In these times [Jonn]
We have a global war against terror going on, we have severe economic problems, we have enemies trying to create nuclear weapons and point them at us, food prices are rising, fuel prices are unstable, huge American companies are on the edge of bankruptcy, banks have already folded. But what, according to Human RIghts Watch, should Barack Obama be focusing upon? (Washington Times link)
The nation’s largest gay-rights lobbying group is demanding that President-elect Barack Obama eliminate the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy covering military service members and immediately tackle a host of other gay issues to repair the damage they say he has done to his image by choosing conservative Christian preacher Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration invocation.
The Human Rights Campaign on Friday asked Mr. Obama to adopt the group’s Blueprint for Positive Change, a “concrete plan for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) equality” that calles for fixing tax laws that shortchange domestic partners to making hate crimes illegal.
“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” wrote Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a letter sent to Mr. Obama this week. “By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.”
The gay rights people are idiots. Who you have sex with is a choice, it’s not a basis upon which you’re able to form an entirely new set of laws. What does Reverend Warren have to do with gays in the military, for Pete’s sake? Last I checked he’s not even a veteran let alone something to use as a bargaining chip.
I’ve said it before: there is not a huge untapped reservoir of gays just waiting for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be withdrawn so they can swell the ranks of the armed forces. Neither are there hordes of gays waiting for the church doors to open for their marriage (except to rub most of America’s nose in it). Gay rights activists just want an issue to harangue donors over and a theme for their next parade.
I have nothing against anyone who keeps their sexual behavior in their homes. But as soon as someone makes their choices public knowledge (whatever those choices are) I they lose my attention and support. This is not a civil rights issue – it’s a public deciency issue. If I made demands on the government based on my sexual proclivities, you’d feel the same way about me – like I said, laws shouldn’t be written just to satisfy people’s choices in life.
The military isn’t some grand social experiment in which Leftists and their attendent deviants are able to study the behavior of Americans. It’s a tool with which we defend ourselves. It’s like taking your home defense weapon and hanging strings of beads and glitter on it. It might make it more satisfying to own, but can you depend on it to work when you need it? It’s been working fine up until now, so why add stupid crap to it?
Category: Liberals suck, Society
The duplicity in Gay rights activism is this: they want religious people to mind their own business, and what they do in their homes is their business alone; then, they keep bringing their bedrooms out to us, and expect us to say nothing about it.
Uh uh, you can’t have it both ways.
It’s telling also, that after his big swig of the Obama Kool Aid, Colin Powell is now saying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” needs to be rexamined. And Powell originally was against the whole “gays in the military” liberal social experiment when Clinton tried to shove it down our throats.
In a few months I’ll have been out of the Navy for 40 years! Point being… I’m not thrilled with the notion of WOMEN serving on combatants. The thought of openly gay sailors ‘shivers me timbers’, and not in a good way.
I am well out of that loop now, but it still concerns me.
I dunno about the other branches though, I’m kinda suspicious that some might greet the idea warmly.
While the Flamers want to make their deviate lifestyle legal, marriage, military and such, based on “Equal Rights” would mean that I can marry my Dog, and have it eligible for Social Security. If Gays, (Flamers), have a right to marry eachother, wouldn’t I have a right to marry my 4 oldest nieces? How pissed are they that the RANGERS is a male outfit? Or shouldn’t I have brought that into the light?
Flamers,,,,,,,Sheeeeesh!
nuf sed
Having a spit-swapping gay blade in a military unit is a command NIGHTMARE…ASK ME!
When I was a Company Commander of an Army National Guard unit (took command 5 days after 9/11), I had a Soldier in my unit (who I had known several years already) come out of the closet to me! Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, I knew he’d eventually have to be discharged. My 1st priorities was to inform my Chain of Command and speak with a JAG. However, everything came to a screeching halt when the Soldier came back a few hrs later and said that he wasn’t gay; he told me that because his wife was worried that he might have to go to war (this was 2 months after 9/11), so he thought that telling me he was gay, he’d be discharged and not have to go to war. I know he had some senior NCO’s telling him he needed to come clean with me, because at this point I had dropped everything else to deal with the situation at hand.
Here’s the kicker; the soldier in question DID deploy to Iraq 1 1/2 yrs later for a year, and to the best of my knowledge, his marriage survived, as did he.
And if that Soldier had never come clean with me, he would have been discharged within months!
