Patterico's Pontifications

9/20/2011

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Lifted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:04 pm



This is a move that I have long supported, as loyal readers know. Here is a post of mine from 2005 making the argument that the policy is wrongheaded.

Yet another way I am suspiciously non-conservative . . . at times.

Anyway, congratulations to gays who are serving our country with distinction and can now do so without having to hide who they are.

540 Responses to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Lifted”

  1. Lots of conservatives who see nothing wrong with civil rights.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  2. Lots of libertarians support this but will blame the religious right if a gay gets shot by a jihadist.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  3. Racist.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  4. Obamas economic plan is Don’t ask or I will know whose ass to kick.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  5. A similar plan was drafted in 1982.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  6. By the way I believe DADTs repeal was a good thing as well and I’am a coservative.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  7. A lot of times I say things like this and get barked at. Nice to see some agreement.

    Patterico (f724ca)

  8. I’ve never had issues with the conservative anti-gay aspect (which is religious in nature more than anything, and hence is both reasonable and indisputable in its basis…) But personally believe that, for the most part, the right or wrongness of being gay is between you and God.

    That said, there is purportedly sufficient evidence to suggest that gays “out of the closet” may negatively affect unit cohesion. As a result, there IS reason to be concerned with the relaxation of the policy.

    I believe society is wrong when it suppresses homosexuality, but that does not mean that open and full encouragement of it is required, either. There is a middle ground, and in my experience that’s usually where the proper policy and attitudes lie on any topic, not at the extremes.

    Offhand, I’m not sure exactly where on that spectrum DADT lies. Certainly not at the extreme, but not clearly too far to that end, either. It may wind up having been the best policy, and we should be prepared to accept that if it does show that, after a time, that unit cohesion has been negatively affected.

    Unfortunately, the history of gay rights in this country has not shown any acceptance of any position short of open encouragement and total acceptance. And as long as liberals are at the driving wheels — and they often are even when the PotUS and Congress are “conservative” — then there will be no backing off of this even if it’s costing the lives of soldiers.

    The Cancerous Left only cares about the lives of soldiers when it’s a useful political tool to bash the opposition.

    As a result, I’m leery of this policy. What matters is not libertarian issues at all. This is not about the right to do what one wants in the bedroom. It’s about the right to talk openly about it. Not quite the same subject, any more than the right to go down on your significant other is the same as talking about it around the water cooler at the office.

    I wait for the first sexual harassment issues to come up in the military. That should wind up making some waves.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  9. get ready for the great silencing of dissenters. re-education awaits all non-believers.

    Real American (4cdb6a)

  10. I’d call you conservative of liberty, not necessarily of tradition. That’s what I call myself, too.

    {^_^}

    jbd (99eed4)

  11. Personally, the problem as I see it is not with gays serving in the military. The problem/risk is that the more strident/flamboyant social crusaders will use this as the first step in demanding more and more concessions. I’m sure there are hundreds of homosexual service members serving with distinction right now. However, it’s the invasive social engineering that will be attempting “on their behalf” that concerns me. As long as homosexuals are held to the same standards, have to abide by the same regulations, and cannot demand specials dispensation based on their lifestyle/beliefs/perceived gender, etc. then it might fly.

    It will be a long road from “permitted” to “accepted” though, given the military culture. The first male-male couple at a service’s birthday ball? Yeah.

    Steve B (505c25)

  12. Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society — 9/20/2011 @ 10:50 pm

    I went into the military in 1981 and many of the things you raised were being said about women being in the military and we were already a decade into the new policy. It took until the 90’s before the idea had “normalized”.

    The problem/risk is that the more strident/flamboyant social crusaders will use this as the first step in demanding more and more concessions…..As long as homosexuals are held to the same standards, have to abide by the same regulations, and cannot demand specials dispensation based on their lifestyle/beliefs/perceived gender, etc. then it might fly.

    People who stick with the military tend to do so because of the strict standards and discipline. Not one law needed to be changed as the sexual harassment regs were written for just about any context, including same gender harassment.

    vor2 (8cb9e5)

  13. Not sure what the Big-Dealy-O is, as Article 125 forbids the Rais’on Derri’ere for bein a Homo.
    Its like sayin you can smoke drugs but they’ll still throw you in the brig for a positive piss test. And yeah, they prosecute Article 125 violations about as often as Barney Frank appearances at Camp LeJeune, thats cause no ones been askin or tellin, just wait till Colonel Jarhead finds Gay Porn in the barracks…

    Frank

    Frank Drackman (da969f)

  14. The fall of every great nation or empire has been the acceptance of homosexuals in it’s army. Pray that we might be the exception rather than the rule.

    PatriotRider (f46173)

  15. Re Art. 125, they modified the sodomy article in the UCMJ to address only “non-consenual” sodomy.

    Steve B (505c25)

  16. #13 PatriotRider

    Israel has had gays serve openly in the military for some positions since 1983 and for all positions since 1993. It doesn’t seem to have produced an adverse effect.

    aunursa (a92155)

  17. The main thrust of the policy was this

    We ask so much of our service men and women. Now we are asking them to be naked in front of people that want to have sex with them that they dont. Are we going to have same sex dorms are there going to be 4 types of bathrooms and shower facilities rather than the normal 2 (men and women)

    Seriously, thats the total sum of it. Sure its great those of us who are totally detached from it.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  18. A lot of times I say things like this and get barked at. Nice to see some agreement.
    Comment by Patterico — 9/20/2011 @ 10:49 pm

    Bark. 😉

    Never agreed with the policy in the first place since there have always been gays in the military. If they were good performers and didn’t flaunt their sexuality, it was usually overlooked… at least in combat support and combat service-support. I was never combat arms, so I don’t know how that worked there. It was largely the same with straights who were married. If they were discrete, liaisons during deployments were overlooked as long as they weren’t in the same chain-of-command. Adulterous straights or open gays who flaunted their relationships got stomped on though.

    Poor policy based on poor principles. The only criteria should be whether it is disruptive to good order and discipline.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  19. aunursa

    thats not even close to be true, they are highly discouraged and closely monitored. The reality and what the LGBT says it is there is a wide gulf.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  20. Oh good Allah.

    JD (1e48bc)

  21. All very well…but.
    Among other things, outing oneself prior to deployment no longer works.
    The first women to graduate from F14 flight school did so with failing grades. One blew an approach and was killed and the other was grounded for unsafe flying.
    The F14 is a two seater, which meant the Navy took two people who hadn’t done it any harm that we know of and put them in high-performance aircraft with demonstrably unqualified pilots. This is a betrayal.
    The Army is reportedly investigating nine officers who are presumed to have nad an opportunity to stop Hasan’s greased slide to Ft. Hood and mass murder. Rumor has it that the excuse will be fear of being accused of career-ending islamophobia.
    If gays become an accredited victim group, as they have in civilian life, will substandard troops haul out the gay card? Think it will work? Anybody want to bet against it? Thought not.

    Richard Aubrey (cafc94)

  22. Hope things work out differently than they did in MA. We have an exceptionally militant, rabid activist group up here that are very good at making life miserable for people who do not agree with them….and only them.
    Last night on the news they had a teeny, tiny, very nervous woman step up as spokesperson for lesbian marines. Through sniffles and snobs, frightened glances around the room, she announced how happy she was with dadt being repealed. If she is any example of what a lesbian marine is….God help this country.

    J (2946f2)

  23. Pawlenty had said one of his first priorities would be to reinstate DADT.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  24. :roll: Yawnplenty won’t win

    DohBiden (d54602)

  25. I find it astonishing that President Obama is taking credit for the repeal of DADT. While he campaigned on the issue, he did nothing once in office to advance the repeal and at times seemed to obstruct it.

    But that’s typical of this clown.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. Sex over Service?

    Sodomy before Country?

    Priorities

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. Yes, repeal of DADT is a good thing.

    MayBee (081489)

  28. I wonder what the metrics of success will be.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  29. I fully support this. I hope the new policy works well and that the inevitable bumps in the road are minor and few. It can work if the kind of uber PC crap that hobbled superior officers’ ability to apply reasoned and common sense discipline (which tangentially led to the Muslim officer’s still being there to attack his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood) is avoided so that everybody’s rights are seen to be honored equally under the new military service policy.

    The type of individual that is both physically and mentally qualified and wants to serve his or her country (doing so quietly for generations) and who happens to have been born gay, is just not the sort of stereotypical individual who prances around and and flaunts his/her sexuality. I do not think anybody should worry that they’ll be seeing rowdy gay pride parade floats on General MacArthur’s hallowed parade grounds, for example.

    elissa (d4c4d3)

  30. I’m looking forward to fashion upgrades of the uniforms.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. Elissa. If the troops request such a parade, and are denied, will we hear something about homophobia?

    Richard Aubrey (cafc94)

  32. ==Comment by Richard Aubrey — 9/21/2011 @ 7:30 am==

    No. Get a grip. I don’t think they allow St.Patrick’s day parades or Black Pride parades on General MacArthur’s parade grounds either.

    elissa (d4c4d3)

  33. Oh my goodness.
    What am I gonna do in a submarine?

    Village People (aa856e)

  34. Within a generation the military will become one big homosexual slumber party. Or, rather, it will become like our prisons.

    No, I do not believe the hype at all.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  35. I suspect some of these comments are pure bull crap just for the fun of it.

    However, I’m fully conservative and KNOW that gays have been serving in the Armed Forces (all of them) since the founding of this country. Many of them have doubtlessly served with distinction, some even likely highly decorated for heroism. I once treated a Marine Corps veteran, with 2 Silver Stars and a Navy Cross for PTSD following a very close encounter in Iraq many years ago. A hero in every sense of the word and Gay.

    This will change nothing, and its about time it happened.

    GM Roper (d58b94)

  36. Guns should not be in the hands of criminals but even with gun control that still happens.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  37. In California, schools teach that our war heroes were trans-sexuals.

    AZ Bob (aa856e)

  38. JD

    I dont think its fair for men and women to have to get naked in front of same sex individuals.

    I know it sounds neanderthalish – and probably is – but doesnt change the facts – and this LGBT meme that Israel does it when actually Israel was FORCED to do it by the liberal wing – the military didnt want it

    See there is the problem – the military should be able to make their own standards not congress, or not political correctness

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  39. JD

    I dont think its fair for men and women to have to get naked in front of same sex individuals.

    I know it sounds neanderthalish – and probably is – but doesnt change the facts – and this LGBT meme that Israel does it when actually Israel was FORCED to do it by the liberal wing – the military didnt want it

    See there is the problem – the military should be able to make their own standards not congress, or not political correctness

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  40. GM Roper

    how many illegal aliens or anchor babies did you treat who were war heroes?

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  41. See there is the problem – the military should be able to make their own standards not congress, or not political correctness

    That sort of conflicts that our elected officials are in command, not the military leaders. Similar sentiments were raised re integration and women serving. Both worked out just fine as will the repeal of DADT.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  42. Comment by elissa — 9/21/2011 @ 7:23 am

    and who happens to have been born gay

    This is exactly the main lie of the gay lobby.

    That idea that people are born gay, but on the other hand it is also not inherited and the one certainty they have is that there nothing anybody can do to make anyone a homosexual or prevent anyone from being a homosexual. The fact that someone can’t change doesn’t mean that they were born that way. That is a logical fallacy that a lot of people fall for.

    If you say that, you have to say that about pedophilia and being a serial killer too and about fetishes that rely on items that weren’t even invented a century or two ago. They also must be he way somebody was born. And some people really think so.

    Now if people thought more clearly they would realize this was imprinting.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  43. What race is Islam?

    EPWJ whatever.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  44. Te reason recruitment of homosexuals is not really a problem in the military is that most men become sexually active before they join the military. This was not true in the past and therefore this was outlawed. It is still a problem in places like English boarding schools or Catholic seminaries.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  45. Maybe no longer in English boarding schools. Homosexuality is like an epidemic that comes and goes.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  46. EPWJ – Pro-tip, don’t drop the soap.

    There is a vaccination against gay cooties, which can be transmitted by air. Unlike the HPV vaccination of whoredom, Texas governor Rick Perry did not want to mandate school children receive this vaccination because of his obvious links to the down low lifestyle.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. Aw you waaaaaacist.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  48. “It is still a problem in places like English boarding schools or Catholic seminaries.”

    Sammy – Define problem.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. The type of individual that is both physically and mentally qualified and wants to serve his or her country (doing so quietly for generations) and who happens to have been born gay, is just not the sort of stereotypical individual who prances around and and flaunts his/her sexuality.

    True.

    Which is why DADT worked so well.

    And yes, it worked well. It was a resounding success.

    It wasn’t about bigotry against the abilities of gays. It was about maintaining professional bearing and priorities. It was about the pragmatics of shutting down fraternization and the dangers inherent (And I mean actual danger here).

    I am happy for gay troops whose careers can be preserved even if they are seen in the commissary or Wal-mart with their partner, but DADT worked.

    Largely, the folks who DADT didn’t work for are those who flaunted it or actually decided they wanted to exit the military and used DADT as a relief valve.

    Hopefully it all goes smoothly. The harassment aspect could be bad in some units, but I think mostly that can be handled. Folks will need thick skin, but I think most of them do.

    The fraternization aspect may largely revolve around the quantity of gays in service, which I’m guessing is low enough that inter unit relationships, especially in combat specialties, is not common. That should be barred, as should ‘flaunting it’. The main defense against this being a problem is simply military bearing, which is why a lot of people think terminating DADT will be OK.

    That may be, but I don’t think DADT was oppressive. This is the military, and everyone has to accept ‘unfair’ situations for reasons they don’t personally endorse in every case.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  50. elissa.
    The Irish aren’t an Accredited Victim Group.
    Your point was exaggerated. I saw the race card pulled in matters of discipline when I was in forty years ago. Little stuff here and there. Cumulatively, bad for order and discipline.
    The feminist card got Kara Hultgren killed, not what the fems wanted, I expect, but stuff happens.
    So far, it appears, flight schools are no longer scared of Pat Schroeder so they have equal standards for women pilots.
    Matthew Shepard is a martyred saint and Jesse Dirkhising is a “who?” That’s the result of Accredited Victim Status. Crystal Mangum was a feminist icon–until recently–and Katie Rouse was a “who?” That’s because of AVG status and the dominant narrative.
    Things don’t change because you’re in the military. Some losers are going to haul out the homophobia card and the dominant narrative–the military is a bunch of gay-bashers–will prevail or at least make for a lot of trouble.
    I know, I know. It won’t happen. Just like Hasan got a series of lousy OERs and was dropped from the Army years ago. Oh, wait….

    Richard Aubrey (cafc94)

  51. Guns should not be in the hands of criminals but even with gun control that still happens.

    Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Fifty years ago, “gay” was considered a mental illness. Therefore, gun control was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of gays. Ergo, anyone who supports gun control is homophobic. AND anti-military now.

    (sorry, just channeling folks who make the same argument about [whatever] in the Constitution and the slavery provision)

    Kevin M (563f77)

  52. I dont think its fair for men and women to have to get naked in front of same sex individuals.

    I volunteer to let any gay marines get naked in front of me.

    For America.

    MayBee (081489)

  53. When the economy collapses the welfare state will be automatically done away with.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  54. Comment by daleyrocks — 9/21/2011 @ 8:15 a

    SF> “It is still a problem in places like English boarding schools or Catholic seminaries.”

    Sammy – Define problem.

    It means that people who live there can become homosexuals. Which is not good for them. Or for the institution to which they belong. A place can acquire a reputation as a place for homosexuals, which means other people avoid it.

    Of course with the theory that homosexuality is inborn, and that nothing anybody does can change that one way or the other, none of that is true, or at least not the first part..

    But that theory is wrong, and impossible to be true..

    Because people believe that, they also believe that the number of homosexuals is much higher than what it is. If you thought the number was low, AND that nothing did could make someone into a homosexual, you’d have to wonder how homosexuals get to know one another especially at a time and a plce where it is
    hidden.

    The Catholic church now thinks that homosexual priests learn who is a homosexual through the confession and not that they make some boys into homosexuals, but that doesn’t explain how some seminaries collect them.

    That homosexuality is inborn – and also, let us not forget, not inherited – is a convenient untruth with no reason for anyone to believe it other than it’s convenient. The most convenient idea is that conditions in the womb might cause but never never never anything that happens around the time of puberty.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  55. Kevin, your comment makes no sense at all.

    SPQR (7f4e91)

  56. People are entitled to what they choose to believe based on their own personal observations, other empirical evidence, and what types of proof or data or science they are willing to accept as incontrovertible regarding any given subject. There is published “scientific” data that many people accept, which touts human causes of global warming and therefore automatically requires acceptance that human gestures and mandates must be made to “cure” global warming. I don’t buy into most of it. I happen to think it’s mostly political bullcrap. Many people disagree with me. Meh.

    I do happen to believe, though, that strong levels of gayness or heterosexuality are there in a child at birth. Whether it’s genetic from the day of conception or was influenced by hormone washes on the fetus en utero is debatable, but the result is the same. There is some science, but also considerable empirical evidence based on interviews with gays and their family members that these kids knew “something” and seemed “different” as early as four or five years of age even though they didn’t have the vocabulary to express it. At that age surely they were not “imprinted” by society, or by popular culture or politics. My mom, a second grade teacher, told me she had vibes about certain students at age 7 that were confirmed years later in the early days of the AIDs epidemic.

    So yeah, I think it’s largely out of our control. I think we all pretty much enter the world and live in the world as either left handed or righthanded, and as homosexuals or heterosexuals with just enough ambidextrousness thrown in to further confuse both issues. Any and all parties are welcome to believe otherwise.

    elissa (d4c4d3)

  57. Now can we allow Gays to dance at the discotheque

    Pass a bill Democraps.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  58. vor2

    no, the civilians are in control of the “use” and the “funding” of the military. I agree with that. However recruiting, training, and habitability standards have been generally left to the military.

    At some point we have to establish a trust that our military knows best how its members work, train, play and deploy for their country. We dont want operational and personnel matters in the hands of people who are up for re-election every 2 years

    Clinton did DADT purely as a political stunt, it was an insult to gays because he didnt believe in it, set strong standards for it and was done for that precious percentage or two in the polls.

    I’d rather not subject the men and women who defend this country to the whims of politicians in their next relection gimmick

    Thats how I view it – the Democrats could have at anytime put this in why did they wait until Clinton – because they needed a schtick

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  59. Let us let gays dance at a discotheuqe man don’t be hating.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  60. At that age surely they were not “imprinted” by society, or by popular culture or politics.

    Comment by elissa — 9/21/2011 @ 9:23 am

    FYI they have not found a gay gene, which many people were very confident exists.

    APA revises ‘gay gene theory’

    They don’t have to be imprinted by any of those things for it to not be genetic. False premise.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  61. EPWJ,
    the military is a microcosm of American society at large. As society changes so do the expectations of the people who choose to enter the military.
    DADT was a miserable policy for supervisors in that it was vague on purpose and left supervisors scratching their heads on when they should act.
    Of course prior to that the sexual preference question was on every entry form.
    If DADT had not been enacted the hue and cry to adjust with changing attitudes would not be any less than it has been during the DADT era.

    Just as women and integration took root in controversy but over time are the norm and set the example for the rest of society of how people can work and live together in pretty extreme environments, the same acclimation will occur for gay members now allowed to serve openly. 20 years from now it won’t be an issue.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  62. Being gay is against islamic law.

    Terrorism is in the koran you dhimmis also must recognize that you useful idiots.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  63. Elissa

    Charmaine Neville is the younger sister of the Famous Neville brothers. She and her partner pioneered adoption of critically ill aids babies, they adopted a baby with aids abandoned by their mother, they both spent the next few years doing everything they can for those Charity Hospital babies who were forgotten and left to die there unloved except by a few like Charmaine and her partner later joined by extraordinary caring members of the community.

    Its their actions and love of their fellow human beings that defined them. They are beloved by society for what the achieved in our hearts for what they did unselfishly for the most forgotten of us, abandoned dying aids babies.

    Not by forcing their lifestyle on us.

    This is not a victory, this is a defeat for gays

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  64. I was referring to the DADT in that last sentence.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  65. “Because people believe that, they also believe that the number of homosexuals is much higher than what it is.”

    Sammy – You of course include yourself in this observation about English boarding schools and seminaries, correct?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  66. MayBee wins the thread, and the innertubes.

    JD (1e48bc)

  67. vor2

    no its not a microcosim of american society – to me its where society should be.

    The sense of duty honor loyalty is missing today in our society. I think you are arguing an honorable topic, I think you have a strong sense of loyalty and honor and wish the best for all.

    This was a unpopular political stunt by a highly dishonorable man who had lied and misled not only his own family but his associates in Arkansas who he let go to jail for his wrong doing and was disloyal to his party and to all of the American people.

    Clinton’s only motivation was for Bill and the Bill for DADT was for Bill’s benefit not those who were serving America in secret.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  68. Just as women and integration took root in controversy but over time are the norm and set the example for the rest of society of how people can work and live together in pretty extreme environments, the same acclimation will occur for gay members now allowed to serve openly. 20 years from now it won’t be an issue.

    Comment by vor2 — 9/21/2011 @ 9:38 am

    I think that’s reasonable. I also think there probably won’t be a huge number of gays in the most combat oriented units. I don’t say that as some slur against gays. I just think the big problems occur when there are several gays in the same platoon or smaller unit, and that this probably won’t happen very often in combat arms.

    Regardless, the best acclimation and accommodation needs some common sense. Like if someone doesn’t like to shower with a couple of more flamboyant gay guys, maybe … don’t have them shower at the same time. It shouldn’t be a big deal unless there’s some major reason for it to be, at which point only whiners will fail to see the big picture.

    Can we have those concerns addressed without EO complaints on hairtrigger alert? Hell no.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  69. “Which is why DADT worked so well.

    And yes, it worked well. It was a resounding success.”

    Dustin – I agree with this sentiment. We have had a volunteer military for more than 35 years. I applaud gay members of our services, but any enlisting since the draft ended have done so with eyes wide open with respect to what the rules were since the draft ended. The hue and cry which vor2 mentions over gays serving in the military seems largely manufactured from those having a social engineering agenda outside the military. Previous conversations with aphrael here on this subject essentially confirmed this fact.

    Yes, I acknowledge civilian control of the military. What evidence do we have that something is broken? We have testimony from former gay service members who in many cases successful military careers. We have outside pressure groups advocating for equality. But what exactly was not working? No butt sechs on bases? Help me out here.

    Instead we have lawmakers increasingly divorced from military service mandating solutions for what appear to be manufactured problems. I have every confidence the military will salute and comply as they are directed, but to me it is like lawyers making rules for accountants like Congress did with Sarbanes-Oxley and now this monstrosity of the Dodd-Frank financial services bill.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. Also, this is a discussion for adults, dealing with sexuality and combat.

    EPWJ is exactly as Daleyrocks described. He’s not capable of understanding a nuanced point he doesn’t agree with, and his dopey panty sniffing routine in other threads shows he is simply too childish to present an enjoyable conversation.

    All he’s going to do is ramp up the rhetoric over and over and over, until his tears are actually streaming out of your monitor, which frankly sounds hazardous.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  71. JD – Are you still awaiting Maybee’s definition of a circle jerk.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  72. If Sarah Palin wasn’t such a money grubbing tax raising liberal, we would not have DADT to deal with.

    JD (318f81)

  73. Dustin,

    which President pressed for the passing of it?

    You can try to change the subject but – which president pressed for this – a bill that no one every wanted?

    Yeah – I thought so – you had something going there until that history and “fact” thing jumped in the way

    Lets not forget the legislative history of the United States and how this bill somehow jumped into being when the party in power could have passed it at anytime.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  74. Can we have those concerns addressed without EO complaints on hairtrigger alert? Hell no.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/21/2011 @ 10:03 am

    Dustin,
    When I enlisted in ’81 there were some women and blacks who abused the EO process. And there were some injustices that occurred as a result. But the large majority of women and blacks who were in just wanted to be treated equally and left alone to do their job. As they moved up in the ranks and into some of the EO spots a more realistic assessment of bogus complaints took root.
    I think the gay issue will move similarly.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  75. We have testimony from former gay service members who in many cases successful military careers.

    Indeed. Some guy with stars on his shoulders complaining that he didn’t get a fair shake because he had to act a certain way.

    So what?

    I’m highly political. But in uniform, that crap needed to be kept to a minimum.

    I knew a couple of Muslims in the service (more like Rev Wright than Osama Bin Laden). They kept it to themselves on duty, and while this is surprising in retrospect, were both excellent soldiers (much unlike Nidal Hasan).

    Homosexuality apparently defines gay soldiers in a way my politics doesn’t define me. I don’t get it. Why would that be? I think that’s BS. It’s contrived to create a political issue when all we really have is yet another example of how soldiers are not civilians.

    God bless every gay soldier, and may this make their lives better. But I’m not crying a single tear for those who served under DADT.

    No one wearing a uniform gets a 100% fair experience. And frankly those who expect otherwise are completely unfit for service. It’s not always easy to subordinate your identity to your unit, but that’s something soldiers have to be willing to do.

    Shave that head, put on the same clothes the next guy has, and focus on the mission.

