Fighting The “Gay Agenda,” Not So Much Of A Political Winner Anymore

Pew may be right. And Rasmussen might agree.

But last November, Iowans threw out of office three judges whose decision made same sex legal in Iowa. Because of the yoke Iowa has on our Presidential nomination process, our future potential nominees will certainly remember that vote.

As most Senators and Governors see themselves as Presidential contenders, despite the ‘will of the people’, progress on Gay Marriage and DADT will continue to be stalled.

Michael, before going back on topic, are Jay and Katy at work today / will they post something here? (Jay was on ABC Topline earlier about Sarah the Wicked Witch of the North… oh wait, that’s O’Donnell, never mind).
.
Back on topic, should this issue even be a political one subject to a vote? Or a basic human rights issue? So other than bigotry, where is the legit debate on the other side? Think back 100 years: what would a young Henry Luce write about on whether women should be allowed to vote? Or another 100 years back and whether slaves should be free or not? Why is there any debate about this at all, granting R’s a false platform? Better yet, screw this, move along, and just post a “1000 words” + Jay’s and Katy’s thoughts on other things.

Fighting the gay agenda was simply a way to divide people so gain votes. It never paralleled reality. Especially so when while the RNC hated gays it turned out the head of the RNC was gay and plenty of them were tapping their toes in airport bathrooms.

There is no hypocrisy today that betters that of the modern Republican voter and Party member.

OK all you Mormons and other self proclaimed profits. Your days of lies and deceit, your days for dividing people are dwindling.

What are you going to rejoice about when you get old?

That you stopped the gays from getting married for a short while or maybe that you disallowed the right of someone serving with honor in our military?

Well than; Mission Accomplished.

I have to confess that, even as a middle-aged, straight, white male, that I am fully on board with the Gay Agenda. You know, the one that wants for LGBT Americans to have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as all other Americans, and not be second-class citizens. And if that gets up the nose of anyone, they should refresh their reading of the Declaration of Independence, which asserted that “all men are created equal” — not “all men, except homos, are created equal.”
.
Needless to say, this has nothing to do with what the right wing means when it says “gay agenda,” which is a hysterical scare tactic insinuating that all our childen will be gay-brainwashed, all adults will be gay-married at gunpoint and — worst of all! — social mores will frown on straight Americans using the word “fag” in a sneering manner to assert their own imagined moral superiority.

“OK all you Mormons and other self proclaimed profits”
.
Freudian, yes.
Funny, yes!

So why do Cantor, McConnell, McCain et.al. keep saying “the American People” aren’t ready to end DADT??

Because they’re full of sh!t?

They must be confusing DADT with DWTS. Sorry RW’ers, but Jennifer Grey still kicked Bristol’s ass (literally).

There’s a lesson for you, MS:
.
The lifespan of divisive issues habitually raised by your peers is LIMITED

That’s one of my pet peeves, NFL — especially with John Boehner, who predictably prefaces virtually every sentence with “the American people want,” when it’s actually just the 20-30 percent of die-hard conservatives that want it. Because literally NOTHING he ever says “the American people want” is anything *I* want, and I certainly consider myself part of the American people.
.
I think in part it’s simply mindless, habitual rhetoric, or perhaps a ham-handed attempt at the bandwagon effect. But I also suspect that, at some level, Republicans genuinely believe that everyone believes the way they do, and those who espouse any other belief are just “acting out,” as my mother used to say. In fact, my mother was one of those Republicans, who believed until Alzheimer’s took her that her three liberal children would outgrow that nonsense, which in her mind was simply youthful rebellion. For 50 years.

Yeah, stick with the ol’ standards: God, Gays, and Guns™. Race too. The R’s have been hammering those home for decades and still are. Too bad there’s no more Red Menace (having China own most of our debt is NOT a good scary headline-driver, but I digress).

Kevin – agreed
Decon – I’ll take your word for it
PW – It sounds a lot like that “my good friend” mantra when congressional opponents speak about each other
And God bless that your mom’s steadfastness had to be tinged by disease. Mine saw me in a too-short t-shirt and asked me “when’s the due date?” That cold-hearted wench

The Gay agenda shouldn’t be up to political debate in the first place. The only reason why it is debated politically is because since the Declaration of Independence was signed, this exceptional country has been trying to keep one race or specific group of people in their so called place. And we are still doing it.

nfl, it was correct as written. Maybe unintentional, but still correct.

They mean the vast majority of “real” Americans. The actual majority doesn’t count because they don’t think correctly.

When that limit is hit, decon, Micheal Scherer will deserve what he gets:
.
Unemployment
.
And at some future time, when sanity returns, propagandizing the American people will again be taboo*.
.
*In 1982, Ronald Reagan, blast his soul, decided that the GOP’s policy would be to regard propaganda as a useful tool. This is one of two major mistakes, severely damaging America’s democracy. The other was the recent Supreme court decision

My own personal opinion is that if a gay soldier is willing to fight and put his life on the line for me and my country, he can look at my ass if he wants to. I won’t even be offended.

United States says it considering legal action against Wikileaks. They should be carted off to a black site soon and everything else will be well…Secret.

Per Bush-Cheney (i.e. war criminals Jon Stewart!), look FWD/never back.

sacredh: It is NOT correct as written; the proper word is “prophet”, not “profit”.

nfl and I were snarking. We were talking about profit as a political or financial gain. Think prophets for profits. God is great but Cadillacs are the true symbol of piousness.

I sure hope Obamao is listening to the political activists at Time magazine and announces is unqualified support for same-sex so-called “marriage” prior to the 2012 presidential election. Of course, Obamao supports same-sex so-called “marriage” now, but he lacks the guts to publicly declare said support. Obamao, though, is committed to nominating utterly lawless, leftist political activists as federal so-called “judges” who will attempt to invent a “fundamental right” to same-sex so-called “marriage”.

