Saturday, November 13, 2010
Comments about DADT. AOL hilited a news story today about the Supreme Court not interfering in the natural course of the Log Cabin Republicans' lawsuit against the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law. Following the story were some 300 comments when I decided to read them and reply as seemed necessary or appropriate. Here, now, are my 82 substantive comments. I also made a number of comments such as "Stay on topic", because the Radical Right always tries to hijack comments areas and redirect them to attacks on Obama, and other irrelevancies. Be warned. The text below comprises over 3,500 words.
*
Unhappily, it is not true that you have to say something. Other people can report you, and then the military DOES ask, or decides from its own investigation that you are gay, then discharges you.
***
Bill Clinton was notorious for half-measures. He was a very bad President, who compromised principles endlessly.
***
Fine, then urge the President to withdraw the appeal. Posting comments here does nothing toward moving the President or DOJ to do that.
***
You're a bigot, pure and simple. But at least you are ALLOWED to be a bigot, openly.
***
I have no desire whatsoever to be thought straight. Would a straight person be alrite with being thought gay?
***
Stop the antihomosexual stereotyping. Gay men in the military are not effeminate, but all-men. And MOST gay men are all-male.
***
To answer num6fan's points, yes, if someone has a legally recognized relationship, they are entitled to the same benefits as anyone else. As to the part of the query, "Will heterosexuals be able to also have same sex dependants?", it doesn't seem to make much sense, but yes, a heterosexual soldier is entitled to claim his sons as dependents.
***
And if they had fought back and kicked the crap out of their attackers? That is the REAL fear: that gay men trained to defend the Nation will as well defend themselves.
***
Why don't you take that attitude toward comments areas? Keep your opinions to yourself. Would you like that to be the law?
***
Not all Republicans are antigay/antilesbian bigots. Dick Cheney's dauter is a lesbian, and he will not enlist in your crusade. The Log Cabin Republicans, whose lawsuit is at issue, are GAY REPUBLICANS. Did you notice the absence of antigay ballot measures this election? The Republicans know that antigay bigotry is no longer a winning issue for them.
***
Everyone's sexual orientation (not preference) is known or assumed. If heterosexuals were forbidden to talk about their girlfriends -- or prostitutes -- how many straight men would serve in the military?
***
Simpleminded bigots have always found ways to 'justify' their simpleminded bigotry. Women can't meet realistic standards, but they are accepted into the military, where they create HUGE problems of cohesion and make our task of winning over the people of conservative countries almost IMPOSSIBLE.
***
Straight soldiers BRAG about their sexual activities in the military, so your imperative "Just keep your mouth shut and do your job" and your assertion that "No one cares what you do in private" are both patently false. Heterosexual soldiers would be OFFENDED if they were told to keep their sexual orientation secret on pain of discharge.
***
Bin Laden is not a myth, just a corpse. He has almost surely "bin" dead for at least three years.
***
Yet we are all supposed to bow down to the military and pretend that they are "defending our freedoms".
***
Yes, [in appealing a ruling that struck down DADT] Obama is no JFK.
***
Why would men -- and women, who do NOT belong in the military -- leave the military in large numbers? Most of them are there because they can't find work in the real world, and want the benefits they will get after they leave the service.
***
But having WOMEN in the same proximity is not a problem? B.s. Women cause enormous problems in the military, and make it impossible for us to win over the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because Afghan men AND WOMEN don't want women pointing guns at them. So they fite us because they refuse the Radical Feminism the U.S. military apparently wishes to impose upon them. The only good thing about DADT, if it is effective, is that only straight people, many of them macho, antigay losers who are good only as cannon fodder, get killed in the military.
***
Siding WITH a policy you disapprove, and actually APPEALING a decision that supposedly went your way was INSANE. The Obama Administration could simply have accepted the first court ruling, and NOT appealed, and the law would have been voided. It is thus not possible to believe that Obama is sincere in his pretense of wanting DADT to end. Compare racial segregation. Would Obama have appealed a court ruling that racial segregation in the military was unconstitutional?
***
num6fan, the military has SUBVERTED its mission by firing much-needed translators and bilingual intelligence officers because they are gay. So the deaths of U.S. soldiers -- straight soldiers -- that gay intelligence agents could have prevented are the doing of antigay bigots. They are getting their own people killed in order to discriminate against gays.
