The Next Outrageous Outrage

Politics • Views: 5,942

Here’s a preview of tomorrow’s right wing blogosphere/religious right (is there a difference?) Outrage of the Day: Obama tells gay rights group he will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.

Reporting from Washington - President Obama, speaking to the nation’s largest gay rights organization, pledged tonight to end the law prohibiting openly gay and lesbian citizens from serving in the military.

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; that is my commitment,” said Obama, adding that he is also committed to ending the Defense of Marriage Act.Obama, speaking to nearly 3,000 gay and lesbian activists at a dinner-fundraiser hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, addressed the larger effort for equality. “I’m here with you in that fight,” he said. The president also said that there were “still laws to change and hearts to open.”

Jump to bottom

681 comments
1 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:22:24pm

Its almost like he is pandering to his base, the sneaky bastard.

///

2 lone_wolf_in_illinois  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:23:47pm

Fuming brains exploding in 3...2...1...
//

3 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:24:01pm

The timing is fascinating. Did the GOP just decline to add gay rage to hate crimes? I think so.

4 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:24:18pm
“still laws to change and hearts to open.”

Oh noes! Obama iz comin to rip ohpin ur hearts!1!

5 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:25:03pm

Is this good bad, or indifferent? How much difference can this make?

6 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:26:06pm

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a horrible piece of governmentally sanctioned hypocrisy, and it can't end soon enough.

7 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:26:44pm

re: #5 swamprat

Is this good bad, or indifferent? How much difference can this make?

Another buzzword speech to his supporters is just a yawner.

8 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:26:58pm
“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; that is my commitment,”

"Now that's, uh, that's fascism."

/O'Reilly (the quote that will keep on giving)

9 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:27:11pm

I'm sorry...do I posess some special right that these folks lack?

10 TedStriker  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:27:30pm

re: #4 Sharmuta

Oh noes! Obama iz comin to rip ohpin ur hearts!1!

Kali-mar!!!

/Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...

11 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:27:38pm

Note that this coincides with National Coming Out Day. That should 'splode even more heads.

12 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:27:48pm

Some more Firesign Theatre, this time, from The Tale of the Giant Rat of Sumatra:

Frigate Matilda, Frigate Matilda
Won't you come frig in the rigging with me
O we swung from the bunk
And we bunged another cabin boy
Won't you come frig old Matilda with me.

(Now, if I could find a video of the SNL "Raging Queen" sketch, I'd post it.)

13 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:28:26pm

This just in - there will be no more closets in the military.
///

14 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:28:31pm

everybody, please!...stay calm

15 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:28:31pm

re: #9 BignJames

I'm sorry...do I posess some special right that these folks lack?

Not being fired because of your sexual preference, maybe?

16 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:29:46pm

re: #15 Cato the Elder

Not being fired because of your sexual preference, maybe?


That's a right?...Management doesn't know my sexual preference.

17 lone_wolf_in_illinois  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:29:51pm

Having served in the Navy during the Clinton years and being of sound mind (at least I like to think so on occasion), if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is removed, you will find that there are actually less gays in the military than you think. While I was in, it was a common ploy for disgruntled servicemen and women to say that they were "gay" so that they had a fast ticket out of there. It did not work all of the time because people knew better and then you would see them try even harder.

A little OT, one of the guys that I knew smoked weed to get out, and he had never done it before in his life. He then left an anonymous note for the master-at-arms right after we had gone to sea and got tested promptly. He was gone the next day with an OTH.

18 SteveC  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:30:04pm

re: #4 Sharmuta

Oh noes! Obama iz comin to rip ohpin ur hearts!1!

It's cool! We can fix that now!

Youtube Video
19 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:30:36pm

Well it is about time...I hope it will be sooner then later.

20 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:31:02pm

How is the outrage machine going to cope for another 3 (and quite possibly 7!) more years?

21 SteveC  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:31:27pm

re: #13 Kosh's Shadow

This just in - there will be no more closets in the military.
///

If there are no more closets, where shall we store the skeletons?

22 Four More Tears  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:31:56pm

Oh noez, the gheys!

/snark

What are they really afraid of, anyway?

23 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:31:58pm

re: #16 BignJames

That's a right?...Management doesn't know my sexual preference.

If the military finds out, and it's the wrong one, you're fired.

Like that idea?

24 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:02pm

re: #21 SteveC

If there are no more closets, where shall we store the skeletons?

In bed.

25 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:09pm

re: #17 lone_wolf_in_illinois

Wow, it never worked for Klinger in M*A*S*H
///

26 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:13pm

re: #16 BignJames

That's a right?...Management doesn't know my sexual preference.

And what happens to those in the military when 'the management' finds out?
See the problem here?

27 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:25pm
28 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:25pm

re: #21 SteveC

If there are no more closets, where shall we store the skeletons?

OK, I guess there will be some closets

29 lone_wolf_in_illinois  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:38pm

re: #25 Kosh's Shadow

It's not your father's Navy!

30 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:32:54pm

re: #9 BignJames

Ummm, you can get married and can serve in the military while being open about your private life.
(or were you being sarcastic when you asked that?)

31 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:06pm

"I really mean it this time." Obama added. "Never mind that I've defended the policy in court, and that I've argued the ball is in Congress's court."

32 SteveC  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:19pm

re: #16 BignJames

That's a right?...Management doesn't know my sexual preference.

I've been so unlucky lately that my preference is "breathing".

///The last time I got some sugar was at the grocery store. :(

33 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:39pm

re: #29 lone_wolf_in_illinois

It's not your father's Navy!

And when I say there was no cannibalism, I mean there was some.

34 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:43pm

re: #20 bratwurst

How is the outrage machine going to cope for another 3 (and quite possibly 7!) more years?

You underestimate the vast, untapped reserves of wingnut rage. Shrill here. Shrill now.

35 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:33:58pm

re: #29 lone_wolf_in_illinois

It's not your father's Navy!

Or my uncle's. My uncle was in the Navy; my father was in the Army.
(My uncle was in the hospital with something; after he got out, someone thought they were seeing a ghost - his ship was sunk while he was in the hospital.)

36 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:34:27pm

It was a stupid policy for sure.

With women being allowed on subs now I am concerned about policies regarding gays and inter sex housing, but I guess the military brass will figure it out.

37 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:34:48pm

re: #34 Bloodnok

You underestimate the vast, untapped reserves of wingnut rage. Shrill here. Shrill now.

You are probably right.

38 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:35:38pm

re: #36 BigPapa

It was a stupid policy for sure.

With women being allowed on subs now I am concerned about policies regarding gays and inter sex housing, but I guess the military brass will figure it out.

Are you sure about that? Women on Subs?

39 SteveC  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:35:44pm

re: #29 lone_wolf_in_illinois

It's not your father's Navy!

Not another lecture on how back in The Day you used to swim uphill...

40 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:35:49pm

re: #31 KingKenrod

"I really mean it this time." Obama added. "Never mind that I've defended the policy in court, and that I've argued the ball is in Congress's court."

Hey, whaddayaknow. There's a lot of politics involved in this issue. Who'd a thunk?

Good for Obama for finally trying to cut the Gordian knot of bullshit.

41 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:35:51pm

re: #30 webevintage

Ummm, you can get married and can serve in the military while being open about your private life.
(or were you being sarcastic when you asked that?)


My private life is my business...why would I choose to share my sexual practices/preferences w/strangers?

42 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:37:03pm

re: #38 HoosierHoops

Looks like it. Here you go.
[Link: washingtontimes.com...]

43 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:37:20pm
44 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:37:36pm

Fascist gay felons from Acorn are going to invade our homes for the census!
/wingnut

45 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:37:52pm

re: #38 HoosierHoops

Are you sure about that? Women on Subs?

[Link: www.defenselink.mil...]

Yes, I was shocked about it too. I don't think it's a good idea.

46 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:38:09pm

re: #43 MikeySDCA

Am I the only one who remembers that the person who forced this bullshit on Willy was St. Colin of Powell?


Don't forget Sam Nunn.

47 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:38:32pm

re: #41 BignJames

My private life is my business...why would I choose to share my sexual practices/preferences w/strangers?

Have you ever had a PDA?

48 Four More Tears  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:38:35pm

re: #40 Charles

Hey, whaddayaknow. There's a lot of politics involved in this issue. Who'd a thunk?

Good for Obama for finally trying to cut through the bullshit.

Some people need to remember that the Dept. of Justice is supposed to enforce the laws, even the ones the President doesn't like.

49 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:39:22pm

It's about time.

50 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:39:24pm

re: #47 MandyManners

Have you ever had a PDA?


I don't know...wassa PDA?

51 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:40:07pm

re: #50 BignJames

I don't know...wassa PDA?

Public Display of Affection.

Have you ever held hands in public? Kissed or been kissed in public?

52 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:40:13pm
53 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:41:03pm

I've not heard BO's position on these laws before..is there legislation pending?...does Pelosi have this on her desk yet?

54 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:41:08pm

You guys know that, uhh, there are gays in the military right now, and that at the enlisted rank, the military doesn't care? The only times when they do care is when gay people go on the media and want the policy changed. They kind of have to in those cases.

55 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:41:26pm

Great. Wonderful. Now can we get medications, gas, and food cheaper?

No really. Good deal. He is doing something. Let's keep the inertia going.

I know this is important to some. And an atrocity to others. I have never heard of this truly affecting an army. Women in the military was going to be the end of the world, also, but somehow life goes on...

So now can we shuck that god forsaken olive-drab, and go for maybe something in a baby blue, or some shade of gold?
That would be fabulous.

56 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:41:49pm

re: #45 BigPapa

If this subs a 'rockin don't bother knockin

57 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:41:56pm

re: #43 MikeySDCA

Am I the only one who remembers that the person who forced this bullshit on Willy was St. Colin of Powell?

Nope.

58 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:43:04pm

re: #34 Bloodnok

You underestimate the vast, untapped reserves of wingnut rage. Shrill here. Shrill now.

Brilliant. I plan to steal that in future but will credit you! {nok}

59 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:44:08pm

re: #51 MandyManners

Public Display of Affection.

Have you ever held hands in public? Kissed or been kissed in public?


Yeah...but I don't make a habit of it...I see where you're going...so I'll state now that I personally don't care about Don't ask/ Don't tell..But in the larger scope...society at large...homosexuals enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

60 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:44:35pm

re: #45 BigPapa

[Link: www.defenselink.mil...]

Yes, I was shocked about it too. I don't think it's a good idea.


You are so wrong.
Two words.
Body Odor.

61 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:45:37pm

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

Looks like it. Here you go.
[Link: washingtontimes.com...]

Appearing on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Mabus signaled that the Navy is moving closer to allowing coed personnel on submarines.

“It will take a little while because you’ve got to interview people and you’ve got to be nuclear trained,” he said, referring to prerequisite steps before a sailor is assigned to a submarine.

I have no issue with women being on subs.. I am very proud of our Woman Sailors.. Very sharp...Very smart..Very Brave...
Good for America..We are finally growing up

62 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:45:38pm

Expect holy hell to be raised by:

The Family Research Council
Any other organization with the word "Family" in its name
Fox News
James Dobson
Wallbuilders
Pat Robertson
Michele Bachmann
Mike Huckabee
80% of the right wing blogs

etc. etc.

63 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:45:47pm

"Don't ask, don't tell" was an improvement over what came before, which was "we can ask and if you don't tell, we can make life living hell".

But its day is long past.

64 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:46:43pm

re: #59 BignJames

Yeah...but I don't make a habit of it...I see where you're going...so I'll state now that I personally don't care about Don't ask/ Don't tell..But in the larger scope...society at large...homosexuals enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

No they don't.
They cannot legally get married except in a few states.

65 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:46:58pm

re: #59 BignJames

Yeah...but I don't make a habit of it...I see where you're going...so I'll state now that I personally don't care about Don't ask/ Don't tell..But in the larger scope...society at large...homosexuals enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

Except that they kinda don't.

66 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:47:08pm

re: #62 Charles

Do you mean don't ask or women on Subs, or maybe both?

67 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:47:29pm

re: #64 webevintage

No they don't.
They cannot legally get married except in a few states.

They can get married in all 50 states.

68 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:48:01pm
69 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:48:07pm

re: #36 BigPapa

It was a stupid policy for sure.

With women being allowed on subs now I am concerned about policies regarding gays and inter sex housing, but I guess the military brass will figure it out.


I'm going to run out and patent some "going down"
submarine jokes and x-movie plotlines.
I'm going to be rich! Rich, I tell you!

70 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:48:08pm

apparently BO has opposed these laws for awhile now...why has there been no legislation proposed so far?...what's the holdup?

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

71 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:48:12pm

Just driving by at the moment, but FYI this is from yesterday-- the DADT policy result in a disproportionate dismissal of women:

More women than men dismissed from military for being gay

Women were dismissed from the military for being gay at a greater rate than men last year, according to new statistics obtained by a California research group.

(snip)

Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed.

BBL.

72 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:48:23pm

re: #67 BignJames

They can get married in all 50 states.

No, they cannot get a legal marriage in all 50 states.

73 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:49:09pm

re: #67 BignJames

They can get married in all 50 states.

Nope. They can not.

74 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:49:20pm

re: #71 iceweasel

Just driving by at the moment, but FYI this is from yesterday-- the DADT policy result in a disproportionate dismissal of women:

More women than men dismissed from military for being gay

BBL.

Sorry if I'm being stereotypical here, but I'd have an easier time imagining lesbians than i would gay men wanting to join the Army.

75 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:49:57pm

re: #72 MandyManners

No, they cannot get a legal marriage in all 50 states.


Yes they can...they can't marry someone of the same sex in many states...neither can I...neither can you.

76 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:50:18pm

re: #72 MandyManners

California-No gay marriage but very generous liberal civil union provisions in the law. My industry (jewelry) was all for it. Just a teensy bit selfish there. LOL.

77 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:50:27pm

re: #75 BignJames

Yes they can...they can't marry someone of the same sex in many states...neither can I...neither can you.


hehe tricky guy...

78 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:50:37pm

re: #74 Liberally Conservative

Sorry if I'm being stereotypical here, but I'd have an easier time imagining lesbians than i would gay men wanting to join the Army.

Sorry, but the desire to serve one's country doesn't seem to be influenced by sexual orientation or gender.

79 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:50:51pm

re: #75 BignJames

Yes they can...they can't marry someone of the same sex in many states...neither can I...neither can you.

BignDumb: "Heh, heh, heh. Tricked you."

80 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:50:53pm
81 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:51:12pm

re: #67 BignJames

They can get married in all 50 states.

Ok, I'll play.
How can they legally marry?

(and if you say they can marry people of the opposite sex, people they don't love or are not even remotely attracted too...then I will probably kick myself and heave a heavy sigh and shake my head)

82 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:51:13pm

re: #74 Liberally Conservative

Sorry if I'm being stereotypical here, but I'd have an easier time imagining lesbians than i would gay men wanting to join the Army.

The point, I believe, is just another way to remove woman from the armed forces.

83 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:51:54pm

re: #81 webevintage

Ok, I'll play.
How can they legally marry?

(and if you say they can marry people of the opposite sex, people they don't love or are not even remotely attracted too...then I will probably kick myself and heave a heavy sigh and shake my head)

Start kicking. That's exactly what he was saying.

84 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:51:57pm

re: #75 BignJames

Yes they can...they can't marry someone of the same sex in many states...neither can I...neither can you.

Are you thiking of legal domestic partnerships?

85 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:10pm

re: #59 BignJames

But in the larger scope...society at large...homosexuals enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

Yes, just as women do. But that does not mean anybody has a right to anything they want to do, not does it necessarily mean that having all men/women/homosexuals do anything and everything together is necessarily beneficial either.

86 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:13pm

re: #80 MikeySDCA

Have you ever heard of Alexander the Great? He really liked the Army.

That sort of relationship was actually really common in ancient Greece and Rome.

87 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:15pm

re: #80 MikeySDCA

Have you ever heard of Alexander the Great? He really liked the Army.

Talk about gays in the military!
-Nathan Lane

88 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:15pm

re: #81 webevintage

Ok, I'll play.
How can they legally marry?

(and if you say they can marry people of the opposite sex, people they don't love or are not even remotely attracted too...then I will probably kick myself and heave a heavy sigh and shake my head)

That's what he said.

89 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:38pm
90 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:47pm

re: #84 MandyManners

Are you thiking of legal domestic partnerships?


I have no problem with that.

91 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:52:49pm

re: #75 BignJames

It's still civil rights violation. Suppose there were still laws against interracial marriage, blacks were free to marry but only within their own race. It's asinine that this is even a topic of debate today. Stay out of people's lives and their bedrooms.

92 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:53:33pm

re: #85 BigPapa

Yes, just as women do. But that does not mean anybody has a right to anything they want to do, not does it necessarily mean that having all men/women/homosexuals do anything and everything together is necessarily beneficial either.

who is advocating that people have a right to do what ever they want to do?

93 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:54:04pm

appears BO does not take this issue all that serious...he seems frozen in mid stride for some reason...politics, he's making a plan I guess

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

94 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:54:09pm

re: #85 BigPapa

Yes, just as women do. But that does not mean anybody has a right to anything they want to do, not does it necessarily mean that having all men/women/homosexuals do anything and everything together is necessarily beneficial either.


Yeah...serial killers run into that alot.

95 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:03pm

re: #94 BignJames

Yeah...serial killers run into that alot.

What. The. Hell.

96 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:14pm

re: #91 Killgore Trout

It's still civil rights violation. Suppose there were still laws against interracial marriage, blacks were free to marry but only within their own race. It's asinine that this is even a topic of debate today. Stay out of people's lives and their bedrooms.

Cue a wingnut claiming it will lead to people marrying boxturtles, animals, their relatives, tables and chairs, and the End Times.

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Ok, now I'm really out of here for a bit--

97 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:29pm

re: #94 BignJames

Yeah...serial killers run into that alot.

Huh?

98 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:42pm

re: #91 Killgore Trout

It's still civil rights violation. Suppose there were still laws against interracial marriage, blacks were free to marry but only within their own race. It's asinine that this is even a topic of debate today. Stay out of people's lives and their bedrooms.


How is it a civil rights violation?

99 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:47pm

re: #96 iceweasel

Cue a wingnut claiming it will lead to people marrying boxturtles, animals, their relatives, tables and chairs, and the End Times.

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Ok, now I'm really out of here for a bit--

dont forget to add "serial killers" to the list
/

100 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:55:52pm

re: #96 iceweasel

Cue a wingnut claiming it will lead to people marrying boxturtles, animals, their relatives, tables and chairs, and the End Times.

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Ok, now I'm really out of here for a bit--

Whoops! already happened at 94! that was fast.

101 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:56:32pm

re: #75 BignJames

Yes they can...they can't marry someone of the same sex in many states...neither can I...neither can you.

This is a pedantic observation, which leads me to beware that more are coming. The fact is they cannot form consensual marriages with the subset of adults they are predisposed to fall in love with, therefore they are unfairly discriminated against.

102 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:57:39pm

re: #98 BignJames

Because you have no right to impose your religious beliefs about same sex marriage on others. Let them live their lives as they wish. It takes nothing away from you.

103 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:57:41pm

re: #98 BignJames

How is it a civil rights violation?

Isn't the refusal to allow homosexuals the right to marry an endorsement of those religions which oppose homosexuality, thereby violating the First Amendment?

104 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:58:00pm

re: #98 BignJames

How is it a civil rights violation?

For the same reason it's a violation in Killgore's 91...

105 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:58:10pm

re: #74 Liberally Conservative

Yes, Amazon Warriors in the Avocado Forest was an excellent movie, but maybe you should check out some different genres.

106 BignJames  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:58:17pm

re: #101 goddamnedfrank

This is a pedantic observation, which leads me to beware that more are coming. The fact is they cannot form consensual marriages with the subset of adults they are predisposed to fall in love with, therefore they are unfairly discriminated against.


Because thats the law...it applies equally to everybody...or at least it's supposed to.

107 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:58:58pm

I don't understand how gay marriage can be a state issue. It has to be on a national level. The marriage contract is a legal document so if you have a legal issue outside of the state you married in, it would not be upheld? Say a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts. They go to Ohio and get into an accident where one is in a coma. Does the other have any legal rights to care for that person? I don't see how.

Civil unions are unfair to straights. I can't reap the legal benefits of marriage with a boyfriend. I have to marry for that. It's far too complicated. Make it simple. Let them marry.

108 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:59:06pm

re: #103 MandyManners

Isn't the refusal to allow homosexuals the right to marry an endorsement of those religions which oppose homosexuality, thereby violating the First Amendment?

It's more of a 14th amendment violation.

109 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:59:28pm

re: #106 BignJames

Because thats the law...it applies equally to everybody...or at least it's supposed to.

Why is it the law? Is it because it 'violates' a certain groups religious beliefs?

110 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:59:40pm

re: #59 BignJames

.But in the larger scope...society at large...homosexuals enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

Except for:

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes unexpectedly incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

111 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 6:59:55pm

re: #106 BignJames

Because thats the law...it applies equally to everybody...or at least it's supposed to.

No, it applies only to homosexuals.

112 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:00:26pm

re: #94 BignJames

Yeah...serial killers run into that alot.

Equating gay people with serial killers.

Yep. That's a guaranteed way to lose your LGF account.

113 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:00:39pm
114 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:01:03pm

re: #78 iceweasel

Sorry, but the desire to serve one's country doesn't seem to be influenced by sexual orientation or gender.

20 years working on Nuclear Subs for the Navy I would agree with you...
It's easy to judge people from the outside.. But from the inside I am deeply proud of our Kids...I went to school with about 1/3 of our class being women in Nuclear Training.. This isn't play school..Many of these ladies helped me in my class work..There were times I helped them in the reactor..
I am deeply proud to work beside them for 20 years...I would be proud to see a woman Commander take her out to sea..
Very proud..
(Damn now I have funny stories to tell you guys...My friend stuck in the fan room cause she had such big b00bs. How I got her out ) oh no...

115 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:01:47pm

re: #92 Boyo

who is advocating that people have a right to do what ever they want to do?

I guess nobody since I'm sure not. Then what compelling reason do we have for this policy? In 99% of all other situations it's fine to replicate the society at large, no problem.

I don't know if that should be the same on a nuclear sub.

116 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:01:48pm

re: #106 BignJames

Because thats the law...it applies equally to everybody...or at least it's supposed to.

That's just it. The law isn't being applied equally to them. They can't marry for love like the rest of us do. They can only marry a member of the opposite sex, to whom they're not attracted. They think their rights are being violated- and they are.

117 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:02:24pm

re: #110 negativ

Exactly. These are the legal issues I'm talking about.

Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. You can still love each other without the contract, but the law affords you certain rights as a married couple. All this dancing around the issue is ridiculous IMO. Let them marry.

118 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:02:25pm

re: #110 negativ

I'm sure BignBigoted will find a way to justify all that.

Whoops!

Guess not.

119 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:02:42pm

Billy Jeff blames Don't Ask Don't Tell on Colin Powell. It sure wasn't his own fault.

Speaking at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh, Clinton said: "When Gen. Colin Powell came up with this Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it was defined while he was chairman much differently than it was implemented (Powell) said: 'If you will accept this, here's what we'll do. We will not pursue anyone. Any military members out of uniform will be free to march in gay rights parades, go to gay bars, go to political meetings. Whatever mailings they get, whatever they do in their private lives, none of this will be a basis for dismissal.' It all turned out to be a fraud...
120 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:02:52pm

re: #80 MikeySDCA

Have you ever heard of Alexander the Great? He really liked the Army.

Alexander the Grape was yummy.
[Link: www.ilike.org.uk...]

121 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:03:00pm

re: #106 BignJames

Because thats the law...it applies equally to everybody...or at least it's supposed to.

Another pedantic observation. Using the nebulous term "the law" to justify that which is blatantly unjust is simply a meaningless tautological non-thought. Try again.

122 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:03:15pm

re: #107 marjoriemoon

The Feds have no jurisdiction. See enumeration of powers. Its up to the states to decide to accept other states licenses. Or not. Example-Lawyers and Doctors licenses. We do see rare problems with marriage licenses. Like one state opposes a very young persons marriage and another allows it. I recall once where a very young woman married and they then moved. That state arrested her husband for their sexual acts despite their being married in the home state. I might have some details wrong but that was the gist.

123 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:03:37pm

re: #118 Cato the Elder

I'm sure BignBigoted will find a way to justify all that.

Whoops!

Guess not.

Damn, I was sooo looking forward to more of its insight!
/

124 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:03:55pm

re: #113 MikeySDCA

Full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Ahhh well, then if the marriage is recognized in all 50 states, why do 48 of them (48?) have a problem with gay marriage?

125 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:03:56pm

re: #119 Mich-again

Billy Jeff blames Don't Ask Don't Tell on Colin Powell. It sure wasn't his own fault.

No wonder they call him Slick.

126 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:04:07pm

re: #112 Charles

Oh man is that what that was? I could not figure what was being meant there. WOW.

127 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:04:50pm

re: #124 marjoriemoon

Beware of the limits to that clause.

128 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:06:39pm

re: #122 Rightwingconspirator

The Feds have no jurisdiction. See enumeration of powers. Its up to the states to decide to accept other states licenses. Or not. Example-Lawyers and Doctors licenses. We do see rare problems with marriage licenses. Like one state opposes a very young persons marriage and another allows it. I recall once where a very young woman married and they then moved. That state arrested her husband for their sexual acts despite their being married in the home state. I might have some details wrong but that was the gist.

But according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (thanks Mikey) it would be unconstitutional to not accept a license from another state.

129 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:06:45pm

re: #115 BigPapa

I guess nobody since I'm sure not. Then what compelling reason do we have for this policy? In 99% of all other situations it's fine to replicate the society at large, no problem.

I don't know if that should be the same on a nuclear sub.


"But that does not mean anybody has a right to anything they want to do, not does it necessarily mean that having all men/women/homosexuals do anything and everything together is necessarily beneficial either."


so all of that was your straw man?

130 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:07:05pm

re: #126 Rightwingconspirator

Oh man is that what that was? I could not figure what was being meant there. WOW.

Seriously. My brain went 'There is no f'ing way he meant what I think he meant'... That kind of bigotry completely overwhelmed my though process.

131 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:07:31pm

Its about damn time.

132 EvilDave3  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:07:34pm

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; that is my commitment,” said Obama,

Will he do that right after closing Gitmo?

133 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:07:40pm

re: #127 Rightwingconspirator

Beware of the limits to that clause.

It would appear I don't know my constitution as well as I should!

134 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:07:47pm

re: #130 Varek Raith

Seriously. My brain went 'There is no f'ing way he meant what I think he meant'... That kind of bigotry completely overwhelmed my thought process.

135 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:08:26pm

re: #132 EvilDave3

Why the Gitmo comparison? Do you think this is just pandering to the lefties?

136 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:09:05pm

re: #127 Rightwingconspirator

Beware of the limits to that clause.

I'm also thinking of medical marijuana. That is a state-by-state issue yes?

137 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:09:22pm

re: #129 Boyo

"so all of that was your straw man?

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

138 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:10:06pm

Are we even getting a preview of the hateful rhetoric we'll see on some blogs?

139 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:10:11pm

Flouce-o-Meter lighting up.

140 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:10:33pm

re: #138 Sharmuta

Are we even getting a preview of the hateful rhetoric we'll see on some blogs?

Possibly... How sad.

141 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:10:47pm

re: #132 EvilDave3

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; that is my commitment,” said Obama,

Will he do that right after closing Gitmo?

BO has not done jack shit to help these people...the whole issue is on the back burner, hence the allusion to the "glacial pace' from the post...he seems to be waiting for events to shape his thinking rather than express real leadership...but that's not the point I guess

142 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:11:41pm

re: #128 marjoriemoon

Oh yes indeed. A persons medical marijuana card would not fly in Arizona.Or CCW cards. Whoops marijuana and guns do not belong in the same post! LOL

143 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:11:41pm

re: #135 Dan G.

Why the Gitmo comparison? Do you think this is just pandering to the lefties?

I didn't read it that way. I read it that he was doubting that Obama would keep this promise just like he hasn't kept his Gitmo promise.

144 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:11:58pm

re: #136 marjoriemoon

I'm also thinking of medical marijuana. That is a state-by-state issue yes?

The states can approve it, but many drug laws are set at the Federal level and while local police might not act, the DEA or FBI could.

145 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:12:52pm

re: #143 Spare O'Lake

Possibly, but that's why I asked and didn't just ding. There is, IMHO, a HUGE difference between the two cases.

146 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:12:56pm

re: #130 Varek Raith

Seriously. My brain went 'There is no f'ing way he meant what I think he meant'... That kind of bigotry completely overwhelmed my though process.

But you could smell it coming from his very first post:

re: #9 BignJames

I'm sorry...do I posess some special right that these folks lack?

147 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:13:01pm

re: #132 EvilDave3

32 comments in 2 years and you just drop snark and innuendo?

148 splat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:13:09pm

About time this ridiculous thing was abandoned. Let's not forget closeted hypocrites like Larry Craig originally voted for it.

149 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:13:22pm

re: #144 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The states can approve it, but many drug laws are set at the Federal level and while local police might not act, the DEA or FBI could.

I am not at all versed in law, but is any of that illegal, either on the states or feds part?

150 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:13:57pm

re: #144 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We are way down that road here in Cali.

151 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:14:51pm

Did you folks see the recent TX case?

Dallas judge paves way for gay couple to get divorce

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

But then...

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men's divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas, a Texas court can't dissolve one through divorce.

So if the AG is against gay divorce, does that mean he's for gay marriage?

An interesting court case to be sure...

152 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:15:21pm

re: #128 marjoriemoon

Looking at Mikeys link we also see this goes to SCOTUS to sort out the tough ones.

153 lone_wolf_in_illinois  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:15:22pm

re: #126 Rightwingconspirator

Oh man is that what that was? I could not figure what was being meant there. WOW.

I had to read it a few times to understand it myself.

154 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:15:59pm

re: #143 Spare O'Lake

I didn't read it that way. I read it that he was doubting that Obama would keep this promise just like he hasn't kept his Gitmo promise.

what exactly is he doing?...he's assessing the situation and has been for months and months...he may not even have his own party behind him enough to push through any legislation...but I can't find anywhere that he has tried to rally support for a change

[Link: www.boston.com...]

155 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:16:10pm

re: #144 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The states can approve it, but many drug laws are set at the Federal level and while local police might not act, the DEA or FBI could.

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't having a prescription take care of that?

156 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:16:32pm

For the record. I'm a USAF veteran and I preemptively call bullshit on any claims that this will hurt esprit de corps (the typical line I hear). I knew some of the men and women I served with were gay. Surprisingly (/sarc) this fact didn't hamper their competence.

157 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:16:36pm

Photoshopping wingnuts already working on it.
Outrageous!

158 Jimmah  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:16:47pm

Gay rights 'n' stuff is all well and good in the wider society but we can't have them wandering about near nuclear materials.///

159 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:17:03pm

re: #149 Varek Raith

I am not at all versed in law, but is any of that illegal, either on the states or feds part?

It comes down to State versus Federal powers

160 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:17:38pm

re: #148 splat

About time this ridiculous thing was abandoned. Let's not forget closeted hypocrites like Larry Craig originally voted for it.

Larry Craig?!
Note to self...
Never have a wide stance in a Airport bathroom stall
Don't shake my hand under the stall unless really..Honest to Gawd there is no paper..( Have you ever stepped into a bathroom stall that you didn't see if there wasn't t-p paper? Once?)
Just for the hell of it..Lie to a policeman..
Other than that...
Larry Craig..That's for that..I needed a good laugh!
*wink*

161 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:17:53pm

re: #157 Killgore Trout

Photoshopping wingnuts already working on it.
Outrageous!

This is going to take the ugly to a whole new level.

162 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:18:12pm

re: #157 Killgore Trout

Photoshopping wingnuts already working on it.
Outrageous!

lol

I'm sorry, I think that's funny.

163 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:18:31pm

re: #155 marjoriemoon

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't having a prescription take care of that?

No. If you were picked up by the DEA, they would tell you the substance is illegal under federal law and any permit or prescription is illegal/unlawful as well.

164 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:18:49pm

re: #161 Charles

This is going to take the ugly to a whole new level.

Absolutely. If there's one thing they obsess on more than any other, it's sex.

165 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:19:16pm

Any military/politics history buffs out there? How does the current resistance to "homosexual integration" (arguments etc...) mirror those made against integrating blacks and women into the services?

166 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:19:20pm
167 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:19:44pm

re: #152 Rightwingconspirator

Looking at Mikeys link we also see this goes to SCOTUS to sort out the tough ones.

Interesting.

We have two gay couples on my block. FL, of course, doesn't recognize gay marriage. They've done everything legally to try to cover themselves. Power of attorneys, wills and such. I guess it depends if an outside family member should try to intervene if something happened to one of them. I mean look at Terry Shiavo and she was legally married at the time.

168 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:01pm

re: #166 ripley45

Hey, at least you were quick.

169 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:11pm

re: #155 marjoriemoon

Dang, my knowledge on this is going to out me as a card holder. So Be It. Okay. We don't get real prescriptions. We get this letter from a doctor, who dares not truly prescribe a federally proscribed substance. Plus, no "proof" of safety and efficacy under Federal prescription drug guidelines. We get a card we can show to the police if stopped. If the pot is in the trunk no problem. If its in a pipe in the car ashtray-DUI.
Are we too far off topic? I'm a relatively new poster here...

170 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:16pm

And there goes another one. If you dont like it, dont come around in the first place.

171 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:17pm

Flounce away, little flounceling!

172 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:42pm

I taw a flounce!

173 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:46pm

re: #171 Charles

He sure showed you!

174 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:48pm

Re 166, Kthxby. Freaking idiot.

175 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:20:49pm

re: #145 Dan G.

Possibly, but that's why I asked and didn't just ding. There is, IMHO, a HUGE difference between the two cases.

Agreed. Obama should propose, and Congress should pass, a constitutional amendment to do away with all discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

176 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:21:25pm

re: #163 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No. If you were picked up by the DEA, they would tell you the substance is illegal under federal law and any permit or prescription is illegal/unlawful as well.

Don't seem to see any of those 'State's Rights' Tea Partiers squawking about that for some reason. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

177 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:22:32pm

re: #162 bluecheese

They should have used a photo from "Rocky Horror",
I'm thinking a paste-over of "Magenta".

178 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:22:37pm

re: #139 Bagua

Flouce-o-Meter lighting up.

Cunningly accurate.

179 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:22:38pm

re: #162 bluecheese

I think it's funny too. We'll see how far they take this.

180 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:23:00pm

re: #176 Slumbering Behemoth

You will see me squawking about it. I'm a huge fan of states rights. What works for Rhode Island just might not be in the best interests of the State Of (Fill in blank)

181 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:23:02pm

re: #155 marjoriemoon

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't having a prescription take care of that?

No. Technically states that pass Medical Marijuana laws are violating federal law. States are basically saying "you made your decision, now let's see you enforce it."

As to why this situation has not been straightened out, I don't know. I support Medical Marijuana (to a point) but don't support states violating federal law, even if the law is a bad law. There is a process to deal with this in our system. Why it's being ignored for this one issue is beyond me.

182 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:24:18pm

re: #178 Bagua

Cunningly accurate.

Yep, 1 flounce and 1 bigot.

183 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:24:40pm

re: #139 Bagua

Flouce-o-Meter lighting up.

Butthurt meter is going up too:

Youtube Video
184 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:24:43pm

re: #169 Rightwingconspirator

hehe I think you're cool :) and I didn't mean to out you!

Personally I'm for the legalization of MJ. In the very least, the decriminalizing of it.

185 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:24:49pm

re: #181 ArchangelMichael

If a person gets caught in a National park, its federal. if its a local park, there will be no Federal authority to act on it. Or in my living room.

186 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:25:02pm

re: #180 Rightwingconspirator

Counties are closing down dispensarys all over my little corner of CA. Haven't heard a peep from the Tea Party People about it.

187 Dr. Shalit  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:25:22pm

There are "Gay" members of the Military today as there have been from time immemorial, as there will be tomorrow and the day after. What counts is competence in carrying out missions, not what happens during off hours.
With that in mind, going back to the original concept of No Ask/No Tell under some other name would be a good start.

-S-

188 splat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:25:30pm

Could it be... that certain elements are worried that army could catch 'teh ghey' from this ?

Do these same people think this is a warning for the future ?

Youtube Video
189 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:25:35pm

re: #185 Rightwingconspirator

If a person gets caught in a National park, its federal. if its a local park, there will be no Federal authority to act on it. Or in my living room.

DEA has raided state run clinics in California.

190 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:26:05pm

re: #184 marjoriemoon

Thanks for the kindness. Hey if my gay friends can out for cause, its fine for me. No seekrits! Just privacy for those who choose it.

191 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:26:21pm

re: #181 ArchangelMichael

No. Technically states that pass Medical Marijuana laws are violating federal law. States are basically saying "you made your decision, now let's see you enforce it."

As to why this situation has not been straightened out, I don't know. I support Medical Marijuana (to a point) but don't support states violating federal law, even if the law is a bad law. There is a process to deal with this in our system. Why it's being ignored for this one issue is beyond me.

evil weed...the whole issue seeths with hypocricy that people don't want to deal with

192 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:26:47pm

re: #188 splat

That and too much butt secks and not enough fightin'

193 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:27:18pm

re: #186 Slumbering Behemoth

Counties are closing down dispensarys all over my little corner of CA. Haven't heard a peep from the Tea Party People about it.

Good for them. I don't favor legalizing pot. We don't need more intoxicants in general use.

194 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:27:26pm

There's going to be a whole lot of ugly on this thread, and in the wingnutsphere for sure over this.

I can do no better than to quote Bette:

Youtube Video
195 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:27:27pm

re: #115 BigPapa

I guess nobody since I'm sure not. Then what compelling reason do we have for this policy? In 99% of all other situations it's fine to replicate the society at large, no problem.

I don't know if that should be the same on a nuclear sub.

nuculers+teh gheys=do no want
//

196 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:27:39pm

re: #184 marjoriemoon

hehe I think you're cool :) and I didn't mean to out you!

Personally I'm for the legalization of MJ. In the very least, the decriminalizing of it.

Warning!

Youtube Video
197 Kragar  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:27:40pm

Also, the means of getting a medical marijuana "prescription" are laughable at best. There are literally dozens of "clinics" around where you come in and describe your symptoms, such as stress or pain, pay the fee and walk out with permit in less than 30 minutes, start to finish.

198 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:28:00pm

re: #188 splat

Upding for Python.

199 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:28:11pm

re: #193 Dark_Falcon

Good for them. I don't favor legalizing pot. We don't need more intoxicants in general use.

as you pop open another brewski...got it

200 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:28:23pm

re: #181 ArchangelMichael

No. Technically states that pass Medical Marijuana laws are violating federal law. States are basically saying "you made your decision, now let's see you enforce it."

As to why this situation has not been straightened out, I don't know. I support Medical Marijuana (to a point) but don't support states violating federal law, even if the law is a bad law. There is a process to deal with this in our system. Why it's being ignored for this one issue is beyond me.

So I guess the moral of the story is not to venture too far from home.

201 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:29:04pm

re: #176 Slumbering Behemoth

Don't seem to see any of those 'State's Rights' Tea Partiers squawking about that for some reason. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Well, you got your libertarian tea partiers, and you got your bible-thumping tea partiers. They could have their own drug war if they weren't all busy hatin' the Prez.

202 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:29:37pm

re: #181 ArchangelMichael

No. Technically states that pass Medical Marijuana laws are violating federal law. States are basically saying "you made your decision, now let's see you enforce it."

As to why this situation has not been straightened out, I don't know. I support Medical Marijuana (to a point) but don't support states violating federal law, even if the law is a bad law. There is a process to deal with this in our system. Why it's being ignored for this one issue is beyond me.


As I understand it, to deal with it properly there are international treaties that would have to be abrogated.

203 Bloodnok  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:29:40pm

re: #166 ripley45

I think I know where you're headed. Because I've heard that there is a site.

There is a site where despite your lack of knowledge and command of facts you can be treated as a hero for simply saying bad things about the people here.

There is a site where the most juvenile, brain dead ramblings are passed off as brilliant snark.

There is a site where a poster can yell "first!" all the day long and NEVER get tired of it.

There is a site where you can finally call people c---s to your heart's content and be applauded for it!

There is a site where even the weakest, most psychopathic minds can rightfully feel superior to the administrators.

And there is a site where you will never be challenged by mean, nasty libruls and where every commenter claims to have won every argument they were ever in at LGF.

Yes, yes. There is a site, Ripley. There is a site.

204 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:29:43pm

re: #195 Boyo

nuculers+teh gheys=do no want

Why bother with you?

205 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:29:50pm

re: #189 ArchangelMichael

Yes indeed. Hence Obamas change in policy was welcome. I suggest anyone interested in these details look at California's AG written guidelines.
[Link: www.safeaccessnow.net...]

Which BTW flies in the face of L.A.'s Prosecutor agenda on the clubs. You know the guy who is up for re-election and just happens to be famous for Roman Polanski's arrest! Steve Cooley.

Electoral coincidence? No Such Animal.

206 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:30:15pm

re: #191 albusteve

evil weed...the whole issue seeths with hypocricy that people don't want to deal with

Absolutely.

207 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:30:23pm

Gay / Straight whatever...the blood bleeds the same on the battlefield and I am grateful for all their service.

208 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:30:39pm

re: #6 Charles

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a horrible piece of governmentally sanctioned hypocrisy, and it can't end soon enough.

Started by Clinton. But if you ask I bet 8 out of 10 Democrats would blame Bush.

209 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:30:40pm

re: #201 KingKenrod

Well, you got your libertarian tea partiers, and you got your bible-thumping tea partiers. They could have their own drug war if they weren't all busy hatin' the Prez.

Flouride vs Thermosal Deathmatch!!

210 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:31:07pm

Ripley45 ..Your Flounce lasted for 15 seconds.. This post will last forever..
I'll tell you want is going on you little sock puppet freak..
You and all your buddies have jumped off the cliff..
Remember the Grown-ups in Charge for the last 8 years?
We are still here...We are not in charge.. But we sure as hell didn't put the Glenn Beck clown nose on and play a clown on Fox.
You think about that you clown flounce freak...

211 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:31:10pm

re: #199 albusteve

as you pop open another brewski...got it

Youtube Video
212 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:31:45pm

re: #209 Varek Raith

ahem... thimerosal

213 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:31:56pm

re: #208 Buck

Started by Clinton. But if you ask I bet 8 out of 10 Democrats would blame Bush.

Who cares who started it, or who gets the blame? It's still stupid policy.

214 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:32:22pm

Here is a fun one...

Youtube Video
215 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:32:29pm

re: #203 Bloodnok

"There is a site where even the weakest, most psychopathic minds can rightfully feel superior to the administrators."

That's gonna leave a mark.

216 Jimmah  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:32:31pm

re: #182 Varek Raith

Yep, 1 flounce and 1 bigot.

Probably already on their way to the Post-Iceweasel Support Group and Butthurt Aftermath Care Centre.

217 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:32:32pm

re: #212 Dan G.

ahem... thimerosal

Thanks!

218 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:33:12pm

re: #199 albusteve

as you pop open another brewski...got it

I don't drink beer or hard liqueur, and I drink wine very rarely. I don't like any intoxicants, but I do recognize that alcohol cannot be banned and have that ban enforced effectively, since I know Chicago's history. Pot however, is still illegal, and I hope to keep that door shut.

219 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:33:33pm

re: #203 Bloodnok


Yes, yes. There is a site, Ripley. There is a site.

There's a site...over at the Doucheblog's place...

Youtube Video
220 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:34:19pm

re: #216 Jimmah

Probably already on their way to the Post-Iceweasel Support Group and Butthurt Aftermath Care Centre.

PISGBAACC? Sounds...painful. :)

221 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:34:35pm

A few of you will remember this from the other night...
Image: ?action=view&current=One_Nation_Under_Cthulhu.jpg

222 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:34:38pm

Where's Killgore? Alton Brown is having a 10th anniversary show on the Food Network in a live theater or arena of some sort.

223 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:34:40pm

re: #193 Dark_Falcon

Would you support prohibiting booze? Or a a swap-Pot in booze out?

224 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:20pm

re: #218 Dark_Falcon

I don't drink beer or hard liqueur, and I drink wine very rarely. I don't like any intoxicants, but I do recognize that alcohol cannot be banned and have that ban enforced effectively, since I know Chicago's history. Pot however, is still illegal, and I hope to keep that door shut.

and I hope you don't get to impose your less than honest, repressive bullshit on me

225 Linden Arden  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:21pm

Think about all the gay-sex in the NFL where there is no 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy in the locker rooms!

It will destroy our military, no doubt!

(furiously looking for sarcasm tag...)

226 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:35pm

The problem with "Don't ask don't tell" is that it's just a half-assed policy.

227 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:46pm

re: #219 iceweasel

There's a site...over at the Doucheblog's place...


Oh man, you have to redub that.

228 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:56pm

Everyone is crying out for peace, yes, none is crying out for justice,

I don't want no peace

I need equal rights and justice.