[…] If you can stomach it…you can read more by clicking here. […]
Jonn wrote: I sure would like one of you mental giants from Gay Agenda to point out where there’s anything wrong in my post, since the author who dragged it over to the other website did nothing but say I’m uneducated and that my post would make ya’all sick. I’m guessing none of you have anything constructive to add because every single point is accurate and you got nuthin’.
I’ll start this comment with a big fat “LOL” because, well.. It makes me laugh. You call gay rights activists ‘idiots’ yet you are offended when gay rights activists say you’re uneducated. Nice… Let’s read between the lines: Your reference to ‘idiot’ means ridiculous, James Hipps, of GayAgenda.com, reference to ‘uneducated’ means illogical thinking. Quite a difference when terms are applied to the context, don’t ya think? If by chance both of you meant the words in a literal sense then you are both fools. As far as what’s wrong with your article. For the majority, nothing is – It is opinion. Except the bedroom part. You accuse gays of publicizing their bedroom behavior and shoving it in your face. Yet, this is exactly what the evangelical right does when the LGBT community demands equal rights. Your claims that gays are the ones doing this are lamentably false. Without the bedroom thrown into to the mix gays would be, well, equal. And, as such, the evangelical right would have no grounds to promote homosexuality as a sin. Which in turn passes biblical law into government law with an agenda to completely nullify the separation of church and sate. That’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? The rest of your article may just be opinion. That doesn’t mean I agree with it (no surprise, right?). Especially the insinuation that the HRC is advocating it’s own agenda over the wellbeing of our country as a whole. The HRC is a specialized focus group on LGBT issues. Of course its focus is on those issues that its cause supports. That does not mean a demand letter sent to President Elect Obama expects him to put everything else on the back burner to serve LGBT advocates. What it means is a staunch reminder for the President Elect to hold to his promises (all of them) that got him elected. Period. Jonn wrote: You’ll notice I called gay activists idiots, not all gays. In fact, I think EVERY special interest activist is an idiot. However, you and Hipps claim that I’m “uneducated” because I… Read more »
Oh Jonn, if all us gays knew all we had to do was keep it in the bedroom all the world would be fine! We could get married, not get fired from our jobs, not get denied an apartment, not get attacked while walking home, not get kicked out of the military!
I wish I had known!
To be kicked out of the military under DADT all I would have to say is “last night I went to a movie with my girlfriend”.
I don’t know ANY straight soldier that doesn’t make comments like that (most go even further in describing what they did last night with their girlfriends). Its not about keeping it in the bedroom, its about CERTAIN people keeping it in the bedroom, which then is discrimination.
Secondly you say “Who you have sex with is a choice” as if the question is about having sex, instead of what it really is about, discriminating against people because of the gender of the person who they have sex with.
They wouldn’t be asking for domestic partnership laws if civil marriage laws were extended. You can’t deny one and then condemn for working around the denial. Makes no sense to say they ask is for “special laws” when access to regular laws would solve the issue.
You talk about the “impact of your BELIEFS will have on our readiness. Can you send me the link to your blog post on the arabic linguists that were discharged under DADT? That certainly seems like a specialty we need right now.
Frankly Opinionated makes a frankly tired slippery slope arguement that has been frankly disposed of time and frankly time again. For frankly instance http://www.slate.com/id/2100824/
Anyone who has commented on here: Please throw out all your girl on girl porn and never watch it again. If its so unnatural and problemsome, then I think you should act like it.
Too many hang ups with sex in this country.
