205 responses to “Ron Paul: Why I Changed My Mind on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell””

  1. twistedtea

    I was in the Military.......if you tell them you are gay its over for you. You will NOT be protected. And you WILL be alienated. If not abused. These are not my views im just telling you how it Really is.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    1. Machine

      I too served in the military 4 years, as did my brother for 7 years, who was gay, and unfortunatly killed in '92 by "friendly fire" in Iraq. After his death I chose not to re-enlist. For me I saw the blatent hipocracy by those who served in the military and those who support, and ran it. Obtuse obidient minds, jingos, and demagogs. There is no longer a such thing as an Officer and a Gentleman; a person of dignity, bravery, patriotism and honor, who gives of himself to serve his country in a time of need...That was my brother and was why I joined the military two years after he did.
      Unfortunatly our government no longer uses its man power as a means to defend humanity, freedom, independence and equality...More so you're a disposable tool so a few corporate elitist can slice up the world for a quick buck . Its become like any old 9-5 job with all this political and bueracratic B.S....some rise to the top by sucking up and playing the game, others become a casualty.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      1. Ben

        "Unfortunatly our government no longer uses its man power as a means to defend humanity, freedom, independence and equality..."

        It's not the government's job to defend "equality".

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        1. Machine

          I must be wearing orthodics because I stand corrected!!! Yes it's the people that must defend equality, however I was refering to the millitary which is a government agency.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        2. Ben

          It's not the military's job to defend "equality" either.

          Machine, if you're so damned excited about equality, go on a crusade against the racist/sexist affirmative action policies that punish soldiers for being white and male while promoting incomptetent boobs because they happen to have the right genitalia and skin tone.

          The military's policy on homosexuality does not treat one group of people differently than another group (no, that would be affirmative action) it's a restriction on conduct. There are lots of restrictions on conduct in the military. They own your ass until you get out. Get used to it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        3. Machine

          pfft...You're dense. Typical odedient dog...roll over...now sit...goodboy!!!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  2. glen

    You guys just don't get it. It's so very simple, but I understand that so many of you on here don't want to get it, because that's not what you're about. You're only in it to get what you want--100% pure selfishness--regardless of harm to others.
    You only hear and see what you want to see and hear.

    I'll keep morals, sin, religion out of it. I'll make my point on science, medicine, and economics.
    OK...are you ready? I'm ready. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS FILTHY! It's nasty and disease conductive. Homos are walking disease bags. The disease rate for all venereal diseases, including HIV is 8-20 times higher in homos. Hepatitis is higher. Many cancers are higher. Much, much higher. All because these men choose to indulge in a FILTHY act. It's a huge cost to provide health care to homos. Health care that takes money out of my pocket. Health care that takes gasoline out of my car. Health care that takes heat out of my home. Health care that takes food out of my child's belly. All this because of they make the choice to engage in nasty, sick, perverted behavior! ! ! Stop taking from me--it hurts!

    We've given them an inch, and now they're in the process of taking a mile. Little-by-little, step-by-step, they'll try to walk all over us. And then when they've stomped us down to the ground, they'll do a tap dance on our heads.

    You'll all be wise to speak out against homosexuality and put it where it belongs--back in the closet!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8

    1. Machine

      Have you ever engaged in anal sex with a woman? I have, and on occasion I still like to do it...I even like flipping the roles and allowing it to be done to me by a woman.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      1. Yvonne

        Machine,
        I don't know about anyone else but for me...that is waaaaaay too much info.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          Machine is just another Libertarian in the Libertarian ranks, embrace your brother.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. Yvonne

      Glen that is kind of funny.
      But the health care position doesn't necessarily support DADT.
      I mean I don't know that staying in the closet would prevent the activity or the spread of stds and the associated health care costs.
      But I could be wrong.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. Machine

        C'mon...loosen up! Most of the posts on here get to be quite obtuse...Someone has to break the tension. Though I may come off as being foul, my point is still intact.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        1. glen

          Your points not intact and neither is your butt hole. If you'd let a woman do that, you'd let a man.

          Let's stick to the facts--homosexuals have a much higher amount of disease--physical and MENTAL--it's a fact! Research it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

      2. glen

        Oh boy(sigh) It wouldn't, but if it's not known i can't descriminate(yes, descriminate) . If you tell me, I can. If homosexuals can openly serve, more will, and the tax payer will pick up the tab. Get it?
        Most Libertarians think heroin should be legal; if it was, and weekend users who inject during their free time and function were allowed, we would have more heroin users in the military.

        My tax money shouldn't pay for homo health care!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        1. Machine

          "My tax money shouldn’t pay for homo health care!"
          What about: tobacco health care...No motorcycle helmet health care...Alcohol abuse health care...Anorexia health care...heterosexual health care...I smoked crack while pregnant health care, etc.!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

          Get over yourself you self righteous white elitist ignoramous!!! There are far more questionable issues that our tax dollars go towards, i.e. Isreal tops the chart.

          YES...Legalize and regulate ALL drugs currently labled illicit! Allow gays to serve in the military without question, and be able to marry, and adopt!! Keep abortion legal!!!

          But more than anything...Restore the first 10 amendments back to there original and full meaning, and PRACTICE EQUALITY for it is written in our Declaration of Independencethat that; "[ALL] men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Saddly enough NEVER in the history of our country have we FULLY lived up to that statement. It has been compromised and obscured to serve, usually, white men. True the sixties challenged that, however, still we seem to have a real difficult time just living our own lives peacefully without finding some group or race or culture or religion to blame for something we don't understand or agree with. You know what kills people in the military WAY MORE than STDs??? BOMBS AND BULLETS. Yet you sit there and undermind someone because of their sexuality; someone who is VERY willing to sacrafice themselves because they believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is something worth defending...Shame on you!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        2. glen

          chill out, poopy--you might pop a roid!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  3. Leo Corion

    The Electoral College was intended by our Founding Fathers to preserve the ancient Precedent established by the Israelites on the Plains of Encampment
    when Levi was in the Midst: also when the thirteen Chieftains of the lost tribes who had settled in Scandinavia held a TING to elect their King; likewise when the Pope is chosen: and this is the reason that when George Washington was likewise elected he was given the title of ~Mr. Precedent.

    [With ambiguous placement, a modifier is confusing to a reader because it can refer to two or more words in a sentence.] ~(c) 1999 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    “The Electors…one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves…
    . But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.” ~Amendment XII.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      "thirteen Chieftains of the lost tribes who had settled in Scandinavia"

      Hey it's Christine. How's them contrails doing?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. leocorion

        Sodom means the evil that consists in the worst form of adultery

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          what did I say?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. Sumsanity

    Forget the politics and hysteria surrounding the issue. Think about the logistics. If you were a heterosexual female in the service would you want to be showering with a lesbian in the group shower areas? If you were a heterosexual male would you want to be changing your clothes with homosexuals? I think not. I would sue so that there would need to be separate men's restrooms and showers, women's restrooms and showers, lesbian restrooms and showers, homosexual male restrooms and showers and of course separate transgender and transvestite dressing, sleeping and shower areas. Don't laugh, it can, it will and should happen.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

    1. Ben

      You make a good point. The reason why certain facilities (showers, barracks) are segregated by gender is because people tend not to like getting intimate (and even naked!) with people who will be sexually atrracted to them. So if we're going to have homosexual men in the showers with other men, why can't we have heterosexual men in the showers with women?

      That being said, soldiers can't sue the military.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    2. Machine

      So what you are saying is that there should be a "FAGGOT" toilet, and a MACHO homophobe toilet...Sounds alot like when there was segregated public drinking fountains...nice clean cold water fountains for the white folk and something less than a garden hose for all them coons...I mean coloreds...I mean blacks...I mean African Americans.
      ....thanks for setting us back 100 years!!!

      I will say your "shower scene" is quite erotic.

      ciao.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      1. Lindsey

        Machine: The comment is only erotic to someone who doesn't mind being in that situation. It seems to me that you want to set us back to the fall of the RomanEmpire. When our collective morality falls so does our country!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Machine

          Fall of the Roman Empire!?!?We are already well on our way! The last 100 years are nothing but the results of a corupt government. A government that went from setting a stage for, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happines through EQUALITY, to a nation comprised of colletive morals that shame sex and sexuality, yet constantly endorse violence and greed by rewarding blood sucking and punishing excellence. To think that gays in the military will result in the decline of western civilization is completely obsurd and obtuse.

          ...and by the way, yes I do find homos, lesbos, heteros, transgender, transvestite, all to be worth having a shower with after a long day on the battle field!!!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        2. fred the protectionist

          There they go again, comparing fags to blacks.

          The animal rights people compare animals to blacks.

          The women's rights people compare women to blacks.

          The disabled rights people compare the disabled to blacks.

          hehe. Ok I get it. Blacks are animals, fags, cripples, women, and mexicans.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  5. Machine

    Gay or straight, man or woman…nothing is safe about being a soldier. What pisses me of about the issue regarding gays in the milltary is how everyone hides behind politics and/or religion. Sexuality, sex, race…has nothing to do with ones ability, or right to serve their country if they so choose. To make such claims against a persons ability is to establish a racist and sexist form of seperatist elitism. Yes our millitary is certainly a well trained and obedient elite group, but it has nothing to do with being straight, white, or a male. It has everything, though, to do with a person willingness to bravely sacrafice themselves and defend what is held sacred in our country: Freedom, Democracy, Civil Rights, Humanity ( human rights), and last but not least Independence.

    Homosexuality is not some new 21st century trend; it has excisted since the begining of man. I wonder how many “fags” served our country during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII…Or in any war that our government declared and called upon Americans to serve THEIR country?

