| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
>>> I, and millions of citizens who object to the effect the TSBC is having on the textbooks of their children nationwide, are "probably ill-informed ideologues, much like those who allow emotion to color their view of some issues." Absolutely. Until you can provide actual evidence to the contrary, that is my conclusion on the issue. I can understand how upsetting it is to a leftist to see America-hating leftist propaganda blocked and removed from textbooks. Without the continued brainwashing of our children, leftism has no chance. But in any case, make your own textbooks. Anyone can publish a book these days; you don't need the massive publishers to do so. Don't blame Texas because your own state is too cheap to pay for their own textbooks. Lame. Last go 'round, it was the leftists who ran the show and made further/progressive change to the history and social studies curriculum. No outrage then from media since it was perfectly in line with their leftist bent. Every time I've looked at such left versus right issues, I find that the leftists use vague incredibly biased rhetoric and outright lies to distort and demonize the argument of the opposition. It is so typical; a cabal of leftists supported by Hollywood and the media seek to force their blame-America-first, Progressive, collectivist propaganda upon a nation who by large majority oppose it, then when met with opposition commence with the vagaries, exaggerations, half truths, misrepresentations and lies about the issue. I'd very much like for you to tell me what issue involving the Texas school book commission is so abhorrent to the proper education of American children. I doubt you will. Facts are rarely part of the discussion for leftists. >>> And, by inference, the dozen or so people on the TSBC aren't "ill-informed ideologues", so their view of things is fine to inflict on millions who have no voice in Texas affairs or the gutless publishers who make the economic decision that "one size fits all". Perfect example. You don't like not having your views inflicted on EVERYONE, so choose to demonize elected officials who are halting the march of the Progressive agenda. Why were the elected school book officials refusing some of the recommendations of unelected liberals? And it isn't a dozen or so. The vote was 9-5. Ten members are Republican. Care to consider some facts on that issue? What were the leftists proposing for our children's textbooks? An unelected review panel, not the elected members of Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), attempted to push through a number of highly questionable changes to the standards – removing Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus – from them. They even dumped Christmas and replaced it with Diwali. Defend the above? Really? What changes/additions did the commission make to the book standards? It added references to text in the Declaration of Independence, "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas. Problem? Only if you hate fact, truth, and God, the very foundations of our nation. Leftists understand that in order to succeed, they must destroy or diminish the belief that our unalienable rights come from God and make people think that our unalienable rights are a gift from the state. The book standards describes the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic: instead of "democratic". Problem? Only if you oppose fact and truth in favor of partisan political agenda, aka brainwashing children. America is a constitutional republic. Leftists are so petty they cannot stand for any word resembling the party of their opponents to appear in a textbook, no matter the context. Unbelievable. The standards specifies a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class and require economics students to "analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard." Why is that a problem? Here's what the leftists proposed. This pretty much exemplifies the entire issue. Leftists are dishonest at the core, they argue via vagaries and emotion/feelings. Harry "this war is lost" Reid is re-elected. >>> There seems to be some people who think this country would be better off if we just let "right thinking" people like those on the TSBC run this country. Honest people need to be the one's running the country. Elections matter. Did you happen to see congress ram through the wildly unpopular "health care" against the will of the vast majority of Americans? That is okay, but when a duly elected committee in Texas agrees on what should be in Texas school books, oh the outrage? The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Well, not coming from the leftists; for them it is par for the course. >>> The fact that a majority of Americans disagree on the choosing of those "right thinkers", and show it at the ballot box, is the saving grace of this country. And eventually, the Right always seems to resort to the "YOU are too stupid and ill-informed to see things the way I do,or you'd agree with me" thing. When it is provable fact, as most often it is, what can you say? The left resorts to that as a matter of course when actual facts are brought to light on an issue that tend to oppose their lies. Throughout history, the leftists have been by far the most dishonest, power-hungry, militant ideologues on the planet. Example again.. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technolog y/132195-fcc-proposal-to-regulate-news-draws-fire The FCC regulation of news is nothing new, it was once actually mandated via the outrageously named "fairness doctrin"; blatantly unconstitutional, yet leftists implemented it. It was repealed, but that doesn't stop the fascists who demand total control of the media. Despite the constitution and being met repeatedly with broad and overwhelmingly majority opposition, leftists will not relent in trying to implement gov't control of the news media. outlets should be mandated to do the following: prove they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming, prove they are committed to diversity programming (for instance, by showing that they depict women and minorities), report more to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25 percent of their prime-time coverage to local news. Explain. >>> There are also folks nationwide who think that Gov. Perry had the right idea about Texas seceding from the union. Are you contending that Governor Perry is proposing secession? That would be a lie. Your point is a straw man, the typical leftist argument; take a point out of context and beat the opposition with it. I is dishonest. "There are people who think..." What issue can you not say that about? Stupid, idiotic, emotional point. There once were people who thought that America should secede from British control. Why did Perry make the comment about secession? Did he have a point? Be honest. We need no straw man to oppose leftism. History is clear and consistent on its effect on liberty and prosperity. (Message edited by Blake on December 07, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
>>> Jesus.... this again. It's tough when facts keep rearing up to counter a liberalist agenda. I know, Progressives thought they had finally silenced credible opposition through vicious demonizing of them with staunch support from a barrage of popular media and dishonest news reporting. >>> You don't think that the spread of Aids/HIV and other std's through the gay community had anything to do with; >>> 1. most gays had/have to hide their sexuality thus forcing them to resort more often to casual sexual activity rather than normal monogomous relationships, No, I fail to see a connection. Homosexual men are more promiscuous because they were afraid to reveal their deviant behavior? Huh? And when was that last the case in San Francisco, where AIDS has and continues to take such a horrendous toll of the male homosexual community? Facts are tough to argue. Theory, not so much. Your theory fails when exposed to the light of truth. >>> 2. The gay community is rather small. I thought they were MILLIONS?  Small proportion, but not in number, and surely not in political influence or geographical range. I see no connection between irresponsible promiscuous behavior and the relative popularity of a certain lifestyle. Mormons are few as are Mennonites. No massive nationwide infectious disease outbreak among them. >>> 3. Before the outbreak of disease there was really no reason for gay men to use condoms. Huh? So in your view risking entry of fecal matter and infectious bacteria into the urethra is just fine, and no other venereal disease existed before AIDS; there was no gonorrhea, syphilis, or herpes running rampant among the male homosexual/bisexual population before AIDS hit? That is your opinion? Really? Reality is quite different. Again, theory wilts when exposed to the light of truth. >>> Those factors couldn't have had anything to do with the spread of HIV through the gay community. I don't see a connection at all. Sounds like pure nonsense to me. >>> It's more likely just because they're evil and vile. I disagree. I think choosing to engage in sodomy is incredibly irresponsible, bordering on self-destructive and/or sadistic. Sodomy is a HUGE health risk, condom or no. Our society has been lied to on a massive scale about the issue. The truth is simple; sodomy is a very unhealthful, dirty, disease-prone behavior that should be avoided and discouraged. >>> And again with the "choice" argument. When did you "choose" to to be straight? Every time I chose to pursue a female for an intimate relationship. >>> Ever have to "choose" not to be gay? With my stunning good looks and kind demeanor, of course. It was an easy choice though. In one case, we remain friends and co-owners of our high-school's 100m dash record. >>> You argue about a moral decay but what if it were to roll the other way. No sex without procreation. If you and your wife are doing it you better be trying to have a baby because otherwise that's just fornication! Prostitution is illegal in most places in America. Why? If you are talking about legislation, then I'd oppose it. Regardless, it's a straw man hypothetical. Has anyone ever proposed such a law? It's nonsense. (Message edited by blake on December 07, 2010) | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
