Should Homosexuals Serve Openly in the Military?
by Mark Noonan on November 29th, 2007 at 06:17am
It will be a subject of debate, thanks to the very likely planted question in the CNN debate - from Politico:
A retired Army general, Keith Kerr, just listed all his military credentials and then left the crowd silent by saying at the end of his video that he is “an openly gay man” and wants to know why gays can’t serve in the military.
Romney was hit by Anderson Cooper with a past statement (imagine that) saying that he “look[ed] forward” to the day gays could serve. Pressed hard by Cooper about whether he had changed his mind, Romney plainly looked displeased. “This isn’t that time,” Romney first said, noting the national security threats. He said the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “seems to have worked” and, toward the end, even drew some boos (it was tough to discern exactly why).
Kerr, present in the audience, was then introduced by Cooper and said he didn’t feel as though he got an answer. Explaining why, he got his own boos (partially snuffed by some shushing).
It all made for some feet-shuffling and floor-staring among the gathered Republicans.
Oh, my tireless colleague Avi Zenilman back at Politico World HQ does an insta-search on Kerr and discovers he was on the Steering Committee of “Veterans for Kerry.”
Short answer (at least as far as I’m concerned): yes.
Long answer: Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to having gay Americans serve in the United States military. And yet, there is objection.
Gay rights activists would have the objections as the mere result of anti-gay bigotry - and I’m sure that there is an element of this in the debate. However, there are practical considerations involved here.
First and foremost, a generally held opinion - whether well or ill-founded - cannot be lightly set aside, especially in a democratic republic. Say what you will about it, there is a distaste for homosexual acts among the general population, even among some of those who are determined to be very tolerant in the matter. I believe this distaste is irreducible: most people who are not gay will never come around to an idea that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. There will always be an element of the “other” in homosexuality as far as the heterosexual population is concerned. This gap can be bridged in many ways, but it will always be there, and has to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, and in conjunction with the distaste noted above, there is the practical matter of how to regulate the relations between servicemembers. Part of the objection to having women serve in the military (an objection I share - and do keep in mind that my sister served for 8 years in the Navy, and I still feel this way) is that in the various bonds which can develope between men and women may work at cross purposes to tbe bonds necessary for unit cohesiveness. This is why even to this day women are not placed in front line combat units. Adding open homosexuality to the mix will add yet another potentional morale destroyer to the mix. This doesn’t mean that there can never be homosexuals serving openly in the military, but it does mean it is not something we can just willy-nilly whistle up without careful thought.
What General Kerr did - almost certainly at the behest of Democrats trying to score cheap points - was absurd; and as a former serving officer he knows it is. Its not just a matter of “I want it, so we will do it”. Upon the effectiveness of the United States military rides the safety of the United States of America and, indeed, the safety of the whole world. This magnificent instrument must not become a laboratory where social engineering experiments are conducted. As I said, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military - but before we allow that, we’ll have to make some things very clear; among these things would be just under what circumstances servicemembers would be able to have non-professional relations with each other. This is not the sort of thing which lends itself to cut and dried prescriptions, and the matter would take a great deal of study and preparation.
Kerr did a bit of Democratic grandstanding, and that was a disservice to his own cause - now it is time for thoughtful people to engage in real debate over this issue.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 am
As President I would review any bill forwarded by Congress concerning this legislative issue.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I am a retired police officer. When I was on the force we had several gay officers, but they did not serve their community as openly gay men and women. I bumped into them at a rally to protect the civil rights of gays. At first they thought I was gay too, but when I assured them I was just their to support gays and lesbians they were impressed.
When the police department issued a new anti-harassment general order, it did not include homosexuals as a protected group. I was approached by the gay officers to bring it to the cheif’s attention. I did, and the cheif responded that we had to gay officers so it did not matter. When I told them we had several, he wanted to know who they were. I refused to tell him and my career took a nose dive. I knew he wanted to know because he was a homophobic who wanted to find excused to get rid of them.
He eventually awarded one of the gay officers the highest award for bravery a year later. Had he known that man was gay, the cheif would have been running him off the force instead of rewarding him.
I am sure the same thing is happining in the military, especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I think this challenges the integrity of the military. As a courtesy to the hetro soldiers who have to take showers with 60 other guys and be sleeping in bunk beds. They need to feel safe and secure that their drill sergant isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors and that the military isn’t going to turn into some big homo orgy.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Why do we continue to push minority rights when they conflict with majority rights?
Why do gays insist on all of us knowing what they prefer to do in the bedroom?
Civilization would be much more cordial and pleasant if we all had thicker skin and respect for others.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I served in the navy aboard the USS Saratoga CV-60 in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I knew a young sailor, whom was gay, who served with me. He was a nice kid named Peter with some feminine traits and would tell you, if you ask, that he was gay.
Most of the men I served with were fresh out of the high school locker room. As I’m sure you all remember, at that age, to fit in was everything. Weakness was not a quality that inspired much compassion but, rather, it inspired disdain, ridicule and often abuse. You didn’t have to be gay, wearing glasses, being overweight, freckled… were enough to make you a target. Kids can be cruel.
Peter suffered for his sexuality. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to be treated the way Peter was. In the military, discipline is an essential element in building a unit capable of achieving the goals and objectives command requires of it. Failure is not an option. Men often die conducting successful operations it’s catastrophic when they fail. Peter was not good for discipline.
I remember him walking down the passageway being kicked in the rear by a line of sailors waiting to eat. I felt sorry for him, but, to my shame I didn’t say or do a thing about it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to subject themselves to such abuse. To maintain discipline all of those men should have been brought up on charges. Some ten plus men should have gone to the brig for their actions that day. If that had happened unit cohesion would have suffered.
Brigadier General Karr was successful in the military; however, Karr lied about whom he was for 40 + years to just about everyone he served with. Had he been honest and openly gay, even if it were allowed, does anyone believe he would have been a Brigadier General in the Army? It not just what we allow but, what we really accept down deep in our gut. That can’t be legislated.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Homosexuals and Lesbians are free to join the military today — just keep their sexual actives to themselves and don’t make it a public display!
We don’t need a bunch of Democrats (Liberals) meddling with our military. Democrats already want to reduce and weaken our military capability, and the Democrats’ nutty Left-Wing extremists would like nothing more than to disrupt or destroy what we have!
Democrats (Liberals) are never satisfied with just some concessions on any issue. They must have it 100% their way, and they will keep chipping and chopping away until they have imposed their own agenda and beliefs on the rest of America… slowly consuming and destroying America as they work to impose Liberalism and Socialism!!!
Democrats (Liberals) want America — especially our military– reduced to the level of the rest of the world… a third rate nation with a third rate military… equal among nations… governed by the anti-American U.N.!!!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I think the current policy is fine. Gays CAN join the military If that is what they want to choose for a career. All they need to do is keep their sex life private. Allowing open gayness would be like having co-ed showers and sleeping arrangements, where men and women bathe and sleep together. To change the rules we may discourge recruits.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
AAR — Homosexuals and Lesbians are free to join the military today — just keep their sexual actives to themselves and don’t make it a public display!
Do you think they are out there have gay oral sex in the middle of a battlefield?? How does someone openly admitting they are gay stop them from doing their job? Do they not have to go thru basic training and pass all the tests than non-gay soldiers have to do?
This is like saying that Blacks or Latinos shouldn’t serve with the whites.
EricT — They need to feel safe and secure that their drill sergant isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors and that the military isn’t going to turn into some big homo orgy.
Wow. A bit anti-gay Eric? So should women not be allowed to serve? Shouldn’t they feel safe that “their drill sergent isn’t going to be demanding sexual favors”? Or is that ok because it is strictly STRAIGHT sex? What is a straight guy has a WOMAN drill sergent?? What if she starts demanding things from him.
You people are crazy. Why can’t you accept a gay soldier just like other minorities are accepted?
Besides… if we are going to go battle every brutal dictator in the world, you are going to need every soldier regardless of sexual orientation, color of skin or religous belief.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
The law should offer protection from discrimination irrespective of your race, religion and sexual orientation. Its should not be an issue in your workplace.
You cannot be a ‘gay christian’. It is clearly written in the bible that the act of homosexuality is an abormation. The church should not ordain gay priests or bless gay marriages. That in itself is a mockery onto Christ.
However from a legislative prospective and life outside or christianity prospective, no one should be ostracised from the military because they are gay or treated differently either.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
lilly06,
All sin is an abomination, and all of us have sin, sin or will sin. Does that mean no one can be a Christian?
Don’t think I want any part of your brand of Christianity.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Republicans, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, hate gays.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Joe,
No it isn’t like Blacks, and Latinos, and American Indians, and Orientals, and Eskimos, and Whites, and races shouldn’t serve together!
If homosexuality is your thing, then enjoy it in the privacy of your own bedroom or foxhole. Don’t insist in obtaining everyone else’s approval so you can feel more secure and normal in your own actions and beliefs!
If child pornography is your thing, then move to a nation where that is considered “normal”, and don’t try to impose your beliefs and agenda on the rest of America.
If beastiality (bestiality, zoophilia) is your thing, then…
With Liberals, it never stops with one, or two, or there concessions… It stops only when Liberals have successfully imposed their views, lifestyle, and agenda on everyone else… and replaced traditional values, beliefs, and lifestyles with those which Liberals have determined are “best” and “fair” under their religion — Liberalism!!!
Never give Liberals that first inch… Never allow Liberals to get their foot in your door… UNLESS you want them to take your entire house and home from you!!!
And never forget that Liberals equal Progressives equal DEMOCRATS — different names for the same thing!!!!!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
AAR,
Nobody is asking your permission for a damn thing. Nobody is asking a straight person to join in on anything. Nobody is out there having gay sex in the battlefield. Nobody is out there having gay sex in the shower.
Do you have a problem with Jews, Christians, Mormons and Athiests serving together?
And never forget that Republicans equal Conservatives equal Right-wing wackos equal gay hating white christian male — different names same thing.
You are a whole other level or wacko.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Mindless Liberal…
Republicans aren’t the Taliban, and aren’t Al Qaeda, and do not hate gays; although, many do not support their chosen homosexual and lesbian lifestyles!!! Republicans also do not support child pornography, polygamy, or bestiality!
DEMOCRATS DO HATE CHRISTIANS, however, because Christians want to display crosses and The Ten Commandments (the bases for our laws), pray, and mention God in public view for all to see and hear!
We see and hear the Democrats’ (Liberals’) hatred for Christians every day in their words, actions, and deeds!!!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hey Joe,
Glad to see ya back on the site, I remember talkin about Bill R with ya. I don’t see it as anti gay at all. I see it as fair. Let’s say the hetro troops are looking for some action. They have to wait till leave and go off base, to the bar or to meet up with a loved one. If allowed to be open about gayness,The homo troops can go get it on in the shower the restrooms or slip into each others beds. The military gives troops time to go on leave and do whatever they want. I think it is fair to everyone to keep it the way that it is.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Joe,
Guess what!
I don’t support your nutty Liberal ideas and beliefs… nor do I need your permission to do so!!!
Go peddle your opinions to the rest of the Looney Libs over at KOS or MoveOn.Org (the ones who bought, paid for, and direct the Democrats)!
Gotta go now! I’ve got other things to do rather than listen to more Liberal whining!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Joe,
Do you have a problem with Jews, Christians, Mormons and Athiests (atheists) serving together?
So now you have elevated homosexuality to a religion! Would that be a sect within the religion of Liberalism?
I’m glad to see you admit that atheism is a religion!!!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Mark,
Interesting post and one that helped illuminate the question quite well. As with the rest of the work world, there has never been a question of gays and lesbians serving in military units since such units were first formed. They’ve always been there and always will be regardless of any policy, rule or regulation. The problem lies not in the presence of those service members but the actions of their fellow service members.
All professional soldiers in the United States armed forces are absolutely and appropriately limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from engaging in sexual harassment or entering into improper sexual relationships (such as adulterous relationships). However, no service member is prohibited from having sexual relationships so long as they don’t violate rules which are neutral to the nature of the relationship, either heterosexual or homosexual. If a male service member, such as the sailor in Mark M’s example, acknowledges truthfully when asked that he is gay but does not violate any rule relating to actual sexual behavior then the onus is on any service member who knows he is gay to behave properly and treat him as a fellow soldier, sailor or airman.
If the sailors who harassed Mark M’s shipmate had done what they did because he was of a different ethnicity, had a different skin color or practiced a different religion than the majority, there would be no controversy about the blame. It would fall on them. Not only would it fall on them but there would be no serious voices defending their actions. At the same time, the same rules would disallow his harassing them for any reason. There are a myriad of potential attacks on unit morale and unit cohesion. Expressions of sexuality are only one of them.
Women in frontline combat units is a concern because they can be identified by sight. A female service member doesn’t have to tell in order for a male service member to potentially be attracted to them. However, if a woman were to be in a frontline combat unit, it would not relieve any of the responsibility of the men of the unit to act in accordance with the UCMJ.
Currently, women are not there. Gay men are. The question then, as long as they obey the rules, is whether their fellow soldiers will also obey the rules. There may be a few genuine racists present in military units. However, they cannot act out their beliefs without fear of repercussion. That is unit discipline and requires a true commitment from the chain of command to ensure that those who have a strong negative emotional reaction, either to those of a racial minority or of those of a sexual minority, do not feel free to carry out acts in violation of the UCMJ.
The question I would have is this. There are gays and lesbians in the military now. Which is more likely to facilitate an individual service member feeling they can harass them? An environment which basically implies that being gay or lesbian is a terrible secret you mustn’t tell or an environment which acknowledges what everyone already knows to be true and equates it with all the other variety of personal traits that make up the spectrum of men and women who choose to serve their country in the armed forces?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Christian Wright - had me going until you wrote “especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.”
WTF?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Eric T, yes I remember that banter about Richardson. I can’t agree with you on this one.
You can say the same thing about straight soldiers that are man/woman. They wouldn’t have to go anywhere. They could just get it on wherever they want.
To me, the open gayness question is the same as being any minority or of a different religion.
If I want to worship some crazy releigion, would you care?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
OK, so I don’t actually care if someone is “gay”.
Gay, interesting word. Didn’t used to apply to sexuality until it was stolen by homosexual advocacy groups on the advice of advertising people. But I digress.
The numbers of people we are talking about are tiny. Less than 1% of the nation is serving in the military. In fact, .8%. Less than 10% of the military is in combat, so .08% of the nation. Accepting the outrageous percentage of the population that is claimed to be gay by the homosexual advocates is 30%, then approximately .3 of .8% of the nation is affected by this discussion.
So, of all the jobs in the nation, all the jobs some tiny number of people want to work at a place governed by machismo, hormones, and bravado - and expect that institution to change to meet their needs? Well, I guess they do.
Let them serve openly. Let people who hurt them be punished accordingly.
I also think then that the tiny number of transgendered who are part of the tiny number “gay” who are part of the tiny number who serve should be allowed to work in drag (or drab, as the case may be).
November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
AAR,
You have to leave? You must be late for your white supremacists meeting.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Kahn,
We finally agree on something. It is such a small percentage yet people like AAR get their panties all twisted about it.
Great line:
Let them serve openly. Let people who hurt them be punished accordingly.
They don’t hurt you, don’t hurt them.
There are SO many more important issues than this to deal with.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Joe,
Your free to worship Satan, money, Islam, Buddah, someones rear end, even. But when applied to open gayness and guys flirting/ trying to pick up each other in the military. It is an issue of fairness. Your saying staight guys must hold out an wait for the weekend or leave. But gays can have sex whenever they can sneak it in. And that all these straight guys that got to sleep in the same room or shower together have to see it, hear it, smell it, and accept it as OK. I think the military is being more than fair. They execute gays in Iran! come on man all their asking is to take the sex off the military base. How can these guys focus on their mission, if they are falling in love, cheating on each other. Save all that for the gay bar IF you wanna be in the military, its not a have it your way military
November 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
>>The law should offer protection from discrimination irrespective of your race, religion and sexual orientation. Its should not be an issue in your workplace.<>You cannot be a ‘gay christian’. It is clearly written in the bible that the act of homosexuality is an abormation. <<
This is patently false. It is written in the OLD TESTAMENT that it is an abomination, but Jesus himself never addressed it. He DID say “Judge not lest ye be judged” and he DID call divorce an “abomination”, as well as condemn gambling and the death penalty.