    Barnicle, why don’t you share with those who havn’t served in the military the, as you call it, “…culture in it”, so that they may better understand the hypocrisiy surounding gays being in the military.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

    1. Yvonne

      Machine I don't think the debate is so much about deriding a person's military ability because of their sexual preferences. I think the debate is about how much a military person should be allowed to share.
      It's like a dress code.
      Sure, all us humans have private parts and it doesn't make us bad but do we walk around naked and show our stuff? Maybe. In some settings we Americans do just that. Performers for an x rated movie or members of a nudist camp or beach reveal and show it all. In such a setting this may be fine. Should the military men be scantily clad whenever they feel like it? I don't know. Maybe back at the base but...I don't know.
      So the debate is not about who or what a person does in private. It's about how much of that is appropriate to reveal in a military millieu.
      I personally think repealing DADT is a good idea.
      I do believe military men can handle it if someone decides to tell all.
      But I do think it is also a right to tell the flip side.
      I don't want the rights of people to tell the truth about their aversion to such behaviour to be denied.
      For example I believe adultery is sin. I say so. I have heard women boast often times about cheating on their spouses. Many if not most women will support a friend who cheats on their spouse because they will see a justification for it.
      For me, while I wouldn't want to see a cheating woman forced into wearing a scarlet letter or to be fired from a job because of it; I still don't want to feel pressured into supporting adultery.
      I don't want to be ostracized if I choose to offer my opinion that cheating is a sin. I believe an unhappy woman should first divorce and then become intimate with someone else.
      I would only offer that opinion if asked. I wouldn't go around bad mouthing a woman that I suspected of adultery but on the other hand I want my right...if asked...to say that I think it is a poor choice.
      I hope the army works that way.
      Sure...let's not fire people for talking about what they do in private.
      But let's not abuse people for ''thinking'' that it's wrong.
      Calling someone homophobe or bigotted is name calling and derogatory. Why? Because of what they think?
      I don't want to hurt or condemn a person because of homosexual sex which they consernted to but I don't want to see a person condemned or judged because they have an to such things.
      I would never want the thought police to dictate to me what I can and can't like.
      I hope this is true of the military.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      1. Reality Calling

        I agree-no one should be fired from the military for what they believe OR what they do...but just as a person against homosexuality has the right to say they're against it, others have the right to say that person is a bigoted homophobe-you can't be FOR free speech when it comes to your personal beliefs and yet AGAINST free speech for other people because then you're a hypocrite too.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Yvonne

          That's a good point and I agree. Now where does the government legislating to us what is '[hate speech'' come in?
          I made a reference to Canada making it illegal to quote Bible verses which call homosexuality a sin. What about that?
          Freedom of speech?
          If someone is going to be arrested for bigoted/hateful speech then where is the freedom?
          Since that is not the case in the USA as of now I agree with repealing DADT.
          But I'm not narrow in my view. I also have read posts in which military men voice concerns about the fact that they may be denied their right to ''say'' they are not on board with homosexuality. I can see their point.
          Can you see why they might have that concern?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. Yvonne

          Also Reality just to be sure did you mean ''you'' as a general term or did you mean me specifically?
          I'm asking because my post is as clear as can be.
          I believe that the same freedom be given to the proponents of homosexuality as to the people who have an aversion to such things.
          How could that be defined as hypocrisy?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. Yvonne

          Oh wait Reality maybe I see what you mean.
          I said ''let's not abuse people because they think homosexuality is a sin''
          You disagree with that?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Lindsey

        Yvonne: Your points are well thought out and I agree with you!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Ben

      "Sexuality, sex, race…has nothing to do with ones ability, or right to serve their country if they so choose."

      Serving in the military is not a right. There's the genesis of your bizarre misunderstanding of this issue.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. Machine

        Okay, so remove the word "right"...It still stands though that sexuality, sex, and race has nothing to do with ones ability to serve their country if they so choose.It has everything to do with ones willingness to bravely sacrafice themselves and defend what is held sacred in our country: Freedom, Democracy, Civil Rights, Humanity ( human rights), Equality, and last but not least Independence.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. Barnicle

      Well the culture in it persay? hmmm. Let me put it this way; in a combat arms unit it's an especially bunch of Type A agressive and generally traditional idealogically bunch. If were you were an open Homosexual say living in tight quarters with other heterosexual men you would be ostracized severly, potentially beaten and at a minimum harassed daily until you transfered, went to a shrink or got a transfer. It's better left in the closet in my opinion.

      One of the common misconceptions is that you can't serve if you are a homosexual and that is blatantly not true. You can't engange in sodomy while a member of the armed forces due to the restrictions in UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). There are plenty of people who have homosexual tendencies and are currently serving, but if they engange in that behaivor and it's found out they can be court martialed. I say rightly so, it is a filthy act and disease spreading. The military can control where you live, when you sleep, when you can exercise, what shots you can get, what you can eat, if you can drink.... I don't see why they can't tell personal not to engange in sodomy. The point blank truth is Homosexuality is Liberalism sacred cow. All the queers in CFR/Trilateral who are promoting hedonism as a way to loosen influence of societies sacred institutions. Farther more it's the destructions of moral truth and institutions of society to collapse the system from within.

      I'm sure this will recieve some snears and rebukes.. my hatred isn't of homosexuals or people who overwhelmed by the power of the flesh, for these are the least of the sins. It is with the blatant evil doers in our society who overwhelming promote hedonism and intend to force their great ungodliness on the rest of society. All while telling the population it's in the name of tolerance and respect. Every day we are bombarded with perversion from the corporate media conglomerates who are in bed with the major politicians and intresting enough all belong to the same esoteric societies. These men are Godless and do the work of all that is evil in the name of good.

      The greater questions is do we recognize moral truth? The next question is when and how does government have a place in dictating the enforcement of that?

      Furthermore i'm tired of using the word gay. In the Orwellian nightmare we call modern society we frame the argument by changing the language. Oh it's not a baby it's a "fetus" oh it's not sodomy, it's gay sex. It's freaking Sodomy and there is nothing reproductive or natural about it. Lets call it what it is.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      1. Machine

        So what Barnicle is saying folks, is that the millitary consist of a group of hostle, irrational, obtuse minded, prejudice men...who commit hate crimes...that have no class, cooth, or culture, and are a classic case of homophobes...Yet these men wear a uniform that is about defending democracy, upholding the right for ALL men to pursue Life, Liberty and Happines...which is about EQUALITY, however the culture Barnicle describes does not hold these sacred for all of man kind...Basically only white Christian men rank first...Sure they tollerate Jews, and blacks, and of course women have a place too, since all three of those "groups" have fought for their RIGHT to be treated EQUALLY as the Declaration of Independence states.

        Now Barnicle, you do know and understand that vaginal sex and hetero oral sex is also very capable of spreading disease!?!? Sure was alot of hetero sex going on on base and ship while I was in the Navy...and it was known!

        Lastly, ignorant morons during the 60's through out the south held up signs that claimed "God demmanded racial segragation". Do you know that the Civil Rights Movement lasted through 4 different Presidencies...Talk about a lack for moral truth!

        Well thanks for sharing...

        ciao

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  6. Bill

    Ron, as a physician you should know that anal sex can rupture the colon, and body fluids can be exchanged as well resulting in sexually transmitted diseases.

    Jesus said,

    (Luk 17:28) Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

    (Luk 17:29) But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

    (Luk 17:30) Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

    Thank you for helping to fulfill Bible prophecy. It has strengthened my faith. But you are not the answer to our nation's problems.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13

    1. SS

      Wait a minute. What does anal sex, ruptured colons, and body fluids, have to do with legislation?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

    2. Machine

      Though I don't worship God and practice the bible, thus I don't call myself a christian., I do applaude you for understanding the religion you follow. However, that being said, it has nothing to do with a persons ability to serve their country. A man's sins are between God and himself. If our Government rules by the church then we are no longer a democracy...no longer Independent...and unable to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as individuals. Race, creed, sex, religion...America is the melting pot... Don't Tread On Me!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

      1. fred the protectionist

        "A man’s sins are between God and himself. "

        Spoken like a true atheists and barbarian pagan. Sins are also between man and man, they destroy society.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

        1. Machine

          No, what destroys society is ignorance and intollerance.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

        2. fred the protectionist

          No Ignoramus-Libertarainus-Atheistus, im pretty sure that rape, war, and murder (sin) destroys society.

          It is intolerance which builds a good society, and the ignorance is your sole Libertarian domain.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    3. Yvonne

      Bill,
      Repealing DADT is not the same as promoting or even condoning homosexual sex. It's about the freedom that we all want to tell the truth. Freedom of speech.
      In Sodom they were forcing themselves on unwilling persons. They were denying the heterosexual man his right to live his life and to refuse to participate in their lifestyle.
      Lot had his freedom of speech taken away. He politely said ''gentlemen don't do this wicked thing'' and they responded with threats and violence.
      I do see this as a possible threat in these end days. I know that Canadians can now be arrested for expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin. I hope that doesn't happen in our country.
      Still, I think the repeal of DADT is in keeping with freedom of speech.
      I can't demand my freedom to say something is a sin if I deny a non-believer their right to say they think it is acceptable.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    4. Lindsey

      Bill: Good point! I have to agree with you! DADT is the best way for the military to handle this issue! Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. However, I still support him.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  7. Andy

    I am actually quite torn on the matter. First off, I'm not too surprised that Mr. Paul would actually listen to his constituents! For shame Mr. Paul. What would other representatives think? sarc.

    Its hard to think our armed forces can strike fear into the hearts of our enemies as they sashay girlishly across the battlefield, or in the case of lesbians (and not so much of an issue) awkwardly stride toward them with brutish intent. Then again, thats if we're the aggressor. Its kind of a non-issue in a just war.

    I do believe anyone should be allowed to perform in a roll that's best suited to their skills, and sexual orientation should have no bearing. I'm glad Mr. Paul voted the way he did. Thank you Mr./Dr./Super Congressman Paul.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    1. glen

      I'm certain Paul's stance doesn't reflect those of the vast majority of his constituents in District 14. Fire and brimstone Baptists and Catholics.

      Polititians don't change their stance on a issue they have voted against before because ''several constituents called'' and they know the majority will be opposed to their change. A polititian does such when they plans to run for a higher office outside of their current area and they wants to gain a large number of votes and receive large amounts of money from a rich and powerful lobby group.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

      1. longshotlouie

        That was really desperate. lol

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  8. Mike Singenstreu

    This was an extremely shortsighted response to a huge issue. You said if there is disciplinary problems that military justice would take care of it...but when would homosexual behavior which can be disruptive in and of itself be a disciplinary charge. When this is repealed we won't be able to lodge charges because we will be seen as homophobic and open to charges ourselves...then there is the whole chaplain situation.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    1. 1111cb

      My perspective-as one with military in laws that are homosexual and some are female- and having cared for exmilitary women sexually assaulted by males-
      There is a code of conduct in the military. Its not fuzzy.
      It is only fuzzy when commanders allow people to violate the code on a routine basis.

      I saw a huge intolerance against women in the military and they were seen as disruptive. And while I agree that they need to physically stand up to the qualifications (like guys should not be forced to dig the foxholes if teamed with a girl and it is bad when they deliberately get pregnant just after recruitment to get benefits) I heard about incredible harrassment against them just for being female. Being female was disruptive to many and the top had to clamp down hard on the accepted abuse which included rape as a routine.