BTW, Time magazine, since you support same-sex so-called “marriage”, what objection do you have to inter-species so-called “marriage”? What about polygamy? Do bi-sexuals have a “right” to “marry” one male and one female? What about “marrying” six males and a dozen females and a partridge in a pear tree?

It’s Obama. And you are certainly and hopelessly insane. Seriously, you need help.

I don’t see this as a constitutional issue. Reading the Declaration of Independence certainly speaks to basic human rights, but it is the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, that you are confusing as DADT is mistakenly thought by many to apply to civil rights. All who join the military fully understand the suspension of certain constitutional civil rights in favor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under which decisions can and are made “for the good of the Army, Navy, or Air Force”. DADT has been found by the courts to violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and expression. The military DOES NOT operate as a democracy. All military personnel know and understand this. DADT allows same-sex sex as long as there’s no speech about it and as long as there is military comportment and bearing; in other words, no uniformed men behaving like females and the same of women. Sleep with who you want who is an adult and who consents but “act your gender”.

There is no gay agenda. There’s a religious agenda, a Republican agenda, a Tea Party agenda, but no gay agenda. How high does the hetero divorce rate need to be to understand that homos are no threat to marriage? Maybe this shift in attitudes reflects that.

The flaw in the argument is that when you consider what decides people’s vote, the people who are anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, pro-DADT, they will change their vote because of it at a significantly greater rate than the reverse. People tend to vote on issues that affect them personally and those who continue to want to suppress the rights of homosexuals see this as personal slights against their religion and way of life. People that are pro recognize that homosexuals should have these basic rights, but few who aren’t either homosexual or close to homosexuals feel passionately enough to change their vote. It’ll still be a winner so long as the numbers are close.

“After the Ball” doesn’t spell out a clear agenda, complete with tactical marching orders? Everyone has an agenda, James.

I disagree for reasons I stated in 4.1.

What’s this “After the Ball” you keep mentioning?

in other words, no uniformed men behaving like females and the same of women
.
Wait, so if a lesbian translator translates like a man, then she’s out of the service?
.
What does that even mean? Was Victor Fehrenbach refusing to shoot down enemy planes because he wasn’t getting enough gay sex?
.
Why does “military comportment” extend to people’s sexual lives?
.
I know a military pilot who recently cheated on his fiance (thus ruining the wedding, as you might expect). Do you advocate kicking him out for not maintaining military comportment?

It is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. I’m not suggesting that their agenda had anything to do with the nonsense about fearing that “all our childen will be gay-brainwashed, all adults will be gay-married at gunpoint and — worst of all! — social mores will frown on straight Americans using the word “fag” in a sneering manner to assert their own imagined moral superiority.” But, with that said, Kirk and Madsen clearly outlined a strategy to promote gay rights by vicious demonization of their opposition in an effort to make even the most tepid denunciation of homosexuality a social taboo, essentially a self-ostracizing position. In other words, if you do not fully embrace homosexuality, you are a monster and a vile bigot. Guess what? It worked. That’s where we are today. What was once widely frowned upon is now something you must openly embrace or else face hyperbole and character assassination. It is basically the same stratagem as screaming Anti-Semitism at Israel’s critics. It’s effective, but lurid and indefensible.

How does applicability of the Declaration of Independance/First Amendment or Social norms of masculinity vs femininity apply to whether or not this issue can affect elections?

“What was once widely frowned upon is now something you must openly embrace or else face hyperbole and character assassination. It is basically the same stratagem as screaming Anti-Semitism at Israel’s critics. It’s effective, but lurid and indefensible.”
.
I never read the book. My basic view of humanity or that of what I feel about homosexuals is based on reality and real interaction. You write demonizing? I’m sure this one person I’ve never heard of is drowned in the sea of complete horsesh!t from the people who bash homosexuals on a daily basis.
.
I take your pebble out of my eye if you take the forest out of yours.

You shouldn’t be expected to know of Kirk or Madsen. Their book nonetheless greatly informed and influenced the LGBT community. It is an unavoidable fact that if you take issue with homosexuality, you will be vilified as if this is somehow an extreme position to take. This is a direct result of a very aggressive campaign to demonize anyone with a sense of moral clarity on this issue. Let’s look at it this way. There is absolutely a vast difference between advocating the suppression of basic rights to someone simply because he/she is gay and personally objecting to the tendency of homosexuality. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Pro-gay zealots compound these nuances and lump everyone with a differing view as bigoted radicals seeking to oppress the gay community. It’s utter nonsense.

Okay, I’ve looked around on Amazon and Wikipedia, and it looks like the book sets out a plan to force a change in public opinion, pretty much as you’ve described.
.
It’s ugly, but I can’t say that it’s unreasonable, given the extreme hostility they’ve faced over the years.

There is absolutely a vast difference between advocating the suppression of basic rights to someone simply because he/she is gay and personally objecting to the tendency of homosexuality.
.
Okay, so how far do your personal objections go?
.
ie, if it were up to you, would you extend the right to marry to homosexuals?

Cliff, I think you know where I stand on this. Yes, I am opposed to gay-marriage. However, the classification of marriage as a civil right is something completely unsupported by any legal document I am aware of. When it comes to property rights, voting rights, worker discrimination, etc. I am obviously in full support of absolute equality. I also take issue with DADT, and repudiate any and all forms of inflammatory rhetoric and actions specifically designed to injure the gay community. I don’t care what people do. It’s pointless, counter-productive, and wrong to lash out at the gay community for their identity. However, I do find homosexuality to be antithetical to human nature, and therefore I must on principle reject the equation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage as comparable engagements. Marriage is an exclusive privilege, in my opinion.

“I don’t see this as a constitutional issue.”