If one cannot be gay and be Christian, it then follows that one cannot be a divorced Christian, a Pro-Death Penalty Christian, or a Christian who plays the lottery. This would mean that most GOP candidates for president are not Christian.
I believe an individuals’ religion is between him and his God.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Eric, it is really hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. I’m not even sure where to start.
If you are serious…
Do you really believe that a gay guy is flirting and trying to pick up every other guy in the military? Are you kidding me?
“But gays can have sex whenever they can sneak it in.”
Huh? Ohhhh that’s right… gays want to do nothing else but have sex! Of course.
Again I ask… what if a guy soldier and a woman soldier fall in love? They can also “have sex whenever they can sneak it in”. Is that ok because it is hetro sex?
I’m serious when I say I can’t tell if you are just kidding or not.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Joe,
Whether Eric T is being serious or satirical, it illustrates the source of much of the argument. Gay men are typically caricatured as living primarily for having sex as opposed to all the other things that make up life. The fact that gay men are just like non-gay men in that most do not see sexuality as the center of their lives is ignored. The “sneaking sex in” scenario is meaningless because if it were truly covert no one would know about it. If it weren’t covert, then it is an act subject to disciplinary action just as it would be if a female soldier had sneaked into the barracks to have sex with a male soldier.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
There is a basic principle this debate is ignoring - you do not give individuals unsupervised authority over subordinates they view as desirable sexual partners. Without risking adverse cosequences, you don’t put bull dykes in charge of Campfire Girls, you don’t put queers in charge of Cub Scouts, and you don’t give homosexuals military authority, which by its nature cannot be meaningfully supervised, over enlisted men.
Want proof? Get the statistics from the JAG Corps in Washington DC. For 50 years they’ve had a constant caseload of 100’s of court martial proceedings against homosexual officers and noncoms for abusing subordinates under color of authority. And keep in mind these are the tip of the iceberg - situations were the subordinate commited suicide, or numerous individuals were harmed. Cases involving prison terms. Most of these cases are handled with discharges and resignations and JAG in Washington never sees them.
Why is this hard?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
>>There is a basic principle this debate is ignoring - you do not give individuals unsupervised authority over subordinates they view as desirable sexual partners. <<
So, the military doesn’t put male commanders in charge of female soldiers?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
you don’t put bull dykes in charge of Campfire Girls, you don’t put queers in charge of Cub Scouts, and you don’t give homosexuals military authority
WOW. Someone being gay does not mean they are going to go and try having sex with everyone and everything that moves. Good grief people!!!!
David, I’ll ask you since AAR didn’t want to answer.
Do you think people of different religious beliefs should serve together? What if a Jew tried to convert a Christian?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
David/California,
I don’t have any particular doubt that some number of such cases exist. However, if you’re going to use them in your argument, the onus is on you to retrieve them, not the other readers. It would also only be relevant if those statistics were laid side-by-side with the cases involving other instances of abusing subordinates where the subordinate was of the opposite sex. As stated, it only proves that the military is capable of enforcing discipline when it chooses to do so.
This also serves to illustrate my point that for many people who have negative emotional reactions to gays and lesbians (”bull dykes”, “queers”) they also have the notion that gays and lesbians are inherently sexualized beings who are unable to control their “appetites”. This is a stereotype which is no more true than that of an African-American being powerless in the face of a piece of watermelon or a bucket of fried chicken.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So to the people debating FOR a gayer military are you really homosexuals that are considering join the forces, but just don’t feel it is gay enough for you. Or are you just people that like to debate based on logic???
November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Eric,
In the words of Larry Craig… I am not gay. I have not been gay. I love my wife.
Seriously… no, I’m not gay. I am very happily married with a child. I do have a couple of friends that are gay. They are not in the military.
Why am I arguing FOR this? I just don’t agree that someone’s sexual orientation should matter to anyone else. The same goes for the color of someone’s skin or their religious beliefs. I don’t have to agree with them, but they can do whatever they want to do since it doesn’t affect me.
And we are not arguing for a “gayer military”. Do you seriously believe that a gay man says… “Hmmm… the army sure would be a great place to meet guys.” Do you really think that in the middle of a basic training, they are thinking how much they would love to have sex with that guy???
Perhaps… just maybe they love their country and want to serve it. Nah… gays would never think that, right??
November 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
>>So to the people debating FOR a gayer military are you really homosexuals that are considering join the forces, but just don’t feel it is gay enough for you. Or are you just people that like to debate based on logic???<<
I am not gay, but think that gay people, people of all religions, all races, etc are created equally. The question was posed to the candidates last night and all of them seemed to be on the side of bigotry and against equality.
I’m not arguing for a ‘gayer’ military anymore than people who fought against segregation were arguing for a ‘blacker’ military.
Are YOU arguing against equality and FOR bigotry?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I’m just arguing for what’s right.
I think that any capable person who loves his/her country should be able to serve regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Eric T,
The issue is not a “gayer military”. There are now and always have been gays in the military. The issue is how all service members conduct themselves. This has also always been true. Your assertion above is only true to the extent that such activities go undetected just as a service member can avoid being court-martialed for adultery if they are sufficiently stealthy about engaging in adultery. However, gays openly serving would change nothing regarding conduct that would violate rules governing sexual expression.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
so what would it take to get you to join up and serve the country
November 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
It would take me being about 10-15 years younger.
Why aren’t you joining? Too many gays?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
By the way Eric, I do enjoy debating you and we had a good debate going on last time. I’m not trying to pick on you or anything with this debate, but I am just 180-degrees opposite of your thinking here.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Noonan (as usual). These people, in particular the gentleman at last night’s debate are, in general, good people! The retired Brigadier General proved that with his 42 YEARS OF SERVICE to the country we all love.
The United States military prides itself not on discrimination, but on being, simply put, the greatest, best trained coalition of armed services in the world. If homosexuals can contribute to this effort, then for God’s sake, put your hatred aside and let them!
I commend the man who spoke so passionately at the debate, and I am still angry at the reaction of Duncan Hunter and some audience members. We need to show that we too are compassionate, while still keeping our core values at heart.
The vast majority of bloggers on thise site are (like myself) straight and against same-sex marriage. This does not justify the degradation of honorable men like that retired General. We can be heterosexual, conservative, and reasonable at the same time!
November 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
It’s all really simple–when Sodomites are allowed to serve in our honorable armed forces, the image and character of the military is destroyed.
Decency should be the rule in any office of our country.
Remember, God had to destroy a Nation once because of their indecent acts. He cleansed the land so well that the ground won’t grow anything to this day. So, He gave Sodom and Gomorrah as an example, He says “look, you can see where sin will get you”.
Let’s heed the Lord’s command.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Jeremiah,
Assuming that you’re not using satire, gays and lesbians are already serving. It’s specifically allowed. The current restriction is that they can’t be asked about it or tell about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Jeremiah,
Who is YOUR candidate? The divorced candidates are obviously immoral, as are the pro-choice and pro-death penalty candidates. Who does that leave?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Assuming that you’re not using satire, gays and lesbians are already serving.
Diane,
That’s exactly it, where is the point to continue to allow a lifestyle that harms the image of our military, why not stop it?
People will say, “Well, that’s their choice” it should be accepted.
It’s NOT acceptable!!! Why? Because it’s not according to God’s Word.
Regardless of what others may think, Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to serve in our military. Period.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
>>It’s all really simple–when Sodomites are allowed to serve in our honorable armed forces, the image and character of the military is destroyed.<<
Do you think Jesus would have condoned torture? Don’t you think Abu Graib and other crimes (like the violent rape and killing of a young girl and her family) damaged the image of the American military MORE than gay people who serve our country honorably?
Actually, isn’t that something we PRIDE ourselves on? That we don’t execute homosexuals and that we live peacefully with others with whom we don’t agree?
If you WANT a theocracy, how does that make you different than the Taliban?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Coulterfan,
Mike Huckabee is the man for the job!
If the people are smart, he is who they will put in office.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jeremiah,
Happily, you live in a nation where you are free to express your religious opinion. Fortunately, the armed forces of the United States, tasked with defending your freedoms, are not an arm of any particular church.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
If you WANT a theocracy, how does that make you different than the Taliban?
Coulterfan,
I don’t want a theocracy, it’s up to the people ultimately, as to where they want this Nation tp go. They can turn this Nation around and head it in the right direction, by first getting God back in his rightful place, In their HEARTS and then the school system will follow, which is a horrible mess right now, because of the Liberal professors and teachers with their warped Ideologies in brainwashing our children. God help us.
The Nation is definitely in a mess with all the Liberalism, but nothing is too difficult with God. When the people turn back to God, Liberalism WILL be defeated.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Fortunately, the armed forces of the United States, tasked with defending your freedoms, are not an arm of any particular church.
Diane,
Well, they may be true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that God’s Law will stand.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
This was actually a fun debate until now. Now it is just flat-out freaky.
Jerimiah, you DO understand that you are saying everyone who doesn’t believe in the same religion of you is wrong and should not be given any rights don’t you? You DO understand that it isn’t up to PUBLIC schools to teach religion, don’t you? You DO understand that in America people are free to choice the religion they want, right?
How did God feel about blacks marrying whites? Or a Christian marrying a Muslim? How do YOU feel about that?
It sure sounds like you are saying that gay people have absolutely no place in the military. It doesn’t matter if they have served honorably or not. They have no place in your world.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Jeremiah,
And if Huckabee (who is quite liberal on immigration and social program spending) doesn’t get the nod?
What will you do if Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson get the nomination?
BTW, Huckabee DOES support the death penalty, despite him KNOWING the answer to WWJD. It’s EASY to ask the question when you don’t have to change your position, but he was uncomfortable answering Jesus’ position on the death penalty.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Do you think Jesus would have condoned torture?
Coulterfan,
No, I don’t think He would. Jesus never condoned bodily harm to anyone. That’s why Saddam Hussein is out of power now. Thank the Lord.
But….
He instituted the government as a means of control over the criminals.
He also instituted the Death penalty.
Submit to the authorities, or will be subject to punishment.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Jerimiah,
Should gays be tortured?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Should gays be tortured?
No, Joe!
They have a right to be citizens, But they shouldn’t be given an honorary position.
Pray for them.
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
>>He also instituted the Death penalty.<<
He DID? When He said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” what do you think He meant?
Did He then ‘institute the Death Penalty’ and stone her Himself (since He was without sin)?
What did He say when he explicitly address the Old Testament statement “An Eye for an Eye”? I believe He said “Turn the other cheek”, am I not correct?
What ARE you talking about? He was a VICTIM of the death penalty!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Jeremiah,
It’s not “may”. The armed forces defend the Constitution. The Constitution contains the First Amendment prohibiting the government establishment of any particular religion over another because of the wars between Catholics and Protestants that had long raged in Europe. It also states in Article VI, section 3, that “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” No church of any kind can claim any special status or authority in the operation of the government of the United States. That’s why, despite the fact that there are Christians today that think that Roman Catholics are heretics and the Pope is possibly the Antichrist aren’t able to prevent Roman Catholics from serving their country.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
coulterfan,
Apparently God believes in the death penalty!
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!
If you do not know how or where to find it in the Bible, Jeremiah can provide the quote it for you!
If reading a Christian Bible bothers you, check with a member of the Jewish or Muslim faith!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Joe,
I leave for awhile and come back to you find you talking about torturing homosexuals!
Who said anything about torturing homosexuals? Oh, I see, that was you!!!
Is that all you Democrats think about? Torture, torture, torture!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
>>Apparently God believes in the death penalty!
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!<<
Oh, you’re JEWISH! I had no idea, I thought we were talking about the NEW Testament and the words of JESUS!
Remember, then, not to eat ‘cloven’ animals like pigs because they are unclean. Also, you may notice that women who commit adultery are STONED TO DEATH in the public square in the OLD Testament.
Jesus, however, overturned many of these Old Testament laws and spoke out vehemently against the Death Penalty!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Jesus, however, overturned many of these Old Testament laws and spoke out vehemently against the Death Penalty!
Coulterfan,
November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
If homosexuals are barred from the military then perhaps the same rule should apply to Congress.
That would eliminate about half of the seated Republicans, right?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Jeremiah:
Should we also stone to death children that talk back to their parents as instructed in Exodus 21?
I’ll make sure I have enough suitable sized stones in my yard when I have children.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jeremiah:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. — Psalm 137:9
Wow, I should take glee in I see…….
November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Jeremiah,
So you’re telling me that people should be stoned to death for adultery?
“And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man’s wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10
And for working on the Sabbath?
“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you; every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall he cut off from among his people.”- Exodus, 31/14
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”- Exodus, 35/2
And for disobeying parents:
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them”- Deuteronomy, 21/18
“Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;”- Deuteronomy, 21/19
” And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.”- Deuteronomy, 21/20
“And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”- Deuteronomy, 21/21
And for cursing parents:
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”- Exodus, 21/17
And for homosexuality:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”- Leviticus, 20/13
And for having sex with a woman during her menstruation:
“And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he bath discovered her fountain, and she bath uncovered the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”- Leviticus, 20/18
And for loss of virginity:
“But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel”- Deuteronomy, 22120
“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she bath wrought folly in Isreal, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”- Deuteronomy, 22/21
Another on adultery:
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”- Leviticus, 20/10
According to you, Jesus Christ in Matthew 5/17 endorses the afore-mentioned first seven laws of death penalty prescribed by Moses in the following words :
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”- Matthew, 5/17
So, you’re suggesting that Guilliani, McCain, Thompson, etc should all be PUT TO DEATH?!?!?
If not, who gives YOU the power to pick and choose which of these Biblical laws to enforce? Is it YOU who is without sin, so you can cast the ‘first stone’???
Remember, Jesus STOPPED the stoning of the prostitute and was, therefore, acting against Biblical law himself.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
coulterfan,
What do you have against Jews?
I bet you’d say the same thing about Muslims!
When and where did Jesus revoke and toss out the Old Testament? Do you have a list of those portions which Jesus revoked?
Where did Jesus say the death penalty was not to be used for any crimes?
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
AAR
I think you need to revisit the whole turn the other cheek thing……
November 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Diana,
Should heterosexual men be permitted to bring their lovers and wives to the front lines and into the fox holes with them?
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Mindless Liberal,
That was turn the other cheek… ONCE!
There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
>>What do you have against Jews?
I bet you’d say the same thing about Muslims!
When and where did Jesus revoke and toss out the Old Testament? Do you have a list of those portions which Jesus revoked?
Where did Jesus say the death penalty was not to be used for any crimes?<<
I have nothing against any religion. I have GREAT LOVE for our Constitution, though, which clearly prohibits (in the FIRST AMENDMENT) the establishment of religion.
Besides, you’re off-point. Islam and Jewish religions rely on the Old Testament (hence the prohibition of cloven animals, the ‘cutting off hands’ of robbers in the Muslim world, the death penalty for homosexuals, etc)
My point was that Jesus DIRECTLY spoke against the death penalty (as well as removing the prohibitions on eating ‘unclean’ animals). He did so TWICE:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39
And in John 8:7, the townspeople were going to stone a woman for adultery according to the old testament, but Jesus stopped them and said:
“But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”-John 8:7
Jesus was NOT about revenge and punishment, but about love, forgiveness, and compassion.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34).
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28).
Obviously some of you need to brush up on your faith. If, after reading the ENTIRE Gospel, you STILL think that Jesus would be Pro-Death Penalty, please quote the appropriate passages.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
>>There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.<>Lets say at work….
a male maintenance man had a peep hole in a stall you used, and watched you do your business.<<
Who’s suggesting that THIS should be allowed in the military? Again, inappropriate BEHAVIOR should be punished- what if a male drill sargeant did this to the women’s rest room? Are you implying THAT is okay?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
>>>>There was nothing said about turning one’s cheek again, and again, and again while your adversary beats you to a pulp or trashes your own values and beliefs!
That would be suicide… and contrary to the Bible’s teachings.<
Please quote Jesus’ words to back up this assertion. . . when did He say to fight back?
WWJD? Did He fight back against His unjust and cruel treatment at the hands of the Romans?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
coulterfan,
Now, you didn’t type all that. You pulled it from the Liberal’s data base of prepared responses! I’ve seen much the same thing before. Conservatives really need to learn and use those techniques!
Oh, so the views, opinions, and beliefs of Jews and Muslims don’t matter because they believe in the Old Testament! What do you have against Jews and Muslims? Apparently, a great deal!!!
