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progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers” now that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has been officially repealed.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
Is that the best defense you have for NHSparky’s otherwise valid concern?Pay no attention to the relevant question that nobody wants to answer. Keep assuming the sky has fallen and/or will fall. Much easier on the ol’ noggin.
It is a one-way street in practice. The rule of thumb is that if you are a member of a protected class and there’s a beef, a complaint, then the complainant is presumed to have been victimized (even if the victimization is perceived only by the complainant) and the person complained about is tainted, even if no disciplinary action results. That’s the reality.
>member of a protected class
Well and there is a huge problem with gays being a member of a “protected class.” This is why they have up until now been placed in the bottom tier of equal protection. Their minority status is largely based on subjective behavior. That means it can change(Anne Heche). It also means that the only way they can prove they are gay is if they “say they are gay.” Woman, African Americans, Hispanics have genetic component that cannot be hidden.
Hypothetical: So Tom can go to EO and say that Bob hates him because he is gay… Bob may not even be aware that Tom is gay.. And Tom may not even be gay, and noboby has anyway of proving either.
@53 – ” Their minority status is largely based on subjective behavior.”
I’m quite sure that you wouldn’t accept an “Anne Heche” example to bear any weight on your position, why would you do so towards the opposing school of thought?
I don’t think of my sexual orientation as subjective behavior in any way whatsoever. Do you?
>I don’t think of my sexual orientation as subjective behavior in any way whatsoever It’s not? Subjective means “you decide.” It also means that others have no way of definitely telling unless you tell them. Even if they saw you in bed with a member of the same sex- you could still state you are bisexual. Objective would if you were black…I don’t have to genetically test you to tell that you are black and you don’t have to tell me that you are black. BTW, many people have been lesbian and homosexual until they got out of high school or college(and I am not talking about religious conversion)..I am talking about people who were certain of there sexual orientation until they grew up and found out they were trying to fit in, because they couldn’t fit in anywhere else or they were actually experimenting. There have been people who were straight for years and then decided “nope, I am gay.” It really isn’t as cut and dry as you think it is. The normative is heterosexuality, and we are born predisposed to be heterosexuals. Our sexual development then decides “what turns us on.” This isn’t decided at birth. The species is a heterosexual species so that it can reproduce therefore the majority do become heterosexual(but there are many variance in that category just clamoring for special preference also). More on my hypothetical: The reason that these types of EO complaints would be so dangerous is that they military is going to be PC. They aren’t going to find out if Tom is really gay. So even if he isn’t he can bring an EO complaint against Bob for being gay. Even a rape victim must go through a trial to prove a rape claim. The claim that “I have been harrassed, because I am xyz” is central to the EO claim. And yet the military is going to take the victims word for it that there was a motive for the “harrassment.” Without the motive, the harrasement might just be regular discipline handed out in the military. Tom, who… Read more »
It’s interesting to hear that you decided you were heterosexual. I don’t have any experience with that….much like most people, I have always known my biological and chemical orientation towards emotional and sexual attraction. The examples you cite of some people changing course, but you’ve taken a topic under no shortage of debate scientifically and used it as an avenue to exclude American service men and women from enjoying the same ability to have emotional and moral support while they serve their nation, as others do. What is ‘decided at birth’ is open to conclusion under any logical definition. But claims of social pressures and previous acceptance of homosexuality falls flat when considering the existence of gays throughout the entire course of human history, under threat of ostracism, persecution and death. If you are fine with the rationalization of social segregation of gays, and tiered standards in the military based on nothing more than the biological attraction of a specific gender utterly unrelated to the ability of mission accomplishment, then so be it. It would bear a striking resemblance to Santorum’s remarks, but I respect your civility of opinion.
However, ‘bedroom behavior’ is already protected….and has been, for one class of people. The cries of ‘protected class’ works both ways. Political correctness works both ways. You may see the acceptance of gays in society as PC for a subset of that society. The nonacceptance is just as PC for another subset
Allow me to complete an unfinished thought in the first paragraph.
“The examples you cite of some people changing course” exist, but lack the context and reasoning behind those decisions, which are too numerous to list here.
>and tiered standards in the military
You do realize that the courts have three tiers of equal protection right, and homosexuality is at the bottom rung?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
>However, ‘bedroom behavior’ is already protected….and has been, for one class of people.
>social segregation of gays
Yeah that is what I said.. I guess I am a sexist also since I don’t believe women are great for the military either.. Oh wait, I am a woman..
Nope, no one can bring an EO complaint based on the fact that they are a heterosexual.
>It’s interesting to hear that you decided you were heterosexual.
You are all held up on this big decision to become “heterosexual.” Like we all wake up one day and decide “Okay, today I am going to be this.” Sexual development takes YEARS of experience and reinforcement. I said that we as a species are predisposed to heterosexuality. Thank God or we would be extinct. It is the normative behavior for our species. You don’t think during sexual development and experience that wires can get crossed.. That someone can be reinforced to like the “same sex?” How do people grow up like to receive pain with sex? How do pedophiles become pedophiles? How do some people like to become submissive? Years of sexual development and reinforcement on these behaviors and orientations.
“You do realize that the courts have three tiers of equal protection right, and homosexuality is at the bottom rung?”
Absolutely.
“Yeah that is what I said.. I guess I am a sexist also since I don’t believe women are great for the military either.. Oh wait, I am a woman..”
I didn’t ask, nor was I concerned with what gender you are. I try and avoid red herrings. I pointed out that you advocated the social segregation of gays based on a dynamic that is utterly irrelevant to anything outside of what gender a person is emotionally and sexually attracted to.
“I said that we as a species are predisposed to heterosexuality.”
I’ve never disagreed with that. However, nobody knows at what stage of gestation or life a persons sexual orientation is decided. We treat our fellow man with far less stigma when they exhibit other inoffensive deviations from ‘normal’ physiology. Why should this be different in regards to gays?
>. I pointed out that you advocated the social segregation of gays based on a dynamic that is utterly irrelevant to anything outside of what gender a person is emotionally and sexually attracted to.
Nope, I haven’t advocated social segregation of anyone. Thanks for playing. I said that bedroom behavior shouldn’t be a protected status. You choose to read more into it than that it is your problem.
>However, nobody knows at what stage of gestation or life a persons sexual orientation is decided
Having children gives me my opinion. They are not sexual beings unless you take away their innocence. If it was decided at birth, don’t you think we would see some evidence of them “knowing” at age four. Or is it only homosexuals who know at this age? It is funny that the same people who believe that we all know are sexual orientation at birth are the same people who buy into the myth of gender confusion. I see more gender identity in children than I do orientation identity.
>We treat our fellow man with far less stigma when they exhibit other inoffensive deviations from ‘normal’ physiology. Why should this be different in regards to gays?
And a lot of those deviation aren’t serving in the military. Who has put a stigma on gays? Again there are many people I don’t think that should serve in the military for various reasons. The topic just happens to be gays.
@ Melle – “I said that bedroom behavior shouldn’t be a protected status.”
Great! Then we agree. Sexual behavior, whether homo or hetero, is not only not the concern of anyone else, but shouldn’t be a reason for discriminatory action in the legal or regulatory sense. Prior to the repeal of DADT, sexual orientation was ‘the’ reason gays were not allowed to serve openly. Hence, heterosexuals and heterosexual behavior enjoyed a protected status. Odd that your statement is so contradictory to your position.
“If it was decided at birth, don’t you think we would see some evidence of them “knowing” at age four.”
We do, from both orientations. Not in every child, but it certainly occurs.
“And a lot of those deviation aren’t serving in the military.”
Yep. People with physical or mental infirmaries that prevent them from carrying out the rigors of military service are prohibited from serving. I am well aware of the myriad of reasons people give for not wanting gays to serve….I’m just waiting in vain to hear a defense of the previous prohibition that rests on a foundation of logic rather than personal morals.
“Again there are many people I don’t think that should serve in the military for various reasons.”
I agree as well. But for those other people, I can either give a rational reason for my belief for why they shouldn’t serve…or I disregard it as none of my concern.
> Odd that your statement is so contradictory to your position. No, my position isn’t contradictory. My position was made very clear in my hypothetical as to why I don’t think homosexuals should be a protected class which they will be in the military whether you agree with it or not. Heterosexuals are not a protected class any more than “whites” are. > I’m just waiting in vain to hear a defense of the previous prohibition that rests on a foundation of logic rather than personal morals. This horse has been beat many times, so rather than to get in another long debate on this even by me on this website. I will give some reasons. You can dispute them, but I am not going back there after this. Why? Because people like you don’t “rule” on logic. You position is based on feelings. You feel that everyone should have an equal outcome when that just isn’t the case in military service or even in civilian life. Everyone should have the same equal opportunities in civilian life which they do. And there is no right to serve in the military or even have equal opportunities in military service for all people. That being said there are many LOGICAL reasons why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to serve openly in the military. Fraternization on combat line units which never used to be an issue, billeting privacy issues(Yes, you want everything equal, but yet homosexuals are going to billet with the sexual gender they are attracted to). The endless lawsuits that are even now going in place to repeal DOMA, because we have military members who put their sexuality and personal life in front of their military service. The chaplains and their religious freedom which has nothing to do with “morals” and everything to do with actually WRITTEN CONSTITUTION religious liberty. Also, we lose more people to weight issues in THREE years than we lost in the whole 17 years for DADT, and yet I don’t see us changing weight restrictions. There are some great guys who are just 10 pounds overweight and… Read more »
On a final note: “Que sera sera.”
CI: ‘opinions may vary’ indeed. And in deed, the Army will protect this new addition to the protected, just as it has done with minorities and women. The Army lost a class action loss suit less than twenty years ago (the 1991 SRB).
You may also question the Navy’s keeping Captain Holly Graf, while so many male skippers walk the plank.
Affirmative Action will be applied to gays in order to reach Congressional and Presidential prerogatives. That could be based upon perceived demographics (the infamous McKinsey 10%), or any arbitrary number.
Since the number of gay officers is currently at around zero (less than 1%), the Army and other services will have to compensate by over-recruiting and over-promoting gays to ensure they enter service, get all the right schooling, command, non-command billets, until they too reach a steady state reflective of the arbitrary quota. While the numbers are too low, gays who lack the temperment and fitness for military service/leadership, or in engage in criminal or other actions in violation of the UCMJ will have to be retained, transferred to another command, all charges dropped in order to maintain a demographic floor.
Again: not a matter of opinion, but of history.
My opinion: having gays serve is one-third of the crisis facing the Armed Forces. One cannot maintain good order and discipline when a specific demographic is protected from consequences of misbehaviour. The second third is the active dismantling of the Chaplain Corps, followed by the budget cuts that will return our forces to Hollow Force redux.
@62 – “My position was made very clear in my hypothetical as to why I don’t think homosexuals should be a protected class which they will be in the military whether you agree with it or not.” Since the status of ‘protected class’ is [in your hypothesis] based upon sexual orientation, you haven’t presented a substantial case where, now that said orientation is on par, homosexuals will constitute such class. “Because people like you don’t “rule” on logic. You position is based on feelings.” Sure because you are forced to misconstrue personal liberty with mere emotion to provide foundation for your position. I ‘feel’ that able bodied and sound-minded patriots should be afforded the opportunity to serve their nation if they so desire, without compromising their character. You ‘feel’ that they should be denied based on their sexual orientation, which is utterly irrelevant to their job performance. Whatever helps you reconcile your sense of reason. “You feel that everyone should have an equal outcome when that just isn’t the case in military service or even in civilian life.” You conveniently confuse outcome with application. “And there is no right to serve in the military or even have equal opportunities in military service for all people.” For the umpteenth time, I agree. Unless there is a physical or mental infirmity that prevents them from performing the basic functions of military service….which you cannot in any way whatsoever provide an argument for. “The chaplains and their religious freedom which has nothing to do with “morals” and everything to do with actually WRITTEN CONSTITUTION religious liberty.” Chaplains minister to Soldiers who commit to no end of sins. Does that impede their work? Is their work necessary to the good order and discipline of ALL Soldiers, or just those who ask for their services? Openly gay Soldiers hamper their ministry in no way. “Also, we lose more people to weight issues in THREE years than we lost in the whole 17 years for DADT, and yet I don’t see us changing weight restrictions.” You could at least give a nod to the fact that… Read more »
CI- You do realize Baron Von Stuben (ironically a case for stolen valor) was gay right?
Again if you follow liberal Logic Darwinism -> species with traits not beneficial to survival will (and according to Darwinism SHOULD) die out. Being gay means NO offspring.
Now throw in eugenics, one of the major themes of Planned Parenthood, or some of the major “progressive” idealists (see white man’s burden) this thought process was applied mostly to Blacks and lesser appealing races of color.
Personally I do not believe this “born Gay” idea. I think that it’s ultimately a choice. We are who we choose to be. I’m attracted to blonds and redheads, but I’ll accept a brunette in a heartbeat. Now it’s a choice. I *could* gold out for a blond/redhead, and turn away all brunettes (or other colored haired girls) but I would miss out on some real quality Gals.
As an aside, the sexes are NOT in fact equal (which would make homosexuality more understandable psychologically) they are complementary, and again using Darwinism have evolved that way so that the two sexes together as a team are better than the sum of the parts.
I think most of it is wrong morally, because I’m not a fan of promiscuity (See AIDS HPV and “baby’s momma”), and I’m not a fan of trying to turn everyone androgynous, or worse to ramp up the amount of sexual ques that we are bombarded with on a daily basis, It gets to a point that some dumb bastards are ready to hump doorknobs, and it makes for the worst kinds of perversions to not only appear but thrive. Sex should remain in the home, and it should remain a subject that is spoken of only in private or for medical reasons.
> you haven’t presented a substantial case where I’m good, but not that good. DADT has been repealed since Tuesday. I can give you a case that showed biased even BEFORE DADT was repealed though. Margaret Witt was outted by her lover’s husband. She was a Lt. Col. And a Nurse. Her Commander wanted her out, because of adultery more than DADT, but slapped the DADT on as well. She sued, and the 9th circuit reinstated her. They didn’t want to hear about the adultery charge even though it was very relevant to her discharge and wouldn’t have kept her discharged even without DADT. Margarett Witt was a lesbian and thus able to do what heterosexuals couldn’t do and get away with it. > misconstrue personal liberty What personal liberty? The military is to break stuff and kill crap. It’s job is to do that efficiently and ANYTHING that gets in it’s way should be banished-PERIOD. The military isn’t about personal liberty. It is about a team of people working together for a goal. Individuality has no place in the military. >/ compromising their character Oh Boo frickin hoo… They didn’t care about compromising their character when they were violating a military policy that they signed up and swore to uphold. Character was nowhere around then. The choice to lie about their character was a choice they made. It may have been a hard choice, but such is life. > Openly gay Soldiers hamper their ministry in no way. Except it will, because people like you and now the military equate homosexuality with gender and race. The conveniently forget at the end of the day it is nothing more than a behavior. So can you imagine a Chaplain preaching against the sin of “blackness” or “womanhood?” No? Neither can I; he would be slammed to the wall and rightly so. Guess what? The same Chaplains will be slammed to the wall by equating homosexuality to a sin. And lest you think that the Church is not the homosexual agenda’s goal… Think about this: Great Britain passed Civil Partnerships in 2004.… Read more »
@66 – “Personally I do not believe this “born Gay” idea. I think that it’s ultimately a choice. We are who we choose to be. I’m attracted to blonds and redheads, but I’ll accept a brunette in a heartbeat. Now it’s a choice.”
Attraction and orientation are not the same dynamic. Are you saying that you could make the ‘choice’ to be emotionally and sexually attracted to a man? You would have to be capable of that in order for your premise to be valid.
@67 – “What personal liberty? The military is to break stuff and kill crap. It’s job is to do that efficiently and ANYTHING that gets in it’s way should be banished-PERIOD. The military isn’t about personal liberty. It is about a team of people working together for a goal. Individuality has no place in the military.”
I know that as well as anyone else. So you why would you accept the liberty for straight Soldiers to date, get married, revel in their weekend exploits, have their spouse visit them while wounded, have the support structure of an FRG….?
All seems like a distraction from the mission and illustrates individuality, right?
“The conveniently forget at the end of the day it is nothing more than a behavior.”
Because it’s an orientation, not a behavior. Just as with Doc, for your premise to be valid, you would have to admit that you can make the ‘choice’ to become emotionally and sexually attracted to the same gender.
“This year, Britain is set to pass laws that REQUIRE Churches to perform same sex civil unions.”
Britain has a Church of England. This isn’t Britain, nor do I support any infringement on the services a church wishes to conduct.
“We will just have to agree to disagree…K?”
Absolutely. And if this is our last go around on this subject, let me extend my appreciation for civil and thought provoking dialogue. We disagree, but you brought up valid points.
[…] debate – Sunshine State Sarah. My blogging buddy, Jonn Lilyea, of the blog This Ain’t Hell, deftly cuts through all the bull surrounding DADT: And if Private Hill thinks that being gay is a more important part of his identity than being a […]
>Absolutely. And if this is our last go around on this subject, let me extend my appreciation for civil and thought provoking dialogue. We disagree, but you brought up valid points.
Agreed! Thank you for the great debate!