Salon: Repugs boo gay soldier
One of our PAO fans sent us this link from Salon; “The night Republicans booed a soldier” which describes the incident at the debate last night;
Fox’s Megyn Kelly said as she introduced a video submission. “It comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier stationed in Iraq.”
Hill, wearing a gray “ARMY” t-shirt then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn’t want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would “do anything to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers” now that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has been officially repealed.
His video then ended and … a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall.
A “handful” of boos equates to all Republicans in the mind of the author, Steve Kornaki, as expressed in the title of the piece. Actually, Rick Santorum addressed the question best;
…he declared that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” that gays and lesbians have been given “a special privilege” by the repeal of DADT, and that the basic function of the military has been undermined because of it. Unlike Hill’s question, Santorum’s response produced loud applause and cheers that almost drowned him out as he finished speaking.
So? What’s the point, Karnacki? Republicans don’t believe in identity politics – it’s Democrats who have split us up into groups based on superficial differences instead of being ablke to embrace our similarities. Santorum is correct in that sex acts of any sort are not compatible with actual military service. Funny how dodging the people who want to kill you occupy your mind enough that you don’t think much about sex.
And if Private Hill thinks that being gay is a more important part of his identity than being a soldier, he doesn’t belong in the Army. I appreciate his service, but I don’t appreciate the fact that he relishes the opportunity to shove his sexual preference in our face.
I’m disappointed that dicksmith didn’t take this typical “Made for VetsVoice” story and run with it. Maybe he will later.
Category: Military issues
Give it time–and yes, MSM, I didn’t give a shit who banged who or with what. I didn’t want to hear about it from ANYONE. What is it about teh gheys that has you so convinced we give a shit who they screw? The unit supercedes the individual. Ya’ll still can’t comprehend that.
No-one is saying that sex acts and sexuality has a role in military service; the point is that gays and lesbians should not be kicked out if their preferences are revealed. There’s no need for any more attention to be paid to the differences between people who do military service now that that has been achieved.
Bullshit, anon–straights are kicked out in just as high a numbers for adultery. Why do you not hear anything about that? Quite the contrary, the gay lobby is all about sexuality trumping all else. As with all the militant types, it’s about them first, the unit second. I don’t care if it’s women, gays, whatever–screw the mission, we just want to play too. So what if you have to shitcan the standards to let us in?
Oh yeah and although Rick Santorum says he doesn’t believe in special privileges for specific groups, he still wants to re-institute DADT. That’s a blatant contradiction – are straight people not a specific group? If a heterosexual person decided to talk about his weekend with his girlfriend and a homosexual person mentions time spent with his boyfriend, under DADT it is the straight guy with the special privilege to say whatever he wants about his relationship. Hypocrisy.
One side has reduced the orientation to a sexual act, instead of the biological attraction to a specific gender. It’s reduced to that act in order to support a particular point of view.
Homosexual orientation is not by itself anymore ‘in your face’ than heterosexual. Gays aren’t asking to hump each other in the middle of the street, contrary to what opponents tend to characterize.
I don’t agree with the gay lobby and all that special magazine for gay service members and all that stuff. Obviously sexuality does not trump all else; doing your job to the best of your ability does. My point is that if there is anything that prevents someone from doing their job as best as they can, it is a bad thing. DADT is a policy that prevents competent people from doing their job because of their sexual orientation. If someone does well, they stay, if they can’t work then they get thrown out. It’s that simple. What’s adultery got to do with it?
I’ve given too much thought to this issue lately. For me, and probably for others, the military represented the last bastion of hope for a return to yesteryear, when men were men and sexual relations between men was taboo. Over the years, the acceptance of gayhood, gayness, queeridity (or whatever) has established itself in our schools, workplaces, legislatures, media, and even religious institutions. The military was the last hope and, now, it is gone. As I said in another comment here, the homosexuals have won. It’s over.
And soon enough a gay man will show up asking to have butt sex with you, AirCav. Oh the horror.
Cygnus–haven’t spent much time in lately, have ya? Sexual conversation pretty much went bye-bye after Tailhook.
And CI–when they do? Notice it’s not a question of if, but when someone wants that. I’m not naive enough to belive that I didn’t serve with gay shipmates–I know I did. One even contracted HIV. But you know how it’s going to go…one guy (or gal) fucking it up for the rest of the group.
But then again, all we did was create another protected class.
Spark all I’m saying is that who the fuck cares if they’re gay or straight. Let them do what they do and everyone get over it. Since when did this shit become such a big deal? I don’t care about the stupid things people say or do – there’s always gonna be someone fucking it up for everyone else but they’re a minority. It was just plain wrong to get thrown out because you’re a homo and now that’s changed, people should pull their head out of their asses and move on.
