Ron Paul: The Only White Male Republican to Vote For Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

[Vessol]

Out of irony, this was at the bottom of the page.

Also..a..scientific gay test? How would you do that? "Alright boys! Drop your pants! First one to get a hard-on while I stand in front of y'all naked is kicked out!"

 

[MelissaWV]

Out of irony, this was at the bottom of the page.

Also..a..scientific gay test? How would you do that? "Alright boys! Drop your pants! First one to get a hard-on while I stand in front of y'all naked is kicked out!"

I had to add "scientific" because smartypants dannno decided to post "gay test" memes. The point is that without some definitive way of prohibiting homosexuals from the military (which would have to include some kind of testing), they'll still be there. This debate isn't about keeping gays out of the military. It's about whether, once there, they should pretend to be something they're not and keep quiet about their private lives.

 

[Vessol]

Yeah, a lot of the hardcore homophobes and such I find tend to actually have repressed feelings themselves on the matter. How would you stop people who are homosexual, but repress it from joining?

 

[specsaregood]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

I think "defend" is the keyword here. "Defend" should not include forcing our way of life and ideals on the rest of the world through the barrel of a gun.

 

[Vessol]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

We aren't even supposed to have a standing military under the Constitution..

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

Freedom is not one of those concepts you just give lip service to. Free people who have a natural right to defend themselves have little use for standing armies and wars of aggression.

Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

If men are incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants maybe men should be banned from the military since you think it is impossible to build units of cohesion and efficiency utilizing men.

 

[virgil47]

Freedom is not one of those concepts you just give lip service to. Free people who have a natural right to defend themselves have little use for standing armies and wars of aggression.



If men are incapable of keeping their dicks in their pants maybe men should be banned from the military since you think it is impossible to build units of cohesion and efficiency utilizing men.

Your understanding of the need for standing militaries is correct if you live in the 1700's. A free society with the right to defend themselves is no match for a well trained military. I wish it were not so but it is.

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

 

[Kojac]

A standing military (especially a navy and naval forces-e.g. USMC) is perfectly legal under article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.

 

[Brian Defferding]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

In the words of Barry Goldwater: It's whether you shoot straight, not if you are straight.

 

[libertarian4321]

Men who aren't attracted to another man's hairy genitals.

So you'd allow gays who prefer men who shave their genitals?

That might be a work around that the gays would approve of...

 

[libertarian4321]

...So people are getting pretty worked up here.
1: The military functions as a brotherhood, a family, epsecially on the smallest levels.
2: The military is populated with a lot of folks who are not the brightest individuals; stereotyping is abundant.
3: Straight women are already sexual outsiders in this environment, and it is difficult for them to break through purely professional interaction and become family.
4: Openly gay/lesbian servicemembers introduce to the system an even smaller minority of sexual outsiders that have even more extreme pre-existing stereotypes.
5: Forced, awkward professionalism does not cut it in dangerous situations. Family and brotherhood within a unit protects the members and helps them get the job done faster and better.

I know you have a set of beliefs based upon spending some time in the Marines.

Here's a little historical perspective presented to you from a long time soldier and military history buff:

1. Many Armies today, including some that are on par with ours, allow gays to serve- the British Army, the German Army, the Israeli Army and many others.
2. The Roman Army allowed gays to serve and were the best military in the world (by far).
3. The SPARTANS- a group who have long been held as the ultimate warrior society, not only allowed homosexuality among soldiers, they ENCOURAGED it- in fact, pairing a young soldier with a veteran was part of the training, and homosexual contact was part of the bonding process.

There are many other examples, of course, but I won't go into all of them. I'm simply pointing out that allowing gays to serve in the military has not been shown to lead to a break down in discipline or a loss of effectiveness.

Remember, for many years, the US military made the same "break down of discipline" remarks to prevent the integration of blacks into the military. It turned out to be utter bull shit, of course.

I do not believe allowing gays into the military will lead to a collapse of the military, but having served many years in the Army, and having at one time held the same views you do, I'd be willing to make the following compromise: Start with allowing gays into NON COMBAT units (filling the same slots women can fill now). If that works well for a few years, consider opening up all slots.

I guarantee you, allowing gay soldiers to serve as logisticians, linguists, nurses, doctors, cooks, clerks, technicians, mechanics, and other non combat slots is NOT going to cause a major disruption.

 

[MelissaWV]

...

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

Did you feel the same way, I wonder, about those "uppity blacks" and the way they just flaunted their ability to eat at the same diner as you and sit at the front of the bus? It was, after all, "illegal" just a few years before it was "legal."

