an issue.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

I doubt RuPaul will be joining the Marines anytime soon. Why should a person have to hide who they are? The government mandated with CRA that business cant discriminate, but they can? Look at it like this, if your gay (not saying you are) but if you were and you are serving in the military, and I ask you "You got a girl back home" .....you have to either refuse to answer, or lie. Why should a person have to do that when they are serving their country? It makes no damn since to me.

[tremendoustie]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

Nope, because they're paid for with money stolen from us.

They don't own their property, so they don't have a right to make decisions for it.

[tremendoustie]

Fixed it.

Well spotted.

[Theocrat]

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.


Yep, I remember that!

That was his third (great) debate in 2007:

YouTube - Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo)

His answer on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" occurs at 9:08. (I forgot how to load the video beginning on that time. :()

[7_digitz]

hasnt had a negative effect on the british military and they repealed their anti-gay military policy

[silentshout]

I'm glad he did. I wrote a letter to my rep (Campbell, he is horrible) expressing my displeasure at his vote not to repeal it. No reason why gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to serve. Although, it does provide an out if there's a draft.

[Peace&Freedom]

I doubt RuPaul will be joining the Marines anytime soon. Why should a person have to hide who they are? The government mandated with CRA that business cant discriminate, but they can? Look at it like this, if your gay (not saying you are) but if you were and you are serving in the military, and I ask you "You got a girl back home" .....you have to either refuse to answer, or lie. Why should a person have to do that when they are serving their country? It makes no damn since to me.

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

[Southron]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"


I agree wholeheartedly. We should be more about scaling down our military than this Equal Opportunity Empire we are pursuing.

[Theocrat]

I agree wholeheartedly. We should be more about scaling down our military than this Equal Opportunity Empire we are pursuing.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw50sw8sw578.gif

:D

[Anti Federalist]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

Wow, well done!! +1776

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

Hey, I dont disagree with anything you said as far as the military goes and standing Armies.......with the said.....the government should not be dismissing people based on their sexual orientation.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are."??.

Why should someone support what someone wishes to do in their own fucking bedroom. Why should people care if some is fucking gay??!?!?!?

Props to Ron Paul for supporting a bigoted policy.

[White Knight]

I disagree with Ron Paul on this. Hopefully his son wants to keep it.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I disagree with Ron Paul on this. Hopefully his son wants to keep it.

Why?

[White Knight]

Why?

I'm a paleo-conservative, not a true libertarian. However, I share your opposition to neo-cons and liberals.

[Agorism]

This must mean that he opposes the "white male liberty movement" that the B&P likes to refer to.

I think a repeal is a good thing.

[rich34]

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.

I believe he called it decent, if I remember correctly.

[MRoCkEd]

Maybe he thinks it will cause more disruption and less war.
lol...

[erowe1]

Hey, I dont disagree with anything you said as far as the military goes and standing Armies.......with the said.....the government should not be dismissing people based on their sexual orientation.

If you agree on all of that, then why do you care if they dismiss people based on sexual orientation?

[RM918]

I don't see what's wrong with repealing it. Question: If someone figures out that you're heterosexual, can you get kicked out of the military? I'd imagine not.

Rules against sexual misconduct and fraternization should be gender neutral, does it really matter what's being put where?

[Bruno]

His answer on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" occurs at 9:08. (I forgot how to load the video beginning on that time. :()

#9m8s or something like that?

[Theocrat]

Why should someone support what someone wishes to do in their own fucking bedroom. Why should people care if some is fucking gay??!?!?!?

Props to Ron Paul for supporting a bigoted policy.

Why shouldn't people care if someone is gay? We are discussing a moral issue here. And gays do not have a right to be gay, so they need to stop getting society to accept their nasty lifestyle.

[TonySutton]

Why shouldn't people care if someone is gay? We are discussing a moral issue here. And gays do not have a right to be gay, so they need to stop getting society to accept their nasty lifestyle.

My god says your god doesn't have any rights...

[.Tom]

Good job Ron! Glad you see how DADT targets gays specifically and doesn't do anything to address heterosexual misconduct, therefore it's a discriminatory and irrational policy.

Fuck the other GOP bigots.

[Bruno]

Why shouldn't people care if someone is gay? We are discussing a moral issue here. And gays do not have a right to be gay, so they need to stop getting society to accept their nasty lifestyle.


No matter how or with whom/what you have sex, someone is bound to think it is nasty.

Let God sort that one out.

[sofia]

shame on ron....

normal soldiers should not be forced to bunk with *****s..


extremist purism like this is why we cant win GOP nomination.....

[BW2112]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

Not as long as those who aren't allowed in the military are forced to pay taxes to support them.

[Theocrat]

shame on ron....

normal soldiers should not be forced to bunk with *****s..


extremist purism like this is why we cant win GOP nomination.....

We didn't land on Elephant Rock. Elephant Rock landed on us!

[.Tom]

Why shouldn't people care if someone is gay? We are discussing a moral issue here. And gays do not have a right to be gay, so they need to stop getting society to accept their nasty lifestyle.

Who are you to tell me who I can voluntarily and consensually have sex with?

With all due respect, go shove your cross up your ass, because your sky daddy doesn't own me.

I may sound a bit angry, and I am, because I personally know gay people that have been harassed by bigots like you their whole life - and it has really taken a toll on them.

So, until you've been in their shoes, mind your own fucking business.

[Lucille]

Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html):


"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

[Promontorium]

Glad to see only the anti-science racists are pro Don't Ask Don't Tell. Also a good second is that none of them served in the military.

I served with openly homosexual people and people who kept dead silent about it.

What you stereotypically assume about homosexuals is much more prevalant in all males, we are generally overtly sexual. It's a science thing, so I won't go into it. But behavior is a choice. And it is military policy to not tolerate sexual behavior of any kind.

Every time I see this discussion here, people roll out the double standard. So afraid some "*****" might say something homosexual, or put on a pink tshirt or something, meanwhile 90% of the military is straight men who want to fuck anything in a skirt. The potential openness of the gays won't be a drop in the pond of what the teen to twenty something testosterone amped, sex deprived, straight men want to say and do. Yet somehow it all works out.

It's called military bearing. It is a standard that every person is held to. It works.

No one is putting forth a proposition to allow gay people to "act" a certain way.

Don't Ask Don't Tell has absolutely nothing to do with behavior. There is no stipulation in that rule that says people can't act gay. It is a rule that says if someone thinks you're gay, or you say you're gay, then you're fired.

For one moment think about that. You keep hounding on the "behavior" you assume they exude. But the rule has nothing to do with behavior. Why is this? Because homosexuals aren't uncontrollable 'animals' and really the only way to figure out someone is gay is verbally. If you were even half right, that gays would "disrupt" the military with their behavior, then the rule wouldn't be "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" it would be "Don't stick it, in that guy's ass". But sodomy is already banned under the UCMJ. and will still be banned if DADT is repealed.

[rprprs]

I don't see what's wrong with repealing it. Question: If someone figures out that you're heterosexual, can you get kicked out of the military? I'd imagine not.

Rules against sexual misconduct and fraternization should be gender neutral, does it really matter what's being put where?

Agreed. And, as your first sentence suggests, isn't part of the problem with DADT the fact that, even absent fraternization, gays can be "outed"?

I don't know a great deal about the law, so I'm just asking.

[Pennsylvania]

I may sound a bit angry, and I am, because I personally know gay people that have been harassed by bigots like you their whole life - and it has really taken a toll on them.

'tis the truth

[CUnknown]

I wonder if MSNBC is going to give him positive coverage for this... not...

Who's the bigot now?

[ChaosControl]

Unlike private enterprise, government is funded by tax dollars and therefore should not be able to discriminate in any way that is not directly related to the ability to do the job.

So while setting standards for behaviors and discussions that are allowed in the work place, such as say not allowing PDAs or something, is acceptable, effectively firing someone for behavior outside of the job place that somehow becomes known is not acceptable. Therefore DADT is not acceptable.

A private business could do it if they want and I'd support their right to do it, but a government employer, such as the military, doesn't have that right.

[Kojac]

No, I didn't read the whole thread, but as an active duty Marine, I know we have enough problems (despite UCMJ consequences) with heterosexual females on deployments already. Why push the envelope further? The truth is that a minority of openly gay/lesbian servicemembers will create a negative stigma for the rest by their actions.

[Imaginos]

Ron Paul just drips pure awesomeness.

[libertarian4321]

Count me as another veteran who agrees with Ron Paul on this one.

I would be a bit more cautious, starting with allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in all but combat slots (as women do now). If that worked well (as I suspect it will), I'd open up all slots a few years later.

It's just so freakin' stupid to toss out a linguist or doctor after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars training him.

[paulitics]

I don't understand the title. Were there a bunch of nonwhite female republicans that voted for repeal? And if so, why would anyone care.

[MelissaWV]

No, I didn't read the whole thread, but as an active duty Marine, I know we have enough problems (despite UCMJ consequences) with heterosexual females on deployments already. Why push the envelope further? The truth is that a minority of openly gay/lesbian servicemembers will create a negative stigma for the rest by their actions.

Psst. I hate to tell you this, since you seem really, really secure in your assertion... but...

There are already gays in the Marines. A lot of them. You probably served with some. You just didn't ask, and they didn't tell.

[erowe1]

government is funded by tax dollars and therefore should not be able to discriminate in any way that is not directly related to the ability to do the job.

I don't see the logic in this.

How does the fact that government is funded by tax dollars lead to the conclusion that it shouldn't discriminate in any way not directly related to ability to do the job?

If all right-handed people were banned from service in the military, that would be a good thing for tax payers, wouldn't it?

[Kojac]

Psst. I hate to tell you this, since you seem really, really secure in your assertion... but...

There are already gays in the Marines. A lot of them. You probably served with some. You just didn't ask, and they didn't tell.

I don't doubt that, but I wasn't claiming that they weren't. Let me see if I can rephrase for more clarity.

An openly gay servicemember (especially a male) who is caught in a compromising sexual situation (whether or not his command charges him) will stigmatize the openly gay status of other servicemembers and damage their ability to operate cohesively within a unit.

This has already happened with females, especially in country. While many Marines are still able to maintain a professional stance and function around stigmatized individuals, they are generally no longer regarded with as much familiarity and trust.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I agree wholeheartedly. We should be more about scaling down our military than this Equal Opportunity Empire we are pursuing.

The Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (HR 4312) Increase Military Force strength by 7,000 in the Army and 500 in the Marine Corp. Unknown increases in US Air Force, Navy, Reserves,and or National Guard.

Obama has increased government employment by 14% since in office.

[MelissaWV]

I don't doubt that, but I wasn't claiming that they weren't. Let me see if I can rephrase for more clarity.

An openly gay servicemember (especially a male) who is caught in a compromising sexual situation (whether or not his command charges him) will stigmatize the openly gay status of other servicemembers and damage their ability to operate cohesively within a unit.
...

Fixed. The problem, then, is with lewd behavior that isn't befitting of someone who's on the job. That problem should be addressed as it arises. What's going on is that a whole lot of people have decided to project their stereotypical view of homosexuals (that they are promiscuous, can't help themselves, etc.) onto the entire group. If you punish instances of bad behavior, that is one thing. If you're going to have someone removed because they have a boyfriend back home instead of a girlfriend, that's another.

The fact is that even if you removed all homosexuals and females from the military, there would still be the potential for stigma, and there would absolutely be the potential for bad behavior. The behavior itself is what merits punishment.