      So I ask, exactly what is it that they are doing that is "disruptive" and perhaps introspection is needed to realize where the issue is. Because if the reason is you are looking for a Biblically purified army of the Crusades- they had a history of wiping out converted Christian allies in the Mid East who looked different.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      1. algae

        Just a note: to call the Roman catholic church that instigated the crusades "Christian" is a very imprecise use of that term. Biblical Christianity has no relationship with the roman 'church' and vice-versa.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          The Protestant vs. Catholic battle is long over, get over it. And neither side won (or lost) by the way.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. fred the protectionist

        If it weren't for the Crusades, you could be forced to bow to Mecca 5 times a day. lamer

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      3. SS

        ouch, 1111cb

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. fred the protectionist

    Before Christianity the world was a dark place: extreme superstition, rampant rape and murder, nonstop war, disease, stone age technology, polygamy, slavery, starvation, misery, etc. People and cultures were no better than animals. It's not that fags want to marry or get special rights, the atheists are attempting to lower mankind back to stone age barbarism so they have to be opposed at every opportunity.

    These cultures and people were so evil, they deserved to be wiped out.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12

    1. fred the protectionist

      ...and cannibalism. Imagine a tribe of Jeffrey Dahmers. Would the civil Libertarians try to "reform" them? Rational people would just wipe them out; man, woman, and child?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      1. B.D.Harper

        You are unbelievably stupid.
        It's a miracle you are able to feed yourself.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        1. fred the protectionist

          Why do you promote evil?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

        2. longshotlouie

          It's a beautiful opportunity when the one promoting evil asks, "Why do you promote evil?".

          'In the long-run we're all dead?'
          http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/keynes.html

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        3. B.D.Harper

          Equate "promoting evil" to disagreeing with your hate-mongering against homosexuals. Here's an added challenge: try not using the bible as your defense mechanism.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        4. longshotlouie

          I am amused at your obvious fear of a book.

          Hate-mongering? lmao

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        5. fred the protectionist

          "try not using the bible as your defense mechanism."

          The bible is primarily a History Book, if you reject the sources of information in the bible then you reject history. The pre-Christian world was a brutal dark place, Christianity brought civilization and light to the world. You atheists are trying to return mankind to its most base existence.

          The bible isn't just a normal history book either, it is the most accurate pre-Roman Empire history book.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

        6. SS

          Did you think they were bashing homosexuals, freddie?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        7. fred the protectionist

          Who is bashing homosexuals?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

        8. SS

          Wake up, freddie!

          We were discussing the link that louie posted.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        9. B.D.Harper

          'longshotlouie', my comment above was aimed at 'fred the protectionist', not you. You shouldn't be so defensive.

          This guy (fred) has various comments on this site calling people 'fags' saying they shouldn't be compared to other humans, saying that they don't deserve rights - he is a self righteous asshole.
          I have plenty of friends and family who are Christians, who read, love and worship the bible - he gives all of these people a bad name spreading his hatred. Christianity is primarily about brotherhood and love. This fundamentalist has in his mind that because he thinks his view is right, it should be imposed on everyone else. What's screwed about this? Jesus was prosecuted because his message was unconventional - he died for your right to differ, and for your right to believe whatever you wish. If there is a hell, fred is most certainly going to it if he doesn't wake up. God will not tolerate his hatred. God wants people to 'love their neighbor', and to embrace them and their differences whether you disagree with their practices or not.

          Even if (and it does only in the Old Testament) the bible 'condemns' homosexuality on some level, that is the business of God and no one else. It is not fred's or anyone else's job to go about telling everyone they're wrong and what they need to do to be right.

          And it most certainly isn't the job of the United States government, who is supposed to act on behalf of the Constitution which states that all men are equal, to deprive anyone of their equality.

          Fred, are you really trying to say that all historians should be Christian? You keep evidencing my point that you are colossally stupid. If you can't see that the bible is more about delivering a religious message than conveying facts or a time-line of history, then you are delusional. Further, if you think that the bible in any way promotes the hatred you spread about homosexuals, you are sorely mistaken. Real Christians will not subscribe to your words.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        10. longshotlouie

          Yepper, I'm aware of the insensate Fred and his tantrums. Funny stuff.

          When did you believe that I was defensive? That would be funnier.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        11. fred the protectionist

          "Jesus was prosecuted because his message was unconventional – he died for your right to differ"

          So was Jeffrey Dahmer's 'message unconventional'. Are you saying Jeffrey Dahmer was wrongly persecuted?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        12. SS

          Freddie, are you using hallucinagenics?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    2. gander

      "Before Christianity the world was a dark place: extreme superstition, rampant rape and murder, nonstop war, disease, stone age technology, polygamy, slavery, starvation, misery,"

      fred, christianity only accepted all of these "evils" into its own belief system and actively promoted them.

      extreme superstition: witch trials
      rampant rape: how about raping little choir boys by priests
      murder: the many inquisitions
      nonstop war: the crusades
      disease: prohibtion of condoms
      stoneage technology: heliocentric universe
      polygamy: i'll give you this one
      slavery: it was ok by christian countries only until recently
      starvation: only eradicated in the last century
      misery: if this didn't exist why would so many people be on anti-depresants

      christianity doesn't have a good record.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      1. anon

        Don't you get that these things you listed are not "Christianity"? They run directly counter to the ideals promoted by Christianity. That people did not live up to the high standards demanded of them says nothing of the quality or truth of their theological beliefs. Show me anywhere in all of Scripture that promotes any type of sexual deviancy of one person over another, particularly as you listed of priests on young boys. You've committed a logical fallacy there. These people behaved exactly the opposite of what Christianity prescribes.

        Some of the things you listed are quite simply counter-reality. Christians who were literate knew the earth was round long before Galileo came along. Christians founded most branches of modern science.

        Christian principles underlie the free market system which promotes a higher standard of living for everyone.

        Sounds like the bad record is simply your education of half-truths.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

        1. fred the protectionist

          Anon. Atheists debate like Liberals: "Timothy McVeigh wasn't a muslim." That's nice, but the other 99% of terrorists are muslim.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        2. gander

          anon, you sound like one of those losers who say that islam is full of love and peace and women's rights. just because the christian propaganda book didn't explicitly say that it was ok to rape little boys doesn't mean that they prohibit it. the pope is supposedly god's representative on earth and so when he rapes little boys and murders people for thinking the sun is the center of the universe it means that the whole religion has to accept it.

          your argument is flawed. if we pretend that it is right and logical it means that all the communists in the world are not real communists because they don't explicitly follow all of the tenants of the manifesto.

          christianity is a made up religion just like mormonism as an excuse for some old guys to rape little boys and get tons of money for free. all the bs that is written in the book is nonsense and of course no one can live up to it. that is why all christians are hypocrites.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. Yvonne

          Gander,
          Wolves come in sheeps clothings. Jesus said this would happen. It's not just in the case of religion either. Serial killers like Ted Bundy typically imersonate wounded men or helpful men. How many pretend to be law officers or alarm installers? They carry around fake badges. They blow out womens' tires and then come to the rescue to help them repair it. Or else they wear phony casts and pretend to need help.
          And also, by definition, Christianity is a faith in the belief that we cannot live up to God's perfection which is why we need Jesus. So you are absolutely right. You say Christians can't live up to perfection. Correct. That's why we call ourselves faithful and believers in Jesus because we say he is the only one who ever did live up to perfection.
          How can that be hypocrisy?
          Saying ''I can't do it and I need help''. That's saying ''I'm not good enough''.
          So really how can a faith whose very foundaion is based on the admitting of one's own imperfection and the desire of a greater power to dictate right and wrong...lead to hypocrisy?
          And the Bible states in the book of Job that the earth is a sphere which hangs in the heavens. A sphere is round. No where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat.
          And the pope is not God's representative on earth. God's representative on earth is the Holy Spirit which was poured out onto the earth after the ascension of Christ and the Holy Spirit indwells the heart of every believer.
          There is ONE mediator between man and God and it is the man Jesus. That's what the Bible says. The word pope does not exist in the Bible and the idea that a man is needed to mediate goes against everything the Bible says.
          I don't know the pope. If you want to hate him then fine. But the pope is not Jesus. You don't need to hate Jesus. I doubt the pope loves you. I'm certain Jesus does love you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      2. fred the protectionist

        Wrong. It is you Atheists and Pagans who regularly murdered, raped, enslaved, spread disease, had bad teeth and lived in the stone age.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    3. 1111cb

      you all don't like this comment- but read the history. The laws in the Jewish culture were a step up and gave women protection in a violent culture. Jesus was an advocate for women's rights which is why they flocked around him. Men used to divorce women on a dime and dump them with no resources. The main religion of Baal required killing babies less than 3 years routinely for worship. I do not like slaughtering groups of people, but they had no jails back then to punish for things like child molestation and rape and murder.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  10. Barnicle

    Responce to "Machine",

    First of all let me state that you don't know your history. Furthermore you throw out world religions and ancient names with insight of a HollyWood air head.

    First of all Mohammed was a man of much blood and taught others, to rape and murder jews and christians. If you read the Hadith you would know this. The word "ego" was a creation of the Freudianism; no one in ancient history preached about it. "Korin" is spelt Qura'n or Koran for more antiquated spelling; therefore you have obviously not read the damn thing.

    Tao Te Ching? Moral philosophy, what? I think most of us who actually read it still have no idea what the hell it was about. But I fail to remember anything from World Religion courses that espoused "brotherhood" and little to do with fellowship.

    Jesus, well he did actually teach quite a bit about fellowship and love; but never at the sake of the truth.

    It's not that I personally abhor your mode of thought, (well if I could actually pin point what it is that might help too), but it really has to do with the fact that you gloss over and sum up things you have no understanding of. A smorgus board of irrational, moral and theological contradictions.

    Your conclussion about equality is also wrong. We are not equal on or off the battle field. Truth is truth and facts are facts. Armies with superior technology, discipline, equipment and training crush weaker forces all the time. We are therefore not equal on the battle field. Off the battle field we are also not equal, because who ever has the truth has understanding and he who doesn't have it, is decieved. Your assumptions and arguments are basically cleshays.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    1. Machine

      Why are you so hostle...I always welcome replys, even when they challenge or disagree with me. I don't understand it but all to often people get all worked up when disagreeing...You are entitled to your opinion and it is always welcomed with me, however there is absolutly no reason for you to attack my perspective and experiences. Challenge, sure, but this isn't a national debate or political campaign...Don't get me wrong I am not so sensitive that I get hurt by ignorant comments and elementary slams, I just don't find them to be intellegent or necessary.

      Now as far as my spelling goes...I am the worlds worst..I depend on spell check when writting formal papers...And since you knew what I was refering to when I mentioned the "Korin", your slam goes out the window.

      Further more ALL religions have good ideas, it's "beliefs" that tend to end up in bloodshed...that was my point. Some fanatic Christians have justified war in Gods name, however, Christ did not teach or practice any such methods. And in Islamic practice there are a great majority that see the wrongs in the teachings of murder and rape...Just like many fundamental Christians dispouse war even though the Bible condones it, or how some can except homosexuals in this world even though the bible condems it!