You, and various people in this thread, don't seem to get that for all your freedom-loving values and assertions that you are "pro liberty," you are going about punishing precrime. You haven't said that disruptive behavior should be punished. You have said that openly gay people tend to be disruptive, and implied they should be muzzled and asked to pretend they're straight in order to "keep the peace." I suppose the idea of someone who's supposed to have their mind on protecting their fellow soldiers instead worrying about their cover story has never had an impact on "unit cohesion."

Why not actually punish the disruptive behavior? Heterosexuals are not immune to causing that kind of disruption. Some of the attitudes about women make others in the unit uncomfortable, from anecdotal evidence I've heard. Various friends have had to endure the stories of sexual conquest and even bragging about beating wives or other such "distasteful" behavior. Reporting it would be silly. Well, reporting that someone in your unit has a man waiting for them at home instead of a woman is also silly. It's rooted in the misconceptions of others, and some kind of fear that homosexuals are going to pounce on everyone they see. If someone really really REALLY has a problem with gays, wouldn't they want to know who's gay? You could be showering next to "one of them" right now, and not know it! They're covertly gay and they're checking you out!

Oh and yes, let's just pray for Taliban-style rule. I'm sure that women not being able to drive or go to certain places without a chaperone is right up your ally, along with banning homosexuality (which, as we know, will stop everyone from being gay... as bans on drugs have stopped that dead in its tracks).

Some of you guys' logic is really downright silly.

 

[Kojac]

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what military life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for the military?

Who here has actually served?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Your understanding of the need for standing militaries is correct if you live in the 1700's. A free society with the right to defend themselves is no match for a well trained military. I wish it were not so but it is.

It is not the fact that there are gays in the military it is the fact that openly gay people tend to act out and have an in your face attitude about behavior that was illegal just a few years ago. The majority of U.S. citizens consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order. While this is not "currently" illegal it is still distasteful. If the followers of Islam truly make inroads in this country being gay will become illegal again.

No, the majority of people do not consider homosexual behavior to be a perversion of the natural order, just the freedom-hating bigots.

 

[MelissaWV]

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what military life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for the military?

Who here has actually served?

Wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what bisexual/homosexual life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for bisexuals/homosexuals?

Who here is actually bisexual/homosexual?

Kudos, though, on the implication that a different set of standards, liberty, philosophy, and morals are in play once you join the military. Thankfully, I know enough level-headed military folks not to take that as gospel.

Keep the policy. It will make it easier to avoid the draft, and easier to live an insular life where you can pretend everyone around you is straight, so long as you're in the military.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

wouldn't it be great if those who have no idea what bisexual/homosexual life is like would stop thinking they know what's best for bisexuals/homosexuals?

Who here is actually bisexual/homosexual?

Kudos, though, on the implication that a different set of standards, liberty, philosophy, and morals are in play once you join the military. Thankfully, i know enough level-headed military folks not to take that as gospel.

Keep the policy. It will make it easier to avoid the draft, and easier to live an insular life where you can pretend everyone around you is straight, so long as you're in the military.

+10,000

 

[Theocrat]

Homosexual BEHAVIOR is the Issue

1. The idea that only those who you deem morally pure should be pulling the trigger (regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person on the other end) will never be any less silly to me.

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.

2. Is heterosexual behavior to be tolerated? Sex while on duty shouldn't be happening. I think what you are missing is that heterosexuals can talk about their girlfriend or wife back home, and homosexuals have to bite their tongue and not talk about the loved one they are worried they will never see again. That notion escapes a great deal of people who seem to view gay men as hedonistic, immature, and slaves to their sexual impulses. Of course, a Code of Conduct prevents all bad behavior from EVER taking place, right? That's why it's never, ever violated. Having that code in place will not keep gays out of the military. It will, once again, keep them quiet about being gay.

Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3. Thankfully, few people actually go so far as to desire my bedroom behavior be "corrected." In fact, few people care about it at all. What is your obsession with what people do or do not do with their private parts? What concern is it of yours? Perhaps your favored sexual positions and practices should be scrutinized by the public at large. Perhaps you have sex with the lights on which, as any good Amish woman will tell you, is perverted and wrong. For you to climb atop your high horse and pretend to be the authority on what's "right" for people to do in their bedrooms is laughable, but predictable.

4. See point #1. It is STILL laughable that we're discussing who is morally good enough to shoot at others based on unrelated activity on the homefront.

I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their faggotry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

 

[ProBlue33]

I get his vote.