Sorry, Jazz, because everyone else does — because it is.
.
Reading the Declaration of Independence certainly speaks to basic human rights, but it is the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, that you are confusing as DADT is mistakenly thought by many to apply to civil rights.
.
Thank you for pointing out how stupid I am for confusing the rights of Americans with the Bill of Rights. Obviously, they are two separate things, that my simple and simplistic definition does not cover. I trust that in your very next paragraph, all will explained.
.
All who join the military fully understand the suspension of certain constitutional civil rights in favor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under which decisions can and are made “for the good of the Army, Navy, or Air Force”. DADT has been found by the courts to violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and expression. The military DOES NOT operate as a democracy. All military personnel know and understand this. DADT allows same-sex sex as long as there’s no speech about it and as long as there is military comportment and bearing; in other words, no uniformed men behaving like females and the same of women. Sleep with who you want who is an adult and who consents but “act your gender”.

And sure enough, you explain how we can’t change the law about gays being in the military, because there’s a law that says gays can’t be in the military. Ipso facto, there are no gays in the military, there aren’t presently any gays in the military, and there never have been gays in the military. And we can’t change the law about that, because, well, we have a law about that.
.
How can I argue with logic like that? I agree completely. Death to homosexuals who want to defend our country with honor and dignity!

“Would Jesus Wear a Rolex?”
.
http://www.google.com/url?url=http://s0.ilike.com/play%23Ray%2BStevens:Would%2BJesus%2BWear%2BA%2BRolex:1174637:s136835.8485700.14995.1.2.106%252Cstd_c605722ed1714e81bdd27c202d27017e&rct=j&sa=X&ei=8n70TMfnA8qhnAeDgbWdCw&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ0wQwAA&q=would+jesus+wear+a+rolex&usg=AFQjCNFmUn-vSWi5H8dS4LQkTfcTRpDCag&cad=rjt

No, I didn’t know where you stood on gay rights.
I assumed before that because you showed up on an earlier DADT post talking about “After the Ball” you supported keeping DADT, but I wanted to be sure before I went in guns blazing.
.
I’m not equipped to argue the legal aspects of gay marriage, but I don’t understand the grounds on which you would deny gays the privilege to marry.
.
Surely there are other segments of the population you don’t agree with, who still are granted the same privileges as you?

I’m sorry, Jazz, that was rude of me.
.
You appear to be trying to press your point calmly and with logic, and I blew you off. That’s wrong of me.
.
But I did so because I think I don’t think your arguments hold any weight. The thing is, most GOP arguments on DADT are conclusions looking for a supporting argument.
.
Your solution is to split hairs between the Declaration/Constitution and the military. There are military laws, you know, that says the Constitution is suspended! And while in some instances that’s true — not strictly Constitutional, but there are extreme circumstances allowing that on the books, because it’s never been pressed to the level of judicial review — that isn’t the case here. This is not an extreme situation.
.
You’re asking Americans, under ordinary circumstance, to lie in order to serve under an honor system that says they can’t lie, or you’re saying they don’t have the rights of other Americans to serve, which the Constitution says they have. And your argument, that the UCMJ can override the Constitution, is laughable on the face of it. Nothing overrides the Constitution.

The first oath of the military puts Constitution first. (The only way this has been circumvented in the past — like keeping Negros out of the officer corps — was a violation of the Constitution that was ignored.) Either way you go, you find a contradiction — unless you’ve already decided which way you’re going to go, and you’re looking for justification to support your unsupportable position.
.
Which is what I saw in your post, so I responded with derision. I apologize for that. But you’re still dead wrong.

Because here’s the thing you won’t accept: Gay Americans ARE Americans, with all rights and responsibilities that entails. You can’t wish them away as NON-Americans because you disapprove. Or, rather, that has been done in the past, but as the bigotry evaporates among other Americans, so do the quasi-rationales and bad laws that supported it.

I don’t really know many gay people. But whoever they are, they’re Americans, and that’s enough for me. That should be enough for you.

Think about that, Jazz, and get back to me, when you’re ready to support the Constitution.

Exiled:

I must on principle reject the equation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage as comparable engagements.

By this, I assume you’re implying that the reason for marriage is procreation. If this is the case, how do you feel about elderly, hetero couples getting married? Or infertile, hetero couples? Or fertile couples who decide not to have children?
.
If the three examples I mentioned are basically marriages of “companionship”, then how are these different from homosexual marriages?

@perry 4.4: Nice recovery. Well said.
.
Still crickets, but hey…

Cliff, Kbanginmotown:
~
I think we can all agree that men and women are naturally and exclusively compatible with one another in the ability to reproduce. If you believe that mankind was created by some higher power, then it stands to reason that this exclusiveness was by intentional design. Heterosexual relationships are therefore not only the only means of reproduction, but also the intended coupling for natural cohabitation. Any heterosexual couple, no matter physical or biological blocks to reproduction, are nonetheless still in conformity with the natural complimenting of the sexes. Homosexual couples simply are not, any way you slice it. They are, as a rule, not an exception, incapable of fulfilling the role that heterosexuals do. So, if they choose to pursue their relationships, that is their prerogative, but the state and society have no obligation to consider their relationships as equal to those of heterosexuals, even if, of course, the individuals are most assuredly equal in the eyes of the law. Treat the individuals equally, sure, but the sanctioning of relationships can and does have boundaries.

Granted, homosexual couples can’t reproduce.
.
But how does it hurt heterosexual couples and their ability to reproduce if we let gays get married?
.
And given that we have a 50% divorce rate in this country, can anyone really claim that heterosexual marriage is so special that it needs to be made exclusive?

but also the intended coupling for natural cohabitation
.
But that doesn’t follow — unless procreation is the sum total of why humans were put on earth. (Even allowing for a religious argument on this issue.)

Marriage is an act sanctioned by the state. It is therefore a matter of “civil” rights. If a church determines they will not consecrate a gay marriage, so be it. But it has nothing to do with the “civil” recognition of the marriage.
.
Exiled, if you and your church do not want to sanctify a gay marriage, sadly that is your privledge. However, your church has no right to interfere in the state recognizing the marriage.