Even today, people are pardoned or their death penalty commuted. Tell me where Jesus said the death penalty will no longer be used for any crimes?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39
Do not resist an evil person! I guess that pretty much gives criminal free reign! Looks like we can clean out those crowded jails and prisons!
So you believe Jesus intended for a person to stand still and be stabbed, shot, and killed — as they turn their cheek back and forth, over and over? That sounds like suicide to me. Some how, I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant! You may be suicidal, but I’m not!
So you would “not resist an evil” person intent on robbing or killing you or your family? Interesting! I’d shoot someone who tried to kill me or my family!
Oh, by the way I AM PRO DEATH PENALTY!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
coulterfan,
You are nuts, besides being suicidal! Take a walk through a dark alley in the rough part of a major city and let’s see how long you stand there turning your cheeks back and forth! One way or another, I’d bet you don’t last long!!!
You can stand and be killed! I and most other Americans are going to fight… and do our best to kill the one trying to kill us! Most will even try and pull you to safety, even if you won’t fight your attacker, preferring instead to see how many blows your cheeks can take before you’re down for the count!
You are a prime example of why a Democrat should never, ever be in charge of defending America and our families!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“sexual perversion, and deviation, was considered a mental disorder and is just that…period. It was a felony in almost all states for over 200 years of jurisprudence.”
It was considered natural by both the Greeks and Romans for over a thousand years. Both Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great had affairs with both men and women.
“Only when the mental illness of marxism (liberalism) took root did homosexuality suddenly become “cool” and the in thing.”
First marxism and liberalism are two totally different things. Second, I don’t know of anyone who became a homosexual because it was cool. Do you?
“if it is openly accepted in the military it becomes just that - FORCED upon you.”
Are you suggesting that everyone will be forced to become homosexuals?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The account of Samson is a prime example of how allowing yourself to be deceived into sinning can lead to your demise and it can also apply to a Nation as well.
Judges 16:1-22
And…he goes on to ask God for revenge on the Philistines for his eyes, and asks for strength just once more to defeat them.
The moral of the story is?
Don’t give into Satan’s schemes, or the Lord will leave you.
In the same we God left Samson, He will also leave this Nation if we continue down the Sodomite road.
We would be powerless to do anything about an invasion by say China or any country for that matter.
The Lord is our strength!!!
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Casper,
Are you suggesting that everyone will be forced to become homosexuals?
The Liberal homosexual agenda and lifestyle is being forced on America!
Gay marriage is being forced on America by the courts.
Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades — while Democrats block efforts to provide parents with School Vouchers so they can send their children to quality schools which support and teach their values and lifestyle.
Democrats are trying pass laws to force businesses to hire homosexuals even when if they disagree and oppose it — whether for religious beliefs or other personal beliefs.
Democrats are trying to intimidate and silence those who speak out against gay marriage, homosexuals, lesbians, and every other abnormal sexual behavior by designating them as a “protected species” under hate crime laws — affording them more rights and protections than the average American!
The liberal television, film, and movie issue are pushing gay marriage and homosexuality. Turn on your television, watch a movie, listen to a liberal talk show, listen to the news — all are pushing the Liberals’ homosexual and lesbian agenda!
Americans sit complacently and idly by while Democrats attack Christians, Christmas, traditional values and marriage, patriotism, and national pride… while Democrats push illegal immigration, socialism, their welfare state, and bans against private gun ownership… while Democrats push gay marriage, homosexuality, abortions and sex for 11 year old kids… etc., etc., etc.
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Coulterfan and Diana,
I’m pretty confident that I’m not going to change your mind, and I know that you aren’t going to change my mind either and I pray to God that you never change my mind.
All I can do is give you what the Word of God says–’I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases, You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.’
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades”
Prove it. Show me some figures on how many children have been forced to become homosexuals.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
[...] toad-licker of Blogs for Bush Victory! And it seems he’s feeling a little…pink. Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Casper said–Prove it.
GAY AGENDA FORCED ON CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Diana,
Women were given the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution — by properly and correctly amending the Constitution as provided for in the Constitution itself — not by creating a right or protection which was not there, and which was not meant or intended prior to that Amendment!
You Liberals treat the Constitution as some document of convenience, to be interpreted and applied as you see fit. The fact that you believe something is morally or ethically correct, or the “proper and human thing” to do, does not mean it is Constitutionally correct, Constitutionally protected or guranteed, or a Constitutional right — until after the proper and correct Amendments are made and ratified to the Constitution!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Jeremiah,
So how many of those kids became Homosexuals?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Casper,
I said, among other things: “Homosexual indoctrination is being forced upon our children in the public schools — even in the earliest grades — while Democrats block efforts to provide parents with School Vouchers so they can send their children to quality schools which support and teach their values and lifestyle.”
Don’t tell me you are going to deny that… again!!!
Jeremiah gave you one. Do we need to start with California — again — and work from there… including Hitler’s quote about indoctrinating the children?!!!
Rather than cluttering this site, perhaps I should work up a website and just cite the links each time.
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Casper,
How many do you think? I’m sure someone will do a study before long and we will begin to have some idea.
Why do you think the number of homosexuals is continuing to rise? The schools, and others, are teaching the kids it’s proper and correct! Of course, the sexually transmitted diseases are rising too — as that great Liberal sexual education teaches 11 year-old kids “how it’s done”!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
How many people out there are serious about joining if the military changes the rules?
Would we have more incidents like Abu Graib?
So do you guys think that the military would be able to recruit more soldiers or do you think these young boys would be frightened out of joining, (Ed. Note; insulting part of this comment deleted).
Lets say the new open gayness policy caused a decrease in recruits by a large percentage, would you be ok with going back to the way it was, or would you insist on having a weaker military to accomplish your diversity requirements.
If you polled the active military and found that a majority would oppose the open gayness, Would you still insist? Does the soldiers views even matter to you? or does the need for your diversity programs overpower what the troops may feel is best for them.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
>>You are nuts, besides being suicidal! Take a walk through a dark alley in the rough part of a major city and let’s see how long you stand there turning your cheeks back and forth! One way or another, I’d bet you don’t last long!!!<<
Actually, that was Jesus- not me.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
AAR,
What I asked for is for you to show how many kids have become homosexuals because of this so called indoctrination. Until you provide some solid evidence that children have become homosexuals because they have been indoctrinated, I”m going to assume there isn’t any evidence.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
AAR,
The fact that you don’t agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court would seem that you don’t have much respect for the law except when the law conforms to your own individual views. However, this country is one of laws and not of men. Also, you failed to answer my questions about Loving v. Virginia and Pace v. State of Alabama. They’re certainly as important as Lawrence v. Texas with which you seem rather obsessed.
It’s quite instructive to see how emotionally wrought up people get up over this subject and find themselves compelled to speak of “queers”, “bull dykes”, “homos” and “butt pirates”. I’m sure that Fred Phelps uses those same kinds of words. It must be rather sad to be so afraid.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
coulterfan,
You interpret it the way you want to!!!
You’re still nuts to think that a person should stand still and allow themselves to be killed! You believe we should yield to evil… to murders… to thieves… to child molesters… to terrorists!!!
If you believe that’s want Jesus meant and intended, that’s your right!!!
I’ll fight evil rather than calmly standing there to be robbed, beaten, or killed!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Diana,
Judges do not make our laws… contrary to what you may think or want!
That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
As for the other cases, I’d have to do some reading and research on those and there is nothing to be gained by wasting my time on that here and now.
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Well when the liberals want to take something decent and inject it with homosexuality. It is not like going to a job or taking a class at school. Then leaving. It is eating, sleeping, showering, with a bunch of men. When it the gay part becomes manditory all I can think about is Prison.
Sorry I can’t agree with you
November 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
It must be rather sad to be so afraid.
Afraid? Nah!!
:)
Jeremiah
November 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Diana,
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t use those words.
I think it’s the liberal Hollywood film makers you should see.
What was the name of that popular liberal show? Oh, that’s right, it was “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
And you should hear the words and terms those liberal television and film makers use on other shows… all to make a profit for their liberal Hollywood stars, industry, and big Democrat political contributors!!!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Casper,
I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!
AAR
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
There was a point in my life where I was homophobic. I listened to and told the jokes. I made fun of people who dressed different, acted different, or just looked different.
Then I grew up.
Part of the process was confidence in my own sexuality. I’m proud to say I have only had sex with one woman (my wife) for the last 34 years.
She isn’t worried that I am going to leave her for the first woman or man that pays attention to me, nor am I worried that she is going to leave me for someone else.
The other part of the process was figuring out that some of our friends over the years are gay. Guess what, none of them have ever tried to convert either of us. one of the couples we are friends with is gay. They are one of the most committed couples we know. They have been together for over 20 years.
“I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!
AAR”
I never said that. I asked for proof that schools are turning children into homosexuals. I’m still waiting.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
>>If you believe that’s want Jesus meant and intended, that’s your right!!!<<
Jesus said what He said, like Mohammed said what he said. . .
I didn’t say I was Christian or didn’t believe in the death penalty, the question was:
WWJD?
And I don’t think the answer is that He would torture, support the death penalty, support bigotry and hatred of another for sexual transgressions, etc. I think he said,
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Evidently no one around here subscribes to Christ’s teachings. . .
THey just use the Bible to provide convenient and selective ‘evidence’ for their own bigotry.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Look, this is a false discussion. Given that most gays are Democrat, and less than 10% now of the military identifies as Democrat, and that only a very small number of the homosexual Democrats who want to serve in the military at all insist on being open about it, we are talking about a minuscule number of people.
But I don’t care if these guys want to put their penises in each others mouths and anal tracts. I don’t care if these women want to jam their private parts together.
You can be a girl working for a guy or a guy working for a girl and suffer abuse from them just as easily as you can be a guy working for a gay guy. Bill Clinton for example, had a long history of using his positions of authority to get sex. His actions were as wrong as a gay version would be. Workplace harassment is an independent issue from homosexuality. Public lewdness is an independent issue from homosexuality.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 am
>>I’m going to assume that you are a big supporter of indoctrinating our children against their parents will!<<
Look at the Republican party, pal. Condi Rice referred to a lesbian couple as married, Cheney’s daughter is gay and he supports gay rights, Laura Bush has had gay friends, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Haggard (and another evangelical in Colorado), Catholic Priests, Ken Mehlman, etc, etc
WHO’S INDOCTRINATING YOUR CHILDREN?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
>>You can be a girl working for a guy or a guy working for a girl and suffer abuse from them just as easily as you can be a guy working for a gay guy. Bill Clinton for example, had a long history of using his positions of authority to get sex. His actions were as wrong as a gay version would be. Workplace harassment is an independent issue from homosexuality. Public lewdness is an independent issue from homosexuality.<<
Never thought I’d say this, but Kahn is right. It was wrong what Clinton did, what Foley did, what Guilliani has a habit of doing, etc. . .
But the overwhelming majority of gay people are law-abiding, respectful, good Americans. They shouldn’t have to hide their partners any more than I should have to hide my wife.
Two of my neighbors were active Bush supporters during the last election and I suspect they’re gay. I don’t care, but why should they have to hide? If Dick Cheney’s daughter wanted to serve in the military, shouldn’t she be able to?
And what about hot college lesbians - can’t THEY serve ; )
Seriously, you expect people in military positions to act honorably and respectfully, no matter their personal views, sexuality, religion, etc.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Casper,
A person does not have to be “homophobic” to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, Democrats’ homosexual agenda, and “gay marriage”! If homosexuals want to do their own thing, then go do it, but stop trying convince the rest of us, and teach our kids, that it’s “normal”.
If I run across any studies or figures, I’ll make sure you get them. I’m sure they will be available, and I’m also sure they will confirm what I said. Until then, you can deny what logic says otherwise.
When schools teach kids that homosexual behavior is “normal” and socially acceptable, they will be encouraged to experiment and “give it a try”, and some of those will become homosexuals and lesbians — more than would have done so otherwise. Deny it if you must, but if you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe teachers and schools have a big influence on children.
And, it’s indoctrination — pure and simple! Even if you don’t teach it in your classes, you support the actions of those who do, and thereby, condone and support that same indoctrination!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
coulterfan,
…the overwhelming majority of gay people are law-abiding, respectful, good Americans.
I never said they weren’t. Most I have been around would fit that category, but that does not mean that I support gay marriage, or trying to impose the Liberals’ gay agenda on America… nor does it make me “homophobic” (another trigger word used by you Liberals to stir and convey hate)!
What happened to “all we want is to be left alone in our bedroom” and “what we do in private is no one else’s business”? Now it’s gay marriage, gay indoctrination in our schools, an overdose of gay programs on television, Democrats trying to make gays a “protected species”, and on, and on, and on! Now it’s the traditional Americans who are suppose to give up their views, values, and lifestyle in preference to gays!!!
Evidently no one around here subscribes to Christ’s teachings. . .
Evidently no one here is falling for your silly Bible-based propaganda games!
“What would Jesus do?”, “What would God say?”, “What does the Bible say?”, “Is that the Christian way?” and all the many variations you Democrats (Liberals) use, are nothing more than a Liberal propaganda technique used to mislead and misdirect Christians — using their own religious beliefs against them! It’s time Christians learn to recognize and ignore your Democrat tricks, methods, and techniques used to manipulate them!
I already know your methods, techniques, and your intent! It’s getting late; I’m tired of playing that game; and it’s time to quit for tonight. You really do need to learn some new tricks!
Someone else can pick up the game if they like, or you can continue piling up your Liberal garbage to your little bleeding liberal heart’s content!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
coulterfan,
Oh, one last thing…
WHO’S INDOCTRINATING YOUR CHILDREN?
Liberal educators, teachers, and professors in our taxpayer funded public schools, colleges, and universities!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Coulter,
Thing is, none of those are trying to enforce the false notion of a moral equivalence between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. We’re not worried about kids being taught tolerance, we’re worried about them being taught lies in the name of tolerance.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Eric,
Those are some of the issues which need to be considered carefully before any change is made - and now that I’ve had 24 hours to think about it, I’m exceptionally outraged by the stunt by Kerr…he has disgraced himself, and the Democrats who put him up to it have done a disservice to our nation.
Quite honestly, I think this action should convince all but a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton kool-aid drinker that Hillary has no place in the White House…she can deny culpability all she wants, but its just as bad if she didn’t know about it as had she ordered it done.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Well, yah. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t advocate homosexual relations. I think there is a lot of emotional pain there.
But I also think smoking is dangerous as is drinking and gambling (though I spend about $20 on the slots every time I’m in Vegas or Reno). All can be addictive. Smoking and drinking can cause direct physical harm. Drinking and driving kills more people than guns do by very far every year.
Society as a whole, through our laws permits all three. In Nevada, even prostitution is legal. So, do I care - care enough to argue they should be illegal? No. Do I advocate my niece becoming a prostitute? No.
A gay Marine will face dangers whether legalized or not. He will face harm and his tormentors will face ruin. But being an idiot and/or being a bigot are part of freedom and liberty.
I don’t think it would be good for a homosexual to join the Marines as an open gay. It won’t be good for him and it won’t be good for the other Marines and it won’t be good for the Corps. But dammit, yes he has the right to serve if he wants to. He has the right to live in the dung filled dusty hot air and wonder if that bump in the road is about to explode. If he’s willing to do that, but— well but what? Only a tiny fraction of the populace is willing to do that.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:26 am
AAR,
Why do you have to put exclamation marks after every sentence you write?!!!! I don’t understand!!!! Do you think it will persuade others to agree with you?!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn’t work!!!!!!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 3:50 am
AAR writes,
“Liberal educators, teachers, and professors in our taxpayer funded public schools, colleges, and universities!!!”
You are so right AAR. We should just let parents teach their kids whatever they want.
Also, I am having trouble reconciling these two passages:
“Now it’s gay marriage, gay indoctrination in our schools, an overdose of gay programs on television, Democrats trying to make gays a “protected species”, and on, and on, and on! Now it’s the traditional Americans who are suppose to give up their views, values, and lifestyle in preference to gays!!!”
and
“nor does it make me “homophobic”
The first passage makes the second passage untrue. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals not hatred. You are clearly feel threatened of the thought of homosexuality becoming as acceptable as heterosexuality.
You wrongly perceive that sexuality is a private matter. Look around you AAR. We are constantly bombarded with images reminding us of our sexuality. It is only recently that these images have again begun to reflect homosexuality.