BUT...
If somebody is openly flaunting their straightdom, it could disturb the unit.
So let's say a straight guy is doing this and the other enlisted men complain to their CO, now what. The CO tells the guy tone it down, or I can't be responsible for a possible code red, something along those lines.

Straights will still need to be discrete to some extent.
Do you really think a military unit will accept a Larry Craig type gay guy?

Get Real Buddy, and get out of fantasy land.

And your last question makes absolutely no sense, as you switched from straight to gay, maybe if you would have used somebody like Tiger Woods it would have made sense

 

[0zzy]

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.



Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.



I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their faggotry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

I guess this type of belief is why you call yourself...

Theocrat.

 

[MelissaWV]

It's not about rooting out those people whom I deem morally pure. This issue has nothing to do with my tastes. It has to do with God's standards, and He has made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes (Leviticus 18:21). Since God is Creator of the universe and the Giver of human rights, then He has the final authority on the issue, not me, not you, and definitely not the federal government. There is an absolute standard for resolving this issue, after all.

Yes, heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated, but I do agree with you that sex on duty shouldn't happen (although I never said that, in the first place). Gays who talk about their "love interests" should be criticized about it, and they should be called to repentance. That is the nature of moral thinking coupled with freedom of speech. I don't think soldiers in the military should use violence against a soldier they find out to be gay, either. It should be dealt with judiciously via the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I have a moral/spiritual problem with homosexuality. It goes against creation and God's intent for the sexual behavior between a man and a woman. I have a social/political problem with homosexuality. Homosexuals are using the State to punish anyone who speaks out against their faggotry. They think they have a civil right to be gay, so they get all in people's faces about it to get them to support it. And if one doesn't, that person is a bigot, kind of like when a Black person is criticized, the critic is called "racist." There is no obsession with homosexuality. I speak out against it because it is immoral behavior which is destroying society, in general, and the family, in particular.

Your first paragraph brings God into it again. Okay, since God does not intend homosexuality, what DOES God intend? Missionary with the lights off? Where, precisely, does this vulgarity and immorality begin? If it's about morality, those heterosexuals who lust after lesbian or bisexual porn should also be rooted out, no? Those heterosexuals who engage in un-Christian sexual acts should also be removed. All of thise, of course, before engaging in God-sanctioned killing of people overseas, right? It still makes no sense, and if you'd like to pretend it does, that's fine. Don't be surprised when others see the glaring holes in your logic.

Your second paragraph says that heterosexual behavior is to be tolerated. Why? Why is talking about your home life okay only if it's a heterosexual home life? What if it's a heterosexual soldier speaking of being raised in a loving home by homosexual parents? That seems to be perfectly eligible for being vulgar and immoral, and leading to unit incohesion. Is that cause for dismissal as well? Why is talking about the dozen women you banged before you left for Iraq grounds for "criticism" but talking about the one man you've loved for two years and hope you live to see again is grounds for dismissal? You're really telling me God's okay with the former more than the latter? Your own logic once again undoes you.

Someone *is* a bigot when they want to legislate someone else based on who they are. Mind you, this is not about what one does because, as demonstrated above, you do not have a uniform standard for that. You are not for exclusively punishing homosexual sex but for punishing any mention of being homosexual, even though the two things are entirely different. I don't want to tell you what kind of sex you can and cannot have, and I certainly am not looking to point out what you're doing "wrong." You, however, look for any opportunity to call for death and damnation of homosexuals, and when cornered on it, it's God's idea

That's so odd, because nature is full of some very quesitonable sexual habits. Did the devil create all of those animals?

You don't want to know what they're doing. Perhaps God intends us to be more natural, like the bed bug?

It seems that the male bedbug is equipped with a formidable, swordlike penis which he uses to impale his mate—in her stomach, of all places. No wonder it’s called “traumatic copulation!” His sperm then enters the female’s bloodstream, eventually arriving at a storage gland, where it remains until (and this is where people come into the picture) the female feeds on human blood and produces a clutch of eggs ready to be fertilized.

Well... let's not.

I could go on and on with what sick methods God has come up with for His creatures to procreate, but you'll simply say "that's not what Man is supposed to do!" Since this is in General Politics still, I won't have an argument with you as to why some forms of stimulus are actually better suited to gay/lesbian encounters, and question you as to why those nerve configurations exist, if they are to be ignored.

No, instead I'll just wish you a good day, and hope you get a hug, and since you're you... I'll also pray that you receive no pleasure from the hug, lest you burn eternally