[ProBlue33]

I get his vote.

BUT...
If somebody is openly flaunting their gaydom, it could disturb the unit.
So let's say a gay guy is doing this and the other enlisted men complain to their CO, now what. The CO tells the guy tone it down, or I can't be responsible for a possible code red, something along those lines.

Gays will still need to be discrete to some extent.
Do you really think a military unit will accept a Chris Crocker type gay guy?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

+2 to the removing standing armies post.

+1 to supporting Ron Paul pointing out that standards for military behavior trump behavioral disruptions regardless of the source.

-1 to all of the homophobic posts.

-2 to Theo and homohate posts.

Sex scandals eh. How about all of the hooker scandals that have occurred around ports and military bases in the world for the past several decades?

[specsaregood]

Another thing about this vote.

As I understand it, Dr. Paul did not actually vote TO Repeal DADT. He voted for the military to be allowed to repeal it if and when they decided it was a good idea.

[Kojac]

@MelissaWV

I don't know if this will strike home or even make sense, but it's hard to explain just how much the group/team mentality is hammered into us. We are all Marines, we are all riflemen, etc. It goes deeper once you hit a unit, though. We all drink together, we all chase tail together, we all do a lot of the same things and view each other in that light.

Compounding this, we work on tasks in groups, we pay for each other's mistakes in groups or as a whole, and we are rewarded in groups or as a whole.

If you see where I'm going with this, as much as we defend the right to individualism, and as much as individuals should be held responsible for their actions, that is something we give up for the sake of those we defend.

I hope you can see the problem.

[White Knight]

Pat Buchanan would never have voted for this. The Constitution Party may be the only way to go. The Libertarian Party is not a friend to normal people.

[specsaregood]

Pat Buchanan would never have voted for this. The Constitution Party may be the only way to go. The Libertarian Party is not a friend to normal people.

You don't think the military should be able to decide for themselves whether to kick out homosexuals or not? Because if you read the amendment that is pretty much what it does.

[White Knight]

You don't think the military should be able to decide for themselves whether to kick out homosexuals or not? Because if you read the amendment that is pretty much what it does.

The military's leaders have already come out against the ban.

[specsaregood]

The military's leaders have already come out against the ban.

right and this amendment specifically states that nothing changes until they approve of it. So basically....much ado about nothing.



Even if the amendment passes in the Senate, too, the policy will not be immediately repealed, thanks to a compromise requiring implementation of the repeal to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on its impact — expected in December. Then the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to certify that the repeal wouldn’t hurt military readiness.
From: http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2010/05/28/house-passes-defense-bill-with-dadt-repeal-attached/

[Vessol]

Pat Buchanan would never have voted for this. The Constitution Party may be the only way to go. The Libertarian Party is not a friend to normal people.

What are "normal people" in your opinion?

[Depressed Liberator]

I get his vote.

BUT...
If somebody is openly flaunting their straightdom, it could disturb the unit.
So let's say a straight guy is doing this and the other enlisted men complain to their CO, now what. The CO tells the guy tone it down, or I can't be responsible for a possible code red, something along those lines.

Straights will still need to be discrete to some extent.
Do you really think a military unit will accept a Larry Craig type gay guy?

[White Knight]

What are "normal people" in your opinion?

Men who aren't attracted to another man's hairy genitals.

[chadhb]

Anybody who joins the military, to fight wars for Isreal and oil is an idiot. Never met one Jew in the US military either, wake up America! Parents wake up!

[Depressed Liberator]

Men who aren't attracted to another man's hairy genitals.

Of course, women who are attracted to another man's hairy genitals is COMPLETELY normal.

[White Knight]

Of course, women who are attracted to another man's hairy genitals is COMPLETELY normal.

Absolutely, that's the way nature intended. Liberal MTV is what brought a perverted disease into the mainstream. Instead of all this love we should be searching for a cure.

[Vessol]

Men who aren't attracted to another man's hairy genitals.

Most guys I know shave ;).

Also, even if they aren't "normal", don't they have the same constitutional rights?


Absolutely, that's the way nature intended. Liberal MTV is what brought a perverted disease into the mainstream. Instead of all this love we should be searching for a cure.

And Conservative Pundits made it explode like it's some huge thing out of control, same with the whole 'stranger dangers' bullshit. FYI, only about 1% of the population is homosexual. And 1% of the population has always been homosexual.

It's not like homosexuality appeared out of nowhere from evil liberals minds.

[jclay2]

You know what, this whole topic is meant to divide us and distract from the main problem: standing armies and never ending wars. Take these aways and a topic like gays in the military won't even matter.

[jclay2]

Most guys I know shave ;).
Also, even if they aren't "normal", don't they have the same constitutional rights?
.

Although I disagree with the behavior, I am open to them being in the military as long as their preference for liking other men doesn't impede themselves in the battlefield. But hopefully as my above post stated we can focus on the main problem of the empire.

[RM918]

Absolutely, that's the way nature intended. Liberal MTV is what brought a perverted disease into the mainstream. Instead of all this love we should be searching for a cure.

How can you support an ideology that is essentially quite close to 'live and let live' yet cling to a specific portion of government forcing people to act a certain way that has no effect on you whatsoever?

[nobody's_hero]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

Bigger question: Does the military have rights?

[MelissaWV]

Absolutely, that's the way nature intended. Liberal MTV is what brought a perverted disease into the mainstream. Instead of all this love we should be searching for a cure.

I'm attracted to men and women, but don't like the hair. It's interesting that you believe I can serve in the military! :rolleyes:

"Nature" intends a lot of things, most of which you'd be awfully surprised at. There are perfectly natural asexual creatures, and there are natural hermaphrodites. There are banana slugs, which have both sets of genitalia and attempt simultaneously to bite off the other slug's male parts and insert their own male parts into the other slug's female parts, therefore successfully spreading their DNA while safeguarding their nether regions for another day (and avoiding becoming pregnant themselves).

The world will, to listen to you and several others on these forums (and many, many more out there in the world), end not because of wars or bad fiscal policy or even an asteroid. It will end because I kissed a girl. You can waste time figuring out a way to "cure" it if you'd like. It would be as much a waste as someone trying to cure you of your bias and bigotry on the subject.

But yes, the entire thing IS a distraction, and the only reason this is coming up now is, I believe, because it's such an easy way to get out of a military draft. Loopholes need to be closed.

[00_Pete]

Ohh man :(

Mr. Paul doesnt learn anything from the Rand episode? Madcow, Bathhouse Olbermann, Bathhouse Bill Mayer, Jon Stewart and the co-creator of Daily Show, etc?? Doesnt he learn from History? Did he lost his common sense? Or could it be that the Agenda became so powerful that even Paul bows down to it?

People lost their minds or something??

Allowing people with extreme RECRUITING sexual tendencies, with extreme facist-militarist tendencies openly serving in the military?? People that medical science proved that are mostly nuts?? People that are obsessed with masculinity, virility, war, physical perfection, muscles, etc? People that turned anciente Greece, the Roman Empire and Germany into warmongering corrupted disfunctional societies?!

Anyone that thinks openly gay people will just be normal military personal that will mind their own business know nothing about History and have lost their common sense...its pathetic...

BTW...remember when this "kook" stated that if Ron Paul ever becomes a serious contender all your leftwing and libertarian show business people that you respect will give you a rude awakening?? You got a very small taste of what i was saying with Rand Paul...go figure...most of you have no idea about the Satanic Conspiracy that is destroying Mankind...you have no idea...

Sarah Palin is the last of the last...Western Civilization last stand :(

[Nate]

People lost their minds or something??



Sarah Palin is the last of the last...Western Civilization last stand :(


Yeah and WE are the ones who have lost our minds. If Palin is "western civilization's" last stand then it's about time I complete my move to Malaysia cause "western civilization" deserves to fall.

Palin is a moron & so are the people like you who support her.

[BuddyRey]

Allowing people with extreme RECRUITING sexual tendencies, with extreme facist-militarist tendencies openly serving in the military?? People that medical science proved that are mostly nuts?? People that are obsessed with masculinity, virility, war, physical perfection, muscles, etc? People that turned anciente Greece, the Roman Empire and Germany into warmongering corrupted disfunctional societies?!

Well hell man, you make 'em sound like ideal candidates for military service.

But on a serious note, if the gay-bashers on this forum are going to continue to perpetuate such foolishness, could y'all at least get some semblance of a consistent argument going? From one corner, I'm hearing that all gay people are sissy, effeminate poofs who will ruin the military by making it too soft; and from another corner, I'm hearing that they're all hyper-militaristic killing machines who secretly work for the Nazis somehow?

[00_Pete]

Well hell man, you make 'em sound like ideal candidates for military service.

But on a serious note, if the gay-bashers on this forum are going to continue to perpetuate such foolishness, could y'all at least get some semblance of a consistent argument going? From one corner, I'm hearing that all gay people are sissy, effeminate poofs who will ruin the military by making it too soft; and from another corner, I'm hearing that they're all hyper-militaristic killing machines who secretly work for the Nazis somehow?

The gay bashers that think all gays are effeminate have been brainwashed by the media. They think "Will and Grace" and "Gay Pride Parades". The media does this on purpose so people lower their guard.

Out-of-control homosexuality ALWAYS degenerates into a woman-hating facist-militarist mess...ALWAYS. Out-of-control homosexuality starts with this homosexuals destroying and corrupting society from the inside out, they dont want equality or to be left alone, they are RECRUITERS they want society to roll around them, this is what makes them so dangerous. And after society is destroyed and under the control of this freaks the hidden division between the homosexuals comes to the surface, the "femmes" (the girly-homosexuals) and the "butch" (the masculine-homosexuals). The "butch", haters of all things feminine, ALWAYS win and always end up repressing woman (lesbos or hetero) and the "femme"-homosexuals. And after that, comes a facist-militarist society dedicated to war, physical beauty, social darwinism, eugenics, pedophilia/pederasty and reducing females to baby-makers (pro-**** woman including lesbians are just digging their own grave). Just search about Ernst Rohm and the infamous violent homosexual hooligans called the "Brown Shirts" to get a small example of the danger of giving the military to this nut cases...


Yeah and WE are the ones who have lost our minds. If Palin is "western civilization's" last stand then it's about time I complete my move to Malaysia cause "western civilization" deserves to fall.

Palin is a moron & so are the people like you who support her.


Its sad but its true. With this crazy decision, in my view, Sarah Palin became the last stand of everything the West used to beleive, its sad but true. And if she doesnt become president just pray that the evangelicals stage a military coup because between a final-stage Roman Civilization and full blow Theocracy you will be much better of with Theocracy.

[00_Pete]

hasnt had a negative effect on the british military and they repealed their anti-gay military policy

Nothing negative at all.

That famous of video of the naked soldiers and that crazy initiation ceremony where some of the soldiers dressed as doctors (from the waist up)...or those famous pictures of Iraqi POW´s hanging from a forklift with British soldiers pretending they were having anal sex with them...

Or the crazy sexual things in abu ghraib with the american soldiers for that matter...or the crazy homosexual orgies involving the private security company guarding the american embassy in Afghanistan (funny how the media said almost nothing about it while Blackwater/XE gets bombarded all the time)...

The truth is that Western militaries and private security companies are full of this butch homosexuals already and now things are about to get much worst, just wait until this butch-homosexuals manage to gain total control of the military and our Elite starts to give them orders to attack everything and everyone that gets in their way...