“Gay indocrination in the school”
Are you saying our schools are teaching kids to be gay or are you saying that our schools are teaching children that being gay is not something to be ashamed of? If it is the former, you are paranoid. If it is the latter, you are only homophobic.
I guess I should end with lots of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does that make it more persuasive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:59 am
I am sure the same thing is happining in the military, especially now that the military is becoming the tool of Evangelicals.
You’re wrong on both counts, anti-Christian Left, and your writing is at third-grade level.
I thought police officers had to have a high school diploma. btw, how often did you inspect those gay officers guns, anti-Christian?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Why do gays insist on all of us knowing what they prefer to do in the bedroom?
Because, neocon, gay rights is a Donkaroach wedge issue. Hell, it’s more important to them than keeping our country safe from attack. So is the right to murder babies, hand out condoms to schoolchildren, and steal all my money “for the greater good…”
November 30th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Apparently, Phelps and his congregation just can’t stop thinking about gay sex.
Diana, don’t even attempt to compare Phelps, a fringe kook, with true evangelicals.
What are you, a blonde cow?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am
>>So is the right to murder babies, hand out condoms to schoolchildren, and steal all my money “for the greater good…”<<
So we know you’re not voting for Guilliani or Romney, then.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:33 am
>>Thing is, none of those are trying to enforce the false notion of a moral equivalence between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. We’re not worried about kids being taught tolerance, we’re worried about them being taught lies in the name of tolerance.<>And now that I’ve had 24 hours to think about it, I’m exceptionally outraged by the stunt by Kerr…he has disgraced himself, and the Democrats who put him up to it have done a disservice to our nation.<<
Of course you’re outraged- you’ve been fed it by the right-wing media. What was Kerr’s big ’sin’? Was the question illegitimate? Romney, at one point, was a strong supporter for gays serving openly in the military- what happened?
If the GOP can’t stand up to Democratic questions, how do they expect to stand up against Al Queda?
I mean, it’s not like Kerr disgraced himself like so-called journalist Jeff Gannon-Guckert! That was the ringer in the White House press corps, if you recall, who was a former Marine and liberally quoted by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, etc.
Turns out he was a gay prostitute who went by the name of ‘Bulldog’.
Now THAT is a disgrace! Not asking a question about being free to be who one is in a free society. But, if you don’t like the question- attack the person who asked it, right?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
What,
Well, I’m not afraid of homosexuals, but I would warn others, that 95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.
I pray for them that they will turn their life around, but if they ever try to do anything to me, I will teach them a lesson, and if one ever does anything to a family member…I say that he better hope and pray they give him the death penalty cause I’ll drag him through seven hells, back again, and make him wish he was never born!!!!!!!!
Jeremiah
November 30th, 2007 at 8:49 am
>>Well, I’m not afraid of homosexuals, but I would warn others, that 95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.
And what percentage of all molestations of young girls have been by ’straight’ perpetrators? Isn’t molesting another a heinous crime regardless of sexual orientation?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Is the democrat strategy to spead gayness into everyone’s life whether they like it or not? Is their goal to make this the gayest country on the planet? Some of us raised with Religious beliefs can look at 1 Corinthians 9-20 or the book of Leviticus chapter 19 and see what God’s view is on Homosexuality.
This does put Believers in a difficult spot, On one hand God says it is against His Laws. On the other hand we have a democrat government and media that want to promote homosexuality as a good healthy alternative lifestyle that everyone MUST accept.
While, I have to abide by our country and state laws.
I can choose to not accept and befriend people who break laws and steal, cheat or kill
I can also choose to not accept those who break God’s laws.
I can also choose to vote out people who want to forcefeed filth and abomination into every aspect of our lives. Some may see it as no big deal. I think it is disgusting and don’t want to be near it.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:30 am
>>s the democrat strategy to spead gayness into everyone’s life whether they like it or not? Is their goal to make this the gayest country on the planet? Some of us raised with Religious beliefs can look at 1 Corinthians 9-20 or the book of Leviticus chapter 19 and see what God’s view is on Homosexuality
I’ve already covered this, hypocrite! Unless you are prepared to also condemn everyone who is divorced, has committed adultery, has had pre-marital sex, has had any oral sex, masturbated, etc, etc. . . You are merely being a selectively Bible-quoting hypocritical bigot!
These ARE ‘God’s LAWS’ according to the Bible. And JESUS HIMSELF condemned adultery and divorce (unlike homosexuality, which is only mentioned in the old Testament)
So, for consistency’s sake, you don’t support Guiliani, Romney (both gay rights supporters, and Guiliani has been divorced and is therefore ‘an abomination’), Thompson (divorced), Rush Limbaugh (DITTO!), etc, etc
Judge not lest ye be judged, indeed.
Remember that Jesus himself considered divorce and adultery to be WORSE than homosexuality. It certainly threatens more marriages than ANY amount of gay marriage could.
Hypocrites, Pharisees, bigots, and liars!
November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I can also choose to not accept those who break God’s laws.
Eric,
That’s what we must do!!
God’s Law before man’s law.
Jeremiah
November 30th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I’m faithful to my wife, mitt and rudy I don’t really like, Corinthians is new testament
November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jeremiah and Eric obviously remind divorced acquaintances and family members that they are going to hell for breaking a commandment.
And they no longer associate with them.
And insist that they should be put to death, like it says in the Bible.
And they never would listen or vote for one.
For they are breaking God’s laws.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
W¿¿¿¿,
¿Why do I have to “put exclamation points after every sentence” I write?
¡¡¡Among other reasons, to irritate Liberals (Democrats) like you!!!
(Note: I don’t put exclamation points behind every sentence…)
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Jeremiah,
Your right!
Alot of these people just can handle the truth.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
1 Corinthians 10:8-11
Jeremiah
November 30th, 2007 at 9:46 am
>>Corinthians is new testament<<
Yeah, but have you read it? It doesn’t specifically address homosexuality.
It seems to be about abstaining from ALL pleasures of the body (carnal desires). Thus, sex ONLY for procreation, no masturbation, no oral, etc. . .
Selective application of Scripture, indeed.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Jeremiah,
So you ARE against any sex not for procreation, correct? Against divorce and remarriage? Against having sex with a woman during her menstruation (even if you don’t support the death penalty for it, as the Bible does)? Against oral sex with one’s spouse and masturbation?
All of these constitute the ’sexual immorality’ that Corinthians is addressing.
You are prepared to condemn these as loudly as you do homosexuality, correct?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Alot of these people just can handle the truth.
Eric,
Yep, that’s right!
No worries though, they will find out one of these days, and it’s going to come as a harsh awakening.
Jeremiah
November 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am
coulterfan,
When a family goes thru a divorce, It rips the family to shreads. They have to sell all assets and move, it is real ugly, when it is a result of infidelity, your right, i don’t stay in contact with them. they destroyed their family, am I suppose to cheer them on and say ‘good for you’ you did the right thing putting you own selfish desires ahead of the entire family, I’m proud of ya…..Nope I’m not impressed at all and will be cordial at a family gathering or something like that. But whether they will burn in Hell is between them and Our Lord.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Jesus spent more time talking about self-righteous Pharisees than condemning people for ’sexual immorality’. . .
Maybe YOU are the ones in for a harsh awakening, Pharisees. . .
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Coulterfan,
1 Corinthians speaks in reference to homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God had to destroy. Romans 1 also speaks about homosexuality.
God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, with burning sulphur, the ground there won’t grow anything, and it also extends into the Dead Sea so that nothing will live in it.
Jeremiah
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
coulterfan - your point about standing up to Democratic questions. Well, we will… next year. These are our debates to choose our candidates - not yours. Clinton plants questions at your debates and Democrats as a group plant them at ours. So, should there be a debate where Republicans can ask Democrats questions… now, before the primaries? Well?
Do you think that re-instituting the “fairness doctrine” would be an unfair stifling of political speech, especially on the right?
Do you think that any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights besides the 2nd does not pertain to individual rights?
When in the pregnancy does a fetus become a baby? (we know your opinion, I want theirs)
Could you explain how your vision for America is not socialist?
How much do you intend to raise taxes?
etc.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Eric,
Jesus condemned ALL re-marriage as adultery. Adultery is a commandment, unlike homosexuality. Why are you prepared to pass judgement on one, but not on the other?
In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
He makes NO exceptions, not for abandonment, not for adultery by one’s partner, not for ANY reason. Now what exactly did Jesus (himself) say about homosexuality? Not ONE word. . .
November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
W¿¿¿¿,
I am having trouble reconciling these two passages.
I fully understand. Yours is a very common affliction and problem with most Democrats (Liberals)!
Another problem you DIMocrats (DIMwits) have is your inability to understand and comprehend the meaning of “phobia”!
There are many things that I and others don’t like or don’t support, but that does not make it a “phobia”!
I don’t like broccoli, but I have no phobia over it. I don’t like wallowing in the mud with pigs, or wading through all the piles of Liberal manure spread by Democrats (Liberals), but that does not make it a phobia.
I don’t like flies, roaches, rats, or other vermin in my house either. I don’t have any phobia over the little nuisances, I just don’t want them in MY house. If they want to remain outside, in their own little world, and enjoy their existance, so be it… but stay out of MY house!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
>>So, should there be a debate where Republicans can ask Democrats questions… now, before the primaries? Well?
Ummm, I watched the YouTube Democratic debate and not all the questions were submitted by Democrats. There were hostile questions about gun rights, for instance.
Democrats didn’t whine and complain like babies, but then they don’t make ‘town hall meeting’ folks sign ‘loyalty oaths’!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mark, you’ve outdone yourself, using the following in a poor use of fear tactics:
“Upon the effectiveness of the United States military rides the safety of the United States of America and, indeed, the safety of the whole world. This magnificent instrument must not become a laboratory where social engineering experiments are conducted”
Even if one were to accept your veiled premise that a homosexual soldier would have a negative effect on his or her combat unit, there is no reason this would compromise the safety of the United States. If anything, it would cause the regretful loss of the unit, which we’ve already suffered many times over due to our continued presence in Iraq. Whether or not this was the right course of action, there hasn’t been much discussion by Republicans of how to stop this actual loss.
For the sake of argument, let’s say we shouldn’t “experiment” in the military. We’ve had an integrated workforce for some time now, as well as an integrated military during the period of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. There is no evidence of negative effects stemming from this. Allowing gays to openly serve in the military would have no effect other than to boost their morale. It would probably cause many patriotic young men to consider joining the military and proudly serve their country.
I find your, and many others’ responses to the question saddening. It’s terrible that you would in one statement chide the Dems for “not supporting the troops” and in another suggest that America’s soldiers are not competent and professional enough to leave their genitals off the battlefield. The members of our military are superbly trained and motivated, and do not your hand-holding. Stop using them as pawns in your political agenda.
I’d also like to point out Mitt Romney’s cowardly response to this question, which just shows how indecisive (read “flip-flopping”) and unfit he is for office. Let’s return the favor to him, and put off deciding on whether he should be president until after the war is over!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Coulterfan,
The person that was cheated ON is allowed to leave the marriage. That is way i made that distinction. Hillary would be in the right to leave that immoral abomination that she is married to.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Kahn-
A few more things. Firstly, you DO realize that most of your GOP candidates have identical positions on abortion, but are pandering to the ‘religious right’ for the primary? Don’t you?
Also, NOTHING prohibited YOU and others like you from submitting questions for the YouTube Democratic debate. WOuld that mean that the questions were ‘planted’ by the Republicans? Of course not, you’re an American and have as much right to ask questions of candidates as anyone!
One of the issues is that creative people, YouTube users, and internet-savvy individuals TEND to be more liberal. Witness the recent RNCC contest for YouTube ‘Has the Democratic Congress worked for You?”
Do you realize that they only got FIVE entries? And that ONE was a sarcastic entry submitted by two Democratic dudes? And THEY have a real chance of winning, if the voting is open to all as the RNCC originally envisioned?
And then the RNCC put up a YouTube video for Thanksgiving. They wanted submissions by Republicans of what they were thankful for. . . they got ONE response!
I’m NOT surprised. . . I was a bit surprised that the GOP agreed to this format. It’s like the Democrats doing a debate of questions submitted by NRA members- how do you think THAT would go?
Face it- the Republicans are whining like babies. . . just like they do about the MSM and ‘elitist colleges’, etc, etc Do they think we need ‘affirmative action’ in the entertainment industry, the creative/advertising/music industry, education, journalism, etc?
What if Dems were to suggest that Wall Street bankers are TOO Republican? Don’t you think that there’s an element of self-selection going on? If Republicans WANTED to be teachers making $30,000 a year, why aren’t they doing it?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
>>The person that was cheated ON is allowed to leave the marriage. That is way i made that distinction.
Where did Jesus say this?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Read about the RNCC YouTube contest:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2510
The RNCC promised to post the ‘top five’ entries on its website, but they only got FIVE entries.
Now all mention of the contest is gone from the RNCC’s site.
Still surprised at the tone of the questions at the CNN/YouTube debate?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Jeremiah,
As we’ve discussed before, you’re wasting your time talking to a bunch of Liberal atheists about Jesus.
Their comments aren’t even meant for you. They are meant for others who might read the comments. Democrats are hoping other naive and inattentive Christian readers will fall for and be mislead by the Democrats’ disingenuous “What Would Jesus Do” propaganda scam! They are only using you as an excuse and conduit to post their propaganda.
It’s such a common trick Democrats (Liberals) use on Christians that they’ve even reduced it down to a short acronym — WWJD? — to speed the spread of their propaganda, as “coulterfan” did earlier.
You would do well to teach and tell other Christians about the trick so they aren’t mislead by the lying Democrats!!!
Democrats are no friend of Christians! A vote for a Democrat — ANY Democrat — is a vote for Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, and all the other ultra-Liberal, anti-Christian Democrats and their anti-Christian agenda.
Christians must learn to vote against any and every Democrat — regardless of what they say or do!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
>>A vote for a Democrat — ANY Democrat — is a vote for Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, and all the other ultra-Liberal, anti-Christian Democrats and their anti-Christian agenda.
Funny, but they all identify as Christian. Also funny: if the GOP nominates Romney, Guilliani, etc it is PROOF that social liberalism is winning.
(WWJD? was coined by evangelical Christians who wore T-shirts emblazoned with the letters, bumper stickers, and jewelry. If you are uncomfortable asking the question, you are not really a Christian in practice)
November 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
coulter, well thanks for your concern about who we choose and why. We realize the dilemma. You may have noticed that many here have differing views on who would be best. I don’t like Giuliani and I’m not sure I can trust Romney.
I don’t see much happening on your side ei6ther. Obama refuses to be asked serious questions by serious questioners and instead likes fluff TV.
Hillary has a different position depending on where she is. And frankly appears to have a very dirty behind the scenes campaign both in muck raking and campaign finance.
Edwards is a HUGE hypocrite.
Who else?
But WE did not secretly plant questions by campaign staff and strong identified supporters in YOUR debates. Nope, we didn’t. YOU did. So get off that “we all do it” kick. WE don’t. Your side is scum. Is this the newer and cleaner way you think you’re about?
Defend it. It just hardens us against you.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Who else?
My vote from the start has been for Bill Richardson! He is the only one that has SERIOUS experience.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
>>But WE did not secretly plant questions by campaign staff and strong identified supporters in YOUR debates. Nope, we didn’t. YOU did. So get off that “we all do it” kick. WE don’t. Your side is scum. Is this the newer and cleaner way you think you’re about?
I guess you didn’t read my previous comments. If you have a problem with Democracy and open debates, that’s not MY problem.
Maybe the ‘clean’ Republicans could have had all the questioners sign ‘loyalty oaths’? Or maybe they should pre-approve all the questions?
The DIRTY ones are the ‘Swift-Boat Vets’ and the like (yes, Hillary is fighting dirty and I would vote for McCain over her ANY DAY- but you won’t nominate him) I like Edwards and Obama, as well as Richardson. Any of them would be FAR BETTER than the panderers and crooks on your side (and I’ve voted for Republicans in the past, but Bush and his policies & tactics have REALLY soured me on the whole party)
November 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Joe,
I agree, Richardson is the ONLY Dem candidate with executive experience. The rest are simply wannabes.
On the GOP side, Romney, Giulani and Huckabee have plenty of executive experience.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
150 plus comments so far. Through the course of which some contend that allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military would destroy the military, while others contend that it’s absurd to think so. But no one has asked what the effect has been on other countries that DO allow open homosexuals to serve in their military — countries like Great Britain, Australia, and Israel, just to name a few. In fact, it’s rather hard to find too many solid democracies who don’t. Thus, to suggest that it can’t be done effectively appears, at least on the face of it, to be inaccurate. On the other hand, to suggest there won’t be significant problems along the way is almost certainly wishful thinking as well.