Youtube Video
229 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:35:58pm

re: #209 Varek Raith

ROFL

230 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:36:10pm

re: #149 Varek Raith

I am not at all versed in law, but is any of that illegal, either on the states or feds part?

Depends who you ask.

California is certain it's a matter for the states to decide; 4 Supremes thought so too. John Ashcroft and 5 Supremes thought otherwise.

231 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:36:54pm

re: #208 Buck

Started by Clinton. But if you ask I bet 8 out of 10 Democrats would blame Bush.

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

232 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:37:10pm

re: #220 Varek Raith

PISGBAACC? Sounds...painful. :)

It's the sound they make when they try to log in again and find themselves banned.

First there's the hissing seething rage as they type frantically away, lips moving as they type: Psss

then the incoherent shriek of rage when they can't log in: GBAAAC! (this is also the sound of a head banging on a keyboard)

233 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:38:28pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

Exactly.

re: #63 Cato the Elder

"Don't ask, don't tell" was an improvement over what came before, which was "we can ask and if you don't tell, we can make life living hell".

But its day is long past.

234 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:38:33pm

re: #224 albusteve

We have this joke, that the gays came out of the closet just in time to give marijuana smokers a place to hide.

235 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:38:37pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

Was this a key ingredient to the Republican sweep of 1994?

236 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:39:07pm

re: #235 bluecheese

NO! Tiny issue as compared to the rest...

237 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:39:42pm

re: #218 Dark_Falcon

I don't drink beer or hard liqueur, and I drink wine very rarely. I don't like any intoxicants, but I do recognize that alcohol cannot be banned and have that ban enforced effectively, since I know Chicago's history. Pot however, is still illegal, and I hope to keep that door shut.

Pot is no better or worse than alcohol. It's a ridiculous law on the level of prohibition IMO. Used moderately is not a problem. Billions are spent prosecuting and imprisoning folks for small amounts as well as keeping the war on drugs from focusing on more dangerous substances.

Grow it locally, cut out the foreign countries, funding terror, etc. Now, you've just solved that problem. Let people grow their own within a specified amount for personal consumption.

238 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:39:55pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

and got stuffed by the Pentagon...he did the best he could imo

239 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:39:57pm

re: #235 bluecheese

I don't think so. I was sold on "balanced budget" etc... the fiscal promises.

240 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:06pm

re: #236 Rightwingconspirator

NO! Tiny issue as compared to the rest...

snark?

241 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:13pm

re: #235 bluecheese

Was this a key ingredient to the Republican sweep of 1994?

No- the key ingredient was the Contract with America. People wanted fiscal responsibility back in Washington, and it had wide appeal.

Unfortunately, the GOP no longer seems interested in pandering to that base.

242 Jimmah  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:18pm

re: #203 Bloodnok

I think I know where you're headed. Because I've heard that there is a site.

There is a site where despite your lack of knowledge and command of facts you can be treated as a hero for simply saying bad things about the people here.

There is a site where the most juvenile, brain dead ramblings are passed off as brilliant snark.

There is a site where a poster can yell "first!" all the day long and NEVER get tired of it.

There is a site where you can finally call people c---s to your heart's content and be applauded for it!

There is a site where even the weakest, most psychopathic minds can rightfully feel superior to the administrators.

And there is a site where you will never be challenged by mean, nasty libruls and where every commenter claims to have won every argument they were ever in at LGF.

Yes, yes. There is a site, Ripley. There is a site.

Absolutely spot on, Bloodnok.

243 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:20pm

Equal rights and Justice

Obama's latest outrageous idea.

244 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:29pm

re: #227 marjoriemoon

Oh man, you have to redub that.

Heh. Jimmah-Ice Productions has some plans in mind for them. We're working on several projects!

Our Glenn beck vid was doing very well yesterday, heh.

245 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:38pm

re: #236 Rightwingconspirator

NO! Tiny issue as compared to the rest...

Wasn't it the health care debacle? (I was 12 at the time)

246 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:40:58pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

As somebody just said, it was a half assed policy.

There undeniably was a wall of bigotry and intolerance in society against homosexuality and some vestiges of that wall remain. But, at what point is that wall entirely gone?

247 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:41:31pm

re: #235 bluecheese

Was this a key ingredient to the Republican sweep of 1994?

That's right - because the GOP was incensed that Clinton didn't go further in support of gay rights.

248 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:41:48pm

re: #157 Killgore Trout

Ouch my eyes hurt!

249 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:42:12pm

re: #246 BigPapa

When it is gone in the only place that matters... the law. There will always be bigots, but the law doesn't need to be bigoted.

250 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:42:14pm

re: #241 Sharmuta

No- the key ingredient was the Contract with America. People wanted fiscal responsibility back in Washington, and it had wide appeal.

Unfortunately, the GOP no longer seems interested in pandering to that base.

glory days gone by

251 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:42:26pm

re: #188 splat

Could it be... that certain elements are worried that army could catch 'teh ghey' from this ?

Yes, it would be terrible if our military were to emulate the SAS or IDF. Wouldn't want to sink to their level.

//

252 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:43:45pm

re: #241 Sharmuta

No- the key ingredient was the Contract with America. People wanted fiscal responsibility back in Washington, and it had wide appeal.

Unfortunately, the GOP no longer seems interested in pandering to that base.

When on the time line, did Clinton raise taxes? How did that fit in?

253 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:45:13pm

re: #249 Dan G.

When it is gone in the only place that matters... the law. There will always be bigots, but the law doesn't need to be bigoted.

Does thinking it's a bad idea for men and women to serve on submarines make one a bigot?

254 dugmartsch  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:45:36pm

re: #188 splat

The reason that this is such a big deal for the religious right, crazy conservatives, and bigots is because they know their history.

The black civil rights movement had basically stalled before the civil war, but when people saw their courage and tenacity and competence on the field of battle, the entire picture changed.

One openly gay man putting his life on the line in defense of his county would change the gay rights debate overnight. Gay marriage would be so close behind it would make your head spin and would just be the start towards full equality.

255 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:45:39pm

re: #45 BigPapa

[Link: www.defenselink.mil...]

Yes, I was shocked about it too. I don't think it's a good idea.

Think about it for a minute, if gays can control themselves on a sub, so can heterosexuals. I'm not saying there won't be problems, there always will be, it's our sexual nature. I figured women on surface ships would be a disaster, and although not without issues, it seems to work.

256 Jimmah  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:45:55pm

re: #232 iceweasel

It's the sound they make when they try to log in again and find themselves banned.

First there's the hissing seething rage as they type frantically away, lips moving as they type: Psss

then the incoherent shriek of rage when they can't log in: GBAAAC! (this is also the sound of a head banging on a keyboard)

Brilliant as ever, ice-ski :) And here's what that looks like :

Image: loveyourjob5qj.gif

257 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:46:43pm

re: #252 bluecheese

Not sure how that fits in. It wasn't an issue of Clinton raising taxes, it was of congress spending more than the tax revenues brought in, and spending on things that the government shouldn't be spending on. It wasn't so much as an anti-Clinton move (though, there was a lot of that out there), as an appeal for a more disciplined congress.

258 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:47:09pm

re: #252 bluecheese

When on the time line, did Clinton raise taxes? How did that fit in?

read the controversy here...

[Link: www.heritage.org...]

259 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:47:35pm

re: #256 Jimmah

Brilliant as ever, ice-ski :) And here's what that looks like :

[Link: img214.imageshack.us...]

IOW, your average X-Box Live user.
/

260 wrenchwench  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:48:24pm

re: #253 BigPapa

Does thinking it's a bad idea for men and women to serve on submarines make one a bigot?

Not necessarily. My significant other was in the Navy for 11 years, and he is not a bigot, and he has reservations about it. I have to respect his perspective, and yours.

261 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:49:51pm

re: #223 Rightwingconspirator

re: #224 albusteve

re: #237 marjoriemoon

I know I'm something of a jerk on the issue of intoxicants. I am that way for reasons I cannot say online. Suffice it to say my stance on intoxicants is the result of seeing the harm that alcohol does (though I am not a Prohibitionist). Feel free to downding when I step into these sorts of conversations, but do understand that my inclinations are not simply me being a busybody fun-eater.

262 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:02pm

re: #43 MikeySDCA

Am I the only one who remembers that the person who forced this bullshit on Willy was St. Colin of Powell?

The fact that Clinton tried to do it early in his administration and took a big political hit is why Obama pushed it back IMHO. The fact that he's still going to do it takes some balls and has it's risks even today.

263 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:11pm

James Dobson is working on his press release right now. Tony Perkins is angrily telling his interns to get on the phone and set up news conferences. Pat Robertson is writing his 700 Club sermon.

This is going to be the most outrageous outrage ever.

264 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:12pm

re: #237 marjoriemoon

Pot is no better or worse than alcohol.

Medically speaking, booze is far worse than pot.

In the entire history of the world, there's never been a single documented case of marijuana overdose; there does not exist an emergency room in this country that doesn't see alcohol poisoning on a regular basis.

265 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:40pm

re: #67 BignJames

They can get married in all 50 states.

Uhh, you mean they have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex that they are not physically attracted to in the least? Here is a nice cartoon example of your argument...

Image: 11l7jt5.png

266 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:46pm

re: #253 BigPapa

No, It's a bad idea to impose or work to impose that thinking.

267 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:49pm

re: #253 BigPapa

If your beliefs don't take facts into account, but rather ignore them, then yes. It is possible to have the concerns you raise without being a bigot, but your mind shouldn't be impervious to facts. I believe that a submariner weighed in on this issue up thread and didn't seem to have problems with it.

So, if you have particular reasons for opposing men and women on subs, but the facts don't bear out the consequences that you feared... and then you still don't change your opinion, then you're a bigot.

268 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:50:56pm

re: #263 Charles

James Dobson is working on his press release right now. Tony Perkins is angrily telling his interns to get on the phone and set up news conferences. Pat Robertson is writing his 700 Club sermon.

This is going to be the most outrageous outrage ever.

Lord only knows what Dan Riehl is doing.

269 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:51:19pm

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

You get an up from me for candor. We all react to lifes lessons. Well I wish we all did!

270 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:51:21pm

re: #255 avanti

Think about it for a minute, if gays can control themselves on a sub, so can heterosexuals. I'm not saying there won't be problems, there always will be, it's our sexual nature. I figured women on surface ships would be a disaster, and although not without issues, it seems to work.

Woman running Tenders has really influenced the Navy...
This is a matter of talent and professionalism...
Our American Women are top notch...

271 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:51:36pm

re: #268 Sharmuta

Lord only knows what Dan Riehl is doing.

Getting Riehly pissed?

272 Interested and concerned CDN  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:51:38pm

re: #263 Charles

I don't think it will be...we'll see.

273 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:51:55pm

re: #255 avanti

Think about it for a minute, if gays can control themselves on a sub, so can heterosexuals. I'm not saying there won't be problems, there always will be, it's our sexual nature. I figured women on surface ships would be a disaster, and although not without issues, it seems to work.

Gays are men and women. I don't know if gays are better or worse at managing their sexuality than heterosexuals. It seems that a many heteros can't either.

Nuclear subs sometimes stay under for months at a time, working 12 hour shifts. People get stressed and are in closer proximity than most other military positions: I don't see this as exactly they same as surface ships and aircraft carriers, thought maybe it is.

The vast majority of military positions are probably less intense and sexuality can be managed a lot better by the people and the managers, thought nature, the good and bad, still happens. I question whether it's that important to have women/men on nuclear subs together, or in combat, etc. Does not mean that the other 95% of military roles and positions could be of mixed sex/sexuality, there seems to be little problem with that.

274 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:52:59pm

re: #253 BigPapa

Does thinking it's a bad idea for men and women to serve on submarines make one a bigot?

I don't. Subs are a special case.

275 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:08pm

re: #266 Interested and concerned CDN

No, It's a bad idea to impose or work to impose that thinking.

What thinking is that?

276 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:15pm

re: #268 Sharmuta

Lord only knows what Dan Riehl is doing.

Checking out les... oh, wait...
/zinged!

277 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:34pm

re: #273 BigPapa

Gays are men and women. I don't know if gays are better or worse at managing their sexuality than heterosexuals. It seems that a many heteros can't either.

Nuclear subs sometimes stay under for months at a time, working 12 hour shifts. People get stressed and are in closer proximity than most other military positions: I don't see this as exactly they same as surface ships and aircraft carriers, thought maybe it is.

The vast majority of military positions are probably less intense and sexuality can be managed a lot better by the people and the managers, thought nature, the good and bad, still happens. I question whether it's that important to have women/men on nuclear subs together, or in combat, etc. Does not mean that the other 95% of military roles and positions could be of mixed sex/sexuality, there seems to be little problem with that.

If people can't keep their sexual impulses under control on a submarine, maybe they don't deserve to be trusted with that duty.

278 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:35pm

re: #193 Dark_Falcon

I disagree.

279 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:37pm

re: #258 albusteve

read the controversy here...

[Link: www.heritage.org...]

Yes, google took me to that same link.

1993.

So we have health care, Don't ask don't tell, and a Tax increase all in 93.

What else happened?

re: #257 Dan G.

Not sure how that fits in. It wasn't an issue of Clinton raising taxes, it was of congress spending more than the tax revenues brought in, and spending on things that the government shouldn't be spending on. It wasn't so much as an anti-Clinton move (though, there was a lot of that out there), as an appeal for a more disciplined congress.

What was congress spending money on?

280 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:53:52pm

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

I won't down ding your comments if you mind the line between your self-imposed prohibition and others' freedom to imbibe. Your comments so far seem to accept this.

281 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:02pm

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

re: #224 albusteve

re: #237 marjoriemoon

I know I'm something of a jerk on the issue of intoxicants. I am that way for reasons I cannot say online. Suffice it to say my stance on intoxicants is the result of seeing the harm that alcohol does (though I am not a Prohibitionist). Feel free to downding when I step into these sorts of conversations, but do understand that my inclinations are not simply me being a busybody fun-eater.

I don't ding one way or the other

282 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:16pm

re: #247 Cato the Elder

That's right - because the GOP was incensed that Clinton didn't go further in support of gay rights.


Really?

283 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:29pm

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

re: #224 albusteve

re: #237 marjoriemoon

I know I'm something of a jerk on the issue of intoxicants. I am that way for reasons I cannot say online. Suffice it to say my stance on intoxicants is the result of seeing the harm that alcohol does (though I am not a Prohibitionist). Feel free to downding when I step into these sorts of conversations, but do understand that my inclinations are not simply me being a busybody fun-eater.

LOL I won't downding ya for it. I'm not all that passionate about it, but it's how I see it.

Just giving you things to think about. They say MJ is a gateway drug. That's wrong. Alcohol is the gateway drug because it's legal and more easily obtained.

I'm not a big intoxicant user myself and partake less and less the older I get. The effect of that is I get really looped after one glass of wine.

284 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:44pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

Clinton had 8 years and relative peace time. I wont make excuses... he made promises to the gay community and didn't keep them.

Obama's administration is defending the "don't ask don't tell" policy in court.

It is my opinion that this is just another case of "Zelig" telling the audience exactly what they want to hear.

I remember a statement from him that the city of Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

Sorry if I am jaded.

285 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:54:49pm

re: #264 sagehen

Medically speaking, booze is far worse than pot.

In the entire history of the world, there's never been a single documented case of marijuana overdose; there does not exist an emergency room in this country that doesn't see alcohol poisoning on a regular basis.

I'm with ya there.

286 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:55:10pm

re: #263 Charles

James Dobson is working on his press release right now. Tony Perkins is angrily telling his interns to get on the phone and set up news conferences. Pat Robertson is writing his 700 Club sermon.

This is going to be the most outrageous outrage ever.

I just want to see Glenn Beck cry again. "I wubb dis countwee so much..."

287 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:55:57pm

re: #279 bluecheese

What was congress spending money on?

entitlement programs as usual

288 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:55:58pm

re: #273 BigPapa

Sex happens. If demands to abstain fail on teenagers, they will be no more effective in a Sub, on a Carrier etc. Gay or straight.

289 Canadian Guy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:56:30pm

re: #268 Sharmuta

Lord only knows what Dan Riehl is doing.

He's spellchecking "sodomy" on his preview page.

290 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:56:44pm

re: #279 bluecheese

Do you deny that the congress was (and still is) spending more than the tax revenues for each fiscal year?

291 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:56:54pm

I think we're also going to see the conspiraloons going into sick overdrive as well. Remember that whole mess during the campaign with some guy claiming he had sex with Obama? I bet that gets dragged up again.

Also, lunatic Steve Sailer wrote a post last week about how weird it is that none of Obama's old girlfriends have popped up on talk shows or in tabloids. Yes, really.

He rushes to assure us that he hasn't heard any 'credible' gay rumors about Obama, but you know, he's just sayin' and all.

292 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:57:39pm

$10.00 says Dobson et al predict that a terrorist attack will happen as a punishment for this action.

293 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:58:19pm

re: #277 Charles

If people can't keep their sexual impulses under control on a submarine, maybe they don't deserve to be trusted with that duty.

Of course. My point is that it's a lot more manageable throughout most other roles or positions in the military. Being on a sub out at sea for extended periods of time is bad enough.

On land or larger ships with different deployments it's easier to mitigate.

Hey, I'm not military. If military people thing it will work out and it's cool, then they can change my mind.

294 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:58:56pm

I wonder what Chicken Kiev is writing.

295 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:59:00pm

re: #293 BigPapa

[...] Being on a sub out at sea for extended periods of time is bad enough. [...]

That's what masturbation is for.

296 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:59:02pm

re: #292 Dan G.

You're nutty. Rain of hot molten salt.

297 MtnCat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:59:18pm

Hopefully, It will turn into concrete action soon. We need the gay terps and OPSEC/COMSEC will greatly improve as a result of the repeal of DADT. GO BLUE ALLIANCE!

298 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:59:26pm

re: #292 Dan G.

$10.00 says Dobson et al predict that a terrorist attack will happen as a punishment for this action.

"The MONEY is always right!" Eugene Krabs, Spongebob Squarepants

/and business is good...

299 KingKenrod  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 7:59:43pm

re: #255 avanti

Think about it for a minute, if gays can control themselves on a sub, so can heterosexuals. I'm not saying there won't be problems, there always will be, it's our sexual nature. I figured women on surface ships would be a disaster, and although not without issues, it seems to work.

The issue on subs may be that the different sexes cannot be separately quartered. Maybe they can be on ships.

300 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:00:34pm

re: #290 Dan G.

Do you deny that the congress was (and still is) spending more than the tax revenues for each fiscal year?

No. Not at all.

That is why I'm not buying the story that spending is what swept R's in, in 93.

I think it was anti-gay culture wars.

I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

When did the assault weapon ban heat up?

301 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:00:42pm

re: #231 Charles

Sure, the policy was started by Clinton -- because it was the only way to start breaking down the dam of bigotry and intolerance.

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

302 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:01:13pm

re: #297 MtnCat

Hopefully, It will turn into concrete action soon. We need the gay [interpreters] and [operational security/communication security]will greatly improve as a result of the repeal of [don't ask, don't tell]. GO BLUE ALLIANCE!

I think that's what was said... ;)

303 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:01:14pm

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

Can a president introduce legislation?

304 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:01:34pm

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

Oh, I don't know... maybe it's .. politics? Ya think?

305 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:01:35pm

Sex in a Sub

306 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:01:35pm

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

And accomplish something!? Come now..you jest?

307 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:02:09pm

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

good question

308 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:02:09pm

re: #299 KingKenrod

The issue on subs may be that the different sexes cannot be separately quartered. Maybe they can be on ships.

If they can't control their urges perhaps they shouldn't be there to begin with.

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

Gays deserve better than more promises and platitudes - why doesn't Obama introduce the remedial legislation NOW?

I guarantee it would be filibustered.

309 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:02:17pm

re: #273 BigPapa

Gays are men and women. I don't know if gays are better or worse at managing their sexuality than heterosexuals. It seems that a many heteros can't either.

Nuclear subs sometimes stay under for months at a time, working 12 hour shifts. People get stressed and are in closer proximity than most other military positions: I don't see this as exactly they same as surface ships and aircraft carriers, thought maybe it is.

The vast majority of military positions are probably less intense and sexuality can be managed a lot better by the people and the managers, thought nature, the good and bad, still happens. I question whether it's that important to have women/men on nuclear subs together, or in combat, etc. Does not mean that the other 95% of military roles and positions could be of mixed sex/sexuality, there seems to be little problem with that.


Generally.. Subs work in what is called Blue and Gold crews.
6 months on..6 months off...
Woman Professional Navy officers have proven themselves on every ship and boat in the Navy.
We owe them to command a Nuclear Submarine...
America touts the best of the best

310 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:02:36pm

re: #300 bluecheese

Not sure, but I wouldn't be looking for a single spark. The R's did a good job of wedging a lot of people into their tent.

311 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:02:55pm

re: #308 Varek Raith

I guarantee it would be filibustered.

Don't the (D)'s got the senate with 60 votes now?

Not sure how the house would react thought.

312 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:03:02pm

re: #291 iceweasel

He rushes to assure us that he hasn't heard any 'credible' gay rumors about Obama, but you know, he's just sayin' and all.

How knows, who cares.
But one thing we do know just by looking at the First Couple, there is some hetrosexual sex going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That is a dude that enjoys his wife.

313 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:03:03pm

re: #103 MandyManners

Isn't the refusal to allow homosexuals the right to marry an endorsement of those religions which oppose homosexuality, thereby violating the First Amendment?

Damn Mandy, I never heard that argument made so clearly. Then again, the whole concept of marriage is based on religion in many ways. I get that some people of faith think of it in religious terms too, and base their opposition on it being a affront to their beliefs about what a marriage is. It's a complicated issue.

314 Jimmah  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:03:34pm

re: #294 Sharmuta

I wonder what Chicken Kiev is writing.

Let me guess. Something...stupid?

315 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:03:35pm

re: #300 bluecheese

No. Not at all.

That is why I'm not buying the story that spending is what swept R's in, in 93.

I think it was anti-gay culture wars.

I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

When did the assault weapon ban heat up?


The people who voted for Perot came to realize that splitting the not!Clinton vote had ensured his election. In 94, they returned to the Republican fold.

316 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:03:57pm

re: #311 Oh no...Sand People!

Don't the (D)'s got the senate with 60 votes now?

Not sure how the house would react thought.

True, but how many of those are in conservative districts? It's all pathetic politics.

317 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:04:11pm

re: #293 BigPapa

Of course. My point is that it's a lot more manageable throughout most other roles or positions in the military. Being on a sub out at sea for extended periods of time is bad enough.

On land or larger ships with different deployments it's easier to mitigate.

Hey, I'm not military. If military people thing it will work out and it's cool, then they can change my mind.

Didn't San Fransisco get its original gay community from a bunch of sailors?

318 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:04:50pm

re: #317 bluecheese

Did you forget your sarc tag?

319 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:03pm

re: #283 marjoriemoon

LOL I won't downding ya for it. I'm not all that passionate about it, but it's how I see it.

Just giving you things to think about. They say MJ is a gateway drug. That's wrong. Alcohol is the gateway drug because it's legal and more easily obtained.

I'm not a big intoxicant user myself and partake less and less the older I get. The effect of that is I get really looped after one glass of wine.

I understand its not a gateway drug. Again, my reasons are my own. I try to keep my comments on this issue to a minimum, but sometimes I state my opinion here for the cathartic value. Most of the time I have to hold my tongue, but online I can sometimes speak my mind freely, and I thank Charles for giving me the space to do so.

320 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:18pm

The religious right is going to go absolutely insane over this. And the GOP is going to toe the line.

321 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:25pm

re: #288 Rightwingconspirator

Sex happens. If demands to abstain fail on teenagers, they will be no more effective in a Sub, on a Carrier etc. Gay or straight.

Ah... Instead of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' we know have 'Oh Well.'

C'mon, you can do better than that, just like the young men (and maybe soon to be women), who are more heavily scrutinized than your typical teenager since they are expected to serve in close proximity under high duress for long periods of time in a $1 Billion dollar piece of military hardware that has the firepower to kill millions and change the history of mankind.

That's very cavalier.

If military brass thinks they can handle this and submariners tell me it can be managed, I can agree with it. I think it's fair to question whether we should intergrate sexes in every single position or aspect of the military, though most of those positions already are.

322 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:26pm

re: #316 Varek Raith

True, but how many of those are in conservative districts? It's all pathetic politics.

the Pentagon is a formidable opponent

323 erraticsphinx  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:42pm

Does anybody know who is putting out the incredibly inane talking point :

"Gay people DO have the same rights, of course they can marry!

...Just has to be the opposite sex"

This has been all over teh internets recently, I don't remember it a while ago. Must be one of the "family" organizations we hear about.

324 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:05:46pm

re: #294 Sharmuta

I wonder what Chicken Kiev is writing.

Re: Obama...

Image: o2opKFB7Cr1zgm3kcnene6cCo1_500.png

325 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:06:28pm

re: #318 Rightwingconspirator

Did you forget your sarc tag?

No. I'm serious.

326 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:07:33pm

re: #323 erraticsphinx

Does anybody know who is putting out the incredibly inane talking point :

"Gay people DO have the same rights, of course they can marry!

...Just has to be the opposite sex"

This has been all over teh internets recently, I don't remember it a while ago. Must be one of the "family" organizations we hear about.

Try more like the past decade, not just recently. It is the talking point used to "shoot down" equal protection arguments.

327 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:07:51pm

re: #300 bluecheese

You are wrong. The republicans issued a clear corporate-like mission statement, and kept their promises. I don't know who was more shocked; the democrats for having a political party speak plainly and honestly, or the American public for the same reasons, or the republicans that anyone would be so naive as to believe them.

But everyone has put all this "plain speaking" and "honesty" stuff behind them; we're back to good old American politics once more.

328 dugmartsch  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:01pm

re: #320 Charles

But that's kind of strange isn't it since he made this exact same speech on his campaign trail? And theirs well aired video of his press secretary saying the exact same thing?

329 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:15pm

re: #312 webevintage

How knows, who cares.
But one thing we do know just by looking at the First Couple, there is some hetrosexual sex going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That is a dude that enjoys his wife.

Ah, but in the Bizarro World of Wingnuttia, Obama is a girlie man or asexual and Michelle is a domineering angry woman. I know I have seen somewhere in the fever swamps the claim that they aren't in love, they never have sex, and it's a marriage of convenience for political ambition.

It's like they took their favorite song from the 90's about the Clintons out of storage and are spinning it again. SSDD-- Same Shit, Different Decade.

330 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:47pm

re: #326 ArchangelMichael

Try more like the past decade, not just recently. It is the talking point used to "shoot down" equal protection arguments.

That and the equally inane 'slippery slope' argument.

331 dugmartsch  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:48pm

I should add, a reasonable person might suspect that they're disingenuously looking for a reason to get really pissed off.

332 Killgore Trout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:54pm

re: #320 Charles

The religious right is going to go absolutely insane over this. And the GOP is going to toe the line.

I don't know about that. Conservatives have been running at full blast for the past few months; DHS memo, ACORN, Van Jones and death panels. I don't thin they're going to be more or less outraged by this one.

333 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:08:54pm

re: #309 HoosierHoops

Hoops, if say let women on subs and that this is a positive change then I hold that with great weight.

334 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:09:18pm

re: #310 Dan G.

Not sure, but I wouldn't be looking for a single spark. The R's did a good job of wedging a lot of people into their tent.

That was my original point.

That DADT was key to 94...

Folks are say nooo. Not so.

335 Charles Johnson  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:07pm

re: #328 dugmartsch

But that's kind of strange isn't it since he made this exact same speech on his campaign trail? And theirs well aired video of his press secretary saying the exact same thing?

Sure, but they thought he didn't really mean it. And Obama's been waffling on the issue, which encouraged them to believe he wasn't really going to go there.

But tonight, he went there, unequivocally. The evangelical phone lines are on fire tonight.

336 erraticsphinx  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:13pm

re: #331 dugmartsch

Huh?

337 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:38pm
338 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:38pm

re: #332 Killgore Trout

Yes they will. It is a sexually related (and "worse", gay sex) issue. The other issues are strictly political, this one hits very close to home for them.

339 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:52pm

Personally, I find all of this bigotry and outrage to be embarrassing. I didn't become a republican because I wanted to interfere with people's personal lives. I became a republican because I believed in individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. What party represents that? Where can I sign up?

340 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:10:55pm

re: #309 HoosierHoops

Actually what I meant to say Hoops was I hold your opinion with great weight either way, whether I agree or not. Being a submariner and salt, you've been there.

341 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:11:05pm

re: #327 swamprat

You are wrong. The republicans issued a clear corporate-like mission statement, and kept their promises. I don't know who was more shocked; the democrats for having a political party speak plainly and honestly, or the American public for the same reasons, or the republicans that anyone would be so naive as to believe them.

But everyone has put all this "plain speaking" and "honesty" stuff behind them; we're back to good old American politics once more.

OK...

I was 19 then and wasn't paying attention. If you say so.

342 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:11:14pm

re: #320 Charles

The religious right is going to go absolutely insane over this. And the GOP is going to toe the line.

Of course why should they be "shocked, shocked I say"?
It is not like the President has not said this before.
I thought he was pretty clear while running for President that he wanted to get rid of DADT.

Bit reality does not really matter when one is looking for a way to gin up the base.

343 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:11:53pm

re: #321 BigPapa

Sex on Naval ships is a documented event. Not just once or twice. Gay men have been caught. Women have gotten pregnant on aircraft carriers. So, sure accept human reality and manage it. Rules with consequences. Thats reasonable to deter more of the same. The fact of the sex already seen in the Navy shows us humans will indulge almost regardless of the circumstances.

344 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:12:05pm

re: #282 swamprat

Really?

Sure they were. It was a major beef with them.

345 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:12:42pm

re: #330 Varek Raith

That and the equally inane 'slippery slope' argument.

If you are talking about it being a slippery slope to people marrying their pets or something, yes that's dumb, but don't kid yourself into thinking the FLDS people are not watching this closely with the intention of trying to make an argument for polygamy. I don't think that worrying about what group B is planning is sufficient cause to oppose what group A wants however.

346 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:12pm

re: #331 dugmartsch

I should add, a reasonable person might suspect that they're disingenuously looking for a reason to get really pissed off.

Like the "tea parties " that hit before his presidential shoes even touched the pavement?
No!
Couldn't be!

347 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:18pm

re: #304 Charles

Oh, I don't know... maybe it's .. politics? Ya think?

Sure it's politics, and it's also politics that allows him to spout platitudes instead of acting to implement his promises. Obama often sounds like he is still repeating campaign promises a year after the election.
That's the problem as I see it.
Let's hope I'm wrong.

348 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:23pm

re: #317 bluecheese

Didn't San Fransisco get its original gay community from a bunch of sailors?

When you insult an entire city...Try to spell it correctly...Is this where you want to go tonight?

349 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:25pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

Personally, I find all of this bigotry and outrage to be embarrassing. I didn't become a republican because I wanted to interfere with people's personal lives. I became a republican because I believed in individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. What party represents that? Where can I sign up?

I think it died with Buckley...

350 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:26pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

Earlier I was sent a link to the Modern Whig party. I barely skimmed it but hey lets see. Like the Libertarians, its a long road to the debates the ballots etc.

351 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:41pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

Personally, I find all of this bigotry and outrage to be embarrassing. I didn't become a republican because I wanted to interfere with people's personal lives. I became a republican because I believed in individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. What party represents that? Where can I sign up?

Right now, no party represents that de facto.

352 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:13:51pm

re: #334 bluecheese

The responses you are getting (including mine) are based on our choices. You'd have to do some serious polling, or find someone who already did, to answer which was the factor for the majority of voters. I was turned on by the previously mentioned reasons, best stated by swamprat. The don't ask, don't tell, etc... issues, may've energized the religious voters, but the "middle" vote, I contend, was persuaded by the fiscal responsibility promises.

353 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:14:17pm

re: #340 BigPapa

Actually what I meant to say Hoops was I hold your opinion with great weight either way, whether I agree or not. Being a submariner and salt, you've been there.

Kind regards my friend

354 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:14:43pm

re: #341 bluecheese

Well that was from memory. Research is always a good thing.
Doesn't always win friends, though.

355 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:14:50pm

re: #345 ArchangelMichael

Here is a DU post about the argument against polygamy.

It discusses the egalitarian impact of polygamy -- how polygamy creates a surplus of males unable to marry and how that has prompted, throughout history, regimes to use those males in wars.
356 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:15:21pm

re: #337 Luxomni

That's a pretty stupid comment. Care to elaborate?

357 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:15:40pm

re: #348 HoosierHoops

When you insult an entire city...Try to spell it correctly...Is this where you want to go tonight?

Sorry about the spelling.

How is it an insult?

358 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:16:00pm

re: #350 Rightwingconspirator

Earlier I was sent a link to the Modern Whig party. I barely skimmed it but hey lets see. Like the Libertarians, its a long road to the debates the ballots etc.

Gee- someone here linked you to the Modern Whig Party? You don't say!

(I'm trying to convince Ojoe they need to change their name to the RINO! Party. I hear the right is chock full of RINOs!)

359 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:16:18pm

re: #313 avanti

Damn Mandy, I never heard that argument made so clearly. Then again, the whole concept of marriage is based on religion in many ways. I get that some people of faith think of it in religious terms too, and base their opposition on it being a affront to their beliefs about what a marriage is. It's a complicated issue.

Actually, less complicated than it used to be, according to a new poll. Americans support civil unions and are moving steadily towards supporting gay marriage.

The interesting part of this new poll lies in those who think homosexuality is morally wrong-- yet they don't want to forbid gay people the right to marry.

That's what's changing (or rather, reverting). It's an endorsement of the idea that we're not supposed to impose our religious values on others. Now that the religious right/so-con agenda is seen to be bigoted and hateful, the old dog whistles aren't working so well for them.

360 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:16:19pm

re: #345 ArchangelMichael

If you are talking about it being a slippery slope to people marrying their pets or something, yes that's dumb, but don't kid yourself into thinking the FLDS people are not watching this closely with the intention of trying to make an argument for polygamy. I don't think that worrying about what group B is planning is sufficient cause to oppose what group A wants however.

Don't leave out Islam either. They get their 4 wives.

361 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:16:54pm

re: #218 Dark_Falcon

I don't drink beer or hard liqueur, and I drink wine very rarely. I don't like any intoxicants, but I do recognize that alcohol cannot be banned and have that ban enforced effectively, since I know Chicago's history. Pot however, is still illegal, and I hope to keep that door shut.

Because the ban on pot has been really effectively enforced, and hasn't led to any of the type of corruption caused by Prohibition. Riiight . . .

362 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:17:02pm

re: #337 Luxomni

If you end "Don't ask, don't tell", what do you have?
"Please ask, I'll tell".

It's my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, that if you don't ask and you don't tell, than gay soldiers have no protections against abuse, threats, intimidation and worse.

Wasn't "don't ask, don't tell" created to get around the fact that its illegal to be gay in the military? Which I don't quite understand. If you want to serve your country, you're a citizen, you pay taxes, you should be able to do so. But you shouldn't be abused because of sexual orientation anymore than for religious reasons. No one's passing a law for the Jews, don't ask, don't tell.

363 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:17:21pm

re: #303 MandyManners

Can a president introduce legislation?

Propose. Sorry.

364 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:17:24pm

re: #355 Mich-again

Here is a DU post about the argument against polygamy.

Not a good source. DU has too much crazy for my peace of mind. I'd look for the same argument made elsewhere.

365 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:17:38pm

re: #208 Buck

Started by Clinton. But if you ask I bet 8 out of 10 Democrats would blame Bush.

Any other stats you care to pull out of your rear end tonight?

366 [deleted]  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:17:59pm
367 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:18:01pm

re: #348 HoosierHoops

When you insult an entire city...Try to spell it correctly...Is this where you want to go tonight?

huh?...SF is proud of their gay community

368 checked08  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:18:04pm

speaking of outrage
[Link: www.splcenter.org...]

Here’s an ominous posting on YouTube from the “Patriot” crowd. It advises President Obama and other prominent people (“Our Dear Leader and co.”) to “leave now and give us our country back” and to do so by next week.

“If you stay,” the silent video message continues, “ ‘We, The People’ will systematically dismantle you, destroy you and reclaim what is rightfully ours. …

“We are angry and we are ready to take back the rights of the people. We will fight and We will win. …

“Dead line [sic] for your national response: October 15, 2009


Actual video(been taken off youtube):
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

369 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:18:29pm

re: #355 Mich-again

Here is a DU post about the argument against polygamy.

I can think of hundreds of reasons why it's bad. Simple math can tell you some of the biggest. Math and religious nuts often don't mix.

I'm not agreeing with them, but I know they are waiting for legalization of gay marriage to try to make their case. I don't think they will win though, and the possibility that they might is not sufficient reason to alone to restrict gay marriage.

370 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:18:39pm

re: #359 iceweasel


The interesting part of this new poll lies in those who think homosexuality is morally wrong-- yet they don't want to forbid gay people the right to marry.

Or the right to a civil union, I should say. There's higher support for that than for gay marriage.

371 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:19:08pm

re: #366 Luxomni

GAZE.

372 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:19:13pm

re: #358 Sharmuta

My bad for not crediting Ojoe. I guess they will draw from the Libertarians as well as ronin republicans. From the Dems and Greens No So Much.

373 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:19:36pm

re: #267 Dan G.

If your beliefs don't take facts into account, but rather ignore them, then yes. It is possible to have the concerns you raise without being a bigot, but your mind shouldn't be impervious to facts. I believe that a submariner weighed in on this issue up thread and didn't seem to have problems with it.

So, if you have particular reasons for opposing men and women on subs, but the facts don't bear out the consequences that you feared... and then you still don't change your opinion, then you're a bigot.

i was in the Navy long enough ago to recall when Waves were allowed in most all non combat positions. i recall one that turned out to be one of the best skippers on the YP's that we trained midshipman on.
The thing I noticed, and did not like, was all the attractive Waves got the office jobs, the not so pretty were sanding and painting. Sexual harassment was all too common in those early years too. I sponsored a female mid the first year they went to the Naval Academy and she went through hell. As far as I can tell, most of that is now just sad history.

374 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:20:02pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

Personally, I find all of this bigotry and outrage to be embarrassing. I didn't become a republican because I wanted to interfere with people's personal lives. I became a republican because I believed in individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. What party represents that? Where can I sign up?


See these 36.4% independents?

About 2/3 of them used to call themselves Republicans. They feel the way you do. Notice that they outnumber the people the people who still call themselves R.

375 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:20:14pm

re: #372 Rightwingconspirator

My bad for not crediting Ojoe. I guess they will draw from the Libertarians as well as ronin republicans. From the Dems and Greens No So Much.

Ojoe is a radical...he digs a third party, imagine that

376 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:20:55pm

re: #343 Rightwingconspirator

Sex on Naval ships is a documented event. Not just once or twice. Gay men have been caught. Women have gotten pregnant on aircraft carriers. So, sure accept human reality and manage it.

Aircraft carriers are a different environment than submarines, and so are admin positions stateside and platoon level combat units. It's fair to say that one way of managing it is to not let it happen in the first place by keeping the sexes segregated in the first place, though it's more manageable in most other areas of the military.

It's great that all members of a society can serve, I thing we should do everything we can to let them all serve to the best of their abilities. I just question whether it's for the best to have women on subs. Hoops is cool with it so I'm reconsidering, but I still have concern. Maybe in a few years it will turn out to be unwarranted.

377 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:20:58pm

re: #366 Luxomni

Dang..tough crowd, huh?

378 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:21:40pm

re: #320 Charles

The religious right is going to go absolutely insane over this. And the GOP is going to toe the line.

Why not ? They figure they can win with the straight, older, white vote from the red states.

379 erraticsphinx  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:21:54pm

Conservatives started losing when they put far right social conservatives and their bigoted agenda (for the most part) above fiscal responsibility.

380 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:22:37pm

re: #373 avanti

[...]As far as I can tell, most of that is now just sad history.

Not sure about that, in the USAF, the few times I saw some generals' entourages, they were staffed by very young/cute captains. Though I admit, my sample number is low.

381 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:23:05pm

re: #355 Mich-again

Here is a DU post about the argument against polygamy.


If you have two spouses, which one's your next of kin? What happens when Terry Schiavo's husbands can't agree on what they think she would have wanted?

382 metrolibertarian  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:23:15pm

But if Obama ends "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and homosexuals can serve openly in the military, won't Lt. General William Boykin's "god" stop supporting the US military? And then fail to crush the Muslims' "god?"

Can we really afford to alienate this divine party we have on our side in the war on terror!?!

383 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:23:23pm

re: #369 ArchangelMichael

I can think of hundreds of reasons why it's bad. Simple math can tell you some of the biggest. Math and religious nuts often don't mix.

I'm not agreeing with them, but I know they are waiting for legalization of gay marriage to try to make their case. I don't think they will win though, and the possibility that they might is not sufficient reason to alone to restrict gay marriage.

Devil's Advocate here. Why would it be bad? If the women / men are consenting?

384 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:23:24pm

re: #370 iceweasel

Or the right to a civil union, I should say. There's higher support for that than for gay marriage.

I said this above, but civil unions are terrible. I'm very much against them. Hetrosexuals living together are not afforded the same rights as gay couples just living together. Where are you going to draw that legal line? What parts of the marriage contract do the gay civil union folks get to enjoy that the straight civil union folks don't? The only way to legally solve it is to let them marry.

385 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:23:30pm

re: #367 albusteve

huh?...SF is proud of their gay community

LOL Ok listen I grew up outside of the City around 40 minutes away.. I've heard jokes about them my whole life...Look if you are going to tell jokes, insults, Gay jokes.Whatever...Spell the fucking name of the city correctly...
It's the least you can do...
I'm teasing you Blue..I misspell all the dang time

386 rollwave87  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:24:10pm

I hope the Prez follows thru on this. I do appreciate his commitment. As a Republican, it hurts me to see the other party so blatantly far ahead on this basic human rights issue. Truly sad.

387 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:24:18pm

re: #292 Dan G.

$10.00 says Dobson et al predict that a terrorist attack will happen as a punishment for this action.

You're thinking small. I expect them to predict the demise of the US as a nation, if not the end of the world. Its a sign of the Apocalypse!

388 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:24:22pm

re: #374 sagehen

See these 36.4% independents?

About 2/3 of them used to call themselves Republicans. They feel the way you do. Notice that they outnumber the people the people who still call themselves R.

I don't doubt it for a second, and now the ones who have been patiently trying to keep our voices heard in the party are reaching their last straws. We're not wanted. We're called RINOs! and shown the door. Asking friends to leave your party only ensures a smaller party. Good luck with your elections...

Brilliant link- I stuck it in my favorites for future use. Thanks.

389 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:24:33pm

re: #382 metrolibertarian

You'll want to employ the sarc tag, lest you be misunderstood.

390 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:25:20pm

re: #368 checked08

speaking of outrage
[Link: www.splcenter.org...]


Actual video(been taken off youtube):
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

Wow, thank you for posting that. I had linked the splc story here earlier but the video had already been yanked. This is my first chance to see it. Thanks!

391 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:25:44pm

re: #376 BigPapa

At least for the Sub fleet we are essentially at peace. Maybe this is a good time to test the waters. I'm truly looking forward to when women are not excluded from combat. F-22 ladies? One interesting emotional factor- We'll see men at home sweating out the safety and combat well being of their wives. Thats historic in human terms.

The military knows how to manage violations of any of their rules. Sexual limits/rules will simply be more of the same I would expect.

392 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:26:17pm

re: #332 Killgore Trout

I don't know about that. Conservatives have been running at full blast for the past few months; DHS memo, ACORN, Van Jones and death panels. I don't thin they're going to be more or less outraged by this one.

Perhaps, but I think that many on the Perpetual Outrage Committee have a very special little dark place in their hearts for anything homosexual. I suppose we will see.

393 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:26:23pm

re: #387 aagcobb

Your right, but since that's a certainty, there's no use betting (i.e. 100% chance of happening) ;)

394 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:26:37pm

re: #385 HoosierHoops

Will you please click on my nic?

395 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:26:55pm

re: #203 Bloodnok

I think I know where you're headed. Because I've heard that there is a site.

There is a site where despite your lack of knowledge and command of facts you can be treated as a hero for simply saying bad things about the people here.

There is a site where the most juvenile, brain dead ramblings are passed off as brilliant snark.

There is a site where a poster can yell "first!" all the day long and NEVER get tired of it.

There is a site where you can finally call people c---s to your heart's content and be applauded for it!

There is a site where even the weakest, most psychopathic minds can rightfully feel superior to the administrators.

And there is a site where you will never be challenged by mean, nasty libruls and where every commenter claims to have won every argument they were ever in at LGF.

Yes, yes. There is a site, Ripley. There is a site.

Simply brilliant, thanks for the post.

396 Oh no...Sand People!  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:27:05pm

Well.

Gotta go!

397 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:27:37pm

re: #365 bratwurst

Any other stats you care to pull out of your rear end tonight?

I was giving my opinion... do you have a problem with that?

398 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:27:51pm

re: #384 marjoriemoon

I said this above, but civil unions are terrible. I'm very much against them. Hetrosexuals living together are not afforded the same rights as gay couples just living together. Where are you going to draw that legal line? What parts of the marriage contract do the gay civil union folks get to enjoy that the straight civil union folks don't? The only way to legally solve it is to let them marry.

Growing support for civil unions is (to me) a sign that there WILL be growing support for gay marriage as well. It's a sign that people are at least moving toward the idea-- even if it's too slow.

399 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:28:00pm

re: #387 aagcobb

You're thinking small. I expect them to predict the demise of the US as a nation, if not the end of the world. Its a sign of the Apocalypse!

Anyone who goes that far has joined the Fred Phelps crowd in my eyes, and any such person will earn my lasting political enmity.

400 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:28:26pm

re: #388 Sharmuta

I don't doubt it for a second, and now the ones who have been patiently trying to keep our voices heard in the party are reaching their last straws. We're not wanted. We're called RINOs! and shown the door. Asking friends to leave your party only ensures a smaller party. Good luck with your elections...

Brilliant link- I stuck it in my favorites for future use. Thanks.

They assume we'll (Proud RINO here!) vote for them anyway because they believe the alternative (Dems) are worse. To that, I say 'fuck off'. I'll vote third party/write in thank you very much!
/excuse the language.

401 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:29:19pm

re: #382 metrolibertarian

1. No
2. No
3.Yes, easily.

I'm trusting you were sarc for 3.

402 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:29:21pm

re: #203 Bloodnok

Brutal and brilliant. Favorited.

403 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:29:31pm

re: #398 iceweasel

Growing support for civil unions is (to me) a sign that there WILL be growing support for gay marriage as well. It's a sign that people are at least moving toward the idea-- even if it's too slow.

I suppose, but it still makes me cranky.

404 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:30:10pm

re: #388 Sharmuta

I don't doubt it for a second, and now the ones who have been patiently trying to keep our voices heard in the party are reaching their last straws. We're not wanted. We're called RINOs! and shown the door. Asking friends to leave your party only ensures a smaller party. Good luck with your elections...

Brilliant link- I stuck it in my favorites for future use. Thanks.

all true, but I'm not at all convinced the Republicans are washed up...it's hard to tell depending on one's own attitude...they may be picking up steam, whatever they are now...the lunatics seem pretty confident to me...there is money too...all they need is a horse to ride

405 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:30:52pm

re: #383 Oh no...Sand People!

Devil's Advocate here. Why would it be bad? If the women / men are consenting?

View it as practiced in reality. Women are basically chattel sex slaves. A few rich old men get all of them and run the young males out of town at puberty.

You end up with hundreds of homeless teenage boys, and a handful of 60 year old men married to 12 year old girls. If the ratio of males to females in society was not nearly 50/50, it might not be so bad.

Even if the "culture" of it was radically different, the numbers mean that anywhere it is practiced, unmarried men with few prospects will increase.

406 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:05pm

re: #394 Floral Giraffe

Will you please click on my nic?

Sent you a ping

407 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:20pm

re: #368 checked08

wow.

408 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:30pm

re: #345 ArchangelMichael

It seems terribly inconsistent to me to call for approval of gay marriage as a "lifestyle choice" and deny another marriage choice to another lifestyle. Polygamy. Its stil adult and by choice. Whats the problem or shall we rediscover our inner puritan for polygamy?

409 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:44pm

re: #364 Dark_Falcon

Not a good source. DU has too much crazy for my peace of mind. I'd look for the same argument made elsewhere.

DU is mainstream leftism.

410 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:48pm

re: #405 ArchangelMichael

View it as practiced in reality. Women are basically chattel sex slaves. A few rich old men get all of them and run the young males out of town at puberty.

You end up with hundreds of homeless teenage boys, and a handful of 60 year old men married to 12 year old girls. If the ratio of males to females in society was not nearly 50/50, it might not be so bad.

Even if the "culture" of it was radically different, the numbers mean that anywhere it is practiced, unmarried men with few prospects will increase.

Gosh, what was that Texas cult that was arrested last year?

411 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:32:50pm

re: #403 marjoriemoon

I suppose, but it still makes me cranky.

Yeah, me too. Have a drink!

412 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:33:17pm

re: #405 ArchangelMichael

View it as practiced in reality. Women are basically chattel sex slaves. A few rich old men get all of them and run the young males out of town at puberty.

You end up with hundreds of homeless teenage boys, and a handful of 60 year old men married to 12 year old girls. If the ratio of males to females in society was not nearly 50/50, it might not be so bad.

Even if the "culture" of it was radically different, the numbers mean that anywhere it is practiced, unmarried men with few prospects will increase.

Well said btw.

413 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:34:16pm

re: #345 ArchangelMichael

If you are talking about it being a slippery slope to people marrying their pets or something, yes that's dumb, but don't kid yourself into thinking the FLDS people are not watching this closely with the intention of trying to make an argument for polygamy. I don't think that worrying about what group B is planning is sufficient cause to oppose what group A wants however.

Polygamy, and specifically the FLDS version is not equal and therefore would withstand the same test.

Consenting adults equal in law.

414 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:34:27pm

re: #408 Rightwingconspirator

It seems terribly inconsistent to me to call for approval of gay marriage as a "lifestyle choice" and deny another marriage choice to another lifestyle. Polygamy. Its stil adult and by choice. Whats the problem or shall we rediscover our inner puritan for polygamy?

I think it's a hefty argument actually

415 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:34:45pm

re: #399 Dark_Falcon

Anyone who goes that far has joined the Fred Phelps crowd in my eyes, and any such person will earn my lasting political enmity.

Legalizing gay marriage at the federal level and allowing gays to openly serve in the military will be totally worth it if I can watch that crowd go into fits trying to eat their own heads.

416 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:35:14pm

re: #41 BignJames

My private life is my business...why would I choose to share my sexual practices/preferences w/strangers?

Have not read the thread.
But this guy is trolling.
Don't engage

417 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:35:47pm

My dad would never have accepted openly gay people to serve in his Marine Corps. But then, he was born in 1927.

I have no problem with it, but then, I was born in the 50's. I imagine that people born in the 70's, by and large, don't see what the problem is.

Oh, and we tied up Honduras 1-1 down in San Pedro Sula a bit back in World Cup qualifying. If we win, we go through to South Africa.

Check that, that Conor Casey just scored his second of the match.

USA 2- Honduras 1

418 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:35:52pm

re: #415 Slumbering Behemoth

Legalizing gay marriage at the federal level and allowing gays to openly serve in the military will be totally worth it if I can watch that crowd go into fits trying to eat their own heads.

Now that's comedy!

419 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:35:57pm

re: #413 Buck

Polygamy, and specifically the FLDS version is not equal and therefore would withstand the same test.

Consenting adults equal in law.

why is polygamy 'not equal'?...to what?

420 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:00pm

re: #416 doubter4444

He's a goner.

421 maxwellp  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:00pm

What will the living arrangements be, especially during bt?

422 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:01pm

re: #408 Rightwingconspirator

It seems terribly inconsistent to me to call for approval of gay marriage as a "lifestyle choice" and deny another marriage choice to another lifestyle.

Therein lies the problem.

423 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:06pm

re: #416 doubter4444

Have not read the thread.
But this guy is trolling.
Don't engage

he's already been banned. :)

424 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:11pm

re: #368 checked08

speaking of outrage
[Link: www.splcenter.org...]


Actual video(been taken off youtube):
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

I'm reminded of an article Jonah Goldberg wrote in the fall of 2001. I know that some people here think he's a fool, but what he wrote then about Islamists is also true about militia types; If either group ever gets the big war they are seeking, they will end up very, very sorry.

425 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:22pm

re: #409 Mich-again

DU is mainstream leftism.

no, it's really not.

Talking Points Memo is mainsstream left; Kos is a little further from center, and DU further still.

426 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:36:46pm

re: #368 checked08

speaking of outrage
[Link: www.splcenter.org...]


Actual video(been taken off youtube):
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

"our patients has been mistaken for weakness"


HA!

427 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:37:04pm

re: #391 Rightwingconspirator

I'm truly looking forward to when women are not excluded from combat. F-22 ladies? One interesting emotional factor- We'll see men at home sweating out the safety and combat well being of their wives. Thats historic in human terms.

The military knows how to manage violations of any of their rules. Sexual limits/rules will simply be more of the same I would expect.

Why is that a great thing or better for society? Let's take the mental toughness or will aside (since I think women can be just as tough mentally as men): fighter jets pull 9g turns. 3-4g's is enough to make most people pass out. You have to have a lot of upper body strength to squeeze all you muscles together to keep the blood up there. It's a fact that men, on average, have more muscle mass than women. They are at a disadvantage. That's the reason there are no female linebackers in the NFL. Of course, the NFL isn't important: fighter jets and combat is very important.

This does not mean that women can't fly: take out the potential for 9g turns and it's moot since after fighter jets it's not really an issue. Hell, it will be moot after the F22 because that flies at the limit of human endurance anyway, the next fighters will not have humans inside of them.

Back to your point, should we set standards and let the chips fall where they may, or just not risk it or change the standards to include women?

428 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:37:11pm

re: #412 marjoriemoon

"As practiced". When and where was that? Early Utah pioneers?

If a small percentage of people had triad marriages like gay marriage will be a small percentage whats the great harm?

429 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:37:25pm

re: #425 sagehen

Not in my opinion.

430 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:38:25pm

re: #54 Liberally Conservative

You guys know that, uhh, there are gays in the military right now, and that at the enlisted rank, the military doesn't care? The only times when they do care is when gay people go on the media and want the policy changed. They kind of have to in those cases.

That is, categorically, untrue.
Why do you bother to sat crap like that, that is so easily disproved. Really, it's just weird, and dumb, dude

431 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:38:25pm

re: #370 iceweasel

Or the right to a civil union, I should say. There's higher support for that than for gay marriage.

And that's where I stand.

I have a brother who is gay (and who I have no contact with for reasons completetly unrelated to his gay-ness), and I know he lost considerable property when his last relationship broke up. He should have had some protection of some sort. But he didn't.

However, my faith considers "marriage" to be a sacrament and a calling. I would not want to see that watered down one bit.

I wonder why the "state" is in the marriage business in the first place? The concept of marriage seems to be rooted in religious beliefs, going back - forever, it seems.

My preference would be for the "state" to get out of the marriage business altogether. The state's process would be civil union or something, doesn't really matter what it's called - it would be a contractual arrangement exactly like whatever the "state" thinks "marriage" is right now.

Couples wanting a religious ceremony or blessing to their union would get married in their church, but would also be required to follow the state's process for a civil union in order to have their union recognized by the state (as well as their church marriage).

Couples whose relationship is not one a religious institution would recognize, or who have no religious attachments, could simply go for the civil union. After which people could call themselves "married" if they wanted to, I don't care.

I would just prefer to see a separation of the legal processes for unions recognized by the state, and the processes for unions recognized by a religious institution.

432 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:39:11pm

re: #420 Dan G.

He's a goner.

Damn, I always miss the good stuff.
He had the smell of a flouncer

433 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:39:35pm

re: #428 Rightwingconspirator

"As practiced". When and where was that? Early Utah pioneers?

If a small percentage of people had triad marriages like gay marriage will be a small percentage whats the great harm?

That "Texas cult" I was thinking about was that Mormon sect I believe was raided last year.

Everything the Archangel said about the subject is true. Go google it. Read about it. Women who managed to escape were trying to get their children out of there for years.

434 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:39:51pm

re: #428 Rightwingconspirator

"As practiced". When and where was that? Early Utah pioneers?

FLDS. In Texas, Arizona and Utah. Currently. Google Warren Jeffs.

435 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:39:59pm

re: #383 Oh no...Sand People!

Devil's Advocate here. Why would it be bad? If the women / men are consenting?

It is by it's nature not equal. Therefore bad for the women. Consenting or not.

436 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:40:07pm

re: #427 BigPapa

[...]should we set standards and let the chips fall where they may, or just not risk it or change the standards to include women?

Set standards and let the chips fall where they may, definitely. If a person can pass the necessary tests to be a fighter pilot, why not let them fight?

Facts should rule the day.

437 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:40:53pm

re: #423 iceweasel

he's already been banned. :)

Bign' got the stick? Why?

438 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:07pm

re: #368 checked08

speaking of outrage
[Link: www.splcenter.org...]


Actual video(been taken off youtube):
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

PLEASE let this be a bad joke.

439 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:23pm

re: #416 doubter4444

Have not read the thread.
But this guy is trolling.
Don't engage

He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! He is an ex-Lizard!!

440 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:38pm

re: #436 Dan G.

Set standards and let the chips fall where they may, definitely. If a person can pass the necessary tests to be a fighter pilot, why not let them fight?

Facts should rule the day.

Yes they should, but they don't always. I'm more of a 'standards/chips falling' guy myself.

441 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:43pm

re: #431 reine.de.tout

What's interesting is it works a bit in reverse for some couples. They have a church that will marry them, but they can't get the legal documents from the state.

442 avanti  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:47pm

re: #380 Dan G.

Not sure about that, in the USAF, the few times I saw some generals' entourages, they were staffed by very young/cute captains. Though I admit, my sample number is low.

That, may never change, given a choice, many men would pick the eye candy. Thankfully, I never had a "staff" to pick, or I might shame myself.

443 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:41:52pm

re: #437 austin_blue

Bign' got the stick? Why?

Some seriously asinine off color remark about serial killers.

444 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:00pm

re: #437 austin_blue

Bign' got the stick? Why?

For being himself. Asshole.

445 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:06pm

re: #437 austin_blue

Bign' got the stick? Why?

He equated honosexuality with serial killers.

446 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:17pm

re: #441 Sharmuta

What's interesting is it works a bit in reverse for some couples. They have a church that will marry them, but they can't get the legal documents from the state.

Now that's odd - I've never heard of that before.

447 iceweasel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:34pm

re: #437 austin_blue

Bign' got the stick? Why?

Comparing gay people to serial killers.

448 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:44pm

re: #440 BigPapa

No, they don't always and its a shame. In the case of the fighter pilot standards, its an issue of life and death, and therefore shouldn't be screwed with.

449 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:42:48pm

re: #445 MandyManners

He equated honosexuality with serial killers.

Homosexuals, that it.

450 Varek Raith  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:02pm

re: #437 austin_blue

Bign' got the stick? Why?

For this;

re: #112 Charles

Equating gay people with serial killers.

Yep. That's a guaranteed way to lose your LGF account.

451 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:07pm

re: #435 Buck

It is by it's nature not equal. Therefore bad for the women. Consenting or not.

how so?...what do you mean by equal?

452 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:14pm

re: #442 avanti

;) Up dinged for honesty.

453 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:20pm

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

454 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:21pm

re: #397 Buck

I was giving my opinion... do you have a problem with that?

No, but 8 out of 10 Democrats probably do.

455 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:43:53pm

re: #449 MandyManners

Homosexuals, that it.

Mandy has my glass of wine.

456 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:44:36pm

re: #449 MandyManners

Homosexuals, that it.

IS.

457 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:44:42pm

re: #449 MandyManners

Homosexuals, that it.

I'm a proud honcosexual myself

458 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:44:44pm

re: #446 reine.de.tout

Now that's odd - I've never heard of that before.

They're pretty liberal churches, obviously. But they do exist!

459 Boyo  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:44:46pm

re: #454 bratwurst

No, but 8 out of 10 Democrats probably do.

whats with this "8 out of 10 Democrats" business?

460 Cato the Elder  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:45:05pm

re: #456 MandyManners

IS.

Mandy has my glass, too.

461 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:45:11pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

It doesn't.

462 MandyManners  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:45:12pm

re: #455 marjoriemoon

Mandy has my glass of wine.

No, just a long day.

463 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:45:42pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

Don't wonder too long (spoiler: there's no good reason). ;)

464 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:20pm

re: #406 HoosierHoops

Sent you a ping

Has not arrived...

465 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:21pm

re: #455 marjoriemoon

Wine... what a great idea, BRB.

466 erraticsphinx  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:40pm

Ugh, we will have Stargates transporting us to other galaxies before today's GOP's base stops hating teh gheys.

467 David  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:47pm

We here in in Australia have been letting gays, lesbians and bisexuals serve for years (as have most western democracies, as has Israel). Gues s what? the world didn't come to an end when we allowed it. IF it's good enough for the IDF... And wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that "naval tradition" was all "rum, sodomy and the lash"...

Marriage, on the other hand is a different issue, subject to different considerations.

468 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:47:55pm

re: #459 Boyo

whats with this "8 out of 10 Democrats" business?

Was demonstrating to him that his opinion about what 8 out of 10 Democrats think is meaningless.

469 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:48:11pm

re: #433 marjoriemoon

Okay I have some reading to do, I'll do that. But that FLDS was a cult! Pedophilia too. I'm going to take some convincing for the idea that's a typical issue with triads. When I say polygamy I mean either way. Two husbands or two wives. If we were to be consistent about this lifestyle argument. I would hate for FLDS to be the icon on polygamy as I would not want pedophilia to be assumed among gays. Okay I'm off to Google.

470 Jack Burton  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:48:22pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

Those of that opinion generally, if they are not just plain bigots, believe that the only purpose of marriage is a foundation for having children. To them, if that "right" is given to those who biologically are incapable of having children (obvious logical problems here) this "waters down" this belief.

IMO marriage has already been watered down to be nothing more than "extreme dating" by heterosexuals as it is. If they have a problem with that, they should have been bitching about it before. Adding homosexuals to the mix won't change anything now.

471 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:48:33pm

re: #445 MandyManners

He equated honosexuality with serial killers.

Aww...that's just rock dumb.

472 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:49:11pm

re: #468 bratwurst

Was demonstrating to him that his opinion about what 8 out of 10 Democrats think is meaningless.

chill out...it was a simple candid remark

473 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:49:27pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

That's really a good question. Speaking as an atheist and only for myself I think it has a lot of issues to do with child rearing. For eons people got married to form a union have children and the state provided benefits to encourage marriage.

I still have a conviction rooted in not really caring about people coming together and forming some kind of legal union, or, I am not against it. The implications for children is something that I'm having a harder time reconciling and not resolved. This is never discussed and really part of the issue.

474 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:50:03pm

USA 3, Honduras 1. Landon Donovan screams home a free kick!

We are going to Copa Mundial!

475 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:50:52pm

re: #471 austin_blue

Aww...that's just rock dumb.

Um... it's BignDumn.

476 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:51:07pm

The kids football team won their homecoming game in the rain last night on the last play from scrimmage and tonight was the homecoming dance. The kid and his buddies and their dates all met up here to take pictures in the backyard. That is the kind of thing that married couples without kids miss out on. I wouldn't trade my spot for all the tea in China.

477 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:51:31pm

re: #474 austin_blue

USA 3, Honduras 1. Landon Donovan screams home a free kick!

We are going to Copa Mundial!

3-2, Hon just missed a penalty!

478 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:51:34pm

re: #474 austin_blue

USA 3, Honduras 1. Landon Donovan screams home a free kick!

We are going to Copa Mundial!

Soccer fan?

479 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:52:12pm

re: #476 Mich-again

The kids football team won their homecoming game in the rain last night on the last play from scrimmage and tonight was the homecoming dance. The kid and his buddies and their dates all met up here to take pictures in the backyard. That is the kind of thing that married couples without kids miss out on. I wouldn't trade my spot for all the tea in China.

awesome...live it amigo

480 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:52:22pm

re: #470 ArchangelMichael

Those of that opinion generally, if they are not just plain bigots, believe that the only purpose of marriage is a foundation for having children. To them, if that "right" is given to those who biologically are incapable of having children (obvious logical problems here) this "waters down" this belief.

IMO marriage has already been watered down to be nothing more than "extreme dating" by heterosexuals as it is. If they have a problem with that, they should have been bitching about it before. Adding homosexuals to the mix won't change anything now.

Well, I fall into the camp of those who believe marriage is a religious-based sacrament, and would prefer that it not be applied to what is essentially a civil union for two non-religious folks. And that applies whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.

OR - let me put it another way. I would like to see some way that a union entered into based on a religious interpretation, remain in some way separate from a union entered into based on a simple civil interpretation.

481 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:52:26pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

Heterosexuals will be forced to get divorces, then taken to FEMA camps for reeducation and indoctrination into 'Teh Ghey'. It's all part of 'Teh Ghey Ajenduh' to eliminate human reproduction and eradicate the human species from Earth all for the purpose of... uh... erm... hang on a sec, I have to give Pat Robertson a call.
/

482 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:52:47pm

re: #473 BigPapa

I still have a conviction rooted in not really caring about people coming together and forming some kind of legal union, or, I am not against it. The implications for children is something that I'm having a harder time reconciling and not resolved. This is never discussed and really part of the issue.

Even so, having the couple married is better for the children... no?

Or are we not going to let gays have kids?

483 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:52:54pm

re: #473 BigPapa

That's really a good question. Speaking as an atheist and only for myself I think it has a lot of issues to do with child rearing. For eons people got married to form a union have children and the state provided benefits to encourage marriage.

I still have a conviction rooted in not really caring about people coming together and forming some kind of legal union, or, I am not against it. The implications for children is something that I'm having a harder time reconciling and not resolved. This is never discussed and really part of the issue.

Just like infertile heterosexual couples, gay couples can use artificial insemination or adoption to have children, or they can choose to remain childless. Course the fundies get all worked up about teh gheys adopting as well!

484 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:53:40pm

re: #427 BigPapa

Standard prevail. Men fail, women fail. To the winners go the fast jets. Long missions may raise certain plumbing issues. Depends. LOL

485 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:53:51pm

re: #477 bratwurst

3-2, Hon just missed a penalty!

Yes. Lucky!

486 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:54:16pm

so two women want to marry me (happens all the time)...why is this triad unequal, immoral and illegal?

487 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:54:22pm

re: #478 Dark_Falcon

Soccer fan?

You betcha. The beautiful game.

488 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:54:26pm

re: #482 bluecheese

Gay couples do adopt.

489 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:54:57pm

re: #488 Rightwingconspirator

Gay couples do adopt.

Where they are allowed to.

490 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:55:06pm

re: #480 reine.de.tout

While those are your beliefs, how do you reconcile religious interpretations of marriage and the separation of church and state?

491 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:55:26pm

re: #487 austin_blue

You betcha. The beautiful game.

Into extra time...seconds away from booking our trip to South Africa!

492 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:55:40pm

re: #489 austin_blue

Yeah I'm in Cali. How many states allow this? Most?

493 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:55:44pm

re: #481 Slumbering Behemoth

Heterosexuals will be forced to get divorces, then taken to FEMA camps for reeducation and indoctrination into 'Teh Ghey'. It's all part of 'Teh Ghey Ajenduh' to eliminate human reproduction and eradicate the human species from Earth all for the purpose of... uh... erm... hang on a sec, I have to give Pat Robertson a call.
/


Puppies. You left out Acorn and SEIU coming into our homes and eatting our puppies.

494 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:56:17pm

re: #482 bluecheese

Even so, having the couple married is better for the children... no?

Depends, I was happy when my folks divorced (too much fighting).

495 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:56:34pm

re: #492 Rightwingconspirator

Yeah I'm in Cali. How many states allow this? Most?

Stand by, I'm watching the end of this match. In stoppage time. I'll BBIAB.

496 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:56:40pm

re: #486 albusteve

so two women want to marry me (happens all the time)...why is this triad unequal, immoral and illegal?

Which one's going to be your next of kin?

If you die without a will, which one inherits? What if they disagree about where to bury you? Which one gets custody of your children from a previous marriage?

497 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:56:50pm

re: #494 Dan G.

me too..

498 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:57:15pm

re: #495 austin_blue

No sweat I can google

499 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:57:37pm

re: #486 albusteve

so two women want to marry me (happens all the time)...why is this triad unequal, immoral and illegal?

Traditionally, the 1st wife doesn't get a say in whether there will be a second wife or not. And can you imagine trying to figure out who owns what in a three way divorce? As an attorney, I should support it, cause it would be a boon to divorce lawyers!

500 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:57:40pm

re: #496 sagehen

Which one's going to be your next of kin?

If you die without a will, which one inherits? What if they disagree about where to bury you? Which one gets custody of your children from a previous marriage?

non of that is any of your business...is this what you profess to be 'unequal'?

501 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:05pm

re: #499 aagcobb

Traditionally, the 1st wife doesn't get a say in whether there will be a second wife or not. And can you imagine trying to figure out who owns what in a three way divorce? As an attorney, I should support it, cause it would be a boon to divorce lawyers!

those are simple legal issues, for simple lawyers to write up

502 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:35pm

re: #241 Sharmuta

No- the key ingredient was the Contract with America. People wanted fiscal responsibility back in Washington, and it had wide appeal.

Unfortunately, the GOP no longer seems interested in pandering to that base.

You know, pandering to that base just might get one elected. I'd love to see it.

503 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:35pm

And, we are through!

Outstanding! Well done Team USA!

504 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:42pm

re: #490 Dan G.

While those are your beliefs, how do you reconcile religious interpretations of marriage and the separation of church and state?

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking.

But bottom line - "marriage", it seems to me, is the common term that has been used for centuries to apply to unions that were originally based in some sort of religious belief - not Christian or Jewish belief only, but all sorts of religions recognize "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman. It seems that the "state" getting into the marriage business was when the "separation of church and state" was violated.

I'm saying roll it back - get the state out of the "marriage" business - and into the "civil union" business, which is probably what it should have done all along.

505 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:53pm

re: #495 austin_blue
Looks like all but Florida. Hah!

Details vary
[Link: gaylife.about.com...]

506 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:53pm

re: #500 albusteve

non of that is any of your business...is this what you profess to be 'unequal'?

A pairbonding simplifies the state's ability to determine who has what rights. A triad makes everything more confusing.

507 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 8:59:56pm

re: #67 BignJames

They can get married in all 50 states.

Except for less than a handfull of US states, there is no legal recognition of marriage for gay AMERICANS.

You're being obtuse, and purposely so.

508 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:00:08pm

re: #482 bluecheese

Even so, having the couple married is better for the children... no?

Or are we not going to let gays have kids?

I'm not suggesting that at all. But it's undeniable people have a stronger connection with children of their own birth, though that does not mean un-genetically related people cannot have strong bonds. We all know genetically related people can treat each other like crap.

Let me ask you: are we prepared as a society to say 'doesn't matter? and not encourage one process over the other? That's the real question.

509 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:01:09pm

re: #469 Rightwingconspirator

Okay I have some reading to do, I'll do that. But that FLDS was a cult! Pedophilia too. I'm going to take some convincing for the idea that's a typical issue with triads. When I say polygamy I mean either way. Two husbands or two wives. If we were to be consistent about this lifestyle argument. I would hate for FLDS to be the icon on polygamy as I would not want pedophilia to be assumed among gays. Okay I'm off to Google.

Warren Jeffs is your keyword. Sagehen said it above.

After this raid, I saw a show (20/20 or something) about a polygamist community that didn't have a religious bent. A group of people living in a townhouse complex. They tried to say how normal they were, but it's a very dangerous thing. Firstly, they had family groups living together and the men slept with various women. Think of the problems when children are involved. They may not know their fathers. It opens up a can of worms that our legal system is not designed to deal with.

In ancient times, there were good reasons why men took multiple wives. Mostly because women had few rights on their own and would starve without support of a man. Oftentimes if a husband died, the woman and her children would live with/marry the brother-in-law, even if he was already married.

510 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:01:09pm

re: #502 doubter4444

You know, pandering to that base just might get one elected. I'd love to see it.

So would I.

511 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:01:21pm

re: #506 sagehen

A pairbonding simplifies the state's ability to determine who has what rights. A triad makes everything more confusing.



to whom?...pretty weak if you are serious

512 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:02:13pm

re: #508 BigPapa

Let me ask you: are we prepared as a society to say 'doesn't matter? and not encourage one process over the other? That's the real question.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

513 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:02:35pm

re: #479 albusteve

Hell yes. We play catch just about every day with the football in the street. It cracks me up how yelling "Car! " still means the same thing it did 30 years ago when I was a kid playing catch in the street.

514 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:21pm

re: #513 Mich-again

heh...you be the bottlecap...
etc

515 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:38pm

re: #506 sagehen

They can't divide by three? Okay I oversimplified but these hot shot professional lawyers may be up to the challenge. I'll bet the gay community did not see this argument coming. Unintended consequences. Three of the same gender?

516 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:40pm

I am in the US Army, deploying in January 2010 to Afghanistan. One of the biggest reasons I enlisted in a combat MOS is to avoid fraternization. Removing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” will open up a real mess for military leadership. The possibilities for abuse of the NO FRATERNIZATION rule will be endless. It is bad enough that the President is backing off the hard line stance he took during the campaign, not helping moral. I do not see this effort as a help, he needs to focus on how to finish the Middle East conflict.

517 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:46pm

re: #509 marjoriemoon

In ancient times, there were good reasons why men took multiple wives. Mostly because women had few rights on their own and would starve without support of a man. Oftentimes if a husband died, the woman and her children would live with/marry the brother-in-law, even if he was already married.

And because half the women died in childbirth.

And because there weren't a lot of men to go around, what with all the wars and hunting injuries.

518 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:48pm

re: #514 albusteve

No Bottlecaps!

519 bratwurst  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:49pm

re: #503 austin_blue

And, we are through!

Outstanding! Well done Team USA!

Gutsy come from behind win on the road. Lots of so-called fans love to hate Bob Bradley, but he looks like a genius for playing Casey up front tonight!

520 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:53pm

re: #504 reine.de.tout

I think I see, it seems more of a "labels" game. Would you consider the that the husband(s)/wife(ves) privileges that current secular laws provide be provided for by "civil unions"? And the more symbolic (as in having spiritual, but not legal consequences) "marriage" being a non-legal (not illegal) union?

521 aagcobb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:03:55pm

I predict that on some of the more insane websites, they'll say this is part of Obama's plan to establish a fascist/marxist/muslim dictatorship. All the real americans will quit the military in disgust, and Obama will pack the army with america-hating gays!

522 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:04:15pm

re: #507 eclectic infidel

He's a goner, your talking to a shadow.

523 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:04:30pm

re: #480 reine.de.tout

Well, I fall into the camp of those who believe marriage is a religious-based sacrament, and would prefer that it not be applied to what is essentially a civil union for two non-religious folks. And that applies whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.

OR - let me put it another way. I would like to see some way that a union entered into based on a religious interpretation, remain in some way separate from a union entered into based on a simple civil interpretation.

So you don't believe atheists should marry?

524 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:05:26pm

re: #523 marjoriemoon

Marjorie I'm liking you more and more!

525 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:05:55pm

re: #512 bluecheese

I'm not sure what you're asking.

I am asking if adoption vs natural child birthing and rearing is all the same, equal, no different.

526 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:06:06pm

re: #521 aagcobb

I predict that on some of the more insane websites, they'll say this is part of Obama's plan to establish a fascist/marxist/muslim dictatorship. All the real americans will quit the military in disgust, and Obama will pack the army with america-hating gays!

No its just Obama trying to cater to the base after..(and I snip from DU)
1. not pulling out of Iraq.
2. not pulling out of Afghanistan.
3. not being agressive enough on health-care.
4. not patriot-acting Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney off to Gitmo.
5. not closing Gitmo.
6. not getting rid of the patriot act.
7. not doing enough for woman's rights.
8. not doing enough for gay's rights.
9. not doing enough for animal rights.
10. not doing enough for children.
11. not abolishing the death penalty.
12. not patriot-acting rich bankers off to Gitmo.
13. not being pro-Israel enough.
14. not being anti-Israel enough.
15. listening to Republicans.
16. not nationalizing all infrastructure-related industry.

527 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:06:24pm

re: #518 Mich-again

No Bottlecaps!

in rocket ball I made my boy catch everything with his hands...that story...by high school he was a premier receiver, and he played defense

528 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:06:37pm

re: #516 fatdaddy

I have no doubt that gay soldiers will maintain their professionalism while on duty.

529 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:07:04pm

re: #516 fatdaddy

[...]The possibilities for abuse of the NO FRATERNIZATION rule will be endless. [...]

There seems to be only one way to abuse such a rule... that is to fraternize. Whether men are fucking women, or other men; its no different.

530 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:07:06pm

re: #516 fatdaddy

Thank you for your service.

Make sure you come back safe.

531 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:07:12pm

re: #517 sagehen

And because half the women died in childbirth.

And because there weren't a lot of men to go around, what with all the wars and hunting injuries.

I was thinking more biblical times than "ancient", but much agreed.

532 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:07:16pm

re: #520 Dan G.

I think I see, it seems more of a "labels" game. Would you consider the that the husband(s)/wife(ves) privileges that current secular laws provide be provided for by "civil unions"? And the more symbolic (as in having spiritual, but not legal consequences) "marriage" being a non-legal (not illegal) union?

Yes.
the current privileges and rights that accrue to "marriage" would simply now be within the framework of "civil union". And a couple getting married in their church would also have to have a civil union. The marriage ceremony would not REPLACE the civil union arrangement - it would be in addition to it, through the religious institution.

I thought that's what I said upthread, perhaps I wasn't clear.

533 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:07:36pm

re: #524 Rightwingconspirator

Marjorie I'm liking you more and more!

I've never had a rightwing conspirator tell me that :)

534 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:08:59pm

re: #532 reine.de.tout

I wasn't certain that that was what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

535 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:09:00pm

re: #527 albusteve

in rocket ball I made my boy catch everything with his hands...that story...by high school he was a premier receiver, and he played defense

Is that like dodge ball?

536 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:10:06pm

re: #516 fatdaddy

I am in the US Army, deploying in January 2010 to Afghanistan. One of the biggest reasons I enlisted in a combat MOS is to avoid fraternization. Removing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” will open up a real mess for military leadership. The possibilities for abuse of the NO FRATERNIZATION rule will be endless. It is bad enough that the President is backing off the hard line stance he took during the campaign, not helping moral. I do not see this effort as a help, he needs to focus on how to finish the Middle East conflict.

So are you saying that the gay men who are presently in your unit and "haven't" told" will not find another gay man in your unit because of present policy? That makes no sense.

537 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:10:20pm

re: #523 marjoriemoon

So you don't believe atheists should marry?

Atheists can do whatever they want.
I don't care.
I don't see how you read that into what I was saying.

538 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:12:28pm

re: #511 albusteve

to whom?...pretty weak if you are serious

Again... which one's your next of kin? Who speaks for you when you're unconscious? Who determines when to pull the plug, or how to dispose of your remains? What if they can't agree? If you're in intensive care and the doctor will only allow 1 visitor, which one will it be? Your spouse can't be forced to testify against you in court; are you going to marry all 47 witnesses? If you buy a life insurance policy, are you allowed to have one wife be beneficiary and not the other? If one of the wives leaves the triad, what's the community property arithmetic?

Litigating the rights of triads would be massively more complicated than pairs.

539 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:13:24pm

re: #535 Mich-again

Is that like dodge ball?

pee wee football...8yr olds and up

540 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:14:15pm

re: #525 BigPapa

I am asking if adoption vs natural child birthing and rearing is all the same, equal, no different.

I think they are different. My sister was adopted.

I see this as a separate issue from gay marriage.

Are you saying that gay couples adopting isn't a good idea? I think you are.

I can see your point, but foster care is no better. And take heart that gay couples won't be having kids willy-nilly like lots of breeders straight folks do.

541 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:14:59pm

re: #516 fatdaddy

Thanks for going. My hat is off to you. Upding right there. First things first works for me. Win The War. I expect this will be hardest on all those who are already in. Future recruits can join into a system they understand and I assume like.

I can only hope this can be resolved without big problems for you and your unit. I urge you to have faith in commands ability to deal with tough calls from Obama. They do have a long history of prevailing despite some bad calls from higher authority. Not a perfect record but one that earns my respect if only from a civilians distant view.

542 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:15:00pm

re: #538 sagehen

Again... which one's your next of kin? Who speaks for you when you're unconscious? Who determines when to pull the plug, or how to dispose of your remains? What if they can't agree? If you're in intensive care and the doctor will only allow 1 visitor, which one will it be? Your spouse can't be forced to testify against you in court; are you going to marry all 47 witnesses? If you buy a life insurance policy, are you allowed to have one wife be beneficiary and not the other? If one of the wives leaves the triad, what's the community property arithmetic?

Litigating the rights of triads would be massively more complicated than pairs.

that's precisely what wills are for...I have one myself

543 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:15:09pm

re: #529 Dan G.

There seems to be only one way to abuse such a rule... that is to fraternize. Whether men are fucking women, or other men; its no different.

Dan, that's a little simple. It's easy to say 'well don't break the law.' But the laws will get broken, that's why they're there in the first place!

Women are still not in small combat level deployments. In this instance combining groups that are sexually attracted to each other brings risk into the equation, even though you make rules against. it.

IN most other instances it's manageable or negligible, but out in remote outposts and combat things are different. Why not manage it by keeping fraternal attractions apart?

544 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:15:48pm

re: #537 reine.de.tout

Atheists can do whatever they want.
I don't care.
I don't see how you read that into what I was saying.

Maybe it came across funny. You said,

Well, I fall into the camp of those who believe marriage is a religious-based sacrament, and would prefer that it not be applied to what is essentially a civil union for two non-religious folks.

Made me think of atheists.

It's not that I don't see marriage as something sacred. I do. However, marriage is really about the contract. Least it is today, way outside of the ancient world. You can love somewhere, share their religion or not, have children, all of that in our society and not be married. Or even frowned upon (know any single mothers?). When you make that commitment to marry, it's a big thing, not just for declaring love in the sight of Gd, but because you're legally responsible for each other. And without that paper, you aren't.

545 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:16:24pm

re: #543 BigPapa

What would you say about the other nations that already did this?

546 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:17:04pm

re: #528 eclectic infidel

Gay soldiers and straight soldiers are “Discharged” from the US army for not obeying the fraternization policy. This, IMO, the main reason females are not in combat roles.

547 Mich-again  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:17:17pm

re: #538 sagehen

Litigating the rights of triads would be massively more complicated than pairs.

So? Difficulty in litigating rights is no reason to not recognize them.

548 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:18:17pm

re: #538 sagehen

Again... which one's your next of kin? Who speaks for you when you're unconscious? Who determines when to pull the plug, or how to dispose of your remains? What if they can't agree? If you're in intensive care and the doctor will only allow 1 visitor, which one will it be? Your spouse can't be forced to testify against you in court; are you going to marry all 47 witnesses? If you buy a life insurance policy, are you allowed to have one wife be beneficiary and not the other? If one of the wives leaves the triad, what's the community property arithmetic?

Litigating the rights of triads would be massively more complicated than pairs.

You know it's funny, take out the religion. Take out the law. Why the hell would anyone want two OR MORE spouses for cripes sake??

549 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:19:25pm

re: #544 marjoriemoon

I always thought of my marriage as done twice over. Civil and religious. If one were forbidden we would have just had the one other. If both were forbidden we would live together. If not that then I guess I'd be in jail for breaking the rules.

550 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:20:11pm

re: #548 marjoriemoon

LOL
I can barely keep up with one wife. :)

551 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:20:37pm

re: #546 fatdaddy

Gay soldiers and straight soldiers are “Discharged” from the US army for not obeying the fraternization policy. This, IMO, the main reason females are not in combat roles.

Why did you put Discharged in quotes?

552 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:20:46pm

re: #544 marjoriemoon

Maybe it came across funny. You said,

Well, I fall into the camp of those who believe marriage is a religious-based sacrament, and would prefer that it not be applied to what is essentially a civil union for two non-religious folks.

Made me think of atheists.

It's not that I don't see marriage as something sacred. I do. However, marriage is really about the contract. Least it is today, way outside of the ancient world. You can love somewhere, share their religion or not, have children, all of that in our society and not be married. Or even frowned upon (know any single mothers?). When you make that commitment to marry, it's a big thing, not just for declaring love in the sight of Gd, but because you're legally responsible for each other. And without that paper, you aren't.

Thank you. That is exactly right. When a couple files for a marriage license, all they need to do is go say the right words in some designated official entity, some witnesses, get some signatures, and the deed is done. They are now spouses.

It can be in front of a judge, who never mentions God. It can be in front of a cruise ship captain, who never mentions God. It can be in front of the captain of an airliner in international Airspace (no shit), who never mentions God. How religious is that?

553 Aisha  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:21:05pm

Of course, albusteve, you have highlighted tone of the wonders of Islaam; the right to have four wives. As the Noble Quaran says

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

So marrying up to four women is permitted by Allah Ta'alla, but women may not marry more than one man because of the moral weaknesses of the woman.

So it is permissable, so long as you can du justice between your wives, and perform your Islamic duties.

Allah taa'a knows best.

554 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:21:38pm

re: #540 bluecheese

I think they are different. My sister was adopted.

I see this as a separate issue from gay marriage.

Are you saying that gay couples adopting isn't a good idea? I think you are.

I don't see it as separate at all, child rearing is really a significant issue. I'm not at all saying gay couples adopting is a bad idea: gay couples are capable of deep love and supportive environments just as any person or couple is. However I think it's a shame to deny that a genetic rearing event doesn't start off the proposition of a deeper bond from the get go.

555 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:22:43pm

re: #543 BigPapa

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that the facts bear out the alleged risk/problems. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the concern is that some in a combat group (hetero man+woman or homo either or) might decide to have a quickie moments before they're attacked and hence, the fear of sex on the battlefield. The same argument could be made about reading, video games, sleeping, masturbating, gambling, showering, {insert any distraction here}. Again, correct me if I'm wrong in my characterization here.

556 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:23:06pm

re: #544 marjoriemoon

Maybe it came across funny. You said,

Well, I fall into the camp of those who believe marriage is a religious-based sacrament, and would prefer that it not be applied to what is essentially a civil union for two non-religious folks.

Made me think of atheists.

It's not that I don't see marriage as something sacred. I do. However, marriage is really about the contract. Least it is today, way outside of the ancient world. You can love somewhere, share their religion or not, have children, all of that in our society and not be married. Or even frowned upon (know any single mothers?). When you make that commitment to marry, it's a big thing, not just for declaring love in the sight of Gd, but because you're legally responsible for each other. And without that paper, you aren't.

Marjorie - I don't understand why atheists would even want a religious-based ceremony. Do you think they would?

I think the state should be out of the "marriage" business altogether, never should have been in it in the first place. It's a religiously-based concept. Always was.

The state should grant a civil union, which is in effect, identical in nature to what the state does now when they issue a marriage license to a couple. That license, and the ceremony that follows, establishes the marriage contract for religious purposes and for civil purposes.

I'm just saying that I would prefer to see the concept of "marriage" remain intact as a religious-based concept.

It's simply a matter of terminology. But I think if people believe their religious beliefs are not being torn apart by having their religious concepts suddenly become civil concepts, then the whole idea of homosexual unions may be accepted more readily.

I can't write much more because my typing is much faster than the rate at which the words are showing and that drives me crazy and I lose my train of thought.

557 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:23:43pm

re: #546 fatdaddy

Gay soldiers and straight soldiers are “Discharged” from the US army for not obeying the fraternization policy. This, IMO, the main reason females are not in combat roles.

Obviously most soldiers are not being discharged - which means that the majority of them DO obey the non-fraternization policy. There is no reason to think that gay soldiers wouldn't be able to obey this rule either. And as you said, if they didn't, they'd be out. End of story.

558 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:23:44pm

re: #554 BigPapa

I don't see it as separate at all, child rearing is really a significant issue. I'm not at all saying gay couples adopting is a bad idea: gay couples are capable of deep love and supportive environments just as any person or couple is. However I think it's a shame to deny that a genetic rearing event doesn't start off the proposition of a deeper bond from the get go.

Sure.

But how do you propose that this would be reflected in the law?

559 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:24:11pm

re: #549 Rightwingconspirator

I always thought of my marriage as done twice over. Civil and religious. If one were forbidden we would have just had the one other. If both were forbidden we would live together. If not that then I guess I'd be in jail for breaking the rules.

Finding out lots about you RWC! hehe

Getting everything down on paper legally is always a good option, whether you're legally recognized or not. It's better than not having anything should a problem with an outside family member arise. May not always save you. Look at Terry Schiavo and she was a straight, married woman.

560 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:24:41pm

re: #545 Rightwingconspirator

What would you say about the other nations that already did this?

Not much. We seem to be doing all the dirty work now. How many dual sex or gay approved platoon level deployments are there right now? Don't sent me a link saying 'Charlie Company of the Belgian has a gay platoon.' I want to see history and worth, not a spot here or there. For the most part it's us and the Brits in combat now.

History and results, facts will change my mind. Do you have any on this point?

561 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:25:07pm

re: #553 Aisha

Of course, albusteve, you have highlighted tone of the wonders of Islaam; the right to have four wives. As the Noble Quaran says

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

So marrying up to four women is permitted by Allah Ta'alla, but women may not marry more than one man because of the moral weaknesses of the woman.

So it is permissable, so long as you can du justice between your wives, and perform your Islamic duties.

Allah taa'a knows best.

I don't do Islamic duties, and could care less about your made up moral weakness...your make believe sisters show more morality than your make believe men do

562 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:25:50pm

re: #335 Charles

Sure, but they thought he didn't really mean it. And Obama's been waffling on the issue, which encouraged them to believe he wasn't really going to go there.

But tonight, he went there, unequivocally. The evangelical phone lines are on fire tonight.

That's a good point, if you look at blogs that care about this, Sullivan et al.
they thought on gay rights that Obama would move on these issues... but reality got in the way.
That he stated this that strongly means lots of pressure.
I wonder if John Stewart made a difference... when he said the other night, in response to Gates saying "he's (Obama) got a lot on his plate", Stewart said something to the effect of, " hey, you are the world's most powerful man, your plate gets full, get a bigger plate!"
If he starts to really lose the confidence of the 18 - 34 Demo, he is sunk, and alternatively, if he keeps them he wins and even more importantly, he gets things done.
Look to the things that make a difference to that demo... Equal rights, marriage equality, minimum wage, affordable health care at a minimum level for healthy people, and jobs, jobs, jobs.
He'll deal with international relations the same way, Israeli relations will be dealt with an 18 -34 mindset, NOT a 48 - 65 year old mindset, so things will be different, and many knee jerk Neo-Con Israel supporters will think he's selling them down the river, but instead, he's dealing from a different generational standpoint.
I know it's not the easiest way to look at it, but I think it's what is actually happening.
This is really, a changing of the guard, for the first time in forever, really, and the old guard does not like it.

563 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:26:41pm

re: #553 Aisha

Why only 4? Are women only one quarter as moral/complete as men?

/ ;)

564 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:28:30pm

re: #552 austin_blue

Thank you. That is exactly right. When a couple files for a marriage license, all they need to do is go say the right words in some designated official entity, some witnesses, get some signatures, and the deed is done. They are now spouses.

It can be in front of a judge, who never mentions God. It can be in front of a cruise ship captain, who never mentions God. It can be in front of the captain of an airliner in international Airspace (no shit), who never mentions God. How religious is that?

All you need is a notary :)

565 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:29:01pm

re: #561 albusteve

I don't do Islamic duties, and could care less about your made up moral weakness...your make believe sisters show more morality than your make believe men do

Albus. Click Aisha's nic. Now, gaze down upon your Roman Pillar of Manhood.

Do you see the chain around it? Do you see the intermittent tension being applied thereto?

566 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:29:54pm

re: #536 austin_blue

There are gay soldiers without question in the military today. The complications eliminating the subject policy will cause… to be honest, this will be very difficult to understand if you have not served, and in all honesty, I may not have the capacity to wordsmith all, or some of the potential ramifications. A few things that pop into my mind are an endless amount of sexual harassment cases (not from gays), problems with barracks living, etc… With the current policy, you can be gay, not have problems with the fraternization policy, and not be a problem to the leadership.
We just need to do our mission.

567 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:30:27pm

re: #565 austin_blue

Do you see those freakin' eye brows? HOT!
/

568 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:31:20pm

re: #555 Dan G.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that the facts bear out the alleged risk/problems. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the concern is that some in a combat group (hetero man+woman or homo either or) might decide to have a quickie moments before they're attacked and hence, the fear of sex on the battlefield.

That's a risk but not the bigger issue. If that's all it was then I think it would be less of an issue. The fact is that we're considering sex merely a behavour that happens, but the reality is that love and extreme emotions happen too often inflamed by intercourse. Small troop level combat has to be one of the most extremely intense environments known to mankind, as well as the very close quarters for extended periods of time. Bonds are galvanized by high pressure and extreme events.

Love and attraction are extremely powerful emotions, as raw and powerful as hate, aggression, focus in light of death, etc. Some of those emotions need to be tapped to empower the soldiers to not only survive but thrive.

Are we prepared to let sexuality and the consequences (above and beyond 'getting caught with your pants down' or being distracted) be part of that mix too? I am very concerned by it.

569 albusteve  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:32:52pm

re: #565 austin_blue

Albus. Click Aisha's nic. Now, gaze down upon your Roman Pillar of Manhood.

Do you see the chain around it? Do you see the intermittent tension being applied thereto?

I know all about that wackadoodle

570 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:34:11pm

re: #551 bluecheese

I could have said removed, discharged is just the term used, and it did not flush through the grammer checker w/o quotes. Thats all. I am not grammer savy enough to challenge the checker in most cases.

571 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:34:22pm

re: #568 BigPapa

It still just seems to be a fear of further distraction. Again, facts should rule the day.

Good night.

572 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:35:26pm

There are already rules set in place to deal with disruptive members of the armed forces. Fraternization rules are already set in place and enforceable and are only one aspect that could apply however it applies for all sexual orientations even with the current policy.

A serviceman's ability to perform his or her duty is not dependent on their sexual orientation. At the the same time, the possibility of dereliction of duty (for example) is also not dependent on sexual orientation. In other words, it takes all kinds to either excel or fail and it is based on individuals and not groups.

573 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:35:54pm

re: #560 BigPapa

Not much. We seem to be doing all the dirty work now. How many dual sex or gay approved platoon level deployments are there right now? Don't sent me a link saying 'Charlie Company of the Belgian has a gay platoon.' I want to see history and worth, not a spot here or there. For the most part it's us and the Brits in combat now.

History and results, facts will change my mind. Do you have any on this point?

Just look at Israel. They've had mixed gender combat units since the very beginning. Results speak for themselves.

(as to fraternization... uh... that's how my rabbi and rebbetzin met).

574 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:36:26pm

re: #571 Dan G.

It still just seems to be a fear of further distraction. Again, facts should rule the day.

Good night.

Yes, and yes. Fear isn't always bad.

Goodnight Dan.

575 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:36:31pm

re: #556 reine.de.tout

I wish Ludwig was here because he knows more about this than I do. Marriage wasn't seen as much as a religious sacrament as a legal obligation. Moreso then, in fact, than today.

I'm talking about Judaism, for about 2000 years before Christianity and of course even during the common era. A man's livelihood, say carpenter, builder, tailor, farmer, was all he had. You had children to pass down the family business. You had many children to insure you'd have at least one to inherit. It was very important that men knew who their children were. When you did find polygamy in the Bible days, it was 1 man, multiple women. Not multiple men. So marriage, a woman having one husband was of utmost importance. Much more so than religious.

576 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:36:32pm

re: #568 BigPapa

Well put! Thanks

577 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:37:15pm

re: #552 austin_blue

Thank you. That is exactly right. When a couple files for a marriage license, all they need to do is go say the right words in some designated official entity, some witnesses, get some signatures, and the deed is done. They are now spouses.

It can be in front of a judge, who never mentions God. It can be in front of a cruise ship captain, who never mentions God. It can be in front of the captain of an airliner in international Airspace (no shit), who never mentions God. How religious is that?

The point I've been trying to make is that "marriage" is a religious-based concept from the get-go. It became less so (or not so) when more and more people stopped a) being religious or b) stopped pretending to be religious.

I have said I think gay couples should have protections and rights of the contractual arrangements inherent in today's concept of "marriage".

I also believe it is not necessary to spit in the faces of those religious folks who believe "marriage" has religious meaning, and simply call the contractual arrangement issued by the state a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

I'm getting frustrated because many here want to deny that marriage was religious-based in the first place; and insist that that term be used no matter what. It doesn't matter what term is used - what matters is that the contractual arrangement provide the same benefits, rights and obligations that "marriage" provides. And reserving the term "marriage" for those who see it as based on their religious faith - well, why would that be such an awful thing to do?

578 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:37:18pm

re: #564 marjoriemoon

All you need is a notary :)


And a couple of witnesses, yes.

I agree with Reine that this controversy is about semantics. It shouldn't be called a "Marriage License". It should be called a "Civil Union License", because that's what people who don't get "married" in a religious ceremony have.

Granted, people don't ask "Are you Civil Unioned?"

But if you are in one, your own attitude is invariably in the affirmative as to whether you are "married" or not. We know several same-sex couples who have jumped all of the hoops necessary to get the benefits of a civil union, and they unselfconsciously refer to their partners as husbands or wives.

579 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:38:05pm

re: #567 Dan G.

Do you see those freakin' eye brows? HOT!
/

Ain't it the truth?

580 reine.de.tout  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:38:35pm

re: #575 marjoriemoon

I wish Ludwig was here because he knows more about this than I do. Marriage wasn't seen as much as a religious sacrament as a legal obligation. Moreso then, in fact, than today.

I'm talking about Judaism, for about 2000 years before Christianity and of course even during the common era. A man's livelihood, say carpenter, builder, tailor, farmer, was all he had. You had children to pass down the family business. You had many children to insure you'd have at least one to inherit. It was very important that men knew who their children were. When you did find polygamy in the Bible days, it was 1 man, multiple women. Not multiple men. So marriage, a woman having one husband was of utmost importance. Much more so than religious.

Marriage is still seen as a legal obligation. But in some faiths (mine), marriage is seen as a sacrament and a calling. For further explanation, see:
re: #577 reine.de.tout

581 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:39:15pm

re: #556 reine.de.tout

Marjorie - I don't understand why atheists would even want a religious-based ceremony. Do you think they would?

I think the state should be out of the "marriage" business altogether, never should have been in it in the first place. It's a religiously-based concept. Always was.

Sorry, I wanted to add that I must have misread your comment upthread then. I didn't catch you were talking about religious ceremonies. As mentioned, you only need a notary to get married, not a religious service.

The gov can't remove itself from marriage. Marriage is law.

582 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:39:18pm

re: #573 sagehen

Just look at Israel. They've had mixed gender combat units since the very beginning. Results speak for themselves.

What do you see? What are the results? Israel is has every citizen serve but their combat is much different than what is happening in Iraq and Afghan. It's almost as if 'look, they have women and they didn't get invaded.'

That's akin to 'just google it.'

583 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:39:35pm

On this topic —

In some ways in this culture there is way too much focus on sexuality anyway, & if I don't talk about mine and you don't talk about yours, in public that is, then it's better!

and this would be, sort of, don't ask don't tell.

& There are better things to discuss.

That's what I think.

584 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:39:58pm

re: #573 sagehen

Just look at Israel. They've had mixed gender combat units since the very beginning. Results speak for themselves.

(as to fraternization... uh... that's how my rabbi and rebbetzin met).

goodness I like you!!

585 bluecheese  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:40:40pm

re: #576 fatdaddy

Well put! Thanks

It's a point not made very often, and worthy of consideration.


I can see how this could be a logistical nightmare for administrators.

586 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:41:54pm

re: #582 BigPapa

What do you see? What are the results? Israel is has every citizen serve but their combat is much different than what is happening in Iraq and Afghan. It's almost as if 'look, they have women and they didn't get invaded.'

That's akin to 'just google it.'

Their combat in '48, '56, '67 and '73 wasn't so very different from what is happening in Iraq and Afghan.

The results are... they won every time.

587 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:41:56pm

re: #566 fatdaddy

There are gay soldiers without question in the military today. The complications eliminating the subject policy will cause… to be honest, this will be very difficult to understand if you have not served, and in all honesty, I may not have the capacity to wordsmith all, or some of the potential ramifications. A few things that pop into my mind are an endless amount of sexual harassment cases (not from gays), problems with barracks living, etc… With the current policy, you can be gay, not have problems with the fraternization policy, and not be a problem to the leadership.
We just need to do our mission.

Dude, click my nic. Been there, done that, got my decorations, and left on my Date of Separation. I saw several (and this was before DADT), very effective personnel drummed out of the service because they happened to be gay. It was a waste of good personnel then and it remains the same today.

588 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:42:46pm

re: #584 marjoriemoon

goodness I like you!!

I like you too.

589 Racer X  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:43:43pm

re: #588 sagehen

I like you too.

Get a room.

;-)

590 Dan G.  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:44:21pm

re: #589 Racer X

And a camera. :0

591 Ojoe  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:44:55pm

re: #590 Dan G.

In bed.

592 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:46:34pm

re: #572 Gus 802

There are already rules set in place to deal with disruptive members of the armed forces. Fraternization rules are already set in place and enforceable and are only one aspect that could apply however it applies for all sexual orientations even with the current policy.

A serviceman's ability to perform his or her duty is not dependent on their sexual orientation. At the the same time, the possibility of dereliction of duty (for example) is also not dependent on sexual orientation. In other words, it takes all kinds to either excel or fail and it is based on individuals and not groups.

That's all good and well but some members of the services some times will still break them. In most cases the rules and enforcement of them is enough to manage the negatives. But we're talking about combat here. Sexual orientation isn't the issue at the core, that's after the fact: sexuality itself is the issue.

If you take men/women fraternization away you dramatically reduce sexuality as a factor.

Sexual orientation is a compounding factor after that fact, but not the real issue here.

593 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:47:02pm

re: #578 austin_blue

And a couple of witnesses, yes.

I agree with Reine that this controversy is about semantics. It shouldn't be called a "Marriage License". It should be called a "Civil Union License", because that's what people who don't get "married" in a religious ceremony have.

Granted, people don't ask "Are you Civil Unioned?"

But if you are in one, your own attitude is invariably in the affirmative as to whether you are "married" or not. We know several same-sex couples who have jumped all of the hoops necessary to get the benefits of a civil union, and they unselfconsciously refer to their partners as husbands or wives.

How are you going to come up with a bunch of laws for civil union that are different from marital law? And how are you going to discriminate against hetrosexuals because of THEIR sexual orientation?

Btw, this entire subject came to me from a lesbian friend of mine who agrees with me. Well she doesn't agree with me, she got me to thinking about it. I agree with her.

Anyway, it also opens the system, particularly the welfare system up for twice the abuse it has now. Oftentimes couples were remain unmarried for many years to collect benefits. Benefits that are supposed to help SINGLE parents with children. So how would it be if they were to benefit further from civil union legislation? You can't deny someone the law because they're straight or gay no?

594 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:54:06pm

re: #586 sagehen

Their combat in '48, '56, '67 and '73 wasn't so very different from what is happening in Iraq and Afghan.

The results are... they won every time.

You're making a point, not making a case.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

They have women in combat roles but it is not clear as to what level it is, whether it's been an improvement or irrelevant or not. That's too simple: "Hey, they still won. No bigs.'

This is not a binary yes/no pass/fail issue.

595 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:55:31pm

re: #593 marjoriemoon

How are you going to come up with a bunch of laws for civil union that are different from marital law? And how are you going to discriminate against hetrosexuals because of THEIR sexual orientation?

Btw, this entire subject came to me from a lesbian friend of mine who agrees with me. Well she doesn't agree with me, she got me to thinking about it. I agree with her.

Anyway, it also opens the system, particularly the welfare system up for twice the abuse it has now. Oftentimes couples were remain unmarried for many years to collect benefits. Benefits that are supposed to help SINGLE parents with children. So how would it be if they were to benefit further from civil union legislation? You can't deny someone the law because they're straight or gay no?

You either believe in equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, or you don't. I do.

596 austin_blue  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:56:00pm

re: #595 austin_blue

You either believe in equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, or you don't. I do.

Oh, and I am heading upthread.

597 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:56:03pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish heterosexual marriage?

Back when I was married I had a real problem with that, every morning I would look at my wife and think, I really love this person, especially after all we've been through, all the good times and the bad. But then I'd start thinking that if there were say, a married couple of guys, I don't know, within a few thousand miles, guys I didn't even know existed for sure, well that could change everything. That is the kind of terror we hetero marrieds have been forced to live under. Eventually I couldn't handle the stress anymore and had to get divorced, and it is all the fault of those two married guys.

///

598 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:57:18pm

re: #560 BigPapa

I got nothing on combat deployed gays. Point is yours.

599 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:57:31pm

re: #592 BigPapa

That's all good and well but some members of the services some times will still break them. In most cases the rules and enforcement of them is enough to manage the negatives. But we're talking about combat here. Sexual orientation isn't the issue at the core, that's after the fact: sexuality itself is the issue.

If you take men/women fraternization away you dramatically reduce sexuality as a factor.

Sexual orientation is a compounding factor after that fact, but not the real issue here.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel are not engaged in direct combat roles. Those that are engaged in combat roles are dependent on strong unit cohesion. It cannot be assumed that just because a combat service member is gay that he will disruptive to the particular combat unit's cohesion. Any number of human behavior impacts can occur and it would apply to said gay servicemen as well as straight.

The time to weed out the potential bad apples is done well in advance of actual combat during training and stateside exercises. In that case, if it is determined, for example, that a particular service member is deficient or unable to further his career in a combat role due to a sexual matter, regardless of orientation but due to sexual issues none the less, should not be able to continue a career path in a combat role.

600 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:58:28pm

I'm back to working on my photoblog for a while. Then to bed. All my bandwidth is uploading for a while. Its been fun thanks all!

601 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:58:29pm

re: #595 austin_blue

You either believe in equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, or you don't. I do.

Then if you do, you couldn't support civil union for gays only. And then what would be the point. Everybody's married?

602 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:00:43pm

re: #597 ausador

Back when I was married I had a real problem with that, every morning I would look at my wife and think, I really love this person, especially after all we've been through, all the good times and the bad. But then I'd start thinking that if there were say, a married couple of guys, I don't know, within a few thousand miles, guys I didn't even know existed for sure, well that could change everything. That is the kind of terror we hetero marrieds have been forced to live under. Eventually I couldn't handle the stress anymore and had to get divorced, and it is all the fault of those two married guys.

///

heh One of my favorite lines is, why be afraid of homosexuality? You think they're going to storm into your home and redecorate your living room?

603 webevintage  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:01:45pm

re: #453 marjoriemoon

I'm sitting here wondering how does letting homosexuals marry diminish hetrosexual marriage?

I think the people in Iowa were recently polled to see if their marriages had begun exploding (or whatever Dobson says will happen if teh!Ghay is allowed to marry) because of the ebil of gay marriage.
Imagine my surprise when I read that no, in fact the folks in Iowa had seen no change in their marriages at all.
;-)

604 Cineaste  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:03:59pm

In November of 2002 President Bush allowed the military to fire 6 military linguists specializing in Arabic. How can we claim to be serious about fighting a war on terror when we dismiss key assets like arabic speakers in a time of crisis? Apparently it was more of concern that these guys were gay than that we understand what our enemies were saying.

605 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:05:36pm

re: #594 BigPapa

You're making a point, not making a case.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

They have women in combat roles but it is not clear as to what level it is, whether it's been an improvement or irrelevant or not. That's too simple: "Hey, they still won. No bigs.'

This is not a binary yes/no pass/fail issue.

“Light” combat roles, just like in the US. That means desk jobs.

Let me say this, in the US Army, there are plenty or excellent female soldiers, and plenty of s%*t bag male soldiers. As a male, I have the utmost confidence in female “battle buddies”

606 peterb  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:07:40pm

re: #543 BigPapa


Women are still not in small combat level deployments. In this instance combining groups that are sexually attracted to each other brings risk into the equation, even though you make rules against. it.

The Spartans seemed to manage to mount a historic defense at Thermopylae without taking combat breaks to hump each other, even though homosexual relationships were an integral part of their military culture.

607 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:08:29pm

re: #603 webevintage

I think the people in Iowa were recently polled to see if their marriages had begun exploding (or whatever Dobson says will happen if teh!Ghay is allowed to marry) because of the ebil of gay marriage.
Imagine my surprise when I read that no, in fact the folks in Iowa had seen no change in their marriages at all.
;-)

Indeed. Well, it's why I think they should be allowed marriage. Solves all problems. (well most).

Oh, btw, what's up with "teh ghey"? Is that like Phat or something? I've seen that a lot lately.

608 Bagua  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:08:41pm

re: #604 Cineaste

In November of 2002 President Bush [...]

The article you linked didn't mention President Bush.

609 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:09:18pm

re: #599 Gus 802

The overwhelming majority of military personnel are not engaged in direct combat roles.

Of course, this is much less of an issue in these circumstances. Sexuality is much less of a problem in these instances, but it does not go away or is fully mitigated. It still happens but the costs are not as bad: it's the cost of doing business.

It cannot be assumed that just because a combat service member is gay that he will disruptive to the particular combat unit's cohesion.

I cannot be assumed that making rules against it will fully mitigate it either. Changing training can help but nature will still happen. Why screw with it in combat platoons?

610 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:10:02pm

re: #604 Cineaste

In November of 2002 President Bush allowed the military to fire 6 military linguists specializing in Arabic. How can we claim to be serious about fighting a war on terror when we dismiss key assets like arabic speakers in a time of crisis? Apparently it was more of concern that these guys were gay than that we understand what our enemies were saying.

What this actually means is that they LIED when they swore in, that is why they were dismissed. Unless all 6 turned gay after they enlisted.

611 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:12:03pm

re: #587 austin_blue

Dude, click my nic. Been there, done that, got my decorations, and left on my Date of Separation. I saw several (and this was before DADT), very effective personnel drummed out of the service because they happened to be gay. It was a waste of good personnel then and it remains the same today.

That reminds me of the Israel Army, they take everyone, women, men, gays and they all train and fight together, and they are one of the strongest armies in the world. Why can't we do that? Is there really a reason? Or bullshit latent bigotry like the kind expressed by Big whatever.
Essentially the argument is that it won't work because it had not been done yet. So better the devil you know kind of thing.
An old partner is Israeli, and he told me of a story about a tank commander in the 67 war, flaming as could be. He was pivotal in a battle that helped destroy the Arab offensive. And they could only identify him from dental records after the fight.
And to Big Whatever:
What any nation needs are GOOD people. It does not matter if they are gay, white, black, women or whatever. It's the heart and soul that counts, nd I'll take a gay soldier over an Enron/Lehman/Worldcom flunkie and day to protect me and my family.

612 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:13:32pm

re: #606 peterb

The Spartans seemed to manage to mount a historic defense at Thermopylae without taking combat breaks to hump each other, even though homosexual relationships were an integral part of their military culture.

I'm well aware of that. Are we ready to go Sparta? They also fought naked!

Much different culture and time though.

613 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:14:52pm

re: #610 fatdaddy

What this actually means is that they LIED when they swore in, that is why they were dismissed. Unless all 6 turned gay after they enlisted.

They wanted to serve their country but had to lie to get into the military because of a discriminatory policy against them.

You don't seem to care about their value at all.

I honestly don't understand you at all.

614 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:17:35pm

My third favorite quote from the movie Stripes:

Recruiter: Now, are either of you homosexuals?
John Winger: [John and Russell look at each other] You mean, like, flaming, or...
Recruiter: Well, it's a standard question we have to ask.
Russell Ziskey: No, we're not homosexual, but we are *willing to learn*.
John Winger: Yeah, would they send us someplace special?

615 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:18:49pm

re: #611 doubter4444

That reminds me of the Israel Army, they take everyone, women, men, gays and they all train and fight together, and they are one of the strongest armies in the world. Why can't we do that?