I love how straight folks, when demonizing homosexuals, always bring up sex. You are so preoccupied with gay sex that you can’t for a moment fathom what it is really about. So, I will try to enlighten you and your readers. Two brothers were walking down the street a couple of weeks ago arm and arm. A group of people witnessed this and after shouting a few anti-gay epitaphs at them along with some racial remarks about Latinos, they beat the men. Last checked, the family was debating on whether to donate the organs of the brother on life support. THEY WERE BOTH HETEROSEXUAL. On that note, although I am not a heterosexual, I made the mistake of going out with my heterosexual brother after not seeing him for nearly a year. We were having a grand time bowling when, assumption prevailed and a few skinheads assaulted me and accused me of “checking them out”. They were bowling in the lane next to us and I made the mistake of watching one of them attempt to hit the split. My brother, for the record, is a heterosexual, conservative “redneck”. I find brutality immoral and attitudes like yours are what lead to such brutality. For people to think it is only about “marriage” is the most ridiculous, contrived effort at distorting the actuality of the situation in order to allow the majority heterosexuals to feel better about themselves for the horrors they have inflicted upon homosexuals. Perhaps some day a majority will have the right to attack you, and when you complain, you will be treated with the same level of unfairness. The difference will be then is that I will be there to stand up for you and your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – too bad you can’t be there for me too. Remember, history is told by the victors and we will be victorious in our efforts to obtain civil equality. History thus will not remember you fondly. Jonn wrote: “I love how straight folks, when demonizing homosexuals, always bring up sex.” I’m sorry,… Read more »
Jonn, I’d be careful here. You claim every special interest advocate is an idiot…….I’ll go ahead and conclude that you think all of those veteran’s special interest groups are idiots, too.
My oh my how the pendulum swings quickly. Ha!
Jonn Lilyea: Before you get too self-satisfied, read what I said…and what I meant. Ha! Don’t pretend that you know what’s in my mind, Junior.
Exhibit A:
“If I made demands on the government based on my sexual proclivities, you’d feel the same way about me – like I said, laws shouldn’t be written just to satisfy people’s choices in life.”
Hmmmm, you support every possible government subsidy for increased veteran’s benefits. You are a veteran. Conflict of interest?
Further, your entire life has been one of government support. You still draw a government-funded pension, do you not? To chide gay activists as lesser beings because you disagree with their appeals for government redistribution is a blatant contradiction.
Exhibit B:
“The gay rights people are idiots.”
Replace gay rights people with military benefits activists and the statement can hold true for anyone who believes government-funded military pensions are unnecessary. See?
Bottom line: you should amend your statement that EVERY special interest advocate is an idiot to “every special interest advocate *that I don’t agree with* is an idiot”
But thanks for the laughs, Jonn. Anyone with half an ability to think critically can see through your garbage. Ha!!
Jonn wrote: Yeah, I hear that crap all of the time from you half-witted cretins who think that 20 years in the military is a cake walk and that I didn’t EARN my benefits. That I’m just like any other welfare queen because I get a pension check for a job I can’t do anymore. Eat shit, Junior.
Please point to the line any where in this blog in which I support veterans activists, Perry Mason. It’s all supposition on your part, isn’t it? Because your tiny, fallow brain thinks you know what’s in my mind. Wait until you grow pubic hair until you respond, please.
So, Kristol Kid, by your logic, my father’s 22 year career, in which his back was broken, he lost 70% of his hearing, had a Parachute Riser go up through his chin and almost sever his tongue, almost lost an eye on a combat patrol and had other health issues, was an easy 20 year career? What the Fuck is wrong with you? How can you even think to compare the two? Put the Special K and Acid down and get some professional help!
Did someone just make up the word “easy”, because I don’t see it anywhere….
What I do see is someone saying the fact that you (or someone else) has to fight to make sure you retain your benefits you earned while gay people fight to gain the benefits they are denied (rights other people just get by virtue of being citizens). Its two sides of the same coin, not a personal attack (until it gets ad hominem).
Instead of seeing it as opposite poles of the spectrum, they really are quite similar in a philosophical framework. That doesn’t mean to diminish your service and the sacrifices that you made in it, but if anyone knows about working for what someone deserves it would be people who have fought ,veterans, and people who have fought for their rights, people of color, women and gay people.
Jonn wrote: I don’t see gays being denied any rights. There’s no right to marry, there’s no right to shared health benefits. There’s no right to not have people point and laugh at your behavior and your demeanor. There’s no right to military service.
In my personal opinion, the only people whose rights should be denied them are those such as Jane Fonda, Adam Kokesh, VVAW and IVAW, and Code Pink. When they advocate for the enemy, raise funding for Al Qaeda (Code Pink did this in 2006) and generally commit treason. When you commit such acts, you give up your right to be called an American. I am not agitating for denial of benefits for same sex couples. Far from it. My Girlfriend has several Gay co workers, and they are decent individuals, unlike VVAW/IVAW.
Yeah you are absolutely right Jonn, there are no rights to marry, there’s no right to shared health benefits. There’s no right to military service.
But these are state actions and you enter into the territory of equal protection under the law, which is ironically, in the Bill of Rights.
Then you have to prove that being gay is a reason for exclusion. Some people make it about not including gays as a class, but it is increasingly being won in court that exclusion on the basis of sexuality is unconstitutional.
We’ll just have to wait and see who wins.
Jen, it is also illegal to decriminate on the basis of physical impairment. So should the Military allow in quadraplegics? I would argue no. I would further argue that the reason for exclusion for homosexuals has a strong foundation in some places.
If the military sees fit to allow openly homosexual individuals in certain MOSs, I don’t really have all that much of a problem with it. I don’t care if the dentist is gay. What I do care about is that my battle buddy, that I may have to share a sleeping bag with or shower with daily isn’t.
I don’t have as big a problem with it as many, but I did see it in action when there was a guy that people just THOUGHT was gay, and teh troops basically had no respect for him. Personally, he should have handled it better, but he didn’t, and it hurt the unit cohesiveness.
TSO Said: What I do care about is that my battle buddy, that I may have to share a sleeping bag with or shower with daily isn’t.
That raises a question, I think?
It costs X amount of time and money to deploy women. Would it require an additional infrastructure/logistical increase for the openly gay males and yet another for openly gay women? The question is sincere… I have no real frame of reference.
I’m not sure how it would be done honestly. But you can see where it would be problematic. IF women and men can’t shower together in the military, why not? And would the logic of the “why not” also fit to homosexuals in the military? I imagine that women would be unwilling to shower with men, based on our obvious attraction to them. My question is why this wouldn’t apply in homosexual situations. This is a question I haven’t seen comvincingly answered by anyone. Bear in mind in a war zone, you shower when you can, and it’s not a holiday inn with private stalls.
I had a gay roommate once. In fact, she asked me to go with her to the commander when she finally told him she couldn’t take not being open about her sexuality. I stayed her roommate until she was eventually discharged, and didn’t start putting on more clothes.
I don’t know why it would be different with men.
Jonn wrote: Yeah, I wonder why it would different with men. Do you know any men?
Guys, the guy-guy shower thing is already addressed by the military. They already have sexual assault prevention and response set in place, you aren’t saying that you don’t have faith in those military policies are you? TSO, I get the feeling that you are saying you would like to remain able to sleep in sleeping bags with other men and that letting gays serve openly in the military might mean that won’t happen anymore? Am I right? I am sure you could still do so on your own time….. Alright, witty insightful comments aside, I’ll address what you said. Paraplegics aren’t allowed in the military because they aren’t able to perform the job, and that lack of performance is based on their own characteristics rather than what is perceived about them. There is nothing about being gay that prevents one from performing military duties that comes directly from them as a person, instead it is usually because of the reactions of people around them, as evidenced by your comment TSO. TSO said: “Personally, he (the guy thought to be gay) should have handled it better, but he didn’t, and it hurt the unit cohesiveness.” (Wait a minute, is this one of those “Um, I have a *friend*, and….) The problem didn’t originate with the guy but I agree with you TSO that how a person handles it can make a world of difference. That being said I am not sure how a a person, straight or gay, should handle a situation when they could lose their job over someone else’s hangups. The issue always seems to be that *other* people will have a problem with the gay service member, not that the gay service member can’t do their jobs. The same sex shower thing might be a technical aspect that would have to be dealt with. I would say however rather than making assumptions about this we should look to militaries that allow open gays and see what they have done. Those are countries like Isreal, England and Australia. Looking at these countries also can give us an insight into… Read more »
TSO brought up the sleeping bags. He likes them. He gives whit’s about them…..
You *say* its about compromise, but as a gay person who served under it, I say its more than that. It’s about discrimination. It’s like saying separate but equal was also “compromise” but in reality these things just are steps on the way to ending discrimination. It didn’t even achieve any compromise. Discharges went up (until the war) and in effect the only change from an outright ban was a semantic one, you can “be” gay as long as no one knows as opposed to not being able to be in the military if you are gay, which could be avoided, ironically, as long as no one knew.
If you want to talk about rules, there are plenty that aren’t followed, like rules against adultery that when not followed do more to harm morale and unit cohesion than gays EVER will.
If it was just about rules why are people who come out deployed to Iraq and THEN discharged? The brass is having it both ways.
DADT can be lifted and rules can still be followed afterwards.
Jonn wrote: I’ve fired NCOs for heterosexual misbehavior. You’re just talking to the wrong guy.