Perhaps I have a different take on the issue than most, because my sister joined the Air Force back in 1971. It wasn’t exactly a popular thing to do at the time. 23 years later she retired as a Major. The Air Force changed her life, and I like to think she helped to change the Air Force. It wasn’t easy for either one of them, but I think both came out better for the experience.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and Declaration of Independence which is the supporting document that justified the Constitution.
We have a fundamental duty to honor the laws of nature, and of natures God. These are some of the basic precepts that our forefathers used to justify creating these United States.
Homosexual conduct is a contradiction of the purpose of sex. Its a perversion of the rightful use of our reproductive systems, and is coerced through the natural lusts that drive us to reproduce by a confusion of purpose. Its can only serve one thing, and that is lust, which is detrimental to the populations of these Great States.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
>>I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and Declaration of Independence which is the supporting document that justified the Constitution.
Obviously, you DON’T believe in the Constitution. No part of it refers to biblical laws or ‘lust’.
Also, it’s obvious that you would forbid oral & anal sex, birth control, etc since they are also NOT for the purpose of procreation.
If you want a theocracy, the USA is NOT for you.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
neocon: I agree, Richardson is the ONLY Dem candidate with executive experience. The rest are simply wannabes.
Is executive experience the only type of experience that qualifies a candidate? What about legislative experience? What about foreign relations experience? What about communicative skills? What about being able to play well with others? Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon had no executive experience. Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, and Clinton did. Given that, it’s hard to say that one single criterion alone made much of a difference. In fact, no matter how you compare presidents in recent times, it’s hard to say any one criterion did. There is, perhaps, one exception: their ability to communicate. But even that one is problematic. It’s just less so than others.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sorry coulterfan,
is this all you have, your best shot at diminishing my beliefs? how heartfelt your diatribe must be, to attack the beliefs of another while you protect sexual perversion
please refer to the place that i cited biblical anything
do you always attack religion to defend perversion like that
the only thing that is obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about
and you have no idea what the principals of this nation were founded upon
November 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
neocon,
Guliani and Romney are the biggest fakes out there. I only way I would even consider voting for them would be against Hillary and even then I probably wouldn’t. I am from Massachusetts… Romney is the worst candidate of the lot regardless of party.
Both Romney and Guliani will say anything they have to for a vote. Repubs often blame Hillary for that (right or wrong), but those two are horrible.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Rico,
foreign relations experience? Richardson has it. He has actually negotiated with foreign countries and he was an ambassador.
able to play well with others? Richardson is from New Mexico, he HAS to work with accross party lines.
communicative skills? He is certainly better than what is in the office right now.
Of the lot, I would say he has the most to offer.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
coulterfan,
They all identify as Christian? Riiiiiiight!!!!!
Their actions, deeds, and votes say otherwise! How many of them would be elected or re-elected if they didn’t say they were Christians? How many do you think would be elected if they called themselves agnostics or atheists? None! Well maybe a couple from California, Massachusetts, or New York!
Anyone can identify themselves as whomever or whatever they choose. Many illegal aliens have false social security numbers and false documents which identify them as American citizens! Many criminals and child molesters are posing as fine, upstanding, citizens of their communities.
Teddy Kennedy says he supports renewable energy… as long as those green windmills are in someone else’s backyard, and not within sight of HIS mansion, and HIS view, or five miles off the coast where he sails HIS yacht!!!
If Romney or Giuliani wins, it is proof that Christians figured out that, if those candidate are necessary to pull enough votes from the moderates to defeat the Democrats, then we’ll work with what we have. The two biggest problems in America today are the liberal controlled public schools and the activist judges. If Giuliani appoints “constitutionalist” judges who will rule and decide as the Constitution and our laws meant and intended, that alone would be a major victory for ALL Americans!
And we don’t need more under-handed lying Democrats who fully intend to grant citizenship to the millions of illegal aliens who broke our laws to get here. Why don’t the Democrats just open the doors of our jails and prisons and grant amnesty to everyone else who has broken our laws?!!!
Because of their beliefs, Christians are very easily manipulated and mislead by you Democrats (Liberals)!
I can only point out what you and those like you are doing. I can’t make Christians see how they are being lied to and scammed by you Democrats (Liberals)!
I will, however, continue to try!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
>>Homosexual conduct is a contradiction of the purpose of sex. Its a perversion of the rightful use of our reproductive systems, and is coerced through the natural lusts that drive us to reproduce by a confusion of purpose.
Where did you get that? Remember, ALL sex which is not for procreation (including masturbation) is explicitly prohibited somewhere in the Bible. I have no problem with your views, but enforcing your beliefs onto others is a violation of the First Amendment.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I am shocked Joe that you would find Romney and Giulani unsavory. Wow. Such an insight.
You must be one of those undecided voters that CNN found on YouTube, right?
Rico, do you find the following credentials enought to assume the POTUS position?
- slightly more than one term in the Senate and married to an former President.
- not quite one term in the Senate previous state representative experience.
- a trial lawyer with one failed term in the Senate.
I wouldn’t vote for anyone of those candidates for dogcatcher.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
>>Homosexual conduct is a contradiction of the purpose of sex. Its a perversion of the rightful use of our reproductive systems, and is coerced through the natural lusts that drive us to reproduce by a confusion of purpose.
>>>>>>Where did you get that? Remember, ALL sex which is not for procreation (including masturbation) is explicitly prohibited somewhere in the Bible. I have no problem with your views, but enforcing your beliefs onto others is a violation of the First Amendment.<<<<
see, i really didnt think you could figure it all out on your own
could you tell us what the purpose of semen is in the lower intestinal track and colin? or about the disparity in STD’s among the homosexual/sodomite population? lets get into the details that speak louder than words, like the fact that the average homosexual will die at an average age of 40….and that 70% of all professing homosexuals carry a deadly disease!!
tell us about nature….there is alot of things that it tells us that you totally ignore while you try to pervert society
November 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
>>>>>ALL sex which is not for procreation (including masturbation) is explicitly prohibited somewhere in the Bible<<<<<<
please, chapter and verse, if you think you know what you are talking about, let us see more than lip service to your false god.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
coulterfan,
Open debates are not the issue. Anyone can ask the questions they choose.
It’s the wolves you Democrats secretly hide among the sheep to ask those questions… without disclosing that fact to CNN, the candidates, and the American public!
It’s the plants you Democrats secretly hide in Hillary’s appearances to ask the carefully chosen and written questions… without disclosing that fact to the American public!
It’s the lies and deceit behind the Democrats’ questions that are the issues… nothing new though!
But, fear not. The Conservative bloggers are getting better by the day at ferreting our and reporting on your Democrat deceit and lies!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
neocon,
I’m assuming you were one of those people that called John Kerry a flipflopper in 2004.
How do you feel about Romney’s flip flops on SO many issues???
November 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I can’t believe this post has over 160 posts to it. Wow.
How do you that are so dead set AGAINST gays in the military feel about these Retired Generals?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1196445784-KGmvZN3xW1R3jzjmYqUwZA
November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Noonan,
Your an idiot. Just because you have others you can point to that are also idiots doesn’t mean you aren’t still an idiot.
I’m being polite here. Really my feelings for you & your views are such that I wouldn’t repeat them in polite company.
Suck eggs you moron.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
As we were endlessly reminded when Gen. Petraeus came to Washington recently, “we must listen to our generals.” However, and I’m just guessing here, I bet that comments after this may reveal that it’s only important to listen to generals that we already want to agree with.
________
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal
“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”
The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.
“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.
The letter’s release comes as rallies are scheduled on the Mall by groups calling for a change in the law, which is known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” because it bars the military from investigating soldiers’ sexual orientation if they keep it to themselves.
Although the signers of the letter are high-ranking, none are of the stature of Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the policy was adopted and who now argues for its repeal. General Shalikashvili refocused attention on the issue earlier this year when he wrote that conversations with military personnel had prompted him to change his position.
The current generation of Americans entering the armed services have proved to him “that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers,” the general wrote in an Op-Ed article published in The New York Times on Jan. 2.
“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” General Shalikashvili wrote. “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”
SOURCE: New York Times, 11/30/07
November 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Oh, wait. I’m sure that many commenters here won’t believe the New York Times. So, here’s the Army Times instead:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Our military policy on sodomites in uniform has been clear and indisputable for over 200 years.
“NO” tolerance.
It works. It worked for our forefathers, and made this nation what it is today. Only Pvt P Puffer wants to change the rules, and only because he lied to gain entrance into the service.
Changing the best military in the world to make a few Pvt P. Puffers happy is not such a good idea.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
That didn’t take long. “js” is first in line to say, “Don’t listen to generals and admirals unless they say what you already agree with!” Congratulations, “js”!
November 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.
It just goes to prove that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy works just fine! There is no problem with homosexuals and lesbians serving as long as they aren’t making a big deal or disrupting others about their sexual preference.
Homosexuals and lesbians who choose to serve, are serving — and they are “enjoying” their lifestyle in the quiet confines of their bedrooms, or barracks, or foxholes, or wherever they choose!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
>>It’s the plants you Democrats secretly hide in Hillary’s appearances to ask the carefully chosen and written questions… without disclosing that fact to the American public!
WTF? To refresh your memory, here are some of the questions from the YouTube Democratic debate:
“I’d like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?”
“To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban.”
“My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up: Are we watching the same blankin’ war? I certainly wasn’t a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? Government’s shaky; bombs daily.
Don’t you think if we pulled out now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who — Russia — how do we pull out now? And isn’t it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?”
“My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, “The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain.”
How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I’d like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you’re just going to flip-flop. Thanks.”
“I’m a proud serving member of the United States military. I’m serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you’re president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that’s a legitimate question.”
You think these were all Democratic supporters? Did you hear the Dems whine and complain the way Republicans are?
November 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
js,
Liberals don’t just want to change and weaken our military… they want to destroy it.
Anyone who doubts that need only read the Democrats’ Left-Wing blogs!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
>>please, chapter and verse, if you think you know what you are talking about, let us see more than lip service to your false god.
Look through the thread, pal. I extensively quoted the Bible verses which prohibit (and call for the death penalty) for adultery, losing one’s virginity without being married, having sex with your wife while she’s menstruating, etc, etc. Moreover, I quoted passages prohibiting sex for pleasure. I could go on and point to verses about ’spilling seed’, etc, etc.
BTW, how does semen in the mouth, stomach, or intestinal track of women aid in procreation?
November 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
coulterfan,
You missed the point…
It’s da plant… da plant… da plant!
It’s the plants you Democrats secretly hide in Hillary’s appearances to ask the carefully chosen and written questions… without disclosing that fact to the American public!
Didn’t you hear the interviews with the college student who asked one of the questions she was given by the Democrat staffers? Didn’t you hear how she was “handed” the question to ask and coached? Didn’t you hear her say there were 4 or 5 others and a large book of questions tailored just for college students (and others)?
And… by sheer coincidence, Hillary just “happened” to “magically” select the plants!!!
Not everyone falls for your lies and misdirection!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
no coulterfan,
evading the answer does not provide anything but proof that you really dont belong debating this issue
the truth is, that if you cant take it to religion, your boat cant float
and the worst part is, that you have absolutly no idea what the bible really says about what you are trying to drag into the issue
your really lame at this point, like i said, your best shot wont even jump start a static charge…
November 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
coulterfan,
Is there any perverted, kinky, abnormal sex you Democrats don’t or won’t support?
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I’m sorry, AAR. “js” beat you to the punch in pointing out that it is only permissible to listen to what generals and admirals say when they’re stating a position you already agree with. Now, I know that someone might misread your post and think that you were paying attention to what the generals and the admirals were saying, but I wanted you to know that you properly ignored their actual knowledge from hundreds of years of combined command experience which led them to call for a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. After all, what do they know about military readiness when compared to you and “js”? Next to nothing, I’d bet!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
>>It works. It worked for our forefathers, and made this nation what it is today.
And segregation worked for a while, right? The same argument ‘it will destroy the morale’, ‘it will ruin the military’, etc were employed by people like you back during integration.
Go ahead and alienate more groups- you’ve already lost African Americans( and are losing Hispanics), have alienated those concerned with women’s reproductive rights (Goldwater’s wife started Planned Parenthood), those who oppose torture, those who are concerned with civil liberties (WTF is a ‘free speech zone’ and where is it mentioned in the Constitution?), the young are increasingly Democratic, etc, etc. . .
If you really want to alienate all those who have gay friends and family members, then go right ahead. Even DICK CHENEY doesn’t agree with you (well, he has a GAY daughter, after all, who just wants to rub her GAYNESS in your FACE!)
I think you’re so upset about the debate because it made the GOP look like a bunch of NUTJOBS!
I wonder why THAT is?!?!?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
>>Is there any perverted, kinky, abnormal sex you Democrats don’t or won’t support?<<
Hey, I can speak only for myself. I’m a STRONG supporter of civil liberties (almost a social libertarian). As long as it occurs between consensual adults and doesn’t harm anyone, I don’t think it’s my business what freaky stuff goes on behind closed doors.
If you want to give Bush a rimjob or let him urinate on you in private, far be it from me to tell you how to express your sexuality.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
And remember that a wife in FL had her husband arrested (and imprisoned for THREE YEARS) for oral sex! She was able to TRAP HIM because sodomy was illegal (for both homo and heterosexual sex) before Lawrence v Texas and she wanted to get everything in the divorce. He lost his job, was classified as a sex offender, lost his home, and spent years in prison.
Is THAT freedom? In Texas and FL, there are STILL laws against sex videos and toys being sold.
How come Republicans only care about freedom with regards to money, but NOT personal freedom? Why do such ‘morality laws’ remind me of the Taliban?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
>>>>That didn’t take long. “js” is first in line to say, “Don’t listen to generals and admirals unless they say what you already agree with!” Congratulations, “js”!<<<<<
if some general had the moral conviction to stand up for what is right, he should have done it before retirement, eh?
so its really useless to debate could haves would haves and should haves that certainly didnt stand up and fight for what they (so you claim) to believe in when it counts the most.
so what, you got some general in a debate and he said screw the rules, we will take anyone who can lift a rifle and shoot at the enemy, its a direct cause of a manpower shortage, in direct context with your generals statement, which you took totally out of context, nor failed to recognize that its not a call accepting sodomites so much as it is filling the rank and file at the bottom of the ladder
such a feeble attemt to pervert the truth, again….
and for the gist of it, if this is the conclusion that you get from my post, you sure did miss alot
November 30th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
>>t’s da plant… da plant… da plant!<<
You have some proof that the question was a ‘plant’? Even if it was (which I doubt- you think the guy was going to support Huckabee? Isn’t he free to choose who to support?), you think the question was not a legitimate question?
It’s ironic that after years of planting questions and handpicking their own audience, the GOP is all up-in-arms suddenly over this!
Were you AS UPSET over Gannon/Guckert? Why was HE visiting the White House so frequently? What WAS he doing there meeting with Rove? I’m SURE you pressed for the records to be released. I’m also sure you were PISSED when you found out the links between Rove and the ‘Swiftboat Vets’. . . and on and on
November 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Is there any way you can discuss the straightforward question posed by Mark at the beginning of this post without working yourself into a frenzy thinking about the particulars of anyone else’s sex life? Frankly, other than being relentlessly bombarded with sexually-tinged news stories on FOXNews, I’m really not terribly interested in what other people do sexually unless it violates a specific criminal law in which case they should be prosecuted for that specific act.
By the way, are you aware of the fact that the White House apparently approves of gay parenting? Here is the photo caption in question (my emphasis added):
They hid the photo pretty well as they probably didn’t want to upset you, but here’s how you can find it. Go to the White House’s website (www.whitehouse.gov), look under May news and end up at an article dated May 23, 2007 which is headlined “President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at United States Coast Guard Academy”. When you arrive at the article and click on any of the embedded photos you will be taken to a page with archived photos one of which is one of the proud grandparents and Samuel David Cheney.
Ouch, that’s gotta sting a bit.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
>>>I think you’re so upset about the debate because it made the GOP look like a bunch of NUTJOBS!<<<<
Now I see the truth. This isnt a debate, in a debate you have to back up your claims with facts, and be able to prove that what you said is the truth. You dont know the truth, you dont even care if its true, you just repeat the same old lines, running from all challenges, and you think it makes you look smart.