@ 8. Yes, it would be a horror. My family would miss me while I did my time.
The key to this entire mess is that entirely too many refuse to acknowledge that it is an issue of privacy, not prejudice, which drives the objections of at least many, if not most, of us.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what consenting adults do in private. But I will object to activities humans have traditionally done privately occuring on my front porch.
And for the record, these objections are not limited to sexual acts. I also don’t want to participate with others taking a dump. Actually, I’m not real keen on watching someone floss either.
Cygnus–that’s the whole point–NOBODY was getting thrown out simply because they were gay/lesbian. Coming OUT, however…and most of those who did “out” themselves did so in order to avoid deployments, just like there were a (small) segment of the female sailors who would get pregnant to avoid deployment or orders to somewhere they didn’t like.
Again, (apologies to squidthoughts, I hate to generalize) it’s a few fucking it up for the rest of the group. But as we’ve seen before, it only takes one to put the entire mission at risk.
@13 – “NOBODY was getting thrown out simply because they were gay/lesbian. Coming OUT”
Do you have supporting evidence that NOBODY was discharged after their orientation was found out?
Cygnus said: “DADT is a policy that prevents competent people from doing their job because of their sexual orientation.”
No. DADT was a law that was meant to protect the privacy of homosexuals while also protecting good order and discipline in the military. Now we have the start of the homosexual military parade (e.g., gay soldiers calling from Iraq to the presidential debates, and gay soldiers calling their dad to tell him their gay.)
Cygnus also scrawled: “Since when did this shit become such a big deal?”
Uhh, since 1776. For over 200 years gays were never allowed in the military. It was considered a psychological disorder. DADT came into existence because after their hero Bill Clinton was elected, liberals wanted to change military policy that excluded gays, resulting in the DADT compromise.
Cygnus also wrote: “Spark all I’m saying is that who the fuck cares if they’re gay or straight.”
I do. Especially when they go on television and make military service about homosexual lifestyle accommodation rather than service to country.
Stop writing ignorant crap.
No CI, my point was that nobody was being discharged solely for being gay/lesbian UNLESS they were outed. If they kept their sexuality to themselves, it wasn’t a problem, now was it?
I’m just waiting for all the Kelly Flynns of the world to be allowed back in even after committing adultery, or the fat guys after they lose a couple of pounds, etc., etc…
@16 – I get that, and not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but unless a gay or lesbian was celibate, there was always the possibility [as well as the instance] where they were found out. If that standard you pine for would be for that celibacy, that’s a mighty stringent request, when trying to logically connect the issue to the privileges of straights.
@15 – Please bear in mind that not all traditional social restrictions are healthy for a democratic society….and not every civil libertarian is a liberal.
Sparky–no apology necessary. I agree with you, it has and always will be the few that spoil it for the majority. Once I figured out what a big deal it was for me to be on board the ship doing my job, I worked my ass off to prove to everyone I wasn’t going to be what they were afraid of. I refused, and still do, to become the stereotype. I put my head down and went to work. But within the group of females that followed after me there were inevitably a few that were exactly what the guys were thinking: weak, lazy, using their gender as an excuse or a weapon. For a long time I was so evil to them, I mean the biggest Bitch you’ve ever seen, because I hated them for undoing all the work I had tried to do. Over the years once the panic factor subsided and we were all trapped together, I’d say it all balanced out. There will always be the shitbags; male or female, black or white or green, straight or gay. Always the ones who bag the watch or get a tummy ache or refuse to carry their own load. By and large the military system is self-correcting. And by self-correcting I don’t mean proclamations that filter down from on high. The ones doing the work will figure out a way to fix what’s broken, always have always will.
It still amazes me that people believe DADT is anti-homosexual. It is actually anti-sex. I won’t ask you what you did behind the bedroom door last night and you won’t tell me, either.
I didn’t care if a soldier working with me was a rug-muncher or a fudge-packer. I often dogged troopies for bragging about their performance while in uniform. Sure, testosterone flows freely with service members, but it isn’t appropriate no matter what your orientation is.
Yes, I spoke about my wife to coworkers, but not what happened behind the bedroom door. That kind of stuff stays behind the door, not aired out in public.
@19 – “Yes, I spoke about my wife to coworkers, but not what happened behind the bedroom door. That kind of stuff stays behind the door, not aired out in public.”
THIS is why it’s not about sex. A gay or lesbian Soldier could not [pre or during] DADT say the same thing as you.
Adirondack Patriot. There’s an excellent essay on how the gays, by way of PR that would make Madison Ave envious, managed to win over many who used to be opposed to homosexuality. You might want to give it a read. Here’s the link for a cut and paste.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1147428/posts
I am so glad I sent this in. I delt with DADT directly while down range in 2006. This shit causes major problems. DADT worked fine. I didn’t kick my gay soldier out. I followed the law and because he promised to do his friggen job, not do anything “gay” or anything that would get him harmed while outside the wire, we let him ETC and he’s now free to use his GI Bill and gay it up as much as possible. My worry as a commander is he’d be outed while with the grunts and they’d kick the shit out of him. We knew he was gay before he ever came out.
However you all fail because nobody mentioned his very tight Army club t-shirt.
Honestly, how many DADT repeals have you seen of people that were ACTUALLY gay? Most of the time its shitbags that are looking for an easy out. Worse most of the “gay” men out there that are mentioned are so in your face about their sexuality that it would absolutely be a determent to the workplace.
More often than not when you hear of gays being “discriminated” against, it is a case of a person going into a situation they know would not likely be welcome, and trying to make everyone around them uncomfortable, then when the expected outburst comes they go into hysterics about how unfair it is. I’m pretty darn white, you don’t see me rolling into a La Razza den then being offended when I’m not welcome (I’d probably be dead but that’s beside the point) Indeed most of these displays are targeted.
>What is it about teh gheys that has you so convinced we give a shit who they screw?
It is the myth of the “oppressed.” You must “come out” like a butterfly. I mean how narcissistic and disrespectful is it to tell your father that you are gay and then post it to youtube. And yet the first day of the repeal, that is what we had a soldier doing.
First, you might want to give your family a chance to actually get used to the idea. Second, NO ONE ELSE FRICKING CARES!
Air Cav I’m your gay tutu-wearing Daddy and I want to loosen up your tight Republican sphincter with my huge gay dick. Now that DADT has been repealed do you think we can do that? We can have a big gay sex party and your friends can come too. Better get used to it now that homos are in control.
Not to worry, according to what I’ve seen on some blogs, we’re now equal to the Swedes and Dutch, militarily. I feel so much safer now.
“Air Cav I’m your gay tutu-wearing Daddy and I want to loosen up your tight Republican sphincter with my huge gay dick. Now that DADT has been repealed do you think we can do that? We can have a big gay sex party and your friends can come too. Better get used to it now that homos are in control.” President Obama. Boston Red Sox. Justin Bieber. Stolen Valor. DADT.
There, that ought to help get your message out. After all, it is quite representative of the gay community.
Wait….the Boston Red Sox….where did that come from.
It was a toss-up between them or the Yankees. I should have used the Yanks. They’re probably googled more than the Red Sox.
If you guys really thought “sex acts of any sort are not compatible with actual military service”
you would push for a DADT for everyone, gay and straight. Since you don’t, sex act incompatability cannot be the reason your or Santorum’s support of DADT. Not to mention DADT went well beyond private sex acts and being gay doesn’t have anything to do with “sex acts during actual military service” any more than being straight does.
Comments like #15, #16 and #19 go to show how little some people know about DADT policy before they mouth off about it. It is amazing the intellectual leaps the comments take in order to support a disdain for gay people. Just be honest that you don’t like gay people for whatever reason you have.
Um J- it isn’t that we don’t like gays. It is that we feel that homosexuality is wrong. Rather than “not liking” someone, I just don’t include them in my circle of friends. If I knew someone to be a wifebeater, a dog kicker, a useless liberal welfare rider,,,, I would not claim to not like them, but just turn them out of my circle of friends.
PS: I withheld certain punctuation to allow those of the liberal persuasion something to bitch about. You guess which punctuation.
DADT is gay.
Newsflash, J. I was around pre DADT and well into the DADT era. I think I’ve got a real good idea of what I’m talking about when it comes to gays in uniform and readiness issues. We’re not the coffee house crowd who are easily impressed (or repulsed) by someone simply because they wore a uniform. We (not just I) have experience in dealing with gay and lesbian troops. Let’s just say that if the rules on sexual harassment were equally enforced, there would be a whole shitload of administrative separations based on the “hostile work environment” alone. But you and I know that won’t happen lest the Lavender Mafia claim it as some sort of witch hunt…or is that fairy hunt?
Well , I had a problem with that guy, Don’t want to take away from his service but , the military is a Volunteer organization. If he enlisted when gays weren’t allowed in the military then he lied to get in. no if ands or buts about it. No matter what he did after he still lied to get in and broke his oath. To me it’s the same as illegals. Doesn’t matter what they did after they got in here, they still broke the law to get here. But the left wing media will try to spin it that the republicans HATE the military.