    I guess I sound hardcore (I’m not… believe me I am not). What I’m asking for here is not difficult for a certain type of person. Those who find it difficult really should find a different way to serve their nation honorably, in my opinion.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  76. And dustins right – I am a mean nasty person who hates everything and everyone, anything anyone writes about me is undoubtably true. that I have some twisted personality defective disorder yada yada yada

    However it doesnt change the facts though..

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  77. But the large majority of women and blacks who were in just wanted to be treated equally and left alone to do their job.

    Yep. Same will be the case for gays. They joined the military because they love their country, and most of them are totally devoted to that purpose.

    I think you’re 100% right.

    As they moved up in the ranks and into some of the EO spots a more realistic assessment of bogus complaints took root.

    That’s astute. I hadn’t thought of that.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  78. And dustins right – I am a mean nasty person who hates everything and everyone,

    No, I don’t think this.

    But you are childish, and those you hate, you are incredibly unreasonable about. In fact, perverted about.

    Your heart is in the right place sometimes, but I just think you should be ignored in adult conversations.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  79. Rick Perry was in the military before it was all gayed up with the homosexuals but draft-dodging Romney kept using excuses not to go to Vietnam and he ran out the clock like the sniveling obamacare-loving socialist coward he is and then later they let anyone serve in the military whether they were gay or not and it was nice cause of there’s no reason gay people can’t make perfectly outstanding soldiers

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  80. If Mr. Gov. Rick Perry was not such a government needle of mental retardation sluttiness poofter we would still have DADT today.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  81. DADT was an avenue to dishonesty (expected from Bill Clinton) that demanded deception.
    If Gays wish to serve, let them.
    If they violate provisions of the UCMJ, prosecute them – as the JAG-Corps would any lawbreaker.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  82. Plus we could be serving delicious fresh Alaska sammins to all our patriotic mens and wimmins in uniform around the world because it is a tasty and nutritious meal what is also good for you and can be prepared many different ways.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. happyfeet.
    Nobody says gays can’t make good soldiers. The problem arises when one is a lousy soldier and pulls the homophobia card.
    aka the race card, aka the feminism card, aka the islamophobia card.
    How many, in and out of the service, are poised o jump, shrieking, on to the first bogus accusation of homophobia and claim the military is a bunch of gay-bashers?
    I was in forty years ago when some radicals used race as a way to weaken the military. Damn’ near worked, too.

    Richard Aubrey (cafc94)

  84. Mr. Feets – Which latrines and showers do transgendered soldiers use?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. it’ll all work out for the best Mr. Aubrey that’s what happens when you have gobs of well-intentioned people working towards a common goal

    almost always

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  86. Mr. daley they should use the ones what have the shower heads where you can switcher up what kind of spray you get

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  87. Mr. Feets – Thank you. You always have the answers what make sense.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. Comment by Richard Aubrey — 9/21/2011 @ 10:39 am

    I was in just prior to CR-64, and we had several enlisted who complained that their supervising NCO, who was White, was prejudiced against Blacks.
    So, the OIC transferred them to supervision by a Black NCO…it was their (the complainers) worst nightmare!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  89. dustin,

    You guys have to get over this Palin thing. She is an adult, this came up in her run for Lt Gov and worse there were worse things – and truthfully the backstage chatter about it I wonder if it affected her stance and why she hates the party with such a vengence. I wonder if she thinks this was why she was passed over for Franks senate seat and why she didnt get the Lt Gov position. People can be cruel to good looking women and when gossip comes and it will, it can be brutal, in politics, in business, heck even at church!

    She is fun, upbeat, startlingly good looking but – I’ve known about her for – YEARS. She – is no different from any other politician with very few exceptions – she demonizes her opponents her staff who quit, anyone who gets in the way. this is not a DEFECT – in fact to be an effective politician sometimes you have to kick assets and take names.

    The problems I have is what she did as governor

    compounding her already shakey conservative credentials on raising taxes and spending, then instead of handling this quietly years ago, she kept this relationship alive for years it didnt end in 1987 – what happened after is their business but I think if you have or continue a platonic respectable friendship during your marriage with someone you slept with even years ago – you might want to give your spouse a heads up, especially when you are a national leader.

    This is like back when at Lonestartimes I got death threats, my wife got death threats, over an issue with the mildest of comments.

    State Senator Dan Patrick was elected (some say he is the true founder the Tea Party and I’m inclined to believe that) and his first act was to get “In God We Trust” on the Podium in the State Senate (well one of the first) David Bension is the owner of Dans old Blog the LoneStarTimes and low and behold to celebrate Dan Patrick took his son and his fiance out to HOOTERS and was photographed ogling a scantily clad waitress. Well the loyal lonestartimes staff tried to demonize those for stalking Dan and i just pointed out that perhaps being a moral figure one shouldnt take their son to a quazi titty bar to celebrate because – it could look bad(they at that location had adult nights back then).

    I’m starting to see the same excusing of the obvious – I’m not the evil one for pointing out that Sarah did this and did that – the real problem is/are those who keep excusing this woman from WHAT SHE DID.

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  90. Oh good Allah. A village is missing its idiot. Again.

    JD (17012e)

  91. Palin ran for Lt.Gov?
    On what planet did this occur on?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  92. dustin,

    You guys have to get over this Palin thing.

    Oh what a shock, EPWJ wants to slander Palin in yet another thread that has nothing to do with her.

    I don’t want to talk about her. You do.

    How do I have to get over her? I’m not the childish pervert talking about her underwear for no damn reason. You are.

    You should be embarrassed. You are sleazy and frankly you are stupid.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  93. Palin ran for Lt.Gov?
    On what planet did this occur on?

    Comment by Another Drew – Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks

    Drew, if Eric doesn’t lie about Palin, the chances he will successfully troll up a reaction diminish greatly.

    So he lies, and then we’re all ‘correcting him’, while he’s happy that he got that precious attention and got to talk about Palin again.

    This thread has nothing to do with Palin, and once against EPWJ brought it up while claiming others are obsessed with someone they weren’t thinking about.

    Ignore him. I usually do.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  94. Eric:

    compounding her already shakey conservative credentials on raising taxes and spending, then instead of handling this quietly years ago, she kept this relationship alive for years it didnt end in 1987 – what happened after is their business but I think if you have or continue a platonic respectable friendship during your marriage with someone you slept with even years ago – you might want to give your spouse a heads up, especially when you are a national leader.

    It sounds like you know for a fact that Sarah Palin had sexual relations with Glen Rice prior to her marriage and that she continued a non-sexual relationship with him after she was married. I find this hard to believe since the only source for the Rice story was Joe McGinniss’s book The Rogue: Searching For The Real Sarah Palin, and even Palin enemies like the NY Times have questioned whether it’s true.

    McGinniss’s book was only released yesterday so I doubt you’ve already bought it and read it. Furthermore, I missed reports that the book claims they had a continuing relationship. So if you really do know these allegations are facts, you must have other sources than McGinness’s book. What is the source of your special knowledge and — more importantly — why haven’t you mentioned this before since it bears on Palin’s character?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  95. What’s worse is his stupidity seems to be uncorrectable.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  96. Well excuse away this rice thing was old news

    she knew it was going to come up

    EricPWJohnson (2a58f7)

  97. Of course he’s lying, DRJ.

    He just knows this is one of the ugliest smears on Palin yet, so he really wants to revel in it. He’s a racist sexist sleazeball pervert baby. I suppose you may have missed his prior behavior on this topic, but he was creepier than he’s ever been in the past in the way he would describe his version of the facts on this smear.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  98. One of the biggest problems with DADT was that it created a blackmail risk. In *that* regard, it’s not clear that it was working.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  99. One of the biggest problems with DADT was that it created a blackmail risk. In *that* regard, it’s not clear that it was working.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/21/2011 @ 11:52 am

    Blackmail is a violation of UCMJ. And the don’t tell aspect covers this problem as well.

    Perfect? No. Working? Undeniably.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  100. The risk of blackmail always was present earlier, which is why any indication of homosexual tendencies or conduct was grounds for denying a security clearance.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  101. BTW, what happened to DRJ’s comment that was here and then disappeared?
    The one that Dustin responded to at 1151?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  102. I don’t know, but feel free to delete my response to it. I wish to hell I had simply ignored EPWJ entirely.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  103. Just like the old cards that said, “We deal in lead,” I think gay members of our combat arms groups should have cards that read (in arabic, Pastun and so on,) “You just got killed by a fagnet.”

    luagha (5cbe06)

  104. laugha, that would be awesome.

    In the nations of our enemies, they hang homosexuals and live in irrational fear of them and women. Our nation hands them an M-4.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  105. I still see my comment but feel free to delete it since it’s off-track.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  106. DRJ, a slap-down of clowns who clutter the comment thread is never off-topic IMO.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  107. DRJ – You should know by now that EPWJ does not have the testicular fortitude to support his smears.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  108. Epwj keeps asserting this palin sleezey rumor about glen rice as fact. As well as claiming to know Todd’s feelings in re same. Where does he get off doing so, sans any evidence? Effin creepy SOB.

    JD (17012e)

  109. ASS you know damn well the so called tax she raised was created back in 76 right?

    EPWJ is a rumor mongerer.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  110. I’m glad we got rid of DADT. There’s no argument against Gays and Lesbians serving openly that didn’t also apply to the ban on blacks, and in most of them also applied to women. It needs to be implemented well, but i have faith that it will be.

    I’m also glad that a conservative blogger of patterico’s popularity has come out in favor of this. It bugs me when people are quiet about positions that run counter to their ‘team’. I’m glad it didn’t happen here.

    time123 (066362)

  111. Proof of his claim that she dropped her panties for Rice? Nothing. Proof of continual ongoing relationship with Rice? None. Proof of Todd’s anger at his wife for not telling him? Zilch. Proof of anything outside of his fevered perverted imagination? None.

    JD (cae88c)

  112. Comparing sexual preference to race and gender is BS, time.

    JD (ac417f)

  113. I still see my comment but feel free to delete it since it’s off-track.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/21/2011 @ 12:22 pm

    I see it too, btw.

    Proof of his claim that she dropped her panties for Rice? Nothing. […]

    Comment by JD — 9/21/2011 @ 12:56 pm

    It’s so repellent the way he kept saying it like that, too. Just a creepy sleaze with an odd way of viewing Governor Palin.

    Ugh.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  114. Palestines refuse to recognize Israel until they die……….no surprise.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  115. You know I was angry initially with McGinnis’s sacrifice of the Ents, but the claims are so deranged, that only a complete idiot would buy
    them. Cue the Billy Madison clip,

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  116. Leftys rallying to a cop killers defense…….figures.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  117. You’re right, Ian. Anyone buying this crap either does as DRJ asks and backs it up with some great evidence, or they are obviously not worth being taken seriously at all.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  118. or they are obviously not worth being taken seriously at all.
    Comment by Dustin — 9/21/2011 @ 1:09 pm

    Hasn’t this been shown over and over again? I usually don’t bother responding to him anymore.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  119. Public school students bully another gay guy………..no surprise there.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  120. Hasn’t this been shown over and over again? I usually don’t bother responding to him anymore.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/21/2011 @ 1:13 pm

    Yes, it most certainly has. Over and over. Sometimes I will reply to him anyway if he makes a good point, because I thought he was just so intimidated by folks like JD and Daley that he lost his cool about Palin.

    It’s more clear to me now that he’s just a creepy sleaze. The need to bring Palin into everything, and his new low in trashing her, has removed any illusion I had about him previously.

    Even previously, though, he’s been dishonest in his discussions with a lot of people, myself included.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  121. Palin brings a lot of this on herself though by being unqualified and unelectable and sort of just a generally silly lady

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  122. Principal: Mr. EPWJ, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
    EPWJ : Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.

    JD (318f81)

  123. Palin brings a lot of this on herself though by being unqualified and unelectable and sort of just a generally silly lady

    Comment by happyfeet — 9/21/2011 @ 1:27 pm

    Nasty attacks like this do come with the territory of being a beautiful woman who is also a conservative leader.

    Doesn’t make it right. And her qualifications and electability should relate to her actual sought position: pundit. She’s up to the job she actually seeks. Frankly, she’s also more qualified than more real candidates, too.

    Ignore her worst fanboys, and I think it’s clear Palin is an asset.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  124. I served along side a few gay men in the US Army Infantry and was proud to call them my friends.

    Dick (4ffb7f)

  125. It could have been worse Helen Thomas could have dropped her pants.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  126. Palin deserves to be slandered? Eff you crappyfete you libtard.

    Isn’t it all great that we will all be on welfare when the hyperinflation hits.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  127. just playing devil’s advocate

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  128. Arizonas SB1070 is racist?

    But mexico treats its illegals like shat and it is not racist.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  129. just playing with meself.

    FIFY happyfeet.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  130. I served along side a few gay men in the US Army Infantry and was proud to call them my friends.

    Did you serve beside this one, Dick?

    Dan Choi re-enlisting

    I wouldn’t be proud to call him my friend. He’s pretty much a scumbag. And if you don’t know his story, after he became an outspoken “gay political activist” the last straw for the Army is when he chained himself to the White House fence.

    They may not let him in, due to his record. But make no mistake they’ll be letting a lot of “gay political activists back in because, as Choi puts it:

    “There is time for some well-intended criticism here – the parties that have been going on. I think they misrepresent the meaning of this event. People who believe that discrimination is somehow all erased will have a rude awakening,” says Choi, pointing out that same-sex spouses will not be extended benefits by the military.

    The discrimination, Choi says, will continue in more subtle, non-legal ways. “We have to recognize that just because black and white people sat together at a lunch counter, it doesn’t mean that there was no racism. Just because we abolish some of the legal discrimination, it does not mean that all of the animosity is going to end,” he says.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63935.html#ixzz1Ycfprx00

    How cool! Now every unit will have it’s gay zampolit and LGBT thought/speech police looking for signs of “animosity.” One of the danger signs, I’m sure, will be someone wearing a cross.

    Steve (4b1889)

  131. FWIW–

    Back when Lee was posting here regularly he made a very good observation about trolls which I think is quite true. He said that the strategery of trolls is even more insidious than merely to annoy and divert and threadjack. By them repeating talking point smears time and time again, they achieve google hits/mentions, which raises the internet profile of the smear while smothering legitimate searches. The “dropping her panties” line and “Todd’s so upset” line and “oil tax” line, in concert with a certain female person’s name being repeated ad nauseum on multiple comments within multiple threads smacks of that sort of cynical, purposeful, concerted effort to me. Just sayin’. I don’t know–perhaps it would be wise not to help facilitate the effort any further? .

    elissa (d4c4d3)

  132. That is, he chained himself to the WH fence while in uniform. That’s a huge no-no.

    Steve (4b1889)

  133. We have to recognize that just because black and white people sat together at a lunch counter, it doesn’t mean that there was no racism.

    the important thing is everybody had a tasty lunch and it’s hardly a secret in America that if a place has a counter where you can have lunch it also has pie, and it’s hard to whine with pie in your mouf

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  134. Which is why I use the suffix to my handle, as per PP’s suggestion back in ’08 BTW.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  135. 135 is in response to elissa.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  136. 122.Palin brings a lot of this on herself though by being unqualified and unelectable and sort of just a generally silly lady

    Yep, and the worst part of it is that it served her well in the anything goes hard life in Alaska where moderates are preferred but in the lower 48 in front of Iowa church groups shelling out big bucks 6 figures a pop, this was probably not something she expected 12 some odd years ago and when she picked up one of her adorable kids the crowds roared! People were soo starved for someone who wasnt a someone before that they thought this was a genuine gift from the founding fathers

    Nope! just another machine politician

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  137. But now you know why people are loath to look up her record or criticise her. the cult of personality of this woman is reaching epic proportions.

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  138. :roll: Eric can you go play in traffic.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  139. But you’re not a troll, AD. You’re more just a concerned American citizen, I think. :)

    elissa (d4c4d3)

  140. Epwj – your village wants you to come back. Actually, they are relieved you are missing, but they are having a hard time finding an idiot who can live up to your standards.

    Did it provide any evidence of Palin dropping panties yet? Any evidence of ongoing relationship, for decades? Any evidence of Todd’s reaction? So far, the only evidence is evidence of his bloodlust and hatred for the evil Palin.

    JD (ac417f)

  141. The “[…] line[s], in concert with a certain female person’s name being repeated ad nauseum on multiple comments within multiple threads smacks of that sort of cynical, purposeful, concerted effort to me. Just sayin’. I don’t know–perhaps it would be wise not to help facilitate the effort any further? .

    Comment by elissa — 9/21/2011 @ 2:01 pm

    Wow.

    That makes perfect sense. I’ve often wondered why he’ll repeat the exact same chants in the wrong threads, especially as there are germane threads. Why did EPWJ bring up the Palin smear here when there was an actual thread about that smear?

    Your explanation is the best one.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  142. In other meandering, searching vainly for a coherent thought:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100106339/barack-obamas-un-speech-goes-from-cutting-to-confused/

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  143. Epwj should stick to counting jooooooos and xians. He is no more accurate while doing that, but cuases less harm.

    JD (0b8a2b)

  144. Yes because Palin hooking up with a black guy which is not true is legit criticism. Please drop dead.

    And knew Reagan’s FBI chief would team up with Jimmy Carter.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  145. That sort of conflicts that our elected officials are in command, not the military leaders. Similar sentiments were raised re integration and women serving. Both worked out just fine as will the repeal of DADT.
    Comment by vor2 — 9/21/2011 @ 8:07 am

    — Gee, you had been doing better lately, up until that comment. ‘Civilian control of the military’ does not, and has NEVER meant, that the military is not allowed to make its own rules. They are, of course, bound by the Constitution (and the whims of congressional control) for the rules that they make; but then, DADT was never shown to be unconstitutional.

    Icy Texan (db1b3b)

  146. Gee, EPWJ made it all the way to comment #90 before he started trash-talking Sarah Palin in this, a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her.

    Nice.

    Icy Texan (db1b3b)

  147. I want EPWJ to switch back to talking about teh ghey cooties.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  148. If Palin was still Gov. of Alaska I am sure she would make an executive order making it illegal for Alaskan sammins to be sold to happyfeet.

    What does Glen Rice have to say about this? Maybe he will sue for defamation, at least he doesn’t need to worry about political flack, unless he wants a new career as a politician in Michigan. It was a beautiful jump shot he had.

    Oh, this thread was about something else?? I think people who are gay should be able to serve in the military if they want to like anybody else. If something in their behavior is disruptive they should be dealt with like anybody else.
    To say that a gay person is “just like anybody else and just as ‘normal’ as anybody else” is an opinion. It remains an undeniable fact of logical analysis that the statements:
    – “homosexuality is normative and same sex marriage is normative”
    and
    – “I don’t believe homosexuality is simply an alternative and equally ‘normal’ expression of sexuality, nor that same sex marriage is normative or just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage”
    are in conflict.
    I firmly believe there will be problems concerning freedom of speech and freedom of religion if the first statement becomes the official law of the land.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  149. Hah! I am boycotting the Alaska sammins already I will have you know.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  150. here read all about how a handful of douchebags led by corrupt Alaskan representative Don Young have conspired to sabotage an industry and pee pee on the leg of science

    it’s very sad and the end result is fewer tasty sammins

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  151. Headline

    :Hell Freezes Over

    Damn, I find myself somewhat agreeing with EPWJ.

    I have a question.

    How many of you that are liberal on allowing gays to openly serve are willing to do the following:
    Abuse your 17, 18, 19… year old daughters by ordering them to shower everyday with me or say a group of 17, 18, 19… year old men for 6 weeks while they sport raging hard-ons. Or vice-versa with your sons showering with the opposite sex, excepting the ladies probably won’t be having raging hard-ons.

    If you find that you are incapable of doing so then you are a major hypocrite. This being that you are abusing our fine young men and women in the armed services by ordering them to expose and be exposed to members of the same sex that are physically attracted to members of the same sex and that will be showing sexual arousal.

    I for one am not willing to engage in social engineering in our armed services just to placate 0.5% of US population special interest group.

    Also look at the survey of the military that was done in 2009 on this same subject. 10% say that they will not re-up when this goes into effect, and 14% say they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service. AND there goes the best trained and prepared military fighting force in history right down the frackin drain all to placate a miniscule percentile of the USA.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  152. feets, did you know that sammins canned “in China” were actually taken from Alaskan waters? Now that the gov. is no longer there to look out her kitchen window and keep an eye on the Russians and Chinese (and North Koreans) all kinds of trouble is brewing. Inhabitants of the Aleutian islands are trying to get a 2 for 1 deal with Rosetta stone- Russian and Chinese bundled together…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  153. it’s a mixed-up muddled-up shook-up world except for lola Mr. MD

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  154. feets, that’s a shame, other than hair and barking there’s nothing wrong with the frankenfish…

    peedoffamerican- while I did not put it as forcefully as you did, I once raised the issue in a previous thread months ago (having once been surprised by young women coming into the men’s bathroom while in college…at least I was brushing my teeth and nothing else).

    There are quandaries in life. A person willing to fight for their country should be applauded and allowed to. Being of a lifestyle “out in the open” that causes difficulty in getting along in the midst of an already stressful situation is no good either. And answers are difficult to come by because elected politians are more interested on playing politics than thinking clearly.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  155. Peedoffamerican – you are aware that in many high schools, boys are expected to shower after gym class, and that usually they shower naked?

    That seems even less voluntary than showering in the barracks to me.

    Would you advocate that gay kids not be allowed to shower in the high school gym showers?

    aphrael (a0f788)

  156. peedoff

    You hit it on the head, its pretty obvious

    It scares me when these all knowing “conservatives” here completely and totally miss the issue

    makes one wonder

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  157. peedoffamerican:

    How many of you that are liberal on allowing gays to openly serve are willing to do the following: Abuse your 17, 18, 19… year old daughters by ordering them to shower everyday with me or say a group of 17, 18, 19… year old men for 6 weeks while they sport raging hard-ons. Or vice-versa with your sons showering with the opposite sex, excepting the ladies probably won’t be having raging hard-ons.

    Many college dorms are coed, including some coed bathrooms.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  158. hard-ons don’t really rage per se that’s just a saying like a “blooming onion” or a “shining example”

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  159. unless they’re really really mad

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  160. Elissa #132: that means, of course, that you could link any poster’s name with something silly. Two can play at troll games?

    Simon Jester (1375c2)

  161. I can’t tell you what a joy it was to go through this thread and have every single one of EPWJ’s comments elided right out of the thread. You too can enjoy this peace by following this link and installing the script.

    Patterico Ignor List for Greasemonkey

    There, I’ve payed it forward.

    Incidentally, I agree with those on this thread that think the repeal of DADT is in the main a good an just thing. It rights a wrong.

    Don’t mess it up, gay folks!

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  162. “And answers are difficult to come by because elected politians are more interested on playing politics than thinking clearly.”

    MD in Philly – That this is viewed as a political issue rather than a military issue by so many gives a great big freaking clue as to the forces behind it. Politics should have nothing to do issues such as this, IMHO.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  163. “Palin brings a lot of this on herself though by being unqualified and unelectable and sort of just a generally silly lady

    Comment by happyfeet — ”

    Latest poll shows Obama 49%, Palin 44%, and she has not even entered the race yet!
    When and if she does, the polls will put her in the lead. Let’s knock off the unelectable BS, they said the same about Reagan, and he wiped the floor with both of his opponents.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  164. Elissa

    People will do anything to excuse her, anything.

    On the five today on fox news Dana Perrino just flat out said Palin has never answered for her record and thats why she’s not running.

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  165. Palin is crack to the dirty socialist base… she can rile them up like nobody else and the independents what are against her are gobs more passionate than the ones what are for her

    it’s a thing

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  166. Actually happyfeet, in that latest poll, Palin leads obummer by 4% points with indies.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  167. “People will do anything to excuse her, anything.”

    EPWJ – Have you found any conservatives outside of Alaska who agree with your position that she is a tax and spend liberal yet?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  168. that’s not what I said Mr. peed

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  169. It says a lot about epwj that he consistently tells lies and completely made up ficional stories about Palin due to his closeted desire to make sweet sweet self love to visions of her.

    Of all of the people here that went to Basic,or lived in the barracks, how many raging hardons did you encounter? I will answer first. Zero.

    JD (17012e)

  170. Haven’t we flogged the Palin/Rice horse to death yet.
    She was single, he was single (or so I assume):
    Who the …k cares?
    Anyone who goes on and on about this is a Racist-Bigot-etc.

    Drop it, already; we’ve got a country to save!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  171. “Many college dorms are coed, including some coed bathrooms.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/21/2011 @ 5:19 pm ”

    I highly respect you and I miss your posts here. But the importance difference with college and the military is this; the college coed facilities are totally voluntary, you can choose to live or shower elsewhere, in the military, especially during basic training, you are told where to eat, where to sleep, where to shower, and where to crap. There is no voluntary once you enlist.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  172. JD, we can’t help it if you’re not attractive.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  173. Comment by peedoffamerican — 9/21/2011 @ 5:42 pm

    And, there are not (or weren’t) any doors on the stalls.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (343797)

  174. Seventy-one percent of Republican voters and 66 percent of voters identifying with the Tea Party don’t think the former Alaska governor should run for president in 2012, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday evening.

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  175. If I’m in the shower, and some dude looks at me and likes what he sees, how the heck does that effect me? Seriously, we’re talking about soldiers, not skinny 12-year-old kids.