      If you really want to get into a discusion...All religious beliefs are man made...In Christianity, the Church, at one time, was the Law and used religion to control and disipline by.
      But I digress... The topic of this post is about gays in the military and equality, so maybe we should discuse more on our views of what equality is since you "believe" that military power is what matters...in other words the cock with the biggest prick wins!!! Well really that way of thinking, though historic, is backasswards....War begot War begot War...Violence is taught and never amounts to any good resolve. We send men and women to train in order to know how to be obedient to follow orders and kill, even when they disagree. Sure we all have an inborn ability to protect ourselves, every animal does, and when you're confronted by a hostle or violent situation your first instinct is to run.
      To measure equality by fire power certainly is what has pointlessly killed so many. I recomend visiting Arlington Park Cemetary, or a civil war memorial, or the Vietnam memorial, or talking with a mother whoes womb aches at the lost of her child taken by "friendly fire". Read Howard Zinns "Passionate Declarations"..interesting since he was a WWII Bombardier. Heck I'd have you talk with my grandfather who also was in WWII and a purple heart recipient, but he past away in 2001, however not before I had taken many opportunities to talk with him about the misconceptions and horrors of war.
      In the end all an abundence of fire power is is a true sign of fear and lack of faith that ends in total destruction and no resolve. Yes there are differences in the world, but much of our hostility is do to ignorance and misunderstandings. We can do better...Gandhi certainly proved it was possable...he liberated India from British rule without declaring war. In my opinion all of man kind would benefit from nonviolence, and all of society deserves true peace and freedom, but untill we declair any and all wars as a misguided way to resolve our differences we will never have true freedom...we will never have true peace... and nor do we deserve it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      1. barnicle

        My criticism were largely a lash back out of annoyance with the fact that you throw out religions and historical figures to loosely prove a point that you know nothing about.

        I care could less how you spell, my point with "Korin" was that if you mispelled it; it's highly unlikely you have ever read it. On a side note, it does weaken your credibility.

        Personally I have mixed feelings on Gahndi, but I can't agree with your assumptions.

        Most of your argument was cleshays.

        When you state "All religious beliefs are man made" and you also state "ALL religions have good ideas", so your assumption is that all religions are false? All religions being false, you also say they all have good? It seems you fail to even understand the basic inconsistency in your mode of thought. My largest criticism is that you speak about things you really have no idea or understanding of.

        If were to guess you probably in your 20's and in university or a recent graduate. When I was a college student, I argued constantly about things I didn't understand. Later in life I realized how worthless and inconssistent my world view had become in university. It would do you well if you only spoke about things that you have mastered intelectually or atleast admit that you don't understand. Rather your world view appears to be like a bad recipe of logical inconsistency.

        I never glorified war in my comment. War is ultimately either a failure of diplomacy or a fight for survival. When you state "an abundence of fire power is is a true sign of fear and lack of faith that ends in total destruction and no resolve". An abundance of fire power is a damn good thing when you are on the verge of being destroyed. Traditional conservative foreign policy like that of T. Rosevelt was summed well with "speak softly and carry a big stick". Military machines are a deterent of war. Weak nations are destroyed and abused constantly by other nations. "Fire Power" does matter.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. Machine

          There is a HUGE difference between "beliefs" and "ideas". When ideas are made into mass religious beliefs...doors are shut and a false sense of US and THEM is created. Your ignorance baffles me...You are so quick to judge me based on a spelling error...And make some left field statement regarding my age based on my perspectives, which by the way thank you for the complement, I admire our youth for their fresh minds and untainted ideas, sorry you see them as worthless, maybe you are old and useless, in your sixties, a washed up white male that worked hard all his life and now can't except that the last 30 years of his life have been a waste, your country has failed you, you curse the youth of today for their ability to think outside the box and not buy into the bullshit American ideologies that people like yourself buy into and pass off. You probable think that anyone who defies obdience, who thumbs their nose at authority by questioning its intensions and motivations is unpatriotic, a terrorist. In the 50's you were drilled to believe the Russians were going to take over America and your parents spoke about the Japs as evil ignorant people, by the time Vietnam rolled around your were sold that those "gooks" need to be exterminated. Now today you are crusty, jaded, bitter and don't know shit from good chocolate.

          Well I am probable completely wrong about you as you are of me. I am 38 years old, a father of one son 3, and one daughter 5 months, I served in the Navy for 4 years before an honorable discharge in '92 after coming to the conclusion that I did not agree with what I was being called to do. I have a dual major, a masters in History, and a bachlors in early childhood development, along with a minor in social psycology and economics. I am a teacher and work with kids that have various learning disabilities, as well I am a freelance writer,a husband, a musician, a skater, a humanitarian, and run a safe house with three others, for teens and young adults on the street. After I got out of the Navy I went to college. After I graduated college in '99 I spent a total of 3 years in China, Nepal,and India observing, living and writting. I made money by way of various writting jobs jobs. In 2004 I moved to Spain where I meet my wife, we moved back to the staets in 2006. She is a highschool math teacher. Neither one of us claim a political party nor a single religion, though I find peace in buddism. We both have our own opinions but understand that there are many paths to God, and no one single political party has everyones best intrests or all the solutions to our social challenges, issues, and problems. I had a younger brother who was gay and also served in the Army for six years before loosing his life in Iraq to friendly fire while trying to rescue 3 children from a house that was condemed.

          You are right I have yet to master the world, but that does not discredit my ability to share my experiences, knowledge, ideas and perspectives. You may not agree and that is fine, but we all are capable of bringing FRESH IDEAS and perspectives to the table...And it is fresh ideas that we need more than anything.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. longshotlouie

          Cleshays? Is that the same as 'kershaws'?

          lol

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        3. Fluidly Unsure

          It is not possible to translate the title of Islam's holy book, so neither Koran or Qura’n is correct. Not only is written in a completely different script, it contains sounds that are not represented by the script being used here (Latin). I believe it is not even an alphabet but a syllabet.

          Therefore it needs to be transliterated and there is no one way. I don't know the Arabian script, but I wouldn't doubt if Korin was an acceptable alternative.

          There is also the issue that I think it would be more proper according to a follower of Mohammed, to call it al-Qura’n simply to show respect for the book being of God (according to Islam). I'm not 100% sure on this point, it just fits into what little I know.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. fred the protectionist

        "Further more ALL religions have good ideas,"

        Like human sacrifice, animal/idol worship, polygamy, slavery, murder, superstition, etc?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. longshotlouie

          TG 4 the peanut gallery.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          Why do you hate history? What has history ever done to you? That's not right.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  11. Machine

    WOOPS

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Kevin

    I dont think beliefs should be taken to spite one another. I would never be involved in homosexuality but I have a really good friend that is a lesbian. It's close to a race issue, their preference shouldn't decide what they can and can't do in life. I honestly think that any christian who would think that a homosexual is beneath them is against what their own religon teaches them. Yes it says being homosexual is a sin but I have never met a perfect christian so tell me, who among you isn't involved in a sin. Plus, Christianity is about loving your fellow man. I am L.D.S. and I say, repeal "Dont Ask Dont Tell". I'm glad Ron Paul has the kahonas to admit he was wrong.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    1. fred the protectionist

      What's the difference between Mormonism and David Koresh? CS gas.

      I'd guess the Mormon church created more Atheists then Charles Darwin, thanks buddies.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      1. fred the protectionist

        "How would the Mormon church create Atheists" you ask? Because if any New Englander Shmo can waltz in and fabricate a religion out of thin air that will later have a couple million followers, then maybe Jesus was just a Jewish Shmo who waltzed into Jeruselum one day and created a religion out of thin air that would later have a billion followers. It creates doubt.

        Mormonism (and Islam) created more Atheists then Charles Darwin.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. gander

          good argument fred, maybe jesus was the joseph smith of his time.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          It's not good, it's horrible. Although i'm shocked you braindead Atheists haven't thought of it yet as an argument against Christianity.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. Lindsey

      Kevin: I realize that "we have all fallen short of the glory of God". However, we need to set some standards in all of our organizations including the service. If we throw out all moral judgement in our organizations then how can we even function as a society? I am suprised that Ron Paul would change his mind on this issue as I know he is a big proponent of the "Slippery Slope" theory. To rescind Don't ask Don't tell would continue us on a slippery slope.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  13. glen

    How many of you support a person not hiring homosexuals simply because they don't approve of their lifestyle? Let's not get the government involved now!
    I'm certain homos don't want that to happen. They want the government involved as much as possible when it's on their side but when it comes to your morals and cultural heritage it's piss on you. They don't want you to say a word, but when it comes to what they want they're all too quick to pull out the homo horn and blow it right in your friggin ear.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    1. B.D.Harper

      In issues of equality the government should be involved, as long as we're talking about public, not private matters.

      In issues of morality, the government should never be involved, period. Government should never legislate based on morality, ethics, or religious inclinations - we are all divided on this issue and creating a law supporting one side would be ruling by majority, which takes place in a democracy. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, and the minority will always be protected from the majority - that's the whole point of our system.

      That's my stance, regardless of whether we're talking about homosexuality, ethnicity, language, drugs, it doesn't matter.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      1. glen

        My business is private--that's why it's called a private business. And the government should stay out of my private business. Who in the hell do people in the government think they are to regulate my private business and make me hire people I don't want to?
        It can be OPEN to the PUBLIC or not--it should be up to the owner.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

        1. B.D.Harper

          You're not disagreeing with what I said, are you?
          Reread my comment.

          Yes, your business is private, assuming it meets the required standards of a private business - and if it is, the government should not be able to regulate who you hire or serve. If your business is public, as many are, the rules are different. If the U.S. armed forces are public, which they are, they are subject to segregation laws - I'm sorry, but that's a fact whether you accept it or not.

          But if you're proposing that governments should legislate for morality or religion, that's ridiculous. You absolutely have the right to speak on behalf of your beliefs, whatever they may be, but the second you want somebody's rights taken from them, you're overstepping your bounds.

          I'll reiterate in case you don't get it. In matters of equality, in public issues, the government should be involved - it is their job to uphold the constitution, and the constitution says that all men are created equal.
          In matters of morality, that's an issue for the church and the philosopher, and there is no statute that states that this or that moral or ethical theme is the right one and should suppress all others.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        2. glen

          How about several examples from you on what you consider a private or public business.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. glen

          I see some of us on here don't want to engage in detailed, focused discussion--they only want to jump around and make vague replies, condescending posts, and call people names.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. B.D.Harper

          Be patient, glen... Some of us have other things to do. I also don't always notice replies to my comments.