I’ve never understood this whole argument.
.
I don’t see there being a lot of really flamboyantly gay people suddenly rushing into the USMC recruiting offices if DADT is removed (maybe the Navy).
.
Personally I don’t have a problem with gays getting married, or joining the armed services and I don’t understand the people who have a problem with it. I see the issue as being one of general fairness and adherence to the Constitution, which requires that everyone be treated equally under the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or anything else. I’ve never noticed anything in the Bill of Rights that says “except these groups of people”.
.
Religious people are crazy. They believe that an invisible man in the sky watches over us all. But they’re crazier and more arrogant still; they believe that should God exist that THEY can’t actually fathom what he wants. They’re just as crazy and arrogant as the far lefties who want the government to run everything. Both are insane, arrogant and obnoxious, the only question is which parts of your life they want to control. The religious people want to control your sex life and what drugs you can do, while the lefties want to control everything else.
.
There’s a lot of morons in this world and that will never change.

Amen.

Many people talk about modern times and the advancement of ideas and ways of living. All that is OK, however, in the advancement of time one thing NEVER changes and that is TRUTH. Truth stands the test of times. And going back into history, all the evidence is that prejudice of race has always been wrong. It is men’s stupidity that have inserted racial prejudice in the minds of ignorant people. Truth always places human beings in the same plato, regardless of race. The same thing about the equality between man and woman, except, that it clearly shows different roles for them. On the other hand homosexuality is not the same thing. Truth places homosexuality in a category of moral degradation, as a matter of fact, it places it into the category of spiritual darkness. However, because the world continually promotes what is contrary to TRUTH, our cultures are moving into further degradation with the passing of time.

We, the crazy people according to the liberal elites, who put themselves in the place of God, do believe in the True God, and He has declared His Will and His Truth in The Word of God. You, sasquatch08, are not God and you can not make up your TRUTH. There is only one TRUTH.

We, the crazy people according to the liberal elites, who put themselves in the place of God, do believe in the True God, and He has declared His Will and His Truth in The Word of God. You, sasquatch08, are not God and you can not make up your TRUTH. There is only one TRUTH. The question is, who defines what is right and wrong. The answer is: it is not sasquatch08.

The number of Creators of The Universe is somewhere between zero and one. At some point we’re all going to have to learn to share……….

God is the One who defines what is right and wrong. And in multiple records in The Word of God, He shows that homosexuality is wrong. Interesting that even in the most depraved cultures of the past, homosexual marriage are not allowed. It seems to me that with people pushing that down our throats is an evidence of the moral degradation of our times, and the Bible says it will get worse and worse.

As for who is a “moron” and who is not, is that up to you to decide sasquacth08. I beg to differ. There is One who is the ultimate judge. I am not Him, and neither are you.

Life here on earth is short! And people can make all kinds of jokes. The Bible says today is men’s day. Men get to say and do whatever pleases him. Of course I speak of men as in human beings, men and women. However, who is the One who defines what is wrong and what is right? And who will be the ultimate judge? It is not you! It is God Almighty. There will be a time of reckoning!!!

You may say whatever you want perrywhite1, and you can call those who oppose the homosexual agenda any name you want to. I will keep repeating my point, the ultimate judge is not any man or woman. It is God. And God declares in His Word, The Bible, what is right and wrong. And there are multiple records in the Bible that declares homosexuality as contrary to God. By the way, the Bible also declares that racial prejudice is wrong.

I am not offended by homosexuals serving in the military, however, it is wrong.

Again, gysgt213, you can call whatever names you want to those who disagree with you, however, if you want to apply logic, the same arguments you use in favor of the homosexual agenda, you could apply them for the other things textee brought up. I guess you had to resort to name calling because he was logical in his argument.

“Religious people are crazy. They believe that an invisible man in the sky watches over us all. But they’re crazier and more arrogant still; they believe that should God exist that THEY can’t actually fathom what he wants. They’re just as crazy and arrogant as the far lefties who want the government to run everything. Both are insane, arrogant and obnoxious, the only question is which parts of your life they want to control. The religious people want to control your sex life and what drugs you can do, while the lefties want to control everything else.”

Actually, I despise religion. It is what human beings make up in order to justify their existence. And by religion I include not only the thousands of denominations of Christianity but also the anything people setup for their justification for living. We all judge and make opinions on set of beliefs of whatever kind. On that basis, almost every individual by himself is his own religion, whether you call it religion or not. I believe the Bible is the Word and Will of God. And if we return to God’s intent, without any religious prejudice, than we have TRUTH, which is free from religion. And TRUTH is what should define what is right and wrong. I am not against anyone or anything. I am FOR TRUTH.

And what He says has no bearing on the argument at present. Whether or not various religions say homosexuality is wrong, that has no impact on the ability of homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.
.
As a religious person, I am tired of people using religion to support their views on things in which religion should not be involved.

“Truth places homosexuality in a category of moral degradation, as a matter of fact, it places it into the category of spiritual darkness.”
.
You mean “religious” truth. Belief in a higher being does not include everyone. There are millions of us that do not believe in a God or Gods. We are a democracy, not a theocracy. We go by the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. I believe it is morally degrading and a sign of spiritual darkness when an entire group of people are denied the same rights that others enjoy.
.
Religion is a personal matter between an individual and his God. Religion is a choice that may govern an individual’s personal behavior, not the behavior of everyone else within the country. Each member of a particular religion believes that theirs is the true religion and that’s fine and dandy, but it doesn’t give them the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else. What seems right and natural to one person may seem wrong and immoral to another.
.
Personally, I think homsexuality is wrong. It is wrong for me as an individual but I have no right or desire to declare that it is wrong for a person who sees it as right and natural for them. I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice. I see it as something that is inherent in a person’s very being. I don’t think someone chooses to be gay anymore than someone chooses to be short or tall.
.
I do see discrimination as immoral and an affront to everything our nation stands for. People can be petty and be convinced that they’re right and that everyone else that disagrees with them is wrong. That’s part of human nature. It’s the dark side of human nature. Just as it takes an effort to lead a good life and do what is right, it also takes a conscious effort to recognize that other people’s views are equally valid.
.
Gays aren’t seeking special rights, they want the SAME rights that everyone else takes for granted. Denying millions of people the same rights that we have isn’t an act of piety, it’s an act of arrogance and hubris.