First of all, I don’t know what you’re smoking to say good soldiers are too worried about surviving to think about sex. All soldiers think about sex. Possibly a high percentage of the time. Possibly more while deployed, not less.
If you think that straight men don’t think about sex while deployed, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Secondly, yes, earlier commenters are correct. The end of DADT means that when everyone’s sitting bitching about their relationship,a man can open up with “Yeah, my boyfriend is spending all my money too while I’m here.” Or a female soldier can join the “I think my girlfriend is cheating on me” circles.
Personally, I could not care less what the hell sex acts soldiers perform, straight or gay. I always got tired of hearing the day after stories, anyway. What I do care about is the service, and I’m not too keen on individuals and groups making this a PR fest. We got our orders from DOD – like it or not – now move out and do your damned jobs, people. If you don’t like it, there is always the unemployment line waiting for you. Save the drama until you get out.
For all the folks jumping on the gay bandwagon, I want you Google two phrases:
“Prejudicial to good order and discipline,” and, “hostile work environment.”
Good Grief, Sparky; now you want to go and throw “Facts” into the mix. You do know, don’t you, that doing this is an unfair slam to the other side of this argument.
“Gay bandwagon”. Cute. Meaningless label, but cute.
Your statement however damages your position, given that it is quite obviously some straight Soldiers who will be responsible for your two phrases.
Sparky – the law is only applied one way. Not your way. Nice try though!
So my deal with all this shenanigans is this-
I have two major issues with the gay/lesbian DADT repealment. We had a briefing regarding it and teaching us scenarios where a Chaplain (Christian one) was making openly offensive remarks about homosexuality and how it was wrong (read, Sodom and Gommorah, thats where the word Sodomy comes from), and anyone who really reads the Bible (Christian), knows full well it was man to woman, not woman to woman and man to man. The fact that in order to make the gays and lesbians feel EO in the Chaplain community and force them to preach a different message does NOT sit well with me at all.
Two: being in a sustainment capacity, we sit there and watch quite a few of these people come in. Off duty, they go wild, and are usually the ones caught up in the bar fights, public disturbance, indecency, etc.
The bottom line when it comes down to DADT-if they do their fuckin job, leave em to it. If they make comments (ie, bragging in the shower about their bf s butthole they banged last night), they full well and ought to be subject to EO complaints/UCMJ action, etc. Whatever they do off duty on their time is their call, but if they break the law or do something to discredit the Army, that s their problem. I don t see how they have any special priviledges.
Very true CI. Now which group sustains he higher rate of punishment for said transgression?
I would say the group who violates the UCMJ.
Are you naive enough to believe that a double standard won’t apply like it has with every other protected class to come down the pike? Willing to bet your career on that?
Why would I have to bet my career on that? I didn’t have any EO issues throughout my time in uniform, and I retired at the end of ’08.
The same set of instances will obviously occur to some degree. Has that broken our military to date? Should racial minorities and women not have been allowed to serve based on the relatively small number of instances of injustice? The scale of detriment I have witnessed has been minor to the point where, when I was ‘volunteered’ to attend EOLC, I thought the effort was an over-reactive cure to the insignificant disease.
You may believe me to be naive, and perhaps I you will end up vindicated, anything’s possible. But just as you seem to predicate your premise on a generally no-fault position on behalf of straight Soldiers, whereas I have enough faith in the services to overcome this as a mere hiccup, and drive along as before.
The military, especially the Army, is extremely PC. Very extremely PC. Having seen the Army in action, UCMJ won’t be applied to this newly protected class.
Based on personal and anecdotal experience, the chances of gay members being charged with harassment will be virtually nil. Conversely, the chances of a command bending over backwards to prosecute even the flimsiest (or even false) cases of harassment where the accused is straight will be pretty near fucking certain.
Well, opinions will vary. Apparently the opinion you hold outweighs your concern that your fellow service members can all be eligible for having a support structure accessible that every service acknowledges is crucial to the health and morale of the military.
Your complaints with the reactionary posture of the services in regards to mandatory training and the like, are shared by me….but those postures are applied to far more arena’s than EO. You seem to envision a sea of EO complaints where there has not been an overwhelming problem previously with other so-called ‘protected classes’.
Many women are charged with creating a hostile work environment and quid pro quid harrassment. Many people of color are likewise charged with race-based discrimination. And let’s not forget all of the Muslims who are charged with discrimination on account of religion. Where are these cases? Oh, do not worry about that. Just trust that there are many, many of them. Here, more Kool-Aid?