1. You really don't see how being forced to keep your sexuality hidden would hinder a person from having steady monogamous relationships? And I think that the number of closeted gay men, even in San Francisco, far outnumbered the openly gay men. That has changed over the last few decades but the further you go back the more it was hidden. 2. They are a small group by your own words they're only 2% of the population. And the disease hit them first and hardest. So statistically yeah it's a problem for them. 3. Syphilis, herpes.... Nooooo what are those??? I've never heard of those… Of course I've heard of them. But were they even in the same ball park as AIDS? No. Yeah Syphilis could kill ya... in the 1800's but most STD's were either curable or treatable with few exceptions. I try not to speak in absolutes. I didn't say these were THE causes. Just that they probably affected how and why the disease hit the gay community so hard. Is this is really a concern? do they allow HIV positive soldiers to serve? I would think that would get you a medical discharge gay or straight. But... You are right Blake, I get it. Gay men were perfectly fine straight men who have absolutely no self control and are driven to abhorrent behavior because they couldn't possibly have sex with lots and lots of women so therefore they must relieve their lust on other men. I never realized that my attraction to women was a completely voluntary act. I wish I had known that sooner. Sodomy is dangerous and unhealthy no matter how it's done. So I guess we need to start checking out the lady soldiers too. Any evidence of them taking it up the Hershey highway and they need to go. I guess I need to call up a couple of ex-girlfriends and warn them about their dangerous and deviant behavior. I'm just so thankful that they didn't give me a STD, I really dodged a bullet there. And thank god I never had that thing with the feces in my urethra.... that sounds nasty. But wait.... does that mean you're ok with lesbians in the military? I mean they don't engage in sodomy.... well maybe some do. And just like how all gay men are nacy boy screaming queens, we all know lesbians are butch flannel clad women who wear army boots so they've already got two feet in the right direction. And Prostitution.... never understood why it's illegal to do something for money when it's perfectly legal to do it for free, or for a meal, or revenge, or any other reason. Bottom line they should ask the soldiers what they think..... Wait didn't they just do that? | ||
| Blake |
>>> 1. You really don't see how being forced to keep your sexuality hidden would hinder a person from having steady monogamous relationships? As opposed to trolling for partners? No. In fact it seems the opposite would be more likely. But you've made another mistake, among homosexuals males claiming to be "monogamous" promiscuity and relations with other homosexual men is the norm. Why don't you take some time to do the research. It is out there, but you have to want to learn the truth to find it. >>> And I think that the number of closeted gay men, even in San Francisco, far outnumbered the openly gay men. That has changed over the last few decades but the further you go back the more it was hidden. Okay, but it seems that we are talking about here and now, so if a couple decades has gone by and AIDS remains over 50 times more prevalent among homosexual males in San Francisco, and despite MILLIONS invested to educate them, what does that say about the character and choices of men who choose to behave so recklessly? >>> 2. They are a small group by your own words they're only 2% of the population. And the disease hit them first and hardest. So statistically yeah it's a problem for them. Well, decades later it remains a problem for them despite our nation having invested millions of dollars trying to educate them on the issue. >>> 3. Syphilis, herpes.... Nooooo what are those??? I've never heard of those… Of course I've heard of them. But were they even in the same ball park as AIDS? No. Yeah Syphilis could kill ya... in the 1800's but most STD's were either curable or treatable with few exceptions. Again, speaks to choice and poor decision making. The incidence of Syphilis among homosexual men is 65 times higher than among the population in general. That speaks to very poor standards of behavior, rampant promiscuity, and just plain irresponsible unhealthy behavior. >>> I try not to speak in absolutes. I didn't say these were THE causes. Just that they probably affected how and why the disease hit the gay community so hard. The main reason for the continued prefalence of AIDS among homosexual males long after it was introduced into the population at large is that homosexual men are far more promiscuis and far less responsible than the population at large. These are not opinions, they are facts borne out by scientific study and statistical research. >>> Is this is really a concern? do they allow HIV positive soldiers to serve? I would think that would get you a medical discharge gay or straight. In a very significant number of cases homosexual males don't they are HIV infectious until significant symptoms arrise. How often do you propose the military test them? >>> But... You are right Blake, I get it. Gay men were perfectly fine straight men who have absolutely no self control and are driven to abhorrent behavior because they couldn't possibly have sex with lots and lots of women so therefore they must relieve their lust on other men. I don't know what all leads males to be homosexual or bisexual. The bisexual choice is tough to argue based on the "born that way" lie. Explain? The cases where formerly homosexual men sought treatment and were able to become heterosexual also shows the lie in the "born that way" position. And the well-known, well-documented cases of heterosexual men turning to homosexuality in cases of separation from a female population is also impossible to reconcile with