          You want examples, I'll give you some
          Private businesses (most businesses are private):
          UPS
          Coca Cola Co.
          McDonnalds
          Rite Aid

          Public businesses:
          USPS
          Moss Adams
          Kaiser Permanente

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. longshotlouie

      Was the gay question on the application, or did the prospective employee just offer up this tidbit during the interview?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Yvonne

    Al,
    You say you want everyone to follow orders and respect one another. Would you consider it dis respectful if a Christian told a homosexual that they believe the Bible and that the Bible claims homosexuality is sin? I'm not talking about name calling or threatening another person. I'm just talking about an expression of beliefs.
    How would you feel?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Al

      Yvonne,

      That christian can say whatever he/she wants doesn't really matter to me at all (in one ear and out the other). However if i put that those two together to get something done they sure as hell better work together. Otherwise it would be a very quick way to disciplinary actions. See maybe I think much different than other people. I may have an opinion similar to those on this site about homosexuality but that is MY OPINION and only an OPINION. It doesn't matter to me if someone is gay or not. I refuse to play the "Holier than thou" bit as some of us in the world like to do. "Judge not lest ye be judged first" comes to my mind first and foremost when it comes to how others perceive me and I perceive them. I give everybody a fair shake it's called open mindedness and believe me once you discover open mindedness you will feel a sense of release, a burden off of your shoulders and you begin to see the world much differently.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Yvonne

        Hi Al,
        OK.
        But in regards to the question.
        What if the Christian told his point of view and that point of view made the homosexual feel uncomfortable and unable to work with he Christian.
        What do you suppose would be the next step?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      2. Lindsey

        Al: The Bible is clear about God's views regarding homosexuality. He has already made his judgement on this subject. The quote from Christ was simply God telling us to remember that all of us have fallen short. That includes you, me and every one else. It doesn't excuse our sins.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      3. fred the protectionist

        “Judge not lest ye be judged first”

        Verbalizing your opinion is not judging. To Judge is to pass sentence with authority.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        1. Lindsey

          Fred: God has given his judgement regarding homosexuality. It is a sin.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. fred the protectionist

          That's nice, but you have no authority to judge, you're not God and you're not a judge. Are you a judge?

          Someone expressing their opinion is not judging, someone expressing their opinion on theology is not judging either.

          “Judge not lest ye be judged first” is a warning to those with authorita', it doesn't mean everyone but the fags can shut up.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. 1111cb

      workplace/military- keep beliefs to yourself unless people want to discuss in free time. Obey the work place rules. Christians who feel obligated to share their faith- need to realize "persecution" means you can lose your job- so you need to decide what you want to do with how you present yourself

      home/church/free time- beliefs are free to think whatever and offend others as long as you obey the laws and are not promoting terrorist/illegal activity. That is freedom of speech and religion. again if conscience takes you into violating law- like abolitionists, then you change the laws and realize you are at risk also until law is changed.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Al

    It's kind of like Deja' vu. The arguments raised here are the same ones raised for the integration of blacks and women into the the military. The military has only gotten stronger because of diversity. And believe it or not folks........there are gays serving in the military....RIGHT NOW. I don't know when it became associative between gays and sexual predators because that's what it sounds like to me coming from some of you. The fact of the matter is that when you are in a fire fight it sure as hell doesn't matter whether or not the person next to me is gay or straight. At that point we are equal. I want to get home to my wife and he or she wants to get back to his/her partner. I have had the pleasure of serving with some of the finest individuals America has to offer gay or straight, black or white, male or female, christian or atheist. To me it doesn't matter their preferences as long as they are disciplned, follow orders and RESPECT one another.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7

    1. fred the protectionist

      Now blacks are fags huh.

      Blacks must feel such great pride in their heritage, always being compared to cripples, fags, women, retards, animals and children. No wonder why they get offended when you use the "N" word.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

      1. Al

        Well I'm not comparing race at all. However, I am comparing the inability of people to see past those things and not actually having the ability to see the worth of each other as human beings no matter what our race, religion, disability, gender or sexual preference. I may be missing your point completely FRED. Please elaborate.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          Well, in order to fully understand your degrading insults to the African American community, you should watch this documentary on the issue of why you shouldn't compare blacks to fags: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apologies_to_Jesse_Jackson

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

        2. longshotlouie

          I'm still having trouble with how a sexual deviation is equal to race.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. fred the protectionist

          "I’m still having trouble with how a sexual deviation is equal to race."

          It's you Atheists making the argument that fags are fighting for their civil rights like the blacks did, basically equating their civil rights with the fags.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      2. B.D.Harper

        You are such a hateful person.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      3. Fluidly Unsure

        I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting confused. I was shocked that I actually agreed with some of his posts here. When did FP turn into such a tolerant and logical person?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. Yvonne

      Also Al just so you know I actually thought the repeal of DADT was a good idea.
      But I noticed things being mentioned by Christians in regards to their rights.
      I'm just wondering if the right of men to talk about their sexual preference in the military will result in Christians losing their right to talk about their religious beliefs.
      It's not an accusation.
      As for homosexuals serving in the military of course.
      I think having the preference for members of the same sex was never the issue. It's about sharing the information.
      I don't have a strong opinion about it.
      But I do have an opinion about comparing homosexuality to race and gender. I do think that race and gender and height and intellect(for the most part) are self-evident.
      I don't think sexual preferences need to be self-evident all the time. I think there is a time and a place for everything and I just can't come to a personal decision about the military...I don't know if it's the time and place...I'm torn about my feelings but...as another poster pointed out...I've never been in the military so maybe I'll never actually form a real opinion about it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Al

        I'm confused as well. Since when does anyone's beliefs become rights? You have the RIGHT to BELIEVE anything you want, not the other way around. I'll give a ridiculous example. Say that your religion BELIEVES that driving a car is a sin, a mortal one at that. You have the RIGHT to believe that. But my religion, on the other hand, doesn't BELIEVE that. I have the RIGHT to drive a car if I want despite how uncomfortable that makes you. Do I do it in spite of you? Probably not. See I have the RIGHT to BELIEVE that driving a car is not a sin. You have the RIGHT to BELIEVE that it is. Let's just hope that both of our religions teach TOLERANCE.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Yvonne

          Al we're not saying anthing different.
          I've seen and heard human beings say horrible and terrible things against others concerning their God given attributes or because of their personal behavior or beliefs.
          It's always wrong.
          But I've also noticed a lying and hate filled media which likes to portray Christians in a very negative light.
          I do notice some people adopting a belief that Christians are simpley bad and hate filled people based on...?? Really. Based on what??? Prejudice??
          And here I'll give you an example of when I encountered sheer and utter hypocrisy in my personal life. It happened once when I worked with a man who was very flamboyantly gay. The devoutly NON-Christian co-workers would always egg him on about his lifestyle...assurre him it was OK and question him about it.
          But then the minute he left the room he became the subject of some very vulgar and unflattering jokes by these same people. This is tolerance???
          I was his friend.
          We spent many years as close friends. Every now and again if the subject arose I would say ''gee honey I don't know...I think what you're doing is a sin''.
          I suppose military men function and speak differently than those in my proffession.
          Maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges by projecting my own experiences into it.
          But I can't help wondering what would happen.
          Would saying ''gee I think that's a sin'' become ''hate speech''?
          I honestly wonder.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        2. Machine

          My I get in on this discusion??? Assumming so…

          On a personal level I don’t subscribe to any one religion, I see all religions as sharing simmilar “ideas” i.e. brotherhood, peace, fellowship, etc. It’s when we turn this into “beliefs” that things become hostle between religions and all is lost. Gandhi tried passionatly to teach this…especially to muslims and hindus, also you can find this in the words of Jesus, Buddah, Muhamid. But man himself has a certain flaw…and it stems from ego and arrogance…and it is taught through leasons in conquer, win, superior power, etc. The bible, the korin, the tao…all have excellent messages and lessons if one is to read and practice with out the invasion of mass opinion and interpertation. Live and let live, Love thy brother…

          We are equal not only on the battle field but off the battle field too…In fact I’d say the “battle field” is the one place were our differences always end up as fatalities…A collection of casualties based on idiologies and obedience.

          Race Creed Sex Religion…We all bleed red.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Lindsey

          Well said Yvonne!!!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. fred the protectionist

          "Race Creed Sex Religion…We all bleed red."

          If you have an STD, don't bleed on me.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    3. Lindsey

      Al: Open homosexuals are advocating sin. Blacks and women who are not advocating homosexuality are not advocating sin.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  16. Barnicle

    I am national guard officer serving on active duty currently. I don't think those who haven't been in the military understand the culture in it. Frankly I can tell you that if I had an open homosexual under me I would remove him immediately. Not because of my personal sentiments, but for the mere sake of his safety.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Benjamin

      With all due respect for your service to our country, as well for your concerns, that is not a valid argument. What if I said someone should have stopped the colonists because the British army would shoot at them? The reality is, the road to liberty is forever under attack, and will from time to time be painted with blood.

      "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." -- Nathan Hale

      I'm not trying to dramatize this issue. It seems such an insignificant one to me. And do we not have bigger problems, after all? Indeed we do. It seems many here would rather give in to a senseless rule rather than enforce real liberty. But homosexuality is not a crime, so they deserve to have their rights protected, which means government (and by extension, the military) cannot discriminate against them.

      But forget about the skin of the issue. It's the principle of it all. The root of all problems in this country traces directly back to all of us. We've become a risk-averse culture, and won't stand up to tyranny on a consistent basis. Where we don't consider it a matter of our own personal values, tyranny is a "nessecary" evil to prevent more of the same.

      The left bars genuinely free markets and private property on the basis of "what the evil businesses and bible-totting morons would do" (a summary of their sentiment, imv, not my words)

      The right bar genuine live-and-let-live social harmony on the basis of "the slippery slope of the evil left". They value it personally, but when it comes to extending it into full practice, they have a problem of one nature or another.

      I say again, this is never going to make things better. Drop all fears, and instead uphold liberty for all while enforcing the nessecary rules, or we will never be free again. We either uphold it for all, or we uphold it for no one.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Barnicle

        In theory I might agree with you. But the person who is on the ground is dealing with realities.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    2. Machine

      Have we forgotten; "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and if necessary; "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

      Gay or straight, man or woman...nothing is safe about being a soldier. What pisses me of about the issue regarding gays in the milltary is how everyone hides behind politics and/or religion. Sexuality, sex, race...has nothing to do with ones ability, or right to serve their country if they so choose. To make such claims against a persons ability is to establish a racist and sexist form of seperatist elitism. Yes our millitary is certainly a well trained and obedient elite group, but it has nothing to do with being straight, white, or a male. It has everything, though, to do with a person willingness to bravely sacrafice themselves and defend what is held sacred in our country: Freedom, Democracy, Civil Rights, Humanity ( human rights), and last but not least Independence.