    I suspect that during basic, if you have the energy to have an erection at the end of the day then the DIs are simply not doing their jobs.

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  176. Epwj, and the reason is that they have other candidates that they don’t want to lose to her. That means that 29% of repubs and 34% of Tea Party members do want her to run and that puts her ahead of both Perry and Roomney.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  177. Good point, AD.

    Did epwidiot ever provide even a scintilla of evidence of the myriad of claims he made about Sarah, Todd, and Mr Rice? Anything?

    JD (318f81)

  178. The thing is Pious, that you are subjecting our brave men and women in the armed services to sexual abuse, that is the problem.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  179. the rhinoceros at the zoo had an erection in
    front of miss mayberrys class at the zoo in
    front of a field trip of schoolchildren
    and the adults were all muffled laughter/
    looking at shoes…
    but the children were fascinated!
    pointing and stuff
    awkward!

    pdbuttons (25ef24)

  180. Come on, guys answer the question. How many are willing to order their young daughters to shower with me or any male? That’s what I thought! None, nada, nyet, nein, ZILCH!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  181. I wonder if epwj is still unable to discern the nuance between disagreeing with his idiocy, and supporting the target of his idiocy

    JD (318f81)

  182. “the ladies probably won’t be having raging hardons…”

    Don’t be too sure. Once you get all inclusive, you’d be amazed at what’s included…

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  183. It would be a sick, sick father indeed that would order his young daughter into the shower with you.

    The idea is absurd.

    Now, a father that raised his daughter to be the sort of woman who wanted to join the armed forces and fight for her country? Proud. And I’ll tell you what, if the worst thing she encountered in her career was you in the shower, I think dad would be relieved. Also, he’d expect her training would include crotch strikes, as necessary.

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  184. “It would be a sick, sick father indeed that would order his young daughter into the shower with you.

    The idea is absurd.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic — 9/21/2011 @ 5:59 pm”

    Exactly, it is absurd, but that is exactly what you are doing by ordering straight men and women to shower and bunk with homosexuals. You are ordering them to shower and bunk with people that are physically attracted to the same sex. Glad to see you got the point I was making. It is absurd to subject the majority of heterosexual soldiers to this in order to placate a miniscule minority.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  185. And I’ll tell you what, if the worst thing she encountered in her career was you in the shower, I think dad would be relieved. Also, he’d expect her training would include crotch strikes, as necessary.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic — 9/21/2011 @ 5:59 pm

    And pray tell what happens when a straight soldier be it man or woman that does the same thing to a homosexual? Screams of gay bashing from all of the gay special interest groups, charges under UCMJ, conviction and imprisonment in Leavenworth, and then loss of all benefits, retirement and dishonorable discharge.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  186. And furthermore what really pisses me off is that this was passed by a liberal lame duck congress that had just lost the election in 2010 and had no repercussion that could affect them.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  187. Exactly, it is absurd, but that is exactly what you are doing by ordering straight men and women to shower and bunk with homosexuals.

    They already do. And they have for quite some time.

    JD (318f81)

  188. DRJ-

    I don’t know what they (whoever “they” were) were thinking about coed bathrooms for 18-22 year olds. As I referenced above, maybe I’m the only male who didn’t appreciate women I didn’t know walking into the bathroom unannounced. The only way it makes sense, as far as I can figure, is if you want to desensitize people and undermine thousands of years of moral belief.
    I know that when I was in college last millenia, one given reason for co-ed dorms was that the presence of women would tend to civilize the male brutes. Well, I don’t think it appropriate that college administrators want my daughter assigned to “help pacify the Neanderthals” duty. I am using a bit of hyperbole, but still.

    Really, we generally expect grown men in the military to have a little discretion in a public shower, yes? But I don’t think it would be appropriate or wise for me to shower with someone that I may find attractive in a “more traditional” situation. There’s enough things to worry about.

    I can’t figure if DADT was supposed to make it easier for gays to serve or was just a move by Clinton for votes that did nothing or made things worse.

    you are aware that in many high schools, boys are expected to shower after gym class, and that usually they shower naked?
    That seems even less voluntary than showering in the barracks to me.
    Would you advocate that gay kids not be allowed to shower in the high school gym showers?
    Comment by aphrael
    Yes, and at times there was pretty revolting behavior. I would advocate that gay kids did not make a fuss over being gay and having as much right to be in the shower as anybody else. (Did you get settled into NYC ok?)

    Everybody should be on their best behavior, be considerate of those around you, and don’t promote “an agenda”. That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it.

    Yes, I am as “fuddy duddy” as can be.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  189. “They already do. And they have for quite some time.

    Comment by JD — 9/21/2011 @ 6:25 pm”

    I know, and you are OK with this? At least with DADT there is (was) a semblance of protection. What happens now when there begins to be sexual advances? The ramifications were not, and have not been thought through. No, the liberals that had just suffered a historic election defeat rushed to pass their agenda before they lost their power. It stinks to high heaven.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  190. Nobody has explained to me why this policy won’t end up backfiring, due to friendly fire.

    Let’s say a platoon is on patrol, you’re a grunt in a combat situation, the enemy is firing at you, and running toward your position. The guy next to you is openly gay.

    Then your Squad Leader yells out………. “Shoot the c***s*cker!”

    ColonelHaiku (87d081)

  191. it’s possible some of you are overthinking this

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  192. Think of the Unintended Consequences that are now going to be occurring because of this. They did not consider them one iota. Watch for them over the next couple of months/years as re-enlistments drop and also first time enlistments too. There are way too many unintended consequences to even try to think of or list all of them. But watch they will come, and they will drop like a ton of bricks.

    Social engineering with the military is BS.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  193. Then your Squad Leader yells out………. “Shoot the c***s*cker!”

    Comment by ColonelHaiku — 9/21/2011 @ 6:37 pm

    😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  194. I tried to explain that Clinton passed this when it was obvious he had lost his parties 70 year hold on America.

    But nooo the tried and true conservatives here are defending one of the most atrocious policies ever enacted since abortion. DADT opened the door for gay marriage to step in as well.

    crazy, hey what next – the abolishment of marriage? Legalized Prostitution? Lowering the age of consent to 14?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  195. gay marriage is awesome it’s just like marriage except with a twist like one of those shymallsmsalsamadam movies

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  196. peedoffamerican,

    Enrolling in college and enlisting in the military are both voluntary. The accommodations assigned in both generally aren’t. However, I admit that some people might not enlist in the military because of this, just as some students (or their parents) might avoid colleges that have coed dorms. That’s their choice.

    Frankly, in the long run, I don’t think this will make a big difference in the military but I could certainly be wrong. Either way, I don’t think we can stop it. It’s the inevitable path our society has taken, but I’m old-fashioned enough to be concerned that changes like this — and other things such as eliminating all-male schools and normalizing coed dorms — contribute to the sexualization of our society. In other words, I don’t have a problem with gay or straight, or with men, women, or transgenders. But I’d rather not know which is which.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  197. It is yet another step down the slippery snope, represented by the likes of Kevin Jennings, you understand that the stated purpose is not the reason for the thing.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  198. I know, and you are OK with this?

    Yes. Didn’t bother me. Didnt bother either of my brothers. Didn’t bother my father.

    JD (318f81)

  199. DRJ

    I think we are seeing a problem where people who have a lifestyle that isnt going to do anything more than be for sex. In the end, the end result is a childless couple that cohabitats. They want all the legal recognition of the special status that centuries and centuries has afforded the normal biological family unit

    I’m sorry, but these couples can’t reproduce. The end result is that you are going to know whos gay and who’s not and your grandkids are going to be equally exposed to gender propaganda in the classroom becuase this is the next phase.

    Even in Holland speaking to my neighbor in Qatar from Shell, he remembered in the 70’s they let gay marriage happen and service in the military and the Netherlands celebrated their enlightenment. But it came to a screeching halt a few years later when they tried to get permission to recruit in the schools and teach, yeah even for the “dutch” there is a limit.

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  200. Epwj – what did your lies and smear of Palin and her family have to do with this topic?

    JD (318f81)

  201. it’s just deregulation we need a hell of a lot more of it in this strangulated and anemic little country

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  202. LOL @ Haiku.

    Sorry.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  203. Enrolling in college and enlisting in the military are both voluntary. The accommodations assigned in both generally aren’t.
    DRJ

    Yes the enlistment and enrolling are both voluntary, however you can opt out of college and/or the assignment of housing in college, or get housing off campus.

    What you cannot do in the military is opt out of your enlistment easily, or the assigned housing the military gives you. Everything in the military becomes involuntary after enlistment. If you try it, look forward to a court martial. This is the main difference. Universities cannot order you to live with, shower with, or anything else with, someone or something that you do not choose to do. Not so with the military. The military doesn’t ask you to do anything, they tell you.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  204. ____________________________________________

    Yet another way I am suspiciously non-conservative . . . at times.

    Homosexuality or bisexuality does seem to align closely with liberal biases — based on around 70-plus percent of gay people — so the question is where does sexuality end and ideology begin?

    Politico.com, November 2010: More self-identified gay voters chose the GOP in the midterm elections than in previously recorded totals, according to a CNN exit poll. Thirty-one percent of self-identified gay voters cast their ballots for Republicans on Tuesday, 4 percentage points more than in 2008, according to a similar CNN poll. In 2006, 24 percent of gay voters chose the GOP; and in 2004, 23 percent did so.

    nymag.com: Statistically, for instance, gay men and lesbians have about a 50 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight men or women. The relative lengths of our fingers offer another hint: The index fingers of most straight men are shorter than their ring fingers, while for most women they are closer in length, or even reversed in ratio. But some researchers have noted that gay men are likely to have finger-length ratios more in line with those of straight women, and a study of self-described “butch” lesbians showed significantly masculinized ratios.

    The same goes for the way we hear, the way we process spatial reasoning, and even the ring of our voices. One study, involving tape-recordings of gay and straight men, found that 75 percent of gay men sounded gay to a general audience. It’s unclear what the listeners responded to, whether there is a recognized gay “accent” or vocal quality. And there is no hint as to whether this idiosyncrasy is owed to biology or cultural influences—only that it’s unmistakable.

    Along with the external or quasi-internal traits described above, since a large majority of gays gravitate to liberal sentiment, researchers can just as easily correlate that factor with those people’s sexuality as much as they can with anything else that’s similarly predominant. As such, a high percentage of people on the left pretty much favor a generally non-conformist, do-your-own-thang approach to life.

    [Famed British actor] Rupert Everett, whose autobiography will be released next month, admitted to an `on-off affair’ with Bob Geldof’s late wife Paula Yates. The gay British actor Everett, 47, said he had a sexual relationship with Yates while he was married to Geldof. “That side of our relationship was tenuous to say the least, and our lives (eventually) went in different directions.”

    He has also admitted to sexual encounters with actresses Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle:
    “I am mystified by my heterosexual affairs
    – but then I am mystified by most of my relationships.

    If statistics indicated that 75% of such people instead were of the right or even staunchly moderate, I’d judge things differently.

    With the effects of decades of socio-cultural liberalism gone off the deep end throughout this society, don’t be surprised when the following dynamics are putting an armlock on facets of America where it seemingly would have been least expected (eg, US army).

    With the military now also having the need to be politically correct about homosexuality, I’d be surprised if the trend described below is not just sustained over the foreseeable future, but if it, in fact, doesn’t become far more pervasive and self-destructive.

    macleans.ca, Mark Steyn: Major [Nidal] Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” — i.e., “Soldier of Allah” — on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda,” but, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

    As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in U.S. history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave the presentation to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors. Some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then-Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic,” the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents.”

    So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

    If homosexuality — in terms of the individual, the group, the politics and the culture — somehow did not necessarily inculcate greater socio-political liberalism, then that would be one thing. But so much of what is caught up in the reality of “gay rights” and same-sex behavior naturally encourages a left-leaning dynamic, both politically and culturally.

    Nidal Hasan may be sort of a poster boy — with a lot of surprising contradictions and ironies — for what’s in our future.

    Mark (411533)

  205. Gee, you had been doing better lately, up until that comment. ‘Civilian control of the military’ does not, and has NEVER meant, that the military is not allowed to make its own rules. They are, of course, bound by the Constitution (and the whims of congressional control) for the rules that they make; but then, DADT was never shown to be unconstitutional.

    I was a supervisor during before and after the DADT implementation. It was a horrendous policy. Expectations were that the homosexual service person would refrain from that lifestyle while serving but not be pursued for punitive actions if someone suspected that was their preference.
    The practical effect was to allow gays without really sanctioning it.
    When we received the mandatory briefings the Colonel from JA briefed the squadron. I told him I thought it was a dodge by Clinton and then went on to point out that by our President’s definition of sex there was no such thing as a lesbian. He chuckled and said “I’m just here to deliver the message”

    vor2 (b3c362)

  206. Uh happyfeet do you like buttsex?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  207. Here’s an idea. Let’s have all gay battalions. Then instead of sending in our fighting forces, we can send in our all gay battalions to redecorate the country. No need for war anymore. 😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  208. A cop killa got executed…..but according to ChumpstainThreads that is racist since the cop threatened him.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  209. Well much like Danny Faulkner, who hasn’t received justice after 30 years, of ‘games’ with Mumia Abu Jamal.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  210. EPWJ – Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  211. I’m just totally fascinated to see that some hetero guys here are so worried that soldiers in the military might have their tender sensibilities affronted in a barracks, or that they might be overpowered and ravaged against their will by apparently perpetually tumescent fellow soldiers who are gay.

    I knew there were perceived issues related to change, unintended consequences, discipline and military structure, etc. But I honestly had no idea there is actual fear. Wow.

    elissa (054a47)

  212. Some conservatives oppose this it i stheir right ot do so.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  213. tumescent: adj. Becoming swollen; swelling.

    /learn something every day.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  214. Elissa – I am proud to not be on that list of peole quivering in fear.

    JD (318f81)

  215. JD–Yes. I noticed.

    elissa (054a47)

  216. Not quivering in fear elissa. Shaking with rage and disgust is more like it.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  217. Anger and rage always comes from fear.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  218. Oh, Mr peedoff, now whenever I see your handle I’ll automatically picture the infamous and universal Islamic “rage boy” photo.

    elissa (054a47)

  219. Islamic “rage boy” in taffeta, grimacing

    limited edition glycee print

    #32 of 500

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  220. Here’s another unintended consequence. Even though HIV is not a gay only disease and does occur in heterosexual populations, its incidence is highest among homosexuals and IV drug users.

    Soldiers who receive OCONUS assignment instructions, or are scheduled for an OCONUS TDY that will exceed 179 days, must have tested negative within six months of the departure date.

    Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be deployed (PCS or TDY) OCONUS. Soldiers serving OCONUS who are confirmed as HIV positive will be expeditiously reassigned to CONUS.

    OCONUS is Outside Continental United States. CONUS is Continental United States.

    Therefore they will not be able to fight and that duty falls upon those that are not infected. Damn, this unnecessary tampering and social engineering by a bunch of POS civilians just keeps getting better and better by the minute.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  221. ________________________________________________

    That homosexuality is inborn – and also, let us not forget, not inherited – is a convenient untruth with no reason for anyone to believe it other than it’s convenient

    In honor of the end of DADA, I hereby post the following:

    Afterelton.com:

    Michael Stipe officially came forward about his sexuality in 1994, when he described himself as “an equal opportunity lech.” Stipe has said he doesn’t define himself as gay, straight, or bisexual, but that he was attracted to and had relationships with both men and women.

    Alexander III of Macedon lived from 356–323 BC. He might have married Roxanne and fathered a child with her, but his greatest relationship was with lifelong friend Hephaestion, and towards the end of his life he fell madly in love with a eunuch named Bagoas.

    Alan Cumming was married to Hilary Lyon from 1985 to 1993. He was married in a civil ceremony in 2007 to graphic artist Grant Shaffer. Oasis magazine once asked Cumming why he preferred “bisexual” over other possible labels such as gay, straight, or pansexual. Here’s his reply:

    “I just think I haven’t closed myself off and I never close myself off to the possibility of experience and the possibility of attraction. So, even now that I have a husband, who’s a man (laughs), I still find lots of people attractive. Some of them are women. I’ve just never understood … well, I can understand, but I don’t agree with gay men who are completely horrified by a woman, or the idea of sex with a woman, or the idea of a woman’s genitals. That’s just not been me. In a way, I think it’s wrong to close your mind off.”

    Queer Eye’s culture guy [Jai Rodriguez] spoke with AfterElton.com back in 2006 and here’s what he had to say about his orientation…Q: Is the fact you identify as bisexual ever an issue for fans? Are you still bi?

    Jai Rodriguez: Hmmm… I consider myself gay because at the end of the night, that’s who I want to cuddle with. But when I go out, I go to straight clubs. And occasionally in Page 6 they will report some lady fun I’ve had. But, I have no apologies. Yes, I’ve had sex with a woman. Will I be straight? Never going to happen. I’m sure it’s an issue for some gays, but it’s who I am.

    [Billie Joe] Armstrong identified himself as bisexual in a 1995 interview with The Advocate:

    “I think I’ve always been bisexual. I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of ‘Oh, I can’t.’ They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”

    [Actor Brad] Davis sadly died in 1991 from an intentional drug overdose after a six year battle with AIDS. He left behind a wife and daughter, though Boze Hadleigh’s book Hollywood Gays includes an interview with Davis in which he acknowledges having had sex with men. When asked if he considered himself bisexual, he replied “didn’t someone once say that everyone’s bisexual, deep down?”

    [Gregg] Araki self-identified as gay until 1997, when he began a two-year relationship with actress Kathleen Robertson. Bisexuality is a theme in many of his films.

    ^ Well, I bet most of the people above at least are politically of the right or center. Yep, uh-huh.

    Time to par-r-ty!

    BTW, I’ve noticed a variety of people in today’s era have a great need — a great desire — to get piercings so they can walk around with metal studs in their ears, nose, lips, tongue, etc. I’m sure the desire to do that is innate, inborn, genetically forced upon them. They can’t help but get piercings and have metal junk hanging on parts of their body. They were born that way!

    Mark (411533)

  222. Comment by Mark — 9/21/2011 @ 9:26 pm

    SUBSCRIBE NOW –>

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  223. Anger and rage always comes from fear.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/21/2011 @ 9:07 pm

    Not so Stashiu. Anger and rage have many sources. If someone insults me or my family, I do not fear, I anger. If someone hits me, I feel anger not fear, and I hit back hard. And when I say rage, I mean it by this definition; 3. A burning desire; a passion. Not a. Violent, explosive anger. There is a difference, you know.

    Was Jesus acting in fear when He became angry and cast the money changers out of the temple? I am not saying I am Jesus, just using this to illustrate a point.

    I have no fear of homosexuals. I do not care to invade their bedrooms and tell them what they can or cannot do behind closed doors. I do care that they are forced upon our soldiers in a social engineering experiment.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  224. The problem/risk is that the more strident/flamboyant social crusaders will use this as the first step in demanding more and more concessions

    Maybe so, but many level-headed people know how to use creative interpretations of sexual harassment policy to get rid of troublesome folks.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  225. Maybe so, but many level-headed people know how to use creative interpretations of sexual harassment policy to get rid of troublesome folks.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 9/21/2011 @ 9:39 pm

    Just like those same level headed folks got rid of Major Hassan before he killed 13 and wounded another 30. OH wait, they didn’t. Glad that PC doesn’t protect muslims like it will homosexuals.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  226. Oh wait, it does.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  227. You wait and see. The soldiers that complain of sexual harassment by same sex persons will be the ones singled out themselves. They will be accused of gay bashing, homophobia, and all other sorts of heinous and vile accusations. Mark My Words
    It is already happening in the civilian world and it will happen even more so in the military.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  228. it’s not hard to imagine that a slippery slope just gets slipperier and slipperier when you add gay lube

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  229. Climate change is causing the bear population to disappear by raising its population-WWF.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  230. I went into the military in 1981 and many of the things you raised were being said about women being in the military and we were already a decade into the new policy. It took until the 90′s before the idea had “normalized”.

    I’m sure the equivalent arguments were raised about blacks in the military many decades back. As long as it works out, I’ve got no problems with it.

    Your argument utilizing women, however, does not fully hold water — women still do not, and are unlikely to ever, be able to fully integrate into field units, for the least reason that there is always a measure of physical strength which applies — Cory Everson could never outdo Arnold Schwartzennegger.

    Further, strength standards WERE lowered to accommodate women somewhat, but there are still situations where women are not allowed to fill for said reasons.

    Regardless — I’m not against the notion, but when your life is on the line, if you don’t trust the guy next to you because he’s gay, that can be a major problem.

    And I’m not willing to accept unchallenged the equation that race==gender==gender-preference. There is a claim that the aversion to the last is, like the first two, a mere social canalization. We’re about to test that in full.

    Will gays accept it quietly if, 30 years from now, we change our mind?

    Or will there be much wailing and gnashing of teeth?

    Since I’ve never seen any reaction except the latter, I’m at this point assuming that will be the result then, too, if such comes to pass.

    Again — society should not suppress being gay. But that does not obligate society to full acceptance, either. There’s a middle ground. Gays aren’t real good about seeking that, since most of them do seem to be liberals, for whom reality is a foreign concept.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  231. this blog is making me feel very very smart tonight at protein wisdom they’re usually not so accommodating

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  232. “I went into the military in 1981 and many of the things you raised were being said about women being in the military and we were already a decade into the new policy. It took until the 90′s before the idea had “normalized”.”

    With the removal of DADT will pregnancies in the military decline? Unintended Consequence?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  233. Mr. Feets – In case you had not noticed, EPWJ has still not denied having sex with Rick Perry.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  234. Survey of the military
    10% say that they will not re-up when this goes into effect, and 14% say they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service.

    As of last September, there were 1,430,985 troops in the armed forces. According to the survey, 24% may not re-enlist or extend their service. But let’s just surmise that only 15% of those choose to do so. That means that the armed services will lose approximately 214,648 highly trained troops.

    Hmmmmm, wonder what that is going to do to our military preparedness? Do you suppose that number is going to made up by liberals and gays that support this insane social engineering experiment?

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  235. I’m the last person what would want to deny Mr. Governor Rick his needed release but it’s still a ponzi scheme you know, this la sécurité sociale you Americans are so fond of

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  236. ==most of them do seem to be liberals==

    That’s probably news to Mary Cheney, Ken Mehlman and the entire membership of Log Cabin Republicans.

    elissa (054a47)

  237. Most elissa, he didn’t say all.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  238. Just great Obama is making the unemployment go up thus forcing everyone onto welfare.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  239. The liberals were just slobbering to see this mad rush to join, but left disappointed.

    Remember the Tailhook scandal? Soon coming to a theater near you, Butthook scandal.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  240. yes Mr. peed I bet there’s already a highly frustrated squad of marines just raring to dig up the corpesman of Matthew Shepard and have a my little pony theme party with free E and a strict trade-your-keys-for-condoms policy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  241. Clinton was forced to support Welfare Reform.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  242. Don’t laugh Mr. feets, they didn’t think that Tailhook could happen either. To me this is not a laughing matter. I know from firsthand experience what social engineering can do to unit cohesion. The first and foremost duty of our military is to protect this country. As in, breaking things and killing the enemy. It is not the place to engage in feel good PC social engineering.

    Have you seen that Obama and the dims plan to drastically cut military expenditures to help cut the deficit? I wonder if this is some scheme of his to make that easier? After all, the lame duck dems rushed this thru after their ignominious defeat last November and Obama signed it with supersonic speed. His intention is to destroy our military. I don’t trust a thing that this little liey liar says or does.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  243. I don’t trust him either but he’s way more broadbrush in his designs on America’s destruction than micro-managing unit cohesion I think

    to say nothing of him being an incompetent over-promoted twerp

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  244. to say nothing of him being an incompetent over-promoted twerp

    Comment by happyfeet — 9/21/2011 @ 10:52 pm

    I don’t think he is incompetent in the least. I think that this is a masterful plan that he is engaging in. He only wants us to believe that he is incompetent, after all if we think that, then we won’t look at his actions any closer. He is trying to rock us to sleep.

    Look at what he has accomplished.

    Socialized the medical system. Bankrupted our economy. Screwed up our military. Socializing the banking sector. Destroying our businesses and manufacturing capabilities. Ending domestic oil production. etc., etc., etc. Doesn’t quite seem incompetent or happenstance to me.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  245. Claasic Liberalism is different from american liberalism although there are american liberals who oppose Obama.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  246. I wouldn’t trust the big eared lying freak if he said that the sky is blue. I would verify it myself.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  247. _______________________________________________

    That’s probably news to Mary Cheney, Ken Mehlman and the entire membership of Log Cabin Republicans.

    Again, some aspect of homosexuality seems to either bring out or nurture the liberal instincts in many people, registered Republicans included. And, yes, there are undoubtedly a percentage of staunchly rightwing people who are gay and/or bisexual, but they appear to be statistically a minority (perhaps only a sliver of the 25 to 30% who aren’t flat-out leftists/Democrats) within the “GLBT” crowd.

    career-bios.com:

    Ken Mehlman is perhaps best known as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007, but Ken Mehlman’s career goes far beyond politics. Ken Mehlman has served as an attorney, philanthropic board member, public policy spokesperson, civil rights advocate, and environmental activist.