***
I'm sure you were equally comfortable with a racially segregated military, and would say then too, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
***
Had Obama simply accepted the first court ruling, he could have done that [acted like Harry Truman in ending segregation in the military]. But he appealed it! So now he can't ignore the law, because the appellate court found the law constitutional. Obama's behavior is incomprehensible unless he really is an antigay bigot himself.
***
There have been very distinguished military leaders who were homosexual, including Richard the Lionheart and Frederick the Great in relatively modern times, and Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great in the ancient world. How would their countries have fared if they had been thrown out of their militaries or royal families?
***
Straights like to pretend gay men are weak and homosexual sex is disgusting, and YET they are afraid of us -- or of their own desires.
***
There is no such thing as being "visually groped". You are turning non-touch into molestation, by magic. Stop the nonsense.
***
icefishin1 is just making things up. Identical rights are "special" rights. Gay boyfriends "out" their ex and that's the way "98%" of gay men in the military are booted. The other 2% -- don't you just love the specificity of these made-up "statistics"? -- "out" themselves to get out of the military that they joined as VOLUNTEERS.
***
It is impossible to understand Obama sometimes.
***
So bigotry is okay, but fiting bigotry is wrong. Now I see. Perhaps we don't need a military, since it's okay to let other people take our rights away.
***
cruisedoc, the only thing that keeps recruitment down is the endless war that the neocons want.
***
cruisedoc, apply your same standard to straight people in the military. NEVER mention anything that indicates your sexuality. Never brag about your heterosexual exploits, or mention your girlfriend. Keep it to yourself. I'm sure you'd be fine with that. Right.
***
Ignorant nonsense, weng. The toughest army of ancient Greece, that of Sparta, was very homosexual. The greatest generals of the ancient Western world were Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, who were both reported to have sex with men.
***
Phony issue. Nobody is talking about "open gay acts" any more than heterosexual orgies in the barracks. You have no legitimate argument, so create a straw man to knock down.
***
Unless cruisedoc lives in total isolation (as would be appropriate, given his hateful attitudes), he DOES know people who are gay. They just don't "flaunt" it.
***
Drivel, pure and simple nonsense. HIV does NOTHING, which is why the great preponderance of people diagnosed with it live years and years and years without getting AIDS -- which is a DRUG injury, which explains why it never enters the general population, after 30 years!
***
And if you feel uncomfortable showering with a black man, blacks should be banned from the military too, right? Yes, it's all about YOU.
***
tjburkee is just making things up. Homosexuals are NOT sick -- but we are tired of the crap that bigots keep pulling out of the clear blue sky. As for sharing a barracks, are you afraid of being raped by those nelly little faggots, you great big strong straight man? Or are you afraid that you would be tempted to have sex with men if there were no penalty for it?
***
You misinterpreted the article. The Supreme Court chose not to INTERVENE at this stage. They did NOT rule on the constitutionality of the law. Nor is any court authorized by the Constitution to void a law duly passed in accord with the provisions of the Constitution. If the Framers had intended the Supreme Court to have a role in legislation, they would have written an express provision to that effect -- AND provided an override procedure, as they did with the Presidential veto.
***
Another falsification of reality. No one is advocating that people have sex -- hetero- or homosexual -- in front of your children. Cut the crap.
***
So there is no freedom of speech in the Constitution? Perhaps you should READ the Constitution someday.
***
Tony is being completely dishonest. Straight people make a great show of their sexuality every day, in every conceivable place. People indignant about such showing off have invented the expression, "Get a room", for good reason.
***
bobvadc, does this sound familiar? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It's in a little-known provision called the FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Plainly "don't ask, don't TELL" is an explicit violation of the First Amendment.
***
And millions and millions of Americans think heterosexuality is disgusting. But you people don't keep it to yourself, do you, but talk about it all the time.
***
Tod's extreme sexual insecurities are showing.
***
Cut the crap. You know, we all know, that absent an indication of some sort to the contrary, every single person on Earth is PRESUMED heterosexual. The Courts and the Legislature should let the military operate outside the laws and Constitution? That is a statement fit for a Latin American dictatorship, not the United States.
***
And I'm very certain there has never been heterosexual sex in any military barracks, ship, or other facility. But how did all those pregnant military women get knocked up?
***
Other militaries can handle gay men in the same barracks with straight, but Americans are too stupid, sexually insecure, and brutal to behave in civilized fashion? You have a very low opinion of American military, I see.
***
Actually, the military has long been very different from society in many things, including earlier desegregation than much of society and the acceptance of Radical Feminism. Whether that is a social experiment, progress, regression, or whatever depends upon your point of view.
***
thermalsurface's stance is disgraceful interference with other people's lives. Of course he takes the dishonest stance that many straight bigots do, that they only want to 'save us from ourselves', not control our lives. If we asserted that we have the right to tell them how to live, they'd be perfectly content to accept our lecturing them too, right?
***
Being considered for Government employment on the basis of one's qualifications, not race, sex, orientation, or other irrelevancy IS a civil right. If gay people are not entitled to seek Government employment, we should just stop paying taxes. We don't need to pay taxes to hire everybody BUT us.
***
Equal rights to fite the Nation's enemies abroad is an "agenda", is it? Why is it OK for you to push YOUR, antihomosexual, agenda? but it's wrong for gay people to demand equality?
***
Bob pretends to know how many homosexuals there are, but he is just making things up. The Census doesn't ask about sexual orientation, so where does he get his information? Oh, I know, he just pulls it out of ... the clear blue sky. Gay men are plainly a lot more than 2% of the population, since every year on the same day, hundreds of thousands of gay men show up at Gay Pride events in several cities scattered across the Nation, but only a tiny proportion of ANY population is activist. 10% is a more likely figure. But people's rights do not depend on their statistical numbers, only on their personhood. As for what is good for the military, that is for the Government, of which all military are employees, to decide. We don't have rule by the military in this country -- yet.
***
I'm very tired of fascistic comments by the likes of "Mr. Wonderful", saying that the military is rightly independent of society and not subject to its laws. No, MW, the military does not rule; it TAKES orders from civilians, it does not issue orders to them.
***
So civil rights are properly the concern only of the minorities, right? Never mind that the majority had to pass laws to protect minorities. By your reasoning, that wasn't important enuf to the majority to legislate. No, justice is everybody's business.
***
As far as gay men are concerned, heterosexuality is sick and disgusting sexual behavior. Mind your own business and stay out of our lives. We don't tell you how to live, so don't presume to tell us how to live. "Live and let live" is the proper motto for a Nation that values personal freedom.
***
The Supreme Court did NOT decide the issue, so your meanspirited rejoicing is at best premature.
***
And of course we are supposed to believe everything you say, without proof of any kind, nor even a last name we could look for info about online. But you may have a point: let everyone killed in the military be straight. You're in favor of straight people being the only ones dying, right?
***
People do not willingly get themselves discharged with a homosexual record that can follow them throughout their life. And we know that you do NOT care about protecting homosexuals. Cut the crap.
***
Heterosexuals have made their sexual behavior the subject of EVERYTHING in society. It is all over TV, in films, and in public, and "reproductive rights" are HETERO, SEXUAL rights. If Government were to try to tell straight people that they have no right to talk about their sexual orientation or activities, would you be content with that? No, you would not. But YOU would make THAT a HUGE political issue.
***
You can't keep your opinions to yourself, but other people should keep their fundamental essence to themselves.
***
So if a white soldier doesn't want black soldiers around, that should control, right? I don't give a d...arn what individual soldiers want. They don't write the laws, and they don't give orders to society. Their job is to do their duty and obey the constitution. You don't like other soldiers? Tuf.
***
Yeah, only YOU have rights. You are an enemy of the world, and wholly un-American.
***
Clearly you do not understand how biology works. If six people do NOT reproduce but four people DO, and they have several children each, the population increases, not decreases. There are many biological traits that are passed along and pop up in every generation, whether they are further passed along or not by those individuals. Blond hair, for instance, is recessive, such that if both parents have that gene, one of four of their children, on average, will have blond hair. If only one parent has the gene, none of their children has blond hair. That does not make blondness nonhereditable. It just makes it a minority condition, like hereditary homosexuality.
***
The real problem is that a lot of straight men are afraid they will have sex with men unless they are held in check by laws or taboos. They're afraid not of gay men but of themselves.
***
What is at issue is NOT a private organization but the Government to which we all pay taxes and under which -- or over which -- we are all supposed to have equal rights. Pls do not falsify the issue.
***
"White people do not venture into black people's world. So why do black people want to venture into theirs? Why go where you are not wanted?" And as for "real men", gay men ARE real men. Indeed, they are MORE men than the fearful straight people posting to this area. Straight men are scared of gay men; gay men are not afraid of straight men. We even like some of them, but stick to our own men.
***
icefishin1, the military isn't a women's aerobics class. It is a Government JOB, even CAREER.
***
As the man who first put forward the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used, I can tell you that it was and remains a necessary antidote to the endless attempts of bigots to make gay people ashamed. No one should have been suspended for wearing "Straight Pride" teeshirts. Everyone is entitled to be proud of who and what they are at essence, tho some of their acts may warrant condemnation, such as attacking other people's rights. The idea that heterosexuals are the VICTIMS in this society is INSANE and/or just plain dishonest. Heterosexuals in the military aren't silenced about their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals aren't forbidden to marry, or have any of the rights, such as filing a joint tax return, of marriage. Cut the crap.
***
The problem with the super-rich is that "their" money is NOT "hard earned". And it's not money unless it has our name on it, "United States of America". The could never have achieved ANYTHING without the work that the poor and middle class did to create everything they benefit from. And many of those people who did the real work of society are gay or lesbian.
***
zamaster2 has this crazy bugaboo that gay men are all rapists, and cannot find anyone to have sex with of their own age. Actually, gay men find LOTS of sex with willing partners -- which makes a lot of straight men jealous. We don't have to wait for three (expensive) dates or spend money on a prostitute. We can hook up with a willing partner very, very easily. We don't need to attack the unwilling. And straight men are so weak that they couldn't dissuade someone from attacking them? You poor weak straight people. I feel so sorry for you, being raped by gay men every day.
***
Discriminatory provisions of agreements are void as a matter of law. An illegal agreement is NOT a contract. And we are not talking about private companies but GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. You are twice wrong.
***
Soldiers are forbidden to obey ILLEGAL orders, and depriving people of their First Amendment rights is illegal.
***
STOP repeating posts. As to Kagan, she has NEVER publicly stated she is a lesbian, so how would you know her orientation? Do straight people have to recuse themselves from issues involving heterosexuality, such as abortion of children conceived thru heterosexual sex?
***
Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and humanity. Are you suggesting that soldiers must be monks or like Catholic priests, forbidden even to think about sex? That makes no sense.
***
If itchy is calling me a socialist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I, like most Americans, understand that we have long had a MIXED economy, not "socialist", not laissez-faire capitalist. Liberals are the people who CREATED the United States and did everything that has made this a civilized society. The Confederacy was TREASON, and anyone proud of it is proud of treason. I call such a person a "traitor".
***
Kindly put replies to posts AT the relevant post, so we can see what your are supposedly addressing. You are falsifying the issue in DADT. It is not about gay men sexually harassing poor, helpless straight men. Your insistence that gay men "need help" is absurd and insulting. Your extreme stance that any "expression of sexual tendencies" creates a "hostile work environment" is entirely wrong in a couple of ways. First, it would tell straight men in the military that they cannot talk about their girlfriend or wife, much less their sexual conquests. Second, much of the military is not just a workplace but a LIVING ENVIRONMENT. Military people have rights, not all the rights of civilians -- for instance, they can't defy their boss -- but they do have fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech.
***
itchy, do you REALLY think the smoke inside "your" bars STAYS inside your bars forever, and never gets out into the general atmosphere, in high concentrations nearby and somewhat more attenuated form as it spreads out? Air pollution of many types is worsened by smokers, who have NO right to pollute other people's air. But you don't grant other people any rights.
***
So you concede that straight men in the military DO talk about their sexuality, but now pretend to be indignant about it. No one believes that. Not even gay men mind straight men talking about their wife or girlfriend, as long as they keep it clean. But gay men are not allowed to talk about their boyfriend or civil-union partner. World of difference.
***
I do not waste time on worrying about a nonexistent God. I deal with realities.
***
Yes, gay people are at the root of all the problems of the world. Yeah, right.
***
[And finally, my adamant replies to the nonsense of the Radical Right brought forth the charge that I was "bullying" them! So these are the last comments I posted.]
How, pray, am I "bullying" anybody? I tell people to stay on-topic. That is supposed to be REQUIRED by AOL Anytime anyone dares to answer the Radical Rightists in comments areas, they are "bullying"?
***
It only seems to you that I'm bullying, because I am demolishing the nonsense of the Radical Right here. And I am very proud to be homosexual, but since I'm 65 years old, I don't do nearly as much "practicing" as I'd like. Besides, I don't need any practice. I know what I'm doing.
*
***
Bill Clinton was notorious for half-measures. He was a very bad President, who compromised principles endlessly.
***
Fine, then urge the President to withdraw the appeal. Posting comments here does nothing toward moving the President or DOJ to do that.
***
You're a bigot, pure and simple. But at least you are ALLOWED to be a bigot, openly.
***
I have no desire whatsoever to be thought straight. Would a straight person be alrite with being thought gay?
***
Stop the antihomosexual stereotyping. Gay men in the military are not effeminate, but all-men. And MOST gay men are all-male.
***
To answer num6fan's points, yes, if someone has a legally recognized relationship, they are entitled to the same benefits as anyone else. As to the part of the query, "Will heterosexuals be able to also have same sex dependants?", it doesn't seem to make much sense, but yes, a heterosexual soldier is entitled to claim his sons as dependents.
***
And if they had fought back and kicked the crap out of their attackers? That is the REAL fear: that gay men trained to defend the Nation will as well defend themselves.
***
Why don't you take that attitude toward comments areas? Keep your opinions to yourself. Would you like that to be the law?
***
Not all Republicans are antigay/antilesbian bigots. Dick Cheney's dauter is a lesbian, and he will not enlist in your crusade. The Log Cabin Republicans, whose lawsuit is at issue, are GAY REPUBLICANS. Did you notice the absence of antigay ballot measures this election? The Republicans know that antigay bigotry is no longer a winning issue for them.
***
Everyone's sexual orientation (not preference) is known or assumed. If heterosexuals were forbidden to talk about their girlfriends -- or prostitutes -- how many straight men would serve in the military?
***
Simpleminded bigots have always found ways to 'justify' their simpleminded bigotry. Women can't meet realistic standards, but they are accepted into the military, where they create HUGE problems of cohesion and make our task of winning over the people of conservative countries almost IMPOSSIBLE.
***
Straight soldiers BRAG about their sexual activities in the military, so your imperative "Just keep your mouth shut and do your job" and your assertion that "No one cares what you do in private" are both patently false. Heterosexual soldiers would be OFFENDED if they were told to keep their sexual orientation secret on pain of discharge.
***
Bin Laden is not a myth, just a corpse. He has almost surely "bin" dead for at least three years.
***
Yet we are all supposed to bow down to the military and pretend that they are "defending our freedoms".
***
Yes, [in appealing a ruling that struck down DADT] Obama is no JFK.
***
Why would men -- and women, who do NOT belong in the military -- leave the military in large numbers? Most of them are there because they can't find work in the real world, and want the benefits they will get after they leave the service.
***
But having WOMEN in the same proximity is not a problem? B.s. Women cause enormous problems in the military, and make it impossible for us to win over the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because Afghan men AND WOMEN don't want women pointing guns at them. So they fite us because they refuse the Radical Feminism the U.S. military apparently wishes to impose upon them. The only good thing about DADT, if it is effective, is that only straight people, many of them macho, antigay losers who are good only as cannon fodder, get killed in the military.
***
Siding WITH a policy you disapprove, and actually APPEALING a decision that supposedly went your way was INSANE. The Obama Administration could simply have accepted the first court ruling, and NOT appealed, and the law would have been voided. It is thus not possible to believe that Obama is sincere in his pretense of wanting DADT to end. Compare racial segregation. Would Obama have appealed a court ruling that racial segregation in the military was unconstitutional?
***
num6fan, the military has SUBVERTED its mission by firing much-needed translators and bilingual intelligence officers because they are gay. So the deaths of U.S. soldiers -- straight soldiers -- that gay intelligence agents could have prevented are the doing of antigay bigots. They are getting their own people killed in order to discriminate against gays.
***
I'm sure you were equally comfortable with a racially segregated military, and would say then too, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
***
Had Obama simply accepted the first court ruling, he could have done that [acted like Harry Truman in ending segregation in the military]. But he appealed it! So now he can't ignore the law, because the appellate court found the law constitutional. Obama's behavior is incomprehensible unless he really is an antigay bigot himself.
***
There have been very distinguished military leaders who were homosexual, including Richard the Lionheart and Frederick the Great in relatively modern times, and Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great in the ancient world. How would their countries have fared if they had been thrown out of their militaries or royal families?
***
Straights like to pretend gay men are weak and homosexual sex is disgusting, and YET they are afraid of us -- or of their own desires.
***
There is no such thing as being "visually groped". You are turning non-touch into molestation, by magic. Stop the nonsense.
***
icefishin1 is just making things up. Identical rights are "special" rights. Gay boyfriends "out" their ex and that's the way "98%" of gay men in the military are booted. The other 2% -- don't you just love the specificity of these made-up "statistics"? -- "out" themselves to get out of the military that they joined as VOLUNTEERS.
***
It is impossible to understand Obama sometimes.
***
So bigotry is okay, but fiting bigotry is wrong. Now I see. Perhaps we don't need a military, since it's okay to let other people take our rights away.
***
cruisedoc, the only thing that keeps recruitment down is the endless war that the neocons want.
***
cruisedoc, apply your same standard to straight people in the military. NEVER mention anything that indicates your sexuality. Never brag about your heterosexual exploits, or mention your girlfriend. Keep it to yourself. I'm sure you'd be fine with that. Right.
***
Ignorant nonsense, weng. The toughest army of ancient Greece, that of Sparta, was very homosexual. The greatest generals of the ancient Western world were Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, who were both reported to have sex with men.
***
Phony issue. Nobody is talking about "open gay acts" any more than heterosexual orgies in the barracks. You have no legitimate argument, so create a straw man to knock down.
***
Unless cruisedoc lives in total isolation (as would be appropriate, given his hateful attitudes), he DOES know people who are gay. They just don't "flaunt" it.
***
Drivel, pure and simple nonsense. HIV does NOTHING, which is why the great preponderance of people diagnosed with it live years and years and years without getting AIDS -- which is a DRUG injury, which explains why it never enters the general population, after 30 years!
***
And if you feel uncomfortable showering with a black man, blacks should be banned from the military too, right? Yes, it's all about YOU.
***
tjburkee is just making things up. Homosexuals are NOT sick -- but we are tired of the crap that bigots keep pulling out of the clear blue sky. As for sharing a barracks, are you afraid of being raped by those nelly little faggots, you great big strong straight man? Or are you afraid that you would be tempted to have sex with men if there were no penalty for it?
***
You misinterpreted the article. The Supreme Court chose not to INTERVENE at this stage. They did NOT rule on the constitutionality of the law. Nor is any court authorized by the Constitution to void a law duly passed in accord with the provisions of the Constitution. If the Framers had intended the Supreme Court to have a role in legislation, they would have written an express provision to that effect -- AND provided an override procedure, as they did with the Presidential veto.
***
Another falsification of reality. No one is advocating that people have sex -- hetero- or homosexual -- in front of your children. Cut the crap.
***
So there is no freedom of speech in the Constitution? Perhaps you should READ the Constitution someday.
***
Tony is being completely dishonest. Straight people make a great show of their sexuality every day, in every conceivable place. People indignant about such showing off have invented the expression, "Get a room", for good reason.
***
bobvadc, does this sound familiar? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It's in a little-known provision called the FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Plainly "don't ask, don't TELL" is an explicit violation of the First Amendment.
***
And millions and millions of Americans think heterosexuality is disgusting. But you people don't keep it to yourself, do you, but talk about it all the time.
***
Tod's extreme sexual insecurities are showing.
***
Cut the crap. You know, we all know, that absent an indication of some sort to the contrary, every single person on Earth is PRESUMED heterosexual. The Courts and the Legislature should let the military operate outside the laws and Constitution? That is a statement fit for a Latin American dictatorship, not the United States.
***
And I'm very certain there has never been heterosexual sex in any military barracks, ship, or other facility. But how did all those pregnant military women get knocked up?
***
Other militaries can handle gay men in the same barracks with straight, but Americans are too stupid, sexually insecure, and brutal to behave in civilized fashion? You have a very low opinion of American military, I see.
***
Actually, the military has long been very different from society in many things, including earlier desegregation than much of society and the acceptance of Radical Feminism. Whether that is a social experiment, progress, regression, or whatever depends upon your point of view.
***
thermalsurface's stance is disgraceful interference with other people's lives. Of course he takes the dishonest stance that many straight bigots do, that they only want to 'save us from ourselves', not control our lives. If we asserted that we have the right to tell them how to live, they'd be perfectly content to accept our lecturing them too, right?
***
Being considered for Government employment on the basis of one's qualifications, not race, sex, orientation, or other irrelevancy IS a civil right. If gay people are not entitled to seek Government employment, we should just stop paying taxes. We don't need to pay taxes to hire everybody BUT us.
***
Equal rights to fite the Nation's enemies abroad is an "agenda", is it? Why is it OK for you to push YOUR, antihomosexual, agenda? but it's wrong for gay people to demand equality?
***
Bob pretends to know how many homosexuals there are, but he is just making things up. The Census doesn't ask about sexual orientation, so where does he get his information? Oh, I know, he just pulls it out of ... the clear blue sky. Gay men are plainly a lot more than 2% of the population, since every year on the same day, hundreds of thousands of gay men show up at Gay Pride events in several cities scattered across the Nation, but only a tiny proportion of ANY population is activist. 10% is a more likely figure. But people's rights do not depend on their statistical numbers, only on their personhood. As for what is good for the military, that is for the Government, of which all military are employees, to decide. We don't have rule by the military in this country -- yet.
***
I'm very tired of fascistic comments by the likes of "Mr. Wonderful", saying that the military is rightly independent of society and not subject to its laws. No, MW, the military does not rule; it TAKES orders from civilians, it does not issue orders to them.
***
So civil rights are properly the concern only of the minorities, right? Never mind that the majority had to pass laws to protect minorities. By your reasoning, that wasn't important enuf to the majority to legislate. No, justice is everybody's business.
***
As far as gay men are concerned, heterosexuality is sick and disgusting sexual behavior. Mind your own business and stay out of our lives. We don't tell you how to live, so don't presume to tell us how to live. "Live and let live" is the proper motto for a Nation that values personal freedom.
***
The Supreme Court did NOT decide the issue, so your meanspirited rejoicing is at best premature.
***
And of course we are supposed to believe everything you say, without proof of any kind, nor even a last name we could look for info about online. But you may have a point: let everyone killed in the military be straight. You're in favor of straight people being the only ones dying, right?
***
People do not willingly get themselves discharged with a homosexual record that can follow them throughout their life. And we know that you do NOT care about protecting homosexuals. Cut the crap.
***
Heterosexuals have made their sexual behavior the subject of EVERYTHING in society. It is all over TV, in films, and in public, and "reproductive rights" are HETERO, SEXUAL rights. If Government were to try to tell straight people that they have no right to talk about their sexual orientation or activities, would you be content with that? No, you would not. But YOU would make THAT a HUGE political issue.
***
You can't keep your opinions to yourself, but other people should keep their fundamental essence to themselves.
***
So if a white soldier doesn't want black soldiers around, that should control, right? I don't give a d...arn what individual soldiers want. They don't write the laws, and they don't give orders to society. Their job is to do their duty and obey the constitution. You don't like other soldiers? Tuf.
***
Yeah, only YOU have rights. You are an enemy of the world, and wholly un-American.
***
Clearly you do not understand how biology works. If six people do NOT reproduce but four people DO, and they have several children each, the population increases, not decreases. There are many biological traits that are passed along and pop up in every generation, whether they are further passed along or not by those individuals. Blond hair, for instance, is recessive, such that if both parents have that gene, one of four of their children, on average, will have blond hair. If only one parent has the gene, none of their children has blond hair. That does not make blondness nonhereditable. It just makes it a minority condition, like hereditary homosexuality.
***
The real problem is that a lot of straight men are afraid they will have sex with men unless they are held in check by laws or taboos. They're afraid not of gay men but of themselves.
***
What is at issue is NOT a private organization but the Government to which we all pay taxes and under which -- or over which -- we are all supposed to have equal rights. Pls do not falsify the issue.
***
"White people do not venture into black people's world. So why do black people want to venture into theirs? Why go where you are not wanted?" And as for "real men", gay men ARE real men. Indeed, they are MORE men than the fearful straight people posting to this area. Straight men are scared of gay men; gay men are not afraid of straight men. We even like some of them, but stick to our own men.
***
icefishin1, the military isn't a women's aerobics class. It is a Government JOB, even CAREER.
***
As the man who first put forward the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used, I can tell you that it was and remains a necessary antidote to the endless attempts of bigots to make gay people ashamed. No one should have been suspended for wearing "Straight Pride" teeshirts. Everyone is entitled to be proud of who and what they are at essence, tho some of their acts may warrant condemnation, such as attacking other people's rights. The idea that heterosexuals are the VICTIMS in this society is INSANE and/or just plain dishonest. Heterosexuals in the military aren't silenced about their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals aren't forbidden to marry, or have any of the rights, such as filing a joint tax return, of marriage. Cut the crap.
***
The problem with the super-rich is that "their" money is NOT "hard earned". And it's not money unless it has our name on it, "United States of America". The could never have achieved ANYTHING without the work that the poor and middle class did to create everything they benefit from. And many of those people who did the real work of society are gay or lesbian.
***
zamaster2 has this crazy bugaboo that gay men are all rapists, and cannot find anyone to have sex with of their own age. Actually, gay men find LOTS of sex with willing partners -- which makes a lot of straight men jealous. We don't have to wait for three (expensive) dates or spend money on a prostitute. We can hook up with a willing partner very, very easily. We don't need to attack the unwilling. And straight men are so weak that they couldn't dissuade someone from attacking them? You poor weak straight people. I feel so sorry for you, being raped by gay men every day.
***
Discriminatory provisions of agreements are void as a matter of law. An illegal agreement is NOT a contract. And we are not talking about private companies but GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. You are twice wrong.
***
Soldiers are forbidden to obey ILLEGAL orders, and depriving people of their First Amendment rights is illegal.
***
STOP repeating posts. As to Kagan, she has NEVER publicly stated she is a lesbian, so how would you know her orientation? Do straight people have to recuse themselves from issues involving heterosexuality, such as abortion of children conceived thru heterosexual sex?
***
Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and humanity. Are you suggesting that soldiers must be monks or like Catholic priests, forbidden even to think about sex? That makes no sense.
***
If itchy is calling me a socialist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I, like most Americans, understand that we have long had a MIXED economy, not "socialist", not laissez-faire capitalist. Liberals are the people who CREATED the United States and did everything that has made this a civilized society. The Confederacy was TREASON, and anyone proud of it is proud of treason. I call such a person a "traitor".
***
Kindly put replies to posts AT the relevant post, so we can see what your are supposedly addressing. You are falsifying the issue in DADT. It is not about gay men sexually harassing poor, helpless straight men. Your insistence that gay men "need help" is absurd and insulting. Your extreme stance that any "expression of sexual tendencies" creates a "hostile work environment" is entirely wrong in a couple of ways. First, it would tell straight men in the military that they cannot talk about their girlfriend or wife, much less their sexual conquests. Second, much of the military is not just a workplace but a LIVING ENVIRONMENT. Military people have rights, not all the rights of civilians -- for instance, they can't defy their boss -- but they do have fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech.
***
itchy, do you REALLY think the smoke inside "your" bars STAYS inside your bars forever, and never gets out into the general atmosphere, in high concentrations nearby and somewhat more attenuated form as it spreads out? Air pollution of many types is worsened by smokers, who have NO right to pollute other people's air. But you don't grant other people any rights.
***
So you concede that straight men in the military DO talk about their sexuality, but now pretend to be indignant about it. No one believes that. Not even gay men mind straight men talking about their wife or girlfriend, as long as they keep it clean. But gay men are not allowed to talk about their boyfriend or civil-union partner. World of difference.
***
I do not waste time on worrying about a nonexistent God. I deal with realities.
***
Yes, gay people are at the root of all the problems of the world. Yeah, right.
***
[And finally, my adamant replies to the nonsense of the Radical Right brought forth the charge that I was "bullying" them! So these are the last comments I posted.]
How, pray, am I "bullying" anybody? I tell people to stay on-topic. That is supposed to be REQUIRED by AOL Anytime anyone dares to answer the Radical Rightists in comments areas, they are "bullying"?
***
It only seems to you that I'm bullying, because I am demolishing the nonsense of the Radical Right here. And I am very proud to be homosexual, but since I'm 65 years old, I don't do nearly as much "practicing" as I'd like. Besides, I don't need any practice. I know what I'm doing.