It doesnt. You never knew the answers that make your claims the truth, you just cleave to a social disease called gossip and rumor.
You didnt have me fooled for one second. You guys are the results of social experimentation gone haywire, the victims of liars, cheats and thieves, and you still havent figured it out.
good luck, you really need it
November 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Oops, I must correct myself. I must have had a “blonde cow” moment as “Dittohead4Life” so charmingly put it. What I meant to write was, “Frankly, despite being relentlessly bombarded with sexually-tinged news stories on FOXNews…” A subtle difference, perhaps, but there it is. Now, where did I put that salt lick?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
>>It doesnt. You never knew the answers that make your claims the truth, you just cleave to a social disease called gossip and rumor.<>good luck, you really need it
Thanks, but I’m pretty confident that the GOP is going to lose BIG next year. I was right in ‘06 (Mark and Matt kept insisting that NO ONE would be happier than a Republican on election night! LOL!).
However, just the fact that half of your candidates are social liberals (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc) shows that social liberalism has already won! In 20 years you folks will look just like your parents who opposed interracial marriage (and justified their beliefs with religion).
November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Well, “js” (what is it with you people hiding behind pseudonyms?), this wasn’t “some general”. It is twenty-eight (one more than 27 and one less than 29) generals and admirals who, I’m guessing here, you have no knowledge of what their roles in the internal deliberations leading up to the institution of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy were. Would I be wrong? Were you present in any of the meetings? Then, once the law and DoD policy were in place, it was their responsibility to, guess what, support and implement the law and policy! What a concept! A general or admiral following the law and policy while on active duty! Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. How about you?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Took me forever to respond, you cannot be a christian and a practising homosexual. The bible forbids it therefore you must work toward maintaing sexual purity.
Continuing sinning when you know its an abormination is a mockery unto God and its an indication of your inability to be willing to live a life that God has commanded.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
neocon: Rico, do you find the following credentials enought to assume the POTUS position?
As a former putative candidate for dogcatcher, perhaps I can state with some authority (lol!) that no I would not find the credentials you list is, in and of themselves, enough to assume the POTUS. Then again, no short list of credentials is likely to do it for me.
Having said that though, whatever list I am likely to come up with, I’m quite sure that communicative skills will figure into it somewhere. I mean seriously… if you look back over the last century or so, which presidents have been considered both popular and effective? I don’t mean by you, I mean generally. FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, maybe even Bush 43 (although the last isn’t very popular right now)… what did they have in common? They had the ability to make the complex seem simple (or at least to get you to concentrate on the simple at the expense of the complex). More importantly, they had the ability to inspire. There’s more to it than that, of course. But it’s still an important quality. Of the current crop of candidates I would say there are only two that stand out in that regard — Mike Huckabee on the GOP side and Barak Obama on the Dem side. Again, that shouldn’t be considered the only criterion — or even close — but I would argue that it is an important one.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Along with pointing out the White House sneakily acknowledging that Samuel David Cheney’s parents (in the family/emotional sense) are Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, may I also quote at length from the Republican Party Platform? (my emphasis)
As I said, “Ouch, that’s gotta sting a bit.”
November 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
coulterfan:
You are right that in the eyes of God all sin is the same however as a christian you vow to a life of recognising your sin and repenting.
You are right , Jesus never talked about homosexuality however Paul did. Paul was a disciple of Christ, a man who knew Christ well in the bible.
The bible is the reference for most lifestyle choices for Christians and although Jesus did not talk about the issue, it Paul discussed the issue in the new testament and the description of homosexuality ’shameful lust’ and ‘unnatural’ certainly doesn’t imply acceptance.
If you are gay and you happily believe that you can continue to spend the rest of your life living a lifestyle that does not coincide with the word of God. Then fine, jsut know that you cannot be by the side of God is you continue to live and life of sin and you don’t repent.
I don’t believe homosexuality is biblically correct however; I do believe that you noone should discriminate against another or insult them because of their sexual orientation. That is absolutely unacceptable.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Well, you know I’m surprised Bill Clinton put the don’t ask don’t tell policy in pace after reading all the lib posts here.
Since Hilary claims credit for everything Bill did - blame her.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
lilly06,
Thank you for showing what genuine freedom in this country is about. One could quibble a bit about the “insult” part because under some circumstances that could be a free speech issue, however, one can say, as you do, that you believe that people should not act out on being gay or lesbian without shouting insults and preventing them from trying to be law-abiding citizens. That’s the issue in a nutshell.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
>>>Well, “js” (what is it <<<<
out of context, jumping to conclusions, misstating under general terms to obfusciate the meaning at issue, and on and on…
boy, you sure go to extreme measures to not directly face the facts, including perpetually drawing false conclusions to support your gossip mongoring…
November 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
1 Corinthians 6:9-20
Earlier in the thread I threw out the wrong verse. I’m trying to work and blog, its not going to well.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Freedom without responsibility is nothing more than chaos, its not really free at all.
Medical facts prove beyond any reasonable or debatable point that the homosexual lifestyle only harms society.
Nothing your liberal experiments do will change that.
It is, what we call, nature, and the laws of nature make it so.
The average life expectancy of a homosexual is 40 years old.
70% of all homosexuals carry an incurrable, deadly disease as a direct result of thier homosexual lifestyle.
Teaching our children, and thier children after them, that this is a natural human behavior is nothing but a lie.
Homosexuality, is a perversion of the natural purpose of our reproductive organs.
Not one person on this board can defeat that arguement. It is not a religious stance, it is a scientific and solid fact that will never change.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
(Sound of me scratching my head) Well, you got me. I thought I was going to get post # 193 past you but you were far too wily to be taken in by my silly, gossipy notions of how the military chain of command works. I especially liked it when you refuted me with facts instead of characterizations. Oh, wait. You didn’t do that. That’s okay, you’ve still shown me up for the pathetic “gossip mongor” that I am.
Oh, and “js”, about this “scientific and solid fact” that you claim, to wit:
I don’t guess you’d care to cite any government sources for these “facts”, say, the Centers for Disease Control or the Surgeon General’s Office? Hmm? Do, please, take your time. No hurry. We’ll wait.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Js
you are right, the Social Security problem would not be as bad if the libs weren’t killing all the babies and trying to turn everyone gay.
Think about it?
The baby boomers are the largest segment of the population. Why? abortion and homosexuality is keeping the population from expanding at the rate it should. So to make up the difference we have been flooding the country with illegals.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Diane:
I’m not going to try and prove that ‘I don’t dislike gay people, I have gay friends’.
The fact is I respect people for being people, whatever they are. Fact is, I clearly understand the division between state and religion.
I believe in equal opportunity federal rights. I agree that gay couples should be recognised in a civil union according to the law and provided with exactly the same rights as married couples. I believe in job opportunities and all opportunies should be same however; religious beliefs don’t stem from the law.
My beliefs stem from the bible and the bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
JS-
Where do you get your 70% figure of gays carrying aids? Please direct me to the link. That number seems high.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I must admit, I’m really curious about someone like “AAR”, “js”, “Dittohead4Life” or “neocon” hitchin’ up their pants and saying something about the Bush White House apparently approving of gay parenting (post # 189) which would seem to be highly relevant to Mark’s original post. So far, it’s just crickets chirping that I hear.
By contrast, “lilly06″ has once again shown how one can hold firm to your religious convictions without trying to prevent others from trying to lead law-abiding lives. That’s class! In fact, I’d dare say, that’s the American way!
November 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Diane-
AAR, Dildohead4life, JS et al. are just old straight men who are fearful that gay is a disease that is contageous and that all gays want to hump them no matter how old and decrepit they may be.
Live and Let Live People. Isn’t that a conservative value?
November 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”15
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
November 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Eric, “you are right, the Social Security problem would not be as bad if the libs weren’t killing all the babies and trying to turn everyone gay. ”
again… are you serious or being sarcastic?
November 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
>>>>>Where do you get your 70% figure of gays carrying aids? Please direct me to the link. That number seems high.<<<<<
Not just aids, but all incurable STD’s…ie…hepatitus, syphilus etc…was a medical study i read this summer….trying to find it again patience.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
November 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
What a coincidence. CNN doesn’t know that this general is a plant and the NYT run this 28 general/admiral thing a day later.
Conservatives - stop talking about it. We’ve been set up and we’re being conned.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
so what if he is gay. x-marine
November 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
coulterfan,
Da plant… da plant… da plant!
Who asked the rest of those prepared questions? Will they keep their mouths shut and do as they were told? How much more deceit is hidden behind Hillary’s woodwork???
But we already know Hillary can not be trusted!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
In addition, during my 26 years as a Richardson (TX) police officer I served with many officers who were in the Corps and I don’t think any of them would ever refer to themselves as a “former” Marine.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
js,
I’ll keep that link handy.
Typhoid Mary millions of times over!!! Sounds like it’s only a matter of time before the next drug resistant disease breaks out — AIDS II perhaps? Just imagine the cost to the American healthcare system. No wonder it’s nearly bankrupt.
Sounds like a good question for Hillary to answer during the next debate! I’m sure Hillary will want to do something to stop those costs!!!
Do we really want to impose those health risks and costs on our military? We need healthy troops to protect America and our families!!!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Diana,
So your idea of being “in” the military is being a Junior member of the Bryan Adams High School ROTC!
I’ll bet those Al Qaeda insurgents were a real threat! And those road side IED’s…
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Ouch marine. Smack down by Diana. You go girl.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Diana - bull, you know the ex-Marine thing was the insult and former Marines call themselves that. You must have been a crappy cop. fondled babies I bet.
OK Coulter, look what were talking about? The planted question. What were the others? The non-planted ones?
And what about the fake Republican focus group.
Your party is dishonest. Admit it, ot=r be part of it.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I don’t care if these women want to jam their private parts together.
Wow. Uhhh…you do know that that whole “scissoring” thing on South Park was a joke, right?
95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.
Yeah, but the Catholic Church paid the families of the diddled altar boys, so everything’s OK now.
I take it all you good wingnuts have told Britain, Australia, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, that we would rather not fight alongside them because they have debased their militaries by allowing openly gay individuals to serve, right? I mean, how can American troops be expected to fight alongside some Israeli who might package-check them?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Why is don’t ask don’t tell not good enough?
What changes do you want them to make?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
What would make you happy an all gay brigade, or an all gay navy ship? Where are you pro gay debaters trying to get to?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Eric T,
It’s not complicated. All that should be done is to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” so that those few American men and women, tall and short, blue-eyed and brown-eyed, beer drinkers and teetotalers who also happen to be gay or lesbian can, if they choose, serve their country as a member of the armed forces without having to fear that someone will try to out them and have them hounded out of the service. Most lesbian women and most gay men won’t choose the military, just as most straight men and straight women don’t, but for those who do they just want the opportunity to do so without having to live in fear of someone finding out something that they might not even want to talk about in the first place and having that discovery place their service membership in jeopardy. At the same time, all Americans would be able to know that the armed forces of the United States are drawing their strength from the greatest number of honest, smart, tough and patriotic citizens.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Diana,
You are the one who has some how concluded that White Policy was inscribed and announced on the caption of a photo embedded so far down in a website that it took you 7 lines of text to tell us how to find it, should we have the desire to do so — which I don’t! You are the one who is so excited, enthusiastic, and “chomping at the bit” about discussing the issue.
Children are best raised in a normal and traditional family, with two parents consisting of a female mother and male father. I do not support or approve of “gay marriage”. I am opposed to subsidizing and paying “welfare families” to produce more kids to be raised by taxpayers. I have talked about that before; although, mostly on Tom DeLay’s blog as I recall.
As I have said before, all fertility related treatments and procedures — including in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs — should be stopped unless fully covered by private health insurance (certified and verified by the doctor) which covers all possible costs for the procedure and any long term health care, up and including lifelong care. That includes all costs for the procedure and all complications; any and all extended or lifelong hospitalization and care; all costs related to the care of mother; and all costs related to the delivery and care of the children, all possible complications and birth defects, all subsequent surgeries and corrective procedures, and any extended or lifelong care of the mother and/or children.
As for Vice President Cheney, I would have chosen and voted for him as president as my first choice, and still would. I do not agree with him on every issue, but I do on most. As far as his family situation, he has to play the hand he was dealt. In view of how it’s been handled, I have no ill feelings against him, his family, his daughter, or his grand children; although, that might surprise you.
He has not made a major issue of his daughter, and he has not actively tried to force gay marriage on America, or tried to trash traditional American families and values.
In general, I admire and support Vice President Cheney.
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
There you go, AAR. Making your viewpoint known without resorting to juvenile insults. Thank you. Do you think that the fact that the White House did bury the photo and its caption so far out of sight says anything about its obvious conflict with the Republican Party platform? Also, do you think that the Vice-President’s obvious degree of acceptance of his daughter’s partner, Heather Poe, has implications for whether or not the United States armed forces are ready for a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? That was why I brought it up to start with.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Diana,
Leave the military to the real men and women to run! All that needs to be done is to leave “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” just the way it is!
Democrats (Liberals) work best at enslaving millions of Americans in welfare; attacking America’s culture and traditions; attacking Christians, Christmas, and crosses; indoctrinating and brainwashing America’s children in the public schools and liberal universities; and in dividing and destroying America through their overzealous and misguided “diversity”!
Have you heard that some men are now getting plastic surgery to look more like real men! It’s time America returns to raising boys to be men, and girls to be women!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ricorun,
You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it’s wrong.
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Casper, Ricorun,
If you would prefer, I can change my tone and approach!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Casper: Just a little sexist don’t you think?
Ya think? Lol!
AAR: You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it’s wrong.
I am, as are you. But more important is what others think of them.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
AAR, I’m not clear on what this sentence means in relation to your belief that “don’t ask, don’t tell” should not be repealed. Are you implying that gay men and lesbian women aren’t “real” human beings? If so, how do you define “real” precisely. Also, what exactly are American parents as a group doing that means they’re not “raising [their] boys to be men, and girls to be women”.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Diane,
How would you feel about segregating them?
By repealing don’t ask don’t tell, that would allow them to speak openly and freely about their sexuality. and that is, all they want? It don’t sound like that is too much to ask for.
I’m against it.
I’d bet that if there was a large scale war, they’d let it slide, they also would probably be arming people from jails, young kids too.
I see removing Don’t ask don’t tell as Sexual Harassment. If I was working in an office with a bunch of women and I started discussing sexual things, and they felt grossed out or offended or threatened. They could bringforth charges of sexual harassment and lawsuits. Open gayness would be the same thing as discussing material and subject matter that makes people feel real offended and uncomfortable. I see it as no different than the office discussion. And with the added factor of showering and sleeping in the same room I can understand why these guys would feel nervous about the open gayness. They have had problems for years with gays. They put saltpeter in the food to keep down the guys sex drive. I’m sure the gays feel, don’t ask don’t tell is a better opportunity for them than the old policy, that was a complete ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Getting back to a comment I made a while ago (#156), the question of gays in the military isn’t exactly a question that has to be asked in a complete vacuum. There are, after all, many other countries that currently accept openly gay individuals into their militaries. Isn’t it a legitimate question to ask what their experiences were — and are?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
The bottom line IMO on this whole debate is simple.
I want the best and the brightest soldiers out there defending me and my family. I don’t care about sexual preference, sex, religion, race, etc.
IMO what makes our country great and why in the long run we will prevail is because we accept and use all of our people. My daughters served their tours in Iraq with members of every race, creed, and sexual preference out there. Our enemies chose not to use the talents of over half their populations.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Diana,
Considering how many times you made mention of the photo, it was obvious you wanted to say something about it, so I obliged. You could just as well have discussed in yourself, but it was also apparent you did not want to talk about it without someone else giving you the “opening”. My guess is you were looking for a more adversarial confrontation. I’ll save that for something with more substance.
I believe the White House handled the situation tactfully and effectively — as demonstrated by the fact that you had to bring it up to get some attention. Had Vice President Cheney or his daughter taken a gay activist approach and made a big deal and public issue of it, I would not be so willing to let the issue lie! I don’t relate the photo to any attempt to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military. Apparently you do.
Not every American is so willing to embrace gay marriage as you Liberals, but you know that. As I have said before, I do not support gay marriage, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of America… just as I don’t believe the rest of the Liberal Agenda is in the best interest of America. I firmly believe that Liberals are destroying America, and if not stopped, they will succeed in relegating America to a third rate nation — an equal among the weak.