    Ken Mehlman received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1991. Ken Mehlman was a classmate of future American President Barack Obama. He became a member of the bar for both the District of Columbia and Maryland.

    Ken Mehlman practiced environmental law for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld from 1991 to 1996. This experience proved to be invaluable when he later become the voice of a new environmental movement in private equity investment.

    Ken Mehlman’s politics can be best described as fiscally conservative and socially progressive. As the RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman surprised both liberals and conservatives during an address to the NACCP when he publicly apologized to African-Americans for the failure of the Republican Party to reach out to them. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Ken Mehlman said. “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

    Ken Mehlman went on a vigorous campaign to court African-American votes. At a forum of the National Association of Black Journalists, Ken Mehlman said the Republican Party “won’t be whole again” until more African Americans aligned themselves to the GOP. He declared tax cuts, home ownership, education reform, and private retirement accounts were in line with the concerns with of the black community.

    After he resigned from the RNC Chairmanship, Ken Mehlman returned to Akin Gump, but he was eventually hired away from private equity firm Kravis Kohlberg & Roberts. At KKR, Ken Mehlman was able to pursue his original passion of environmental activism. In his newly created position of Head of Global Public Affairs, Ken Mehlman has championed a synergy between profitable business and environmental stewardship. Ken Mehlman is the voice of KKR’s innovative Green Portfolio Project. Since 2007, KKR and the Environmental Defense have worked together to encourage environmental business practices.

    In addition to his work with KKR, Ken Mehlman is a social activist and philanthropist. He serves as a trustee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Franklin & Marshall College, and the Strong American Schools Foundation. Ken Mehlman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council on Foreign Relations Climate Change Task Force, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Staying true to his vision of racial harmony, Ken Mehlman holds an executive leadership cabinet position for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Foundation.

    ^ I don’t mind registered Republicans who are squishy, but their party affiliation shouldn’t make observers (particularly in the media) automatically assume such people are therefore of the right, certainly when it comes to their socio-cultural likes and dislikes.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Mark (411533)

  248. Stashiu,

    Also, I fear no man, no woman, and no beast. I fear only He who can destroy both body and soul in hell. I fear for my country because I see the path that is leading this nation into destruction. That is fear for and not of, as in great concern. After all, you can kill me, but you can’t eat me. 😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  249. Anger is always rooted in fear. Every time. Even in pathological personalities. This is basic to psych. Deny it all you wish, it’s still true. I’m not saying what you’re afraid of, or even implying what it might be, because I don’t know you. But if you’re angry, it’s because you’re afraid of something.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  250. _________________________________________

    Anger is always rooted in fear.

    I’d say if that’s a given, or very much a known quantity, then the reverse also should be true. IOW, that fear is always rooted in anger.

    So…

    “I’m afraid (or fearful) of standing on a ledge 1,000 feet above the ground because I’m angry.”

    “I’m afraid of walking in a dangerous neighborhood late at night because I’m angry.”

    “I’m fearful of being overdrawn on my checking account because I’m angry.”

    The idea that anger is OFTEN rooted in fear fits the bill (or the idiosyncrasies of human nature) better.

    Mark (411533)

  251. I’d say if that’s a given, or very much a known quantity, then the reverse also should be true.
    Comment by Mark — 9/21/2011 @ 11:39 pm

    That doesn’t make sense at all. Why would the reverse have to be true? It’s not and shouldn’t be. Anger is generally accepted (in psych) as a secondary emotion. That’s what I was taught and I’ve never seen an exception.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  252. Mark – Stashiu3 has it right.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  253. Stashiu,

    So now you’re saying that Jesus the only Son of God was in fear because He was angry that the money changers were making a mockery of His Father’s House? Don’t think so.

    Anger is not always rooted in fear. It can be rooted in fear, but it is not always rooted in fear. If I accidentally smash my thumb with a hammer, I become angry at myself for being careless, not because of fear. If someone keys my car, I become angry, and its not because of fear, its because some little piece of scheiss destroyed my property. Need to throw away that witch doctory book of psych.

    peedoffamerican (cce5d3)

  254. Freud was a fraud what had mommy issues.

    peedoffamerican (cce5d3)

  255. I’m not a Biblical authority by any means, but was Jesus afraid for the people who utilized the money-changers? Or that the money-changers would not realize Heaven because they went against God’s will? Putting aside religion (interpreting the Bible on the internet rarely leads to real insight), I’ll address your other points.

    If you smash your thumb, your first reaction is fear that you’ve done yourself permanent damage. This is a response to the pain signals you’ve received, triggering the fight or flight response.

    If someone damages your property, your first response is fear of loss and that the person may still be a danger.

    Anger can be a rational response, even healthy. If someone threatens my child, I’m going to get angry. I’m just not under any illusion that it’s not rooted in the fear for my child’s safety. If you want to maintain that illusion, that you are without fear when you get angry, be my guest. I’ve made the point I wished to make and it’s up to you whether or not it was convincing.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  256. Not a Freud fan at all. It’s late. Have a good night and be well.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  257. If you smash your thumb, your first reaction is fear that you’ve done yourself permanent damage. This is a response to the pain signals you’ve received, triggering the fight or flight response.

    Nope, my first response is to grab it and holler OUCH! My second response is, how in the hell did I do such a stupid thing. My third response is to unwrap my other fingers from my throbbing thumb and check to see if I need to bandage it cause I don’t want to get blood everywhere. My fourth response is to try and be more careful, cause that hurt a lot. Fear never enters into it, if it did I would never pick up a hammer again.

    I once feared many things like most people do, now I don’t fear anything but God. I have walked through the valley of the shadow of death, not once, but several times, and once you have done that and lived, fear can no longer hold sway over you.

    If someone damages your property, your first response is fear of loss and that the person may still be a danger.

    Bah, fear of loss never enters into it, I’ve got insurance with no deductible on comp. 😆 My first response is that I wish I had caught the SOB in the act, and he would be the one that was in fear and would truly know what danger was. No, fear never enters into it at all, it just pisses me off that it is going to cost me time and effort to have repaired and that is what angers me. I get angry that some people have so little respect for the rights and/or property of others. That is not fear, that is righteous indignation.

    I am not pathological, psychotic, or psychopathic, I am just someone that has learned not to fear. Like I said above, when you have stared the specter of death straight in his bony face, nothing can induce fear again.

    Fight or flight is not a trait of fear, it is a trait of survival. Notice the fight part? Sure, if someone shoots at me, and they have, I might run to a safer position, but it is only to ascertain the situation so I can launch a counter attack. It would be stupid to stand there and let them bang away at you. If you sneak up behind me and yell loudly, you might startle me, but induce fear you will not.

    peedoffamerican (cce5d3)

  258. And when I use the term fear God, this is its definition;
    4. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration. It’s not a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm.

    peedoffamerican (cce5d3)

  259. I’m not a Biblical authority by any means, but was Jesus afraid for the people who utilized the money-changers? Or that the money-changers would not realize Heaven because they went against God’s will?

    No, He was angry that they had turned His Father’s House into a den of thieves and not as it was supposed to be, a House of Prayer. See, and pardon the pun, He was angry about them shortchanging the faithful.

    peedoffamerican (cce5d3)

  260. And I’m not willing to accept unchallenged the equation that race==gender==gender-preference. Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society — 9/21/2011 @ 9:57 pm

    the examples of integration and women are meant to show that change can be incorporated not to make the claim that one necessarily equals the other. The issue is really other people’s reaction to change.
    Should we have left the military segregated? yes or no. Should women be allowed to serve? yes or no. Answer please.
    The issue about lowering standards to accommodate anyone into certain roles is a legitimate debate.
    At the same time it is fair to point out instances where standards are raised with the intent of denying people a chance to perform.
    There are a lot of good people female and black who suffered some indignity by being “the first”. But their reaction was to put their head down and push ahead while ignoring it. the example was not how to be weak but how to deal with the reality of the times. By doing so they paved a difficult path that long after they left the service made color and gender a non-issue. I think the same will happen with the openly serving personnel.
    I’ve been connected with the military on a daily basis in one capacity or another for 35 years now.
    I don’t see anywhere near the angst with the active duty troops about the repeal than I see from civilians who have zero stake in it.

    vor2 (41e882)

  261. With the removal of DADT will pregnancies in the military decline? Unintended Consequence?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/21/2011 @ 10:07 pm

    Are you saying that removal of DADT will increase the number of straight people who turn gay and in turn reduce the number of pregnancies?
    Come on…

    vor2 (41e882)

  262. Sure, Homos can be just as good an Airman/Soldier/Sailor/Marine as anyone else…
    Unless you need a blood transfusion from one.
    Y’see you can’t donate blood if your a “Man who’s had Sex with a Man” (Even Once!) since January 1st 1977.
    Oh sure, you can lie about when you last had sex with a man and give your blood anyway, but pretty sure thats a violation of the UCMJ, just like having anal sex with a Man(ASWAM) is…
    And no way any Homo in a Command “Position” will take advantage of some cute E1 or E2, just won’t happen.

    Frank

    Frank Drackman (da969f)

  263. And that would be different than a straight office taking advantage of an E1 in what way?

    JD (ae55d7)

  264. Frank,
    The blood transfusion comment is a red herring. There are many people not eligible to donate for a variety of reasons.
    http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic

    As for taking advantage is it your opinion that this never happens with straight commanders?

    vor2 (6c8528)

  265. Ian – do you think that the leftists and/or epwj will give a rip that it is all fabricated?

    JD (ac417f)

  266. Ian

    Did the Palins file suit yet? whats that no? Who’s the source of most of these rumors? the Palins themselves? Really? Breitbart missed that? You mean they didnt tell Andrew that the source of much of these rumors were the Palins? Or their relatives?

    Is JD hitting the worship Palin sauce again?

    Why are Coulter, Ingraham,Perrino, Carlson and more suddenly very weary of Palin? And the list is growing?

    What people are looking at her record?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  267. The cult of personality is strong with JD

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  268. EPWJ – Why haven’t you denied having sex with Rick Perry? Hmmmmm.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  269. It’s not something he’s embarrassed about, daley,

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  270. ian – I didn’t say it was wrong.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  271. Did epwj offer any proof of his assertions that the Palins themselves were the source of these rumors? Has he yet offered any proof of her dropping panties for glen rice, and maintaining a relationship for a couple decades?

    Agin, this clown does not get that disagreeing with epwj’s lies and smears does not equate to support for the object of his irrationality.

    JD (6d8a47)

  272. No, of course not, then again one can find a copy of the Hatfield screed, despite the author being
    an excon, who killed himself, at most local libraries, because it fit the W template. I’m sure when James Moore’s collection of delusions hits the shelves, he will be just as understanding

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  273. Yet another thread poisoned by the concern troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  274. ____________________________________________

    That doesn’t make sense at all. Why would the reverse have to be true?

    Because the idea that “anger is always rooted in fear” is quite an absolute, meaning if it’s such a powerful dynamic than the reverse of that concept also has to be generally true. If not, than the definition of “fear” must be more far reaching than generally accepted. Or the word has to be stretched to include dislike, disdain, resentment or contempt.

    “My wife said I was ‘stupid’ today in front of our friends. I’m angry at her because of fear!”

    “My co-worker accused me of being a troublemaker because I won’t cover and lie for her. I’m angry because I fear her.”

    “I’m angry at my kids for being lazy and never cleaning up after their messes. I fear them.”

    “I’m angry that a good friend refuses to ever take a bath and always reeks like hell. He’s so inconsiderate. I’m fearful.”

    “My sister told me that only stupid, selfish, racist people vote for conservatives and Republicans. Her attitude and comments anger me because of fear.”

    Mark (411533)

  275. _____________________________________________

    Unless you need a blood transfusion from one.

    Regarding the notion that “anger is always rooted in fear,” things like the following do make me both angry and fearful…


    Prison Planet.com: Homosexual rights activists are trying to get a ban overturned on accepting blood donations from gay and bisexual men in the UK because it is “offensive,” despite the fact that such a change would increase the risk of HIV infection by 50%, in the latest example of political correctness lunacy that is endangering society.

    “Rob McDowall, a campaigner on gay rights, has branded current blood-transfusion policy “homophobic” for not accepting blood from men who have had homosexual relationships,” reports the Scotsman.

    “This outdated, homophobic and offensive rule must be changed to allow gay and bisexual people to give the gift of life,” added McDowall.

    But there’s a very good reason that gay and bisexual men are banned from donating blood in the UK, and it relates to basic public safety.

    According to the latest figures held by the Office of National Statistics for HIV, nearly 50 percent of new HIV cases between 1996 and 2005 involved gay and bisexual men, even though they statistically represent just 5-10 per cent of the population (other estimates say 3 percent).

    ^ This is sort of a variation of what’s at the core of the story of Nidal Hasan, the military’s response to him (before the massacre) and then the day of the murders at Fort Hood.

    I do fear this. I’m definitely afraid of this.

    Mark (411533)

  276. DRJ, at 160, I thought of college dorms as well – mine had coed bathrooms 20 years ago – but I think there’s a crucial difference: peedoffamerican used the phrase “ordered”, which implies there’s something involuntary about it in the barracks, while living in college dorms is an essentially voluntary activity.

    I think joining the military is, too, although it’s arguable that changes like this are not voluntarily accepted in the case of someone who signed up in 2008 and hasn’t had the choice yet to choose to re-enlist (although, really, the writing was on the wall in 2008). But I suspect that the distinction renders college dorms an invalid comparison for the purposes of this discussion.

    ——

    Pious Agnostic, at 178: exactly. I think the argument that peedoffamerican is making essentially belittles our soldiers; I think men in the military have the strength to be able to ignore the fact that someone showering near them is visibly aroused.

    ——

    Peedoffamerican, at 188, I see you ignored my question, so I’ll try again. Teenage boys in high schools are regularly expected to shower with other teenage bopys, some of whom are gay, some of whom are physically attracted to them. Do you advocate banning that practice?

    I’m forced to conclude you do, as otherwise I think you have to be saying that our soldiers are more vulnerable to this sort of thing than the average teenager.

    ——

    MD in Philly, at 191, this is certainly anecdotal, but it was strikign to me how much *cleaner* the coed bathrooms at UC Santa Cruz were than the single-sex men’s bathrooms at Stanford.

    But, having spent three years living on campus with coed bathrooms, I have to say it was basically a non-issue. The individual toilet and shower stalls were enclosed, and as far as I could tell, nobody was bothered. You had the *option* of living on floors with single-sex bathrooms, and these were allocated each year based on demand; there was I think 2-3 floors (out of 25) for women and none for men, as the men simply didn’t have enough demand for it.

    I would advocate that gay kids did not make a fuss over being gay and having as much right to be in the shower as anybody else.

    Right, but what does “making a fuss” mean? Does having a picture of your boyfriend on the inside of your locker – as was quite common for girls in my high school – count?

    Everybody should be on their best behavior, be considerate of those around you, and don’t promote “an agenda”.

    Amen to that. :)

    Did you get settled into NYC ok?

    Thank you for asking. Yes, we settled in, and everything is more or less fine, although the commute is annoying.

    ————

    Peedoffamerican, at 192, you handle those sexual advances the same way you handle sexual advances in general, and you expect the soldiers who happen to be gay to maintain the same professionalism that other soldiers are expected to maintain.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  277. In what world is the standard the epwj advance, where a smear is deemed true unless the object of the smear files a lawsuit? This is your brain on drugs ….

    JD (6d8a47)

  278. Mark, the thing is that homosexuality is being used as a proxy for promiscuity.

    As a gay man who has spent ten years in a long-term monogamous relationship, I have blood which is no more risky than that of my straight best friend who has spent nine years in a long-term monogamous relationship.

    But I’m not allowed to donate blood because those gays who are actively promiscuous have much, much higher risk profiles than the average person, and because – ultimately – the red cross doesn’t trust me to not be lying when I say that i’ve spent ten years in a monogamous relationship.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  279. 😯 Red Cross?

    Stop trying to force your christianity on others………..get it red cross?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  280. if you don’t trust the guy next to you because he’s gay

    isn’t this really the crux of the dispute? whether you think it’s reasonable to not trust someone just because he’s gay?

    aphrael (5d993c)

  281. Wow. Interesting comments.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  282. Carlitos is a Hohophobe.

    JD (68ff46)

  283. Fear of processed chocolate treats?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  284. No Carlitos is a comeoutoftheclosetphobe.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  285. “Because the idea that “anger is always rooted in fear” is quite an absolute, meaning if it’s such a powerful dynamic than the reverse of that concept also has to be generally true.”

    Mark – I agree with Stahiu3 on the subject, but it sounds like we would need a separate thread to explain it. The concept does not conflict with POA’s expressions of a lack of fear of things, you can learn why it makes sense not to be afraid of a lot of things.

    Hey, and when your wife criticizes you in front of a group of friends, it’s not your sense of manhood, pride, or ego that is threatened or anything, right? You just shift to anger without any intermediate thought?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  286. Hey aphrael, if it makes you feel any better, I don’t get to donate blood anymore either, because I keep going back to areas of Mexico that are on the verboten list.

    I don’t remember them asking about being gay, just whether you had ever “paid for sex.” Interesting.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  287. dakota fanning never pays for sex

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  288. Carlitos: the question is, have you had sex with another man since 1979. It’s still on the forms, although they downplay it on the website, etc.

    I’m not familiar with the ban on people who’ve gone to verboten areas of Mexico, but I suspect the theory is that there’s a heightened risk of exposure to some local blood-borne bacterium or other infectious agent in those areas.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  289. ________________________________________________

    Mark, the thing is that homosexuality is being used as a proxy for promiscuity.

    But, Aphrael, you do have to admit that a high percentage of homosexuals/bisexuals are of the left. And that the biases of liberalism generally embrace tolerance for tolerance’s sake (with “tolerance” being defined in the context of a liberal mindset) or, more specifically, perceive the concept of self-control and personal responsibility as boring, old-fashioned and even prudish.

    I would look at the “GLBT” community differently if it weren’t so leftwing, both culturally and politically.

    Beyond that, human nature does program most males to, yep, think with their genitals. That’s innate and obviously for the genetic purpose of ensuring the survival of the species. By contrast, a higher percentage of females tend to be selective sexually and therefore are more discriminating about relationships.

    Lots of straight guys would be thrilled if most women had the mindset and reactions of most gay males, or guys in general. And the rates of promiscuity would then truly skyrocket.

    wpaag.org: Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s.

    In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.

    Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

    A 1998 study in Seattle found that 10 percent of HIV-positive men admitted they engaged in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000. According to a study of men who attend gay “circuit” parties, the danger at such events is even greater. Ten percent of the men surveyed expected to become HIV-positive in their lifetime. Researchers discovered that 17 percent of the circuit party attendees surveyed were already HIV positive. Two thirds of those attending circuit parties had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use condoms.

    Studies show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.
    And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Most of the above facts taken from The Health Risks of Gay Sex by John R. Digs, Jr. M.D. which has 129 footnotes and hundreds of sources, many from Center of Disease Control.

    Mark (411533)

  290. Yeah, they are technically “malarial zones.” In an interesting coincidence, the one malarial zone I frequent is one where it’s legal to pay for sex. Well, at least the Red Cross is open-minded to have allowed me to “experiment” before 1979. :)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  291. The Arab Spring won’t effect Ahmaqueerjihadist.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  292. I don’t think the bar on active homosexual donations is a matter of trust at all. One of the big problems with STDs among gays is that some of them do not know they are infected at all.

    And of course, homosexual sex is riskier than heterosexual sex, so we can’t compare promiscuity directly. It’s true that a monogamous gay is much safer than a straight guy who patronizes the whorehouse, but I do think a lot of gays may think their blood is just as safe as someone else’s, and be completely wrong.

    It’s not about how much the blood bank despises gays, and it’s certainly not about trust. It’s about setting rules to ensure safety for those who are in no shape to fight off any extra illnesses. It’s nothing personal, and I’ve been barred from donating several times.

    This is kinda what bugs me about the DADT repeal. People are looking to some ultimate political feel-good result, instead of strict pragmatics. Even when there are lives on the line (and for the most part, not the lives of the pundits or politicians, I might add). Sure, maybe the blood bank could find some way to handle the uptick in viruses in the blood supply if it ‘trusted’ everyone to know how safe they are. And sure, the military is full of well intentioned souls, so they can probably handle some of the additional fraternization and harassment. So what that a few people could die when things don’t work? We’ve got feelings to protect!

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  293. Well, at least the Red Cross is open-minded to have allowed me to “experiment” before 1979. :)

    Comment by carlitos — 9/22/2011 @ 9:07 am

    And of course, there’s a reason for that. They aren’t screening out gays. They are screening out a virus that generally wasn’t common in the 1970s, and is notorious for the host not being aware of it for a long time.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  294. Mark’s copy-pasted list appears at a lot of places, I see. It reads like one of my crazy uncle’s forwarded chain mails. Too good to check. Dr. Digs appears to mostly make his living doing this anti-gay hysteria stuff.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  295. And you make your living on what exactly?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  296. Booze.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  297. Because the idea that “anger is always rooted in fear” is quite an absolute, meaning if it’s such a powerful dynamic than the reverse of that concept also has to be generally true.
    Comment by Mark — 9/22/2011 @ 8:18 am

    Not so. You’re contending that cause and effect are generally interchangeable.

    “My wife said I was ‘stupid’ today in front of our friends. I’m angry at her because of fear!”

    Afraid that people might believe her or that it’s actually true.

    “My co-worker accused me of being a troublemaker because I won’t cover and lie for her. I’m angry because I fear her.”

    Fear that other may think the same, or that it’s true.

    “I’m angry at my kids for being lazy and never cleaning up after their messes. I fear them.”

    Fear that you are a bad parent or that they will continue their lazy ways into adulthood.

    “I’m angry that a good friend refuses to ever take a bath and always reeks like hell. He’s so inconsiderate. I’m fearful.”

    Fear of disease or losing your friend to illness.

    “My sister told me that only stupid, selfish, racist people vote for conservatives and Republicans. Her attitude and comments anger me because of fear.”

    Fear that others will believe this or that it’s true.

    I’m not saying that these are the only reasons you might feel fear that leads to anger, only that one follows the other (and they are not interchangeable). You don’t want to believe it? Fine with me. I’m comfortable with my training and experience, mostly because it works. If I can get patients to understand the roots of their anger, they can begin to manage it. If they refuse to accept the truth and deny fear (and it’s usually the guys as you might expect), it is much harder to get anger issues under even tenuous control.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  298. ________________________________________________

    you can learn why it makes sense not to be afraid of a lot of things.

    I don’t understand (or agree with) the concept that there is a non-variable, absolute connection between the reaction of “anger” and the emotion of “fear.” I’m also not sure if there is a desire to link the two for socio-political reasons, to somehow make a reaction of anger appear to be unfair, immature or irrational? Anger sometimes can be rooted in those things, but it’s a gross generalization to claim that theory applies to all cases.

    Hey, and when your wife criticizes you in front of a group of friends, it’s not your sense of manhood, pride, or ego that is threatened or anything, right?

    The scenario can be reversed and the wife therefore feels fear when her husband said she was “stupid” in front of their friends? Or was it both fear and anger? Or more anger than fear? Or just anger?

    As for my previous example of a co-worker accusing a person of being a troublemaker because he or she didn’t want to lie and cover for the co-worker. The reaction that would cause in most people truly would be one of anger and not fear if the scenario included “and the co-worker immediately quit his job or was fired.” IOW, I guess one would be both angry and fearful if a co-worker making false accusations created so many waves in the office, that everyone could end up losing their job.

    Mark (411533)

  299. I don’t know if Mark’s list is accurate. I don’t feel like generalizing gays. And the fact is that a lot of straights are just as irresponsible as the stereotypical Andrew Sullivan gay (who Aphrael shows us is not what all gay folks are like anyway).

    But the blood donor rules affect a lot of people will good blood. I know this bugs a lot of gays, but it really isn’t about trust or judgment.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  300. I don’t think the bar on active homosexual donations is a matter of trust at all. One of the big problems with STDs among gays is that some of them do not know they are infected at all.

    Right. So, this is a different trust issue than the one I was bringing up: the judgment has been made that the risk that a gay person doesn’t know their status is too high … that is to say, that they can’t be trusted to be sufficiently informed that the blood agency can justify taking the risk.

    It’s not about how much the blood bank despises gays

    Of course it’s not.

    So what that a few people could die when things don’t work? We’ve got feelings to protect!

    Ah, but in the DADT context, the same argument could have been made against desegregation. ISTM that the risk of a few people dying because things “aren’t working” today with this change is lower than it was when the desegregation change was made.

    We have to live in the world, which means we can’t expect zero risk; we can just expect acceptable risk.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  301. hat is to say, that they can’t be trusted to be sufficiently informed that the blood agency can justify taking the risk.

    Right. And I think that’s probably legit, unless gays spread AIDs to one another with knowledge they had HIV, which is of course largely ridiculous.

    Ah, but in the DADT context, the same argument could have been made against desegregation. ISTM the risk of a few people dying because things “aren’t working” today with this change is lower than it was when the desegregation change was made.