the "born that way" lie. It is a lie, nothing more. That is not to say that factors beyond a person's control might not play a role in pointing them towards homosexuality; I'd be surprised if they don't. It has been learned for instance that among men who were sexually molested as children the incidence of homosexuality is elevated far beyond that of the general population. >>> I never realized that my attraction to women was a completely voluntary act. I wish I had known that sooner. You've probably never really thought about it honestly or in depth. It's obvious you've not sought to learn otherwise. The truth is out there, but one need desire to find it. >>> Sodomy is dangerous and unhealthy no matter how it's done. Sexually speaking, that is accurate. >>> So I guess we need to start checking out the lady soldiers too. Any evidence of them taking it up the Hershey highway and they need to go. Sodomy is indeed prohibited in the military. >>> I guess I need to call up a couple of ex-girlfriends and warn them about their dangerous and deviant behavior. I'm just so thankful that they didn't give me a STD, I really dodged a bullet there. And thank god I never had that thing with the feces in my urethra.... that sounds nasty. I agree. I know you are being sarcastic, but what you have stated is exactly correct. >>> But wait.... does that mean you're ok with lesbians in the military? I'm not against any homosexuals being in the military so long as they are able to avoid advertising it. WRT femal homosexuals, the objection is not as deep due to the lack of sodomy and such rampant risk of disease. There however remains the issue of forcing those who find their behavior abhorrent being forced to live in intimate close quarters with them. >>> And just like how all gay men are nacy boy screaming queens, we all know lesbians are butch flannel clad women who wear army boots so they've already got two feet in the right direction. I don't believe either of those characterizations. My own experience is exactly opposite. Regardless, the queenlike or butchlike characteristics are non-factors, of ZERO consideration. The concerns are health, poor character, integrity, and the blatant imposition upon others forced to live in intimate close quarters with them. >>> And Prostitution.... never understood why it's illegal to do something for money when it's perfectly legal to do it for free, or for a meal, or revenge, or any other reason. That is because you are unwilling to be honest and really try to understand the opposing view(s). One argument is that when for free, it is MUCH less prevalent, then combined with the health issues, very well documented, a significant threat to the health of the population at large. There are also issues of horrible abuse of women, also well documented and sadly still prevalent in some places. Yes, here in America. >>> Bottom line they should ask the soldiers what they think..... Wait didn't they just do that? Maybe. Not sure democracy should be the means of governing military rules. You seem to discount that a very significant portion objected to the repeal, including a majority of front line combat troops, not to mention the chiefs of the services. If the facts and truth of the issue were known, many of those currently supporting the homosexual agenda would quickly change their opinion. Decades of lies and obfuscation supported by a wildly pro-homosexual popular culture indeed have taken their toll. | ||
| Blake |
Reference material... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/723699/posts http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/GayWatch/Arti cles/NegativeEffect.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.h tm http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-po pulation-gay.aspx http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF07K01.pdf http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF06K26.pdf Pedophiles are invariably males: A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: “In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male.” | ||
| Blake |
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E118.pdf Just weeks after the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that “buggery” (i.e., homosexual sodomy) should be punished “by castration.” While at Valley Forge in 1778, General George Washington drummed out of his army a soldier who had attempted to commit sodomy with another, declaring his “abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes.” | ||
| Hootowl |
"Sodomy is indeed prohibited in the military." Indeed. 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Hmmm, Laws.... Did you know that in Texas, until the Supreme Court overturned it 2003, homosexual behavior was a misdemeanor offense. However, up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos. | ||
| Midnightrider |
Blake said "The juvenile disrespect and personal nonsense that you seem to imagine engenders debate is worse than a waste of time, it makes for animosity and ill-will. Putting ideology and emotion ahead of logic and a willingness for the dialectic almost always leads to such miserableness. I've seen it over and over again by people like you who so wrap their emotions around an issue they can't even begin to see any kind of opposing view. Sad. Dishonest. Disrespectful. Ignorant. Surely you can do better." that's called projection, dude i offered the chance to debate this off-line. it was my opinion that you are more interested in garnering attention here than actually addressing issues. looks like i was right. hence the "troll" moniker your statements are nothing but fallacious arguments. soon i think the others will also grow tired of your ranting. when this 15 minutes of fame fades, i wonder what cause you'll wrap yourself around in the coming days and weeks. you're pathetic. get some counseling man | ||