      Homosexuality is not some new 21st century trend; it has excisted since the begining of man. I wonder how many "fags" served our country during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII...Or in any war that our government declared and called upon Americans to serve THEIR country?

      Barnicle, why don't you share with those who havn't served in the military the as you call it "...culture in it", so that they may better understand the hypocrisiy surounding gays in the military.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. Brent

    Benjamin,

    Elaborating a bit more on "unintended consequences" you have to remember we have a country currently were the government picks and chooses which laws they obey and short of revolution there's not much we can do about it. Laws that suit their ideological agenda they enforce rigorously. Those that don't (i.e. most of the Constitution) they ignore. I believe allowing people who openly admit to being gay in the military will inevitably lead to them being found to also have the "right" to practice their homosexuality in the ranks and demand acceptance of their lifestyle in the name of "embraceing diversity". To ask homosexuals to refrain from "expressing themselves" will likely come to be seen as an unreasonable suppression of "who they are." Soliders who have moral objections to this portion of their diversity training will likely suffer damage to their careers and potential military discipline. As another poster pointed out, members of the military in practice have significantly less rights than a civilian citizen. You are obviously an individual who carefully weighs the issues, but you do seem to be quite naive on one front. You appear to assume the same rules that apply to straights will also apply to gays. Reality, of course, is there is ALWAYS a double standard when liberals are in charge. Just as with Affirmative Action in the military (which was mentioned earlier), there is one standard for whites and another for non-whites. Likewise, there is no reason not to believe that there will be one standard for gays, but another for non-gays. The same rules may apply on paper to both groups, but there is no reason to believe given the current administration that the rules will be equally applied.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. Benjamin

      Brent,

      First, thank you for taking the time respond in rational and fair manner. Sometimes, I don't know if this forum is being attacked by trolls or if people are just so upset over this issue. As to your concerns, all I can say is this...

      In another post, I pointed out that just because I can be robbed of my gold isn't a reason to not remonitze gold. And I stress this again. We don't allow soldiers to fight among themselves (express their differences in another way), we don't allow them drunken behavior, disobeyiing orders... So there is no reason to allow gays to engage in that behavior while on base or on active duty. I know some will argue this or that, but that is where the line rightly belongs. There needs to be rules of discipline in the army, and if a homosexual can't live with that, then they shouldn't join. Let them be civilians, where they can live however they want (within the law).

      If the right thing is not done out of the concern as to how the far-left will push things, then we might as well all curl up and die, for we could only do nothing at all, for anything, out of the same fear. Why bother defending the Constitution? The left will only try to distort it. Why bother to speak up? The left will only ignore you. Why persecute someone for murder? The left will only let them free. We shouldn't be so cowardly and irresponsible. The consequences of living that way is far worse than having to stand up to what the illiberal (in the classic sense) will undoubtedly try to get away with in the future.

      Liberty is eternal vigilence.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. Machine

      So start a revolution...It works...That is what seperated us from the king.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Brent

    Looks like Ron might have just torpedoed his presidential bid. He COULD have beat Obama, but in order to do that he first must win the Republican nomination. To win the Republican nomination you need the support of Christian conservatives. Up until now, Ron certainly had the credentials to bring this substantial portion of the party into his tent. Most Christian conservatives (the rank-and-file, if not the talking heads) are generally live and let live in their views. The only two no-compromise issues are homosexuals in the military ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was probably the only intelligent thing to come out of the Clinton administration) and abortion. As a socially conservative libertarian, Ron Paul's prior support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and opposition to Roe v. Wade made him a candidate that would certainly appeal a large portion of the base, but after this flip flop vote he's probably sunk. I can certainly understand his rationale and this vote wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me personally (although it does tick me off), but it's just too slippery a slope and I don't know if he considered the "law of unintended consequences" relating to the effects of overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell in practical implementation under a far-left liberal regime.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    1. Benjamin

      Well, being president isn't everything. Besides, I think Ron Paul is just fine where he is, a representative in the House. If there were more like him, the central bank wouldn't be an issue.

      That said, I'm curious as to why this ticks you off. All the repeal of DADT means is that someone can't be punished or discharged simply because their sexual orientation is known. It's not like it allows them to fraternaize (to put it cleanly) in the showers or anything like that. It doesn't allow them to go around chanting "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it!".

      So I'm going to assume you're worried about persecution of religion. But what is the grounds for that? Anyone in the private sector can decide to complain all they want, on whatever grounds. But if you're in the government or military, you keep it to yourself. I honestly don't see what the problem is here, but I'm still open to the possibility that objection has a point. I just haven't seen a good argument presented yet.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. fred the protectionist

    "...a human characteristic - that the longer a man possesses an object, the more readily he grows tired of it. He craves something new: therefore one needs two parties. The one is in office, the other in opposition. When the one has played itself out, then the opposition party comes into power, and the party which has had its day is now in its turn the opposition. After twenty years the new party itself has once more played itself out and the game begins afresh. In truth this is a highly ingenious mill in which the interests of a nation are ground very small."

    Yeah yeah, down with the 2 party system! Who's with me? End the treadmill, vote 3rd party.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. Citizen

      Everyone
      Don't do it...
      A 3rd party simply splits the Conservative vote giving the Big Government Statists more power and eventually absolute control over our lives...
      Goodbye Liberty and Freedom

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. fred the protectionist

        hehe.

        You know if we'd all have your attitude we'd all still be voting for Whigs and Tories.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. glen

    The real issue here is how easily Paul flipped. Who were these constituents? Man, he really got suckered on this deal.
    Economics??? Really, Dr. Paul? Antiviral therapy on special this week?
    He's the only on who could win over Obama at this point, but to do that he needed the republican nomination, now he may as well forget it(very slim chance).
    Looks like another four years of Barach, sad to say.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    1. fred the protectionist

      What part of "he's a Libertarian" don't you get.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  21. fred the protectionist

    Well if the Libertarians ever want to get their 'violent revolution' to 'overthrow the government', they need to weaken the US army first; and that means letting muslim radicals, fags, cripples, women and law-yers run the military. This way, when the 'violent revolution' civil war happens, and the Libertarians are in their pickup trucks with their confederate battle flags waving in the wind going "YEEEEHAAAW!" they can actually have a chance against the Union Army this time.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  22. Ben

    Oh, and another thing. I see a lot of people throwing around that argument that "bigots" are denying "gays" (homosexuals, actually) their constitutional rights.

    Serving in the military is not a right. Not even close. When you join, there is a code of conduct you have to follow. If you don't follow it, you can be disciplined in any number of ways, including discharge. People keep saying that "gays" should be allowed to serve just like anyone else. And they can. They just have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

    Also, there are no sexual rights in the constitution. Not anywhere. There is the right to practice your religion, on the other hand. But no sexual right because the founders intended none.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  23. Stuart

    I do not understand how a true libertarian can be against Ron Paul's vote. I'm extremely happy to learn he changed his mind. All libertarians seem to want is no government. Except when it comes to gay issues.

    How is this scenario right? A girl discovers she is a lesbian while in the army and lets it be known. She then has to be discharged, just for that. She didn't have sex with another officer or sexually harass anyone, she just discovered she was gay. How is that libertarian to want her thrown out of the army for that? That's oppressive government at her best.

    Should she have kept her mouth shut? That seems like liberty doesn't it? The government forcing you to keep quiet about something. First Amendment! (unless your gay in the military) Secondly it is unhealthy to keep a secret like that. It creates stress and anxiety and would probably make her a less effective soldier.

    From my, what I consider to a libertarian point of view, DADT should be repealed.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    1. B.D.Harper

      Agree with your entire post 100%.
      If you are a real libertarian, you should be against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
      It doesn't matter what speculation you have of the effect on the military's effectiveness, being a libertarian means supporting all people's liberties regardless of what they choose to do with them. If they aren't hurting you with it, they have a right to do it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  24. Yvonne

    We have to remember that this government WANTS to divide us over moral issues.
    It's an old propoganda trick.
    Divide and conquer.
    If we're fighting each other we can't fight them.
    If you think it through this is actually the government encouraging us to get involved with ''locker room talk''.
    It's overstepping.
    It's petty.
    It's a diversion.
    We all need to be able to talk about ourselves to other adults if the millieu is appropriate.
    Men can handle themselves. I don't think some big strong military man needs to feel that a homosexual can violate him.
    I don't want it around my little ones because it's my right to say ''that's innapropriate'' and I'll call 911 if you don't back off with your nasty talk.
    On the other hand: If it's grown men we should stay out of the conversion
    As long as the Christian men have their right to say ''I don't know if I'm on board with that you know the Bible does say it's wrong..."
    Government needs to stay out of it.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. Ben

      "As long as the Christian men have their right to say 'I don’t know if I’m on board with that you know the Bible does say it’s wrong…'"

      Yvonne, I'd like to know if you've ever been in the military. Nothing wrong if you haven't, I'm just wondering. I won't assume either way, but your comments indicate to me that you have not.

      The military is not just a 9 to 5 job. They have broad powers over the conduct of servicemen, and yes they tell them to shut up about all sorts of things. There isn't a doubt in my mind that Christians will not be able to express their rejection of homosexuality, no matter how delicately they phrase it. This will be an automatic EO complaint which is an automatic career killer and an automatic disciplinary action. Furthermore, simply keeping quiet may not be enough. There will probably be times when soldiers will be required to AFFIRM homosexual behavior.

      I suspect that the military will handle this exactly the same way it handles affirmative action. AA is the official policy of the military and it is not up for debate. You may not suggest in any terms that a fellow soldier was promoted because of his or her face or gender. You may not object to the policy in general. If you don't like it, you can shut your damned pie hole. Of course, plenty of people grumble behind closed doors, but you'd better make sure the wrong people aren't listening.

      That's how the military works. The idea behind it is that you will follow orders (in this case, the order to shut up). If you don't like it, then don't reenlist. The only probelm is that many servicemen will do exactly that--vote with their feet and leave the military entirely. A recent Military Times poll revealed that ten percent of the military says they will definitely not reenlist if DADT is repealed. An additonal fourteen percent said it will cause them to consider not reenlisting. That's an appaling drain on our armed forces.

      If you think that this will go through and our servicemen will be able to speak their mind, express their religious beliefs, you are wrong.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      1. Benjamin

        "The military is not just a 9 to 5 job. They have broad powers over the conduct of servicemen, and yes they tell them to shut up about all sorts of things....You may not suggest in any terms that a fellow soldier was promoted because of his or her face or gender. You may not object to the policy in general. If you don’t like it, you can shut your damned pie hole. Of course, plenty of people grumble behind closed doors, but you’d better make sure the wrong people aren’t listening.... That’s how the military works. The idea behind it is that you will follow orders (in this case, the order to shut up). "

        Just curious... Where in the Constitution does it say soldiers do not have the same rights as citizens?