    Yeah, that’s a fair comparison and I agree with your analysis. I’m not freaking out about DADT being undone, though I did think the policy was the least bad one. I’m just noting the reasoning.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  302. unless gays spread AIDs to one another with knowledge they had HIV

    I’m deeply ashamed of my fellow man on this, but it has happened.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  303. Mark,

    I specifically stated that anger can be both rational and healthy. I would be concerned about someone who claimed they never got angry, just as much or more than someone who claimed they never felt fear. Both of those would be abnormal and unhealthy conditions. You’ve seen me get angry here, with and without just cause (hey, I’m human). It’s got nothing to do with socio-political or politically-correct thinking. Barring some neurotransmitter or hormonal disorder, anger is rooted in fear and not the other way around.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  304. Stashiu3 – Like me, I’m sure you normally charge big bucks for this stuff. Why give it away to unappreciative rabble for free? Heh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  305. You’re contending that cause and effect are generally interchangeable.

    Stashiu3, I think you’re really stretching to want to connect two particular and different emotions to just about any and every example out there.

    One can just as easily claim that a smile and happiness also are rooted in fear. Fear of no longer being happy. Or fear is at the core of joy and contentment, because a person realizes that joy and contentment are fleeting. So the notion therefore becomes that fear is at the heart of every emotion found in the human race.

    Mark (411533)

  306. I’m deeply ashamed of my fellow man on this, but it has happened.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/22/2011 @ 9:35 am

    Mental illness is certainly out there. And all the crazy people I know are straight.

    But I’m sure you get my point.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  307. I’m deeply ashamed of my fellow man on this, but it has happened.
    Comment by aphrael — 9/22/2011 @ 9:35 am

    Sadly, it happens in the straight world too my friend. Not even counting the Tuskegee experiments.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  308. So the notion therefore becomes that fear is at the heart of every emotion found in the human race.
    Comment by Mark — 9/22/2011 @ 9:38 am

    Any research or experience that supports this? Thought not. I’m not stretching anything Mark, I’m sharing knowledge and experience. Again, if you don’t want to believe it, fine. Absent anything beyond your “It’s not true because I don’t believe it’s true”, we’ll part ways here.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  309. ______________________________________________

    Mark’s copy-pasted list appears at a lot of places, I see.

    Then please paste text from a source that refutes or counters the observations and data that go against what I thought was common knowledge. Or an awareness of the basic dynamics of male sexuality in general, male homosexuality in particular. And, again, we’re dealing with percentages.

    So, yea, there are some gay people (with “gay” referring to males) who lead conservative, sexually modest lives. But from a statistical standpoint, they’re the exception to the rule. Now that reality may not jibe with a person’s sense of things. But then anyone can also perceive a typical liberal Democrat as being identical — in biases and outlook — to a typical conservative Republican.

    Mark (411533)

  310. ______________________________________________

    People are looking to some ultimate political feel-good result, instead of strict pragmatics.

    And keep in mind we’re debating this topic within the context of a current culture and political dynamic that allowed no less than someone like Nidal Hasan to remain, if not flourish, in the military until the day of the Fort Hood massacre. A guy working in the setting of the US military — believe it or not — and not in the offices of the ACLU, or some “Gender Rights Now!” or “Socialists for Change and Justice!” organization.

    Mark (411533)

  311. Imagine a person speaking in a quaint way with a somewhat gravelly voice, “With fear, do away with it you must! Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.” “Yoda, you seek Yoda!”

    Screw that new age religion crap!

    When a clerk is incompetent and cannot even manage to operate a cash register, it angers me. OMG, I’m skeered!

    When someone is putt-putting along 40 in a 55 it angers me. Oh lawdy, I’m skeered!

    When I see some kids shoplifting at the local Wal-Mart, it angers me. Eeek, I’m skeered!

    When I go outside to get in my car, and I see that a flock of birds has flown over my car, and crapped all over it, it angers me. Merciful heavens, I’m skeered!

    When I see a stupid commercial on TV, it angers me. Oooh baby it skeers me!

    I could go on and on and on and on, just like the energizer bunny, but I better stop because someone might fear it and become angry.

    The reason I didn’t answer you Aphrael is because high schoolers have no bearing as an example. The high schoolers showering is still voluntary, and they cannot be forced to do so.

    And no, I am not belittling our soldiers by showing concern that they may be ogled or subject to unwanted sexual advances. I am showing outrage that Chicken-sh!t know nothing civilians are subjecting the brave men and women who are expected to fight and die for this country to a completely unnecessary social experiment that is an assault on their dignity and their rights to be secure from the prying eyes of sexual deviants.

    peedoffamerican (0c2da2)

  312. “Yoda, you seek Yoda!”
    Comment by peedoffamerican — 9/22/2011 @ 10:00 am

    “I find your lack of faith disturbing.” 😉

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  313. True- cars that run out of gas always stop running (as long as the aren’t electric, I guess I should add these days).
    Not True- cars that stop running always ran out of gas.

    The idea is that there is a mechanism behind fear generating anger, and that mechanism does not have to be two way.

    Now that said, while I’m familiar with primary and secondary emotions I have not studied it enough to know if “anger is always secondary to fear” is held to be always true, or held by many to be always true, but I have no reason to doubt stashiu3’s take on it.

    Scripture is many things, but not a technical text on any specific discipline, but we’ll take a look since it was referred to already. One idea is that anger can come simply because we can’t/don’t get something we want. One could argue that is primary anger, but one could also argue that a person believes they must have “X” in order to be happy, hence are afraid they will not find happiness (or security, or meaning, etc.) if they don’t get “X”. The practical implication is that instead of telling person “don’t be angry because of not having X”, but helping the person see that “even if you don’t get X you’ll “still be fine”.

    Actually there is evidence from Scripture, some of it direct quoting, that all sin is ultimately caused by fear, and the only way to defeat sin is by having faith that is greater than fear. That does not mean that all fear is “bad” or “leads to sin”. There is fear that is appropriate and helps your brain realze you must do something quick. In the previous example, perhaps it was because Jesus knew that the area where the money-changers were was meant to be reserved for “the Nations” to come who wanted to worship Yahweh, the God of the Jews. He was “afraid” that their presence would interfere with the worship of God and interfere with people who wanted to come and worship God.

    Now all of that is not meant to be my/”the” complete analysis, just some thoughts on the topic.

    My dorm in college did not have separate shower stalls. Perhaps they would have remodeled to make it serve both guys and girls. Still, even if people, including myself, were accustomed to it, I see it as an unwise thing that undermines healthy “personal space”. But I can easily think of ways to “flirt” that I missed out on (“Hey, do you need someone to wash your back…?). It would also add a new wrinkle to the prank of taking someone’s towel or clothes while they were in the shower…

    There was an incident once when somebody (apparently a guy) tried to view someone in the next toilet stall using a mirror (like a dentist’s mirror). Freaked the person out to the degree they just left and avoided confronting whoever it was. FWIW. I suppose if it happened in a marine facility maybe they would just kick the door in and do some confrontation- but again, maybe not. Most marines prepare for lots of scenarios, but that probably isn’t one of them.

    As far as people being honest about sexual activity… years ago there was a study done in Baltimore by Johns Hopkins, they found that people who “Never used condoms” and “always used condoms” had the same return rate to the STD clinic. Those who were truthful about “Sometimes used condoms” had to return less often.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  314. ________________________________________________

    Any research or experience that supports this?

    Of course not. I’m just saying that if fear can be glommed onto every instance when anger occurs in a person, then it’s not too much of a leap to claim that fear is behind every human emotion from A to Z.

    I’m always cautious about overly broad generalizations, which I why I often want to say “a high percentage of,” or a “small number of,” or “most” or “few.”

    Speaking of which, I’m always bothered when a president says “the American people are…” I always want to ask: When you say that, do you mean a high percentage of Americans? Or a 50-50 percentage of Americans? Do you mean liberal Americans? Or centrist Americans? Or rightwing Americans? Secular Americans? Low-income Americans? Americans living in New York City or the Midwest? Christian Americans?

    IOW, when one is dealing with millions of people, it’s a given that they vary in several ways and sometimes can be quite unpredictable or contradictory.

    Mark (411533)

  315. I get angry when Ralph’s does the buy-10-items-with the-special-tag-thing-and-you-get-a-sorta-decent-deal and they include the diet mountain dew – yay! – and so then you go to get your 10 mountain dews and they only have like seven. So then you have to decide if you want to get 3 other different things with the special tag thing what you really didn’t want to get or just forget the whole thing.

    Not a fun game.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  316. Not really worried about the psychology of anger (I think all of POA’s examples can be explain in terms of fear).

    I do find POA’s larger point appealing. A lame duck legislature was just rejected by the American people, and decided to socially engineer our military in a way many of them will find to be undignified.

    Fair or not, some people do not want to be in close quarters with overt homosexuals. Many of them can accept being in close quarters with homosexuals who keep their sexual business completely private and are professionals, but that’s why DADT was the least bad policy.

    Can this be explained in terms of ‘they can handle it and get over it’? Sure. But it’s still the case that a lame duck legislature imposed on these people. To note this is not to be a backwards hater.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  317. Stashiu, I see you have a sense of 😆 .

    I admit, fear can be a powerful emotion until you learn that there is “nothing to fear, but fear itself.” But by your reasoning, then even love will have a basis in fear. I love someone because I fear being lonely. I love my cat/dog/mongoose/whatever because I fear it won’t love me back. And it goes on and on. By your reasoning every other emotion will be based on fear! It is just not so.

    peedoffamerican (0c2da2)

  318. MD in Philly,

    Thanks for chiming in. It’s what I was taught and I’ve never had reason to believe it’s not accurate. As a working principle, it’s been an effective tool. There are of course other schools of thought on this, but my practical experience is persuasive to me. “I don’t believe it.” is not persuasive. I did not intend to threaten anyone’s self-image, but apparently that’s the case here. They are free to ignore my opinion and I won’t be bothered a bit. They can have the last word.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  319. Some of you are over-simplifying Stashiu3’s point and not helping yourselves.

    POA- yes, it is possible that behavior that looks loving is rooted more out of fear (which is self-centered) than love (which in the sense of “God’s love” or “brotherly love” or “maternal love” is more other-centered). The person who “loves” out of fear will struggle with jealousy and insecurity, often irrationally. The person who “loves” in the sense of “deeply caring for and wanting the best for another person” will not be irrationally jealous, though perhaps at times appropriately concerned out of a rational desire to protect.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  320. Stashiu3-
    My pleasure. As I said, my exposure to the concept was not thorough or indepth, and I didn’t want to claim more than I knew I could. But as I wrote above, the case can be easily made for the view, including from a “non-New Age” point of view.

    They are free to ignore my opinion and I won’t be bothered a bit. They can have the last word.
    You do not fear that your professional integrity is threatened, so you can let it go… Like Lucy’s sign says, that will be 5 cents please… 😉

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  321. You too can enjoy this peace by following this link and installing the script.
    Patterico Ignore List for Greasemonkey
    There, I’ve paid it forward.

    You’re welcome.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  322. I see it as an unwise thing that undermines healthy “personal space”

    Speaking as someone who just moved from California to NYC, “personal space” is a malleable concept. :)

    aphrael (5d993c)

  323. ______________________________________________

    Scripture is many things

    I’ve never been able to relate to people (and I’m referring to folks in general and not you, MD in Philly) who express unhappiness about or disapproval of homosexuality based on religious training or because of the Bible in particular.

    I recall having an innate sense that same-sex behavior was peculiar and an outlier even before I was aware of the reason for male and female genitalia, or that the penis was for more than taking a leak.

    However, in regards to the part of the Bible that deals with Sodom and Gomorrah — which I originally had only a vague understanding of — I’m quite interested in how it apparently reflects a disturbing aspect of human nature, not just as it was eons ago but throughout the ages—since many facets of human nature tend to be innate and not easily changeable. IOW, the story relates to all the males in Sodom going as a mob to the home of Lot, who’s harboring two angels disguised as males, and demanding his guests come out so they can sexually molest them. The part of the story that floored me is when Lot at first — and out of desperation — offers his two virginal daughters instead of the two angels (disguised as dudes) to the male mob.

    The story of Sodom is astonishing to me because it reflects a situation of rampant homosexuality that’s so extreme and lurid, it might just as well have come from the imagination of a writer of gay porn.

    Mark (411533)

  324. The services may do just fine on integrating openly gay service members. The key in my opinion will be a sensible policy that excludes disruptive conduct and has a minimum of politically correct nonsense in it.

    This administration may not be capable to actually accomplishing that, so I suspect that there will be some disruptive period to the transition over the next couple of years until we get the Obama clowns out of office.

    Long term, this could be successful.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  325. The key in my opinion will be a sensible policy that excludes disruptive conduct and has a minimum of politically correct nonsense in it.

    Which means we would need a common-sense administration.

    This administration may not be capable to actually accomplishing that

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  326. if you don’t trust the guy next to you because he’s gay

    isn’t this really the crux of the dispute? whether you think it’s reasonable to not trust someone just because he’s gay?

    No, aphrael, it’s not. Really, the crux of the dispute doesn’t lie within the military at all. It lies outside it. It is no secret that gay activists, who have no intention of serving, wanted the ban repealed so it could then turn the military into petri dish of social experimentation.

    Since dissent is not allowed, the activists then can point to the military as a model for society.

    Gay lobbyists have a whole host of demands from deployment deferments to medical care to access to base housing to what magazines must be sold in base exchanges to what constitutes acceptable behavior in public.

    Civilians have a choice of where to live. If you don’t want to live in the Castro district, you don’t have to. Depending upon where you’re stationed you have no choice of where you live. I can hardly wait until the gay lobby demands changes to overseas DoD school curricula to make it more “inclusive.” Something along the lines of Kali’s law requiring schools teach the role of LGBTs in history.

    That will drive people who, given the choice would send their kids to a Catholic school, but since they’re stationed overseas don’t have any choice, out in droves.

    Earlier I posted some of Daniel Choi’s comments, the gay activist who refused to abide by regulations and chained himself to the White House fence to protest in uniform. If you go back and read it, he hopes to go back into the Army, and that people who think the repeal of the ban is the end of anything will have a “rude awakening.” The activist promises to be looking for signs not of discrimination but “animosity.”

    Essentially, while most gays who serve will simply keep their orientation to themselves, there are a few like Choi who promise to be professional grievance mongers who will look to take offense at any perceived slight, and trump it up into evidence of a hostile work environment.

    And there are a whole host of organizations behind them who will keep the DoD tangled up in lawsuits until they get their way.

    I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been in the military can appreciate just how difficult it is, and how more difficult it is going to get, living 24/7 for months at a time with the thought and speech police. But that’s just part of it. The same military that sets the conditions under which the servicemember serves also sets the conditions under which the servicemember’s family lives.

    I am so glad I’m retired, because I wouldn’t want to be caught in the squeeze between gay activist groups and their social engineering goals, and a group of dancing bears wearing four stars eager to tell Congress how well it’s working so they can retire at their top rank.

    Now I’m ready for the usual infantile response that I’m just paranoid that somebody’s going to be lusting after me in the shower.

    Steve (4b1889)

  327. Yes, SPQR, I think that’s right. The key to this working is common sense leadership, instead of PC nonsense and EO complains on hairtrigger alert. If someone is uncomfortable, usually there will be a way to deal with it reasonably, without ruining anybody’s career.

    Obama could make this work. Truman made it work. Obama is no Truman.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  328. The lurid depiction of rampant homosexuality “might as well” have come from a gay porn writer. That’s pretty funny, in an unintentionally-ironic kind of way.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  329. Peedoffamerican seems to think that the reason most people don’t like being naked in front of the opposite sex is because they’re afraid the other person will desire them, and that somehow this secret desire harms them. I take it, then, that POA would have no problem if his daughter were ordered to shower with gay men, who have eyes only for each other? Nor would he have a problem if his son were to be ordered to shower with a troop of lesbians? Somehow I doubt it. Because that’s not what the taboo is about.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  330. At least with DADT there is (was) a semblance of protection.

    How did that “semblance” help you? You knew they were there; did it really make a difference if you didn’t know who they were, so you had to suspect everybody? And even if you knew who they were, if they were being discreet there was nothing to charge them with, so what good did the knowledge do you?

    What happens now when there begins to be sexual advances?

    The same as already happens, whether between servicemen of the same or opposite sexes: if you’re not interested you politely say “no”, or even “no, thanks”, and if the other person persists then you report them for harassment.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  331. http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/Tier_3_Brief_Final.pdf

    This is what has already been briefed to most troops. from a Marine Corp brief but very similar to AF brief I received.
    Specifically tells what “benefits” can or cannot be expected.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  332. ________________________________________________

    wanted the ban repealed so it could then turn the military into petri dish of social experimentation.

    That’s why I’m puzzled by people like Patterico, etc — assuming they’re more than those who lean right when it comes to mainly or just economics — who not only aren’t bothered by the trappings of the controversy surrounding DADT, but actually support its demise or are nonchalant about such an outcome.

    I can see signs of the mindset (in this forum and elsewhere) that leads to the phrase of “slouching towards Gomorrah,” which is when just about everyone and anyone wants to be so fair-minded, tolerant, sophisticated and compassionate, that things end up going off the deep end. Consequently, odd situations like the circumstances surrounding Nidal Hasam and Fort Hood begin to crop up.

    Mark (411533)

  333. Now I’m ready for the usual infantile response that I’m just paranoid that somebody’s going to be lusting after me in the shower.

    Seriously? I’ve never given an answer like that here. Besides, that’s peedoffamerican. :)

    It is no secret that gay activists, who have no intention of serving, wanted the ban repealed so it could then turn the military into petri dish of social experimentation.

    That’s really and truly not the case.

    The “petri dish of social experimentation” already exists, in places like the entire urban bay area, or New York, or Seattle and countless other locations where openly gay men and women live their lives without hiding who they are; where gay and straight people work together, live together, shower together, and what have you, and there simply isn’t a problem.

    What the gay activists are saying with DADT is: look, this isn’t an issue anywhere it’s been tried. So given that we have lots of experience and evidence in our social experimentation petri dishes that shows that it isn’t an issue, it’s time for the state to stop treating people differently based upon their sexual orientation.

    Gay lobbyists have a whole host of demands from deployment deferments to medical care to access to base housing

    Gay lobbyists are going to take the position that gay partners – particularly legally married gay partners – should be treated no differently than state partners. Now, that’s not going to happen as long as DOMA is on the books; but fundamentally there’s no reason it shouldn’t happen.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  334. however you can opt out of […] the assignment of housing in college, or get housing off campus.

    Many colleges do not allow freshmen to live off-campus, and force them to live in co-ed housing whether they like it or not.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  335. most of us are more concerned what with the marching towards serfdom than the slouching towards Gomorrah, i think

    also, pickles

    /feets

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  336. Milhouse: true, but at that level, going to that college or not is a choice.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  337. Climate change is causing the bear population to disappear by raising its population-WWF.

    I didn’t realise at first that this was another of DohBiden’s trademark nonsequiturs. I thought he meant “bears” in the gay sense.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  338. ________________________________________________

    marching towards serfdom

    But a sensible approach to socio-cultural matters and economic ones are not mutually exclusive. At the very least, a sound, stable economy is harder to achieve when a culture is full of dysfunction. Witness the conditions, dating back decades — and also well after the War on Poverty first began — in inner-city America or societies like Mexico (ie, where things like corruption, including crooked cops, are rampant).

    Mark (411533)

  339. most of them do seem to be liberals

    That’s probably news to Mary Cheney, Ken Mehlman and the entire membership of Log Cabin Republicans.

    Actually it isn’t. They, above all, know the facts they have to deal with. The gay world can be very intolerant.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  340. Care bears?

    Those are the only gay bears I’m aware of.

    I’m so out of step with pop culture.

    Dohbiden’s point had nothing to do with this thread, and was noting that bear populations are increasing despite claims bears were going extinct.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  341. Comment by peedoffamerican — 9/21/2011 @ 8:04 pm

    All Gay Battalions….

    Rush beat you to that by about 20-years – in a way:
    He comedically suggested “All Amazon” battalions, especially if you could get their cycles to synchronize, and then send them into combat when they’re all undergoing PMS.

    The “FemiNazi’s” were not amused.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  342. Mark, you haven’t been paying attention.

    gay ≠ dysfunction

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  343. Dustin, gay bears would suffer disproportionately due to climate change, because of the heavy fur.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  344. some aspect of homosexuality seems to either bring out or nurture the liberal instincts in many people, registered Republicans included.

    Would you say the same about melanin, since there seems to be a correlation between melanin and likelihood of voting Democrat?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  345. pickles!

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  346. Comment by JD — 9/22/2011 @ 5:11 am

    BINGO!

    ISTM that the rules against fraternization and conduct-unbecoming will rile more than a few “feathers” when they’re applied against Gay members of the military.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  347. Dustin, gay bears would suffer disproportionately due to climate change, because of the heavy fur.

    Comment by carlitos — 9/22/2011 @ 11:32 am

    /laughs like he gets the joke

    /looks around nervously

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  348. Dustin: ‘bear’ is a synonym for ‘very hairy, overweight older gay man’. see also ‘otter’, meaning ‘very hairy, young, thin gay man’

    aphrael (5d993c)

  349. AD – and they should be applied in exactly the same way they are for straight fraternization and conduct-unbecoming.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  350. I eat lots of pickles. They have almost zero calories. It is my primary snack on my diet. Along with Orange Leaf.

    JD (cae88c)

  351. Hey, “otter” is new to me. The things you learn on this blog. If I had heard that term in context, I would have thought it was an Animal House reference.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  352. Comment by aphrael — 9/22/2011 @ 11:43 am

    Yes, they should, and that will be the problem for the activist class; because, to them, it is not to be treated equally that is important, it is being a victim-class.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  353. I eat lots of pickles. They have almost zero calories. It is my primary snack on my diet. Along with Orange Leaf.

    Comment by JD — 9/22/2011 @ 11:46 am

    They’ve got electrolytes.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  354. Is a hairless overweight older gay man called a walrus?

    JD (ae55d7)

  355. A Mole, if he has a severe overbite.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  356. Mark-
    One point of view is that “true” morality, as in “original/God given”, is written on the human heart, that is why many people and cultures have at root similar beliefs. There is Scripture one could reference for this for that point of view, but it is also developed by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity if any one is interested.
    There are many things in Scripture which are in some ways quite revolting. Some use this to criticize the Bible, others use this to point to authenticity. If one wanted to write a book that portrayed King David as a hero, for example, it would look very different from the account we read in Scripture. Some use Sodom and Gomorrah to point to some universal idea about how “really bad” homosexuality is. I think that is a mistake. Elsewhere Scripture says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were rich and didn’t care about the poor (note, nothing said about being rich is wrong, but to be uncaring when have the means to show compassion is wrong). There are examples of widespread treachery involving heterosexuals/heterosexuality in the Bible as well.

    Aphrael- Yes, the concept of personal space is malleable. As an intern I was having a conversation with another resident about needing to “get used to Philadelphia”. After that apparent common ground, it became clear he thought Philly was pretty dull, having come from NYC, and I was a bit astonished, having come from Madison, WI, pop ~160,000 at the time, (~200,00 on football Saturdays).

    The degree to which the social experiments in some places are successful may be a matter of perspective. In some of my past work taking care of many folk with HIV/AIDS I was surrounded by many who would consider themselves “gay activists”, including some ACT UP people (once had a person involved with them as a patient). While some that knew me best knew that I do not think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality and were fine with it because they had seen how I treated people as people, but most of the time I was very aware that open discussion of my point of view would not be greeted kindly or with respect.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  357. aphrael,

    I like your analogy to the boys’ locker room better than my coed bathroom scenario. Of course, like the military, both involve voluntary choices. Parents can choose to send their children to private or public schools that don’t have PE or use locker rooms. In Texas they can also homeschool. College students can choose which college to apply to and attend, including avoiding colleges that require them to live on campus. And people considering or serving in the military can decide not to enlist or re-enlist.

    No analogy is perfect but all involve choices, although once the initial choice is made it seems to me that each face similar situations.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  358. My thanks to Stashiu3 and MD in Philly for their thoughts on fear and rage, and to peedoffamerican and others for discussing it. I never thought about the connection before and it is enlightening. For one thing, it explains why I was angrier when I was younger and why I’m rarely angry now. Life was more challenging when I was younger and less experienced, and I was more fearful. Now I see why that resulted in more anger.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  359. Mark,

    From vor2’s link that discusses the changes to military policy:

    Sexual orientation is:
    -A personal and private matter.
    -NOT a bar to military service.
    -NOT a basis for discharge.

    It also says that there will be “Zero tolerance for harassment, violence or discrimination” and that sexual misconduct will remain “grounds for administrative or legal action.” How is this “slouching toward Gomorrah”?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  360. DADT was put into effect because a gay guy got killed because of his sexuality………….irony much?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  361. MD – I think part of what happens there is that many gay people have encountered a surprising number of people who (a) don’t think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality and (b) also do not treat people as people … and that, from their personal experience, it is reasonable to treat (a) as being sufficiently correlated to (b) that anyone exhibiting (a) is likely to also exhibit (b).

    People with personal experience with you would know that the correlation doesn’t hold in your case.

    [This is a tough thing for me; the decision to treat someone poorly because they exhibit (a) and you have an experience that says (a) usually implies (b) is a decision to act out of prejudice, and is just as unjustifiable as the thing you are inferring and reacting against … and yet it’s a hard trap to stay out of, and it’s harder the stronger the a&b correlation is in your mind.]

    aphrael (5d993c)

  362. Thanks for the summary, DRJ.

    Sounds pretty reasonable.