| Blake |
I'm perfectly willing to let folks judge the merits of our character and the integrity of our commentary by our behavior demonstrated here. Neither personal insult nor empty, unsupported accusation passes for debate. Those tactics form the miserable hollow refuge of hateful leftist ideologues. Why would I ever want to debate offline with someone like that? I am happy to admit that part of my interest is in publicly airing these issues. It is not surprising that leftists want nothing of the kind; the leftist agenda can only survive under a cloak of darkness, thus the vicious personal attacks when any opposition to the leftist lies makes the public scene, no matter how trivially. America is waking up to truth. Only the bright light of public debate and unbiased reporting will continue that trend. The days of bankrupt leftist propaganda/lies being sheltered under cover of the dark shroud of "political correctness" are coming to an end. Like sunlight on the skin of a vampire, truth is a very painful destructive thing for leftists. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I agree with Blake that personal insult has no place in rational debate. However neither does sweeping generalisation. The left have no monopoly on lies & distorted statistics. To quote Oscar Wilde “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
• Significant numbers of victims are males: A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses are homosexual in nature. Ok... well something like 51+% of the population is female, However I'm willing to bet that male sex offenders greatly outnumber female sex offenders. What's the ratio of white vs black. Age groups? I willing to bet the largest sex offender group would middle-aged white males. Also I wonder how many of those homosexual sex offenders are openly gay. I'm betting not very many. • Many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual: Homosexual activists try to argue that the sex of his child victims is irrelevant to an abuser’s sexual orientation with respect to adults, but a study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” So by "Many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual" you mean 86% of 1/3 or roughly 28%. I would argue that Most sex offenders, 72% are heterosexual. Looks like they'd be the group I'd look out for. Also would the 14% of sex offenders against male that consider themselves heterosexual happen to be women? Or was that study male only. I remember hearing that most sexual assaults against children are perpetrated by relatives and close friends of the family. So the person most likely to rape your kid isn't Jerry who lives next door with his "life partner" Bob. It's your college friend who you always liked or the maybe even your brother. But that doesn't mean all brothers are pedophiles or that you should treat all your friends and family as possible rapists. You wouldn't really judge people based on statistics, would you? (Message edited by not_purple_s2 on December 08, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
"229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." >>> So by "Many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual" you mean 86% of 1/3 or roughly 28%. I would argue that Most sex offenders, 72% are heterosexual. Looks like they'd be the group I'd look out for. You'd be employing faulty logic. As homosexual males comprise only 4% of the male population, no more than 3% of the sexually active male population, then with 28% of pedophiles openly admitting their homosexuality (many others are but don't admit it), homosexual males are over 900% more likely to be a pedophile than heterosexuals. >>> Also would the 14% of sex offenders against males that consider themselves heterosexual happen to be women? Or was that study male only. Women comprise a tiny portion of pedophiles, so that was mostly men. They just don't admit that they are homosexual. In their minds, they imagine young boys as a different class than adult male of adult female. This is a common view in Pakistan and other muslim-centered cultures. >>> You wouldn't really judge people based on statistics, would you? Not like these, no. My point was to show that there is a much greater trend in very poor choices and outrageous behavior made by homosexual males compared to heterosexual males. It is germane to the issue of whether homosexuality should be embraced and endorsed by our nation, specifically in the military. | ||
| Blake |