But how does it hurt heterosexual couples and their ability to reproduce if we let gays get married?
.
Quite simply, Cliff, it doesn’t. But that’s not the point.
.
Apr, you’re absolutely right. I can’t believe we ban polygamy. How dare we place limitations on what is to be civilly recognized as a marriage. Just because some religious freaks say it is between two individuals, doesn’t mean the state can strip threesomes of their civil rights. And on this, Cliff and I agree.

Exiled at Home wrote:

“Any heterosexual couple, no matter physical or biological blocks to reproduction, are nonetheless still in conformity with the natural complimenting of the sexes. Homosexual couples simply are not, any way you slice it.”

This argument is laughable (and circular). You’re basically saying that men and women should only be allowed to marry each other, simply because they’re a man and a woman. If you were homosexual, and you acted out on your innate sexuality, that would also be perfectly natural to you, and would conform to your biological imprinting. Homosexuals are naturally drawn to the same gender. So applying a heterosexual standard to them is illogical.

fandaelis,

Let me start by saying that I respect your religious views, however different they are from mine. I would never call you a moron or say you believe in some fictional man in the sky. A lot of atheists don’t realize they use their beliefs to prop up the same sense of superiority they hate in religious people.

As a person who deeply believes in Jesus and all he taught, maybe you need to sit down at some point and consider the end effects of what you write here. Are you a Christian because following the Gospels gives you a great sense of compassion and connects you spiritually to God and your fellow man? Or are you Christian because it puts you in the “good” club to make you better than others? If it’s the former and not the latter, you need to consider the fact you’re communicating the opposite.

You keep saying that you are not the ultimate judge, but that God is. You also spend a whole lot of time judging people. I know you don’t see it that way. Like many people, you rely on a literal reading but a highly edited one. If the Bible is the pure word of God, then you support stoning a new wife in the door of her father’s house because she wasn’t a virgin, right?

I believe very strongly in the spirit of the Gospels and I think everyone, including atheists, can benefit from understanding them. What I’m saying is you talk a lot about rules and judgement and I don’t hear anything about love and compassion. If you do believe in the final judgment, you have to ask what will be more important: following the rules that seem personally right to you or living by the spirit of the Gospels.

Hoo boy.
.
Fandaelis: You should back off and let Whoever sort it out at the end. Like you said, you’re not the ‘ultimate judge’. Then again, you think textee is logical, and in 10.3 you say you despise religion while constantly pointing to the Bible in your posts(Including the same paragraph in 10.3), so I don’t know what your deal is.
.
Jazz: You’re still really stuck on people acting their gender, according to your definitions. You don’t seem to have a problem with how gay service members conduct themselves as of now, and I’m still not sure where you’re getting the idea that their conduct will change with the removal of DADT.
.
textee: Shine on, you crazy diamond.

djtrudeau, thank you for an interesting post. One of the things that irks me about christians quoting from the Bible is the selectivity they use. Taking a line (often out of context) while ignoring all the others that they would never even dream of following (like your stoning example) has always sticken me as nothing more than using the word of God to advance a political, not a religious agenda. I’m not a believer myself but I do think the Bible contains a wealth of admirable concepts and worthy goals.
.
Whether a person believes or not has little bearing on how one lives their life or treats their fellow man. If morality comes from within or without it is immaterial to the end result. Our individual actions are what matters. Judge not lest ye be judged. How often that is ignored.

Exiled:
.
What is your stance on the rights of homosexual couples? As I understand it, these couples lack some of the basic rights that married couples recieve, such as hospital visitation and the like. Whether it is called marriage, civil unions, or whatver, these people should still have these rights available to them, yes?

The noted professor of moral theology Janet Smith says that we are all sexually disordered in some way. I believe that in large part thanks to the cesspool that is our culture.

What I will never understand is why some people wear their disorder on their sleeve and then expect to be treated differently because of it.

Though I’m fairly sure of what you’re talking about, please oh please do elaborate on what you consider a disorder and how different people want to be treated.

“We, the crazy people according to the liberal elites, who put [our]selves in the place of God…”
.
An always acceptable definition of “crazy”, that can get you committed, as a matter of fact. Not as crazy as being perfectly sure that a bunch of stuff written 4,000 years ago by people who had just discovered clothing but somehow knew the “True God” and recounted “His Will and His Truth”, you know “The Word of God”… the “only one TRUTH”, but it’s pretty close. Laying your crazy off on what the Bible says, doesn’t make you any saner.
.
Had any good shellfish lately?

Isn’t this a case of people wanting to be treated the same, regradless of their “disorder?”

Since we are all sexually disordered does it matter Ash?

Is there a problem with my reasoning?

Would you prefer to avoid the statement and just slander me because you think I disagree with you?

It’s more a case of people wanting special treatment because of their disorder. If you are a sex-addict you don’t get to marry additional spouses. If your disorder is attraction to children or animals you don’t get special priviledges for it…

Yes, and yes, since it’s painfully obvious that you’re really talking about something specific, even though you’re trying so hard to be vague.
.
So what is it? Who is expecting to be ‘treated differently’? Different from who?

So who is wanting special privaledges here? How does “not wanting to get fired for being who they are” equate to special privaledges?
.
And did you seriously just equate pedophilia with being gay?

