Ron Paul Attacked for Voting to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[bobbyw24]

"People should know that Ron Paul voted for gays in the military in 2010," Donnelly states. "I think he should be held accountable for that vote. Certainly anyone who supports the military should question his support of the armed forces with that vote on his record

http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/images/stories/civil-rights/hrc-repeal-dadt.jpg

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center of Military Readiness, says however that Paul supported President Barack Obama and homosexual activists with his vote during last year's lame-duck session of the 111th Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" -- the law excluding homosexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1338750

[trey4sports]

Oh No the GayZ iz ComIn!

Our military is doomed!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERRy0mO6Q4g

[MisterTickle]

Man this country sometimes..

[COpatriot]

And then these people have the audacity to take offense when they're labeled "intolerant" or told that they hate gays.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3TF65y413sQ/TPSCBkO7hdI/AAAAAAAAAJM/t-sKn3Juhrg/s1600/gay%2Bcoffin.jpg

[specsaregood]

Don't ask, don't tell is the policy that let gays in the military, not this vote. So what the author is saying is that he prefers to have closetted gays around him. Dunno about you all but I prefer to know.

[matt0611]

Uh, the whole point of "don't ask don't tell" is to allow gays in the military as long as they keep it to themselves.
So gays have *been* in the military.

Even if so, don't we have more important things to worry about?
Some people need to look at the bigger picture.

[specsaregood]

Uh, the whole point of "don't ask don't tell" is to allow gays in the military as long as they keep it to themselves.
So gays have *been* in the military.

Even if so, don't we have more important things to worry about?
Some people need to look at the bigger picture.

Well more importantly, Dr. Paul's vote to Repeal DADT is in the best interests of national security. A closetted gay in the military is subject to blackmail because if they are outted they lose their career. Do we really want to have military personal with such a big target on them?

[nicoleeann]

I really dont see how it can be possible to allow gays in the military only because of the bunking situation and showering. How on earth can that work out? Its just impossible.

[ctb619]

I really dont see how it can be possible to allow gays in the military only because of the bunking situation and showering. How on earth can that work out? Its just impossible.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What exactly is impossible? Many armed forces throughout the world have gay soldiers so it appears entirely possible.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Sup Nicole, welcome to the forums.

I get your point but by the same token, how do guys walk around nude beaches and not get erections? It's called being a respectful human being and turning off your libido. When I'm showering with lots of people I'm so embarrassed that even if Meadow Soprano is next to me, I'm not gonna start ogling her.

On the other hand, I think Dr. Paul's point is that extremely shallowly promiscuous people who can't keep it in their own pants, straight or gay, are a disruption. But I think if we took the handcuffs off our military (excuse the reference) they could destroy any army around the globe w/ one arm, even if the other arm is somewhere it shouldn't be.

[nicoleeann]

well how do they arrange the bunking? it doesnt make sense.

[specsaregood]

well how do they arrange the bunking? it doesnt make sense.

im pretty sure the gays use the same types of mattresses and pillows as the straights.

[KurtBoyer25L]

well how do they arrange the bunking? it doesnt make sense.

If gay people, straight people, and those in between are allowed to be honest and talk to their superiors about it beforehand, I should think a little common sense & discretion should do nicely.

[nicoleeann]

well i guess if the strait people sign up then they are okay with sleeping with gay people. i would never do it though. that would be really uncomfortable.

[specsaregood]

well i guess if the strait people sign up then they are okay with sleeping with gay people. i would never do it though. that would be really uncomfortable.

college students manage to do it every single day, I think we should expect that the members of our military are at least as strongwilled as college kids.

[nicoleeann]

If i were bunked with a lesbian in college i would ask to switch rooms. I have a lesbian friend who when i go over to her house i wont change in front of her or sleep in the same room.
but the fact is i guess: if they sign up for it, then they've done it voluntarily so they have to accept it.

[BlackTerrel]

I'll be honest I disagree with Dr. Paul on this one.

[TheTyke]

I will never understand this issue. Firstly, joining the military is VOLUNTARY, so it's not about "rights." Secondly, it was Clinton who implemented this at the behest of said groups - so why are they against it and socons for it now? Didn't work out as planned? New agenda?

It reminds me of Reid on the PatAct, Obama on... well, anything he promised, Conway on the drug war... I guessed the "ideological" lines are redrawn for political convenience.

[XTreat]

Active duty Army here 10 years. I could give a shit, bring on the gays. Either we are all equal or we aren't.

[libertarian4321]

I really dont see how it can be possible to allow gays in the military only because of the bunking situation and showering. How on earth can that work out? Its just impossible.

Gays have been in the military bunking and showering with straights all along- the only difference is, now the gays don't have to lie about it.

Gays shower with straights at the in college dorms, health club, at the YMCA, in high school gym class, on sports teams, etc. In other words, gays shower with straights all the time, both openly and otherwise.

I'm straight, but I've showered with (and roomed with, btw) open gays in sports, in college, in HS, etc. It was no big deal- as long as they aren't sexually harassing other soldiers (which is not allowed in the military), who cares?

I'm also military, and showered with plenty of gays there (they just lied about it).

Are we really saying that gays and straights showering together in college is no problem, but if the same thing happens in the military, the poor babies in the Army will just not be able to handle it? Really?

Are college pukes made of stronger stuff than soldiers? That's essentially what you are saying with this "bunks and showers argument- that soldiers are such dolts or wimps that they can't handle a situation that college kids live with every day.

I've served 30 years in the Army, active and reserve, and Ron Paul is right. I can think of no time in my service that serving with a gay guy would have made a damned bit of difference.

The whole "bunking and showering" bit is nonsense...

BTW, gays and straights serve together in the armies of MOST of the modern nations on Earth (UK, Germany, Israel, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, and many others), and they don't have "shower" problems.

So I'll reiterate, the "bunks and showers" argument is bull crap.

[libertarian4321]

well i guess if the strait people sign up then they are okay with sleeping with gay people. i would never do it though. that would be really uncomfortable.

Lol.

They aren't "sleeping with them"- they may be in the same room, but each soldier gets his own bunk. No need to worry about any "gayness" rubbing off on you.

What do you think, the "gays" are going to "get you" in the middle of the night (btw, soldiers aren't allowed to sexually harass each other, gay or straight)? So gays would be allowed to serve, but wouldn't be allowed to commit any kind of sexual harassment (if they did, they'd be discharged for THAT, not just for being gay).

So I don't have a problem with Gays in the Military and agree with my fellow veteran (and, from the looks of things, most of the veterans on these forums) Ron Paul on this issue. Most current military members also agree with the rule change.

Why does it seem that the people who scream the loudest about how horrible it will be to have gays in the military are people who have never served in the military?

[Sweman]

Active duty Army here 10 years. I could give a shit, bring on the gays. Either we are all equal or we aren't.

+rep

[LibertyEagle]

Considering everything else that is going on in our country, this to me, is not a big issue at all. But, I do not agree with Dr. Paul on this either.

[demolama]

Someone needs to tell these baboons that we already share barracks, showers, and foxholes with them.... having them open about it keeps the guessing out of the game.

[Mr.Magnanimous]

...

[Johncjackson]

well how do they arrange the bunking? it doesnt make sense.

I don't think top/bottom bunk means what you think it does.

[Johncjackson]

If i were bunked with a lesbian in college i would ask to switch rooms. I have a lesbian friend who when i go over to her house i wont change in front of her or sleep in the same room.
but the fact is i guess: if they sign up for it, then they've done it voluntarily so they have to accept it.

I don't think she's your friend. Or maybe she is your friend, but you aren't hers.

[jmdrake]

Personally I'm against a standing army and I prefer a "well regulated militia" like the founders intended. After all if Thomas Jefferson said that a central bank is a greater threat to liberty than a standing army then that means Thomas Jefferson felt a standing army is a threat to liberty. Under the militia model (used to good effect in Switzerland) soldiers typically live in their own homes. In that case who cares about sexual orientation or anything else?

That said, I know following the TJ's position against standing armies isn't going to win an election. But I don't see DADT as much of a vote getter either. I'm not sure why Ron Paul picked this time to take that stand on the issue, but we play the hand we're dealt. As long as Ron stands firm on DOMA we shouldn't totally lose the Christian conservative vote.

[jmdrake]

If i were bunked with a lesbian in college i would ask to switch rooms. I have a lesbian friend who when i go over to her house i wont change in front of her or sleep in the same room.
but the fact is i guess: if they sign up for it, then they've done it voluntarily so they have to accept it.


I don't think she's your friend. Or maybe she is your friend, but you aren't hers.

Total crap. So if nicoleeann has a male friend she should be forced to change in front of him and sleep in the same room to prove his friendship?

[specsaregood]

That said, I know following the TJ's position against standing armies isn't going to win an election. But I don't see DADT as much of a vote getter either. I'm not sure why Ron Paul picked this time to take that stand on the issue, but we play the hand we're dealt.

He explained it as a fiscal conservative vote. ie: spending thousands of dollars to train somebody, then throw that away by kicking them out if they are outted. Also, this vote left it entirely up to the military to decide when and how to integrate gay soldiers depending on when the military decided it would not effect its "readiness". His vote is the only sane vote really. He didn't vote to let gays in the military (DADT did that). He voted to repeal bad legislation. Although I think my "blackmail" point is the one that should be used since it speaks to national security.