Actually we do that in the United States military too, but the Israeli army does segregate in some instances. We are only talking about a few instances here.

Or bullshit latent bigotry like the kind expressed by Big whatever.

That was extremely ignorant. It is possible that people don't agree with you or see things differently without being the so eeevil. Please work a little harder on your rationality.

616 Cineaste  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:21:01pm

re: #608 Bagua

The article you linked didn't mention President Bush.

Correct me if I'm wrong but he's the commander in chief and didn't say shit.

617 sagehen  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:21:53pm

re: #606 peterb

The Spartans seemed to manage to mount a historic defense at Thermopylae without taking combat breaks to hump each other, even though homosexual relationships were an integral part of their military culture.

The poets who wrote about that battle seemed to think you fight stronger and braver when your beloved is there to witness it.

618 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:22:13pm

re: #613 eclectic infidel

They wanted to serve their country but had to lie to get into the military because of a discriminatory policy against them.

You don't seem to care about their value at all.

I honestly don't understand you at all.

In the Army you MUST live ALL seven of the Army Values:
Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage
No one is entitled to “pick and choose” not matter what their value is.

619 Cineaste  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:22:30pm

re: #610 fatdaddy

What this actually means is that they LIED when they swore in, that is why they were dismissed. Unless all 6 turned gay after they enlisted.

Seriously? That's the argument you're going to make? You don't understand don't ask don't tell.

The military couldn't have asked them if they were gay and thus they couldn't have lied about it.

If you're going to bring an argument, think it through first, ok?

620 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:24:54pm

re: #609 BigPapa

I cannot be assumed that making rules against it will fully mitigate it either. Changing training can help but nature will still happen. Why screw with it in combat platoons?

A rule of course is not guaranteed to mitigate anything with those intent on braking those rules. However, those rules apply and are to be followed by everybody.

I don't suggest tinkering with e.g. combat platoons to the point of creating an atmosphere of sensitivity training, etc. However, if for example, one of your privates is the best gunner in the platoon and is very private about his homosexuality until the day a co-platoon member learns of this and proceeds to disrupt operations with harassment of your best gunner, guess who should get the boot?

It's almost as though in that case it's a bit of "ask, but you don't have to say squat." As long as you're performing your duties is all that counts. People make great compromises to their lives while part of combat units and it applies to all.

621 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:25:01pm

re: #618 fatdaddy

Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage

And which of these does the story say these guys didn't have?

622 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:25:39pm

re: #618 fatdaddy

In the Army you MUST live ALL seven of the Army Values:
Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage
No one is entitled to “pick and choose” not matter what their value is.

The Army denies that to gay Americans who want to serve their country. You don't get to parade out those values in this instance while a discriminatory rule exists that singles out gays. If there is any picking and choosing going on, it's the creeps who invented the "don't ask/tell" policy in the first place.

623 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:25:48pm

re: #617 sagehen

The poets who wrote about that battle seemed to think you fight stronger and braver when your beloved is there to witness it.

There might be something to that, or it was an idealistic take on it. Either way combat platoons seem to have extremely strong bonds that last long after the experience, not literally gay love, or maybe intimate love, but a type of love either way. So, I don't dispute the bond at all.

624 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:26:06pm

re: #610 fatdaddy

What this actually means is that they LIED when they swore in, that is why they were dismissed. Unless all 6 turned gay after they enlisted.

How does that work? If the policy was "don't ask don't tell" then they "didn't have to tell" therefore they were not lying.

625 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:30:14pm

re: #620 Gus 802

However, if for example, one of your privates is the best gunner in the platoon and is very private about his homosexuality until the day a co-platoon member learns of this and proceeds to disrupt operations with harassment of your best gunner, guess who should get the boot?

I don't really need to guess, if I'm the leader I keep the best soldier which is probably the gunner as you said.

626 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:30:46pm

re: #619 Cineaste

Seriously? That's the argument you're going to make? You don't understand don't ask don't tell.

The military couldn't have asked them if they were gay and thus they couldn't have lied about it.

If you're going to bring an argument, think it through first, ok?

Cineaste,

It is clear you have never enlisted. When you do, you swear that you are not a homosexual. For some reason they must have come out a stated that they were. Why?

Take note, it is not acceptable to discuss any type of sexual conduct or relationships while on duty, we have a job to do. Leave everything else at home.

627 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:31:45pm

re: #621 Buck

And which of these does the story say these guys didn't have?

Integrity

[Link: www.goarmy.com...]

628 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:34:07pm

re: #627 fatdaddy

Integrity

[Link: www.goarmy.com...]

They had integrity - they wanted to serve their country by joining an organization that actively discriminated against them.

It's you sir, who lacks integrity in this conversation.

629 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:35:09pm

re: #624 Gus 802

How does that work? If the policy was "don't ask don't tell" then they "didn't have to tell" therefore they were not lying.

I am just a soldier that swore in, that is all. How it all works, well don't get me lying.

630 Buck  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:38:21pm

re: #627 fatdaddy

Integrity

[Link: www.goarmy.com...]

So being gay means they failed to show integrity? That being gay is doing the wrong thing legally and morally?

I think you know where I am going with this.

Although I think it is wrong to blame Bush for this... clearly there is something wrong with a don't ask don't tell policy if, as you state, they make you swear that you are not a homosexual when you swear in.

631 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:38:25pm

re: #615 BigPapa

That was extremely ignorant. It is possible that people don't agree with you or see things differently without being the so eeevil. Please work a little harder on your rationality.

"Extremely ignorant"?
I said latent bigotry because that's what it is.
What you are saying is that
a) You don't want to be around gays, and
b) they can't keep it in their pants.
Is that not a accurate distillation of what you said/think?
I mean without all the caveats, and slippery language?
And frankly, honestly, it's fine.
I get it, and I think most people do, including gay people.
A latent bigotry is understandable, and it's better that outright hostility.
But it needs to be confronted.
Note pease that I say confronted, NOT BLUDGEONED.
Changing people's core, visceral beliefs or feelings is a long term project, and why I actually think in the Military slow and sure is the way to go.
But make no mistake, it must be done.

632 Cineaste  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:38:43pm

re: #626 fatdaddy

Cineaste,

It is clear you have never enlisted. When you do, you swear that you are not a homosexual. For some reason they must have come out a stated that they were. Why?

Take note, it is not acceptable to discuss any type of sexual conduct or relationships while on duty, we have a job to do. Leave everything else at home.

Really? Can you show me the oath that soldiers take (today) that swears they are not gay? Perhaps back when you were serving there was but not since the 90's. I'm happy to say I'm wrong if you have any evidence.

633 doubter4444  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:39:53pm

re: #628 eclectic infidel

They had integrity - they wanted to serve their country by joining an organization that actively discriminated against them.

It's you sir, who lacks integrity in this conversation.

Good for you.

634 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:44:16pm

re: #628 eclectic infidel

They had integrity - they wanted to serve their country by joining an organization that actively discriminated against them.

It's you sir, who lacks integrity in this conversation.

Ah… yeah, ok.

I do not agree with everything, or everyone for that matter. I do respect their right to be themselves, and I am fighting for their right to do so within the laws of the USA. If we all stop splitting hairs, it is easy to see you can do, or be, whatever you want in the USA, without changing or making any new laws.

635 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:45:18pm

re: #610 fatdaddy

What this actually means is that they LIED when they swore in, that is why they were dismissed. Unless all 6 turned gay after they enlisted.


The Clinton administration introduced a more practical policy called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". New GIs were no longer required to swear they were not homosexual, and investigations were limited.


When did you enlist?

636 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:45:32pm

re: #629 fatdaddy

I am just a soldier that swore in, that is all. How it all works, well don't get me lying.

If they request a statement from the recruits that they are "not homosexual" then that sets them up from the onset. That is effectively asking and going against "don't ask don't tell."

637 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:47:49pm

re: #631 doubter4444

"Extremely ignorant"?
I said latent bigotry because that's what it is.
What you are saying is that
a) You don't want to be around gays, and
b) they can't keep it in their pants.
Is that not a accurate distillation of what you said/think?
I mean without all the caveats, and slippery language?

Absolutely did not say that and you are diminishing the term 'bigotry', latent or otherwise. Now you're doubling down on the ignorance. You are saying things that are not true or very erroneously assumed.

The only thing slippery is your grasp of the discussion or subject at hand. It's this king of reactionary emotional discourse that is rampant today. You are having a discussion with a representation of what you think I think, not what I'm actually saying or meaning. How am I supposed to deal with that? How about where is the bigotry, or where did I say, mean, or hint that I didn't want to be around gays?

In your head, that's where. Sigh.

638 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:59:21pm

re: #636 Gus 802

If they request a statement from the recruits that they are "not homosexual" then that sets them up from the onset. That is effectively asking and going against "don't ask don't tell."

This is basically the same brief that I have spring 2009

nmmi.edu/rotc/documents/139-RDec2007Page1and2.xls
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
47. DOD HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT POLICY BRIEFING
Although you have not been asked nor will you be asked about your sexual orientation, you should be aware of the DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy. Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry or continued enrollment in the SROTC Program. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. A homosexual act means any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires and any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in such an act.
I understand I will be disenrolled from the SROTC Program if one or more of the following findings is made:
a. I have engaged in, have attempted to engage in, or have solicited another to engage in homosexual act or acts.
b. I have made a statement that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
c. I have married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex as myself.
FOR ENROLLMENT OFFICER USE: Ask the following questions to ensure the applicant understands this policy and expand on the policy, as necessary: (1) Do you fully understand the DoD Homosexual
Conduct Policy briefing you have read? (2) Do you have any questions concerning this policy?

639 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 10:59:52pm

re: #629 fatdaddy

I am just a soldier that swore in, that is all. How it all works, well don't get me lying.

re: #516 fatdaddy

I am in the US Army, deploying in January 2010 to Afghanistan. One of the biggest reasons I enlisted in a combat MOS is to avoid fraternization.

You want to be faithful, and you fear temptation?
You can live as a monk in a cave as well as New Orleans. It's a personal choice.


Can anybody reaganite this guy?

640 What, me worry?  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:05:13pm

re: #638 fatdaddy

And so... this is why the "Don't ask, don't tell" is a ridiculous policy.

Even the "attempt" to marry. Wow.

641 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:08:15pm

re: #638 fatdaddy

That rule is for New Mexico Military Institute ROTC program and there are similar rules as a result of previous executive and congressional actions.

It's a stupid rule that needs to be changed. I wish Obama and congress luck in getting this reversed and bring the rules within the framework of a 21st century America.

This is a republic and a democracy and not a militarist state. They are subject to congressional and executive rule not the other way around.

It's time to stop relegating gays to second class citizenship and that includes the military.

642 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:10:54pm

re: #639 swamprat

You want to be faithful, and you fear temptation?
You can live as a monk in a cave as well as New Orleans. It's a personal choice.


Can anybody reaganite this guy?

I am married with five children and do not need any temptations. I will be living, for 1 year in a camp, in close quarters, with 2 dozens soldiers between two passes on the Pakistan border. Our briefing earlier this week showed we are set-up like fish in a bucket, using howitzers for direct fire as the enemy charges down the mountains at the camp. When that does not work, we use our M4s and SAWs. Maybe I am weak, but females around does not seem like a good idea to me.

643 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:11:40pm

re: #638 fatdaddy
You have legitimatley answered my questions.
No matter what your mama, or drill sargent told you;
What people do with their genitalia for entertainment, is not all that important.

644 fatdaddy  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:13:18pm

re: #641 Gus 802

Thank you for the civility in your reply.
I do not make the rules, really!

645 swamprat  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:13:42pm

re: #642 fatdaddy


Good luck, and thanks for serving.

646 Gus  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:14:41pm

re: #644 fatdaddy

Thank you for the civility in your reply.
I do not make the rules, really!

I know. I don't either. :)

647 Copernic  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:20:39pm

In my days in the Air Force, it never was made apparent to me why a homosexual couldn't serve effectively and with honor. Unit cohesion arguments were thrown about but the case was never quite made when a "To each his/her own" mentality seemed to predominate. It never meant much what you did when you left the office or got back from the field.

I hope we can drop this absurd rule and make our way into the 21st century.

648 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:24:56pm

Thank you for your service. All of you.

649 lostlakehiker  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:36:50pm

Don't ask don't tell is a policy decision that is the prerogative of the president to change. It will work or it won't. We'll see. My guess is that if it fails, it will be impossible to prove because the failure will be submerged in a cloud of other failures.

Gay marriage is an entirely different question. The president cannot make that happen by decree. If it is to come, it will have to be through the consent of the people at large. Right now, even California doesn't like the idea. And why should they?

650 Political Atheist  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:46:51pm

re: #649 lostlakehiker

Gay marriage might not be separate long. Lets say somebody gets married to the same sex on leave. Or a woman from the Submarine service. Now thats leading edge policy. Whether its wise or not well I am not at all sure. Leaning skeptical.

651 SixDegrees  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:47:02pm

I'll be glad to see this policy go. It's probably the finest example of Clintonian do-nothing bullshit that exists. "OK, we won't really change the policy that we've had forever, but you can't talk about it anymore. Carry on."

With any luck, a new non-policy will be adopted that simply consists of sexual orientation not mattering at all. That, of course, remains to be seen; it's a long haul from "I'm ending DADT" to actually replacing it with something tangible.

And as a practical matter, I would put the word out to the Taliban that we'll be sending teh gheys out after them.

652 Kronocide  Sat, Oct 10, 2009 11:51:51pm

re: #651 SixDegrees

And as a practical matter, I would put the word out to the Taliban that we'll be sending teh gheys out after them.

Gheys a wimmen! That is funny.

653 SixDegrees  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:19:10am

re: #103 MandyManners

Isn't the refusal to allow homosexuals the right to marry an endorsement of those religions which oppose homosexuality, thereby violating the First Amendment?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Exactly correct.

There are two separate issues here, and an unfortunate use of language allows them to be conflated as one. When you get married, that union is recognized by the church. It is also recognized by the state, which issues a license - a contract between the couple - acknowledging the union and lending the state's power of enforcement to the terms of the contract. Although both of these are referred to as "marriage," the are two entirely different things. The issue is further blurred because the clergy performing the marriage typically takes responsibility for filing the state's paperwork, making it seem as though this is one single transaction. But it isn't. There are many Catholics, for example, who are not allowed to remarry following divorce - at least not within the Catholic church. They are perfectly free to get married in the eyes of the state, however.

My solution is simple, cheap and direct: have the state stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone, and rename those contracts "civil unions" or some such, making them available to all. If you want a formal marriage, go talk to your church, and see if they allow whatever it is you have in mind. But the legal protections extended by the state - inheritance, sharing of property, eligibility for spousal benefits and so on - ought to be made available to all consenting adults. It's simply a contract, issued with the state's enforcement power. Quit calling it "marriage" - again, for everyone - and pretty much all of the problems disappear.

654 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:20:46am

re: #653 SixDegrees

Best t-shirt I saw during the Prop 8 flap--"So, What Sacrament Are We Going To Let The Government Define Next?"

655 stevedecatur  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:35:33am

I hope the next Al Queda big shot is brought down by a gay, Jewish female soldier riding a motorcycle.

I'm all for America exercising freedoms that makes the fundamentalists seethe even more.

656 Bagua  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:36:17am

re: #616 Cineaste

Correct me if I'm wrong but he's the commander in chief and didn't say shit.

The use of profanity does not add to your case, the article you linked made no reference to the President being personally consulted or involved.

657 Cineaste  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:51:36am

re: #656 Bagua

The use of profanity does not add to your case, the article you linked made no reference to the President being personally consulted or involved.

Repeated firings of translators specialized in Arabic language were very well known when they happened. Furthermore, when a similar situation occurred earlier this year, Obama at least said something, so clearly the President can be aware if he chooses to be.

Furthermore, Bush talked about desperately needing more arabic translators but didn't oppose firing these soldiers which leads to the belief that he prized homophobia over national security.

658 Bagua  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 1:01:39am

re: #657 Cineaste

Being aware of something and permitting it are not always equivalent. Was Bush uniquely responsible, or was this a policy for some time in the military? What about past presidents? I'd like to see this documented before I add it to the long list of Bush's alleged misdeeds.

659 Cineaste  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 1:08:48am

re: #658 Bagua

Being aware of something and permitting it are not always equivalent. Was Bush uniquely responsible, or was this a policy for some time in the military? What about past presidents? I'd like to see this documented before I add it to the long list of Bush's alleged misdeeds.

What I think you're missing here is that Bush supported this policy. He didn't speak out against it. We lost 54 skilled arabic translators from our military at a time when we were at war. When brave men & women volunteer for our military and bring great skills that we need to keep this country safe the idea that we look the other way when they are fired because their personal life, violating no laws, offends the morality of christian conservatives.

As for Bush, what happened to the buck stopping here? If he objected, he could have said so. He knew about it, there were hundreds of articles written and it was discussed on all the major networks. He was the guy in charge and instead of calling for changes that would allow these soldiers to do their jobs, he stood idly by and made America weaker.

660 Bagua  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 3:23:44am

re: #659 Cineaste

That sounds reasonable. I don't recall the story so I only read the article you linked to.

661 lrsshadow  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 8:32:06am

As someone who was in the military when the don't ask don't tell was enacted I think the following should happen;

"Don't ask, don't tell" should be reversed by Pres Obama

Then it should be left to the military to work out their own policy and not have one forced by the politicians upon them.

The military should be allowed to take care of their own business and the politicians should leave there hands off.

Here is why I think that; The social structure of the military is nothing like the social structure of civilian life. It is like living on another planet. When ever the politicians get involved it is at the detriment of the military social structure. It is only with great reserve and dire need that the political branch should enact legislation to change, modify, or manipulate the social structure of the military.

In normal society this would only cause minor frustration and headache. In the military society it could mean that many will be killed or overall effectiveness will be eroded. Here is an example; when I was in the military there was a push to get woman into more combat roles. The politicians set "quotas" of the number of woman that needed to be enrolled in training courses and pass.

This left the military in a position of obligation to ensure that the woman passed the course or class even though they were able to (now this doesn't mean that there were not woman who could pass it, it was just that it was forced how many had to pass). The military course instructors had to "dumb down" the courses when it came to many of the physical portions of the test to ensure the number required passed. It went so far that I remember some training courses in which all the woman were brought every were via bus while all the men had to road march for up to 9 miles a day just to get to the training environment.

Under Bush we saw a hands off approach when it comes to this sort of thing and the military has done a better job of integration of woman in combat all on their own.

I would bet that if the military was left alone to determine its own policy on "sexual preference issues" in the military you will find a comprehensive and fair policy which will improve the overall force structure as opposed to eroding our ability to be effective.

662 [deleted]  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 8:44:30am
663 doubter4444  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 8:51:24am

re: #662 scrubjay

LOL!
You forgot the sarc tag!

664 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:01:19am

re: #662 scrubjay

Huh. So I guess you oppose oral sex, anal sex, frottage, practicing birth control, sex during pregnancy, sex after a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, sex for the infertile, and sex for women after menopause.

I bet you're a fun date.

665 SixDegrees  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:16:32am

re: #662 scrubjay

Astonishing - every single "fact" you put forward is not only wrong, but is wrong in multiple ways. A new record - an error-to-statement ratio greater than 1.0.

I think it also breaks new ground in terms of error density per word.

666 [deleted]  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:17:24am
667 elclynn  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:29:01am

re: #45 BigPapa

It's a great idea! Women have smaller frames, women are able to pass the arduous training, we have proven we are just as worthy as men in all respects. PERIOD

668 swamprat  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:37:15am

re: #662 scrubjay

You realize, that by your own logic, masturbation is a sin equal to homosexuality?

669 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:37:59am

re: #665 SixDegrees

Astonishing - every single "fact" you put forward is not only wrong, but is wrong in multiple ways. A new record - an error-to-statement ratio greater than 1.0.

I think it also breaks new ground in terms of error density per word.

It's so packed full of FAIL I expect it collapse upon itself.

re: #668 swamprat

You realize, that by your own logic, masturbation is a sin equal to homosexuality?

Damn-- good one! I knew I left something out of my list above.

670 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:41:34am

re: #666 scrubjay

. Is there no sexual behavior that is beyond examination using moral bounds?

Why is it that when homophobes are confronted with acknowledging that adult men and women can fall in love with people of their own sex and are sexually attracted to them -- in all the ways that heterosexuals are attracted to people of the other sex-- they immediately start frothing about people and animals, or people with children, or incest, or people and inanimate objects?

This is a ridiculous and bogus argument. We're talking about acknowledging consenting relationships between adults. That's it. Deal.

671 doubter4444  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:42:44am

re: #668 swamprat

You realize, that by your own logic, masturbation is a sin equal to homosexuality?

"By that logic, all masturbatory emissions where a sperm was clearly not seeking an egg, must be considered reckless abandonment"

(A fav guilty pleasure movie)

672 swamprat  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:49:30am

Class of 07
Latest pattern of of trolling.

673 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:56:52am

re: #666 scrubjay


The questions is where do we draw the line? Does that include sex with inanimate objects or self-stimulation in front of elementary schools. Is there no sexual behavior that is beyond examination using moral bounds?

What's next? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

I propose we start calling this wingnutty argument the Ghostbusters argument.

674 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 10:12:08am

re: #666 scrubjay

There are lots of blogs and websites that will let you spew homophobic bigotry like that. I suggest you try Free Republic, or maybe Hot Air, where they don't have any problem with comments like yours.

Because you're not welcome to post any more hateful comments at LGF.

675 elclynn  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 10:14:49am

We're all different in many respects. This is just another difference we all need to get over...quickly. As I've told my gay/lesbian and heterosexual friends, I don't care who you sleep with or love as long as it doesn't involve kids. I just don't want to hear about any of their sexual exploits. It's a private thing between consenting adults.

676 celticdragon  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 10:16:58am

re: #653 SixDegrees

What you said.

Absolutely.

677 elclynn  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 10:19:53am

re: #653 SixDegrees

Case closed...on to more important issues :)

678 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 11:15:40am

re: #655 SixDegrees

Excellent thinking. Hey could one argue that State Licensed Marriage is a separation of Church and State violation?

679 McNug  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 11:31:45am

Last night I was doing live sound for a reggae band which turned out to be virulently homophobic. I arrived home from work at 3AM, feeling shocked, disgusted and a bit embarrassed.

Then I saw this, let out a mighty cheer, and fell asleep.

680 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 5:40:54pm

re: #653 SixDegrees

my sentience exactly

681 SFGoth  Sun, Oct 11, 2009 9:31:49pm

I go to D.C. for the D.C. Hash House Harriers annual red dress run and I miss all the fun at LGF. Rats.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1