>>> The left have no monopoly on lies & distorted statistics. Agreed, but as a political ideology, I'd say they employ deceit and dishonesty as standard operating procedure. On the right, you'll have the typical human personal failings of greed, lust, and power; dishonesty is rarely institutionalized on the right from what I've seen. Leftists unfortunately adopt the philosophy of "the ends justify the means" (see Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, one of Hillary's and Barack's favorites), thus they intentionally institutionalize a culture of deceit and corruption within their political organization. ACORN is another good example, the mongo powerful unions are another (see "card check"). It gets to the point where the older ones cannot even tell when they are lying or being absurdly corrupt; see Nancy Pelosi "we're going to hold the house of representatives" and Rep. Charlie Rangell, habitual tax and property cheat, and of course the example for them all, Bill "depends what the meaning of is, is" Clinton. When they can't lie their way to more power, they try to silence the opposition... http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technolog y/132195-fcc-proposal-to-regulate-news-draws-fire The above is not the first mention or attempt to do so. They were actually successful in the past implementing what they outrageously called "the fairness doctrine" to control political speech in their favor. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
It is germane to the issue of whether homosexuality should be embraced and endorsed by our nation, specifically in the military. That's not a fair characterization of the situation, at the very least its inflammatory, at worst its trollish. Turning a blind eye, or considering it irrelevant would be a much more accurate characterization of what is being proposed under the elimination of DADT. I've not heard anything about eliminating the illegality of sodomy either, therefore its only logical those engaging in such acts would be prosecuted under the UCMJ. I understand your abhorrence of homosexuality, and to a point I agree with you. At the same time though, I find alcoholism and drug abuse equally if not more abhorrent. | ||
| Blake |
>>> That's not a fair characterization of the situation, at the very least its inflammatory, at worst its trollish. I can't disagree more strongly. If it were pedophilia or bestiality, you'd likely agree with me, but because it is homosexuality/sodomy and the popular culture has indeed embraced and promoted it for decades now, it's difficult for you to see it that way. I was sucked into the same mindset for a time, until I took a look at the actual facts, that which the popular media because of political correctness run amuck has NEVER seen fit to report. It's not "irrelevant" if you are willing to accept the facts. How can it be "irrelevant" given the rampant disease and just plane risky behavior engendered by the male homosexual lifestyle. How can it be irrelevant when others seen as potential sex partners will be forced to live in intimate close quarters with them? It is impossible to see the issue as irrelevant isn't it? How can it be? Alcoholism and drug abuse are illegal in the military as well. So that is covered. One major difference is that no one is going around asserting that alcoholics and drug addicts were born that way, or that they had no choice in their behavior. Plus alcoholics and drug abusers are often rehabilitated. Are you familiar what it takes to be acquire a security clearance for sensitive work associated with national defense? They are VERY discriminating. Why? Why do they exclude people with certain patterns of behavior? They just want to serve their country like everyone else in the defense sector; why exclude them? | ||
| Blake |
Interesting... According to the Pentagon's survey, only 15 percent of gays currently serving said they would want their units to know they're gay. (Also, 2 percent of gays currently serving giggled when asked about their "unit," which is down from 5 percent from last year.) | ||
| Blake |
Senate says no to DADT... http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132745-senate-f ails-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell SecDef Gates is concerned about activist courts and mandate for immediate, military-wide repeal without time to prepare. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044 57604576010913448035314.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopS tories Other than that reasoning, which is valid concern, I wonder if he would support repeal. | ||
| Midnightrider |
He not only would, he has for some time. As does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And oh, by the way, the Commander-In-Chief. It doesn't get any higher than that http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/02/gates-b acks-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/ (feb 2010) Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that he supports President Obama's decision to seek the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military and has appointed a "high-level working group" to figure out how to do it. Gates, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that Gen. Carter Ham, who leads U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson will lead the review. The defense chief called for an "implementation plan" by the end of the year. "I fully support the president's decision," Gates said. "The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we ... best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly." Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Gates' remarks and added that, in his "personal view," changing the policy is the "right thing to do." "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Mullen said. "For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution." | ||
| Blake |
>>> He not only would, he has for some time. That is inaccurate.
Like I said, I wonder if Gates would support it if not for the threat of activist judges. Nothing in any of the quotes you posted answers that question. Pointing out the president's view on the issue or his instructions reveals nothing as to SecDef Gates' view on the matter absent the threat of activist judges. If inviting practitioners of sodomy to serve while openly advertising their filthy, health-averse, disease prone deviant behavior is a mark of integrity, then I will need to reconsider what integrity means. That doesn't measure up to what I'd call integrity. Dragging the standards of society down the toilet is never a mark of integrity. Integrity would be for them to admit their problem and seek help like a compulsive gambler, an alcoholic, or other drug addict. | ||
| Blake |
The chief of the marine corps opposes repeal. The chief of Army opposes repeal. The chief of the air force opposes repeal. The chief of the navy said breathlessly, "gee fellas, let's not get all in a tizzy, give us a kiss." 
| ||
| Midnightrider |
"I fully support the president's decision," Gates said (Feb 2010) Fully support. Questions? Let's talk facts vs opinions. The Uniform Code of Military Justice definition of sodomy can be found here (and not posted here to keep this relatively "G" rated) http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/ mcm125.htm (fact) My point - a significant amount of current, heterosexual military members regularly engage in sodomy (I can't say I ever witnessed it but I'm pretty sure that's a fact). Nobody's talking about excluding them from service (fact). Are they dragging down society? Another point, your statement that homosexuality is deviant is an opinion - not a fact. You have the right to that opinion but, again, it's not a fact. Homosexuality is not classified as a deviant behavior in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (the standard tool of the medical community)(fact). So your likening of homosexual to addictions is an opinion not shared by the experts (fact). And please don't trot out the Bible and Leviticus 18:22 (homosexuality is an abomination), because the Bible also sanctions selling humans into slavery (Exodus 21: 7)(fact) and says that working on the Sabbath is punishable by death (Exodus 35:2)(fact) The Bible contains some great teachings, some great messages, but it's not perfect and it's definitely not fact. Society is not a homogeneous or static entity and it evolves (opinion). Your turn | ||
| Kenm123t |
Homosexual behaviour is no longer listed as deviant because gay men populate the boards of psychology. The boards being PC does not change the fact its deviant. Why do you need to defend that behaviour? As I have stated ere before most of us are not homophobic just homo annoyed. If homosexuals didnt need my approval or validation why are they needing EXTRA rights or a Victim status? Reality is they know its wrong and need the rest the worlds approval. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Fully support. Questions? Uh, yeah, the same one I asked originally... for the third time I wonder if Gates would support it if not for the threat of activist judges. Seriously, are you really having trouble grasping the meaning of the question or are you really that far consumed by your ideological view? I agree with Ken. Deviant is deviant. I don't need a homosexual psychologist to tell me that homosexuality is deviant. deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. >>> My point - a significant amount of current, heterosexual military members regularly engage in sodomy (I can't say I ever witnessed it but I'm pretty sure that's a fact). I think you are making up nonsense to support your point of view. My sense is that very few females acquiesce to the act of sodomy and if for some reason they do, they won't likely ever do it again. Regardless, sodomy of women is unhealthy behavior too and just as contrary to the UCMJ as it is for homosexuals. Sodomy of females however is NOT normal or even prevalent behavior for heterosexuals. It would be deviant in that case too. Sodomy is typical behavior for male homosexuals, who by nature are outrageously promiscuous and reckless in their sexual behavior. Do I need to re-post the stats on disease, drug abuse, and mental problems among the male homosexual culture again? Male homosexuals on average are 5000% more likely to contract HIV, 7500% more likely to contract syphilis. Why? Outrageous promiscuity and horrendously poor judgment DESPITE over two decades and millions upon millions of dollars invested to educate them against it. See the difference? (Message edited by blake on December 11, 2010) | ||
| Whatever |
So according to the UCMJ, if a guy gets a BJ from a gal, that is sodomy, punishable by court marshall... I bet if that was enforced it would really thin down the ranks...  | ||
| Seanp |
Sodomy is not just anal sex, Blake; it includes oral as well. That's the point Midnightrider is making. So if all you ever do is straight only-for-reproductive-purposes sex, then you'd be ok in the military. But trust me, having been in the Army for 17 years now, many Soldiers enjoy a little non-anal sodomy every now and then. Also, your definition defines deviancy as being "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." So, was being an abolitionist in South Carolina in 1855 deviant, and therefore wrong? | ||
| Midnightrider |
Char Yep,that's the way I read it. Oral either way is a violation. Typical Blake response where he fails to offer a counter argument on a portion of a statement he can't refute. It's a polarizing issue and unlikely very many opinions will ever be changed by words; probably only life experiences will ever do that and even then it will be rare. If you look at some of the studies and statement that came out of them, you'll see that the majority of straight service members who have served with someone they believed to be gay didn't really have a problem with those individuals. Which is why I think (another opinion, obviously) that a lot of the homophobia or homo-annoyance is borne out out of lack of experience. Many people fear or denigrate those that are different or behave in ways they can't understand The statement that gay men populate the boards is simply ludicrous and without basis as is the idea that homosexuals "know" they are wrong. Give me a break. There are plenty of activities regularly engaged in my members of the military as well as the rest of society that contribute to health problems and millions if not billions in medical bills - like tobacco use, diets that lead to high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, lack of exercise ( although maybe not so much in the military), etc. I wonder how much is spent on medical bills nationally as a result of motorcycle accidents? Anyway, I think the only real issue is will acceptance into the military be prejudicial to good order and discipline. I think almost everyone agrees there will be some problems - though we disagree on the extent Again I will point to the militaries of other nations who don't ban homosexuals from service. They don't seem to have the problems their American counterparts anticipate. Again I use the Israeli's as one example. We have great military forces and special ops - and so do they. Different cultures, different mindsets. They extent of the problem will be defined by how much of a problem we let it be. Time to move ahead | ||
| Whatever |
Somehow makes a man in uniform more attractive to me... maybe I am the deviant... but hey... according to Clinton... oral isn't sex either... wtf?  | ||
| Sifo |
Sodomy is not just anal sex, Blake; it includes oral as well. That's the point Midnightrider is making. That may be the point being made, but it doesn't make it correct. Has that article of the UCMJ ever been interpreted to include oral sex by the military? I don't know the answer to that, but I have my doubts that it ever was. Oral sex is usually not considered copulation. Would penetration include the tongue? The oral sex interpretation leads to french kissing being a violation of the UCMJ. I doubt that's correct. | ||
| Midnightrider |
I've looked for stats on how many heteros have been punished for oral under the UCMJ and I'm not finding any hard stats - but agree probably been seldom if it all there's a bit on article 125 of the UCMJ here http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/ mcm125.htm which does define oral sex as copulation and probably excludes french kissing as sodomy unless you define the tongue as a sexual organ ( now there's a debate) |