[thedude]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3TF65y413sQ/TPSCBkO7hdI/AAAAAAAAAJM/t-sKn3Juhrg/s1600/gay%2Bcoffin.jpg

this^

+rep for sharing

Probably the most powerful, and most common sense, approach to this debate.

[jmdrake]

He explained it as a fiscal conservative vote. ie: spending thousands of dollars to train somebody, then throw that away by kicking them out if they are outted. Also, this vote left it entirely up to the military to decide when and how to integrate gay soldiers depending on when the military decided it would not effect its "readiness". His vote is the only sane vote really. He didn't vote to let gays in the military (DADT did that). He voted to repeal bad legislation. Although I think my "blackmail" point is the one that should be used since it speaks to national security.

I'm not the one that needs to be convinced. I'll vote for Ron anyway. That said thanks for your input. I know this is going to come up in my area when canvassing. If someone comes at hard against RP based on DADT I'm not going to waste my time. But if I run into someone that likes RP but is uncomfortable about the DADT vote I'll try to remember these talking points.

[nicoleeann]

I am too her friend. She understands perfectly well why we can be unclothed around each other. My boyfriend has told me not to do it too. He says he is the only one who is attracted to girls who can see me do that. While i agree that if you sign up for it, then you agree to it, I still think the situation is not appropriate. I wouldnt feel comfortable sleeping with and changing with men either not because the are sure to be attracted to me, but because they could very well possibly be attracted to me. I'm not afraid it will rub off on me. I just don't think its very fair. What if a woman soldier says "well if gay men can sleep in the rooms with other men, so should i." She won't harrass them or anything, but simply wants to be in there with them. And since its war, she and the men won't be concerned about sex and stuff like that, they are way above that.

[TonySutton]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a senior NCO in the Spanish Army while serving in Mostar. We had been invited to eat lunch on Sunday because they heard I loved paella, which they had every Sunday. While going through the line at the chow hall I noticed they had beer and wine available for anyone to partake. While eating I asked him if they served beer and wine only on the weekend or if it was a normal offering in the chow hall. He stated that it is available all week at lunch and supper time. I then asked if they had issues with soldiers drinking too much at lunch and not being able to perform their duties. He stated that it was very rare because when someone did such a thing they would be fined, confined to quarters and could possibly lose rank. I told him we do not offer alcohol in our chow halls because they do not want someone to drink too much. He looked at me puzzled and asked "they punish everyone because one person might act poorly?"

This idea of personal responsibility is hard to find in the US. We must punish everyone and have zero tolerance laws because 1 person out of one million might do something stupid...

[Zap!]

It wasn't the smart thing to do IMO when you're about to run for president in a Republican Primary. I never thought I'd say this, but sticking to your principles and beliefs was the wrong thing to do. He should have went on vacation or said he had the flu when it came time to vote that day.

[jmdrake]

I am too her friend. She understands perfectly well why we can be unclothed around each other. My boyfriend has told me not to do it too. He says he is the only one who is attracted to girls who can see me do that. While i agree that if you sign up for it, then you agree to it, I still think the situation is not appropriate. I wouldnt feel comfortable sleeping with and changing with men either not because the are sure to be attracted to me, but because they could very well possibly be attracted to me. I'm not afraid it will rub off on me. I just don't think its very fair. What if a woman soldier says "well if gay men can sleep in the rooms with other men, so should i." She won't harrass them or anything, but simply wants to be in there with them. And since its war, she and the men won't be concerned about sex and stuff like that, they are way above that.

Shhhhhh....you're being too logical. The gay rights movement requires a certain bit of illogic. You have to believe on the one hand that gays and straights are exactly the same except gays are attracted to the same sex. But at the same time you're supposed to believe that gays won't be oogling others of the same sex because straight people don't oogle others of the same sex. Add to that the "Well there are some gays in the military anyway so you're probably already being oogled" argument, which ignores the fact that you can't be made uncomfortable by oogling if you don't know you're being oogled.

Anyway, your argument about coed barracks is spot on. If you're going to be bunking with people that might be attracted to you, why not bunk with people you might be attracted to yourself as well?

All that said, I'm back to my original point. Was Thomas Jefferson not right for supporting a mustered militia over a standing army? And if we moved to a mustered militia wouldn't this whole problem go away?

[jmdrake]

Sup Nicole, welcome to the forums.

I get your point but by the same token, how do guys walk around nude beaches and not get erections? It's called being a respectful human being and turning off your libido.

Naw. It's called becoming nudie numb. After seeing enough women nude the effect wears off. Having an erection is under normal circumstances an automatic reaction to stimulus. Also at your typical nude beach most of the people you see are unattractive. The "ewww gross" stimulus overrules the "wow that's hot" stimulus. Really, would you get excited with this guy cavorting around?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVtEX1J7tXQ