    I am suspicious about whether things will be administered fairly. We have seen the military be annoyingly PC in recent history. And the current commander probably does have a view that some soldiers are more equal than others.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  363. Milhouse — 9/22/2011 @ 10:34 am

    Ah, yes, I forgot to thank you as the source of my peace. Thanks again!

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  364. I like how the economic malaise is the fault of the wealthy………….but don’t tell that to the hoi polioi far-left because they will whine and whine and say it ain’t their fault.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  365. I would remind our recent “migrant” aphrael, and would appreciate any update from recent enlistees, that (at least at the Basic Training and Tech School level) when I was going through the AF, there were no doors on the toilet stalls in the barracks.
    Part of the acculturation of joining the military is the subsuming of the individual to the collective (The Borg), and this small intrusion into your privacy, along with the skin-head haircut, is used to that end.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  366. Comment by aphrael — 9/22/2011 @ 12:45 pm

    Prejudice is one of Humanity’s traits, if not that desirable.
    We are always suspicious of “the other” – it is a long programmed defense mechanism.

    Probably the fault of those damn Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals.
    “Why can’t we all just get along?”

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  367. I am suspicious about whether things will be administered fairly.

    Dustin,
    I think you have to have some confidence in the people in uniform who will be administering it. Very rarely do cases get in the national limelight and have politicians overriding the mil administrative/punitive actions. Part of that is due to the very many layers between the personnel and the politicians. Even the levels of Commanders for appeals are based on rank of accused.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  368. vor2,

    I share Dustin’s concerns about implementation because I don’t have faith in military decision-making after Nidal Hassan. There’s too much PC in the military to trust them. It’s like asking me to trust college administrators.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  369. To be clear, I have more confidence in the military when it is at war. It’s military decisions during peacetime that I’m worried about.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  370. I had to google orange leaf… my fro-yo shop always has 4 rotating flavors what are only 8 calories an ounce so I try to eat as much of it as I can

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  371. DRJ, that is a particularly low-blow directed at our officer corps (though deserved in the case of Gen Casey, and the nut running Fort Hood).

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  372. Truman made it work. Obama is no Truman.

    AIUI, Truman didn’t “make it work”. Instead, integration proceeded slowly and cautiously over a course of many years, in a series of steps, so that if something wasn’t working it could be reversed and something else tried. And it was done by people whose primary goal was military effectiveness rather than social engineering, and would rather go back to full segregation than weaken the armed forces’ ability to wage war.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  373. I mean no disrespect to those in uniform today.

    In fact, I suspect they are as professional as any military has ever been. We’ve been at war for a long time, and to be in the service today means one truly is serious about the ultimate point of a military.

    But remember Nidal Hasan. Not because the stakes are the same here (they aren’t) but because PC attitudes can overwhelm the military today.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  374. Cross posted with DRJ and AD.

    Anyway, I read a good book that opened my eyes about the Hasan situation.

    We need some kind of military wide overhaul of certain attitudes.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  375. DRJ,
    I disagree with you if Hassan is the only basis to lack confidence in the decision making (war caveat noted). If there had been multiple instances of this kind of terrorism I’d be concerned.
    What kinds of PC do you see there being too much of?

    vor2 (6c8528)

  376. Comment by Another Drew – Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 9/22/2011 @ 1:28 pm

    Respectfully disagree. There are systemic problems in the chain-of-command that led to Hasan remaining in the military and being promoted. Political maneuvering and patronage count more than leadership in many of the branches. The leadership failures in Hasan’s case came at many levels. I think this is a valid concern whether you’re talking about radical Islam or radical grievance-mongering homosexuals (both a minority of military Muslims and homosexuals). In any case, hardly a low-blow.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  377. DADT was put into effect because a gay guy got killed because of his sexuality………….irony much?

    I’m curious if people even know what DADT is when they talk about it.

    It’s a Clinton era executive law, and had nothing to do with altering the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    The UCMJ had always barred homosexuals from serving, ever since it replaced the Articles of War. After DADT, the UCMJ still barred homosexuals from serving.

    Clinton’s policy of DADT simply took the question about homosexuality off the recruiting paperwork, and directed the recruiter not to ask.

    In other words, it simply allowed gays to enlist fraudulently, and if they “told” they wouldn’t punished as would other prohibited classes of people who falsified their enlistments.

    If you get your info from the press, you would think DADT is the “18 year old ban on gays serving.”

    Steve (4b1889)

  378. all the males in Sodom going as a mob to the home of Lot, who’s harboring two angels disguised as males, and demanding his guests come out so they can sexually molest them. The part of the story that floored me is when Lot at first — and out of desperation — offers his two virginal daughters instead of the two angels (disguised as dudes) to the male mob.

    The story of Sodom is astonishing to me because it reflects a situation of rampant homosexuality that’s so extreme and lurid, it might just as well have come from the imagination of a writer of gay porn.

    Um, hardly. On the contrary, if the story were about “rampant homosexuality” why would Lot even think of offering the mob his daughters instead? The story has nothing to do with homosexuality; it’s about how the Sodomites treated strangers. It’s about rape as an act of aggression, not about sex.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  379. By not punished, I meant they’d simply be administratively separated under honorable conditions. Other prohibited classes of people are dealt with more harshly, as were gays before DADT.

    Steve (4b1889)

  380. Elsewhere Scripture says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were rich and didn’t care about the poor

    Not just that they didn’t care but that they were actively hostile to anyone who might “mooch” off their wealth. One might have something to say about some people’s attitude to immigrants.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  381. While some that knew me best knew that I do not think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality and were fine with it because they had seen how I treated people as people, but most of the time I was very aware that open discussion of my point of view would not be greeted kindly or with respect.

    You’ve never had to have a government functionary evaluate your Equal Opportunity score on your fitness report/evals, have you? Because if you had, you’d understand as I do that your attitude just won’t fly in today’s military where you just don’t advance if you merely tolerate; you must celebrate.

    Steve (4b1889)

  382. Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/22/2011 @ 1:36 pm

    As we both know, the tone of the culture within the military services is set by the Big Dog at the top. Now, perhaps I can cut Casey some slack, but that only puts more of the blame on the plate of the SecArmy, SecDef, and at the Oval Office (in both parties). Perhaps there is where we should be directing our angst, as we do have Civilian Control, but those civilians seem to avoid a lot of the Responsibility that also rests with them.
    I retract my accusation of a “low blow”, but it is a blow nevertheless, and well deserved.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  383. I think DADT might have worked better had the third prong, “don’t pursue” been better enforced. People forget about that third prong; somehow it didn’t make it into the popular name for the policy. As I understood it at the time, it was supposed to free gay servicemen of the fear that no matter how discreet they were they might be exposed by accident. But it didn’t work that way; anybody with a chip on his shoulder felt free to chase down rumours or investigate someone, and if they uncovered evidence of homosexuality the person’s military career was over. That shouldn’t have happened.

    I think I might be OK with a rule that said servicemen could be dismissed for deliberately disclosing to fellow servicemen that they were gay, but not for any inadvertent disclosure, let alone for having their reasonable efforts at hiding it fail. Not that I see much point in such a rule, but it seems to me it would address most of the concerns of moderates on both sides of the question.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  384. …and more:
    I also cannot square this circle of how Hassan’s actions and words were overlooked, with the basic Honor Code of “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    Is this sense of Honor to be discarded once the “iron” is pinned on?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  385. vor2,

    I’m concerned because Hasan’s dangerous views were ignored at multiple reviews and more than one medical facility, and I am worried the military is unduly concerned about accusations against Muslims. That could be why it failed to catch a Muslim Navy sailor downloading classified information while at sea.

    And it’s not as if there’s been no warning. Early in the Iraq War, Sgt. Hasan Akbar intentionally killed 2 and wounded 14 more in a grenade attack because he feared the U.S. military would kill Muslims. I know these incidents don’t happen everyday but they happen enough that the military should be aware of the issue and willing to address it. The Hasan incident coupled with the fact the military rarely (ever?) addresses this issue suggests to me it’s become a systemic problem.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  386. Thus, if the military has problems handling Muslims because of PC issues, just imagine what would happen with gays.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  387. DRJ,
    People who steal secrets are a different category. There are numerous cases of people who sold out the country from the Walkers on down. The services have had problems with gang members and white supremacists getting in and had a heck of a time pinning them down. It took a couple of incidents before they realized they had a problem.
    For the same reason that we got broadsided with 9/11 the military was not prepared for this kind of incident.
    On a day to day level I just don’t see the military people getting all nervous if someone talks about Muslim terrorists.
    Systemic? Not in my opinion but I can understand where people not in regular contact with the military could see it that way.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  388. Thus, if the military has problems handling Muslims because of PC issues, just imagine what would happen with gays.

    Three incidents with Muslim members does not mean there is a glaring problem with handling Muslims – keep in mind there are over one million service members.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  389. Comment by vor2 — 9/22/2011 @ 2:12 pm

    Yes, but the military is not at war with “gang-bangers” and “skinheads”, but we do seem of have some sort of ongoing “kinetic military activity” that relates to Islamism.
    And that’s not even to bring up the overly-correct, JAG-influenced, ROE that hamper actions and cause the deaths and injury of U.S. Forces.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  390. They are free to ignore my opinion and I won’t be bothered a bit. They can have the last word.
    You do not fear that your professional integrity is threatened, so you can let it go… Like Lucy’s sign says, that will be 5 cents please… 😉

    But, but but, that could also be a fear of being challenged. 😆

    Peedoffamerican seems to think that the reason most people don’t like being naked in front of the opposite sex is because they’re afraid the other person will desire them, and that somehow this secret desire harms them.

    Wrong. What I am saying is that a lame duck congress that had just suffered an historic electoral defeat, had absolutely no right to hurriedly pass a bill of this magnitude that absolutely went against military advice. They did not stop to consider the ramifications of what they were doing. They basically just said the hell with it, we have nothing to lose now that we’ve lost, and it’s our last chance to get our social agenda passed. Exposing our troops to same sex voyeurism and harassment is just one of the many problems this will cause.

    I take it, then, that POA would have no problem if his daughter were ordered to shower with gay men, who have eyes only for each other? Nor would he have a problem if his son were to be ordered to shower with a troop of lesbians?

    Of course I wouldn’t want them showering or bunking with the opposite sex, what an idiotic statement. You do realize don’t you, that a sizable portion of the gay community are also bisexual, don’t you? Hence the LGBT designation.
    What a maroon.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  391. vor2,

    It’s not a specific attitude towards handling Muslims. It’s a lack of leadership and accountability when Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, and even higher ranks fail to confront potential issues because the individual may have some protected status from above. You never know when someone who outranks you will throw you under the bus to protect a misbehaving subordinate they happen to identify with. Real leaders take care of it no matter the cost, then get booted for poor OER’s or passed over for promotion. What’s left reinforces the systemic problems I mentioned above. Too many “leaders” in the AMEDD sought to protect their careers rather than their fellow soldiers.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  392. Stashiu2,
    I don’t disagree with you about the failure re the Hassan case. Nor do I disagree that leadership should be held accountable.
    Where I do disagree is that this is indicative that all leadership has some problem in leading in peacetime and it somehow extends to handling the repeal of DADT. The number of officers involved in the Hassan tragedy may be a couple of dozen.
    Leading in peacetime ensures that when you go to war you win. You really can’t have one without the other. thankfully the vast majority of the military officers do it right.

    vor2 (41e882)

  393. The number of officers involved in the Hassan tragedy may be a couple of dozen.

    Those are just the ones who took an active hand in this matter, there are uncounted others who were intimidated by the precepts of PC from doing anything at all.
    That is the problem that needs to be rooted out, and which will require real leadership from above to implement.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (d32895)

  394. They are free to ignore my opinion and I won’t be bothered a bit. They can have the last word.
    You do not fear that your professional integrity is threatened, so you can let it go… Like Lucy’s sign says, that will be 5 cents please…
    But, but but, that could also be a fear of being challenged.
    – POA

    Now you’ve got it!!

    When I was an infant I sometimes shared a bath with my female cousin when the family was gathered at grandma’s house. Somewhere along the line it was decided that was no longer appropriate. I was never given a good reason to desert that line of reasoning until I was married. Whether it is because I don’t like being looked at as a potential sex partner, know that I don’t look much like a potential sex partner, or don’t want to make another person nervous about looking at them like a potential sex partner, I’m not going to speculate, probably some combination of all of the above.

    But yes indeed. If one wishes to segregate people based on who they are physically attracted to, it rapidly gets a bit puzzling. I guess the only answer is to make everyone wear a bag over their head when they hit the shower…

    Milhouse, thanks for adding to my earlier comments.

    aphrael, Your line of reasoning is certainly understood and reasonable given the social context. I think, however, that you underestimate the number of people who do not see homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality. There is a reason why same-sex marriage has usually been soundly defeated whenever it has been put before the public. I think it is because the vast majority are happy to “live and let live” and not make a point of talking about it. But, when the issue is no longer whether or not you “don’t mind” people with a gay lifestyle (or “tolerate”) but whether you will endorse it as equal is a different matter. The majority of people want gays to be treated as nicely as anyone else, but they also don’t see a gay couple as the “full equivalent” of a hetero couple.
    Now I could be wrong, but I think I’m right. Which presents the problem how many gays are happy to be left alone, and how many will be happy only when they are seen as the equivalent of heteros.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  395. Not just that they didn’t care but that they were actively hostile to anyone who might “mooch” off their wealth. One might have something to say about some people’s attitude to immigrants.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/22/2011 @ 1:39 pm

    Exactly wrong. It was exactly about the sex. The angel’s immediately blinded the miscreants upon them shouting, “No not your daughters, but send the men out so we may have sex with them.” It wasn’t about money, it wasn’t about water, it was about forcibly having sex with some strange.

    The reason Lot offered his virginal daughters was twofold; 1. Guests were sacrosanct in the Hebrew culture of the time. 2. God prompted him to do it in order to illustrate the total evil and depravity of its inhabitants.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  396. I believe it is in Ezekiel where the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is described and sex is completely left out. I’ll look it up later if Milhouse doesn’t find it first.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  397. Those are just the ones who took an active hand in this matter, there are uncounted others who were intimidated by the precepts of PC from doing anything at all.That is the problem that needs to be rooted out, and which will require real leadership from above to implement.

    Comment by Another Drew – Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 9/22/2011 @ 3:17 pm

    That is easy to assert but difficult to prove. Rather than go back and forth on whether your assertion is right or not I’d like to pose the question to you or anyone else who cares to weigh in.
    “If it is your belief there is a systemic problem with leadership and too much political correctness and you were SecDef what concrete steps would you take to fix it?”

    vor2 (41e882)

  398. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27

    Jude 1:7
    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  399. Genesis 19:5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

    9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

    10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

    Notice that the men were angry at Lot because he was judging their actions of wanting to have sex with the strangers by calling it wicked.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  400. Ezekiel 16:48-49
    As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

    POA, no one said that it wasn’t about sex, we said it wasn’t only about sex and the Bible elsewhere commented on it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  401. ….make everyone wear a bag over their head when they hit the shower…

    Now that sounds like a party!

    What the should do is make everyone declare what gender they like, and then put them all into the showers together.

    If someone is bisexual, they have to show alone.

    It would be a horrible crime for anyone to see something they desire in the shower.

    When the soldiers find out they will probably clutch their pearls and faint dead away!

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  402. Sodom and Gomorrah are Debbie Whataman Schultz and Horsesass Schumer.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  403. Here is the verse in Ezekiel you are referencing,

    Ezekiel49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”

    Notice the detestable things. That which God labeled an abomination unto the Lord which is if a man lie with man as a woman. Now I grant that the Lord did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah not only for the sin of sodomy but also for the others. However, sodomy did play a mighty role in its destruction and that it why it was prominently laid out in Genesis 19.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  404. POA, no one said that it wasn’t about sex, we said it wasn’t only about sex and the Bible elsewhere commented on it.

    Comment by MD in Philly — 9/22/2011 @ 4:39 pm

    Didn’t see that you had posted b4 my 410. And Milhouse did exactly say that:

    The story has nothing to do with homosexuality; it’s about how the Sodomites treated strangers. It’s about rape as an act of aggression, not about sex.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/22/2011 @ 1:37 pm

    God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, and all the cities of the plain excepting Zoar to which Lot first fled for their exceeding wickedness.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  405. POA-
    As I said before, no one said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah did not involve sex or homosexual sex. In the narrative it is clear that the provoking incident had to do with sexual assault, not simply gay sex. The passage in Jude makes reference to sexual behavior irrespective of the violent nature. (As is common in Scripture and all communication, at different times we may highlight a different aspect of the same incident or idea).

    When the topic was brought up by Mark, my intention was to defuse the discussion. There are different lists in Scripture of behavior that earns one a place in hell (including the statement that all have sinned in some way and have earned a place), and there is little to say one list gets a person in a “worse level” than others. In addition, Scripture makes it clear no matter what the sin, no one is beyond redemption (and such were some of you).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  406. POA- The topic was brought up in #330, I responded at #363, Milhouse then added a qualification to my answer.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  407. Wow the left love to spew homophobic crap.

    Supports abortion and then proceed to know what would jesus do.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  408. Comment by MD in Philly — 9/22/2011 @ 5:09 pm

    I totally agree MD. Jesus even said that one who errs in the least of the law is guilty of the whole law. So that makes me a lying, cheating, thieving, wife beating homosexual idol worshipper that buggers camels. 😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  409. If you disagree with Perry you are a ally of Soros.

    If you disagree with Palin your the sex.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  410. _____________________________________________

    Mark, you haven’t been paying attention.
    gay ≠ dysfunction — Comment by carlitos

    Carlitos, it comes down to percentages, and there is more social volatility within the community of homosexuals or bisexuals, certainly those that are both male and very liberal. A volatility that makes stable, nurturing households tougher to maintain and sustain—if only because of greater pressure due to health-related issues, meaning those involving STDs and AIDS.

    Again, we’re dealing with percentages. So, yes, there is X number of gays (referring to both males and females) who will be identical to Y number of heterosexuals in terms of creating and maintaining a stable, down-to-earth environment. But that X number represents a smaller fraction of the total than in groups that not only are straight, but that most importantly place greater value on tried-and-true behavior and cultural traits that have withstood the test of time.

    Would you say the same about melanin, since there seems to be a correlation between melanin and likelihood of voting Democrat? — Comment by Milhouse — 9/22/2011 @ 11:34 am

    Milhouse, I’ve long been interested in the similar, one-sided, non-diverse political tilt and nature of two sub-groups in this society, referring to black and Jewish America. We’re talking about surveys that indicate as high as 90 percent of people in those 2 communities are of the left or vote for the left. So obviously melanin ain’t related to such an unbalanced (and what I would consider unhealthy) ideological scale.

    BTW, I’d be uncomfortable with a community or group of people — certainly if we’re dealing with millions of people within a subset — that was 90 percent of the right and staunchly or blindly Republican.

    Mark (411533)

  411. _______________________________________________

    Some use Sodom and Gomorrah to point to some universal idea about how “really bad” homosexuality is. I think that is a mistake. Elsewhere Scripture says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were rich and didn’t care about the poor. — Comment by MD in Philly

    I originally didn’t realize the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or certainly of Sodom, related specifically to homosexuality. How else can one characterize a scenario that involves a multitude of men — at the front door of Lot’s home — wanting to rape 2 males (who are actually angels sent by God) being sheltered by Lot? And Lot offering his two daughters as sort of a Hobson’s Choice, but the men of Sodom not accepting such a trade.

    The lack of ambiguity within the context of that story is astonishing to me. More crucially, the Bible represents an observation of human nature — both good and bad — going back generations. As such, I don’t think it’s a misapplication or misinterpretation of the story of Sodom to say it relates to the absurd behavior described in this news report, linked today at the Drudgereport:

    Foxnews.com: An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

    Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension. “Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

    Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

    “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.

    Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension.

    “There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” [Matt] Krause [an attorney with the Liberty Counsel] said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

    “He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

    I don’t think I’m being glib or sarcastic when I theorize we’re moving in the direction of a society and culture that is more noticeably bisexualized, or so desensitized that the ethos of “let it all hang out” and “do-your-own-thang” not only doesn’t shock or make people grimace, it actually soon becomes par for the course. Or perhaps what is at the heart of the story of Sodom and Lot.

    Mark (411533)

  412. _____________________________________________

    It also says that there will be “Zero tolerance for harassment, violence or discrimination” and that sexual misconduct will remain “grounds for administrative or legal action.” How is this “slouching toward Gomorrah”? — Comment by DRJ

    DRJ, because “slouching toward Gomorrah” can easily pertain to an environment where a sense of right and wrong is so twisted and upside-down — where most crucially no one can say that 2-plus-2-equals-4 — that, again, the ridiculous situation of Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood (in which “discrimination” was forbidden!) actually occurred. Where the proverbial slippery slope eventually became a landslide.

    Mark (411533)

  413. Mark-
    I am not surprised at all about the incident in Texas. I’m wondering when we will see challenges to parental custody because they have taught their children that “homosexuality is wrong”. Someone can say “I believe premarital sex is wrong” and they may get laughed at (all 3 of them??), but they will not be treated as being mean and intolerant.

    …Concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, I stand by everything that I’ve said above with references. I still say that to take this passage and a few others and try to say homosexual actions are worse than all other sins is making a mistake.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  414. Mark–I don’t mean to be vulgar, just curious–how does anal intercourse between a man and a woman fit into your worldview? It does not result in procreation. Many people feel it is not natural or a healthy practice either, but it happens. Is that an OK expression between a man and his wife (with consent) but not between two consenting men? Does the scripture speak to that?

    elissa (250b6b)

  415. _____________________________________________

    to say homosexual actions are worse than all other sins

    MD, I don’t think the situation depicted in Sodom, involving Lot and the males of that city, was to point out that homosexuality is the worse sin of all. I imagine the intent of the story (and I’m not going to get into whether the Bible was or wasn’t written by humans—meaning whether it is or isn’t the word of God) was to illustrate how perverse and dysfunctional a society could become.

    The surprising amount of bisexuality in other societies of the ancient world, particularly Greece, and the apparent not-uncommon amount of bisexuality in modern-day enclaves like Hollywood has definitely affected my attitudes about homosexuality. IOW, there appears to be more free will and free choice than I previously believed to be true. Throw in all the limited or non-existent common sense evident in so many liberals — and the fact that a high percentage of gays are of the left — and that’s a one-two, knock-out punch.

    The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, because of his originally talking about homosexuality and those opposed to it in a way reminiscent of a modern-day liberal hipster (IOW, those opposed to gays were judged by him to be analogous to what we today label as “gun-totin’ rednecks”), but who later recanted his view, has also affected my POV on this issue.

    Elissa — and this goes beyond politics or religiosity — but I’m baffled why anyone finds the source of excrement sexually alluring, be he or she straight, gay or bi. It’s impossible for me to not, yep, sound gross (or vulgar) when dealing with something that generally involves crummy odors and lots of microbes (smelly microbes?).

    I recall a researcher back before the time when the cause of AIDS was known theorizing that the disease was due to homosexual males being in contact with an excessive amount of infectious particles. To be honest and blunt, the image conjured by that and the prevailing leftist mindset of a large percentage of gays do make me go “bleech.”

    Mark (411533)

  416. POA:

    Exactly wrong. It was exactly about the sex.

    How do you know? That is not the traditional understanding, so how did you come by it? Are you a prophet?

    The angel’s immediately blinded the miscreants upon them shouting, “No not your daughters, but send the men out so we may have sex with them.”

    WTF are you talking about? Do you really think you can get away with just making things up? There was no such shout, and no such rejection Lot’s offer. The angels blinded the mob when they tried to break the door down.

    MD:

    POA, no one said that it wasn’t about sex

    I said it wasn’t about sex, and I stand by that. The incident POA cited was 1) about rape as an act of violence, not about sex; 2) certainly not about homosexuality per se; 3) by the time this incident took place the cities’ fate had already been decided, so it played no part in the decision. Their fate was sealed when they gruesomely executed a girl who was caught feeding a hungry stranger. (Rashi, Genesis 18:21; Sanhedrin 109b)

    POA again:

    0 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”

    Notice the detestable things. That which God labeled an abomination unto the Lord which is if a man lie with man as a woman.

    Oh, really! And you know this how? Ezekiel goes on to explain exactly what abomination he is talking about: hostility to the poor and to foreigners. But you know better, I suppose. Cite an authoritative source or shut your mouth.

    However, sodomy did play a mighty role in its destruction and that it why it was prominently laid out in Genesis 19.

    Hardly. There is nothing — not a single word — in Genesis 19 to indicate that the story would have played out any differently had the angels come in female guise. In fact there’s nothing in that chapter to indicate that God disapproves of homosexuality at all. Attempted gang rape, whether of a man or a woman, is far more terrible a sin than consensual sex between men.

    God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, and all the cities of the plain excepting Zoar to which Lot first fled for their exceeding wickedness.

    Yes; and what was that exceeding wickedness? Every reliable source tells us that it was their cruelty, their lack of charity, their hostility to strangers and the poor.