        "A recent Military Times poll revealed that ten percent of the military says they will definitely not reenlist if DADT is repealed. An additonal fourteen percent said it will cause them to consider not reenlisting. That’s an appaling drain on our armed forces. "

        (shrugs) So be it. Our standing army is over-sized anyhow, and Ron Paul believes it could do with some downsizing.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        1. Ben

          The Constitution doesn't say that soldiers don't have the same rights as civilians. But the oath of enlistment states that soldiers will follow the orders of the President and officers appointed above them. If they order you to shut up, then you must obey. It's not optional.

          The reason I mention this is because Yvonne seems to think that homosexuals in the military are no threat to any one's rights so long as people are still allowed to voice objections to their behavior. The naivete of the statement nearly knocked me over. The right to object to homosexuality will be the first thing to go, guaranteed! So, does that mean that she will finally admit that homosexuals ARE a threat to the right to voice objections?

          By the way, even in civilian jobs, even in jobs which require no oath swearing to follow orders, your employer can tell you to shut the hell up while on the clock. The thing with soldiers is that soldiers are on duty even when they're off duty.

          Women in the military offer the perfect example. Personally, I found women in the military to be an absolute catastrophy. I could go into detail about why I believe that, but that's not the point of the post. The broader point I'm trying to make is that I was not permitted under any circumstances to imply that women in the military was bad policy. If I so much as breathed a word against women in the military, disciplinary action would follow. Don't even get me started on the various racial issues. Even general criticism of affirmative action is off limits because it's "racist".

          Ron Paul knows this too. He's a veteran. And yet he voted aginst DADT anyway, knowing full well that people with religious objections against homosexuality will be silenced. A vote against DADT is a vote against our troops' right to speak.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        2. Benjamin

          Ben said: "Ron Paul knows this too. He’s a veteran. And yet he voted aginst DADT anyway, knowing full well that people with religious objections against homosexuality will be silenced. A vote against DADT is a vote against our troops’ right to speak."

          No it isn't. You said so yourself. Orders is orders. And if the order is to shut up, you shut up. So you can't blame the repealing of DADT (and by extension, Ron Paul) for silencing soldiers. That's simply the rules of the army, which you said you agree with.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      2. Yvonne

        Ben,
        OK. Honestly I think you win. I have never been in the army. I get the AA argument.
        I think you're worried that DADT will force others to be silenced and honestly, I think you have a point.
        I do still think that we still have to stick together and still support Ron Paul. These moral issues that are deliberately being thrust upon him and his son are a deliberate attempt by their opponents to divert attention from what's really important.
        Too much government.
        Too many taxes.
        An evil federal reserve.
        I still want to support Ron Paul but yeh....I see your point.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  25. fred the protectionist

    See, Libertarians = Liberal.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

    1. fred the protectionist

      Social Liberals, and 'Trade Liberalization'.

      Libertarians are mega Liberals. The definition of Liberal is not, "Wrong Guy."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

    2. Ben

      Fred,

      Real libertarians aren't liberals. Just this current crop that worships Ron Paul.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. fred the protectionist

        Real Libertarians are more Liberal then Ron Paul.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  26. glen

    The guys almost 80 y.o. and had a formed opinion on the issue and then he gets a revelation because of several calls and visits from constituents--yeah, right!

    How about getting people in the military that like the idea of having sex with children? Not actually having sex with children but like the idea of it. Or how about their sister? Two consenting adults, that OK isn't it? Or how about your own child? The parent doesn't object and the parent knows best--not the government! Apply that to your dog as well--doggie likes it--jumps right into bed!
    This crap will come along in time, but thats OK, because we're all so tolerant and certainly not incestaphobic or beastialityaphobic.
    Nambla, 12 y.o. girls in Holland. Moral breakdown of society.

    But back to the real issue...Paul flipped on his stance because of gay pressure and tries to excuse it with economics. Come on! When's the next one coming?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

    1. Yvonne

      I don't believe Ron Paul changed his moral beliefs I just think that, like myself, he is realizing that the government is too intrusive and if we give them this inch they will find an excuse to take a yard.
      You are right about boundaries. Of course grown men should not be talking to children about sex. I was horrified when school teachers were teaching about things that some of my friends' children would refer to as ''icky''. But with DADT if we allow the government to tell grown men what they are allowed to say to other adults about their sex preference then the day may come when I'll be silenced about my religious preference.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Ben

        Quite the opposite. You (or rather, service members) will be silenced concerning your religious prefence when homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. Your religious beliefs will be grounds for disciplinary action and discharge.

        This is not about getting government out of people's lives. That's the red herring. These are members of the military and they must follow a code of conduct that the rest of us civilians do not. For example, it would be a great abuse of government power to prohibit citizens from wearing earrings. It is not, however a great abuse of government power to prohibit soldiers from wearing earrings. Ditto hairstyles, tattos, even clothing. The military also prohibits other sexual behaviors including adultery.

        If you're worried about the threat to your religous freedom, look in the direction of the very aggressive anti-religious secularists. I assure you, DADT never has absolutely no bearing on how you can worship.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        1. Benjamin

          Well, Ben, if that is what happens then we call government on it and remind them that people have a right to say they don't approve of homosexuality (whether on religious or whatever grounds).

          What you're arguing is basically like saying we shouldn't remonitize gold because someone might rob me and take all my gold. Just doesn't work.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  27. Jack

    Way to go Ron! It's high time we get the government out of deciding moral standards for people, and give the power back to the population!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

  28. Ben

    Ayn Rand said it best:

    "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."

    Furthermore, she stated that: "Homosexuality is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

    That was the traditional position of libertarians. A new breed of neo-libertarian (or as I call them pseudo-libertarians) has twisted the philosophy to mean that Libertarians should always come to the aid homosexuals and against the religious. If that's your point of view, please stop calling yourself a libertarian. That's not what you are. Call yourself something else--anything else--but please don't call yourself a libertarian.

    Ron Paul used to have the courage to stand up to these people. I guess he just doesn't have the guts anymore. Tell me--was he less of a libertarian back then? I don't think so.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

    1. Benjamin

      When did Ron Paul ever attack religion and force homosexuality on anyone?

      Look, I know you're a homophobe, which is fine, but realize that phobia by it's nature implies irrational thinking. And since you think Ron Paul and these "neo libertarians" are out to get you... Well, there ya go. They're not, you think they are... Irrational.

      As for Ayn Rand saying IT, that was just her opinion, her own values.

      Government, on the other hand, cannot show such discrimination. See my post to Tommy, below. Barring a recruit on the basis of mere potential problems is akin to treating someone as guilty until proven innocent. And _that_ by far would be the most disgusting thing is government was allowed to act that way.
      And seeing as how anyone is potentialy a morale/discipline problem, it would be foolish for the army to practice such a policy.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    2. Grant

      Well said, Benjamin. On top of that, Ron Paul doesn't agree with Ayn Rand on everything. Plus, who said she gets to decide what the Libertarian platform is? FYI, Ron is a Republican.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      1. Benjamin

        "FYI, Ron is a Republican."

        I don't know what Dr Paul is anymore. All I know for sure is that he truly fights to uphold the Constitution, says what he means, means what he says, and he's been doing it for a long time. Good enough for me! :-)

        Oh, and thanks for the comment.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    3. fred the protectionist

      "Ayn Rand said..." So let it be written, so let it be done.

      All hail Ayn Rand, the Goddess of the Anarchists and Libertarians. Bow down on your knees to the great infallible Ayn Rand; the Soviet Jew turned Anarchist (now there's a leap, not).

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  29. Tommy

    As a longtime supporter of Ron Paul, who emptied my bank account to see he was elected or at least noticed, and continue to help his son, Rand, I was extremely disappointed with Ron Paul's vote. Don't Ask Don't Tell has nothing to do with unjust discrimination. There are not different water fountains, buses, park benches, for homosexuals.

    This is an efficiency issue and a power directly given to the congress. Raise and form an army, and make sure it runs properly. I could think of no worse place to have people sexually attracted to each other than in boot camp, training, or battlefield.

    I compare it to if I (male) was able to join an all female platoon. Hell, why shouldn't I be able to? Not to mention, these females will be running and jumping around, sometimes taking off their shirts, or showering nude. In all sincerity, why couldn't I join this all female platoon? Can no one see that this movement in the name of equality is really that of a movement to achieve similarity?

    In conclusion: The congress is supposed to run the army. Make sure there are no situations where people will easily get distracted or otherwise disorderly.

    Extremely disappointed in his vote. Instead of listening to major generals, a clear and vocal majority of those already serving, and basic sexual realization, he caved for one of the biggest special interest groups in America.

    He can kiss the republican nomination goodbye. Extremely hard to write that sentence.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

    1. Benjamin

      "I could think of no worse place to have people sexually attracted to each other than in boot camp, training, or battlefield."

      And people who do misbehave in the army _are_ dealt with... _When they do something they're not supposed to_. You have to break the rules first. If the army didn't function that way, we wouldn't have an army because anyone can potentially break rules.

      Amazing that some people have to have this pointed out to them...

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    2. Grant

      Tommy,

      Congress has the power to raise an army. The president gets to run the army.

      If you're point is that congress is supposed to run the army, well you have it. They ARE doing just that, just not in a way that you would agree with.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. Lindsey

      Tommy: You're right in your analysis of this issue. Not all soldiers will be bothered by homosexuals serving with them but some will and that is reason enough for the don't ask don't tell policy. I think Ron is losing it!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  30. Glen

    How would someone be discriminated against for being a homosexual if no one asked them and they didn't tell. If you can look at them and suspect they are homos and discriminate, it doesn't matter if Don't ask, don't tell is in place or not. There are already laws for discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    I support Paul on many issues and beleive he's the best we've got, but see this is simply a sell out to the powerful gay lobby and a wake up call(once again).
    All these guys can be twisted if the right twister comes along. Don't beleive he voted this way because he "received several calls and visits from constituent"--and if he did--how silly and foolish!

    The economic aspect of his story is lame as well. Tell us Dr. Paul about homosexual activity being conductive to disease and how that most cases of AIDS are due to the trauma and blood exchange during anal sex as well as the promiscuity that's so common amongst homosexuals. Homos have much higher cases of all venereal diseases and cancer that are related. How in the world is having to deal with this saving the military money? It's not!!! It will cost!

    This is simply about gays promoting their agenda and lifestyle and making it more commonplace in American society.