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Something to consider: It’s not all about sex.
.
I don’t really have a response to the polygamy argument, because I don’t know what the legal case against it is. I don’t have a problem with it personally, because it would be between consenting adults.
.
But good job comparing a relationship between two intelligent, consenting adults to children and animals. It’s totally on the same plane.

If you can tell me the problem with my reasoning then I will answer your questions. Let’s not go off on a tangent. Since we are all sexually disordered in some way why would some people with a certain disorder be treated differently than other people with different disorders?

By your reasoning then a nine year-old being with a forty year-old is OK if they both consent… hmmm.

Nah, that reasoning is all yours, Sparky. You say how you feel instead of making people dig it out of you.
.
It’s not alright, because there’s this thing called age of consent. There’s lots of other things that have to do with consent too, like state of mind, and being human.

Perrywhite1: Thanx for backing away from sarcasm. I have some errands to run and “I’ll be back”.

Kind of high and mighty of you, but ultimately useless since you already answered my question, and the only other questions asked of you are rhetorical; “Isn’t this a case of people wanting to be treated the same, regradless of their “disorder?”" (Yes, it is), and “did you seriously just equate pedophilia with being gay?” (Yes, you did. As well as to bestiality!) But what the hell, why not.
.
“Since we are all sexually disordered in some way”
.
Yeah you keep saying that. According to who… Oh, this Janet Smith person. Doing a quick search finds that she’s a ‘Professor of moral theology’ at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary. And apparently she’s famous for a couple writings, of note: ‘What is the connection between contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, and same-sex unions?’. Not to mention the stuff arguing against overpopulation being real. You sure are working with a strong foundation here. Anyway, moving on.
.
Your reasoning is faulty because you’re trying to wrap the argument around a silly smart-sounding statement made by someone arguing on a completely biased, religious basis. I know you’re trying to be clever with the ‘everyone has a disorder’ but really, you’re just talking about homosexuals. Quit screwing around and say what you mean. Your reasoning is faulty because you say they want to be treated differently, when they are the ones getting different treatment.

Reason has nothing to do with feelings my friend and that is perhaps why you seem to lack the ability to be reasoned with.

Pax vobis

Trap, please answer my question instead of dodging and throwing up red herrings.
.
Who (people with a “disorder”) is asking for special treatment? What kind of special treatment are they looking for?

Yes yes, I’m sorry that this is no longer fun for you. Maybe next time you should just say your piece instead of trying to dress it up.

It could also be that your position is unreasonable and the emotional appeal is all you have.

Let’s be honest though… you really just wanted enough material to call me a name and belittle me.

David,
.
You’re basically saying that men and women should only be allowed to marry each other, simply because they’re a man and a woman.
.
No, I’m suggesting that men and women should only be allowed to marry because it is clear to anyone who isn’t blinded by an irrationally idealistic agenda that men and women are meant to go together. Need I draw a picture?

What is unreasonable? What is unreasonable about wanting equal rights? What is unreasonable about wanting to not be fired because of who you are? Who is seeking special treatment. Please, explain it to me like I’m a 5th grader if that’s what it takes but get off your high horse for god’s sake.

npo42,
Actual rights of individuals is something entirely different than the fabricated right of marriage. I never really understood the concept of special rights for married couples. Look, we already allow people to grant power of attorney to someone or to choose a medical proxy. It makes reasonable sense to allow anyone to share expenses and income, file finances jointly, grant visitation rights to another, etc,. no matter of they are straight, gay, single, married, heterosexual platonic roommates, etc. These are all temporal issues, and therefore there doesn’t appear to be any conflict with natural law. Cross over into the sanctity of marriage, however, and I see a gross violation of natural law in the state sanctioning husband and husband and wife and wife.

np042,
Who is advocating the firing of gays?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? As far as I can tell, trapblock appears to be for keeping it in, and has yet to state why, except that certain people with “disorders” are seeking special privileges. And compared equated homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.

Exiled, I agree with you here. However, to me, there is no sanctity of civil marriage. No one is looking to force churches to marry anyone. However, whether you call it civil unions or marriage, something needs to be done to protect the rights of homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples.

Hello Asharaxx: Some things never change, do they? I’ll take another shot at it. No, I “don’t have a problem with how gay service members conduct themselves now” because no one is allowed to be “openly gay” which leads me to explain my position again (see 4.1) on “why their conduct will change with the removal of DADT”. Repeal of DADT will supposedly change two things: allow the freedom to talk about same-sex relationships and allow military personnel to be “openly gay”. I ask again, what does being “openly gay” mean? If it means what it means in civilian society which gives a First Amendment protected right to men to be effeminate and women to behave like men, I oppose it on the grounds that it conflicts with the military traditions and decorum of proper military comportment and bearing. It is not “conforming” behavior that should be allowed IN THE MILITARY. As it now stands, DADT allows gay relationships, it just doesn’t allow men and women in uniform to comport themselves in an “openly gay” manner, like the opposite gender. Nor should it.

I thought the assertion was homosexuals wear their sexuality on their sleeves with the intention of riling people up and illiciting a response, then claiming victimhood. I didn’t see him say anything about DADT, though.

Jazz, I think you are seriously mistaken as to what being “openly gay” entails. Not all openly gay men are super effiminate, just like not all openly gay women are super butch. To equate the two does a huge diservice to the vast majority who fall into the middle.
.
As it stands now, gay service members can be discharged if someone reports them for being gay. Repealing this ban would remove that. It would not mean a massive outpouring of fashion designers and hair dressers would suddenly come out of the wood work. (And no offense meant at those who are fashion designers or hair dressers, those are just two occupations of the stereotypical gay male)
.
And to be honest, do you honestly see men who fit that stereotype being the ones to put their life on the line and join the military?

They can’t merely be proud of who they are? Do you (or trap) really think the vast majority of homosexuals are who they are for the purpose of riling people up? Perhaps when they are around known bigots, (Note: not saying that you are a bigot Exiled) but I doubt they are trying to rile people up the same that I might wear my pride for being a University of Florida alumni on my shoulders to rile up those from FSU or elsewhere in the SEC. (This analogy make me cry on the inside however, after this past weekend.)
.
That said, this entire blog post was begun on the topic of DADT. Trap asserted that people with “disorders”, which in and of itself is a despicable term in this context, were seeking special priviledges. I took this to mean that he thought seeking equal rights was the same. If I am wrong, I will admit it. However, I will not back down that it is reprehensible to equate homosexuals and pedophiles.
.
Perhaps the blatant bigotry got me a bit riled up, but in my defense, I think it is reasonable to think a post on DADT would be at least somewhat related to that.

Exiled wrote:

No, I’m suggesting that men and women should only be allowed to marry because it is clear to anyone who isn’t blinded by an irrationally idealistic agenda that men and women are meant to go together.

…and I’m suggesting that two homosexual men are meant to go together, just like a heterosexual male and female… AND since marriage IS a secular institution (religious beliefs and a church are NOT required) in the United States… AND since procreation is NOT a requirement to getting married, there isn’t a LEGAL reason to deny gay couples the right to get married.

What about polygamy? Please understand, I am not saying this to be inflammatory, but out of genuine intellectual curiosity. The general argument is that the state has no compelling interest to prohibit consenting adults from entering into a union based on their sexual orientation. So, why is that the state does have a compelling interest in prohibiting three consenting adults from entering into a union based on their sexual preference? Where is it common knowledge that marriage cannot be limited to man/woman, but can be limited to two adults? Seems to me that one cannot support same-sex marriage and still find a principled rationalization for outlawing polygamy. This is still consenting adults we are talking about.

npo42: I think you are seriously naive about being “openly gay” and how repeal of DADT may impact the military. Just like “you can’t be a little pregnant” you can’t be a little “openly gay”. “Super effiminate” (sic) or a little effeminate, effeminate is effeminate. As I said earlier, repeal of DADT is not a clear constitutional civil rights issue as the controlling set of rules for the military is the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) first and the Constitution second. Being “openly gay” is constitutionally protected behavior for civilians, DADT is the military equivalent and it currently prohibits gay public behavior. That’s because to be in the military is to “act one’s gender”.

1) Again, you seem to think being “openly gay” means being flamboyantly gay. I can assure that this is not the case, having several homosexuals who you would not know were at first glance. Hell, look at Will from “Will and Grace”: assuming a real life scenario, you would probably not realize he was gay meeting him in a professional scenario, yet he is still very much open about it.
.
2a) Can you please find me a source where it state’s that to be in the military is to “act one’s gender?” Because I’ve looked all through the UCMJ and I can’t find one mention of the word gender, homosexual, or gay, and only 2 instances of female and none of male. (The two females are in the section on rape)
.
2b) The only refence to “copulation,” as they use, is in regards to sodomy, which states the following:

(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.

Essentially it outlaws any sex that is not male-female, front to front.
.
Obviously, the goal of the repeal of DADT is to allow gay men and women to serve openly without fear of reprisal, as it stands now. The UCMJ is a Congressional Code of Law; that is, only an act of Congress could change it. It would therefor be logical that, should DADT be repealed, that the UCMJ would be updated and modernized as well. To do otherwise would be foolhardy and a waste.
.
As it stands now, every member of the military who has recieved a bj is subject to court martial.

No worries, Exiled, you are one of the few conservatives on here actually interested in a genuine discussion rather than name-calling and flamebaiting.
.
Originally, polygamy was outlawed because the Supreme Court did not like Mormonism, as outlined in Reynolds v US. Beyond that, as I’m sure you know, Christianity, even Mormons today, outlaws polygamy. However, I’m sure you’re not interested in the religious reasons.
.
To begin with, even the ancient Greeks outlawed it and it was strongly discouraged by the Romans, and we all know what upstanding examples of sexual morality they both were.
.
Beyond that, polygamy tends to lead to lowered status of women, as women in plural marriages tend to have lower statuses of their shared husbands. Additionally, in past cases, (ie Mormon Utah) it created a monopoly for the rich on young women. This led to abuse, crime, etc.
.
Additionally, society is set up with the assumption that a marriage is between two people. To allow polygamy would require a vast rewrite to account for different cases.
.
Essentially, it is a slippery slope argument, I’ll give you that. However, I believe that the people stating that homosexuality and gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc are being disingenuous. And of those, only polygamy has any real merit.

Ok, firstly, speaking for myself at least, I don’t at all fear that allowing gay marriage will suddenly lead to widespread acceptance of other proclivities, such as pedophilia, bestiality, or even polygamy. I’m not foreseeing a slippery slope to acceptance, but rather I am arguing that the two (gay-marriage and polygamy) both fall under the same penumbra of principles that gay-marriage advocates use to further their position. In other words, if you support same-sex marriage you should, on principle, support polygamy. Yet most don’t. It seems a rather glaring hypocrisy: demonizing those of us against same-sex marriage as prejudicial bigots and arguing that we have no right to limit the definition of marriage, while at the same time these people by and large don’t support polygamy and are comfortable limiting the definition of marriage consequently.
.
As for your explanation of why polygamy is rejected, you seem to present several points:
1) Religious doctrine
2) Historical/social opposition
3) Personal impact
4) Common understanding of marriage
.
Don’t all these apply to homosexuality, as well? Certainly, most religious denominations are opposed to homosexuality as an immoral act. Historically, at least in the US, there has been social opposition to homosexuality. The common definition of marriage is absolutely pertaining to a man and a woman. And, finally, the personal impact of homosexuality, while not quite along the lines of your gender inequalities you mention in reference to polygamy, is quite possibly more damaging: AIDS. One could argue that homosexuality’s susceptibility to life-threatening ailments is compelling reason for an all-out ban on practicing homosexuality, not to mention, of course, same-sex marriage.
.
So, I guess my point is that when it comes to marriage, we all have our own opinions on the matter and our own conceptual understanding. While same-sex advocates dismiss the traditional concept of marriage as based solely upon people’s comfort levels, yet at the expense of individual liberty, I would argue that the same applies to the overwhelming opposition to polygamy. We’re uncomfortable with it, and therefore we eliminate it from acceptable unions. So, obviously, even most same-sex advocates are cool with limiting the definition of marriage, and in the process suppressing individual liberty, so long as it doesn’t interfere with their agenda. The long-winded exhortations about equality, fairness, and bigotry are all horse sh*t if they cannot apply their own self-proclaimed principles consistently. I, at least, openly admit I have no qualms with limiting marriage, based largely on popular opinion, social mores, and moral values.

@block, Funny, I’m not the one who has been dodging questions. You’ve been the one doing nothing but repeating your original post. Try arguing your point instead of pouting.
.
Emotional? Probably. I’m sorry that I’m upset over people being unjustly treated.
.
Belittlement? Names? I haven’t called you a name yet, have I. And I’m not sure where I’m supposed to go to belittle someone who is comparing people to children and animals.

I would like to ask this , if the draft was to be used again will the gay not also be draffted? If not I bet there will be alot of people who are suddenly liking the same sex!! Can”t we waste all this money and time on something that might be useful to people who like me have to eat just a can of corn for the whole day who not only have to wear alot of clothes during the day to keep warm but also to bed just to pay the bills, who dread CHRISTmas because they can NOT buy gifts for the kids in thier life!! how do you think all these people who keep wasting ALL this money would feel if they had to know thier kids (who by the way are the ones chirstmas means the most to unless they also know they are not getting much if anything who also have to go to school only to hear what every other child got ) also dreaded chirstmas??? Do you think they would cry too.

My thing is that I know several ex-gays. You can even google the word “ex-gay” and reads tens of thousands testimonials of people who once lived a gay lifestyle before discovering their true nature. I fear that society is telling young people who might be a little different that they are gay and need to recognize it – the earlier the better. I mean, if a young man doesn’t care for sports and prefers music or theater, he must be gay. My neighbor is a psychologist and says that there is a growing number of young people who were convinced they were gay and are now coming to grips with the fact that they are not, and are suffering as they struggle to find a place in their “new world.” It even starts in high school where more and more gay/lesbian clubs have sprung up. I don’t claim to know where homosexuality originates, but I do know that one of the primary laws of nature is that of self-proliferation. I also know that the ex-gay community is growing exponentially. and they too should have a voice.

What “Iowans” apparently don’t understand is: It’s not their judges that support equal rights, it’s the Constitution. Apparently, it’s the Bill of Rights that Iowans have a problem with.

I know several “ex-idiots”, so there’s still hope for you, gregor1971.

To all my Christians full of God’s love hating away on queers like me:

Here is your favorite go to from HIS word the TRUTH:

“And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Leviticus 20:13

No worries! I never lie with mankind as I lieth with a woman! I strictly lie with mankind. I find women wonderful, but sexually repulsive. If I ever dared to lie with a woman as I lieth with a man, she and I are both going to hell. So hooray! I’m still going to heaven. Okay, time to lieth with my boyfriend. Who of course, I cannot marry. So thanks for that one, too.

Christ would be ashamed of you.

I don’t advocate stoning adulterers, nor keeping slaves, nor forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, nor killing those who intermarry.

To apply ancient values and judgments blindly to any society is, frankly, immoral.

It is truly disappointing to read the opinions of others who support the gays. There is no doubt in my mind that it is wrong to deny the rights of others simply because of their sexuality. However, marriage is between a woman and a men. That is why God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I understand that, unfortunately, many Americans do not believe in the almighty God, but only through him will you know the truth. Thus, you will probably disagree with all that has been written. Since all who support the gays claim to be open minded, try opening the bible.
I do not agree with mistreating the gays or discriminate against them. In fact, I encourage all to help these people, get to know them and lead them to the right path. As God’s servants it is our duty to save the many lost souls. Throughout time, morals have been lost and this is a sign that things will only get worst from here.
Also, the claim by some people that individuals do not chose to be gay but are, rather born that way is completely unlogical. Think about this. A normal person with no abnormal defects or learning disabilities is not a very bright person. Is it because they were born dum or because they did not apply themselves to become more knowledgable? Obviously the person was not born dum. This is a state of mind. Something the individual was given a chance to choose. Now, is a person really born gay? It is as they (the gays) call it themselves, “just a preference”. This is not genetic. There is no “gay cell” if that is what you want to call it. You non-God believers rely on science rather than faith, yet you lack logic, common sense, and wisdom and are mistaken. You cannot tell wickedness from truth.

With the human genome mapped is there anyone but me asking why there is no “Gay Gene”? The LGBT tent is full of people with nothing more in common than a confused sense of sexuality.

Additional protections are needed for homosexual couples already provided for Heterosexuals. Inheritance, hospital visitation, protections in the workplace and in securing housing are all excellent examples of where redress is necessary.

But the LGBT community decided to make their play in one fell swoop with the “tortured minority denied my civil rights” play to force homosexual marriage on the majority.

There is no legal, societal, historical or cultural precedence for “Gay Marriage”. Gay marriage may come about legally one day, trends point to it. I am okay with that. What i am not okay with is perverting the system to the benefit of a few with the bogus notion that homosexuality rises to anything more than a life style choice.

The religious truth of the matter is that I don’t see Jesus stoning gays as immoral. But I don’t see him presiding over their nuptials either.

I think we should try to defeat every one that voted to repeal DADT POLICY. I will sure support there opponents.