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
AAR: I firmly believe that Liberals are destroying America, and if not stopped, they will succeed in relegating America to a third rate nation — an equal among the weak.
Where do you rate Israel?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
” I firmly believe that Liberals are destroying America, and if not stopped, they will succeed in relegating America to a third rate nation — an equal among the weak.
AAR”
There are those that believe the same about conservatives.
IMO what will makes us great and will continue to make us great is when people from both sides come together with the best ideas from both sides.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Ricorun,
I’m more interested in those who share my opinions, or at least a significant portion of them. Those are the ones I would like to see get organized and motivated. There are several here who do. It may take a Hillary victory to really get them motivated and fired up!
It’s really a waste of time talking to the ultra-Liberals who post here; although, I do learn quite a bit about their opinions, views, ideology, methods, tactics, and techniques. It also gives me a chance to bounce comments and ideas off of them and see how they react. It helps me to test and refine my ideas too — sort of like free analysts!
I don’t put you and Casper in the ultra-Liberal category (most of the time anyway); although, we don’t agree on many of the issues!
Where do you rate Israel?
In which way? I fully support Israel; although, if I were them, I would continue to develop my own separate nuclear and military capability, and not count on America’s support should Liberals (Democrat) be in power when they really need our help, and when it comes down to some hard decisions.
If I were any of our allies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others, I would not rely or count on the United States for military support and security because of the risk that Liberals might be in control just when another nation’s security or even existence depends on our support. I would develop my own nuclear weapons and missiles, independently of the United States.
On Iran? Israel may have to do what we can’t or won’t! In that case, I would make sure they have everything they need to do our job!
I think Democrats (Liberals) have made the likelihood of a nuclear exchange much more likely — sooner or later!
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
ricorun,
AAR has a point, approx. 3,700 abortions a day here in the U.S. That is destroying about 1,350,000 million a year. That is a holocaust. The baby boomers are not going to have the workers to put into social security. If an average worker puts about $4000 per year in. x 1,350,000. The amount of money that the U.S loses out on is $5,400,000,000 a year.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Diana,
I’m not clear on what this sentence means…
Noted.
AAR
November 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“I don’t put you and Casper in the ultra-Liberal category” AAR
Darn I wish I would have known that earlier. I indoctrinated 3 students into homosexuality and satanism in your name today. LOL
Ok, I was just kidding. I’m just thrilled that 90% of my students can identify all of the providences of Canada. Guess I will have to save my best indoctrination for next week.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
AAR: In which way? I fully support Israel;
I guess I wasn’t completely clear on that. One moment we were talking about gays in the military and suddenly it skipped off into gay marriage. Could that be considered a tangent?
Lol! I’m kidding. And it wasn’t fair to you. More to the point, it seems like a perfectly reasonable tangent to me. But anyway, I was referring to Israel’s attitude about gays in the military. Do you support their decision to allow openly gay individuals to serve in their military?
You made the comment that you fear America will become a third rate nation. Which nations would you rate in the first and second tiers?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Eric T: AAR has a point, approx. 3,700 abortions a day here in the U.S…
Did I miss something? How did we get from gays in the military to abortion economics? If any two concepts could properly be described as being tangentially related at best, I’m guessing those would have to be in the running.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:32 am
Casper: Welcome to my world. That’s what I do every day. the difference is you do it with adults on this blog (and you do a very good job), I do it with jr. high kids.
You left me an opening big enough to drive a truck through. But I’m not going there. Be that as it may, have I told you yet that I like the way you think? Lol!
The good news is that most most people on both levels are willing to think if challenged. The bad news is that there are some people who are unable or unwilling to think regardless of any evidence that is presented. That is sad, and you see it on both sides.
I agree with every point you make here. But it’s pretty much the members in the first part I try to address — the ones that are willing to think if challenged. And most definitely there are others on both sides who can’t or won’t. But they don’t interest me much. I already have a choir I can preach to who, for at least five minutes at a time, will hang on my every word: Sally and Sirocco, my dogs. I can stretch it out to ten if I have something savory in either hand. Metaphorically speaking, is preaching to any choir really any different?
You might have to think about that one for a minute, lol!
December 1st, 2007 at 12:44 am
AAR: Casper, Ricorun, If you would prefer, I can change my tone and approach!
Don’t do it for Casper or me. If you’re going to do it, do it for the fat lady.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:30 am
The wackiness is at fever pitch today.
First, I like this quote from resident theologian Jeremiah:
“Well, I’m not afraid of homosexuals, but I would warn others, that 95% of all molestations of young boys have been homosexuals.”
And where did you get this information Jeremiah? I am guessing thin air.
And then there is AAR who compares gays to vermin and then tries to claim he isn’t homophobic. Is AAR ignorant of the fact he reinforced my argument or is he aware of it merely saying such horrendous things to make my head hurt? Only he knows.
But he did prove me wrong on one point. He doesn’t just have a phobia against homosexuals, he actually hates them.
Ah, B4V, you slay me.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:52 am
Kahn: But I wrote early on I don’t care if gays are in the military. Nope, don’t care.
Yes you did. Perhaps you should have stopped there — before you added the part about DP being a crappy cop who fondled babies. And I’m the dumbass?
By the way, which two gay Republican Senators were you referring to? I can think of only one. And was homosexuality the big issue, or was it the hypocrisy involved?
December 1st, 2007 at 7:03 am
>>>>>AAR, Dildohead4life, JS et al. are just old straight men who are fearful that gay is a disease that is contageous and that all gays want to hump them no matter how old and decrepit they may be.
Live and Let Live People. Isn’t that a conservative value?<<<<<<<
Consider this. Most homosexual organizations moving to change our view on sodomy and thier ilk, at one time accepted close affiliation with NAMBLA. The North American Man Boy Love Association has its roots deep in those organizations, common members and still deny thier involvement, yet, the results of the work they do are orchestrated toward the same goals. We note this by thier actions, not denials.
Most High Schools in the nation have GLAAD clubs. Middle/Jr Hi Schools are getting them. Teachers as low as 1st -3rd grade are pressured into allowing homosexual books in thier classes, many times throught threats and intimidation by School Boards and Lawsuits by homosexual organizations.
Look up “fistgate” on the internet, an event exposed to the whole world about the inevitable, the conclusion of obfusciating sexual behaviors of human beings to children who are pliable and impressionable.
Whats before your eyes is written in the blood of our children. And when the roots of generations are rotted by immorality and perversion, the tree will fall.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am
If you aren’t against it you are for it!
If you support, want, and believe in “gay marriage”… then support the gay agenda!
If you do not openly and actively oppose the DEMOCRATS’ GAY AGENDA then YOU ARE in effect SUPPORTING the gay agenda — and YOU ARE voting for GAY MARRIAGE!!!
If you sit complacently by and allow the DEMOCRATS to push their GAY AGENDA on America, then YOU ARE SUPPORTING the inevitable DEMOCRAT GOAL of FORCING GAY MARRIAGE on America!
If YOU want “GAY MARRIAGE”… then support open homosexuality in the military and everywhere else.
DEMOCRATS won’t stop with “what people do in their bedrooms are their own business”… DEMOCRATS will shove those bedroom activities in YOUR FACE and WIPE YOUR FACE IN THEM!!!
WAKE UP people… this is just the NEXT STEP toward GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!
A vote for HILLARY or ANY DEMOCRAT is a vote FOR GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Kahn,
I agree that this is a debate (when it doesn’t devolve into childish insults) about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So what difference does it make that Bill Clinton was President when it was instituted? This would seem by your lights to be a perfect reason to eliminate it because everything Bill Clinton ever did as President was bad. Isn’t that the stance of virtually every “conservative”?
As to whether their were any “planted” questions in any of the debates, what difference should this make? A candidate for the office of President should be able to handle any question posed to them at any time. Where did this totally bizarre notion come from that Presidents and potential Presidents have to be spoon-fed questions so as not to tax their little minds? Also, do you honestly think that planted questions are new? Did you not pay any attention to the news about the entirely fake FEMA news conference?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
js and ARR,
You might want to check out this site.
http://www.crayola.com/
Just so you know that the world isn’t Black and White only.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Oh, my goodness. AAR and js are getting just a tad overwrought.
Here, let me utilize your own methodology, js.
There you go. Completely unsupported assertion posted.
I know. I know. You’re just waiting to tell us about how you learned all this from Catholic Apologetics International just like your alleged statistics about how gay men have an average life expectancy of 40. As the dictum goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” You have to use facts from at least potentially neutral sources and reasonable inferences from those facts. Just parroting something from World Net Daily without attribution doesn’t count.
Sorry.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Casper,
What, is Crayola pushing “gay marriage” to the children too?!!!
What “color” of crayon would they use to represent that? A greenish, yellowish, brownish mixed color crayon?
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Diana,
The Democrats’ push now is to put homosexual books in America’s schools and classrooms, including and especially the lowest grades where their indoctrination and brainwashing will have the greatest effect!!!
KEEP YOUR homosexual agenda and activities in YOUR BEDROOM and KEEP THEM OUT of OUR SCHOOLS!!!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am
AAR,
Evidence…evidence…
You’re getting yourself all worked up again without citing any sources. I count six exclamation points. I promise. The boogeyman is not going to get you and there isn’t a monster under your bed.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Diana,
The fact that you have your head buried doesn’t change facts nor the Democrat’s ultimate goal.
Nor does it change the fact that Liberals like you want to keep people in the dark until it’s too late to stop your agenda!
I’m sure you missed the text book issue in California. Do you need the information on that too?
I’ll bet you’d deny that Christians and Christmas is under attack too!
I don’t have the time right now to start listing all of the links. Perhaps you can do some Googling on your on. The evidence is their if you can understand it — which I doubt!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Rico #253 asked if you missed something.
I was referring to AAR in #245 suggesting that Liberals are destroying America.
The abortion stats I threw out there, are to confirm that AAR is right, Liberals really are destroying The U.S.A.
I think anyone who loves the United States of America needs to stand up against the Homosexual Agenda and Liberalism before it destroys our country.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Eric T,
DEMOCRATS (Liberals) are destroying far more than that. The are destroying our values, our morals, our culture, our initiative, our competitiveness, and everything else that has made America the great nation it is.
DEMOCRATS will start next — they already have — weakening and destroying our military. Democrats do now want America to remain as the only remaining superpower — they want American to be “equal” with the rest of the third rate nations of the world — by weakening and reducing America to their level… to that of the rest of the world’s third rate nations — governed by the America-hating United Nations!
The sad fact is Americans are allowing them to do just that!
Until and unless we get a united, motivated, and aggressive Right Wing to stand up and fight for America, it is a nation headed for ruin and the history books — pushed that way by Democrats (Liberals)!
Either a person is a strong minded, pro-American or you are a weak minded, welfare-enslaving DEMOCRAT (Liberal)!
Choose your side!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
AAR,
Really, what is the deal with hiding behind pseudonyms? I don’t get it.
Anyway, let us examine the judge’s actual writing in this case rather than some news interpretation of that writing, shall we:
Hmm, he dismissed their federal claims because he followed precedent. Funny, I thought judge’s were supposed to follow precedent. I wonder if that leaves the plaintiffs with no possibility of further action?
Oops, looks like that mean federal judge explicitly wrote that they can pursue their action in state court. Now, why would he do that?
I guess he thinks that if the plaintiffs want to complain about actions by the Lexington School Board perhaps the more appropriate venue is a court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Wow. What utter judicial tyranny.
And what was the “indoctrination” in question?
Source: Memorandum and Order re: David Parker, et al v. William Hurley, et al available at http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov.
So, in sum, the parents of Jacob Parker and Joey Wirthlin chose to live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The parents of Jacob Parker and Joey Wirthlin chose to do this knowing that the Commonwealth recognizes gay marriage. The parents of Jacob Parker and Joey Wirthlin chose to send their children to public school when they have two other options in avoiding the public school curriculum. The parents of Jacob Parker and Joey Wirthlin chose not to join with others to change, through the vote, the composition of the Lexington school board so as to have the power to change the curriculum they object to. So, all of this constitutes an infringement of their freedom? Sounds to me like they’ve chosen not to exercise their genuine freedoms. You’re going to have to do better than that.
(Note: Going to the source material is called research. “Googling” news stories from World Net Daily is not. FYI)
Also, considering the fact that all three of my older brothers, who all served in the Armed Forces of the United States (post # 219), and I, who spent 30 years working the streets as a police officer in Texas (four of them as an unpaid volunteer with the Dallas Police Department), all have and will vote for Democrats, I will ignore this
as the baseless, hysterical libel that it is. All four of us took oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this United States of America and put ourselves in harm’s way to do it. Your outburst sadly dishonors the cause you claim to serve.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Diana,
Cut through the legal garbage…
Let’s read the results, the bottom line, and the net effect of the ruling!
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ORDERED the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ORDERING that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for PUBLIC SCHOOLS to TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN to accept and ENDORSE HOMOSEXUALITY.
And just to KEEP IT THAT WAY, DEMOCRATS and make sure Liberals can spread their propaganda to our chiildren DEMOCRATS BLOCK EFFORTS to give parents School Vouchers!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Diana,
Perhaps you can tell us how the people of Massachusetts “voted” for gay marriage in the first place!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Diana,
I am being civil, I haven’t said what I really think about people with loony ideas like yours!
If it were my blog, I’d have put an end to your Liberal agenda propagandizing long before now.
Since that won’t happen, the next best thing is to see just how far people like you will go in tossing out America’s traditional beliefs, values, morals, and lifestyles… while cramming your own agenda down their throats.
I’m certainly glad we don’t have any police like you in this area. You’d probably TASER anyone who didn’t bow down to your god of Liberalism and embrace gay marriage or whatever other abnormal, deviant, or perverted sexual activity you choose at the moment.
As I asked before, is there any abnormal, deviant, or perverted sexual activity you Liberals won’t support or claim as a right? How long will it be before you claim it is a child’s right to engage in deviant sex with an adult. If Europe approves, I’m sure Liberals will be pushing that in America too. And we wouldn’t want to impose on the rights of those Liberals to engage in bestiality, would we? How long before you Liberals start demanding schools force Christian children to learn about that perverted and deviant sex?
YOU actually believe it is YOUR RIGHT to use public schools to teach young kids about YOUR sexual practices and lifestyle — but object to any mention of God, Intelligent Design, and even Christmas trees!
There was another person who believed in using the public schools like you do… HITLER!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
So, Diana,
What part of this interpretation do you assert is untrue?
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ORDERED the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ORDERING that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for PUBLIC SCHOOLS to TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN to accept and ENDORSE HOMOSEXUALITY.
What’s the problem? You don’t want the American people to hear the real truth in black and white — in easy to understand plain English?
You would prefer the truth covered and hidden in your Liberal wrapper of “political correctness”… like you Democrats (Liberals) use “partial birth abortion” instead of calling what it really is… murder: poking a hole in the baby’s skull, sucking out it’s brains, and collapsing it’s skull so it can be pulled out ["intact"] except for it’s brain!
You Liberals whine and scream because the Supreme Court agreed with the people that you cannot kill the kid that way — even though your assembly line abortion “practitioners” are still permitted to cut the baby into chunks and remove them in pieces!
But even that is not enough for you DEMOCRATS — LIBERALS — just as your weren’t satisfied with keeping your own sexual techniques and practices in your own bedroom. YOU must force your own sexual practices into the public schools and indoctrinate they youngest children with YOUR sex ideas!
Why don’t you Democrats tell the American people what YOU really stand for… especially those Christians you work so hard to trick and fool with your lying propaganda — but then lying isn’t a sin in the religion of Liberalism???
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
AAR,
I appreciate your not calling me names directly but I still haven’t seen even an acknowledgment of your libel of me and my brothers in regard to our service to preserve and defend this great nation.
Your notion that quoting the actual words of the judge’s ruling constitutes not wanting “the American people to hear the real truth in black and white — in easy to understand plain English” is very odd. I placed a link to the court’s website so you or anyone else could go there and read the entire opinion if you wanted. It’s not hidden. It’s not mumbo-jumbo. It’s part of open government.
You’re obviously literate. Do you have such a low opinion of the reading skills of the people who read this blog that you believe they can’t read the words of the ruling and understand it themselves without having it filtered through your interpretation or the interpretation of whatever the hidden source you keep quoting is?
Let’s go to what I assume you think is the money quote here
Firstly, this was an effort of the Lexington School system. That was the school system that is local to where the plaintiffs lived. The plaintiffs chose not to try to change the school system by trying to change the composition of the governing body through the vote. Instead, they chose to try to club the school district over their collective heads with the perceived power of the federal court. Well, the choice they made didn’t work out for them so now they may, if they choose, do other things using the individual responsibility they have as parents and citizens. Why do you keep downplaying their responsibilities?
Now, according to you, the words “understand and respect” don’t mean what they plainly mean. What you say they mean is this
Tell me exactly how “understand and respect” got translated into “accept and endorse” except in your overheated imagination? I don’t consider myself to be any kind of genius but I can “understand and respect” the modern version of Republicanism without “accepting” it as true or “endorsing” it to anyone else. It’s not an attack on Republicans to say that I don’t normally accept their positions or endorse their beliefs. I can do that and live my life without being in panic that there are also Republicans in the world. It’s really not that hard if you get your mind off sex and body parts.
Wow. Tell me exactly how that’s being done with the materials that were complained about by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit? I saw nothing about sexual practices at all. The books depicted examples of the kinds of families, mostly conventional, that exist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a story of a “prince marrying a prince”. I freely admit I’m willing to be proven wrong here, but my money says that neither of these elementary school books had any mention of any kind of any kind of sexual activity in them. What do you think or were you depending on the elementary school kids being as obsessed with sexuality and body parts as you are?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Diana,
I can keep posting for days examples of your Liberal indoctrination and brainwashing…
EXACTLY the way HITLER used the children!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
By the way, are you familiar with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but, rather truthful Godwin’s Law“? I’ll refer you back to your posts # 278 and # 282 in quoting the law
I just thought that was interesting.
Oh, you wondered what’s going on in Texas these days. Well, it’s pretty much a normal life where the average person doesn’t think or talk about theirs or others sex lives and body parts. You know, just trying to get by like every other American.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
commitment, honesty, integrity, respect, dignity
Those are the standards of our military, along with courage, Ricorun!!
Let’s not trash our military by allowing Sodomites to join.
~ Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 6:33 pm
World Net Daily, April 29, 2007…
Indoctrinate the children! ~~~Right out of Hitler’s playbook!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Diana,
The fact is, there has to be laws of Morality, if not, then God will judge the Nation accordingly. And like I’ve said, regardless of what others think, Sodomites don’t belong in the Military. At all. Period.
Homosexuality is a mental sickness. Sodomites should not be honored by granting them a position in our honorable armed forces. Their only entitlement should be as citizen, nothing more, nothing less.
There are good people out there that are hindered from joining the armed forces because of the demented people there.
–Let’s restore honor and dignity to –our Honorable Military and make it -a law that homosexuals do not –belong in the Military.
~~Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
AAR,
Well, thanks for at least identifying what you’re quoting. The story shows features indicating that it’s not a neutral news story, but, at best, what might be called “advocacy news”. For example, a neutral journalist wouldn’t use phrases like these:
“…advises teachers to promote homosexuality…”
“…distributed by homosexual activists…”
“The homosexual activist strategy…”
I have no idea who the “Camenker” is who is talking to World Net Daily and the entire paragraph quoting “one unidentified teacher” is automatically suspect given its length and inflammatory language. Frankly, on this particular topic, no one would expect World Net Daily to be able to muster an objective viewpoint.
So, what do you know of the actual material in question other than you’ve been told to believe by World Net Daily?
P.S. I guess you kind of missed my comment about Godwin’s Law. Are you actually aware of how the Nazis treated gays and lesbians before they were defeated by the Allies? They were shipped to the extermination camps right alongside the Jews, the Roma and the Slavs.
P.P.S. I’m all for being being energized. You might want to check out the current issue of the National Review, though. Even they think the GOP is in for some hard times.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Diana,
“…cannot under any circumstance…”
Come on, get real! Don’t feed us that line of bull! You if anyone should know laws can be changed… by a single judge’s vote, even over the will of the majority of the people!!!!!
Up until the vote of a single Massachusetts judge, homosexuals couldn’t “marry”! Up until recently, children couldn’t not be indoctrinated and brainwashed in our schools embrace homosexuality!
All it takes is changing “public” opinion, “changing social values” as you Liberals like to say, and even a judge can change our laws and in effect amend the Constitution. It doesn’t even have to be in America, as your Liberal Supreme Court judges have ruled in a death penalty decision. It may just be changing views of other nations around the world. Those judges should have been impeached and thrown out on the street, but the American people have been lead to believe that’s what the Constitution means… by a bunch of Liberals mis-educators!
Some Conservatives were trying to get the age raised. Maybe they have. I haven’t checked that yet, but if it can be raised, it can be lowered.
What’s a child? Whatever suits a Liberal at the moment!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
AAR: World Net Daily, April 29, 2007…
Don’t you have any other source than World Net Daily?
On another note, you go to the trouble of putting you quotations in block quotes, so you’re obviously copying and pasting. How hard would it be to copy and paste the freakin’ address line along with it? The excuse that “I don’t have the time right now to start listing all of the links” is total BS.
That’s one thing to be embarrassed about. Another is that you have employed just about every ad-hominem attack available in the ad-hominem arsenal. Tasers? Jeepers, what nonsense. And how many times can you dip into Godwin’s law without being completely embarrassed? I gave you some credit for having some smarts. Others have said plenty of really dumb things, and I don’t take them to task even when they keep it up. Because, well… handsome is as handsome does, I guess you could say. But in your case I KNOW you know better. You even offered to change your tone and approach. In response I suggested that you do it for a higher purpose than to please Casper or me — do it for the fat lady. You even mentioned it. But did you ever check that out? Whether you did or not you continued being relentlessly obnoxious. And that’s really why I am so disappointed. I realize you’re driven more by ideology than just facts and reason, and you’ve also openly espoused a proclivity for propaganda. But at least you’ve shown a modicum of integrity in the past. Not on this thread though. You’ve been awful. Really awful.
And really, what makes you think you’re going to win some kind of “civil war of words” if all you come to the battlefield with is pure, unadulturated bullshit? Without a little meat behind them those cow pies just aren’t gonna stick. I almost hate to say this for fear that it will be grossly misunderstood but… you need to study Almiranta a lot more.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
AAR,
What does the age of consent in Canada have to do with Gays serving in our military?
BTW, I’m still waiting for some links to studies showing that all of this indoctrination is causing children to turn gay.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
AAR: Oh, I am still holding back and being “civil”, even if you might not think so!
You’re right, I don’t think so. But thanks for the warning. I can hardly wait.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
AAR,
Okay, you’ve gotten a little far afield from the original topic. So, since you’re so anxious to cite the “will of the people”, what is your view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia? Should they have left Pace v. State of Alabama intact? Information about both is widely available on the web, so you should be able to do a little quick research. They both go right to the heart of your anxieties about “the will of the people” and who gets to marry.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Ricorun,
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121905.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/19/sex-tourism.html
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
As I said, some Conservatives are trying to get the age raised, but I haven’t seen where that has actually occurred. I read some sites complaining about attempts to raise the age.. Canada being more liberal and “progressive” (and more enlightened) than the United States.
As for the rest of your “observations”… noted!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Casper,
Nothing, gays don’t belong in the Military, someone stupid made the law that gays are allowed in our Military. Whoever done it is just plain stupid!!! Period.
Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Remember they were kicking the Sodomites out of the Military when they found out they were Sodomites, and then Bill Clinton introduced the law–”don’t ask, don’t tell”
Bill Clinton is a scumbag.
Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Diana,
You decide if those rulings were Constitutional or not — not whether they were the correct, human, or moral thing to do.
The issue is, did the judges rule as the Constitution intended, or did they in effect change the meaning and, by “de facto”, amend the Constitution? If the judges correctly interpreted the Constitution and applied it accordingly, then their rulings would be proper, legal, and Constitutional. If not, then a change should have been made to the Constitution as stated in the Constitution itself — and the ruling is subject to change by future judges!
I haven’t read them, or the opinions of others, and as I said before, there is nothing to be gained by me wasting my time researching them, and discussing them!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Ricorun,
Not expecting you to wait, hold your breath, or even care.
You were the one stating that I “ought to be embarrassed”, and you “have never seen such a shameful tirade”.
Apparently you have lead a sheltered life. In that case, visit some left wing blogs and pose as a Christian, Conservative, Republican, or worst of all, a supporter of President Bush… if they even allow you to make any posts at all.
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Casper,
Not on my list of things to do. You got my answer on that. I do understand you want more, so check with Dr. Google!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Diana,
What do you know of the actual material in question other than you’ve been told to believe by World Net Daily?
It is my understanding these are the videos, but I haven’t watched them, and I can’t say for sure. Don’t say I assured you they were. They may be something entirely different.
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html
This is what the preface says:
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
>>>>>You might want to check out this site.
http://www.crayola.com/
Just so you know that the world isn’t Black and White only.<<<<<<
In a complex world, your observations are like square pegs in round holes.
Is this the entirety of your contribution here?
Its really void of any real statement on the topic. You must be an angry gay striking out.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
For those of you who don’t know how Liberals are using the schools to indoctrinate and brainwash your children, to undermine your teaching and values to your own children, and to ultimately cultivate the voters who will defeat you, their parents, consider what Hitler said:
This is exactly what is happening in our schools. It is exactly how Liberals (Democrats) are indoctrinating and brainwashing your children.
The Germans didn’t recognize what was happening until it was too late. Will Traditional Americans, Christians, Conservatives, and Moderates wake up and see what is happening before it is too late for America… or will they allow their children to be indoctrinated, brainwashed, manipulated, and used to defeat them?
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“Its really void of any real statement on the topic.”
It wasn’t a statement on the topic. It was a statement about your world view. Sorry you didn’t get it.
“You must be an angry gay striking out.”
That would be a major shock to my wife of 33 years, my children and the rest of my family. On the other hand would it bother you more if I was?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
AAR, Quaker Friends School (you know, the one in your videos) is a PRIVATE parochial school run by Quakers.
At this point I suspect you should seriously consider Spook’s first Rule of Holes.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
This is how I feel about those who advocate a Sodomized Nation!
Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
js (to Casper): In a complex world, your observations are like square pegs in round holes.
Yeah, something like that. LMAO!! Would it help if I told you your response made me spit water out of my nose? Perhaps Spook’s First Rule of Holes needs a corollary: don’t try to fit a peg in it if you can’t even see the hole.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Ricorun,
So you’re saying that film wasn’t as the preface stated: “…directed at the youngest of children … from It’s Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists. …actual scenes from elementary schools in Massachusetts and New York. …meant to be a training video for homosexual activist teachers across the country. In addition, the film itself has been shown to schoolchildren in public schools in Massachusetts and elsewhere.”
I watched a few seconds (didn’t have speakers) and saw some pretty young kids in a classroom!
I’ll keep searching…
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Casper, Ricorun,
Exactly what were we supposed to see on the Crayola site… Bill Clinton doing a little Christmas shopping?
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
AAR,
The point was you and several others see the world as only black or white. The reference to the crayola site was to point out that in reality the world is made of many colors and shades. Sorry if you didn’t get it. My sense of humor often doesn’t transfer well into print. I guess it’s because I’ve always been a square peg trying to fit into a round hole.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Casper,
I really don’t care how you see the world, you could see the world as inside out for all I care, but that doesn’t change REALITY, my friend.
Right is RIGHT and wrong is WRONG!!
Sodomites don’t belong in the Military, in our Schools or in any infuential place in our society. PERIOD. so get it through your thick head.
Jeremiah
December 1st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
AAR: So you’re saying that film wasn’t as the preface stated: “…directed at the youngest of children … from It’s Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists.
Well, the kids were elementary aged. But all of Part 1 appeared to be filmed in Cambridge Friends School (I apologize for inadvertently replacing “Cambridge” for “Quaker” in the school name — it is nonetheless a private Quaker school). Part II was filmed in a public school in New York. For the most part, I found it rather touching, and not very controversial at all. You might. But it reminded me about my own case, and the situations of quite a number of my kids’ friends. I’m a step-dad, so when I say “my” kids I mean my step-kids. And they saw their other set of parents very infrequently — like a total of three weeks in twelve years. But other kids had different situations — various levels of joint custody. So which situation is better — having a mom and dad pretty much all the time and another mom and dad that you visit rarely, having two sets of moms and dads between which you shared essentially equal time, or a mom and a mom and dad, or a dad and a mom and dad, or two moms, or two dads…
I suppose any scenario could be confusing to a kid, but I don’t think any of them are necessarily so. It seem to me that kids respond far more to the types of people their parents are, rather than their sex. My brother has been in a love-less marriage for years, and their kids are incorrigible. I’m not saying that one necessarily implies the other, but I doubt it helps. So which is better? Rather than the specific genders of the relationships involved, isn’t it really more about love, commitment, honesty, integrity, respect, dignity and responsibility — those sorts of things? To me, those sorts of fundamental values are far more important than gender preference. In fact, it seems to me that too much emphasis on gender preference without consideration of the more fundamental values is tantamount to icon worship.
But having said all that, what does any of it have to do with whether gays are going to destroy the military? Perhaps there is some tangential connection, but for the most part it seems to me that there is a completely different set of icons involved there.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Ricorun,
They are all related… all part of the same slippery slope… not only about where it will inevitably end, but the manner in which it’s being done, the way Liberals are forcing their agenda on America, and more.
Liberals mush have “instant gratification” and will do anything to achieve it, rather than allowing views, opinions, attitudes, and beliefs to adjust and change on their own, naturally, over time.
It’s also a long and complex discussion, and I for one am ready for this topic to end.
Hopefully Mark won’t “bump” this thread!
AAR
December 1st, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Ricorun,
You’re letting the flesh do the thinking for you. What God’s Word says is what matters. God’s Word says that Sodomy is a sin, and will cost you your soul to a torment in Hell. So, the best thing for you to do, is to NOT advocate on the side of the Sodomites, because if you advocate for them, then you become an ally to evil. So don’t do it.
Jeremiah
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
“Its really void of any real statement on the topic.”
<<<<It wasn’t a statement on the topic. It was a statement about your world view. Sorry you didn’t get it.<<<>>That would be a major shock to my wife of 33 years, my children and the rest of my family. On the other hand would it bother you more if I was?<<<<
Not really, but the shock of reality has been broken up many families. No wonder your not telling her. Your track record is consistent, if the truth hurts, ignore it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Rico/AAR
I think your both beating around a bush that should not even be there.
Its of little consequence if a child is brought up in a broken family, thats not an effective arguement to justify teaching them (1- about sexual perversion or 2-that sexual perversion is normal or natural ) when they are going through a hard enough of a time just dealing with adolescence. We dont need to confuse thier sexual role models, such models perpetuate society and insure that there is a next generation, instead of extinction.
Schools have been doing just fine without it, the issue belongs in the hands of adults, not our children.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
“Long answer: Being gay is not wrong - it is not a sin to be gay”
Better check your Bible, Mark, homosexual conduct is most assuredly sinful.
Don’t call non-sinful what God has called sinful.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
clark smith,
How about adultery and divorce? What’s your translation of the Bible have to say about those issues?
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Diana,
Fornication and adultery are basically the same things, sexual intercourse outside of marriage. It is an abomination unto the Lord to do those things. For those who commit adultery and fornication? I’ll let God deal with them, but it must be discouraged.
1 Corinthians 7:8-12
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. BUt if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married aI give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
Then it goes on to say in verse 39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
But she is happier if she stays who she is.
Read all of chapter 7 in first Corinthians. And it tells you about the rules of marriage.
Jeremiah
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Jeremiah,
Thanks, I’m a Bible-reader myself (RSV). So, if you don’t mind my asking, what does that do for your ability to potentially vote for Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson or is divorce only an abomination for the women they left and/or cheated on?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Diana,
If they were the only two candidates in the race, then it would have greater implications as far as making a choice. You see, the Presidency is like a state of emergency, without a President, then we’re like a hive of bees without a queen.
Consequently, at the present, it has very, very little to do with my vote.
More to the point, it has far more to do with who they are as individuals. I’m not going to hold that against them, it’s between them and God. They’ve both made great accomplishments for the betterment of America. And for that, I’m grateful.
Jeremiah
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
“You see, the Presidency is like a state of emergency, without a President, then we’re like a hive of bees without a queen.”
So does that mean you are going to vote for Hillary?
Just Kidding.