    MD again:

    As I said before, no one said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah did not involve sex or homosexual sex. In the narrative it is clear that the provoking incident had to do with sexual assault, not simply gay sex.

    As I noted above, that was not the provoking incident; by this time the sentence had already been passed on them.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  417. Mark–thanks for your honest reply. But it did not completely answer the issue that I was trying to explore. I was hoping to find out if it is the physical act itself you most negatively react to no matter who is doing it– or if it’s the fact that two men are engaging in gay sex (sodomy) that tips it over the edge for you. The answer to that question does seem to be germane to the larger discussion on this thread, does it not?

    I’ll state on the record that as far as I am concerned the practice of anal intercourse has an ick factor, and raises serious concerns about health and safety that I feel very strongly about. But I also know that it’s been going on for Millennia, (even before there were libruls and Hollywood) and that it is performed by men both on other men and also on women. So it does complicate matters when one stops to separate actual sexual practices, from human sexual preference/attraction no?

    My apologies to anyone who may find this area of discussion inappropriate.

    elissa (250b6b)

  418. Zebediah 33: 68 – 69

    “Be ye not a fornicator with the beasts of the field, nor lie down with thy neighbor’s cat. If a man so doeth, he surely must be put to death. The cat shall be put to death, for it is not cool like a dog and is detestable in the eyes of the Lord.”

    “When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the short and curlies, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.”

    “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, he shall be called ‘Bruce’. Both men have done what is detestable in the eyes of the Lord. For this they shall enlist in the USMC and give penance unto their drill sergeant.”

    “If a woman lies with another woman, that doth pleaseth the eye of the lord, for that is hot.”

    ColonelHaiku (87d081)

  419. Hmmm,
    I’m not sure how many people are interested in our analysis of Passages from the Torah, but I’ll try to clarify what I was trying to say and why, and then let it be.

    First, to Mark. In some religious circles homosexuality has been viewed as a “worse sin” than others, for various reasons. Most people as it is tend not to be thrilled when told they “are a sinner” unless they have already come to that conclusion themselves, and even then no one likes to hear it said in a condemning and self-righteous way (for good reason, I might add). So, one should expect it is alienating to tell someone, “And you’re an exceptionally bad sinner, too!!!” So, in my knowledge that such a concern exists, I addressed it in the attempt to not be “any more offensive than necessary”. (Besides, the clearest place in the Bible where being a “worse sinner than others” is pointed out is when the Apostle Paul says it of himself because he “persecuted the Church of God” before he came to believe.) (Also, Jesus addresses people harshly about sin primarily when it has to do with self righteousness or other ways people ar being a stumbling block to others- such as the money-changers in the Temple).

    Milhouse- I previously thanked you for adding to my comments and bringing additional perspective, and I still do. I’m not happy about things getting confrontational rather than collegial. I use the analogy of truth being like a cut diamond, there are different facets depending which angle one is viewing from, but they are all true and do not negate each other because they appear different. Reading the passage itself, the direct narrative puts the punishment of the people of Sodom (at least those immediately present) in the immediate context over their terrorizing Lot and his family and guests. I have generally heard stressed the fact that they wanted to have sex with the male guests. You made the very good point that the fact it was a violent attack was more clearly the wrong than whether they wanted sex with men or women. Now, that point does not negate whether or not the homosexual nature of the threatened attack was wrong in itself or not, but it certainly makes the impression that the violent nature was clearly the issue at the moment. Now, the fact that Ezekiel states Sodom had also committed sin other than sexual and violent sin does not negate the obvious in the Genesis narrative. If a person says, for example, that they don’t like Obama because of “X”, that does not mean they also don’t like him for “Y”, unless it is explicitly said, “I don’t like Obama because of “X” and only “X”. Now, it appears you are also referring to the writings of the teachers of the Torah as well as the Torah itself. Being of the Protestant Christian tradition and perspective, we are interested in and respectful of what those more educated (and perhaps wiser) than ourselves have to say about a passage, but we don’t equate any teaching with the Scripture itself. (At least it is not our intention, in practical terms people often put one teacher’s interpretation on par with Scripture, and hence so many denominations). Not being aware of the details of your reference, my assumption is I would treat it just as the passage in Ezekiel, that it informs about the passage in a larger context, but does not negate the obvious in the original Genesis passage itself.

    In any event, my intent was as I described to Mark as above, for better or for worse, not to get into a debate.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  420. An aside to Elissa. From the medical point of view, the lining of the rectum/anus/distal end of the large intestine is “not constructed” with the same thickness, etc. as the vaginal walls, hence making penetration into the rectum more traumatic with micro-abrasions and lacerations to allow entry of infectious particles (such as HIV virus) easier than through vaginal walls, irregardless of the presence of fecal matter.

    My, what a broad education one can receive on this site.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  421. Doc, vital but still TMI (427).

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ab2eca)

  422. Actually, not TMI. MD’s description is exactly what I was alluding to when I used the words “raises serious concerns about heath and safety”. Better to get ithe details from an official doctor, though. So thanks, MDin Philly.

    elissa (d12c8b)

  423. Carlitos, it comes down to percentages, and there is more social volatility within the community of homosexuals or bisexuals, certainly those that are both male and very liberal. A volatility that makes stable, nurturing households tougher to maintain and sustain—if only because of greater pressure due to health-related issues, meaning those involving STDs and AIDS.

    Again, we’re dealing with percentages. So, yes, there is X number of gays (referring to both males and females) who will be identical to Y number of heterosexuals in terms of creating and maintaining a stable, down-to-earth environment. But that X number represents a smaller fraction of the total than in groups that not only are straight, but that most importantly place greater value on tried-and-true behavior and cultural traits that have withstood the test of time.

    Comment by Mark — 9/22/2011 @ 9:14 pm

    Mark,
    The above bolded text contains a couple of claims. Would you care to provide evidence that supports these claims? Your copypasta did not support this.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  424. AD-

    TMI would have included diagrams.

    Actually, I can’t say I’m in the habit of discussing in word or print such things in a public forum, but sometimes knowing more than less about a topic will do a better job at influencing human behavior.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  425. It was info that I had previously, described in a slightly differnet, but very informative, form.
    And, Yes, it is a discussion that we tend to avoid because of the “ick” factor.
    Tks, Doc.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ab2eca)

  426. “… congratulations to gays who are serving our country with distinction and can now do so without having to hide who they are.”
    = = = = = = = = = = =

    ?

    Why in the futtering cluck should anybody be forced into knowing about somebody else’s sexual proclivities?

    I’m all for “don’t ask”.

    I’m all for “don’t tell”.

    I’m all for “don’t wanna know, don’t need to know, now SHUT UP”.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf)

  427. Why in the futtering cluck should anybody be forced into knowing about somebody else’s sexual proclivities?

    So if you are in a relationship (married or not), you take care to keep it a secret from the world, never to mention your partner to anyone, not to have his/her picture where people can see it, never bring him/her along to anything, or decline an invitation because you have to do something with him/her, etc.? Do your friends and colleagues truly have no idea whether you’re attracted to men or to women?

    If you don’t keep your sexual proclivities a secret, and I’m sure you don’t, then why do you expect gay people to do so?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  428. He only displays pictures of himself.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ab2eca)

  429. ______________________________________________

    Would you care to provide evidence that supports these claims?

    Carlitos, I’m not exactly sure why you’re bothered (or puzzled) by what you or anyone else must be able to observe on a regular basis in regards to human nature in general, human sexuality in particular, and even more so that which specifically pertains to males—ie, the typical guy, for genetic reasons, tending to — as the joke goes — think with his genitalia, or his brain being where his crotch is, and visa versa.

    It makes not much less sense to be bothered about someone stating that a higher percentage of males are promiscuous compared with the rate of females. Again, I’m not really sure why you’re resistant to or perhaps defensive about such observations, or what’s found in studies like the one excerpted below.

    papers.ccpr.ucla.edu, Charles Q. Strohm

    The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage,

    Research Triangle Institute
    California Center for Population Research

    This study contributes to the emerging demographic literature on same-sex couples by comparing the level and correlates of union stability among four types of couples: male same-sex cohabitation, female same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and different-sex marriage. I analyze data from two British birth cohort studies, the National Child Development Study (N = 11,469) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (N = 11,924).

    These data contain retrospective histories of same-sex and different-sex unions throughout young adulthood from 1974-2004.

    Event history analyses show that same-sex cohabitations have higher rates of dissolution than do different-sex cohabiting and marital unions. Among same-sex couples, male couples had slightly higher dissolution rates than did female couples.

    …In particular, two studies have compared the stability of same-sex and different-sex unions over time using large, population-based samples. Andersson et al. (2006) used Swedish population register data to compare same-sex marriages with different-sex marriages. The authors found that the dissolution rate for male and female same-sex marriages was 1.4 and 3.0 times, respectively, greater than the rate for different-sex marriages. This difference between same-sex and different-sex married couples persisted even when the authors restricted the analysis to childless couples. This suggests that same-sex couples’ lower likelihood of having children does not fully explain their greater instability relative to different-sex couples.

    * This research was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship
    Program and by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies

    Mark (411533)

  430. _____________________________________________

    In some religious circles homosexuality has been viewed as a “worse sin” than others, for various reasons.

    MD, I suspect those are the types of people who — even if they’re of the right — will vote for a straight liberal politician instead of a gay (or bisexual) conservative one—who’s truly to the right, and not merely a wishy-washy neo-con.

    However, I do suspect that if a person has social qualities that are different from those of the mainstream, that it’s natural for him or her to therefore lean left. IOW, most people don’t want to be the “odd man out,” so if political and cultural trends can be altered to make certain groups and certain behaviors seem less non-conforming and peculiar, any person, be he or she left or right, will favor them. That’s why I think homo- or bisexual qualities naturally trigger liberal sentiments even in people who are generally not of the left, but who are moderate or rightwing.

    Mark (411533)

  431. ________________________________________________

    I was hoping to find out if it is the physical act itself you most negatively react to no matter who is doing it – or if it’s the fact that two men are engaging in gay sex (sodomy) that tips it over the edge for you.

    Elissa, I recall reading a book on human sexuality from a psychiatrist who deduced that any male’s fascination with the anus — whether it was with a women or man — had an underlying homosexual component to it. Whether that’s true in all cases, I don’t know.

    However, to be honest, one reason why I’m even more wary of male homosexuality is because I sense that the people predisposed to that behavior are not necessarily clean (literally), meaning they can’t be too conscious of hygiene or else they’d gross themselves out. Or because they think with their crotches — and this is true of males in general — everything else is of secondary importance.

    I also recall reading a study that suggested male homosexuals had a poorer sense of smell than heterosexuals, so that may be a factor in their behavior. Whether straight, gay or bi, my sense is that anyone sexually aroused by the anal area probably is quite tolerant of, or insensitive to, lousy odors.

    Yea, I know: TMI. But since we live in an era of “let it all hang out!,” and “do your own thang!,” no reason to suddenly draw a line and proclaim “too much information!”

    Mark (411533)

  432. Comment by Mark — 9/22/2011 @ 9:50 pm,

    But it sounds like the military is doing its best to be fair and even-handed so the only “Gomorrah” aspect I see is that this involves homosexuality. I understand some religions view homosexuality as a sin but we’re all sinners, so I assume you feel this is a much worse sin leading to a slippery moral slope. I’m not condemning that view. I simply want to understand if that’s the basis of your statement.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  433. _______________________________________________

    so the only “Gomorrah” aspect I see

    DRJ, I was placing that in the context of the dynamics surrounding not just the end of DADT — or an environment where gays or bisexuals will now be given wider leeway — but on the ludicrous aspects of the case involving Nidal Hasan. So “Gomorrah,” at least as I define it, is when a culture has become so dumbed down, that people can easily subvert and exploit it.

    I have a hunch that various gay (and very leftwing) activists are fully aware of the situation that led to the Fort Hood massacre — referring to political correctness run amok — so they may well have a field day in upcoming years. Ambulance-chasing lawyers probably aren’t exactly unhappy about that scenario.

    Mark (411533)

  434. Mark let us agree to disagree.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  435. MD in Philly – Milhouse likes to bully people with his bible citations. The concept that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed simply over inhospitality to strangers and poor is very questionable even using just the words of Genesis.

    Looking at Jude 1:7, Proverbs 7:5 and Romans 1:26-27 adds more color to the immorality and fornication side of the equation. My understanding is that the “detestable”, essentially morally repulsive, things done in Sodom referred to in Ezekiel 49-50 as one of the reasons for its destruction is the same Hebrew word used in Leviticus 18:22 which describes homosexuality as an abomination.

    I also am no expert and am happy to be corrected.

    EPWJ (bf33e9)

  436. Sock off

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  437. The real EPWJ would never allow himself to be corrected.

    JD (318f81)

  438. Gotta love the anti-semite left accusing the jooooooooos of starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…….when Islamic extremists threaten to bomb washington they will be accused of being secret jews.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  439. 407.Ezekiel 16:48-49
    As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

    POA, no one said that it wasn’t about sex, we said it wasn’t only about sex and the Bible elsewhere commented on it.

    Comment by MD in Philly — 9/22/2011 @ 4:39 pm

    Give us your tired, your poor etc for we wish to have sex with them but not for money.
    az

    Pinandpuller (c53ec0)

  440. But it sounds like the military is doing its best to be fair and even-handed

    DRJ, the military’s no longer in the driver’s seat when it comes to this issue. It’s purely political. There was never, ever, any military justification for this and I don’t care how many stories you’ve read in the LA Times about qualified “translators” being drummed out of service when they were really talking about first term enlistees awaiting training at DLI who just had to post evidence of their homosexual relationships on Facebook.

    You will be told that nothing stemming from this has any effect on military readiness.

    Servicemen & women will be told not to stray from the official line, stated previously, upon pain of prosecution.

    Have a nice day indulging in your fantasy life.

    Steve (4b1889)

  441. Servicemen & women will be told not to stray from the official line, stated previously, upon pain of prosecution.

    Have a nice day indulging in your fantasy life.

    Comment by Steve — 9/24/2011 @ 11:01 am

    Steve,
    Suggest you take a look at the briefing they are being given – posted earlier in the thread. Nothing like what you are suggesting is occurring.

    vor2 (9a4241)

  442. Milhouse likes to bully people with his bible citations.

    Bull. You’re just peedoff because this is a subject I know a lot more than you about. I’ve put in more years than you in studying it, and I use sources you have no access to, such as the original text, and a continuous 3321-year-old tradition of interpretation going back ultimately to the Author Himself. The text never existed in a vacuum; it’s the Cliff’s Notes to the knowledge that was transmitted orally, and if you’re stuck reading nothing but the bare text, and even that in translation, then you have no hope of understanding it.

    Looking at Jude 1:7, Proverbs 7:5 and Romans 1:26-27 adds more color to the immorality and fornication side of the equation.

    WTH has Proverbs 7:5 got to do with either the Cities of the Plain or homosexuality? (I will not comment on the other two cites, because I do not accept them as scripture. You do, so you deal with them however you like.)

    My understanding is that the “detestable”, essentially morally repulsive, things done in Sodom referred to in Ezekiel 49-50 as one of the reasons for its destruction is the same Hebrew word used in Leviticus 18:22 which describes homosexuality as an abomination.

    That argument would work if the word were only used twice in the Bible — once in Leviticus to refer to sex between men, and once in Ezekiel without an explicit referent. Then we could use Leviticus to understand Ezekiel. But it ain’t so. The word is used dozens of times throughout the Bible, to refer to a wide variety of offenses, some sexual, most not. Twice, in Leviticus 18 and 20, it’s used of sex between men (but not between women), but in Lev 18:26 it’s used again of all the offenses listed in that chapter, including having sex with your wife during her period. It’s used at least 15 or 20 times of idols, false gods, foreign worship, etc. It’s used of offering God sacrifices that are physically flawed, or that are offered with flawed intention. It’s used of eating animals that aren’t kosher (yes, God really does hate shrimp). It’s used of possessing false weights and measures, even if you don’t use them. It’s used of remarrying your divorced wife after she has married someone else (as Mitch Daniels did).

    Ezekiel himself uses that same word several times, referring twice to adultery (which is by definition heterosexual) and once to a wide variety of offenses. So by what conceivable stretch of logic could any honest person suppose that, of all the things the word is used about, in that one instance Ezekiel was thinking of sex between men? Only an ignoramus, or a bigot with an agenda, could twist the verse to impose such an implausible interpretation on it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  443. Yes. Read the briefing. It’s a case study in naivete. Seriously?

    Same-sex partner does NOT qualify for benefits such as:
    •Medical
    •BAH
    •Travel/transport allowance
    •Family Separation Allowance
    •Survivor Benefit Plan (death on active duty)

    Sure. Not right at this moment. Those other changes are at least 15 minutes away.

    It must be painful to sit through one of those briefings and leave without selling one of the briefers a bridge in Brooklyn.

    You’ll have to let me know if it pains you more to hear it, or if it pains you more for me to give the game away, but I’ve only been retired since 2008. My friends who are still on active duty or in the active reserve tell me that they are under a lot of pressure to say what Big Navy wants the press to hear.

    Well, if not say it, at least not say anything that’d contradict it.

    I don’t think I know anyone who took that stupid survey about gays in the military. No one believed it was anonymous. Since they were unwilling to take the survey and lie, i.e. tell the Navy what it wanted to hear, but at the same time they were unwilling to flag themselves for “special attention,” they just didn’t complete the survey.

    When dissenters opt out or are silenced, the results of opinion polls tend to be skewed. Whether or not the survey was truly anonymous, I wouldn’t know. What I know is this; the chain of command has a huge trust issue. As in, no one does.

    I’m not exactly sure of what it is you think isn’t going on. But I know very well what is going on.

    Steve (4b1889)

  444. ” Milhouse likes to bully people with his bible citations.

    Bull. You’re just peedoff because this is a subject I know a lot more than you about. I’ve put in more years than you in studying it, and I use sources you have no access to, such as the original text, and a continuous 3321-year-old tradition of interpretation going back ultimately to the Author Himself. The text never existed in a vacuum; it’s the Cliff’s Notes to the knowledge that was transmitted orally, and if you’re stuck reading nothing but the bare text, and even that in translation, then you have no hope of understanding it.”

    Need I say more?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  445. Milhouse – As your diatribe makes clear, the destruction was not merely about lack of hospitality as you claimed earlier. Thank you for helping me to make my point.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  446. One of these days we’re going to run up against someone who’s as rich and powerful as we are, and they’re going to field a military that’s all about winning wars, and we’re going to field a military that’s all about being “inclusive” and “fair” to everyone…and we are just going to get the living shit beat out of us.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  447. As your diatribe makes clear, the destruction was not merely about lack of hospitality as you claimed earlier.

    Oh, really? Where in my “diatribe” did you pick that up? What part did the illogic center you call a brain manage to misunderstand and twist into that conclusion?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  448. guys, your shouting woke me up, go back to bed, and dont leave the lid up!

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  449. Sure. Not right at this moment. Those other changes are at least 15 minutes away….
    I’m not exactly sure of what it is you think isn’t going on. But I know very well what is going on.

    Comment by Steve — 9/25/2011 @ 12:16 am

    15 minutes is up and nothing changed…
    Sounds like you are cherry-picking what you want to hear and dismissing those facts that you dislike that are available.
    Your opinion about the poll is just that, with no proof to back it up. Besides that was a survey not a means for service members to vote on the issue.
    You mention trust issues. Does the latest climate survey “really” indicate a loss of trust in the navy leadership?

    vor2 (9a4241)

  450. and then all the gay people and also the not gay people went to war and they complained about the food a lot but they vanquished the enemy people lickety-split and showed again why the United States of America is a very formidable country militarily if not economically and the sad whiny little man with the nasty nasty google problem looked like a loon

    the end

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  451. Would you care to provide evidence that supports these claims?

    Carlitos, I’m not exactly sure why you’re bothered (or puzzled) by what you or anyone else must be able to observe on a regular basis in regards to human nature in general, human sexuality in particular, and even more so that which specifically pertains to males—ie, the typical guy, for genetic reasons, tending to — as the joke goes — think with his genitalia, or his brain being where his crotch is, and visa versa.

    It makes not much less sense to be bothered about someone stating that a higher percentage of males are promiscuous compared with the rate of females. Again, I’m not really sure why you’re resistant to or perhaps defensive about such observations, or what’s found in studies like the one excerpted below.

    Comment by Mark — 9/23/2011 @ 5:34 pm

    Thanks Mark. You could have provided the evidence for your claim without all the bullshit regarding my motives, but thanks nonetheless. I’m going to go read the original study.

    OMG, and then you typed this? Jesus Christ, get yourself a counselor or something.

    However, to be honest, one reason why I’m even more wary of male homosexuality is because I sense that the people predisposed to that behavior are not necessarily clean (literally), meaning they can’t be too conscious of hygiene or else they’d gross themselves out. Or because they think with their crotches — and this is true of males in general — everything else is of secondary importance.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  452. I retired in 2007 and agree with Steve that the surveys are not trusted by most of active-duty I worked with. They’re supposed to be anonymous, but somehow mid-level managers know who-said-what even if the survey is a mail-in. Didn’t matter what the subject was, the assurance of anonymity rang hollow.

    I also believe that Steve is right about the benefits. It’s coming eventually. I don’t think it’s going to be as soon as Steve does, but within a decade.

    Does the latest climate survey “really” indicate a loss of trust in the navy leadership?
    Comment by vor2 — 9/25/2011 @ 3:24 am

    A command climate survey was one of the most notorious surveys being compromised. I did one as a commander and could have easily seen the individual surveys. I had my First Sergeant administer and forward to higher command without it going through me, but other commanders did not. You see the problem with your reasoning I trust? If the troops don’t trust the leadership, why would a climate survey necessarily show that?

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  453. Steve,

    I don’t understand your attack. Whether the military or I support this change isn’t the issue. The policy has changed, again, and it seems to me the military is handling it in a reasonable way.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  454. 174.
    Comment by peedoffamerican — 9/21/2011 @ 5:42 pm

    But the importance difference with college and the military is this; the college coed facilities are totally voluntary, you can choose to live or shower elsewhere,

    Not exactly true, as long you stay in college. If the college is Yale and you are not married.

    I didn’t realize this case was this old!!

    http://www.studlife.com/archives/News/2001/10/09/SupremeCourtdeclinesJewishstudentslawsuitagainstYale/

    “Supreme Court declines Jewish students’ lawsuit against Yale

    By Diane Scarponi (AP)

    Posted October 9, 2001 at 12:00 pm

    New Haven, Conn. (AP)-The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit filed by four Orthodox Jewish students who claim Yale University’s co-ed dormitories violated their religious rights.

    The high court’s action last Monday lets stand an appeals court ruling that sided with Yale.

    Yale requires unmarried freshmen and sophomores under age 21 to live on campus in co-ed dormitory communities-residential colleges. The university said this housing system is an important part of the Yale experience, since it allows students of different backgrounds to interact.

    Freshmen live in dorms where the sexes are divided by floor. Sophomores live in single-sex suites, where members of the opposite sex often live next door and sometimes share bathrooms.

    The students sued in 1997, saying a sexually immodest atmosphere in the co-ed dorms went against their religious beliefs on modesty and chastity…….

    ….The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in December that the students could go to another college if they disagreed with Yale’s housing rules.”

    in the military, especially during basic training, you are told where to eat, where to sleep, where to shower, and where to crap. There is no voluntary once you enlist.

    People do get discharged these days if they are very unhappy.

    And in college they were not actually forced to live in those dormitories:

    “…The students got around the housing policy by renting off-campus apartments. Yale did not force the students to physically live at their residential colleges, but the university still made them pay about $6,800 for their unused rooms.

    The students sued in an attempt to get refunds and exemptions to the housing policy. They have since graduated.”

    Yale didn’t have a bed check. After all, that might interfere with sex.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  455. 363. Comment by MD in Philly — 9/22/2011 @ 12:15 pm

    As an intern I was having a conversation with another resident about needing to “get used to Philadelphia”. After that apparent common ground, it became clear he thought Philly was pretty dull, having come from NYC, and I was a bit astonished, having come from Madison, WI, pop ~160,000 at the time, (~200,00 on football Saturdays).

    Philadelphia had some kind of reputation as dull (I don’t know why what with the Liberty Bell, the Betsy Ross house and old streets)

    “Last week, I went to Philadelphia, but it was closed.”

    – W. C. Fields, in Richard J. Anobile – “Godfrey Daniels”

    “On the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.” – corruption of a W.C. Fields quote. (In a 1925 Vanity Fair article wrote a mock epitaph for himself that went: “Here lies W. C. Fields. I would rather be living in Philadelphia.” )

    In 1981, while intubated, Ronald Reagan scribbled to a nurse, “All in all, I’d rather be in Philadelphia”, which was a double joke, because not only was it a famous line, but he was actually supposed to go to Philadelphia that day!

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  456. “guys, your shouting woke me up, go back to bed, and dont leave the lid up!”

    EPWJ – Look again. Only one person is shouting. That would be Milhouse again who childishly resorts to insults and ad hominem attacks when his point of view is not immediately accepted as the ultimate authority.

    Argument by authority is fine if you have established credibility. In my mind Milhouse has not and this is another perfect example of why he is just another bloviating, intolerant, loon.

    There is no universally accepted explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Milhouse is well aware of that fact. Yet he demands everybody accept the explanation he learned. Why? Because he is an intolerant, bloviating, loon and believes everybody else is stupid, something he has said about anyone who challenges him on this blog. It is simple.

    I’m glad he studied the torah so much and it makes him feel so superior, but the fact that other widely held interpretations of biblical events exist do not make the people holding them bigots or ignoramuses.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  457. There is no universally accepted explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

    it was cause of they turned away from God that’s why at the end they had to symbolically turn away from sin or become a salt-lick

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  458. I’ve always loved the word “bloviating”.

    elissa (9fb50a)

  459. Milhouse – I no longer remember why I included that specific reference to Proverbs. I was probably either in error or pursuing a train of thought I did not finish.

    When the word abomination is used frequently in the bible in conjunction specifically with homosexual sex, there is probably a reason:

    Leviticus 20:10-16 Punishments for sexual immorality

    “If a bman commits adultery with the wife of1 his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 cIf a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 dIf a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed eperversion; their blood is upon them. 13 fIf a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 gIf a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 hIf a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 hIf a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    Here is the Jude 7 reference:

    “just as qSodom and Gomorrah and rthe surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and spursued unnatural desire,4 serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

    Finally, here is Romans 1:18-32

    “18 For kthe wrath of God lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, nhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they obecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 pClaiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and qexchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    24 Therefore sGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.

    26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, zGod gave them up to aa debased mind to do bwhat ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know cGod’s decree that those who practice such things ddeserve to die, they not only do them but egive approval to those who practice them.”

    I am happy to let commenters make up their minds rather than demand they accept a theory lest they be declared bigoted or ignoramuses.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  460. no Mr. daley if God was for reals trying to kill all the homos then he must’ve skipped homo-killing in God college cause his technique needs a lot of work

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  461. “no Mr. daley if God was for reals trying to kill all the homos then he must’ve skipped homo-killing in God college cause his technique needs a lot of work”

    Mr. Feets – I am told that God works in mysterious ways. I did not see any timetable for the killings in those verses. He could be practicing you know with things like AIDS. If you have some concerns, I suggest talking to him yourself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  462. daleyrocks,

    I hear the out-of-state tuition rates at God college are an abomination.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  463. god god god you been god so long you been god god god so long

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  464. I also believe that Steve is right about the benefits. It’s coming eventually. I don’t think it’s going to be as soon as Steve does, but within a decade

    They’ll “pay” for it by doing what they (Congress) always does:
    They’ll reduce the benefits they promised all those years of service, for those who are currently retired.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (109f56)

  465. “I hear the out-of-state tuition rates at God college are an abomination.”

    Stashiu3 – I had not heard God was discriminating these days. Heh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  466. Steve,

    I don’t understand your attack. Whether the military or I support this change isn’t the issue. The policy has changed, again, and it seems to me the military is handling it in a reasonable way.

    Perhaps that’s for two reasons.

    One, it’s not an attack. It’s a defense.

    Two, because the military really isn’t handling anything in this regard anymore.

    The DoD may be able to create the illusion it’s in charge because it can set out regulations and policy statements in the interim while the various lawsuits play out, but that won’t change the long term facts.

    I highly recommend you read Stashiu3’s posts, particularly #461. He’s clearly a gentleman who has independently arrived at roughly the same position I have. Moreover, he understands why you will see no evidence in any official set of statistics supporting our position.

    It’s sort of silly to expect there would be, given that punishment for non-conformity is the order of the day.

    In any case, DRJ, I’m not going anywhere. So it doesn’t matter, for purposes of discussion, whether or not you understand my “attack” at this moment in time. But when (not if) things fall apart along the lines I expect them to, I’ll be here to say “I told you so.”

    Steve (4b1889)

  467. The innertubes are grumpy.

    JD (318f81)

  468. Leviticus 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.

    We could invent a story. We could say that when FBI negotiaters were talking to David Koresh they were talking about the Bible a lot, and someone at the FBI stumbled upon this passage….

    But that’s not true.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  469. “god god god you been god so long you been god god god so long”

    Mr. Feets – You sayin’ we need term limits?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  470. I think DRJ is right as far as the leadership doing the best they can with what they have to work with. It’s not under their control though. Promises about how the lifted policy will shake out are extremely premature, especially ones that promise same-sex couples won’t be given the same considerations couples have gotten up to now. It’s just not how the military works.

    The lower ranks will fall in line or fall out, as they always have. To do otherwise misinterprets the power relationship between the organization and the individual, always to the individual’s detriment. How many will fall out is open to speculation, but the point was made somewhere else that we’re not going to see a huge influx of gay recruits. Look for some lean years ahead.

    Again, I didn’t care if the person next to me was gay or not. I just cared if they were honorable and all that implies. Most were, just like most straights were. I think DADT was dishonest and promoted dishonesty. Not a good thing by any means. The lifting of DADT will be a good thing in the long run, but look for lots of disruption from agenda-driven people who demand more than acceptance, they will demand celebration.

    The military will continue the mission as best they can, as they always do.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  471. There is no universally accepted explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Milhouse is well aware of that fact. Yet he demands everybody accept the explanation he learned. Why?

    Because it is only Christians who have ever advanced the homosexual explanation for Sodom.

    All right, maybe he shouldn’t ignore the fact that this is the standard Christian interpretation, which influenced even the English of a Hebrew word in Deuteronomy.

    This is not at all the Jewish understanding of what the sin of Sodom was.

    (I don’t know if lately the Christian intepretation has begun to influence some Rabbis. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in Israel in 2005 was attributing Katrina to homsexuality or similar things in New Orleans. But this was clearly wrong. he didn’t know much about New Orleans. Which shows you where you go when you try to explain why things happen. That part of New Orleans was hardly touched. New Orleans had the greatest murder rate in the country, and that was probably one reason for Katrina. Unlike Detroit, people just weren’t abandoning the place fast enough. This is a much better explanation.)

    ———————–

    Leviticus 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.

    We could invent a story. We could say that when FBI negotiaters were talking to David Koresh they were talking about the Bible a lot, and someone at the FBI stumbled upon this passage….

    But that’s not true.

    Sammy Finkelman (9ab1e5)

  472. No we need term limits for gods.

    And yes bears have been around longer than us.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  473. As I said, interpreting the Bible on the internet rarely leads to real insight.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  474. Okay, Steve, you told me so. But I’m not sure how I’ve been told off since I’m not advocating any position except, if you review this thread, I think I was among the first to expresss concern about PC problems that might arise. Isn’t that your concern, too? If so, then why the attack?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  475. When a right-wing rich guy disagrees with the left they are accused of being greedy……….what a bunch of childish ignorant thugs.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  476. ________________________________________________

    Thanks Mark. You could have provided the evidence for your claim without all the bullshit regarding my motives, but thanks nonetheless.

    That “BS” is because I really was curious why you’ve been so defensive about, or resistant to, the information that I (and I assume most others) have been aware of for years.

    I’ve noticed people altering their opinions on this or similar issues because a member of their family or a friend is gay or bisexual. Example: Dick Cheney in regards to his daughter. Or if you yourself are gay or bisexual, does that necessarily mean you have to therefore become more leftwing about such social issues?

    The people who I have a lot of respect for are those who are homo- or bisexual, but who also are staunchly conservative. IOW, they’re both selfless and strong enough in their socio-political convictions to separate their personal lives from that of the better good of society. I also think such people’s behavior can’t therefore be attributed to a need for self-entitlement and a desire to give in to casual, sloppy whims. Or such people probably really ARE the way they are due to physiology or genetics.

    OMG, and then you typed this? Jesus Christ, get yourself a counselor or something.

    Why? If someone says “the smell in this dingy public bathroom leaves much to be desired,” you wanna say “get yourself a counselor”?

    I sure hope you’re not the type who has whined along the lines of “Republicans were (or are) mean and cheap when it comes to AIDS!” Or “rightwingers like Ronald Reagan are the reason the AIDS epidemic became so bad to begin with!!” And then says: “Whether I’m responsible or not behind closed doors is my own business!! And if I subscribe to a ‘do-your-own-thang, if-it-feels-good-do-it!’ way of thinking and lifestyle, that’s for me to know and for you to not care about, and you’ll just have to accommodate me!”

    Mark (411533)

  477. “As I said, interpreting the Bible on the internet rarely leads to real insight.”

    Stashiu3 – If there are multiple interpretations out there, my feeling is to acknowledge them, rather than be bludgeoned into accepting one or another. It’s all about teh transparency!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  478. ____________________________________________

    Promises about how the lifted policy will shake out are extremely premature.

    I’d have given leeway to that assumption before the particulars of Nidal Hasan came to light. Even today, I’m still astonished by just how ridiculous the PC situation became — or can become — within no less than the US military.

    Plus, in general terms, we live in an era of clap-happy litigiousness, where lawyers are gunning to chase every ambulance imaginable, and cater to every grievance from A to Z.

    Mark (411533)

  479. Steve,

    Actually, I can’t find my PC comment on this. Perhaps it was on another thread. These conversations are all starting to run together …

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  480. Steve

    The Dod is made up of literally dozens if not hundreds of commands, led by hundreds if not thousands of dedicated people who serve their country.

    They are consistent in that they are motivated by love of their country and not love of a certain ideology

    EricPWJohnson (be5a2d)

  481. When the word abomination is used frequently in the bible in conjunction specifically with homosexual sex,

    I’ve already pointed out that it is not; out of the many dozens of times it’s used in the Bible, only twice does it refer to sex between men (and never to sex between women). If there’s one topic it’s used of more frequently than any other, it would be idolatry.

    Why do you insist on lying about this?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  482. I hear the out-of-state tuition rates at God college are an abomination.

    Where exactly is God out-of-state?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  483. Washington, D.C.?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  484. It’s not that bad, DRJ. Check your e-mail?

    Simon Jester (012e47)

  485. Happyfeet is that you?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  486. “god god god you been god so long you been god god god so long”

    Mr. Feets – You sayin’ we need term limits?

    What would that even mean for the One Who created time in the first place, and is therefore not bound by it?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  487. Simon,

    I did! Very nice. But do you believe any public memorial built today in Washington, D.C., would be allowed to bear the words “Under God”?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  488. DRJ,

    I’m not trying to “tell you off.” I’m certainly not attacking you.

    If I come off that way, it’s probably just that when you spend 20 years of your life dedicated to an institution, and some Cook County crowd comes in and turns everything on its head for short term political gain despite your best advice, it’s a little hard to take.

    It’s compounded by the fact that, by all appearances, you seem to be unaware or unconcerned about the tectonic shift that’s going to have to take place. I don’t understand the mad rush to declare this a fore ordained “no big deal” when the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen remain very much a big deal to me.

    I guess when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I only have one question. Explain why this change is, in your opinion, a better approach toward increased military efficacy?

    That is all.

    Steve (4b1889)

  489. DRJ

    My Pastor just said that the Court House in Camden Tn is re-dedicated the Ten Commandments (apparently a court order had them removed)

    Going to be interesting, they are girding for a fight

    people ’round these parts are not shrinking violets

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  490. Steve,

    I’ve barely adjusted to DADT and it’s been in force for years, so there’s no chance I’ve adjusted to the newest policy. But I don’t see any alternative than to accept it. If it is any consolation, however, I found my earlier comment here expressing concern about this policy change, and there are a number of comments at this earlier thread when DADT was repealed. It’s been almost a year and I still have those concerns.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  491. All right, maybe he shouldn’t ignore the fact that this is the standard Christian interpretation,

    I don’t believe it’s been the standard Xian interpretation for all that long; probably much less than 1000 years.

    In any event, the Xian interpreters suffered from not being part of the ongoing chain of tradition that goes straight back to the Author Himself. They did not study in the yeshivot of their day; they had no inkling that the Oral Torah even existed, let alone of what it might say. They were mostly former pagans or their descendants, and had nothing to go on but the written text, usually in translation because they spoke no Hebrew, and their memories of their old religions. So their interpretations are inherently not as good as those that derive from the full teaching that Moshe brought down from the mountain, to which the written text is merely the notes.

    In addition, to the people at Sinai the Cities of the Plain were only 400 years in the past, and there would still have been memories of what they were like; the story they heard from Moshe would have to jibe with those memories, or they’d know it was false and reject it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  492. Oh good Allah. Again.

    JD (318f81)

  493. It’s kind of easy to see which commenters have a sense of humor and which don’t.

    elissa (9fb50a)

  494. I nominate Milhouse for the blog’s 2011 Humility Award.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  495. Hey, JD…

    I hear that the Oral Torah costs extra in Philly.

    Simon Jester (012e47)

  496. DRJ: our government worships other Gods now….sad to say. I suspect the God you and I were raised with is more merciful, and kinder besides.

    Simon Jester (012e47)

  497. Simon, I think we could use, and are perhaps overdue for, a little God of Abraham thunder and lightning.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (109f56)

  498. Milhouse as always is a larf riot.

    “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these _stones_ to raise up children unto Abraham.”

    — Matthew 3:9

    Yep, God is a pretty powerful Dude it seems. But apparently He is constrained to play by the rules set down by Milhouse and his teachers.

    Interpretation, is it? Here’s another version of the above, in a more modern context. Einstein and Heisenberg discussing Uncertainty…

    EINSTEIN: God does not play dice.
    HEISENBERG: Einstein, stop telling God what to do!!

    d. in c. (f12f37)

  499. Oops, a quick backup search indicates that maybe it was Bohr who said the reply to Einstein. Even better, as it were.

    d. in c. (f12f37)

  500. [carlito quote]OMG, and then you typed this? Jesus Christ, get yourself a counselor or something.

    Why? If someone says “the smell in this dingy public bathroom leaves much to be desired,” you wanna say “get yourself a counselor”?

    I sure hope you’re not the type who has whined along the lines of “Republicans were (or are) mean and cheap when it comes to AIDS!” Or “rightwingers like Ronald Reagan are the reason the AIDS epidemic became so bad to begin with!!” And then says: “Whether I’m responsible or not behind closed doors is my own business!! And if I subscribe to a ‘do-your-own-thang, if-it-feels-good-do-it!’ way of thinking and lifestyle, that’s for me to know and for you to not care about, and you’ll just have to accommodate me!”

    Comment by Mark — 9/25/2011 @ 11:21 am

    No dude. I said what I said because you sound insane. Just a quick question – are you even aware that not all gay men have anal sex? Your bathroom fantasies are creepy. Seriously, counseling seems a good course of action.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  501. one time Rupert Everett slept with a woman!

    this has profound implications

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  502. WTF are you talking about? Do you really think you can get away with just making things up? There was no such shout, and no such rejection Lot’s offer. The angels blinded the mob when they tried to break the door down.

    Genesis 19:6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

    9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

    10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

    So much for your contention that they hadn’t rejected Lot’s offer. Here’s a question for you.

    Why were the men of Sodom going to break down Lot’s door?
    A. They wanted to break in to calculate pi to the 250th decimal place.
    B. They wanted to have an all night bridge tournament.
    C. They wanted to have butt sex with angels.

    “Notice the detestable things. That which God labeled an abomination unto the Lord which is if a man lie with man as a woman.”

    Oh, really! And you know this how? Ezekiel goes on to explain exactly what abomination he is talking about: hostility to the poor and to foreigners. But you know better, I suppose. Cite an authoritative source or shut your mouth.

    You do know that in the ancient Hebrew, the same root word used in Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, is the same root word that is used for detestable in Ezekiel don’t you? Also do you not realize that in Ezekiel 16, he was illustrating the sin’s of Jerusalem and condemning Jerusalem’s sins at the time by juxtaposing the sins of Sodom and Samaria in relation to Jerusalem’s?

    Hardly. There is nothing — not a single word — in Genesis 19 to indicate that the story would have played out any differently had the angels come in female guise. In fact there’s nothing in that chapter to indicate that God disapproves of homosexuality at all.

    Au contraire, mon ami. Lot had already offered them his daughters and they flat out refused because they wanted butt sex with strange men.

    “Genesis 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    And how about this for condemnation of homosexuality; Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Likewise with Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Also, God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For “these things are an abomination to the Lord.” Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. Deuteronomy 23:17-18

    1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

    1 Kings 15:11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. 12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

    Pray tell you are not seriously suggesting that they would call someone who is not courteous to strangers or concerned with wealth a sodomite are you? No, sodomites are butt sex loving men.

    1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

    Golly gee, that God sure must be a homophobe to command such tings.

    2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

    Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
    Another words coming out of the closet.

    Also condemnation follows in Romans 1:26-32 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly
    , and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    Also try 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 Timothy 3:3, Revelations 22:15 or how about:
    Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

    Oh noes, the Bible mentions Sodom and Gomorrha with going after strange flesh, another gay butt sex.

    Milhouse you really need to get you a Scofield Reference Bible and learn to read it with discernment of which you have none at this time. Oh and by the way how did you so delicately out it? You can shut your mouth!!!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  503. Furthemore, homosexuals are violating the very first commandment that God gave to man.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

    You can’t very well be fruitful and multiply by having butt sex, it just doesn’t work that way! After all God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.

    Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    Do you know what it means biblically to become one flesh? It means that each will cherish the life and well being of the other beyond themselves. It also establishes that when they procreate, that half of the males’ and half of the females’ DNA combine to form one flesh in the form of a baby.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  504. The ‘shut your mouth’ was quite rude.

    I also was surprised Milhouse was so unfamiliar with POA’s view of this biblical issue, which frankly is very common. He’s acting like POA is dishonest, but it’s pretty straightforward reading.

    It’s great to see unusual interpretations of the text, but it’s lame to act like folks who are obviously sincere in their interpretation are somehow doing something wrong.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  505. So by what conceivable stretch of logic could any honest person suppose that, of all the things the word is used about, in that one instance Ezekiel was thinking of sex between men? Only an ignoramus, or a bigot with an agenda, could twist the verse to impose such an implausible interpretation on it.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/24/2011 @ 11:12 pm

    Maybe because it was explicitly stated in Genesis 19:5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  506. “And Lot offering his two daughters…”

    Lot was kind of a scumbag when you get right down to it.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  507. What have I been missing??

    Once upon a time I tried to give an answer to Mark that I thought would downplay controversy. That sure didn’t work.

    Milhouse, knowing how passage of messages by words and not written down is prone to corruption, I find it interesting that you put more emphasis on thousands of years of oral tradition.

    As far as whether or not the Christian tradition of Biblical interpretation went back to the Author Himself, I guess that is the question, isn’t it, as Christian tradition believes that Jesus was the “Word made flesh” who “dwelt among us, full of grace and truth”.

    I think people who are gay should not be harassed. If they want to and can serve in the military thank you for your service. That said, the concept that homosexuality is “as normal” and “eqivalent” biologically, socially, and morally is not a common one throughout human history, and even when it was said to be the opinion later changed (Plato, as I understand it).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  508. POA further displays his utter ignorance of the Bible, the inevitable result of his relying on translations of dubious quality. I’ll go through his lengthy list of false citations one by one later, but for now I’ll just say that the reason I know what I’m talking about and POA does not, is because he’s relying on something he calls the “Scofield Reference Bible”, while I’m using the original text. He’s pulling inferences out of where he’s afraid other men want to go, while I’m just reading the words. He’s interpreting; I’m just translating. And when interpretation is called for, mine is informed by a chain of tradition passed down directly from the Author Himself, while he’s reduced to tertiary and quaternary sources or worse.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  509. And I told POA to shut his mouth because he’s like someone with a fourth grade science education arguing physics with someone who’s got a PhD in the subject.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  510. Lot’s way of dealing with stuff…

    ‘Genesis 19:6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”’

    Dave’s way of dealing with stuff…

    ‘Book of Dave 1:1 Dave went outside with an AR-15 in his arms and a .357 tucked in his belt, and spake: Get your sorry asses off my land, or there won’t be enough left of your maggot-ridden carcasses to warrant burying.’

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  511. “Milhouse, knowing how passage of messages by words and not written down is prone to corruption, I find it interesting that you put more emphasis on thousands of years of oral tradition.”

    MD in Philly – I can fully understand how travelers around the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah thought them inhospitable and believed God destroyed them for that reason, creating a oral history to that effect. The words tell us something different.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  512. Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.

    Matthew 23: 37 Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

    38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

    39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

    Even to this day.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  513. Did milhouse just call us all bigots?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  514. And I told POA to shut his mouth because he’s like someone with a fourth grade science education arguing physics with someone who’s got a PhD in the subject.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/26/2011 @ 8:33 pm

    Nope you are just an arrogant egotistical prick with an overestimated sense of knowledge. CYA wouldn’t want to be you.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  515. Hey Milhouse translate this
    לזיין אותך‎

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  516. “Nope you are just an arrogant egotistical prick with an overestimated sense of knowledge.”

    POA – I usually find people who argue like Milhouse are trying to mask a deep seated sense of inferiority about something else or multiple things and have a desperate fear of being those inferiorities being discovered.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  517. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:”

    “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them”

    That’s the King James version. I suppose it’s possible that the good burghers of Sodom were just trying to get together for a little chat with Lot’s houseguests, with the intention of getting to know them better.

    If so, they certainly were being a tad bit pushy about it.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  518. The quran has something nasty in store for gays.

    And infidels you can only live in peace with Muslimes if you pay the Jizya.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  519. Right daley, like I am going to trust his supposed translations over thousands of others that worked on translating the original Hebrew and Greek into English. With each checking and re-checking their own translations and the translations of others.

    Even God, YHWH, told Moshe or Moishe if you prefer, (Moses) this also;
    Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff necked people: when He threatened to destroy the whole Jewish people that He had just led out of bondage and make instead a great nation out of Moses and his heirs.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  520. Actually, that should be Israelite Nation instead of Jewish people, because Jews only come from the tribe of Judah.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  521. Why do the left consider the duvaliers to be far-right?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  522. “לזיין אותך”

    My, my. That’s not very nice.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  523. Well Dave, he was not being very nice either, thought that I would just return the favor. 😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  524. ________________________________________________

    with the intention of getting to know them better.

    If it weren’t for Lot offering his two daughters as a substitute for his two male guests, and his saying that his daughters had not been with men (ie, sexually), it would be much easier to dumb down the meaning of the story of Sodom and Lot.

    The scenario portrayed in the Bible is so lurid and even somewhat pornographic, I imagine that’s a huge reason I’ve never heard it explained or publicized in very explicit terms, going back decades. Since I was not raised in a particularly religious household, and have found the Bible to be rather ponderous (certainly when it comes to a non-modernized version and its arcane writing style), I confess to not knowing a lot about the Good Book until quite recently.

    My recent awareness of the story of Lot and the rabble of Sodom comes on the heels of my sensing there perhaps is more bisexuality among guys than I had originally assumed was the case. The idiosyncrasy of male sexuality, in which many guys have such a great need to get their rocks off (ie, they’re notoriously horny) that they can quickly turn to extreme and perverse behavior (be it hetero- or homo), may be what the Bible was pointing out and warning about.

    Mark (411533)

  525. POA – He just does not play well with others.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  526. And I told POA to shut his mouth because he’s like someone with a fourth grade science education arguing physics with someone who’s got a PhD in the subject.

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/26/2011 @ 8:33 pm

    It really doesn’t come across very well when you say stuff like this. POA’s POV is obviously common and the most clear interpretation.

    And I’m sure we could find plenty of experts.

    Just saying he’s wrong and therefore he’s too ignorant to be right, and therefore deserves to be spoken to like that, really doesn’t sound like it’s coming from a place of wisdom. It sounds more like it’s coming from a position of insecurity.

    This is an interesting topic. There’s no reason to take it personally.

    MD makes a great point. Why the obsession with the text? It’s an oral tradition. It’s not perfect. People can interpret it.

    If the interpretation you’re under is completely contrary to a condemnation of homosexuality in the bible, I think that’s very surprising and you should really lay out your research.

    Just saying ‘you’re a 4th grader, I have PHD, so there’ is not an argument you would respect if POA used it on you, right?

    I enjoy your commentary, but you really should relax.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  527. Daley, I’ve noticed that on some of his previous postings. I do not post here often, for lack of time, and also most of the posters have already covered what I would contribute and they do it better than I, I do try to read all of the comments.

    As Stashiu would note, the fear is strong in that one. He seems angry, and needs to seek Yoda. 😆

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  528. I will remind one and all of a certain passage in Tales of the Hasidim in which a group of very learned rabbinical scholars were traveling, and they stopped for the night in a house. They passed the time competing in learned disputation and exegesis of this or that Torah verse.

    After a while they noticed that one of their group had been gone for quite some time, so they shouted to him, Hey, don’t chicken out — come back in here and give us _your_ commentary!

    The scholar who had been missing said, My commentary is upstairs, you’ll have to come upstairs to receive my teaching.

    When they went upstairs into the bed chamber they discovered that he had been busy making up their beds for all of them for the night.

    d. in c. (68ff46)

  529. “but you really should relax”

    Everyone should relax a tad.

    No point in getting all worked up over issues no one knows the answer to, and that aren’t all that important anyway.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  530. “I’ll state on the record that as far as I am concerned the practice of anal intercourse has an ick factor…”

    Not to mention an ouch factor.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  531. Did milhouse just call us all bigots?

    Comment by DohBiden — 9/26/2011 @ 8:49 pm

    Looks like he is gonna call God a bigot.

    peedoffamerican (51b606)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4928 secs.