[catdd]

Why is it such a big deal that he is a White male?

[erowe1]

Its sad but its true. With this crazy decision, in my view, Sarah Palin became the last stand of everything the West used to believe, its sad but true.

Are you just trolling, and your sense of humor is a bit on the dry side?

[erowe1]

Why is it such a big deal that he is a White male?

That was just the OP's way of conceding that there were other Republicans who voted that way, but dismissing them for the sake of the dramatic effect of saying Ron Paul was the only one.

Alternatively, one might suppose that it's less impressive for them (to the extent that anyone would be impressed by RP's vote), since they didn't have to overcome the inherent compulsion to discriminate against all people that are different from oneself that only white males possess.

[Kojac]

...So people are getting pretty worked up here.
1: The military functions as a brotherhood, a family, epsecially on the smallest levels.
2: The military is populated with a lot of folks who are not the brightest individuals; stereotyping is abundant.
3: Straight women are already sexual outsiders in this environment, and it is difficult for them to break through purely professional interaction and become family.
4: Openly gay/lesbian servicemembers introduce to the system an even smaller minority of sexual outsiders that have even more extreme pre-existing stereotypes.
5: Forced, awkward professionalism does not cut it in dangerous situations. Family and brotherhood within a unit protects the members and helps them get the job done faster and better.

[erowe1]

5: Forced, awkward professionalism does not cut it in dangerous situations. Family and brotherhood within a unit protects the members and helps them get the job done faster and better.

Get what job done faster and better?

[Kojac]

Any job the unit has to complete together. There are quite a few tasks that are done by all the different MOS's that require teamwork. I know from personal experience that these jobs/missions/etc. go smoothly and quickly when a squad is like a tight knit group of brothers. Introduce a female who can't break the wall of professionalism, and it starts to break that down.

This isn't to say that some females don't integrate well, but they have to prove to every individual they work with that they aren't filling those stereotypes, that they have our backs, and it's ok for us to trust them.

[zade]

Why shouldn't people care if someone is gay? We are discussing a moral issue here. And gays do not have a right to be gay, so they need to stop getting society to accept their nasty lifestyle.

I support the repeal simply because, among other reasons, it makes people like you mad

[00_Pete]

Its sickening how even people on this forum, people that should be aware how there are dark forces out there trying to control Mankind, people that should be able to think "outside the box" are brainwashed like this, its unbelievable.

Every nation and culture that doesnt live under the influence of the "anglo-american" media, show business and intellectualoids dont want this cancer around...why? Because they still have their common sense intact and because their cultures, products of thousands of years of lessons, of thousands of years of trial-and-error, tells them that this cancer is the last stage before the collapse.

Everyone with a little bit of common sense left knows how twisted this people are and how the notion that this people just want to be left alone is pure nonsense.

I just hope all you pro-***** and your sons and daughters are the first ones to bit the dust when the Western Armies becomes Brown Shirts with high-tech weapons. A mayor in Germany recommended their constituents to hide their sons and daughters when the Brown Shirts were in town and one of the reasons the German Army gave an ultimatum to Hitler regarding the Brown Shirts was a scandalous report by the Berlin Police that exposed how the cases of violence against woman exploded and the main responsibles was the Brown Shirts. Before this people go after our woman, sons and daughters i hope they go after your loved ones first so your stupid selfs are the first ones to get a hard lesson. Fools...

[erowe1]

Any job the unit has to complete together. There are quite a few tasks that are done by all the different MOS's that require teamwork. I know from personal experience that these jobs/missions/etc. go smoothly and quickly when a squad is like a tight knit group of brothers. Introduce a female who can't break the wall of professionalism, and it starts to break that down.


"Jobs"..."missions"....

These sound like euphemisms to me. What kinds of things are you talking about? Do you mean like murdering people and destroying others' property in invasions and occupations of other sovereign nations? Or what?

What exactly are the things that we are supposed to want the military to do faster and better?

[specsaregood]

@Pete, do you consider yourself respectful and a defender of private property rights?

[zade]

Its sickening how even people on this forum, people that should be aware how there are dark forces out there trying to control Mankind, people that should be able to think "outside the box" are brainwashed like this, its unbelievable.

Every nation and culture that doesnt live under the influence of the "anglo-american" media, show business and intellectualoids dont want this cancer around...why? Because they still have their common sense intact and because their cultures, products of thousands of years of lessons, of thousands of years of trial-and-error, tells them that this cancer is the last stage before the collapse.

Everyone with a little bit of common sense left knows how twisted this people are and how the notion that this people just want to be left alone is pure nonsense.

I just hope all you pro-***** and your sons and daughters are the first ones to bit the dust when the Western Armies becomes Brown Shirts with high-tech weapons. A mayor in Germany recommended their constituents to hide their sons and daughters when the Brown Shirts were in town and one of the reasons the German Army gave an ultimatum to Hitler regarding the Brown Shirts was a scandalous report by the Berlin Police that exposed how the cases of violence against woman exploded and the main responsibles was the Brown Shirts. Before this people go after our woman, sons and daughters i hope they go after your loved ones first so your stupid selfs are the first ones to get a hard lesson. Fools...

http://cdn.idontlikeyouinthatway.com//pictures/20091124/Adam%20Lambert%20Gay/gay1.jpg

[RM918]

Its sickening how even people on this forum, people that should be aware how there are dark forces out there trying to control Mankind, people that should be able to think "outside the box" are brainwashed like this, its unbelievable.

Every nation and culture that doesnt live under the influence of the "anglo-american" media, show business and intellectualoids dont want this cancer around...why? Because they still have their common sense intact and because their cultures, products of thousands of years of lessons, of thousands of years of trial-and-error, tells them that this cancer is the last stage before the collapse.

Everyone with a little bit of common sense left knows how twisted this people are and how the notion that this people just want to be left alone is pure nonsense.

I just hope all you pro-***** and your sons and daughters are the first ones to bit the dust when the Western Armies becomes Brown Shirts with high-tech weapons. A mayor in Germany recommended their constituents to hide their sons and daughters when the Brown Shirts were in town and one of the reasons the German Army gave an ultimatum to Hitler regarding the Brown Shirts was a scandalous report by the Berlin Police that exposed how the cases of violence against woman exploded and the main responsibles was the Brown Shirts. Before this people go after our woman, sons and daughters i hope they go after your loved ones first so your stupid selfs are the first ones to get a hard lesson. Fools...

I'm not foolish enough to believe that just because someone, for some reason, has a tendency to chase after the wrong gender makes them less than human.

[literatim]

Initially maybe, but things would settle down in short order. Any persistent issues would be a leadership issue. Good leaders do not let little problems become big problems.

I remember when we first started getting females in our forward units. There were minor issues here and there but the leaders made sure everyone knew anything short of professional behavior would not be tolerated. Minor problems were addressed immediately and everyone quickly understood the UCMJ would be enforced.

UCMJ isn't exactly stopping the rapes.

[Fredom101]

The gay thing is a distraction issue.

More importantly, why are we getting extorted from and robbed at gunpoint to pay for said killing machine?

[MelissaWV]

I'd love to give Pete a hug, if only to watch in amusement as he tries to wash my contaminating gayness from himself for hours on end.

I also love the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed into the military (which, again, is an impossible standard to uphold, unless you have a scientific "gay" test) because of some moral objection. Of course, we only want the most moral of people killing innocents and guilty alike from afar with massive weaponry for the defense and obtaining of earthly, material possessions.

[Kojac]

"Jobs"..."missions"....

These sound like euphemisms to me. What kinds of things are you talking about? Do you mean like murdering people and destroying others' property in invasions and occupations of other sovereign nations? Or what?

What exactly are the things that we are supposed to want the military to do faster and better?

Are you seriously accusing me and my fellow Marines of murder and wanton destruction of the property of others? You are way off base. I don't even know what to say to you, because you've believed such a massive lie. What's next? Do I now kill and eat babies? Do I summarily execute prisoners? Do I snipe children who are doing nothing more than ask for candy and other goodies from us?

Who have you been listening to? Go to Afghanistan yourself and see what's going on. There are civilian flights into at least one of the cities, and you can travel out from there. I recommend arming yourself. Good luck avoiding the IED's.


@ MelissaWV: I can tell you that there are very few natural resources in our Afghanistan AO, unless you think dust is a natural resource. Our purpose there is extremely simple, however hard you find this to believe: We kill or drive out Taliban forces and their allies, and we bring economic and humanitarian aid to the people (because the more they like us, the more they help us get rid of the people destabilizing that region of the world, which, unless you've forgotten, is right next to Iran)

I can understand when people say it isn't in our country's personal interest to be over there. I can understand when they say we can't afford it. I don't understand when people think we're doing horrible, atrocious things over there. You've got to be as high as a kite to believe that.

[tnvoter]

No, initially he said it was a "fair" policy. And then later he talked to people affected by it and discovered it was not being enforced as a "fair" policy. My interpretation was that he thought it was being enforced as a type of "no fraternization" policy and when he found out it was being used as a discrimination policy he changed his position and said he would change such a policy.

^This

[erowe1]

Are you seriously accusing me and my fellow Marines of murder and wanton destruction of the property of others?

I don't know you and didn't accuse you of anything. I just asked what things you are suggesting we should want the military to do better? If it's not murdering people and destroying others' property in sovereign countries that we invade and occupy, then what? I'm not saying there are no other possible things that you could mean. I just don't know what you do mean and need you to tell me. It's not a rhetorical question. I just want to know where you're coming from, so whatever your honest answer to that question is will suffice.

At any rate, leaving anything personal out of this, you do agree that our government uses the military to invade and occupy other sovereign foreign nations by way of murdering people and destroying others' property right? So those are at least some of the things our military does, which it might do "faster and better" under other circumstances (and whether it would do them faster or better with openly gay soldiers or without them, I leave to others to say).

Edit: Incidentally, if it will make any difference and help you see that I wasn't trying to get personal, my take on this is pretty much the same as my take on the great majority of what the government does. I don't want to make the government more efficient. I see its endemic inefficiency as one of government's few saving graces, and the less efficiently it can accomplish what it sets out to do (whether that be policing the world, indoctrinating our youth, centrally managing the economy, or what have you) the better. Any time anybody suggests that government should adopt a policy that will make it do the things it does faster and better, it's always worth asking what things we're talking about and why we should want the government to do them better.

[Kojac]

Government ought to be efficient and small. The 9th and 10th Amendment are SUPPOSED to protect us by pointing out that the federal government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Now, if it did as it was supposed to, it would allow the states to have a common voice in world matters, and it would be equipped with tools to help defend our freedoms from threats within and outside our borders.

[erowe1]

Government ought to be efficient and small.

I agree that they ought to be small, but not that they ought to be efficient.

And the less they stick to being small, the more inefficient I want them to be.

[Meatwasp]

talking about the pile of naked Iraqis our military did . A friend was talking to some farmers in North Dakota. The farmer thought that was awful and my friend said"Hell in San Fransisco they pay to have that done to them". Heh
Sorry

[kylejack]

Ron Paul didn't say it was a fair policy, he said it was a "good policy", at least if we are talking about his debate appearance. And no, it was not a good or fair policy, and I am glad Ron is now paying attention and has reversed course.

[seeker4sho]

Fixed it.

Wrong! They serve our country just like the rest of us do. Also, they bleed and die just like the rest of us serving this country.

[erowe1]

Wrong! They serve our country just like the rest of us do. Also, they bleed and die just like the rest of us serving this country.

How do they serve me? I didn't send them out there? I venture to say that, whether they say it or not, most people agree. Otherwise the funding of the military wouldn't depend on coercive taxation.

[MRoCkEd]

What does "serve your country" even mean? I always thought it was a stupid phrase.

[virgil47]

How do they serve me? I didn't send them out there? I venture to say that, whether they say it or not, most people agree. Otherwise the funding of the military wouldn't depend on coercive taxation.

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

[MelissaWV]

What does "serve your country" even mean? I always thought it was a stupid phrase.

A nation does have interests, though lately that's become synonymous with the Federal Government having interests. In case of invasion, one serves the country by defending its borders and people. In case of attack, one (theoretically) serves the country via retaliation against the responsible party/parties, and the bringing of culprits to justice. In case of attacks against an ally, one (theoretically) serves the country by rendering aid to that ally and, potentially, assists in offensives against the attacker. Those are basic scenarios.

Now, the reality is that the US is not likely to be invaded by a nation anytime soon, so the first scenario is out. Additionally, that function can be served by the militia and other domestic outfits rather than the huge number of troops our various branches of the military have.

The next reality is that the Government defines the attackers. Again, we are unlikely to be officially attacked by a nation. This is how we've gotten so deep in the "War on Terror"; we are battling a technique in several nations, and ignoring the nations of origin for some of the actual attackers.

The last scenario is, again, defined by the Government. Who is an ally worthy of shedding American blood? The People don't get to vote on that, and probably don't even think about it much. The conflicts are framed so neatly that most of the population would think it's the US's idea, and in our best interests. The US often assists its allies only to find them as enemies a decade later.

All of those things aside, though, the Government puts out these orders, acting on behalf of the People (allegedly), so to carry them out without regard for self is service on behalf of the country.

I do believe putting oneself in harm's way is a difficult thing, especially at the age these people are doing it. The orders aren't their fault, and many go through their tours without mowing down innocents or committing crimes of other sorts. They're just people. They grow up to be Gunny or Kokesh or Ron Paul or Dennis Franz or Elvis Presley (though I don't care for him and his stolen hits) or Jesse Ventura or any number of others. :D

I always liked this way of looking at it:


[P]atriotism... is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. ~Adlai Stevenson

We're the true Patriots ;) "We" include those who've served, came home, and merged their views with the fight for Liberty at home.

[erowe1]

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

You might be surprised how many very young and very poorly educated people believe those things, particularly the old canard about how we'd be speaking German or Japanese if American taxpayers weren't forced against their wills to fund a global police force.

Let's say we did get invaded and I did request help from the military in defending me, my family, and my property, and let's say I willingly offered to pay my fair share in that. In that case it could fairly be said that the military was serving me. But if I am being forced against my will to pay for the military to do things that I wouldn't ever willingly pay for it to do, then I don't see how it could be said to be serving me in those cases.

[kylejack]

Germany didn't even have the assets to cross the English Channel. How would they have crossed the Atlantic and conquer a country as large as ours? Our military is mostly vestigial. I wouldn't mind cutting most of it off.

[RM918]

While I'm for bashing the pentagon and the government that allows it to run rampant, bashing individual soldiers is just letting your hate overcome your judgment. Many of them really joined to 'protect their country', and it's infinitely sad and unfortunate that they were lied to and sent to do just about the excact opposite for so long. Either way, the institution and its engagements need to be cut down to size to avoid any more needless loss of life.

[Depressed Liberator]

Mr. Paul doesnt learn anything from the Rand episode? Madcow, Bathhouse Olbermann, Bathhouse Bill Mayer, Jon Stewart and the co-creator of Daily Show, etc??

What did Jon Stewart do?

[virgil47]

You might be surprised how many very young and very poorly educated people believe those things, particularly the old canard about how we'd be speaking German or Japanese if American taxpayers weren't forced against their wills to fund a global police force.

Let's say we did get invaded and I did request help from the military in defending me, my family, and my property, and let's say I willingly offered to pay my fair share in that. In that case it could fairly be said that the military was serving me. But if I am being forced against my will to pay for the military to do things that I wouldn't ever willingly pay for it to do, then I don't see how it could be said to be serving me in those cases.

You labor under the misconception that a military force that can protect you in case of an invasion can be whistled up out of thin air. It's not a matter of paying them as if they were mowing your lawn. A great deal of work, training and preparation go into making a military capable of defending you when and if you should ever need it.

The old canard about which language we'd be speaking can't be answered because we won. I don't even want to think about how our lives would be if we'd lost WWII.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul didn't say it was a fair policy, he said it was a "good policy", at least if we are talking about his debate appearance. And no, it was not a good or fair policy, and I am glad Ron is now paying attention and has reversed course.
Actually he didnt' say "fair" or "good". He said it was a "decent policy"

Here is what he said in the debates:


MR. SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.
Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?

REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

[erowe1]

You labor under the misconception that a military force that can protect you in case of an invasion can be whistled up out of thin air.
No I don't.



It's not a matter of paying them as if they were mowing your lawn.
Exactly. When I pay someone to mow my lawn, that person is serving me.

But when the Mafia forces a shop owner to pay them "taxes" in exchange for "protection," those are just euphemisms. The Mafia isn't really serving that shop owner.

[Galileo Galilei]

I thought we were on the "far right"?

[seeker4sho]

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

Amen to that!

[Theocrat]

I'd love to give Pete a hug, if only to watch in amusement as he tries to wash my contaminating gayness from himself for hours on end.

I also love the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed into the military (which, again, is an impossible standard to uphold, unless you have a scientific "gay" test) because of some moral objection. Of course, we only want the most moral of people killing innocents and guilty alike from afar with massive weaponry for the defense and obtaining of earthly, material possessions.

Sensing the sarcasm of your response, let me cover a few things you've touched on. I think you're arguing against a couple of strawmen there. Firstly, those of us who believe gays should not serve in the military do not also believe it's moral for a military to kill innocents in the effort of earthly, material possessions.

Secondly, I don't think a "scientific gay test" needs to be implemented to keep gays out of the military. The military via the Uniform Code of Military Justice could just enact a standard explaining that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in the military, and that would solve that issue.

Thirdly, you need to realize that we're speaking ideally when those of us argue against gays serving in the military. There are many other factors which would have to take place in our society before such a standard could be adopted. Examples of that would be the public having right views about the nature of homosexuality as well as the government withdrawing its support of homosexuality as a "civil right."

Undoubtedly, most here would find the view that gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the military to be extreme or absurd. But, ultimately, it will come down to worldviews and determining which one provides the basis for homosexual involvement in the military to be either moral or immoral over against the other worldviews.

[seeker4sho]

I am flabbergasted at the naivety of some people. Throughout history strong nations attacked and conquered weaker nations for their wealth. Today the US is attacking and bullying weaker countries to secure their natural resources and force them to do our will. Because of the huge American empire overseas the cost to our government is bankrupting the US. The dollar is heading for a collapse; when that occurs the US will become a weak third world nation. Our military and economic power will collapse. Unfortunately those of you that have had a free ride, as far as defending our country is concerned, will have a rude awakening, to put it mildly.

I am totally against funding the American empire overseas and meddling in the affairs of other counties but I am 100% for maintaining a strong military defense. Our military should be stationed within the borders of the Unites States, rested and well equipped to defend this country. In other words, the Federal government should adhere to the US Constitution. Unfortunately, this whole discussion may be a mute point whereas the Congress, and most of the people, are delusional -- they will not come to their senses until the day of reckoning.

[virgil47]

No I don't.



Exactly. When I pay someone to mow my lawn, that person is serving me.

But when the Mafia forces a shop owner to pay them "taxes" in exchange for "protection," those are just euphemisms. The Mafia isn't really serving that shop owner.

Ahh, so the military is equivalent to the Mafia! Well I don't seem to remember the Mafia fighting for our freedom in WWII or in any other war for that matter. You know if you really, really don't like paying for our country having a military then perhaps you should move to someplace that doesn't have one. Of course you may have a great deal of difficulty in finding a country that doesn't have a military as most countries want to be able to defend themselves if needed. You see paying for a military is needed if you and the society you live in wants to keep it's freedoms and way of life. The military is not coin operated my friend.

[Kojac]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

[MelissaWV]

Sensing the sarcasm of your response, let me cover a few things you've touched on. I think you're arguing against a couple of strawmen there. Firstly, those of us who believe gays should not serve in the military do not also believe it's moral for a military to kill innocents in the effort of earthly, material possessions.

Secondly, I don't think a "scientific gay test" needs to be implemented to keep gays out of the military. The military via the Uniform Code of Military Justice could just enact a standard explaining that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in the military, and that would solve that issue.

Thirdly, you need to realize that we're speaking ideally when those of us argue against gays serving in the military. There are many other factors which would have to take place in our society before such a standard could be adopted. Examples of that would be the public having right views about the nature of homosexuality as well as the government withdrawing its support of homosexuality as a "civil right."

Undoubtedly, most here would find the view that gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the military to be extreme or absurd. But, ultimately, it will come down to worldviews and determining which one provides the basis for homosexual involvement in the military to be either moral or immoral over against the other worldviews.

1. The idea that only those who you deem morally pure should be pulling the trigger (regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person on the other end) will never be any less silly to me.

2. Is heterosexual behavior to be tolerated? Sex while on duty shouldn't be happening. I think what you are missing is that heterosexuals can talk about their girlfriend or wife back home, and homosexuals have to bite their tongue and not talk about the loved one they are worried they will never see again. That notion escapes a great deal of people who seem to view gay men as hedonistic, immature, and slaves to their sexual impulses. Of course, a Code of Conduct prevents all bad behavior from EVER taking place, right? That's why it's never, ever violated. Having that code in place will not keep gays out of the military. It will, once again, keep them quiet about being gay.

3. Thankfully, few people actually go so far as to desire my bedroom behavior be "corrected." In fact, few people care about it at all. What is your obsession with what people do or do not do with their private parts? What concern is it of yours? Perhaps your favored sexual positions and practices should be scrutinized by the public at large. Perhaps you have sex with the lights on which, as any good Amish woman will tell you, is perverted and wrong. For you to climb atop your high horse and pretend to be the authority on what's "right" for people to do in their bedrooms is laughable, but predictable.

4. See point #1. It is STILL laughable that we're discussing who is morally good enough to shoot at others based on unrelated activity on the homefront.

[Kojac]

Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

[MelissaWV]

Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

Actually if you read Theocrat's post earlier, it IS about moral superiority :p Homosexuality is immoral and therefore shouldn't be allowed in the military. The irony there is still just as thick as it was when he first posted it. He also mentioned that society should think the "right" way on the subject, and so on. Perhaps you'd need to be more familiar with Theo's posts on the subject of homosexuality, but most of us can read between the lines with him on it.

I am far more of a fan of punishing the activity which, as you mentioned, is already banned. If someone has a crush on someone in their unit and can't perform their duties, then they should man up (or woman up?) and say so. Of course, asking for a transfer on that kind of ground now would get you booted. It's a pretty sick situation all around. If there are perverts and immature bundles of hormones in the unit, that's one thing. Firing someone for slipping up and saying they hope they make it home alive to see their partner again... that seems to be another thing altogether.

I am also of two minds on this because, while I hate the idiocy of the policy, I rather like it being in place because it is a great "out" in times of a draft. I don't think the Administration gives two figs about gays, and certainly "the gay vote" is offset by those who would vote against any Administration that would be seen as catering to gays. The timing of this, with so many wars and an exhausted military spread too thin, is suspect to me.

[Vessol]

Out of irony, this was at the bottom of the page.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CPjtj8rLt6HDsgEQ1AMYMTIIrU9kP4tG-2E

Also..a..scientific gay test? How would you do that? "Alright boys! Drop your pants! First one to get a hard-on while I stand in front of y'all naked is kicked out!"

[MelissaWV]

Out of irony, this was at the bottom of the page.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CPjtj8rLt6HDsgEQ1AMYMTIIrU9kP4tG-2E

Also..a..scientific gay test? How would you do that? "Alright boys! Drop your pants! First one to get a hard-on while I stand in front of y'all naked is kicked out!"

I had to add "scientific" because smartypants dannno decided to post "gay test" memes. The point is that without some definitive way of prohibiting homosexuals from the military (which would have to include some kind of testing), they'll still be there. This debate isn't about keeping gays out of the military. It's about whether, once there, they should pretend to be something they're not and keep quiet about their private lives.

[Vessol]

Yeah, a lot of the hardcore homophobes and such I find tend to actually have repressed feelings themselves on the matter. How would you stop people who are homosexual, but repress it from joining?

[specsaregood]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

I think "defend" is the keyword here. "Defend" should not include forcing our way of life and ideals on the rest of the world through the barrel of a gun.

[Vessol]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

We aren't even supposed to have a standing military under the Constitution..

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.


Freedom is not one of those concepts you just give lip service to. Free people who have a natural right to defend themselves have little use for standing armies and wars of aggression.


Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

If men are incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants maybe men should be banned from the military since you think it is impossible to build units of cohesion and efficiency utilizing men.

[virgil47]

Freedom is not one of those concepts you just give lip service to. Free people who have a natural right to defend themselves have little use for standing armies and wars of aggression.



If men are incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants maybe men should be banned from the military since you think it is impossible to build units of cohesion and efficiency utilizing men.

Your understanding of the need for standing militaries is correct if you live in the 1700's. A free society with the right to defend themselves is no match for a well trained military. I wish it were not so but it is.

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

[Kojac]

A standing military (especially a navy and naval forces-e.g. USMC) is perfectly legal under article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.

[Brian Defferding]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

In the words of Barry Goldwater: It's whether you shoot straight, not if you are straight.

[libertarian4321]

Men who aren't attracted to another man's hairy genitals.

So you'd allow gays who prefer men who shave their genitals?

That might be a work around that the gays would approve of...

[libertarian4321]

...So people are getting pretty worked up here.
1: The military functions as a brotherhood, a family, epsecially on the smallest levels.
2: The military is populated with a lot of folks who are not the brightest individuals; stereotyping is abundant.
3: Straight women are already sexual outsiders in this environment, and it is difficult for them to break through purely professional interaction and become family.
4: Openly gay/lesbian servicemembers introduce to the system an even smaller minority of sexual outsiders that have even more extreme pre-existing stereotypes.
5: Forced, awkward professionalism does not cut it in dangerous situations. Family and brotherhood within a unit protects the members and helps them get the job done faster and better.

I know you have a set of beliefs based upon spending some time in the Marines.

Here's a little historical perspective presented to you from a long time soldier and military history buff:

1. Many Armies today, including some that are on par with ours, allow gays to serve- the British Army, the German Army, the Israeli Army and many others.
2. The Roman Army allowed gays to serve and were the best military in the world (by far).
3. The SPARTANS- a group who have long been held as the ultimate warrior society, not only allowed homosexuality among soldiers, they ENCOURAGED it- in fact, pairing a young soldier with a veteran was part of the training, and homosexual contact was part of the bonding process.

There are many other examples, of course, but I won't go into all of them. I'm simply pointing out that allowing gays to serve in the military has not been shown to lead to a break down in discipline or a loss of effectiveness.

Remember, for many years, the US military made the same "break down of discipline" remarks to prevent the integration of blacks into the military. It turned out to be utter bull shit, of course.

I do not believe allowing gays into the military will lead to a collapse of the military, but having served many years in the Army, and having at one time held the same views you do, I'd be willing to make the following compromise: Start with allowing gays into NON COMBAT units (filling the same slots women can fill now). If that works well for a few years, consider opening up all slots.

I guarantee you, allowing gay soldiers to serve as logisticians, linguists, nurses, doctors, cooks, clerks, technicians, mechanics, and other non combat slots is NOT going to cause a major disruption.

[MelissaWV]

...

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

Did you feel the same way, I wonder, about those "uppity blacks" and the way they just flaunted their ability to eat at the same diner as you and sit at the front of the bus? :rolleyes: It was, after all, "illegal" just a few years before it was "legal."

You, and various people in this thread, don't seem to get that for all your freedom-loving values and assertions that you are "pro liberty," you are going about punishing precrime. You haven't said that disruptive behavior should be punished. You have said that openly gay people tend to be disruptive, and implied they should be muzzled and asked to pretend they're straight in order to "keep the peace." I suppose the idea of someone who's supposed to have their mind on protecting their fellow soldiers instead worrying about their cover story has never had an impact on "unit cohesion."

Why not actually punish the disruptive behavior? Heterosexuals are not immune to causing that kind of disruption. Some of the attitudes about women make others in the unit uncomfortable, from anecdotal evidence I've heard. Various friends have had to endure the stories of sexual conquest and even bragging about beating wives or other such "distasteful" behavior. Reporting it would be silly. Well, reporting that someone in your unit has a man waiting for them at home instead of a woman is also silly. It's rooted in the misconceptions of others, and some kind of fear that homosexuals are going to pounce on everyone they see. If someone really really REALLY has a problem with gays, wouldn't they want to know who's gay? You could be showering next to "one of them" right now, and not know it! They're covertly gay and they're checking you out!

Oh and yes, let's just pray for Taliban-style rule. I'm sure that women not being able to drive or go to certain places without a chaperone is right up your ally, along with banning homosexuality (which, as we know, will stop everyone from being gay... as bans on drugs have stopped that dead in its tracks).

Some of you guys' logic is really downright silly.

[Kojac]

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what military life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for the military?

Who here has actually served?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Your understanding of the need for standing militaries is correct if you live in the 1700's. A free society with the right to defend themselves is no match for a well trained military. I wish it were not so but it is.

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

No, the majority of people do not consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order, just the freedom-hating bigots.

[MelissaWV]

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what military life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for the military?

Who here has actually served?

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what bisexual/homosexual life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for bisexuals/homosexuals?

Who here is actually bisexual/homosexual?

Kudos, though, on the implication that a different set of standards, liberty, philosophy, and morals are in play once you join the military. Thankfully, I know enough level-headed military folks not to take that as gospel.

Keep the policy. It will make it easier to avoid the draft, and easier to live an insular life where you can pretend everyone around you is straight, so long as you're in the military.

[QueenB4Liberty]

wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what bisexual/homosexual life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for bisexuals/homosexuals?

Who here is actually bisexual/homosexual?

Kudos, though, on the implication that a different set of standards, liberty, philosophy, and morals are in play once you join the military. Thankfully, i know enough level-headed military folks not to take that as gospel.

Keep the policy. It will make it easier to avoid the draft, and easier to live an insular life where you can pretend everyone around you is straight, so long as you're in the military.

+10,000

[Theocrat]

1. The idea that only those who you deem morally pure should be pulling the trigger (regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person on the other end) will never be any less silly to me.

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.


2. Is heterosexual behavior to be tolerated? Sex while on duty shouldn't be happening. I think what you are missing is that heterosexuals can talk about their girlfriend or wife back home, and homosexuals have to bite their tongue and not talk about the loved one they are worried they will never see again. That notion escapes a great deal of people who seem to view gay men as hedonistic, immature, and slaves to their sexual impulses. Of course, a Code of Conduct prevents all bad behavior from EVER taking place, right? That's why it's never, ever violated. Having that code in place will not keep gays out of the military. It will, once again, keep them quiet about being gay.

Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


3. Thankfully, few people actually go so far as to desire my bedroom behavior be "corrected." In fact, few people care about it at all. What is your obsession with what people do or do not do with their private parts? What concern is it of yours? Perhaps your favored sexual positions and practices should be scrutinized by the public at large. Perhaps you have sex with the lights on which, as any good Amish woman will tell you, is perverted and wrong. For you to climb atop your high horse and pretend to be the authority on what's "right" for people to do in their bedrooms is laughable, but predictable.

4. See point #1. It is STILL laughable that we're discussing who is morally good enough to shoot at others based on unrelated activity on the homefront.

I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their ******ry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

[ProBlue33]

I get his vote.

BUT...
If somebody is openly flaunting their straightdom, it could disturb the unit.
So let's say a straight guy is doing this and the other enlisted men complain to their CO, now what. The CO tells the guy tone it down, or I can't be responsible for a possible code red, something along those lines.

Straights will still need to be discrete to some extent.
Do you really think a military unit will accept a Larry Craig type gay guy?


Get Real Buddy, and get out of fantasy land.

And your last question makes absolutely no sense, as you switched from straight to gay, maybe if you would have used somebody like Tiger Woods it would have made sense ;)

[0zzy]

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.



Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.



I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their ******ry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

I guess this type of belief is why you call yourself...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PG7oHuSYo7c/R7n0_JseiMI/AAAAAAAAE5A/IKe7SplIAVo/s400/david_caruso_sunglasses.jpg
Theocrat.

[MelissaWV]

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.

Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their ******ry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

Your first paragraph brings God into it again. Okay, since God does not intend homosexuality, what DOES God intend? Missionary with the lights off? Where, precisely, does this vulgarity and immorality begin? If it's about morality, those heterosexuals who lust after lesbian or bisexual porn should also be rooted out, no? Those heterosexuals who engage in un-Christian sexual acts should also be removed. All of thise, of course, before engaging in God-sanctioned killing of people overseas, right? It still makes no sense, and if you'd like to pretend it does, that's fine. Don't be surprised when others see the glaring holes in your logic.

Your second paragraph says that heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated. Why? Why is talking about your home life okay only if it's a heterosexual home life? What if it's a heterosexual soldier speaking of being raised in a loving home by homosexual parents? That seems to be perfectly eligible for being vulgar and immoral, and leading to unit incohesion. Is that cause for dismissal as well? Why is talking about the dozen women you banged before you left for Iraq grounds for "criticism" but talking about the one man you've loved for two years and hope you live to see again is grounds for dismissal? You're really telling me God's okay with the former more than the latter? Your own logic once again undoes you.

Someone *is* a bigot when they want to legislate someone else based on who they are. Mind you, this is not about what one does because, as demonstrated above, you do not have a uniform standard for that. You are not for exclusively punishing homosexual sex but for punishing any mention of being homosexual, even though the two things are entirely different. I don't want to tell you what kind of sex you can and cannot have, and I certainly am not looking to point out what you're doing "wrong." You, however, look for any opportunity to call for death and damnation of homosexuals, and when cornered on it, it's God's idea :rolleyes:

That's so odd, because nature is full of some very quesitonable sexual habits. Did the devil create all of those animals?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_512VEbm7xB0/SXnBkCfMY8I/AAAAAAAATvE/NO0H_Sj4iyA/s400/24.jpg

You don't want to know what they're doing. Perhaps God intends us to be more natural, like the bed bug?


It seems that the male bedbug is equipped with a formidable, swordlike penis which he uses to impale his mate—in her stomach, of all places. No wonder it’s called “traumatic copulation!” His sperm then enters the female’s bloodstream, eventually arriving at a storage gland, where it remains until (and this is where people come into the picture) the female feeds on human blood and produces a clutch of eggs ready to be fertilized.

Well... let's not.

I could go on and on with what sick methods God has come up with for His creatures to procreate, but you'll simply say "that's not what Man is supposed to do!" Since this is in General Politics still, I won't have an argument with you as to why some forms of stimulus are actually better suited to gay/lesbian encounters, and question you as to why those nerve configurations exist, if they are to be ignored.

No, instead I'll just wish you a good day, and hope you get a hug, and since you're you... I'll also pray that you receive no pleasure from the hug, lest you burn eternally ;)

[Kojac]

I find it funny that you refer to other species when defending homosexuality. As far as I know, humans can only reproduce sexually. Would that, hypothetically, put homosexuality into the range of developmental disorders? Several of my friends are gay, and some of them I grew up with. None of them would function well openly in the military. (They also wouldn't be happy with hiding it for the duration of a contract)

[Theocrat]

Your first paragraph brings God into it again. Okay, since God does not intend homosexuality, what DOES God intend? Missionary with the lights off? Where, precisely, does this vulgarity and immorality begin? If it's about morality, those heterosexuals who lust after lesbian or bisexual porn should also be rooted out, no? Those heterosexuals who engage in un-Christian sexual acts should also be removed. All of thise, of course, before engaging in God-sanctioned killing of people overseas, right? It still makes no sense, and if you'd like to pretend it does, that's fine. Don't be surprised when others see the glaring holes in your logic.

Your second paragraph says that heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated. Why? Why is talking about your home life okay only if it's a heterosexual home life? What if it's a heterosexual soldier speaking of being raised in a loving home by homosexual parents? That seems to be perfectly eligible for being vulgar and immoral, and leading to unit incohesion. Is that cause for dismissal as well? Why is talking about the dozen women you banged before you left for Iraq grounds for "criticism" but talking about the one man you've loved for two years and hope you live to see again is grounds for dismissal? You're really telling me God's okay with the former more than the latter? Your own logic once again undoes you.

Someone *is* a bigot when they want to legislate someone else based on who they are. Mind you, this is not about what one does because, as demonstrated above, you do not have a uniform standard for that. You are not for exclusively punishing homosexual sex but for punishing any mention of being homosexual, even though the two things are entirely different. I don't want to tell you what kind of sex you can and cannot have, and I certainly am not looking to point out what you're doing "wrong." You, however, look for any opportunity to call for death and damnation of homosexuals, and when cornered on it, it's God's idea :rolleyes:

That's so odd, because nature is full of some very quesitonable sexual habits. Did the devil create all of those animals?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_512VEbm7xB0/SXnBkCfMY8I/AAAAAAAATvE/NO0H_Sj4iyA/s400/24.jpg

You don't want to know what they're doing. Perhaps God intends us to be more natural, like the bed bug?



Well... let's not.

I could go on and on with what sick methods God has come up with for His creatures to procreate, but you'll simply say "that's not what Man is supposed to do!" Since this is in General Politics still, I won't have an argument with you as to why some forms of stimulus are actually better suited to gay/lesbian encounters, and question you as to why those nerve configurations exist, if they are to be ignored.

No, instead I'll just wish you a good day, and hope you get a hug, and since you're you... I'll also pray that you receive no pleasure from the hug, lest you burn eternally ;)

As I stated before, this whole issue will boil down to worldviews. Sure, I may not have all the particulars down for what should be "acceptable heterosexual behavior" in the military (though I would argue from moral principles), but we're not discussing heterosexual behavior. We're talking about homosexual behavior, and that is what I was criticizing.

I'd like to know how you "cornered me with logic," because all I see in your post are appeals to emotions. And it's not like I don't realize you would disagree with me on my views about homosexual behavior. I don't expect someone with an anti-Biblical view of the world to accept them.

However, given your worldview, my complaints and constraints for homosexual behavior are perfectly okay, because they are the set of morals that I bind myself to. So, logically, you shouldn't have anything else to say against my views. But you do. And it shows that you, as much as you try to be on the forums, are not neutral when it comes to homosexual (or any other moral) behavior.

[erowe1]

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what military life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for the military?


Why does "what's best for the military" matter anyway?

[ProBlue33]

what DOES God intend?

Since you ask

1 Corinthians 6:9-11


9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

11And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

The message is clear, and every human has the right & freedom to ignore it, but eventually there will be a cost. Similar to my right and freedom to jump naked from a flying plane . But the law of gravity would catch up to me within minutes.

[White Knight]

How can you support an ideology that is essentially quite close to 'live and let live' yet cling to a specific portion of government forcing people to act a certain way that has no effect on you whatsoever?

Because I'm a paleo-con like Pat Buchanan. I never claimed I was a true Libertarian, although I agree with them on many issues.

[sofia]

should the US Military allow dudes who get off on sodomizing cats and dogs into the military as well?


Why not? Who are we to "impose morals"????

Whats the difference between a homosexual and a beasteofile????

[erowe1]

Ahh, so the military is equivalent to the Mafia! Well I don't seem to remember the Mafia fighting for our freedom in WWII or in any other war for that matter. You know if you really, really don't like paying for our country having a military then perhaps you should move to someplace that doesn't have one. Of course you may have a great deal of difficulty in finding a country that doesn't have a military as most countries want to be able to defend themselves if needed. You see paying for a military is needed if you and the society you live in wants to keep it's freedoms and way of life. The military is not coin operated my friend.

You really think all these wars are for our freedom? It was for our freedom that FDR and all those corrupt, power hungry, adamantly anti-freedom politicians over the years sent our military to war against other countries on the other side of the globe?

If I'm not allowed to opt out of participation, then my freedom was the cost of these politicians' wars, not the reward for them (and the specific ways in which they clearly diminished the freedoms of the American people are numerous and indubitable, far beyond just taxation). The very government that is forcing us to support its military (and everything else) is the enemy that is violating our freedoms not protecting them. It subjugates us very much like the British empire subjugated our forebears on this continent, and very much like the Mafia subjugates those shop owners whose "freedoms" they "protect" in exchange for their "taxes."

[Theocrat]

should the US Military allow dudes who get off on sodomizing cats and dogs into the military as well?


Why not? Who are we to "impose morals"????

Whats the difference between a homosexual and a beasteofile????

Should the military allow rapists to serve? How about serial killers? What about kidnappers? Equality for all, right? :rolleyes:

You're right. Let's not impose any moral standards upon anyone...

[MelissaWV]

I find it funny that you refer to other species when defending homosexuality. As far as I know, humans can only reproduce sexually. Would that, hypothetically, put homosexuality into the range of developmental disorders? Several of my friends are gay, and some of them I grew up with. None of them would function well openly in the military. (They also wouldn't be happy with hiding it for the duration of a contract)

Do you even read context? Theo is talking about God's views when it comes to sex. He makes the argument over and over again that such acts are "unnatural." It seems like a lot of "natural" things are pretty sick, but they're also God's own invention.

Now we're back around to sex being primarily/exclusively for reproduction. If that's your viewpoint, that's fine. I'm against sex in the military at all. I'm for punishing the act, and not people who are gay because of everyone else's perception of what that means. Sex on duty should be a punishable offense regardless of who's doing it. They're not there to have sex of any kind, heterosexual or homosexual. They're there on duty, on the job, defending or offending as one's viewpoint dictates. What's being punished here is what people *are*, in their spare time, when *not* on the job at all. What's being threatened is being kicked out of the military because you slipped up and didn't keep your cover story going the whole time.

I'll simply say it again: the objections being batted around are all about the perception that homosexuals are going to do something. That's anathema to this entire movement. If they have done something wrong, kick them out. If they are doing their job, but happen to be gay, what's the rationale? Theo would say they still need to be kicked out because they're immoral and unnatural. I say hogwash.

[Imaginos]

As Ron Paul said, I believe that the concept of liberty/freedom should be a whole package.
Ron's argument is, if one believes in the concept of liberty then he or she should defend all the spectrum of liberty and I couldn't agree more.
I am the last person who would ever have gay sex (i.e. over my dead body) but I will defend gays and lesbians because of that principle as Ron Paul articulated.
When MSNBC and Dems grilled Rand Paul for his principled approach on civil right debate, (i.e. property right) we all agreed that the left in general are short sighted because they couldn't understand Rand Paul's point which was 'defending principle even when you don't like it'
And if we, who are in the liberty movement, consider gays and lesbians somewhat less of a human being than us, it does not make sense to me.

[erowe1]

As Ron Paul said, I believe that the concept of liberty/freedom should be a whole package.
Ron's argument is, if one believes in the concept of liberty then he or she should defend all the spectrum of liberty and I couldn't agree more.
I am the last person who would ever have gay sex (i.e. over my dead body) but I will defend gays and lesbians because of that principle as Ron Paul articulated.
When MSNBC and Dems grilled Rand Paul for his principled approach on civil right debate, (i.e. property right) we all agreed that the left in general are short sighted because they couldn't understand Rand Paul's point which was 'defending principle even when you don't like it'
And if we, who are in the liberty movement, consider gays and lesbians somewhat less of a human being than us, it does not make sense for me.

I still fail to see how letting gays serve in the military is in any way a part of the whole package of freedom.

[Theocrat]

I still fail to see how letting gays serve in the military is in any way a part of the whole package of freedom.

Oh, you don't know? Freedom means allowing anything, even if you disagree with it. People have the freedom to kill little girls in the playground. People have the freedom to eat ice cream cones in the winter. People have the freedom to feed their neighbor's dog cyanide tablets. People have the freedom to sing in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon. People have the freedom to rape their best friend's mother when no one is home.

Yes, freedom is awesome when everyone is free to do whatever they want, even to hurt other people, which gives them pleasure. Freedom, freedom, FREEDOM!

[erowe1]

Oh, you don't know? Freedom means allowing anything, even if you disagree with it. People have the freedom to kill little girls in the playground. People have the freedom to eat ice cream cones in the winter. People have the freedom to feed their neighbor's dog cyanide tablets. People have the freedom to sing in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon. People have the freedom to rape their best friend's mother when no one is home.

Yes, freedom is awesome when everyone is free to do whatever they want, even to hurt other people, which gives them pleasure. Freedom, freedom, FREEDOM!

But this debate isn't even really about freedom to engage in sexual immorality. Banning gays from the military doesn't in any way diminish their freedom to be gay and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It just bans them from joining the military, which is not anybody's right, regardless of what anybody thinks about homosexuality.

If we banned all right-handed people from the military, that also wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights or a diminishing of freedom. In fact, from the perspective of tax payers and potential future draftees, it would increase freedom.

[Theocrat]

But this debate isn't even really about freedom to engage in sexual immorality. Banning gays from the military doesn't in any way diminish their freedom to be gay and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It just bans them from joining the military, which is not anybody's right, regardless of what anybody thinks about homosexuality.

If we banned all right-handed people from the military, that also wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights or a diminishing of freedom. In fact, from the perspective of tax payers and potential future draftees, it would increase freedom.

Some people would see it as a form of discrimination, on the same level as banning Blacks from joining the military because they have dark skin. Some people have this erroneous view that homosexuality is a "civil right," something which they can't help but to be. So, from that line of reasoning, they see any ban of homosexuals into the military as immoral, seemingly punishing someone for something "they can't help."

[erowe1]

Some people would see it as a form of discrimination, on the same level as banning Blacks from joining the military because they have dark skin. Some people have this erroneous view that homosexuality is a "civil right," something which they can't help but to be. So, from that line of reasoning, they see any ban of homosexuals into the military as immoral, seemingly punishing someone for something "they can't help."

Right. I do get that. But I still don't see the logic of subsuming that idea under "the whole package of freedom." Even from their own viewpoint, I don't get how "freedom" has anything to do with whether or not we ban gays from the military, again, unless we're talking about the freedom of the taxpayer and potential future draftee, which, if anything is increased by having such a ban in place.

If we were talking about banning blacks from joining the military, I could sympathize with arguments against doing so. But I still wouldn't be able to see how allowing blacks to be in the military would be the pro-freedom position. There may be important ideals leading people to that position, but prizing freedom isn't one of them.

[Theocrat]

Right. I do get that. But I still don't see the logic of subsuming that idea under "the whole package of freedom." Even from their own viewpoint, I don't get how "freedom" has anything to do with whether or not we ban gays from the military, again, unless we're talking about the freedom of the taxpayer and potential future draftee, which, if anything is increased by having such a ban in place.

If we were talking about banning blacks from joining the military, I could sympathize with arguments against doing so. But I still wouldn't be able to see how allowing blacks to be in the military would be the pro-freedom position. There may be important ideals leading people to that position, but prizing freedom isn't one of them.[Emphasis mine]

What do you mean by that?

[erowe1]

[Emphasis mine]

What do you mean by that?

I mean that having a ban of any given group of people in the military decreases the size of the pool of recruits (or draftees), which theoretically could decrease the size of the military, sparing tax payers an amount of their own individual freedom that is commensurate with however much less they would have to pay for that military. I realize, of course, that in the case of banning gays, this effect might be negligible or nonexistent. But it's at least theoretically there, and could be a very noticeable effect if we were to ban all right-handed people from the military or some other large group of people who were "just born that way." And for the people who belong to that group, their freedom would also be increased because of being spared the potential of being drafted with such a ban in place.

[Depressed Liberator]

What I've learned from the fundies here is that:

There is no fundamental freedom to marry whoever I want because God told me so.

[Theocrat]

What I've learned from the fundies here is that:

There is no fundamental freedom to marry whoever I want because God told me so.

Right, because that is not a proper definition of "freedom." Freedom is not "anthro-autonomous," meaning it does not entail men doing whatever they feel or believe is their liberty to do. Freedom involves "staying on the rail tracks," but once off the tracks, the train has a difficult time getting anywhere. ;)

[MelissaWV]

As I stated before, this whole issue will boil down to worldviews. Sure, I may not have all the particulars down for what should be "acceptable heterosexual behavior" in the military (though I would argue from moral principles), but we're not discussing heterosexual behavior. We're talking about homosexual behavior, and that is what I was criticizing.

I'd like to know how you "cornered me with logic," because all I see in your post are appeals to emotions. And it's not like I don't realize you would disagree with me on my views about homosexual behavior. I don't expect someone with an anti-Biblical view of the world to accept them.

However, given your worldview, my complaints and constraints for homosexual behavior are perfectly okay, because they are the set of morals that I bind myself to. So, logically, you shouldn't have anything else to say against my views. But you do. And it shows that you, as much as you try to be on the forums, are not neutral when it comes to homosexual (or any other moral) behavior.

If we're debating theory, we can debate all day... but we wouldn't, because you're perfectly entitled to spit your "loving venom" in my direction all day and all night. You're entitled to not have me in your home. You're entitled to call me names or whatever else you'd like.

However, we're discussing policy. I would like to punish actions taken on the job which actually impact the job. You and others would like to punish actions taken while not on the job that only MIGHT impact the job. There is a difference here. If you are in fact NOT advocating legislation, and are only speaking in theoreticals and moral opinion on the overall subject, then we are automatically at a draw every time. We are not going to change one another.

I did not say I cornered you with logic. I say that your own logic is your undoing. You assert that morality is the standard that should decide who is and is not allowed to serve in the military, but only punish heterosexual immorality with peer pressure and words, and homosexual immorality with discharge from service. This is an unequal standard.

As to the notion of comparing homosexuals to rapists and the like, if someone is convicted of an action that renders them ineligible for the military that is its own issue. Homosexuality, however, is legal in much of the country, is it not? It would be more along the lines of allowing heavy drinkers into the military. If homosexuality is a question of behavioral choices, this is an appropriate parallel. Drinking is, in and of itself, legal. Drinking while on duty is likely to be a problem, and could jeopardize the unit. Drinking heavily while on duty is unacceptable, and absolutely will jeopardize the unit. The way to deal with this is not to discharge all persons who have ever had a drink, but instead to discharge those who decide to indulge while on duty and jeopardize their fellow soldiers.


...neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality

This becomes a bit of a prickly issue. Once more, you have not put forth any objection to idolaters, the impure or immoral, or adulterers serving in the military, so long as they are heterosexual. In addition, we know from Biblical study that thinking of these things... fantasizing about them... is tantamount to doing them. How does one regulate such a thing? One doesn't. One regulates behavior and action WITHIN the military and removes those who disrupt the unit, just as one would remove an unruly child from the classroom so that others can continue their studies.

Logic would follow that everyone in the military should be beholden to the same rules, including those governing sexual conduct. This means that even if you're married (as someone earlier pointed out) to someone who's on base with you, there are restrictions as to what you can do. This means that harassment against women and men both is disruptive, regardless of the orientation of the instigator and the offended, and that rape should never be tolerated.

This should also mean that talking about your life back home should be done respectfully and not out of fear that if you mention your religion, sexual orientation, the race of family members, or any such thing, you'll be dismissed and all your training up until then will be for nothing. That is, of course, always a matter of opinion, but it is one I hold to consistently. Punish the action, not what you think might lead to a potential action. Again, a lot of this thread reveals that the desire to discharge homosexuals from the military is based mostly upon what people perceive homosexuals as being unable to stop themselves from doing, and how other soldiers will perceive them. Those both rely on blanket generalizations. At least your objections, Theocrat, are rooted in something more solid... but the logic is still inconsistently applied.


should the US Military allow dudes who get off on sodomizing cats and dogs into the military as well? ... Should the military allow rapists to serve? How about serial killers? What about kidnappers? Equality for all, right?

It is, actually, funny you two have mentioned this.


New data has been released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee showing the U.S. Armed Forces loosened recruiting guidelines to allow entry to applicants with serious criminal histories, including sexual offenders, kidnappers and arsonists.

The new data, which focused on the Army and Marine Corps, comes to light as the anti-gay, Clinton-era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy continues to be enforced, denying military entry and service to otherwise qualified LGB Americans.

Between 2006 and 2007, the number of “morals waivers” issued to recruits convicted of manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and making terrorist threats nearly doubled. The request for the information was made from the Oversight and Reform Committee’s chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).

...

While the military was allowing serious criminal offenders into the nation’s peacekeeping and defense ranks, the Pentagon also discharged nearly 700 service members found to be in violation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

In contrast, the military issued 511 felony “morals waivers” in 2007, including three soldiers convicted of manslaughter, one soldier convicted of kidnapping or abduction, seven soldiers convicted of rape, sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, incest or other sex crimes, three soldiers convicted of indecent acts or liberties with a child, and three soldiers convicted of terrorist threats including bomb threats

All of those people are qualified, and moral enough, but if you kissed someone of the same gender once upon a time... and you tell that story while you're in the military... oof. You're in trouble. The military's one twisted place when it comes to rules. I'd like them applied equally. Frankly, most criminals who aren't in prison and can pass the examinations to get into the military don't bother me if they get in. If what they did was so bad, they'd still be in prison or awaiting execution, one can hope. The brevity of punishment for severe crimes is a topic for another day. If, however, they commit those acts while in the military then they should be punished *and* they should absolutely not receive any further military consideration or benefits.

Anyhow, again, if you're not advocating legislation but are just waxing poetic on the subject, I apologize for the mischaracterization. I have more work to do, though, so I probably won't be responding to these threads for awhile :p Have at it!

[AmericaFyeah92]

^Sounds like freedom means doing whatever you approve of, Theocrat

[Theocrat]

^Sounds like freedom means doing whatever you God approves of, Theocrat

Yes, I agree with you.

[Goldhunter27]

Yes, I agree with you.

You disgust me. It's a shame that there are people like you on this earth. That is all.

[MelissaWV]

Right. I do get that. But I still don't see the logic of subsuming that idea under "the whole package of freedom." Even from their own viewpoint, I don't get how "freedom" has anything to do with whether or not we ban gays from the military, again, unless we're talking about the freedom of the taxpayer and potential future draftee, which, if anything is increased by having such a ban in place.

If we were talking about banning blacks from joining the military, I could sympathize with arguments against doing so. But I still wouldn't be able to see how allowing blacks to be in the military would be the pro-freedom position. There may be important ideals leading people to that position, but prizing freedom isn't one of them.

If we wanted to boil it down? It's all moot. Ideally, money wouldn't be stolen by which this military is funded and run. Ideally, the military would be much smaller and less involved (if at all) in foreign messes like the ones we're in. Ideally, at that point, the military would be entirely the domain of those in it, and those who fund it via bonds or whatever other means is in place, and potentially those affected by it (for example if a base was going to be built in a certain town, the townspeople would have a stake in the matter regardless of their standing). That'd be awesome, imo.

However, since we do have to fund this monster, the nature of the policy is what's silly. You know, if they actually banned homosexuals from the military that might at least be more honest. The current policy is akin to "We know there are gays here, we just want them to be really quiet about it and pretend to be straight." The military is perfectly willing to accept all kinds of really awful people, and on top of that the heterosexual members can talk about some ungodly subject matter, but having a gay person is going to destroy unit cohesion ;) It's ridiculous.

If we want to make it even more basic than that, removing the policy simply allows market forces within the military to decide whether all these worries and misconceptions about the outcome are true. Maybe every person who "comes out" will be hazed, and while those who initiate the violence should be punished, it would probably keep a lot of gays from joining the military or from "coming out" at all. Maybe there wouldn't be that much of a backlash at all. Maybe it'd be something in between.

Even more basic than that, it's a hell of a waste. All of that training, all of that bonding that goes on in a unit, and maybe everyone even already suspected that the guy was gay and was fine with it... but he's "outed" and discharged. It seems to me it'd be up to the people involved to worry about it.

Then again, if it stays in place, at least there's an easy way to dodge the draft.

Thank you, by the way, for not making it some kind of moral issue ;)

[Theocrat]

You disgust me. It's a shame that there are people like you on this earth. That is all.

Trust me, we're not going anywhere, so get used to us.

[Depressed Liberator]

If I had only one reason to allow every single person to marry anything, I can promise you it would be to piss off people like Theocrat.

I for one, am proud of Ron Paul.

[MelissaWV]

Yes, I agree with you.

Re: ...freedom means doing whatever you God approves of...

Be careful in your Biblical readings. Part of why you see me as anti-Biblical is because I've read the whole thing, not just the oft-quoted parts. I've even read some of the "Director's Cut" which ended up not being included in the final, commonplace version. I won't derail the thread into Hot Topics or Religion territory, but make yourself a list of what you believe God prohibits in relationships. Do it without the Bible at hand. Now go back in and verify your results.

Endogamy and incest, particularly, are favorites in the early books of the Bible. Is God okay with kissin' cousins, or is He not? Is He okay with you marrying your step-sibling? What about the implicit incest during population/repopulation? Why does the moral fabric seem to shift on various subjects such as these?

God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone. It is another thing upon which you and I disagree.

Edited to add:
Ah I forgot the part about how Leviticus contains an awful lot of instruction on animal sacrifices. Should we still do that? I thought we were taking that section literally. Of course, being naked around a woman with her period (and she naked around you) is also punishable in that section... and there are a variety of incenst/endogamy issues. I found a really cute chart on Wiki about it. Then there's Leviticus 15 about how if you have a "discharge" you are unclean, and detailing all the things that are also unclean if this happens. This can apply to women and men alike.

A better citation should really be found before you go around asserting God hates gays :)

[Theocrat]

Re: ...freedom means doing whatever you God approves of...

Be careful in your Biblical readings. Part of why you see me as anti-Biblical is because I've read the whole thing, not just the oft-quoted parts. I've even read some of the "Director's Cut" which ended up not being included in the final, commonplace version. I won't derail the thread into Hot Topics or Religion territory, but make yourself a list of what you believe God prohibits in relationships. Do it without the Bible at hand. Now go back in and verify your results.

Endogamy and incest, particularly, are favorites in the early books of the Bible. Is God okay with kissin' cousins, or is He not? Is He okay with you marrying your step-sibling? What about the implicit incest during population/repopulation? Why does the moral fabric seem to shift on various subjects such as these?

God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone. It is another thing upon which you and I disagree.

The reason why I am a theocrat is because I've spent my whole life studying the Scriptures, and I see the totality of its teachings (in both the Old and New Testaments) as applicable to humanity as opposed to humanistic teachings beginning with sinful, finite man's reasoning. It's a war of worldviews, Melissa.

When you say, "God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone," you're simply admitting that you have not understood what the Bible teaches, even though you claim to have read the whole thing.

Anyway, you're right that this will get us off-topic (or put into "Hot Topics"), so I'll just leave you with that message.

[Imaginos]

I still fail to see how letting gays serve in the military is in any way a part of the whole package of freedom.
My point is, if one meets all the job qualifications, then he or she should get the job.
What the person is doing in his or her bedroom is that person's individual choice and I don't think the government has right to dictate/regulate it.
Sure, military life is different than civil life but if the person can deliver what he's supposed to deliver, then why should we bother what he's doing in his free time?

[AmericaFyeah92]

Trust me, we're not going anywhere, so get used to us.

Us Libertines are here to stay as well....so.....

[Theocrat]

Us Libertines are here to stay as well....so.....

No, you won't. Your own philosophy and lifestyle will ensure that you die out. Call it "social natural selection." No libertine society has lasted very long in history.

[Brian4Liberty]

This thread is gay.

YouTube - In the Navy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw)

[AmericaFyeah92]

^You're right. Theocracies like Iran, Talibanistan, and Dominican Florence do a lot better :rolleyes:


You're entire ideology and wordlview depends on people looking to an invisible, omnipotent imaginary friend for "answers," and refusing to think for themselves. I can't see a lot of human and technological progress happening under that system

[Depressed Liberator]

Theocrat is right, I am afraid. Us libertines will die out soon.

Why? Gays can't have babies, duh. Why are we so inherently flawed? I'm not even gay and I'm pretty sure I got castrated the minute I thought gays had any liberties...

[MelissaWV]

Theocrat is right, I am afraid. Us libertines will die out soon.

Why? Gays can't have babies, duh. Why are we so inherently flawed? I'm not even gay and I'm pretty sure I got castrated the minute I thought gays had any liberties...

There are gay people on this board who have children :p

The educated/intelligent, though, tend to have fewer kids overall in the world.

All that said, kids get rebellious. What if they decided they wanted to be Statists just to make you mad?

:eek:

[erowe1]

If we wanted to boil it down? It's all moot. Ideally, money wouldn't be stolen by which this military is funded and run. Ideally, the military would be much smaller and less involved (if at all) in foreign messes like the ones we're in. Ideally, at that point, the military would be entirely the domain of those in it, and those who fund it via bonds or whatever other means is in place, and potentially those affected by it (for example if a base was going to be built in a certain town, the townspeople would have a stake in the matter regardless of their standing). That'd be awesome, imo.

However, since we do have to fund this monster, the nature of the policy is what's silly. You know, if they actually banned homosexuals from the military that might at least be more honest. The current policy is akin to "We know there are gays here, we just want them to be really quiet about it and pretend to be straight." The military is perfectly willing to accept all kinds of really awful people, and on top of that the heterosexual members can talk about some ungodly subject matter, but having a gay person is going to destroy unit cohesion ;) It's ridiculous.

If we want to make it even more basic than that, removing the policy simply allows market forces within the military to decide whether all these worries and misconceptions about the outcome are true. Maybe every person who "comes out" will be hazed, and while those who initiate the violence should be punished, it would probably keep a lot of gays from joining the military or from "coming out" at all. Maybe there wouldn't be that much of a backlash at all. Maybe it'd be something in between.

Even more basic than that, it's a hell of a waste. All of that training, all of that bonding that goes on in a unit, and maybe everyone even already suspected that the guy was gay and was fine with it... but he's "outed" and discharged. It seems to me it'd be up to the people involved to worry about it.

Then again, if it stays in place, at least there's an easy way to dodge the draft.

Thank you, by the way, for not making it some kind of moral issue ;)


My point is, if one meets all the job qualifications, then he or she should get the job.
What the person is doing in his or her bedroom is that person's individual choice and I don't think the government has right to dictate/regulate it.
Sure, military life is different than civil life but if the person can deliver what he's supposed to deliver, then why should we bother what he's doing in his free time?

Leaving aside whether I agree or disagree, I follow what you're both saying. I just don't think it really has anything to do with freedom or being a libertarian. And I note that nothing in either of the answers I quoted actually implies that it does have to do with that. It seems like when people say that Ron Paul's support for ending DADT is an example of his being consistent in his defense of freedom, they're trucking in some unspoken assumptions that lead them to the conclusion that defending freedom entails gays in the military, and regardless of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality I doubt that it really does.

Things being what they are in the world, there are lots of political issues where the debate isn't over a libertarian position versus a tyrannical one, but where a tyrannical position is taken as a given and the debate is over some detail that in and of itself has nothing to do with freedom. There may be some other ethical principle besides the non-aggression principle or self-ownership, or whatever concept people see as their basis for libertarianism, that people consider important that determines their position on this policy. But if so, it should be treated as that and not a pro-freedom versus anti-freedom thing.

Honestly, personally, I care more about whether this will cost RP votes in the 2012 Republican primary than I do about the policy itself.

[Theocrat]

There are gay people on this board who have children :p

The educated/intelligent, though, tend to have fewer kids overall in the world.

All that said, kids get rebellious. What if they decided they wanted to be Statists just to make you mad?

:eek:

The "educated/intelligent" have fewer kids? That's stupid. What could be better than having a generation of kids that influence the world for ages? It seems that the "educated/intelligent" will die off in their own lifetime. Meanwhile, my descendants will rule the world, in Christ. ;)

[Depressed Liberator]

The "educated/intelligent" have fewer kids? That's stupid. What could be better than having a generation of kids that influence the world for ages? It seems that the "educated/intelligent" will die off in their own lifetime. Meanwhile, my descendants will rule the world, in Christ. ;)

That is, until Jesus comes back with a guitar and rocks all the gays to hell, while his solo ascends everyone else to heaven.

[YumYum]

The "Don't ask and don't tell" policy was put into effect to allow homosexuals to serve in the military without the military having exposure to any liabilities. If it is against the military rules for ***** to join, and if a **** joined and got beat up, he or she could not come back on the military for supporting anti-homosexual sentiments. The **** violated the military rules by joining, thus the military can't be held accountable. Even though enlisted people can't sue the military, the military doesn't want to appear to hate homosexuals. Besides, ***** can kill and die for their country just as easily as straights.

Now we are in the year 2010. The only people that are homophobes are religious nut-jobs, and people in the military are cool with gays serving alongside them. There are no attacks on ***** in the military; those days are behind us.

So, why the repeal?

We are going to have a draft, so a person cannot be exempt from the draft for claiming to be gay.

[erowe1]

***** can kill and die for their country government just as easily as straights.
Fixed it again.



So, why the repeal?

We are going to have a draft, so a person cannot be exempt from the draft for claiming to be gay.
That has a real ring of truth to it IMHO.

[constituent]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

No. The military doesn't have rights...

[MelissaWV]

...

So, why the repeal?

We are going to have a draft, so a person cannot be exempt from the draft for claiming to be gay.

Assuredly. I've been saying that for quite some time, all the other arguments aside. Perhaps after this we'll see a "women's equity" bill or somesuch that makes women eligible for the draft for non-combat positions, too? Or a "Professionals Service Act" that drafts people who have "relevant knowledge" into the military to apply it on behalf of the Government?

Icky stuff. I fail on so many levels as far as the military is concerned. What a relief.

[Anti Federalist]

Perhaps after this we'll see a "women's equity" bill or somesuch that makes women eligible for the draft for non-combat positions, too?

Count on it.

The legal framework is now in place to make it impossible to draft men only.

[Working Poor]

I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality.

And you should pray about your problem with it Theo. I hope you do not feel it is up to you to be judge and jury because you have a problem. To me your problem with homosexuality is a personal problem and not something you have any authority over in another person especially if they have not asked you to help them with your problem with homosexuality. Being a Christian myself I think I think I am within my boundaries on this with you because you are trying to use your belief to govern someone else. In politics either you are for individual freedom or you think your belief system should be forced on everyone. You can be a Christian and not be on a mission to rid the world of homosexuality it is not up to you. God is the judge not you He will deal with it in His way and in His time and in the mean time maybe you strive to be the type of Christian that people want to emulate.

[zade]

The thing I don't get about Theocrat's argument is that it seems to be based on the idea that gays don't have a right to be gay because God, in his conception, doesn't approve of it. But if that's how he determines whether a right is valid or not, I don't see how or why he could be anything like a libertarian at all.

Theocrat, do you believe a person has the right to be another religion other than Christianity? Even though in your opinion God does not approve of any other religion but yours? Do you believe people have the right to do drugs? Fornicate? Commit adultery? I would think you do. So why is there a political difference in your mind between these things and being gay?

[Promontorium]

I don't know why you guys ignored my post. But most of you here seem to be ignoring a critical point. And by critical, I mean all 21 pages are pretty much a waste of time.

You guys are making me really sad. Please, use reason, logic, pay attention to this.


THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE ABOUT BEHAVIOR DADT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEHAVIOR. "HOMOSEXUAL" BEHAVIOR WILL STILL BE BANNED. BEHAVIOR IS 95% OF THE MILITARY'S JOB. THE OTHER 5% IS EVERYTHING ELSE. STOP BEING IGNORANT. THERE ARE ALREADY LOTS AND LOTS OF GAY PEOPLE AS WELL AS RAPISTS, MURDERERS, SATANISTS, NEONAZIS, AND EVERYTHING EVIL YOUR BIGOTED HEART FEARS IN THE MILITARY, YET SOMEHOW IT DOESN'T DERAIL ANYTHING. MILITARY BEARING. MILITARY BEARING. MILITARY BEARING.

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - Macho Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08)