    Go ahead and follow blindly like sheep. The Obama people are doing it, so you may as well too, right?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  31. Jack Conway

    I think Ron's reasoning being only financial makes sense. How can he have a moral outrage when he's opposed to the wars to begin with and he'd prefer nobody be in the military if possible?

    But, if they're going to be over there, they should at least be as frugal as possible.

    That's my take anyway.

    Tracy

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  32. Bottomline

    Ron Paul made a courageous vote on repealing the bill. & I feel that gays and lesbians should be able to serve in the military because they can be just as patriotic as their heterosexual counterparts.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

    1. Ben

      Courageous? In what sense?

      He voted the way the administration wanted him to vote. His vote was in line with public opinion and preveailing societal trend. He voted the way the news media wanted him to vote. He voted the way most people in the Congress did.

      I think Ron Paul had more courage when he used to stand against the powerful, monied, homosexual lobby. Now that takes guts.

      You might argue that his vote was correct, but please don't argue that it was courageous. That just doesn't pass the laugh test.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      1. Bottomline

        Oh! & your fine with the government telling us how everyone should live.
        He has thought about it with an independent mind, unlike you.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      2. Bottomline

        FYI! Ron Paul knows where he stands. He doesn't impose his views on others.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  33. Ben

    I miss the old Ron Paul. That Ron Paul had the cajones and the integrity to speak plainly and let the chips fall where they may. He was not cowed by the homsexual lobby.

    In an article entitled "Bring Back the Closet!" Paul pined, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

    Spoken like a true libertarian. Unfortunately, that Paul is dead and gone. The new rainbow-friendly is now voting to repeal DADT. And shame on him for it. I could have voted for the old Ron Paul. He had guts and I like that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 21

    1. Yvonne

      Ben I see how in a certain millieu his previous comment with the closet still has some relevance. I just don't believe it applies to the army. There was and still is a potential problem in schools where parents rights to withhold sexual info. from very young children was being violated and that would be a setting where closet(or bed info.) needs to stay private imo. My rationale is that I have young chlidren and they don't need to know what anyone is doing when the bedroom doors are shut. I have even heard older children refer to sex ed as ''icky stuff that made them feel weird''..
      There was a threat to parents whose right to decline from having their children learn about ''icky stuff'' was being trampled.
      Anyway....the army is a different matter because it is a public institution and only adults are involved. So now it becomes freedom of speach.
      So his view on that makes sense.
      Don't you think?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    2. Yvonne

      Ben,
      Also don't let our political system play you.
      They deliberately set us up to war with each other over moral issues.
      Different millieus need different boundaries. They blur the lines deliberately.
      They sow the seeds of discord.
      They have conservatives shaming people into hating homosexuals while they have liberals shaming people for feeling modest and shy. It's divisive.
      I want protection for my own private space so I want assurance that if some GI busts into my home and starts telling my 9 year old how he like to achieved orgasm I can warn him to stop and call 911 if he doesn't.
      On the flip side:
      If GiJoe want to tell his bunk buddy about the things that float his boat then I think he has that right and I don't want Uncle Sam getting involved.
      Can you see that at all?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  34. Michael

    I've been a Ron Paul supporter before it was cool, and I must say, I am glad that he voted in favor of repealing DADT, as I was hoping he would.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5

  35. Ryan

    I didn't know Ron's position on this issue before. But I am glad that he now opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I must say, I'm a little disappointed that his only stated reason for doing so is financial in nature. To me, as a matter of principal, any non-criminal person that wants to serve their nation should be allowed to do so. The government and military should not be discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. But regardless of reasoning, I am glad he is now voting to eliminate this philosophically, as well as economically, flawed policy. As long as a soldiers conduct is militarily uniform and appropriate, while on duty, they should be allowed to serve.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4

    1. Ben

      Okay, Ryan a few things.

      You mentioned that as long as a soldier's behavior is appropriate "while on duty" they should be allowed to serve. In some respect, soldiers are always on duty. There is no off duty. The military gets in your business in ways large and small. That's the way it is. It's not just another job. In any case, you can't just don't do anything you want so long as you're out of uniform. You can't, for example, smoke marijuana.

      Secondly, you have to consider the amount of personel who have already said that they will leave the military as a result of this. It's a minimum of ten percent. That's larger than the Marine Corps.

      Finally, this isn't a matter of simply "allowing" homosexuals to mention that they have same sex attractions. It brings up issues of whether soldiers will be forced to affirm that behavior (I assure you, they will) whether they will be permitted to express sincerely hel religious beliefs on the subject (I assure you, they won't) what chaplains will be able to tell soldiers who are struggling with same sex attractions, what Bible verses can be read. There will be diversity training and endless EO complaints.

      Yes, homosexuals should be "allowed" to serve, and they already are. They just have to keep it to themselves and no one is allowed to inquire about it. From what I've heard from homosexuals, they think that their bedroom behavior is their own private business.

      This vote is just further proof that Ron Paul is a RINO. This has nothing to do with smaller government and everything to do with bowwing before the homosexual agenda.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 18

      1. Joan

        Ben, you notice how he's having a hard time getting over 3,000 pledges? That tells us something. When you really get down to it, most folks want all of the social programs, they fight in here about being taken care of by the government. I was talking in one board in MNNBC this lawyer made about health care is not a right, pro-Libertarian, fools parroting Glenn Beck talking about they would rather pass from cancer than ask for free health care cause they watch Glenn Beck and he is teaching them "real education." As soon as I told them Obama is going to give them 12,000 a year to pay for health insurance, they all stopped posting. If the Tea Party people could get their 500 billion back in socialized medicine that Obama took out of Medicare and if they could get rid of the illegals and end welfare to fund SS and Medicare, they would be very happy. What I see is people who want socialism and are in denial about what they want because their education is from Glenn Beck. It's a big disconnect. That may be why Ron Paul is not getting support. Also, look at how his son went off the hook about the civil rights act and people with disabilities. Bad politics and those things were not an issue.

        Most of the folks in here are on disability and they figure Ron Paul will cut welfare and all social programs except theirs. Everyone actually wants socialism but no one has figured it out yet. I think we should start looking for another candidate, I don't know, looking back, people should have gone with universal health care. They freaked out about it because they figured it meant cuts to Medicare. Maybe folks should get behind Obama once they figure out what it is they are really after. I don't know. The illegals want amnesty, welfare, and to get SS and Medicare, the young people want free health care by cutting the old folks free health care, the old folks want money from the government and government run health care. I see it as a war between the old white folks and the Hispanics and poor younger people over who will get the most entitlements. JMO.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        1. Yvonne

          Is there any sort of board monitor. I really am passionate about this issue because I understand both sides and I believe there is a middle ground which cannot be understood because of media exploitation.
          I hoped to engage this young man because his post seemed intelligently written and he represents another side to the argument which I thought we could benefit from.
          But along comes this crazy poster again. The potential dialouge has been completely thwarted.
          What crazy rants? She's getting worse. Can't someone stop her?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. Yvonne

        Ben that is actually a point I hadn't considered.
        You see how the government is messing with us?
        Freedom for one group threatens to impose unfair restraints on another.
        I agree with repealing the bill but I also wholeheartedly agree with you that I don't want my rights denied. I want my freedom to politely say ''I think such and such is morally wrong''.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      3. Ryan

        Ben, the issue is about what the government should and should not be doing. Individual people can discriminate in their own opinions. I imagine there are still soldiers out there that believe there should be no Atheists in foxholes. Or, that women should not be allowed in combat. But any civilized government, especially one that proclaims, "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All", is obligated to treat its citizens the same under the law.

        Ben, I could care less about, "Endless EO complaints." or "personnel who have already said that they will leave the military as a result of this.". Anyone who would leave the military prematurely because of a decision made by their superiors whom they have sworn to obey should be DD'd.
        Further, that reasoning doesn't hold an ounce of water. The same argument was made when women were allowed as fighter pilots. And that disappeared immediately after the decision was finally passed.

        To me this is a matter of principals and Constitutionality much more so than about what gays or bigots respectively want. It's about what the government should and should not be doing. It's about equality under the law. It's about the Constitutional rights of all people in this nation. If a person is not a convicted criminal they should possess the same rights under the law as everyone else. Thus far the "morality" police have been successful in denying people that they hate, equality of rights. The fact that Gays and Lesbians are allowed to serve if they just keep silent about it is a convenient excuse for continuing to deny them their equality of rights. If a Atheist or Christian says, "I'm Atheist", or "I'm Christian", they are not discharged dishonorably. If a man or woman says, "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman", they are not discharged dishonorably. If a black soldier or white soldier says, "I'm black" or "I'm white", they are not discharged dishonorably. But when a gay or lesbian says, "I'm gay" or "I'm lesbian" they are discharged dishonorably. It is pure discrimination, and unjustified. If the gay was having sex in a foxhole, I'd say, "yes, that is inappropriate behavior", worthy of punishment. But to open their mouth and speak words about what they are as a person is not just ground for dismissal.

        No matter how you feel about the issue of homosexuality, it is discrimination and it is wrong on principled and Constitutional grounds to hold them to a different standard than all other "types" of people.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        1. Yvonne

          Ryan I agree with repealing the bill but if you don't mind I am wondering how you feel about military personell quoting Bible passages which say homosexuality is a sin?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        2. Ryan

          Hello Yvonne,
          Sure, any person should be able to speak there faith, or disagree on any subject openly. I have no problem with that. There is a difference between individuals (We the People) speaking their opinions, and the Government imposing a discriminatory legal requirement. The Military and the Government should not be allowed to legally discriminate, denying non-criminal people the right to serve. But the soldiers themselves should be free to speak their viewpoints on either side of the debate. Fairness under the law is the main point I'm supporting. To me it's not really a pro gay or anti gay debate at all. It could be any "type" of people. It's a pro-Constitutionality argument in favor of equality of rights for We the People. And of course, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right too, and should apply equally to all people as well. It's the government that is Constitutionally obligated to treat all people equally under the law.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        3. Yvonne

          Ryan I wish Ron Paul would explain it that way. Explaining that he wants to protect freedom of speech for soldiers on BOTH sides of the debate would certainly put us ''bible thumpers'' at ease.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        4. Ryan

          Yes, I agree. His explanation was rather weak. Maybe he'll expand upon his position in the near future.

          I like to think of this debate as an analogy to pro football. The teams within the league represent the people and all their different philosophical positions on the issues, and the Government is analogous to the referees. While the teams all do heated battle on the issues, the referees are obligated to dispense the rules equally. It's not really about what the "Packers" or the "Cowboys" represent, it's about how the referees are dispensing the rules, and whether or not they are being unfair to any team in the league. :)

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply