Gay Rights: Don’t Ask, Don’t Think
The following column created quite a long discussion when it was posed on Townhall.com last week. I’m sure it will here too (though I won’t be part of the discussion for at least a week). Please let me know if you are benefiting from the comment portion of this blog. We are considering shutting the comments portion down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the time commitment and the fact that most comments seem more about defending positions at all costs rather than a gracious exchange of ideas in pursuit of the truth. I appreciate your honest comments about comments. Thanks!  Here now, the column: “Gay Rights: Don’t Ask, Don’t Think”
The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning “Don’t ask don’t tell” contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement.Â
Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. He said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Lie about who they are?
Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that’s who they are. Â
The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It’s not a social experiment and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! (That’s one reason it’s called “service.”) So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.
Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.
More could be said, but I want to zero in on the fatal flaw in most gay-rights causes, and the one the Admiral repeated. It is the failure to distinguish between desires and behavior. Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Â
Take marriage as an example. Despite complaints by homosexual activists, every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry. Â
“But what about homosexuals?” you ask. The question would better be stated, “What about people with homosexual desires?” Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people “equal rights,” then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women.  How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don’t have “equal rights” because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman.
If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. (See Born Gay or a Gay Basher: No Excuse.)Â
Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws in the country and military that conflict with people’s desires. In fact, that’s why we need them! We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country or military should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.Â
The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don’t work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.  And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can. Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.
The truth is that our marriage and military laws do not discriminate against persons for “who they are”—they discriminate against the behaviors in which they engage. But so what? That’s what most laws do. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage and military laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.Â
Now some may object to my comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, incest or pedophilia. I agree that the behaviors are not the same, but the point here is that the logic used to justify homosexuality is the same. “I was born with these desires” could also be used to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even gay bashing—“Don’t blame me. I just have the anti-gay gene!”Â
That’s the logic reduced to the absurd. And that’s why people who want to make a case for same-sex marriage or homosexual practice in the military should use different arguments. Claiming you “are” your sexual desires, is a case of don’t ask don’t think.
If you’d like to think more about this admittedly complicated and sensitive issue, get the compact book from which this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Please remember to comment about the comments section.
Blessings,
Frank
February 11th, 2010 at 1:04 am
“And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can.”
Really? how so?
February 11th, 2010 at 2:52 am
“Really? how so?”
And that is an example of MY problem w/ the comments section: it’s been hijacked by people who are totally bereft of common sense. This is why the discussions tend toward the lame -stupidity. Seriously, if ANY statement based in common sense is made (by Frank) it is questioned out of hand. He could say, “Rain is made primarily of water.” and some one would be sure to say, “Really? Can you prove that? Look, guys, the water bigots are blaming it for everything again!”.
Sorry, but I’ve had my fill. I know “Mike”, or “Ryan”, or “Nathan”, or whoever he calls himself currently, is always posting “for the last time!”, and what not, but keeping to reading only would appear to be the way to go. So that’s the vote from here:
More columns / postings / blogs, and ZERO comments / comments section
February 11th, 2010 at 4:53 am
What is common sense about the above quoted sentence?
February 11th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Toby R.,
“Really? how so?”
I don’t know if it’s common sense but a simple reading of the article would reveal Frank’s point in answering your question. He wrote above:
“Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! (That’s one reason it’s called “service.”) So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.
Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.”
February 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
And that is an example of MY problem w/ the comments section: it’s been hijacked by people who are totally bereft of common sense. This is why the discussions tend toward the lame -stupidity. Seriously, if ANY statement based in common sense is made (by Frank) it is questioned out of hand. He could say, “Rain is made primarily of water.” and some one would be sure to say, “Really? Can you prove that? Look, guys, the water bigots are blaming it for everything again!”.
Or, maybe next time you could explain why you think someone’s an idiot. The “it’s self-evident” argument fails every single time.
So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.
True. But I don’t see how that automatically means that homosexuality shouldn’t>/i> be permitted.
Homsexuality as a lifestyle is no more “distracting” in that sense than heterosexuality — it’s sex, plain and simple. If the argument is that ’sex is distracting and therefore should not be allowed,’ then I don’t see how anyone can reasonably distinguish between “gay sex” and “straight sex” as a point of “distraction” — gay guys will think about/act out with other gay guys, and straight guys and straight women will think about/act out with other straight folk.
Paraphrase: How is homosexuality in any away more distracting than heterosexuality in the context of military service? Disregarding, of course, the fact that there are people who will hate homosexuals just for being homosexual. What I mean is, how will homosexuality “distract” people who (a) engage in it, or (b) do not care about it, in a way that heterosexuality will not?
February 12th, 2010 at 10:48 am
“Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.””
You’re quite cynical. You believe that in a life or death situation that someone would be more concerned about the @$$ of the person in front of them during a patrol than protecting themselves and others. Your opinion of humanity is quite low.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Dr. Turek,
I’m sorry to say that your thesis here suffers from a fatal flaw itself. Specifically, the basic facts on which you build your case are simply incorrect.
You build your case by focusing on behavior, saying: I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors.
The problem? DADT is not about behavior. In fact DADT is tolerant of gay and lesbian behaviors in the private lives of soldiers.
Let’s look at the policy, it focuses on individuals who: “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts”
Propensity, as you know, is defined (Webster) as “an often intense natural inclination or preference.”
It is not a policy based on behavior, rather: on feelings — on someone’s natural inclination.
The policy is not “those who engage in homosexual acts” — that would be about behavior. The policy, as written, is plainly not.
A lesbian woman can be kept out of the army whether or not she has ever acted on those desires. She simply needs to have the propensity — an intense natural preference.
That’s the letter of the law.
Furthermore, as I said, the policy is tolerant of homosexual acts — as long as they are done in secret.
The policy is called “Don’t Tell” not “Don’t Do!”
(I have known a Colonel who had to let good soldiers go for just this very thing. Not for inappropriate action, not for any behavior, simply for letting it slip out how they felt.)
If you wish to have an army which limits such behavior, fine. Make your argument for this, and defend it. This is not the current state of things! You argue as if it were. This is the fatal flaw.
The point which Admiral Mullen makes is rooted in the fact that the army doesn’t say “you can’t be gay or lesbian and fight;” it says the opposite — it says you can, as long as you are quiet and lie about it!
The quote from Admiral Mullen is exactly true and it is rooted in fact. (In what you quoted he doesn’t even make a pitch for openly gay men to serve, just against the current policy which explicitly encourages deception!)
Again, if you want to keep gays and lesbians out of the army based on behavior, make that argument, but don’t act as if this is what DADT does. It plainly does not.
From a Foxnews story posted today:
By a two-to-one margin, voters favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
A 61 percent majority is in favor of an open military, while 30 percent are opposed, according to a Fox News national poll.
Why do you think you are so out of step with the American people on this one?
I think the results are so skewed (much more than most issues which we discuss as a society), because to many people the point Adm. Mullen makes is correct. This is on it’s face a policy that encourages deception. That’s certainly a behavior of which the American people largely disapprove.
Thanks,
Luke
February 13th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I like reading the comments section.
I only ever post if I feel strongly about a point made in the OP or by one of the respondents to THAT Opening Post.
And in this case, I feel strongly.
Nobody should question what is in the heart of a gay person except God. If a person says they were “born that way” we only have their word for it. But it is the consequences of our ACTIONS which makes them sinful and therefore opposed by God. We dont see ALL the consequences of actions we might think are harmless. We dont know where the liberalisation of sexual behaviour will lead or whose children wil have to live with the consequences. (I am reminded of the science blog where it was stated that 2 gay men can make perfect parents………..apart from not having breasts.)
And man-made laws can be changed. Governments (and the guns by which they exercise power) can legalise gay marriage but they can, with complete consistency, also legalise gay polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, slavery, heroin…….. Its not a “thin edge of the wedge” argument, it’s a …”there is no edge” argument.
Politicians dont support or oppose gay marriage for any other reason than to get into government. And if governments want solidiers to send to war it stands to reason that, like most man-made authority, they will make up the rules as they go to suit themselves.
Lion (IRC)
February 13th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Luke,
You’re not going to get any argument from me that DADT is bad policy. I think the old policy was the correct one, that is you should not be in the military if you do or intend to commit homosexual acts.
My main point of the article was NOT to make an extensive case for keeping homosexuality out of the military (that’s why I wrote “more could be said”). The main point of the article was to point out that the argument used to justify the entire “gay rights” movement (including overturning DADT and mandating SSM) is faulty– the notion that desires somehow justify your behavior and make you part of a special class that provides the moral authority to force the rest of society to endorse your behavior. That argument is faulty for the reasons I stated in the column.
Thanks for your comments.
Blessings,
Frank
February 13th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
We dont see ALL the consequences of actions we might think are harmless.
Of course not. However, we know what can rationally be considered a “consequence of homosexual behavior” and what can be considered “the judgments of someone who is inherently hateful towards homosexuals and desires to frame them as negative or negatively impactful in any way possible.”
Perhaps you could provide an example — even a hypothetical one — of an instance in which someone’s homosexual behavior has been directly responsible for such a “negative consequence” in the military in such a way that it would not also have caused the same problem under heterosexual circumstances.
(I am reminded of the science blog where it was stated that 2 gay men can make perfect parents………..apart from not having breasts.)
I’m sure that a mother who has had her breasts removed or disfigured because of cancer surgery would love to hear a jab like that.
Its not a “thin edge of the wedge” argument, it’s a …”there is no edge” argument.
Well actually, there *is* a difference — an “edge” — between homosexuality, pedophilia, and polygamy, for one. That’s why we have different words to refer to each of them, like most differing concepts:
-Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual acts (regardless of the age, marital status, race or creed of any involved parties) with another person or persons;
-Polygamy is the act of marrying more than one partner (regardless of the sex, age, race or creed of any involved parties);
-Pedophilia is the practice wherein a post-pubsecent individual (i.e. adult) engages in sexual acts with a pre-pubescent individual (i.e. child), regardless of the sex, creed or race of either party.
So I would argue that not only is there a line, there is a fine line.
I think the old policy was the correct one, that is you should not be in the military if you do or intend to commit homosexual acts.
Why?
February 14th, 2010 at 1:24 am
I find Frank Turek’s arguments sufficient to prove his point, and many of the counter-arguments fail to focus on his central theme. For example, it’s not the behavior during a battle (e.g., staring at the behind of the guy in front of you) that’s at issue; it’s staring at it in the shower during non-combat times that is more likely to occur, and that certainly degrades good order and morale. The arguments against co-mingling males and females in showers and dormitories are equally applicable against co-mingling practicing homosexuals into the mix.
There are a number of other misleading and oblique responses from posters, but all that aside, consider this aspect of the underlying problem that is even more central to the original prohibition now that HIV and AIDS have been discovered than the common sense reasons stated in the past of destroying good order and morale, which were and still are enough reasons to prohibit practicing homosexuals from serving in the military. The potential for contaminating the blood supply is sufficient reason to impose the total prohibition of practicing homosexuals from serving in the military. There are still occasions where blood must be taken from other military members to treat wounded on the battlefield, and if that blood is taken from an infected homosexual, the recipient has just been infected. There is no justification for causing unnecessary attrition of our military capability for political correctness. If practicing homosexuals want to serve their country, more power to them. Let them join the Peace Corps (no pun intended).
February 14th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
it’s staring at it in the shower during non-combat times that is more likely to occur, and that certainly degrades good order and morale.
That’s an interesting point. However, I don’t think that it by itself justifies completely forbidding homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. “Cohabitation” between males and females is resolved with separate showers, so if that were the only concern then it would be very easy to have “outed” homosexuals take showers at different times, or use different showers. But even so, that would assume that all gay men/women are inherently going to stare at/ogle/etc. with any and all other folk of the same gender. With males and females there is a pronounced sexual difference, but this isn’t really so with homosexuals of the same gender — they have the same biology, and the cohabitation argument suffers from that.
The potential for contaminating the blood supply is sufficient reason to impose the total prohibition of practicing homosexuals from serving in the military.
No moreso than it would be to impose the total prohibition of “practicing heterosexuals” as well. In the case of AIDS and HIV, it’s not the homosexuality that causes the transfer, but sexual activity period — HIV and AIDS don’t care if you’re gay or straight.
There are still occasions where blood must be taken from other military members to treat wounded on the battlefield, and if that blood is taken from an infected homosexual, the recipient has just been infected.
Although, surely you know that exactly the same scenario would occur if a straight person was infected with AIDS and allowed to serve in the military.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Frank> The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don’t work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is.
A person marrying someone of a different race would be a choice, just like a person marrying someone of the same sex would be a choice.
Frank> Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.
Lesbian couples can have sperm donors just like infertile couples can (or even this: http://goo.gl/iadd). Gay couples can have surrogate mothers, just like infertile couples can. Both of them can adopt children, just like straight couples can. The physical ability to produce progeny is not essential to a marriage, nor is it essential to raising children.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Tim, have you ever served in the military? Have you ever experienced combat or even remote service where there are no facilities except what the unit constructs for the moment? “Facilities” are nonexistent on the battlefield, and the luxury of separate quarters, showers, shower times, etc., is neither affordable nor possible in most cases, especially given the scarcity of even makeshift facilities and creating additional openings in the schedules to segregate males, females, and then homosexuals, all of which schedule manipulating degrades unit readiness. The primary objective of the unit is to engage the enemy, not accommodate the unnecessary imposition of social experiments.
The issue of soldiers infected with HIV or AIDS is already serious due to the contamination of the world’s blood supply by homosexuals and further spread by intravenous drug users. Soldiers who contract the virus through blood transfusions are already victims. Soldiers who engage in drug use and contract the virus do so in violation of the law and existing military regulations. Increasing the risk by allowing individuals who engage in activities that carry with them a high probability of becoming infected is counter to maintaining good order and should be prohibited. I have not seen or read or heard one sound argument for allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military, but I am always open to new ones. Keep in mind, the policy must support what is best for the military and its ability to function at the highest level of efficiency and effectiveness. Individuals whose “behavior” is counter to good order and morale should be prohibited from serving. Convince me otherwise.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:29 am
and the luxury of separate quarters, showers, shower times, etc., is neither affordable nor possible in most cases, especially given the scarcity of even makeshift facilities and creating additional openings in the schedules to segregate males, females, and then homosexuals
Really? Well then I see even less of a problem; I would assume that the gays, straights and males and females would be expected prepared to deal with whatever they need to deal with in the field with regard to showering facilities, given that they will not always be ideal. And so this would hardly be a reason to kick someone out of the army; it seems more appropriate to hound the soldiers who complain about something so arbitrary as being “stared at” at such a crucial time during operations.
The issue of soldiers infected with HIV or AIDS is already serious due to the contamination of the world’s blood supply by homosexuals
The reason this is odd to me is, on the one hand you seem to believe that only homosexuals can contract or spread HIV/AIDS (heterosexuals, you appear to think, have little or no role in the spread of HIV/AIDS); and yet on the other hand you claim that HIV/AIDS is a danger to straight soldiers. Would that not blatantly indicate that HIV/AIDS does infect straight folk and is spread by straight folk as well as gays? In which case the AIDS/HIV argument applies equally to straights.
I have not seen or read or heard one sound argument for allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military, but I am always open to new ones.
You don’t sound very open. You sound like you believe homosexuals should inherently be disqualified from military services.
Convince me otherwise.
Terribly sorry, but I have no interest in doing that.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Tim, I may be mistaken, but you don’t seem to be reading all of what I write. Your argument is much like the arguments against Intelligent Design and Creationism. You pick up the narrative in the middle, disregarding how we got to the point where we are now (HIV and AIDS introduced into the population by homosexual sex then further spread by heterosexual sex and IV drug use) and base your arguments on only what happens from that point on and create a strawman argument from portions of my points and attack that. Homosexual sex has exploded the spread of HIV and AIDS and is the most risky sex for spreading HIV and AIDS. Yes, it can also be spread through heterosexual sex as well, but only if one of the participants is infected. The trend needs to be reversed, not accelerated, and for the sake of maintaining good order and high levels of preparedness and to avoid unnecessary social problems within the ranks, the current prohibition should be maintained against allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military.
I appreciate that you have no interest in pursuing a proof that has eluded everyone who has tried to find it. Besides the health risk, there are the social problems touched on briefly and a number of others that we barely discussed. There simply is no sound argument in favor of allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve in the military. The rank and file members oppose allowing openly homosexual individuals from serving by more than 3 to 1, much higher in certain branches and skill codes, but that hasn’t stopped their advocates from trying to change the policy. I enjoyed the exchange.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
“HIV and AIDS introduced into the population by homosexual sex . . .”
And where does this information appear in literature? I’d like to read the medical articles that explain that HIV came from homosexuals, otherwise what you’re saying is akin to when the Soviets said that HIV was developed at Fort Detrick by the U.S. Army’s biological warfare project, i.e., a baseless assertion of prejudiced feelings rather than thought and research.
HIV is generally believed to have been a primate virus that was transferred to human hunters that came into contact with infected primate blood (sorry, we don’t know if these african hunters were gay). The reason for a higher incidence of HIV in homosexual men is because of an increased chance of blood exchange in anal sex. To blame HIV on homosexuals is ignorant. You might as well blame it on hunters.
Allowing gays to serve in the military shouldn’t be an issue. They would be made to follow the same code of conduct rules as the rest of the soldiers and therefore subject to the same punishments as anyone else if they breach those codes. I think this argument immediately assumes homosexuals to be controlless satyr/nympho perverts and assumes the military can’t deal with misconduct. .
February 15th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Toby, “red herring” season isn’t open yet. :)>
http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm
“It is likely that we will never know who the first person was to be infected with HIV, or exactly how it spread from that initial person. Scientists investigating the possibilities often become very attached to their individual ‘pet’ theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer, but the spread of AIDS could quite conceivably have been induced by a combination of many different events. Whether through injections, travel, wars, colonial practices or genetic engineering, the realities of the 20th Century have undoubtedly had a major role to play. Nevertheless, perhaps a more pressing concern for scientists today should not be how the AIDS epidemic originated, but how those it affects can be treated, how the further spread of HIV can be prevented and how the world can change to ensure a similar pandemic never occurs again.”
This article is one of thousands on the topic, but regardless of how the virus was first introduced into the human population, prudent steps should be taken to halt the spread, not accelerate it, and it is essential to our national defense that it be mitigated within the military.
Questions:
Does homosexual sex increase the probability that the participants will become infected with HIV/AIDS, Yes or NO?
Does homosexual sex support and enhance good order and morale and effectiveness and efficiency of the military, Yes or No?
Does allowing those to serve in the military whose BEHAVIOR will increase the risk of infection and create additional social problems, including misconduct, support and enhance good order and morale and effectiveness and efficiency, Yes or No?
None of your points support lifting the ban on allowing openly practicing homosexuals to serve in the military….ad hominem attacks notwithstanding.
February 15th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Interesting… I had a reply to Frank, which was approved & posted, but now it is gone. What happened?
February 15th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Okay, I just refreshed the page again, and it’s back. Not sure what happened, there.
February 15th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I see… it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Must be because I posted a link?
February 15th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Tim, I may be mistaken, but you don’t seem to be reading all of what I write. Your argument is much like the arguments against Intelligent Design and Creationism. You pick up the narrative in the middle, disregarding how we got to the point where we are now
Perhaps you could be more specific than that? I’m very bad at arguing on the basis of vague hyperbole.
(HIV and AIDS introduced into the population by homosexual sex then further spread by heterosexual sex and IV drug use)
That is incorrect, I’m afraid. There are several theories about the ultimate origin of AIDS and HIV, and anyone who has bothered to do an iota of research into the subject will be able to tell you that it didn’t somehow “start with homosexuals,” nor was it “introduced to the population” by homosexuals.
In any case, even if it had been, that would be completely irrelevant, because it would still have been the sexual interaction that transferred the disease, not the specific homosexuality.
Homosexual sex has exploded the spread of HIV and AIDS and is the most risky sex for spreading HIV and AIDS. Yes, it can also be spread through heterosexual sex as well, but only if one of the participants is infected.
That’s the only way to spread HIV, my friend….one party has to be infected in the first place, whether it’s someone giving/receiving blood or having straight/gay sex. Straightness or gayness has nothing to do with it.
Do you propose that, for homosexuals, HIV/AIDS can be transferred even if one party or the other isn’t infected? If so, I must say I’m curious as to how you believe that’s possible.
I appreciate that you have no interest in pursuing a proof that has eluded everyone who has tried to find it.
Now who was making straw men? I never said anything about pursuing proof or lack thereof. I said I had no interest in convincing you. I’m here to debate information, not to change the minds of idealists.
Besides the health risk,
Which is identical whether one is gay or straight.
there are the social problems touched on briefly and a number of others that we barely discussed
My points about which you seem to have either missed or ignored. Are you talking about the shower deal?
The rank and file members oppose allowing openly homosexual individuals from serving by more than 3 to 1
Oh, well, if a lot of people say so, then I guess that’s all that matters.
:/
February 15th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Tim, I have another comment in moderation, so I don’t know when or whether this one or the previous one will appear. My post in moderation addresses several of your other questions and points.
To answer your first question, you argue from the point in the conversation where allowing practicing homosexuals into the military is no different from allowing heterosexuals to serve and that the health and social problems are identical. The facts and the points I have raised show that not to be the case, the two classes of individuals are very different and so are the problems they create to good order and morale in the MILITARY, even though the common thread of “sex” applies to both….but I won’t repeat the points.
“I never said anything about pursuing proof or lack thereof. I said I had no interest in convincing you. I’m here to debate information, not to change the minds of idealists.” — said like a true idealist. I happen to be a pragmatist on this topic.
“Oh, well, if a lot of people say so, then I guess that’s all that matters.”
No, if a lot of people whose lives are placed at risk by a PC decision NOT in their best interest object, their view should be given higher consideration than that of politicians and activists whose motives are suspect.
I stand by my conviction that allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military is a dangerous policy change. No argument to date has shown otherwise.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
To answer your first question, you argue from the point in the conversation where allowing practicing homosexuals into the military is no different from allowing heterosexuals to serve and that the health and social problems are identical.
I am challenging your premise, yes. Because it is incorrect. Yes, it’s very obvious to me that if, as you say, I accepted your premise without asking you to support it, then of course I would agree with you. But I don’t agree with it or accept it. Hence my challenge. I don’t see why any of that bears any special mentioning.
said like a true idealist. I happen to be a pragmatist on this topic.
I don’t know too many idealists who don’t think they are pragmatists; it’s a popular self-label.
No, if a lot of people whose lives are placed at risk by a PC decision NOT in their best interest object, their view should be given higher consideration than that of politicians and activists whose motives are suspect.
Ah, but see, whether or not their “motives are suspect” is part of the accusations that you are making, which I do not accept.
Second, whether or not their “lives are in danger” is another of the original points being contested, a point I do not accept and that I am prompting you to support.
So again, I say: How does allowing homosexuals to serve put heterosexual soldiers’ lives in danger? Also, why do you think that homosexuals’ motives are “suspect?” What do you think their “real” goal/secret conspiracy/whatnot is, if not equal treatment?
And finally, what about the simple fact of “being gay” do you believe causes gays to be “more likely” to contract or spread AIDS/HIV than a straight person? If a gay person is more likely to be sexually promiscuous than a straight person, then that means the problem is promiscuity, not homosexuality. So again: what about homosexuality, inherently, do you believe causes a gay person to contract/spread AIDS?
Keep in mind, referring only to what “a gay person is statistically likely to do” without showing why they are statistically likely to do that (and how that statistical likelihood is linked with their homosexuality, inherently), then your argument is no different from the type of argument which says, “black people are inherently dangerous because a black person is statistically more likely to be arrested for a violent crime.” In either case, there is no attempt made to connect that statistic with an inherent cause present in the demographic being generalized.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Tim, are you challenging the premise that homosexual sex is no more risky in spreading HIV/AIDS than heterosexual sex? Do you challenge the premise that the sun comes up in the East, too? Seriously, cite your sources; the scientific studies supporting my premise are the standard even in medical schools.
Review the definition of “pragmatist”. My points qualify me for the label. You seem to be arguing from your heart, not from facts.
If you trust the motives of the politicians and homosexual activists pushing the “all inclusive” homosexual agenda given their track record, you are naive.
If you don’t believe subjecting the military to an increase in the risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS by allowing practicing homosexuals to serve is placing their lives at risk, you are kidding yourself…but not the rest of us.
“And finally, what about the simple fact of “being gay” do you believe causes gays to be “more likely” to contract or spread AIDS/HIV than a straight person?”
Are you serious? Start with the risks associated with homosexual anal sex. I prefer not to go into all the details, so just use your imagination and the scores of studies available if you want to answer your own question.
My argument is not based on what a practicing homosexual is “likely” to do, it is based on what homosexual sex is DOING to society, and the risk to the health, welfare, good order, morale, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military is too important to be destroyed for the sake of Political Correctness or so some politician can pay off an activist group for a campaign contribution.
You insult the conversation with oblique comparisons of allowing blacks to serve and allowing practicing homosexuals to serve, unless you are limiting your accusation only to BLACK practicing homosexuals.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Frank> The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don’t work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is.
A person marrying someone of a different race would be a choice, just like a person marrying someone of the same sex would be a choice.
Frank> Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.
Lesbian couples can have sperm donors just like infertile couples can. Gay couples can have surrogate mothers, just like infertile couples can. Both of them can adopt children, just like straight couples can. The physical ability to produce progeny is not essential to a marriage, nor is it essential to raising children.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I hope this doesn’t double post. I posted it, but it did not appear, even with the “under moderation” disclaimer attached, so here it is again, and then I will give this topic up. All the arguments have been hashed and rehashed enough for me.
Kip, even I understood what Frank meant by “race is a not a choice”. He meant one cannot change his race, he did not mean one cannot marry outside his race…nice try, though.
Like the arguments for macro evolution that borrow from Creation all the essential “stuff”, molecules, chemical reactions, laws of physics, etc., that did not spring from “nothing”, your argument for same-sex unions relies on borrowing contributions from the progeny of male-female unions to supply the sperm and eggs and even the surrogate womb to procreate. It is an unnatural arrangement not commonly found in nature, and it cannot survive without substantial support from the heterosexual population supplying its needs. A society constructed only of same-sex unions would soon become extinct. Your argument carried to its logical conclusion would argue that we could all just become cyborgs. The societies that resulted from the destruction of the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage are found in the trash heaps of history, possibly predating Noah.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Tim, are you challenging the premise that homosexual sex is no more risky in spreading HIV/AIDS than heterosexual sex?
Yes, I am.
Do you challenge the premise that the sun comes up in the East, too?
I hope you don’t plan to waste both of our time with the “self-evident” argument….
Seriously, cite your sources; the scientific studies supporting my premise are the standard even in medical schools.
You say you have statistics. You’ve shown none. But even if you had statistics which showed, for example, that homosexuals contract AIDS at a rate that was 300 or 400 percent of the rate at which straights contracted it, that information would be completely meaningless without some way to tie it into the homosexuality, inherently. Otherwise, it’s simply a useless nugget: More gay people would have AIDS/HIV than straight people. That’s like saying that more black people are in prison than white people, or more Christians are in prison than atheists (both of which are true in substantial parts of America). I don’t need to cite a study to you to ask you, how does your “study” and “research” get around the fact that “correlation does not equal causation?” You can show similarities all you want, but the scientific process does not end there; you must next show causation, an inherent relationship between being gay and contracting AIDS/HIV. What can a gay person do to contract AIDS/HIV that a straight person absolutely *cannot*? That is the question you must ask if you want to show a connection between these two factors. If you cannot, then the problem is not homosexuality, it’s something else to which homosexuals may tend to be prone. That’s a completely separate issue altogether.
A better analogy….what you’re doing here is like saying “a person is more likely to commit a crime because he is black,” when the more accurate and complete (and honest) thing to do would be to show that it’s not a person’s “blackness” that makes them more likely to commit a crime and get arrested — rather, it’s the fact that black communities have been very tightly-knit (statistically speaking) ever since the post-slavery days, when they were not allowed to freely integrate with white society and finding employment was difficult because of racism. As a result, poverty overtook many black communities and led to rising crime rates, a tradition which unfortunately continues to this day (although it appears to be lessening as time goes by). This shows that it is not the color of his/her skin that makes him “more likely to commit a crime,” but rather social conditions that are more likely to apply to blacks because of the way they have been systematically applied to blacks across history.
In the same way, I think you are being grossly dishonest by ignoring the possibility of a related social condition which causes homosexuals to be “more likely to contract AIDS/HIV” (in the event that they are). The fact is that there is absolutely nothing inherently present in homosexuality itself that causes a person to be “more likely” to get AIDS/HIV. Rather, it is more likely the loose social conditions of homosexual encounters (promiscuity, often the result of gays in communities where they are not allowed to meet openly or encounter each other under “safer” social conditions, and thus ‘forced into the shadows’ in order to act on their desires) which would cause a homosexual person to be more likely to contract AIDS/HIV.
If you trust the motives of the politicians and homosexual activists pushing the “all inclusive” homosexual agenda given their track record, you are naive.
The idea that there is a “homosexual agenda” is just as ridiculous as the idea that there is a “heterosexual agenda.” We are not inherently linked by our sexual preference; we can choose to affiliate politically or not. What you say here is just nonsense.
If you don’t believe subjecting the military to an increase in the risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS by allowing practicing homosexuals to serve is placing their lives at risk
I don’t believe that allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military will increase a risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS, and I still question your judgment with regard to that.
you are kidding yourself…but not the rest of us.
I’d love for you to introduce me to this mental majority that you are so free to speak of.
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious.
Start with the risks associated with homosexual anal sex.
A gay person is not required to have anal sex. Furthermore, most lesbians cannot have anal sex. So this is not a universal trait that can be reasonably applied to all gays.
Furthermore, I’ve read the studies about the so-called link between buttsecks and cancer (supplied to me by Turek himself awhile back), and many of them were riddled with spelling errors and blatant statistical errors and self-contradictions. Unless you have something recent, I’ve probably already read it.
it is based on what homosexual sex is DOING to society,
I’ve seen nothing but vague assertions (such as yours here) to indicate that homosexual sex is doing much of anything to society.
the risk to the health, welfare, good order, morale, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military is too important to be destroyed for the sake of Political Correctness or so some politician can pay off an activist group for a campaign contribution.
This is just silly….sorry, I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories.
You insult the conversation with oblique comparisons of allowing blacks to serve and allowing practicing homosexuals to serve, unless you are limiting your accusation only to BLACK practicing homosexuals.
If you must, read it again. It had nothing to do with blacks serving in the military, it had to do with judging blacks unfairly (much in the same way that you are judging gays unfairly), based on a logical fault being applied to statistics. You are making massive unrealistic generalizations about the gay community (as my example did with regard to the black community), you are ascribing traits universally to gays when a very large number of them are completely incapable of even possessing that trait, and you are making claims that require statistical backing without providing said statistical backing. I’m sure it feels reassuring to say out loud that you have studies behind you, but that alone does me no good if I’m trying to understand what you are talking about.
Let me alter my black community example to show how it correlates with your gay example:
“gay people are inherently a threat to our safety because a gay person is statistically more likely to engage in a particular sex act, which statistics show are dangerous.”
Do you realize why that argument is silly? It’s an argument against buttsecks (which many gay men go their entire lives without ever having), not against homosexuality. Do I really need to break out the list of ways that gay men (and women) can sexually interact without having anal sex?
February 15th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
P.S.
An even simpler, more obvious way to phrase it would be….the only way that having sex can make it “more likely” for one to contract HIV/AIDS is if the sexual community has a high volume of HIV/AIDS contamination. That’s it. Whether it’s a community of straights, gays, swingers, straight couples, etc. etc., that is the only thing that can give you AIDS or HIV — someone who already has it.
Now you can argue that there are social conditions relating to homosexual communities that make homosexuals who are promiscuous more likely to encounter another homosexual who has HIV/AIDS than it would be for a heterosexual to encounter another heterosexual who has HIV/AIDS….but again, this is a social cause, not relating to the person’s homosexuality. That means that, if the social condition were resolved, then it would reduce the amount of AIDS/HIV contamination in that community even if the homosexual behavior continued normally.
So then the question becomes: What social factor is present in homosexual communities, that seems to make it more likely for homosexuals to contract AIDS/HIV from promiscuous activity than it is for heterosexuals who are promiscuous?
One very probable cause is lack of commitment to a stable relationship. Of course, this is not something that gays are incapable of, or even against — as evidenced by the fact that there are a lot of gays who want to marry, *many* gays in this country alone are willing to make stable commitments to one another. In that case, provided that neither one has AIDS or HIV, then there is basically zero risk of that gay couple acquiring or spreading AIDS/HIV in a way that could not also have an equal chance of occurring within a straight couple (such as cheating outside the marriage with a carrier of HIV/AIDS, or having a blood transfusion).
February 15th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
EDIT:
the only way that having sex can make it “more likely” for one to contract HIV/AIDS is if the sexual community has a high volume of HIV/AIDS contamination.
Forgot to also count blood donors who are carriers of HIV/AIDS (who can be either straight or gay, of course); the point is that it’s only possible to contract AIDS/HIV from someone who already has it.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
A society constructed only of same-sex unions would soon become extinct.
Sorry, just noticed this….who, ever, in history, has *ever* proposed anything even distantly resembling the idea of a “society constructed only of same-sex unions?” The very reason this argument is ridiculous is the same reason why you defend it — plenty of heterosexual couples are ready and willing to aid homosexual couples (or infertile straight couples) in the production of offspring. So even if everyone in the world was gay and in a same-sex union (which will never, ever happen, even if gay marriage becomes legal and mainstream, mark my words if you must), then as long as there were males and females willing to provide the conditions for the birth and care of offspring through processes such as artificial insemination, then there would be no threat to the future of the human race.
I give your argument an “F.”
February 15th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Tim,
“who, ever, in history, has *ever* proposed anything even distantly resembling the idea of a “society constructed only of same-sex unions?”
Ever hear of ***Sodom and Gomorrah***….or been to San Francisco lately? Seriously, do you want to turn the military into the same social structure as exists in gay bath houses? That’s where your argument is leading.
The rest of your posts are “same song, umpteenth verse”. Frank answered many of them in his original post, and I have answered every point since then. You haven’t answered my questions regarding whether allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military enhances good order, morale, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military. The answer is “no”, and that alone is enough to continue the ban. CONDUCT that degrades good order, morale, and effectiveness has been prohibited in the military for good reasons. Military service is not a right, it is a responsibility, and with that responsibility come rules of conduct. They are there for good reasons, most are a combination of experience and common sense, and all of them are there to maintain good order, morale, and the highest level of effectiveness of the military. None of the arguments for allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military trump that principle.
Since this conversation is becoming repetitious, I’ll leave it to others to debate the points. God bless America and our military. May He protect both from the PC activists.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Ever hear of ***Sodom and Gomorrah***
The fictional city from your religious literature? Yes, I’ve heard of it.
or been to San Francisco lately?
So if I can find just one straight couple in San Fransisco, you’ll admit that this is a gratuitous distortion of fact?
The rest of your posts are “same song, umpteenth verse”. Frank answered many of them in his original post, and I have answered every point since then.
False and false. You parroted statistics you still haven’t actually provided yet.
You haven’t answered my questions regarding whether allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military enhances good order, morale, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military.
I think they should be allowed to serve, because they don’t bring anything negative to armed service. Your only complain is that people who hate gays will be uncomfortable if gays can serve, which is the same thing people said about blacks entering the military back in the days of segregated units.
I’ll leave it to others to debate the points.
Good move.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Tim, you’ve made my points. You haven’t answered my questions or addressed Frank’s points, you just ignore them or substitute different ones you prefer to answer. You haven’t presented logical arguments to support your contention that allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military enhances good order, morale, or effectiveness, you have only stated your own opinion. I would appreciate it if you would stop creating laughable strawmen out of my posts and attacking them. It serves no purpose and drags down the conversation. What you or I think has no bearing on whether the policy enhances or degrades good order or morale or the effectiveness of the military. The negative effect of the BEHAVIOR on the military is my concern and the concern of the members of the military who will have to live with the final decision or give up their careers. It should be your concern, too. Your security depends on it, too.
As I said, I’ll leave it to others to debate the points. You do what you want.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Tim, you’ve made my points. You haven’t answered my questions or addressed Frank’s points, you just ignore them or substitute different ones you prefer to answer.
I’m sure it feels reassuring to say that, but you’re going to need to show how if you want me to care.
You haven’t presented logical arguments to support your contention that allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military enhances good order, morale, or effectiveness
That’s because I don’t believe it “enhances” morale, good order or effectiveness. I believe it has no effect one way or the other, except on people who already hate gays (who, IMO, really just need to man up and deal with it). You’ve carefully danced around this contention so far, though, by repeating your above assertion without responding to my criticism.
I would appreciate it if you would stop creating laughable strawmen out of my posts and attacking them.
I’m not making strawmen. I’m showing you the logical conclusion of your way of thinking.
What you or I think has no bearing on whether the policy enhances or degrades good order or morale or the effectiveness of the military.
Irrelevant.
The negative effect of the BEHAVIOR on the military is my concern and the concern of the members of the military who will have to live with the final decision or give up their careers. It should be your concern, too. Your security depends on it, too.
It *is* my concern that we are not making use of hundreds of thousands of perfectly willing and able members of American society just because a few Christianfolk hate the fact that they’re gay. I suppose you could say, in a roundabout sort of way, that this is a threat to my security.
Of course, you haven’t even begun to show (or even vaguely imply) a connection between gays and negative morale in the armed forces. As far as I can tell that’s just a talking point you heard on Fox News or something.
As I said, I’ll leave it to others to debate the points. You do what you want.
I thought you were already going to do that? Either way, good move.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Dr. Turek,
You said: My main point of the article was NOT to make an extensive case for keeping homosexuality out of the military (that’s why I wrote “more could be said”). The main point of the article was to point out that the argument used to justify the entire “gay rights” movement (including overturning DADT and mandating SSM) is faulty
I fail to see how the subject matter of your article relates in any way to my point.
If you base an article on any subject matter on facts which turn out incorrect, the article suffers from a “fatal flaw.”
If many of your facts are incorrect, it’s difficult for your conclusion to be.
Even if you happen to stumble upon the correct conclusion, that does not make an article based on faulty facts a good one. If a student turns in an algebra test, and “solves” an equation by providing the right solution for x, but in the work all of the calculations are incorrect, and it’s clear the student arrived at the correct answer by luck, would you argue that they deserve full credit?
Let me ask a simple question, in conclusion: are you gay or straight?
February 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Tim, I said I would leave it to others to debate the points since you aren’t interested in doing so. I didn’t say I was leaving the conversation. Your latest post is another example of avoiding the points, building another strawman, and attacking it. Christians and most other folks in this country don’t “hate gays”. Christians love the individual but reject the sinful, antisocial, destructive behavior, and they don’t want it imposed on the very military that they depend on to provide for our national security. Many of us have been involved in successful programs to help lead confused men and women out of that lifestyle. I doubt there is a family in America that hasn’t been touched by the negative effects of the homosexual lifestyle, either directly by having a family member involved or by having a friend involved. There is nothing “gay” about the lifestyle, and imposing it and its destructive effects on the military will have a negative effect on good order and morale and effectiveness of the military. You say you don’t care. There are hundreds of thousands of other individuals whose BEHAVIOR also disqualifies them from military service. Would you advocate that no restrictions be imposed and that the military accept everyone who applies?
I suggest you do some research among those who serve in the military, starting with your nearest recruiters. If they haven’t been intimidated or ordered to keep silent on the truth of the effects of just the current policy alone, you will find that they all reject any changes that would allow practicing homosexuals to serve. It isn’t bigotry, it’s a matter of survival.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I didn’t say I was leaving the conversation
So basically you will stay and make claims, but not support them? I don’t see how that is much different from what you were doing before anyway, but to each his own 0.0
Your latest post is another example of avoiding the points, building another strawman, and attacking it.
How so?
Christians and most other folks in this country don’t “hate gays”. Christians love the individual but reject the sinful, antisocial, destructive behavior
Your actions do not line up with that assessment. You do not want gays to be allowed to serve in the military because people who do not like “gayness” will be bothered by it, and you think that will hurt morale. That is just as ridiculous as saying that blacks should not be allowed to serve because whites who hate blacks will be made uncomfortable, and this will hurt troop morale — I’d say that the people who would be “bothered” by it should get over it, just like racists had to get over it when we first allowed blacks to enlist. Gays themselves will be no less competent as soldiers in a formation than straights — as has been proven by the fact that many gays are already covertly enlisted, at the risk of being discharged if they are “outed.”
I mean, isn’t it interesting how we don’t seem to see a massive “holocaust” of gays being outed and discharged in huge numbers, given that their behavior (according to you) should be such a massive giveaway that they are “incompetent?” How are gays able to serve for so long without ever being outed, if their behavior is so blatantly and characteristically detrimental? Shouldn’t it be obvious to anyone who is in their squad or platoon?
The rest of your points are completely, verifiably false — there is no medical risk posed by a homosexual solely by virtue of being homosexual, AIDS/HIV is spread by sexual activity/blood transfusion and not by “gayness” (and is therefore equally dangerous to both gays and straights), and blood and medical tests are usually required before you enlist anyway.
You say you don’t care.
No. I say you are completely incorrect.
There are hundreds of thousands of other individuals whose BEHAVIOR also disqualifies them from military service.
I am not arguing on the grounds that it should be permissible because it is a behavior. So this point is irrelevant.
Would you advocate that no restrictions be imposed and that the military accept everyone who applies?
Of course not. I would advocate that the military choose its members based on who is competent with regard to military service and who is not, instead of which gender they would prefer to have sex with in their spare time.
you will find that they all reject any changes that would allow practicing homosexuals to serve. It isn’t bigotry, it’s a matter of survival.
I’m interested that you say “all of them,” as if to connote a majority, immediately after handwaving those who would disagree with you as being “ordered or intimidated into silence.” Resulting in the claim that “all of the people (who agree with me) agree with me.”
Could it be that this so-called “gay conspiracy” is nothing more than a massive delusion on the part of a hateful populace? I wonder.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Tim, what claims have I made that aren’t supported? The ones that are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer such as the FACT that anal sex between two homosexuals is more likely to transmit HIV/AIDS than natural heterosexual sex between a male and a female? Do I have to post the statistics showing that HIV/AIDS is much more prevalent in the male homosexual population than in the population in general? The published surveys showing that members of the military oppose allowing practicing homosexuals to serve because it will cause disruptions in good order, morale, and effectiveness, not because the military is composed of a bunch of whiny bigots? If you doubt either of those claims, choose your favorite search engine and prove them wrong.
How so? Look at how you continue to mischaracterize my words. Once again you create the “you bigots just hate gays” strawman and pummel away. This has nothing to do with not liking “gayness”, it has everything to do with the danger to the health of the unit from the potential spread of HIV/AIDS and the disruption of unit cohesion from open homosexual BEHAVIOR. You keep trying to bring in another strawman comparison to blacks, but race has nothing to do with it, either. What do you have against blacks? If they are heterosexuals and meet the other requirements for service, there is no prohibition against their serving, and neither I nor Frank in his original post even hinted that there is.
There doesn’t appear to be a massive exit of outed homosexuals being reported, but open homosexual behavior is grounds for separation, so maybe the small number of homosexuals still in the service are obeying the current DADT regulations. That might be a good topic for investigation.
“The rest of your points are completely, verifiably false”
Really? Do you mean my actual points or the strawman points you substituted? Which ones are false?
“I would advocate that the military choose its members based on who is competent with regard to military service and who is not, instead of which gender they would prefer to have sex with in their spare time.”
Advocate all you want, but the defining criteria is not who they have sex with — promiscuity and immoral conduct is also grounds for discipline up to and including discharge. Until unbiased, independent, scientific studies prove that homosexual BEHAVIOR enhances good order, morale, and effectiveness, there is no justification for changing the existing rules.
Members of the military don’t enjoy the same freedom of expression civilians do, and they can be disciplined for expressing even personal opinion that contradicts “official doctrine” or standing orders. Recruiters can read the papers, and they know this administration is trying to repeal DADT. Some will be hesitant to say anything against it that may be considered controversial or that could be construed as being “insubordinate”, and some just won’t say anything beyond pointing out the current regulations. Go speak with recruiters and see what you find out. A good detective can tell if the person he’s interrogating is being completely honest with him.
“Could it be that this so-called “gay conspiracy” is nothing more than a massive delusion on the part of a hateful populace?”
Well, let’s look at the evidence. They attack churches regularly, they throw blood on clergy and congregations, blow whistles and beat drums and curse loudly to disrupt services, simulate having homosexual sex with children present, attack members leaving the buildings, conduct themselves in the most hateful and disgusting manner during parades….how many more examples do I need to list? /sarc
February 16th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Bruce,
I haven’t read much of your back and forth with Tim, but I was interested to hear your argument that gays should be kept out of the army due to the possibility of HIV infection through blood transfusion.
This is not an argument I have heard before.
Would you, based on this same logic argue that African Americans should be kept out of the army? According to the CDC’s HIV Prevalence Estimates, blacks are 760% more likely to be living with HIV (1,715.1 infections per 100,000 for blacks vs 224.3 for whites).
(Tim would likely tell us that this is likely not a case of causation and I would agree.)
Just wondering what your thoughts were.
Thanks,
Luke
February 17th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Luke, I would need more data, for example, how was the percentage calculated? What types of individuals were sampled, homosexual men and women, heterosexual men and women, drug users, inner city dwellers, etc.? Being black alone would not be a disqualifier, there is a high risk of sickle cell anemia in blacks, too. If the black individual applying for admission to the military was tested for HIV (just as everyone else is) and tested negative, s/he would not be declined on that basis. Racial discrimination is illegal as pertains to applying for a government job. As both Frank said in his original post and as I have tried to point out, race is not a disqualifier. If a particular race or ethnicity played a major role in a behavior or health issue, it could be considered in the final evaluation of an applicant, but it had better be substantiated. Hemophiliacs, people with diabetes, etc., may be disqualified if they fail the medical exam, too. Serving is not a right, it is a privilege and it has strict entrance requirements. One of my peers was a professional baseball player at the Triple A level, but he flunked his entrance physical because he had destroyed the cartilage in his knees from too many years of catching. One of the black pilots in our squadron was a close friend, and he had a great sense of humor. I was getting coffee one morning and asked if he would like a cup. He said he would, so I asked him how he liked it. He said he liked his coffee just like his women, “hot and black”. Was that racist?
February 17th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Tim, what claims have I made that aren’t supported?
You have supported nothing, rather relying on claims of “obviousness” (which imply that the other party already agrees with you, which I do not).
Such as right here:
The ones that are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer such as the FACT that anal sex between two homosexuals is more likely to transmit HIV/AIDS than natural heterosexual sex between a male and a female?
And that is most certainly, laughably, not a “fact”~ Do you even know why sex transmits HIV/AIDS? Like, do you understand the method by which it is transferred during sexual intercourse? There is nothing different about anal or “normal” intercourse that would increase or decrease the risk of infection. What would increase or decrease the risk of infection would be if one partner has an open wound (there are sometimes tiny, possibly microscopic openings in the tissue of the more membranous body parts of humans, such as mouth tissue or anal/vaginal tissue, that are basically impossible to detect), but what will *always* ensure a risk of infection is if there is membranous contact involving fluids. The same fluids are involved in either process; membranous contact is involved in either process. So you tell me, aside from the fact that a butt is a butt and a vagina is a vagina, what is the difference? How is it more likely that one will get AIDS/HIV through buttsex than through standard intercourse?
The published surveys showing that members of the military oppose allowing practicing homosexuals to serve because it will cause disruptions in good order, morale, and effectiveness, not because the military is composed of a bunch of whiny bigots?
Why does it cause such a disruption of order? It’s certainly not anything gays themselves are doing (as the fact that gays are currently covertly serving — without causing mass panic and hysteria and expulsion — shows). This is what you have failed to show.
Look at how you continue to mischaracterize my words. Once again you create the “you bigots just hate gays” strawman and pummel away.
It’s not a strawman. Your reasons are clear as day — there is no way that a reasonable person can still believe that being gay is somehow going to predispose someone to contracting AIDS/HIV solely because they are gay. I find it telling that you refuse to even admit that it’s not inherent gayness, but rather social factors that are commonly associated with homosexuality (such as promiscuity), that results in a higher rate of infection among homosexuals.
The reasons you give are false; and yet you still don’t tolerate gays and you fervently oppose their military service. Thus, I am suspicious that you may have ulterior motives.
You keep trying to bring in another strawman comparison to blacks, but race has nothing to do with it, either. What do you have against blacks?
It’s not a strawman comparison to blacks. What you are doing is no different than racism — you are taking two correlating factors and implying a causative connection between them. Which is false. And exactly what racists did to keep blacks from serving in the military.
I fully support allowing blacks to serve in the military, for the same reasons I support allowing gays — because there is no reason not to.
There doesn’t appear to be a massive exit of outed homosexuals being reported, but open homosexual behavior is grounds for separation, so maybe the small number of homosexuals still in the service are obeying the current DADT regulations. That might be a good topic for investigation.
1) We cannot possibly know how many homosexuals are enlisted, whether it be a “small amount” or otherwise.
2) If gays are currently serving and obeying the same rules that apply to everyone else, then that proves my point effectively — that they are not “destroying unit cohesion” or “damaging troop morale.” They’re effective soldiers just like everyone else.
Really? Do you mean my actual points or the strawman points you substituted? Which ones are false?
The vague statistics you keep bringing up without actually directly citing, for one. They’re as faulty and fictitious as the so-called “breast cancer - abortion link.”
Advocate all you want
Hey, you asked~
but the defining criteria is not who they have sex with — promiscuity and immoral conduct is also grounds for discipline up to and including discharge.
Yes, exactly! The same rules should apply to everyone, straight or gay. As it stands, heterosexuals are only expelled (for sexual reasons) if they violate the sexual conduct rules. Homosexuals don’t even need to actually do anything to be expelled; they’re expelled beforehand based solely on prejudice, what people who operate on stereotypes of gays believe they are “likely” to do. I think that as long as a homosexual is adhering to the rules meant to preserve unit cohesion and conduct, then there is no reason to kick him/her out….and if simply being gay is enough to destroy troop morale, then maybe other members of the troop who have a problem with it should see a therapist.
Until unbiased, independent, scientific studies prove that homosexual BEHAVIOR enhances good order, morale, and effectiveness, there is no justification for changing the existing rules.
Nobody’s arguing that “homosexual behavior enhances order.” I’m arguing that it doesn’t hamper order as you say it does.
Members of the military don’t enjoy the same freedom of expression civilians do, and they can be disciplined for expressing even personal opinion that contradicts “official doctrine” or standing orders
Good thing that nobody is basing their arguments off of “rights to freedom of expression,” then.
A good detective can tell if the person he’s interrogating is being completely honest with him.
You don’t need to be a detective to tell if a person is leading you on, I’m afraid.
Well, let’s look at the evidence. They attack churches regularly, they throw blood on clergy and congregations, blow whistles and beat drums and curse loudly to disrupt services, simulate having homosexual sex with children present, attack members leaving the buildings, conduct themselves in the most hateful and disgusting manner during parades….how many more examples do I need to list? /sarc
I hope that’s sarcasm, because if you actually do believe that….then I feel a little bad for you. You must be a really, really angry, depressed person.
Luke, I would need more data, for example, how was the percentage calculated? What types of individuals were sampled, homosexual men and women, heterosexual men and women, drug users, inner city dwellers, etc.?
Exactly, yes! You must ask those kinds of questions about gays as well. How was the percentage calculated? What kinds of lifestyles did they live outside of the fact of their homosexuality? What other factors could have contributed to the result that was achieved?
February 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Bruce,
Thanks for your response. I quoted my source so you could go look at the data if you wished.
You say that discrimination based on race is illegal; so does that outweigh any concerns you might have about HIV? I am just trying to get at the root of your logic.
You said in your first post: The potential for contaminating the blood supply is sufficient reason to impose the total prohibition of practicing homosexuals from serving in the military.
If a black person has a 760% higher chance of having/contracting HIV than a white person, why is that also not sufficient reason?
I am not saying whether it is or it’s not. (I personally think it’s not.) You seem to agree, but why? I am just trying to get at your reasoning.
(A side question, do you advocate for admission of “non-practicing homosexuals” into the army?)
Thanks,
Luke
February 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I’d like to point out that that military physicals include HIV testing and are required to have a test annually. I’m not certain, but I’m willing to bet that if a soldier requested it they could have an HIV test anytime they wanted.
“Presence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or serologic evidence of infection (042) is disqualifying. Positive Enzyme-Linked Immunoabsorbent Assay test(s) for HIV with ambiguous or inconclusive results on Western Blot testing is disqualifying. ”
If you’re truly worried about disease in the military then you should be flabbergasted about the first sentence below.
“Service members infected with HIV are not automatically discharged; they may continue to serve. The military reports that its infection rate — about two new infections for every 10,000 service members annually — is equal to or lower than the rate for the general population of the same ages and genders.”
February 17th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Lots of information to address, and not much time at the moment, so I will make a few comments and work on the rest later. BTW, the CDC and the WHO are currently at odds on the number of people worldwide who have died from the H1N1 virus. The CDC has reported more deaths in the USA alone than the WHO has had reported in the entire world, so sources can be suspect.
Simple logic: greater percentage of individuals with HIV/AIDS in the homosexual population than in the population at large proves the probability of a homosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method is greater than the probability of a heterosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method.
If the black population (or the purple or green or red or yellow population) can be shown to be a higher risk of (fill in the blank) to the military, then rejecting an applicant from that group on the basis of that risk would be prudent. The case for doing so would still need to be made. The case(s) for not allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military have been made, but advocates won’t accept those arguments, so we are having a fun conversation here discussing it.
Have I posted anything that would lead you to believe I am biased against blacks or any other minority? That charge is bogus, but if anyone wants to keep making it, fine with me, it has no bearing on the topic we are discussing. I’ll be sure to share it with the black individual I am mentoring at the present time.
I guess I should use formatting (bold, italics, links, etc.) to make my replies easier to read, so can someone point me to which ones work in this script (html, some other type of tags, etc.)? I probably missed the instructions when I started posting. Some blogs include a dashboard with the tags and instructions listed.
More later, I have to get back to work. If you click on my name, it takes you to one of my webpages, and you can find some information about me there.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Bruce said: Simple logic: greater percentage of individuals with HIV/AIDS in the homosexual population than in the population at large proves the probability of a homosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method is greater than the probability of a heterosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method.
This is why I am asking you the question. The same thing is true of African-Americans, is it not?
Is the following statement not also true (if we take the assumption that the CDC stats are either correct or somewhere close to correct)?
A greater percentage of individuals with HIV/AIDS in the black population than in the population at large proves the probability of a black person transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method is greater than the probability of a white person transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method.
(Again, assuming that the CDC is correct and HIV incidence in the black community is 760% higher than in the white community.)
Bruce said:Have I posted anything that would lead you to believe I am biased against blacks or any other minority?
Not al all, and I am surprised that you suspect I might think this. I have no reason to.
I am just trying to follow your logic. Let me put the question this way: how much higher does the incidence of HIV have to be in a group versus the population at large in order for said group to be disqualified in your view, based on your concern regarding blood transfusions?
Is that something you can quantify? And if not, than how do you make the decision? Again, you said that the potential for blood transfusion problems was sufficient in and of itself to disqualify a group from the army.
Thanks,
Luke
To bold and Italicize simply put a b or i between the greater&less than brackets to begin the formatted section, then put a /b or /i in the same brackets to end it.
So: {b}This is important{/b}
but replace the { } with
February 17th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
the less than and greater than sign.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Luke,
Thanks, I hope the formatting works.
I didn’t mean to indicate that I thought you believed me to be bigoted or biased against blacks, I am just trying to clear up that misconception on anyone’s part.
The argument substituting blacks (or any group) in my pseudo equation above holds IF the data are correct. I have not heard that argument pushed by anyone, and there would be a huge pushback from many quarters, certainly from minority groups. It is certainly worth investigating if the statistics are correct and if the population sample can be quantified and validated. There may well be BEHAVIORIAL causes rather than race or genetics at play, though.
Out of time again…..
February 17th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Bruce,
Thanks. There certainly are behavioral (often influenced by social) factors and race is not a causation factor for HIV infection, simply a correlation point.
I can’t think of a single person who would say race is a causal factor, and if there was such a person, I would not hesitate to call them bat * crazy.
So, how much higher does the incidence of HIV have to be in a group versus the population at large in order for said group to be disqualified in your view, based on your concern regarding blood transfusions?
Thanks,
Luke
February 17th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Simple logic: greater percentage of individuals with HIV/AIDS in the homosexual population than in the population at large proves the probability of a homosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method is greater than the probability of a heterosexual transmitting HIV/AIDS through ANY method.
Yes, yes, we’ve established the correlation. We’re not arguing about that. I’m giving you the BOD on that. What I’m asking is, what is the causational link? Why is that correlation there? If you cannot answer that, then the correlation has no substance as an argument. It’s more of a phenomenon than a scientific fact or trend.
The case(s) for not allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in the military have been made, but advocates won’t accept those arguments, so we are having a fun conversation here discussing it.
That’s because they are inconsistent arguments. The argument you are using to defend banning homosexuals from the armed service would also require — based on the same precedent, that a group of people is, for some reason, statistically prone to a certain trait or behavior — that you also forbid blacks from the armed service. It’s fallacious.
Have I posted anything that would lead you to believe I am biased against blacks or any other minority?
Not at all — in fact, it’s because I don’t think you are that you confuse me here. If you were, at least you would be consistent.
In any case, I think you misunderstand the reasons why I used blacks as an example. They are twofold:
1) Black discrimination is an issue that almost everyone has *some* degree of experience with, so it’s easy to understand;
2) It shows the necessary logical conclusion of your way of thinking here. If you ban one demographic — be it a race or a religion or people of a certain sexual preference/persuasion — based on supposed risks that they pose inherently, then in order to be consistent you need to ban all such groups who adhere to the same (or similar) trend(s).
The fact is that it is inconsistent to say that gays cannot serve because of AIDS/HIV risks, when blacks statistically pose a MUCH more significant threat than homosexuals in that regard. In either case there is no innate causational link between the group itself and the trait being attributed to them — blacks are not inherently prone to AIDS/HIV, but rather they are (statistically) more likely to be subject to social conditions and environments that put them in a position to contract AIDS/HIV. The “blackess” is not the problem here, the condition and environment is. Likewise; the “gayness” is not the problem here — gays do many things similarly to straights, and yet the risk is supposedly higher. There has to be a reason for that; there’s a missing link when we just say, “Gays are more likely to get AIDS/HIV.” How? Why? That’s what I want to know.
There may well be BEHAVIORIAL causes rather than race or genetics at play, though.
Exactly. But another issue is, what kind of behavior? If we say, “promiscuity,” then that makes sense — promiscuity increases sexual contact and the number of partners, thus increasing the odds that one or more of those partners will have (and thus spread) AIDS/HIV. If we say, “drug use,” that can make sense because needles used for drugs like heroin can spread contamination, especially if used by multiple people. These are rational conclusions that make sense and explain everything in a neat, logical line.
However, saying “gayness” is incomplete. What about gayness? “Gayness” in itself is just as irrelevant as “blackness” because “gayness” is not a behavior, it’s a preference, a preference that does not even need to be acted upon. So a gay person’s “gayness” simply can’t cause them to be more prone to AIDS/HIV infection. If we were to blame certain forms of sexual interaction, such as buttsecks, then that would also be incomplete; buttsecks is just another form of sexual contact, and all sexual contact (straight or gay) carries the risk of AIDS/HIV infection IF at least one party is infected. That in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with gayness. That is a correlational link, not a causational link.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Luke, unless we are in an all-out war for the survival of our country and need every able bodied person to serve, I would hope someone in the DoD has been looking at a “trigger” number for risk of infecting the blood supply of the military. I don’t know what that number would be, but it should be low. I also hope someone in the CDC and wherever else these sorts of studies are conducted and tracked would be working on isolating the cause of the high incidence in the black community so they can find a solution, regardless of the impact on military service, simply to prevent them from becoming extinct.
Since “profiling” based on race has become virtually illegal, the only alternative is to test every applicant, but that is being done already, so anyone who tests positive should be rejected, in spite of the current PC policy of accepting them. Those who contract HIV/AIDS after entering military service should be given a medical discharge and be eligible for treatment through the VA.
Since the topic is whether or not practicing homosexuals should be allowed to serve, your questions are interesting but not central to the discussion.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Tim, your questions regarding correlation are ones that need to be answered by those who have conducted studies. The fact that the percentages are higher in the homosexual community is a strike against the argument for allowing them to serve, and since the current structure of the military is “volunteer”, the DoD is prudent to reject those whose health poses a threat along with those whose behavior is contrary to good order, morale, and effectiveness. A strong argument for why allowing practicing homosexuals to serve would be in the best interest of the military is needed to overturn the current ban; the onus is on the advocates, not the status quo.
I have a feeling you reject Liberty Counsel as a source of data or even opinion, but you might find the following interesting. This is from them.
++”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is totally mislabeled++
This may surprise you, but the DADT policy is in reality
a misleading “catch phrase.” Contrary to what many currently
believe, in 1993 Congress overwhelmingly REJECTED President
Clinton’s proposal and passed a law clearly stating that
practicing homosexuals ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for military service.
The only compromise made in the bill was to drop the
question about homosexuality that appeared in military
induction forms. Thus, the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
remained as a popular moniker.
That 1993 law codified a long-standing DOD policy recognizing
the military as a “specialized society” that is
“characterized by forced intimacy with little or no
privacy.” The law was designed to PROTECT “high standards
of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion
that are the essence of military capability.”
++In time of war, military readiness is paramount
The discussion of this uniquely military issue must NOT
begin with questions of individual civil rights or
“equality” for practicing homosexuals. And it most
certainly CANNOT include political considerations or
begin with an intent to appease the homosexual community
and its agenda.
The dialogue should begin with, “What is in the
best interest of our military community, which is
now engaged in two wars?” We MUST begin with their
readiness, their morale, their discipline and their
effectiveness as a “specialized society.”
Chances are you’ve heard that a key Navy Admiral has
very publically endorsed the repeal of the law prohibiting
homosexuals from serving in the military.
But you may not have heard that over 1,164 high-ranking
retired Flag and General Officers personally signed a
statement expressing great concern that repeal of the
law would undermine unit cohesion, discipline and combat
effectiveness.
Further, the main stream media is not reporting that a
Military Times poll showed that 58 percent of military
respondents oppose repeal of the law. They also conveniently
overlook the fact that military associations like the
Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly oppose any such change
of policy.
++The devastating impact on retention rates++
Military Times poll says that a full ten percent
of respondents would not reenlist if the DADT law is repealed!
That equates to over 228,000 of our trained military
personnel leaving their units in a time of war - which is
greater than the size of our current U.S. Marine Corps
manning level.
Perhaps even worse, another 14 percent of the poll respondents
said they would consider ending their careers through
retirement if DADT is repealed.
Imagine the impact on national security and our battlegrounds
if that many of our dedicated soldiers, marines, seamen,
and airmen decided to leave.
But there is SO MUCH MORE to this issue to be considered…
* Housing & living quarters
* Same sex “partner” benefits
* Civil unions
* Child custody disputes
* Sexual misconduct allegations
* Diversity training
* Military social events
* Transsexual “special needs” to use the restroom of their choice
* Many, many more social and physical concerns
Finally, consider this joint statement by the
1,164 high-ranking officers mentioned earlier:
“We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women
in uniform would undermine recruiting, retention, impact
leadership at all levels, have adverse affects on the
willingness of parents who loan their sons and daughters
to military service, and eventually break the All-Voluntary
force.”
++—————-++
I value the judgment of these leaders over the judgment of political hacks and advocates whose motives are suspect, most of whom have never served or who served in plush assignments and did not experience the close quarters conditions the rank and file are subjected to. Since the survival of our nation depends on the ability of the military to be a cohesive and effective fighting force, the risk is too great to “experiment” with a social engineering project that has no basis for being imposed on them. Better to err on the side of safety and security, even if it means rejecting individuals who might otherwise be fit for service. A lot of people are rejected who are not homosexuals, too. Military service is not a right, it is a responsibility and a privilege, and with that responsibility and privilige goes an obligation to follow the rules. If an individual has a proclivity for same-sex attraction but never lets it manifest itself into actions, s/he can still serve under the current policy. There are many other suppressed urges that military members must deal with, too, and as long as they follow the rules and don’t act on those urges, they, too, can serve. It may seem cruel and unfair to those advocating a change in policy, but like the old saying goes, “War is Hell”…and to those who have been there and back, it is. It doesn’t need to be made worse by having to deal with counterproductive social experiments at the same time.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Bruce said:Since the topic is whether or not practicing homosexuals should be allowed to serve, your questions are interesting but not central to the discussion.
I agree that they are not central to the discussion, but I am glad you agree that it’s an interesting sidebar.
I was interested when you firsts brought it up. (I believe I even said that I found it interesting because it was not an issue I had heard discussed before.)
I think this tangential discussion is close to conclusion though, and if you wish not to respond I understand.
Bruce said:I would hope someone in the DoD has been looking at a “trigger” number for risk of infecting the blood supply of the military. I don’t know what that number would be, but it should be low. (emphasis mine)
You said early on that the higher incidence of HIV in gay men was “sufficient” to keep them out of the military. You must have had a trigger number in mind; without one you wouldn’t have been able to make the statement. I am just asking what it was.
Thanks,
Luke
February 18th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Tim, your questions regarding correlation are ones that need to be answered by those who have conducted studies.
And also by the people who cite those studies and treat them as fact.
The fact that the percentages are higher in the homosexual community is a strike against the argument for allowing them to serve
No moreso than the same conditions among blacks are a “strike against the argument for allowing blacks to serve.”
A strong argument for why allowing practicing homosexuals to serve would be in the best interest of the military is needed to overturn the current ban; the onus is on the advocates, not the status quo.
If lawmakers want to discriminate against a demographic, I would think that the “onus” is on them to support why they think that; not on the rest of us who prefer not to discriminate. Would you say that the onus would’ve been on black people to show why they deserved equal legal treatment to whites?
But setting that side, under DADT, it’s not even about what gays do, it’s about preference — it’s the armed forces trying to play thought police. They don’t even have to *act* on that preference to be disqualified. So anything about AIDS/HIV or troop disorder doesn’t even apply here; all of that is already covered in the sexual behavior guidelines, and the HIV/AIDS requirements. So what’s left to explain why this discrimination is so unique to homosexuals? What about the simple preference is so “dangerous” to unit cohesion, other than making prejudiced people uncomfortable?
++”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is totally mislabeled++
With regard to the article….that’s exactly the question we are discussing, as I understand it — In what way are homosexuals a threat to military cohesion, morale and security? That entire article basically begs the question. It just says that people oppose equality for gays because it hurts unit cohesion and morale. They still don’t explain how or why in ways that have not already been addressed or rebutted by others. Such as all of these things:
* Housing & living quarters
* Same sex “partner” benefits
* Civil unions
* Child custody disputes
* Sexual misconduct allegations
* Diversity training
* Military social events
* Transsexual “special needs” to use the restroom of their choice
* Many, many more social and physical concerns
Most of those can be handwaved away under current military regulations — you take what the military has, or you don’t enlist. I can’t see the government caring much about a tranny’s desire to use a special bathroom, and even if they did, I can’t see that turning into a huge enough deal to justify discriminating against gays. It’s such a silly little thing. And “military social events?” The only kinds of social interactions that are regulated by military service anyway are sexual and political ones — you can’t use your position in the military to proselytize or make racist comments, etc.; and you can’t have sex with someone whose rank is superior or inferior to yours, etc. etc. — so I don’t see how any of that is unique to homosexuals.
Further, the main stream media is not reporting that a
Military Times poll showed that 58 percent of military
respondents oppose repeal of the law. They also conveniently
overlook the fact that military associations like the
Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly oppose any such change
of policy.
Since when does the number of people who support an policy have any effect on how accurate or inaccurate the policy is? Argument from popularity gets an “F.”
I value the judgment of these leaders over the judgment of political hacks and advocates whose motives are suspect,
If you want my honest opinion? The people who made these policies are the “political hacks” with “suspect interests,” using the facade of “protecting troop morale” to avoid having to precisely discuss the issues (such as how troop morale and cohesion is affected) and worm their way out of the discussion. It’s really odd to me that people can blow a ridiculous fear like “I might get ogled in the shower” into such a huge deal that they feel they can justify banning an entire segment of the population from entering the armed forces. These are people who are so dedicated to service that they are willing to fight and die for their country, and people are telling them, “No, there are some shower issues.”
I mean, seriously….if you’re scared of AIDS/HIV to the point where you ban entire demographics based on the chance that they might have AIDS or HIV (without ever giving them the chance to even show that they don’t have it), then you have to do it equally to everybody, or else you are discriminating. So I’m trying to understand what the real reason behind these policies are. The reasons you give here simply are not consistent. I posed the question of blacks as a simple test that I was sure you would be able to handle, but you haven’t even managed to explain that away. That’s really what convinced me.
Since the survival of our nation depends on the ability of the military to be a cohesive and effective fighting force, the risk is too great to “experiment” with a social engineering project that has no basis for being imposed on them.
Yeah, better to discriminate “just in case.”
:/
If an individual has a proclivity for same-sex attraction but never lets it manifest itself into actions, s/he can still serve under the current policy.
What you neglect to mention is that those “actions” include telling someone that you’re gay.
There are many other suppressed urges that military members must deal with, too, and as long as they follow the rules and don’t act on those urges, they, too, can serve.
On a completely unrelated note, I’m curious….did you support or oppose that hate crime legislation from a few years ago that would’ve extended protection homosexuals under hate crime statutes?
February 19th, 2010 at 1:52 am
Luke, my number would be ZERO, but that isn’t attainable. My goal is to reduce the risk to the military as much as possible, so the closer to zero, the better.
Tim, Luke cited the CDC studies on the high risk of HIV/AIDS among blacks, so your issue is with him, not me. For what it’s worth, the blood contamination risk, regardless of the source, is real, but it is not my only concern.
Unit cohesion is critical to survival, and romantic bonds between any members of the unit can be fatal to morale and unit cohesion and discipline. I also oppose placing females in situations where they can be captured, wounded, or killed. Males have been killed trying to protect the females in combat situations, which usually occurs because the enemy penetrated into a “safe” area or the unit with females among it got ambushed. It will become even more common when females are placed in front line combat roles. Female pilots in combat roles create the same risk, and the males will always be at risk because they will try to watch out for them or protect them to their own detriment. The negative effect on a unit of a female casualty is greater than the effect of a male casualty, but I don’t want to get into a discussion of that topic. The reasoning behind both the romantic bond and the female casualty issue should be obvious, most have been explained, I have experienced the female casualty issue and agree with that assessment, so now add the additional effect of a homosexual grieving for the loss of a male he felt romantic love for or the negative effect on a homosexual that a male has for a female casualty when a male casualty occurs and it adds another dimension to the demoralizing effects on the unit. Love triangles are bad enough when dealing only with heterosexuals, so adding homosexuals only creates more dimensions to that problem. A fighting unit cannot tolerate distractions, especially those imposed on it by social engineers who don’t understand human nature or who think they can change it. It has nothing to do with bigotry or not wanting to be made “uncomfortable”. Homosexuals don’t see any problem with integrating into the heterosexual society, they just role reverse, but heterosexuals do see problems with being forced into close contact with homosexuals because they DON’T role reverse.
On a completely unrelated note, I’m curious….did you support or oppose that hate crime legislation from a few years ago that would’ve extended protection homosexuals under hate crime statutes?
It makes for a short but interesting debate. Creating a special class of people based solely on their behavior is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection guarantees that the Constitution is supposed to provide. Every “crime” listed under hate crimes legislation is already a crime, but the law now allows discrimination against everyone outside that special class of people and adds additional punishment. Religious rights are trampled, free speech rights are trampled, equal protection is trampled, a new, elevated class of citizens is created; all in the name of Political Correctness.
“Hate crimes” are thought crimes. The Constitution does not prohibit individuals from hating. It even protects “hateful” speech, or at least it used to. These laws are a violation of free speech and free exercise of religious freedom, and I oppose them vigorously. By what authority can an activist politician or lawyer or judge determine for society what they can and cannot “think” and impose punishment for thought? A crime is a crime, so why is a crime against a homosexual more grievous than a crime against a heterosexual? Who gets to decide what is “good” thought and what is “bad” thought, George Orwell? The First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified to protect the inalienable right, the right that does not come from government, to free speech and the free exercise of religion, and by extension, free thought, so “hate crimes” laws are patently unconstitutional and an affront to the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. The same applies to the violation of religious freedom. If one’s deeply held religious or philosophical or any other type of beliefs can be abridged by unconstitutional legislation, we are no longer governed by the rule of law but by rule of the lawless.
You do know that Matthew Shepard wasn’t murdered because he was a homosexual, right? He was murdered for his money. The fact that he was a homosexual was simply a factor the murderers included in choosing their victim and their method of luring him to the remote location where they could rob and kill him. Had they done the same thing to a female prostitute, no one outside of Wyoming would ever have known. Hate crimes laws wouldn’t have had any effect on the punishment of the murderers. How many times can they be executed? How many life sentences can be added due to hate crimes laws? Punish the criminal for the crime, not for the thought. When you get down to basics, every crime is a “hate crime”.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:03 am
(I don’t have the time, or perhaps desire, to respond to Bruce’s entire post, but I felt that the quote below needed some response because I have reasons to doubt it’s factual accuracy and am bothered by the certainty with which it was presented.)
Bruce said::You do know that Matthew Shepard wasn’t murdered because he was a homosexual, right? He was murdered for his money.
Bruce,
I don’t know that. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t in the head of either of the killers. I am not sure how you know.
This is a theory that was present in the (lamestream) media over a decade ago, and was revived in the past year when Rep. Virginia Foxx introduced it to the congressional record. (She wasn’t there either, it seems.)
There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest the opposite though, some of which was presented at the trial and some of which came out shortly thereafter. (I am not sure how closely you followed the trial and aftermath.)
Allow me to quote extensively from a Salon article published over 10 years ago. (I won’t provide a link due to moderation issues, but you can google quotes to find it, if you wish.) I have removed large chunks for brevity, but tried to keep all context in tact to the best of my ability.
Speculation has persisted for the past year that Matthew Shepard, rather than being the victim of gay-bashing, might really have been nothing more than a hapless robbery victim who was exploited by gay activists to reap unwarranted sympathy and advance their own agenda to enact hate-crimes legislation.
The revisionism intensified during the last two weeks as the media reported the defense’s portrayal of Shepard’s killers as suffering from “gay panic” and Shepard himself as a reckless sexual aggressor who probably provoked his own death, even if he didn’t deserve it.
Statements made by one of the convicted killers, which were revealed for the first time Thursday, reveal these accounts to be false.
With the completion of the final murder trial, and the lifting of Judge Barton Voigt’s gag order, key information related to those questions was revealed Thursday. According to detectives who interviewed both of the convicted murderers, there is no evidence that Shepard made any sexual advances to the pair — and the detectives dismissed the idea that the murder was the mere result of a robbery gone bad.
“Far from that!” scoffed Sgt. Rob DeBree, the chief investigator in the case. ..
Henderson debunked the portrayal of Shepard that has gained currency the past few weeks. Had he testified in court as scheduled at McKinney’s trial, he would have blown apart the watered-down “gay panic” defense pursued to the end by McKinney’s legal team…
During his closing argument, public defender Dion Custis hammered home the gay panic theme repeatedly, summarizing the key elements of his defense in two sentences: “It started because Matthew Shepard grabbed [McKinney’s] balls. It continued because Aaron McKinney was a chronic meth user.”
The grope never happened, DeBree insists. Henderson told investigators that as far as he knows, the grope was entirely fictional. In order for McKinney’s story about the pass to hold up, DeBree said, his response to the homosexual grope would have to have been so silent and serene that Henderson was oblivious to the entire incident. The three young men were crammed into the front seat of the truck, with Henderson driving and Shepard squeezed into the middle. What’s more, the defense team’s opening statement at trial repeatedly emphasized that it was McKinney’s humiliation in front of his friend that triggered the attack. Henderson said he never saw it.
But one aspect of the defense’s portrayal of McKinney did hold up under investigation. Independent of Henderson’s testimony, the detectives concluded that McKinney’s stunning allegations that a neighborhood bully forced the 7-year-old McKinney to perform oral sex on him were completely true.
Despite the defense team’s repeated allegation that Shepard groped the young man, DeBree said McKinney recanted it in his own taped confession.
Henderson was scheduled as the star witness for the prosecution, as a key condition of his plea bargain. But he created a flurry of courtroom drama by abruptly breaking that bargain Oct. 28, refusing to testify just minutes before taking the stand…
According to the detectives, Henderson’s testimony also would have resolved the most contested issue of the case: that he and McKinney initially approached Shepard and posed as gays to lure him out of the Fireside Lounge to rob him…
Outraged by the revisionist view of Shepard as a reckless adventurer who was complicitous in his own death, DeBree suggested reporters consider the indignity suffered by the victim’s family the past two weeks.
He said there was “absolutely no proof” to support allegations of Shepard’s advance on McKinney: “It’s an allegation of a suspect that’s looking down the barrel of a death sentence.” He said he believed the other two witnesses presented by the defense to show Shepard came on to straight strangers also jumped to ridiculous conclusions. DeBree performed a rigorous investigation into Shepard’s sexual history and found no evidence to support the characterization. “There was nothing in the history, never any attempt like that.”
DeBree is a big, burly Wyoming sheriff’s detective, a man who would be exceedingly out of place in the Castro or the East Village — the least likely sort of person to be a shill for the gay community. “That is one thousand percent torture, what occurred to that boy,” he said.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:19 am
A fighting unit cannot tolerate distractions, especially those imposed on it by social engineers who don’t understand human nature or who think they can change it.
What is “human nature,” exactly? And who are these “social engineers?”
I can assure you that the people who believe that gays should be allowed to serve are not doing it as a “social experiment.” In my experience that’s nothing more than a derogatory term used by those in power.
Every “crime” listed under hate crimes legislation is already a crime
I was specifically wondering if you’d say that. Because that’s exactly the problem here — everything that you say would be a problem if homosexuals were allowed to serve, is already covered under current behavior guidelines. You mentioned problems between male and female troops; so I’m curious why you’re not also opposed to women serving, or opposed to men serving. Why do you not think we should have a single-gender military? Wouldn’t that completely remove “romantic complications?”
I wonder whether the resulting drop in troop levels (from women or men leaving/not serving in the military, or from gays leaving/not serving) would be a problem in your view.
“Hate crimes” are thought crimes.
In a way you would be correct (premeditated murder is also a thought crime in that sense, because you are being charged with (a) committing the crime, and (b) having the intent to do so beforehand). But at the same time, I wonder why you feel that way about hate crime legislation targeted specifically at gays, and yet you do not feel that way about the way DADT treats gays. It punishes them for admitting to having thoughts or preferences. They can be kicked out simply for telling someone that they are gay. How is that not a thought crime?
You do know that Matthew Shepard wasn’t murdered because he was a homosexual, right?
I do think it’s unfortunate that someone would drudge out something like this, and try to muddy up the reputation of someone who has been dead for years, in order to advance a political point.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Luke, the court records and the testimony of the convicted killers clearly showed that they did not murder Matthew Shepard because he was a homosexual, they killed him for his money and just used the fact that he was homosexual to lure him to a secluded location to rob and kill him. Do some research or get the public records for verification. The “hate crimes” laws are built on a lie.
I’ll try to respond to any other issues later….out of time now.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Tim,
The social engineers are the elitists trying to control every aspect of our lives and imposing political correctness on us and stripping us of our liberty through judicial fiat and unconstitutional legislation and unconstitutional executive overreach. Look at how much of our daily lives they control now, even to how much water we can run through our toilets, what kind of toilets we can have, what kind of light bulbs we can use, etc.
“I can assure you that the people who believe that gays should be allowed to serve are not doing it as a “social experiment.” “
No you can’t. You don’t speak for all of them or know what their motives are. I don’t either, but I can certainly recognize their goals, and those goals are NOT what is best for the military. That isn’t even being considered. Even your posts disregard what those serving want in favor of promoting the “rights” of homosexuals to serve. That also constitutes “social engineering”, and in fact, it constitutes advocating on the side of the social engineers.
If everything I listed would be covered by existing military regulation, then what is the argument in favor of multiplying the problem by adding another dimension by including practicing homosexuals? Again, there is no argument in favor of complicating the lives of the military or adding additional sexual or social distractions.
I already addressed the issues with males and females serving together and the added problems of women in combat. Go back and read it again.
Until we can kill people through mental telepathy, thoughts are harmless to society until they manifest themselves through actions. ONLY the actions should be illegal, and motive should only be used to help determine GUILT, not punishment.
DADT, as Frank pointed out in his original post, is not the problem, it is the BEHAVIOR, not the DESIRE, that is the basis for rejecting the applicant. There are many other desires that must be suppressed as he listed, so go back and reread his original post.
….gotta go; I’ll try to check back later.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Tim, sorry, missed your last point. I agree, I think it is despicable that anyone would misuse a murder to advance the homosexual agenda based on a lie.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Bruce,
What leads you to trust convicted killers over the detectives who investigated the case?
Also, as I pointed out, there were post-trial confessions. Why do you see those as less reliable then in a trial scenario where the party on trial has many motives aside from the truth?
Luke
February 19th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Luke, I wouldn’t trust the killers any farther than I could throw them. They would (and did) lie and say anything they thought they could get away with. From the other side, there was conjecture about the motives of the prosecution in wanting to prove a “hate crime” and make an example out of these killers. A great deal of research has been done, I don’t have it all chronicled or linked, but while I was following the case and in the time since the convictions, a strong case has been made that these guys would have killed a female prostitute for the same reasons. They were after money, and they didn’t have any qualms about the victim from the perspective of “let’s go rob and kill a homosexual because we hate homosexuals”, blah, blah, blah, as it has been made to appear.
Current events illustrate biases in reporting on a number of issues, most notably the aversion of media to tie radical Islam to such cases as the Fort Hood terror attack (try to make it look like a disgruntled person rather than a jihadi terrorist), the professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (clearly a radical Leftist but media are trying to tie her to the Tea Party movement), and the radical anarchist who flew an airplane into a building in Austin, Texas, yesterday, also being painted by media as associated with the Tea Party movement even though he would have been soundly rejected by the Conservative moms and pops and grandparents who comprise that peaceful movement….lots of rambling, but bottom line, the Matthew Shepard killing was not a backlash against homosexuals, it was a senseless murder for money and a botched cover up. Things got out of hand, and the killers lost control. Using it as the basis for creating a protected class of individuals based solely on their behavior and violating every equal protection afforded in the Constitution is a travesty all the way around.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
The social engineers are the elitists trying to control every aspect of our lives and imposing political correctness on us and stripping us of our liberty through judicial fiat and unconstitutional legislation and unconstitutional executive overreach.
Well, I don’t generally buy into conspiracy theories.
Look at how much of our daily lives they control now, even to how much water we can run through our toilets, what kind of toilets we can have, what kind of light bulbs we can use, etc.
Who is “they,” exactly?
No you can’t
Yes I can. It makes no sense for them to go to such depths just for the sake of some odd political conspiracy. It’s simply not worth the effort.
The case you’re putting forth here would be more likely if everybody in the world suffered from a mixture of bipolar disorder and paranoid-schizophrenia, but I don’t see anyone outside of that demographic being obsessed enough to carry out such an elaborate, Illuminati-class conspiracy. The motive simply isn’t there.
That isn’t even being considered.
It is being considered. In fact, that’s the centrifugal point of the discussion, the very question I keep asking you (and that you still won’t answer): How will letting gays serve disrupt military cohesion/morale?
You don’t speak for all of them or know what their motives are. I don’t either
Well then case closed. Nobody knows what they think, so it’s silly to try and second-guess their motives as some kind of conspiracy theory (since we don’t have all the information).
Even your posts disregard what those serving want in favor of promoting the “rights” of homosexuals to serve.
If those serving wanted to ban blacks or women from serving, then I would also oppose their beliefs and desires. Just because those serving want it doesn’t mean we are obligated to accept it as “better.”
For example, what if the majority of enlisted soldiers decided that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve? Or blacks? Would you accept that?
then what is the argument in favor of multiplying the problem by adding another dimension by including practicing homosexuals? Again, there is no argument in favor of complicating the lives of the military or adding additional sexual or social distractions.
That argument also applies to women, blacks, and every minority (both those who can serve and those who can’t). Why is it that you don’t feel the same way about them?
I already addressed the issues with males and females serving together and the added problems of women in combat. Go back and read it again.
So am I correct in assuming that you think women should not be allowed to serve because of “romantic complications?” Do you believe that it’s the women’s fault that men can be chauvinistic and put themselves in unreasonable danger because of women, and so they should be kept out of the army because there’s nothing the men can do to think straight around them?
and motive should only be used to help determine GUILT, not punishment.
So then you agree that motive is part of the crime — the motive (thought behind the act) is considered when deciding what to charge you with, as in second versus first degree murder. That is a thought crime. It is also a physical crime, but it is still a thought crime.
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is the degree of intent, the level of thought put into it….
DADT, as Frank pointed out in his original post, is not the problem, it is the BEHAVIOR, not the DESIRE, that is the basis for rejecting the applicant.
Not true. Have you read the DADT documentation? You can not only be rejected for enlistment if you admit to being gay, you can be discharged if you are already enlisted.
Tim, sorry, missed your last point. I agree, I think it is despicable that anyone would misuse a murder to advance the homosexual agenda based on a lie.
If someone had done that then I would agree….unfortunately I am talking about those who distorted the real reason for his death and used it to silence homosexuals who are the victims of violent crimes. Pardon me for the misunderstanding.
[/snark]
February 19th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Nobody knows what they think
I AM one of the members of the military community we are discussing even though I am no longer on active duty. I still work with them DAILY, and I am speaking from my own experiences. I didn’t say I don’t know what they think, I merely said I can’t speak for them. They have spoken loud and clear in survey after survey in large numbers against lifting the ban when they were assured they would not be punished for giving HONEST answers, unlike the “photo op” backdrops Adm. Mullen or others pushing this nonsense place around them and then question publicly. “You DO agree with me, don’t you PRIVATE“?
I’ve answered the question of how will the behavior of practicing homosexuals disrupt order and effectiveness several times. If you don’t read anything else, read this: Sexual distractions MUST be minimized. It is a matter of survival. Prohibiting practicing homosexuals from serving removes all of the sexual distractions such BEHAVIOR brings with it. It also eliminates one of the health risks. The arguments against allowing blacks to serve do not change the calculus of the existing sexual and social distractions as long as the blacks are not practicing homosexuals, so that argument goes nowhere. We’ve discussed the HIV/AIDS issue in the black community, and it needs to be addressed for the reasons we discussed previously. Until a case is made to show why allowing practicing homosexuals ENHANCES order and effectiveness, there is no logical reason for lifting the ban. It’s all about what is best for the military, not for what individuals whose antisocial behavior disrupts order might want.
I’ve addressed the issue of women in combat roles. Men and women can serve together in non combat conditions as long as they obey the rules. Placing them in remote locations creates unnecessary stress and problems and distractions. It should be avoided. Go back and read what I wrote and then pose specific questions if you still need more answers. The military is NOT a Democracy, they don’t get to vote on who can serve and who can’t, so they depend on US to advocate for what is best for them. Congress can change the requirements if they choose, but so far, they realize to do so would create a disaster. If you really think forcing heterosexuals to live in close quarters with homosexuals will enhance order, effectiveness, and morale, lobby Congress. If they vote to lift the ban, so be it. We will all live with the consequences. Put yourself in their position. How would you react if you were forced to live in close contact with (fill in the blank)? Would you be able to perform better or worse in your job?
So then you agree that motive is part of the crime — the motive (thought behind the act) is considered when deciding what to charge you with, as in second versus first degree murder.
Nope, I said it can be used (along with “opportunity”) to prove that the accused committed the crime. Motive has nothing to do with the severity of the crime (first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.), that is determined by the amount of planning that occurred PRIOR to the crime. If the accused brings a weapon to the crime scene and commits the crime, the degree of murder would be assessed as higher than if he grabbed a lamp-stand and bludgeoned the victim in the heat of the moment. Motive would have nothing to do with the degree of murder, it would only be used to help prove you had the right person. On the other hand, there may be others with motive but no opportunity, so the investigating detectives would be able to rule them out (they had an airtight alibi for their whereabouts at the time of the murder). Should the excused persons be charged with a crime just because they hated the victim?
If an applicant has homosexual desires and never acts on those desires, the current DADT rules allow that person to serve. The discharges are not for having homosexual desires, they are for committing homosexual acts or for stating s/he is a practicing homosexual.
We may have to agree to disagree on the Matthew Shepard side issue. The homosexual advocates have benefited from the results of that trial far more than any silencing of homosexuals who are victims of violent crimes, the most common of which, by the way, are committed by their lovers…but I digress. There is ample proof that the murder was a robbery gone bad resulting in a senseless murder. It was a tragedy, it should not have happened, but it is also not a basis for creating a protected class of people based on their behavior at the expense of the rest of the population.
…out of time, hope I didn’t miss replying to anything important….
February 20th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I AM one of the members of the military community we are discussing even though I am no longer on active duty.
The military can potentially consist of almost anybody. So forgive me if I come across as somewhat opposed to the idea of thinking of the military (as opposed to civilians) as strictly “us” and “them,” as “they” tend to consist of “us.”
If a person serving in the military says, “It makes me uncomfortable to work around [blacks or women], so I don’t want to serve with them,” then I would not consider that a valid argument even though that person would likely disrupt his unit cohesion if blacks/women were allowed to serve with them. Yes, their opinions are important, but they are not dealbreakers.
If you don’t read anything else, read this: Sexual distractions MUST be minimized. It is a matter of survival.
Then why do you support allowing women to serve?
Prohibiting practicing homosexuals from serving removes all of the sexual distractions such BEHAVIOR brings with it.
So would preventing women from serving (especially considering that there are likely many more women serving than gays). Did you not say earlier that a male soldier is likely to perform unnecessarily dangerous acts to protect a female soldier? How is this different?
The arguments against allowing blacks to serve do not change the calculus of the existing sexual and social distractions as long as the blacks are not practicing homosexuals, so that argument goes nowhere.
No, but if statistics are to be believed, then by the standard you’re offering they would actually “pose an even greater health risk” than homosexuals — and by no small margin. So how is it different for gays?
If I may be so bold, it seems to me that your problem is simply the behavior itself — not any inherent consequences thereof.
We’ve discussed the HIV/AIDS issue in the black community, and it needs to be addressed for the reasons we discussed previously.
In the same way that the homosexual AIDS/HIV connection needs to be addressed. I agree.
Until a case is made to show why allowing practicing homosexuals ENHANCES order and effectiveness, there is no logical reason for lifting the ban.
Although there is no logical reason for having the ban in the first place until it can be shown how homosexuals disrupt order and effectiveness beyond making a few people “uncomfortable” with their behavior.
Men and women can serve together in non combat conditions as long as they obey the rules.
Exactly. So why cannot gays serve together in non-combat roles as long as they obey the rules? If men and women can do it, then that would seem to imply that men are capable of “getting over” such minor “sexual distractions.” So why do you believe that they are not capable of getting over the same “complications” with regard to other men?
We will all live with the consequences. Put yourself in their position. How would you react if you were forced to live in close contact with (fill in the blank)? Would you be able to perform better or worse in your job?
You actually make it sound a lot less terrible than I assume you intended to. I mean, “what ever would I do if I were forced to live in close quarters with [x]?” Do you realize how that sounds?
Even in normal civilian society, we are often forced to “live or operate in close quarters with” people we may not like or get along with — a racist may be forced to work with a black person, or a sexist may have a female superior officer. We pretty much *have* to learn to deal with working with people we don’t like; how well a person works with others (regardless of minor demographical differences) is part of how that person contributes to cohesion and effectiveness. That’s part of the whole concept of the military unit — putting aside your differences and acting as a concrete unit, moving as one. If a soldier can’t get over something as silly as the fact that one of his squadmates is gay, then I’d say he is the one with the problem because he is disrupting unit cohesion by not willingly working together with his squadmates. It’s not the gay person’s fault that his squadmate is causing trouble because he is gay (so long as the gay squadmate is abiding by the rules like everyone else). This seems like a case of blaming the victim.
I really am trying to understand your reasoning here, but I just don’t see how you can hold gay people responsible for the prejudices of others. I really don’t.
Should the excused persons be charged with a crime just because they hated the victim?
On a side note, with regard to hate crime laws….they didn’t propose punishing someone for the sole act of hating. Rather, they proposed penalties for acts which could be shown to have resulted from a desire to harm the victim for a particular reason — i.e. if a motive can show that a criminal had an intent to kill willingly, and thus the crime is more severe, a hate crime law would show that a criminal had an intent to kill willingly; it provides another dimension of motive, is all. It’s similar to pedophile prosecution laws in that respect — its sole purpose is to cover technical instances in which someone could get away with a fairly minimal punishment even though their crime was severe and violent.
If an applicant has homosexual desires and never acts on those desires, the current DADT rules allow that person to serve.
You show exactly why that is untrue in your next sentence:
they are for committing homosexual acts or for stating s/he is a practicing homosexual.
We may have to agree to disagree on the Matthew Shepard side issue. The homosexual advocates have benefited from the results of that trial far more than any silencing of homosexuals who are victims of violent crimes,
I don’t really care about the Shepard side issue, actually. But I do have one question…who are “the advocates?” Where are the “gay conventions” where the Gay Advocates get together and decide what The Agenda is? I’m curious. I want to go to their hideout and see how much of what you say is true for myself, but I just can’t seem to find out anything about it or where it is. I mean, for a conspiracy of this magnitude, they simply *must* have some kind of secret base or something, some place where they regularly meet. Where would that be, do you think? Do they maybe have a website? 0.0
February 20th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Tim, the military transforms “civilians” into “military”. It starts with “basic training”. A cake starts with various ingredients, but the final product is quite different from the individual ingredients. I’ll try to address the rest of your comments if there is anything else to say when I have more time….another busy day for me. My granddaughter is playing for her school in the Championship game of a basketball tournament today, and I need to get there early to get a good seat. They are undefeated for the season, so a victory would crown a great season.
If you really can’t find websites, organizations, government agencies, etc., pushing the homosexual agenda on society, you must be living in a cave somewhere. Are you kidding? Start with the Prop 8 issue in California or Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools” Czar for openers.
While I am reviewing your latest post, please look at this article written by an acquaintance of mine, also a Vietnam war veteran. As a Marine infantry veteran of the Vietnam war, I think he can speak as an expert witness on the topic, having served under the very conditions this topic focuses on. I think he states the case as clearly as anyone I have read. I’ve touched on some of the same points regarding the healthy cohesion-building associations among unit members without going into the definitions of “philia” (or brotherly) vs. the unhealthy or cohesion-destroying “eros” (romantic) love, not saying great minds think alike, but…..
Here’s the URL in case my html coding fails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....93416.html
The Case Against Gays in the Military
Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness.
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
The Case Against Gays in the Military
Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness.
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
These closing paragraphs summarize it very well:
Although it is popular to equate opposition to permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military today with opposition to racial integration of the services six decades ago, the similarities between the two cases are superficial.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, who no doubt knows something about racial discrimination, (and is also a Vietnam war veteran) made the proper distinction in a reply to former Rep. Pat Schroeder during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1992 when she argued that point. “Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,” he said.
The reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The primary consideration must be military effectiveness. Congress should keep the ban in place. It certainly should not change the law when the United States is engaged in two wars.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
(If the link to the Owens article takes you to a page requesting registration, go to Google search and enter “Owens wsj” without quotes. The link should show up at or near the top of the hits. It takes you directly to the article. If you still can’t get to the unabridged article, email me or use the “Contact Us” link on my webpage, and I will send it to you.)…now I’m off to the tournament…..
February 20th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
…had a moment while the car is warming…
Tim, you make excellent arguments for why women serving with men already create problems, so why would anyone want to aggravate that problem by allowing practicing homosexuals to serve? Men and women used to be kept separate with respect to housing and shower/restroom for obvious reasons, but now they are virtually fully integrated. This situation is causing “eros” problems that should alarm anyone concerned about maintaining discipline and effectiveness, but it is really a different topic from the one we are discussing. As I have pointed out, allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military only compounds a problem that is already causing great cohesion and unit readiness problems, including numerous unnecessary pregnancies, ….just read the Owens article.
If an applicant has homosexual desires and never acts on those desires, the current DADT rules allow that person to serve.
You show exactly why that is untrue in your next sentence:
they are for committing homosexual acts or for stating s/he is a practicing homosexual.
Nope, not true. Whether witnessed or confirmed by a confession as I stated in the part you quoted, the BEHAVIOR, not the DESIRE, is the cause for dismissal. Similarly, a male soldier might have a desire to have sex with the Commander’s wife, but as long as he doesn’t act on that desire, he has not violated regulations. Read the quote correctly, please.
….gotta go.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Tim, the military transforms “civilians” into “military”. It starts with “basic training”
Exactly. Civilians are, in a way, “fodder” for becoming military servicemen and women.
Start with the Prop 8 issue in California or Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools” Czar for openers.
XD
The Case Against Gays in the Military
Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness.
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
Nothing is said here that I have not already addressed and that you have not already brought up.
Also, the fact that someone is a Vietnam War veteran has little bearing on this issue.
“Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,” he said.
Nobody is comparing them on the basis of “innate characteristics.” I have not done that once myself, either. What I asked was HOW you believe that BEHAVIOR disrupts unit cohesion and order in a way that does not also apply to women serving, or blacks serving even though (statistically) they are more likely to “pose a significant health risk” via AIDS/HIV contamination rates?
I’m not challenging DADT on the basis that “being gay is natural” or that “it’s exactly like race” or on the basis of “freedom of expression” or “rights.” I’m challenging DADT on the basis that the arguments used to establish it in the first place are not consistent — the same arguments should apply to all demographics, if in fact they are the reason for such an instatement, or none of them. So why do we allow blacks, minorities and women to serve if the same conditions are also present among them, sometimes in even greater numbers than among gays? The inconsistency provides those of us who do not understand your reasoning with the image that you are in favor of simply discriminating against gays, specifically.
If my point is still unclear, by all means let me know.
Tim, you make excellent arguments for why women serving with men already create problems, so why would anyone want to aggravate that problem by allowing practicing homosexuals to serve?
So am I correct in assuming that you are not in favor of allowing women to serve? That would at least be consistent with what you said so far (the blacks/AIDS/HIV “issue” notwithstanding).
(IIRC, I asked you that before but you never answered me….)
they are for committing homosexual acts or for stating s/he is a practicing homosexual.
What is the difference between a “practicing homosexual” and a “practicing heterosexual?” You’re either gay or you’re straight. You wouldn’t refer to a straight virgin as a “non-practicing heterosexual,” so why do you refer to a homosexual as a “practicing homosexual?”
In this context, all “practicing” means is that he/she plans to engage in sexual behavior. As you know, sexual interaction is not completely forbidden among military ranks — there are certain special cases, for example, involving married couples who are serving, or for servicemen/women who have married partners that are not serving — so this falls under sexual conduct guidelines. What it amounts to is that under the current regulations, a homosexual would be punished for doing things that a heterosexual person would not be punished for under the same guidelines. And that is discrimination. It has nothing to do with unit cohesion, because that is what the sexual behavior guidelines are there for; if both parties are abiding by the behavioral guidelines, there should not be a problem. If a homosexual serviceman is “practicing” with a partner who is not serving during the time that he is off-duty, for instance, he is still a “practicing homosexual” but he is also abiding by the normal behavioral guidelines as they apply to straights. But because he is gay — and for no other reason — he can be rejected based on the fact that he is a “practicing homosexual.”
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Tim, if you still have these same questions after all the various ways I and the articles I have referenced have explained how anti-social behavior (including homosexual sex) and romantic fraternizing disrupts good order and unit cohesion in the military, you are not going to understand that concept no matter how it is explained to you. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with military service because military units work most effectively when separated by sex (male and female), but when such separation places males with males who think they are females and females with females who think they are males, the intent of the separation is violated. Heterosexuals separated by sex and serving in separated units bond through “philial” or brotherly love. That is a powerful unifying force. Homosexuality introduces “eros” love, which brings on romantic relationships between unit members which destroys good order. Eros love also negatively affects mixed heterosexual units. Military service is NOT about socializing or having romantic relationships with your unit members. The non-combat support units are suffering serious readiness problems from romances starting then breaking up between males and females, jealousy, broken hearts, pregnancies, etc., problems not encountered in all male heterosexual combat units where females have not been allowed. The same “philial” cohesion used to be true in all female units in the past and which probably don’t exist in today’s military. Those problems will soon be introduced into combat units with the introduction of women. Add practicing homosexuals (homosexuals who actually engage in homosexual acts), and the problem expands to another dimension. The only issue that matters is what effect a change will have on unit cohesion and readiness and effectiveness. Allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve will negatively affect all of those factors, so it should remain banned as it has been since the U.S. military began.
Not every top military leader embraces the idea of repealing DADT. During the prosecution of two wars is not the time to conduct a social experiment whose outcome is uncertain and that could have devastating effects on military readiness. We as a nation cannot take that chance now. If they want to serve, perhaps they should apply to one of the private contractors or join the CIA or the Peace Corps.
Gen. Casey: I have “serious concerns” about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” right now Read some of the comments, too.
By the way, my granddaughter’s team won the tournament championship game 38 to 24 and ended their season undefeated.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Bruce said: [This] is not the time to conduct a social experiment whose outcome is uncertain and that could have devastating effects on military readiness. (emphasis mine)
Bruce, you just spend a long paragraph telling Tim that all these bad things will happen, but then you turn that certainty right around and admit that you don’t know. You dissolve into uncertain outcomes and coulds.
Which Bruce is being more honest? Paragraph 1 Bruce or paragraph 2 Bruce?
February 24th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Bruce,
As far as Matthew Shepard, I think you and I may have to agree to disagree. To be clear, I believe there is a chance that you may be right — that his killing had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay. My first comment on the subject said I was bothered by your certainty.
So I admit that I don’t know for sure why Matthew was killed. I suspect that several reasons and circumstances came together to create a tragedy. It is my belief though, based on things I’ve read, and largely on what people most familiar with the case have said, that the fact that he was gay had much to do with it.
I have quoted parts of the evidence for this conclusion.
You are certain enough of your position that I don’t think I can talk you out of it. That’s fine. I still don’t understand your certainty though. You claim to know more, based on research you “don’t have chronicled or linked,” then the people intimately involved with the case — the detectives who investigated it and the parents of the victim.
I don’t understand that.
You’re accusing the mother of a murdered child (and a person with enough compassion to, along with her husband, quite literally save the lives of the people responsible for her son’s death) of lying.
All this, on evidence that you “don’t have chronicled or linked.”
As I said, I think we’ll well have to agree to disagree.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
So I am correct in assuming that you believe women should not be allowed to serve?
February 25th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Tim, no, again you read things I don’t write. I oppose placing women in combat and in combat units as combatants. Women can make great contributions to the military. I would even support deferring mothers so they could stay home with their children. The tragedies we have already witnessed of mothers being killed and mothers being separated from their young children are avoidable and totally unnecessary. That sort of thing also deflates morale and disrupts good order, effectiveness, efficiency, and unit readiness. I also support segregating forces by their sex (males and females) for quartering and showering for the reasons I listed above.
Luke, the outcome is NOT uncertain in my mind, only in the minds of those pushing this nonsense. I was simply quoting/paraphrasing what even those in the Pentagon whose arms are being twisted are saying, trying to pretend there is doubt, when they KNOW this is a disastrous idea. EVERY one of them voted FOR the restrictions back in 1996(?) when they were faced with the DADT option originally. NOTHING has changed. How could they now think this “might” be OK or that it would be acceptable to allow open homosexuality in the military? There is NO empirical evidence to support such a contention because OPEN homosexuality in the military is ILLEGAL. Sorry if you thought I was being “double minded”. I KNOW what will happen if the policy and the law are changed. I have NO doubts.
Regarding Matthew Sheppard and his mother, she has an agenda. Look at the “misinformation” that has been deemed (until the lid blew off) “settled science” regarding the Global Warming Scam. Some honorable people were misled by fraudsters and very dishonest people pushing an agenda. The same may well have happened to Matthew Sheppard’s mother. The killers chose him as their victim for the reasons I listed above, nothing more. In any event, I don’t believe society should be turned upside down and a new protected class of people defined only by their deviant antisocial behavior should have been created while stripping the freedom of thought, speech, and religion from the vast majority of the rest. I could expound, but I am short on time, and you seem convinced that every push back against the homosexual agenda is hate-based rather than principled. You cheat yourself out of a lot of information by using that filter.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Bruce said:I was simply quoting/paraphrasing what even those in the Pentagon whose arms are being twisted are saying
I hope you admit that was very unclear.
Bruce said:[Pentagon leaders are] trying to pretend there is doubt, when they KNOW this is a disastrous idea.
Bruce, are you a mind reader? You seem to have an amazing ability to know with full certainty what people from murderers to army generals have going on in their minds.
You go around accusing so many people of lying, from the mothers of murdered children to Army leaders.
Like I said, you seem to know a lot of things that seem difficult to know, but if you know them, you know them, so I can’t argue.
Bruce said:Regarding Matthew Sheppard and his mother, she has an agenda.
I see that you can’t agree to disagree.
:/
Well, you’re accusing her of having one which may be different than the one she truly has. You’re accusing her of lying and dishonoring the memory of her murdered son to advance some political agenda. I don’t know many mothers who are willing to lie about the memory of their sons for some obscure political fight from which they cannot possibly gain personally, but I am sure it happens. Again, you’re the one that knows what people have in their hearts, not me, so I can’t argue.
What if her “agenda” is simply honoring the memory of her son and working so that another mother doesn’t have to go through the same thing?
It’s nice to see that you’ve backed off her a bit and say she may have just been duped. It’s hard to see how she wouldn’t have all of the information, given how involved she was in the case. For example you said “court records and the testimony of the convicted killers clearly showed that they did not murder Matthew Shepard because he was a homosexual”(emph mine). Maybe she was just daydreaming during these ‘clarifying’ parts. Maybe these “dishonest people” are so good that they can keep the truth away from her, but you managed to outsmart them.
Either way, you ignore, of course, the detectives in the case, who I would consider more credible than even the mother because there is some emotional distance there.
I am sure you can tell me what they’re really thinking though. Maybe you even know who is the one twisting arms to make them lie.
I’ll be honest with you Bruce. I am done engaging with you on this subject. (If you can’t agree to disagree, well, I still can.) You started out here with your claim about HIV and blood transfusion. You walked yourself into a tiny corner and then started simply lying. (I don’t know this by reading you mind, I know it because you told me you didn’t have a “target number,” which, as I pointed out, you must have had in order to made your original statement — assuming at least that you’re rational.)
Then you base your case on “research” you openly admit you can’t cite and you haven’t bothered to say a thing to rebut the multiple facts and quotes which I have posted. You find it easier to dishonor a mother of a murdered child by accusing her of lying than to post a single fact of rebuttal.
That says a lot about you in my eyes.
You are a classic example of what Dr. Turek discussed: “most comments seem more about defending positions at all costs rather than a gracious exchange of ideas in pursuit of the truth.”
Bruce said:you [Luke] seem convinced that every push back against the homosexual agenda is hate-based rather than principled.
As Ronald Regan famously said: there you go again.
I am glad you can read my mind as well. I feel a little violated, but I am certainly impressed by your ability.
Again, I am the one who posts facts and quotations which I cite, you post that you ‘don’t have the citations or links,’ yet I am the one who isn’t open to the truth.
To be honest with you, I am not convinced one way or the other on what the Army’s policy should be. I think the Army is a very important and unique institution, and at the very least, I think that the fact that most in the armed serviced are opposed to a more open policy should give us pause. (This does not mean they are right, and I don’t the the Army should be a majoritarian institution, but) I think this point is important enough for us to have an honest conversation about it. It’s too bad that that’s not what we get. The entry from Dr. Turek was, as I pointed out — backed by quotations — was, at best, based very loosely in fact. Your posts degenerated into an obvious lie and poor logic — then accusing just about everyone but yourself of lying. So yeah, I am all for an honest conversation, and I don’t even have a firm viewpoint on the issue, but honesty is not what we’ve gotten. Honesty requires a willingness to admit when we are wrong. There’s not much of that here, unfortunately.
(FWIW, I am also not a advocate for either side of the hate crimes law issue. On one hand I believe that every life is equally invaluable, on the other hand I see something especially revolting about killing someone simply because of their race. Again, I wouldn’t mind discussing this openly and honestly, and I think I could be convinced either way, though I will likely just remain without a dogmatic view on the issue.)
Luke
February 26th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Luke, “What we have is a failure to communicate”. I can agree to to disagree on any subject, even those where I have made a clear case for WHAT I believe and WHY I believe it. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill, and I have no desire to insult or offend you; I thought we were having a discussion. You asked the same questions several ways, I tried to give you an honest answer to each rephrasing of them, and now you accuse me of “lying” or something? I told you to do some research, I don’t have time to reconstruct all the links and reports I have studied regarding the Matthew Sheppard case. When I studied the case, including corresponding with MANY of my friends in Wyoming, the data convinced me that the REAL cause for the murder was money. Please don’t equate my reluctance to do your research or reconstruct an old study with the absence of such facts.
I’m not accusing anyone of lying, I am stating an opinion. In my opinion, there is an agenda behind making the tragic Matthew Sheppard murder into a “cause celeb” for homosexual abuse and for pushing homosexual “rights” on America. I really don’t care whether those pushing the Matthew Sheppard story believe he was killed because he was a homosexual or whether they believe he was killed for his money and that the killers used the fact that he was a homosexual as one of the criteria for choosing him as their victim. I also said the more important point is that regardless of WHY he was killed, the murder should NOT be the basis for turning the law on its head and creating a protected group of people with special rights that TRUMP the Constitution’s equal protections and STRIP Constitutionally protected rights from everyone else. We don’t recognize “classes” in this country; we are all equal under the Constitution and the law. Are you as strong a supporter of the rights of the Chaplains and Rabbis and Priests and Pastors and Imams who can no longer pray according to the dictates of their hearts and the religious tenets of their faith? Thanks to “hate laws” and “Political Correctness”, they can’t even mention the name of the GOD whom their denomination worships, and simply quoting THE BIBLE can cause them to be prosecuted for “hate speech”. Is this what the founders envisioned when they ratified the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Now, we can agree to disagree.
I’m not a mind reader, but I don’t have to be a mind reader to read the clear message of those who are being forced to make public statements about a proposed policy change they ALL voted AGAINST when it first came up. They want to keep their jobs, so they HAVE to at least “consider” the change and participate in a study of it. Surveys of active duty, retired, and former military members ALL show by a wide margin they REJECT the proposal of allowing open homosexuality in the military because they KNOW it will degrade readiness. ANOTHER General has made a public statement OPPOSING any change in policy that would allow OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY in the military. “General James Conway, the head of the US Marines, said on Thursday he opposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the first top officer to break openly with President Barack Obama over the issue.”
Top Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban…
The rest of your post is an undeserved ad hominem attack on me, and frankly, I’m disappointed in you for it. It deserves no more response than this: Go back and read what I have posted from the top of this page to here and see whether what you said has any basis in truth. I’ll stand by the FACTS and links I have posted. I have addressed every argument more than once; that should be sufficient. Please point out any “lie” you think I have posted, and I will be happy to reevaluate what I posted.
I am an advocate of the Constitution, and it clearly rejects “thought” crimes. HATE itself is not illegal. People should be judged for their actions, and without that freedom, the frustration would build up to the point where MORE crimes would occur, not fewer. LIBERTY requires nothing less.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I oppose placing women in combat and in combat units as combatants.
So in fact you do support judging a person’s fitness for service based solely on their gender. That’s what I was asking.
But one thing does still have me wondering: you say that women serving is basically detrimental to the males, and yet you support taking special measures (which are no doubt costly and somewhat of a hassle to implement) in order to allow them to serve. Apparently you see the payoff of having females serve in the military as “worth the trade” of the effort required to get around the “problems” of the process.
Why do you not feel the same way about gays? Would the payoff of having a noticeably larger manpower base (no pun intended~) be ‘worth it’ even if we decided that your (decidedly oversensitive) methods of segregation and discrimination were necessary?
I just can’t figure this out on my own….this is such a small-scale “problem” in military service from a statistical standpoint — hardly enough to justify radical policy changes. The numbers of “military personell who have been incapacitated from service due to romantic affairs” aren’t exactly at record highs, or even significant. So why is it such a “big deal?”
(FWIW, I am also not a advocate for either side of the hate crimes law issue. On one hand I believe that every life is equally invaluable, on the other hand I see something especially revolting about killing someone simply because of their race. Again, I wouldn’t mind discussing this openly and honestly, and I think I could be convinced either way, though I will likely just remain without a dogmatic view on the issue.)
Like you, I don’t have a firm stance on either side of hate crime legislation. However, I feel it’s necessary to at least understand the intent of the laws in the first place — people often tend to classify such laws as “thought crime” because they supposedly “punish thoughts,” but what is commonly ignored is the fact that another crime must have been committed independently of the supposed “hate crime” in order for a hate crime to even be possible. A hate crime law is very similar in purpose to laws that uniquely focus on pedophiles and other sex offenders — it’s twofold. One, to particularly warn against/provide penalties for crimes based on that motive, or “heinous” crimes. Second, it’s to further define ramifications for instances that are not specifically outlined in existing legislation.
the murder should NOT be the basis for turning the law on its head and creating a protected group of people with special rights that TRUMP the Constitution’s equal protections and STRIP Constitutionally protected rights from everyone else.
That’s a particularly weak (and false) soundbyte right there, I will tell you that much. The reason why….well, for one, hate crime legislation would work both ways — for gays and straights, for blacks and whites and every other race, for men and women, and for all religions or lacks thereof — so nobody would have any “special rights.” In fact, no demographic would have any more rights than any other. Everybody would get the same protection — from crimes that can be proven to have resulted from a motivation of hatred based on a particular generic aspect of that person. The same protection would apply to a straight person who was assaulted physically by gays (for being straight) that would apply to a gay person who was physically assaulted by straights (for being gay).
Second, no constitutional rights would be “stripped” unless you consider “the right to assault someone based on a motive of hatred” to be a “constitutional right.” You would not even lose your right to hate whomever you want; the only thing that would change would be that your motive would be considered in determining your sentence. It’s the other side of the same situation in which a person can be charged differently based on their level of intent or motive — say, the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.
For a person who believes in legislating morality, I find it particularly odd that you would oppose such legislation for the reasons you say you do.
Thanks to “hate laws” and “Political Correctness”, they can’t even mention the name of the GOD whom their denomination worships, and simply quoting THE BIBLE can cause them to be prosecuted for “hate speech”. Is this what the founders envisioned when they ratified the First Amendment to the Constitution?
This has not happened in America, ever. Please provide one single instance in which a pastor has been charged with a crime for quoting the Bible or mentioning the name “god” or “Yahweh.” Until you do, I accuse you of either grossly distorting the truth, or lying through your teeth. Sorry if that seems rude.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
P.S. A little more about hate crime laws….we already have somewhat of a civil equivalent (procedurally speaking) of the “hate crime law,” called “punitive damages.” Punitive damages can only be awarded if it can be shown that the offending party is (a) guilty of a completely separately-defined crime, and (b) expresses or expressed a deliberate, invested intent to commit that crime and get away with it. Punitive damages can only be awarded based on the intent or motive behind the crime, and yet the idea is not often dismissed as an attempt to punish “thought crime.”
A quick summary from wikipedia:
Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.
…
Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff’s provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant’s conduct was egregiously insidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes. The main exception is in insurance bad faith cases in the United States, where the insurer’s breach of contract is alleged to be so egregious as to amount to a breach of the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” and is therefore considered to be a tort cause of action eligible for punitive damages (in excess of the value of the insurance policy).
The point of punitive damages is almost *solely* to deter the guilty party from committing a similar crime again in the future by making the penalty a lot more “painful” and….well, punitive. It goes above and beyond the normal punishment for a crime because of the person’s deliberate, expressed ill intent.
A hate crime law would function a lot like this; if it can be shown that the offending party did commit the crime (which requires that they be convicted of a violent or criminal act that is separate from the mere act of having the motive), and that they committed it for a malicious reason (i.e. showed express ill intent or no remorse after the fact), then it would be considered “more serious” than if it had been an accident, or if the motive had been less insidious or deliberate. It’s the other side of the situation in which a person’s crime (and thus their punishment as well) is deemed less serious because they were not intentionally trying to harm others, even if perhaps their actions were negligent or incompetent beyond reasonable standards.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:52 pm
So in fact you do support judging a person’s fitness for service based solely on their gender. That’s what I was asking.
It has nothing to do with ““fitness“. It has to do with my view of how a civilized society operates and how it honors and respects and protects its females. It does not place them on the front lines in a battlefield. As I said, there are many non-combat roles for women in the military. Should we next send our children to do our battles for us? That would increase the size of the “pool” of fighters, too, but it would have a devastating effect on morale, order, and readiness to say nothing of the family structure and society in general. I have already give all the reasons why allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military will cause the same negative effects. Go back and read them again. There was a time when we fought wars to PROTECT our females and children. My, my, how Political Correctness and the devaluation of humanity has eroded civilization.
I just can’t figure this out on my own….this is such a small-scale “problem” in military service from a statistical standpoint — hardly enough to justify radical policy changes.
You validate my point. The current policy seems to be working to hold those problems in check. The RADICAL change to allow open homosexuality in the military will increase those numbers substantially and will destroy readiness. Just exactly how much arsenic would you allow in your glass of water before you considered it “statistically significant”?
The numbers of “military personell who have been incapacitated from service due to romantic affairs” aren’t exactly at record highs, or even significant. So why is it such a “big deal?”
I have no way of knowing whether that statistic is accurate or not, but why make policy changes we KNOW will increase it?
All of your arguments regarding “hates crimes” describe punishing THOUGHT. The only legitimate purpose for including what a defendant was thinking at the time he committed the crime is to prove MOTIVE for committing the crime. All crime can be traced back to some thought pattern, even the planning. Adding additional punishment for what the defendant was THINKING is punishing THOUGHT. That is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Creating special classes of people against whom committing a crime brings MORE punishment than the same crime committed against someone NOT in that class is absurd and violates all the equal protections afforded by the Constitution. How can any fair minded individual argue in favor of such a travesty? Punishment should fit the crime, regardless of who the victim is or who commits the crime. Period.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
It has nothing to do with ““fitness“. It has to do with my view of how a civilized society operates and how it honors and respects and protects its females.
Please note that I am not referring to “fitness” in the strictly physical sense; I am referring to “fitness” as in “fit to serve based on the established criteria.” In the case of your beliefs, a woman would be deemed “unfit” to serve in a combat role *because* she is a woman, and for no other reason (based on some belief you seem to have that women cannot defend themselves and must be “treated” a certain way by their male “protectors”).
Should we next send our children to do our battles for us?
That is an….odd (and blatantly sexist) argument. A woman is not a child; she can make her own decisions and, believe it or not, is quite capable of engaging in physical combat, at times even to the superiority of her male comrades.
But am I to understand that you are conflating a woman’s ability to defend herself physically, or to acknowledge the proper actions to take in a violent situation, with that of a child? If so, please let me know so we can agree to disagree….I’m pretty sure I know where you’d be going with that, and so it’d be useless to discuss it any further.
The current policy seems to be working to hold those problems in check.
You remind me of Mr. Mark when you say silly things like, “the fact that we are not seeing what we should be seeing (if in fact my argument is true) is somehow proof that it is true.” It begs the question — which was, in case you need reminding: is it even a problem in the first place, such that the system in place can “hold it in check?”
Just exactly how much arsenic would you allow in your glass of water before you considered it “statistically significant”?
Enough to hurt someone (the body can actually tolerate small trace amounts of arsenic, so long as exposure is not prolonged). Although again, I dare say it’s a poor analogy to conflate gays serving in the military with a chemical substance that can actually, literally and directly kill people on contact.
All of your arguments regarding “hates crimes” describe punishing THOUGHT
No more than “punitive damages” punishes the thought of the person who committed the crime.
Mr. Bruce sir, in order for it to be a thought crime, the thought itself would have to be the crime. As it stands, even if there were such hate crime laws in universal effect in the USA, even if I *loudly* proclaim to the world that I have the hate in my heart and the motive within my reach to kill a specific man for a reason such as his race, religion or sexuality, as long as I don’t commit an actual, physical crime against that man, I cannot and will not be charged. That is a legal fact. And you are quite obviously lying when you say that it is otherwise. I feel confident saying that, as inflammatory as it may sound, because I know that you cannot (and will not) even try to provide one documented instance in which an American citizen has been arrested or charged with any crime simply for professing a thought. For using his/her position in a way that someone in his/her position is expressly forbidden to, perhaps….but then that is not punishing the thought itself, but rather punishing abuse of a position, which (depending on circumstance) can actually *be* a crime. What you say is simply false.
Creating special classes of people against whom committing a crime brings MORE punishment than the same crime committed against someone NOT in that class is absurd and violates all the equal protections afforded by the Constitution.
Case in point; this is not true. There is no special class of people, hate laws or no. The same punishments would apply to you (who I can only assume are straight) that would apply to gays in similar circumstances. No constitutional rights are forfeited or allotted. Have you read any of the proposed hate crime legislation from the last decade or so?
Let me reiterate, if I must: A crime against a gay (or black, or any minority, or any majority even) could not be considered a “hate crime” under such legislation simply because it was committed against a gay person or what-have-you. That is a blatant falsehood and has never been proposed. What would make it a hate crime would be the motive. NOT the “class,” as you put it. It would be entirely possible to commit, say, robbery against a gay man and not be charged with a hate crime. Hate crime prosecution would be rare, in fact, because it would require similar circumstances to punitive damage cases — the offending party must have blatantly, explicitly, and demonstrably acted on a motivation of hate targeted specifically at that person for a specific reason, beyond normal or reasonable means.
On a side note….in your opinion, should we also do away with all subclasses of murder charges, and simply charge people with “killing?” That’s a serious question, actually….if we punish someone for premeditating murder (as opposed to just doing it in hot blood), then isn’t that a thought crime?
The answer, of course, is no, it’s not. Because the premeditation (like the motive of hatred) is not the crime in itself, but rather a sort of “accessory” to it. The motivation is perfectly legal in and of itself….it’s only once the actual, physical, non-”thought” crime — such as murder or assault — has been committed that the motive even matters, from a legal standpoint. So to call a hate crime a “thought crime” in any sense of the word shows a gratuitous lack of understanding of what exactly constitutes a “thought crime” in the first place.
Punishment should fit the crime, regardless of who the victim is or who commits the crime.
That’s actually what a lot of people in favor of hate crime laws were saying, as well — there’s no argument that the punishment should fit the crime. The argument was chiefly over what defines the crime.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
No, Tim, you still don’t understand. You keep trying to infer that I think females are somehow “inferior“ to males. I simply hold to the original hierarchy God created and the roles God ordained for males and females in civilized society. There are females who are “man” enough to do the job, but there is no reason to place them in harm’s way intentionally in a combat situation. It’s not all that complicated. My point about sending children into combat is merely the logical progression of your thinking. There are children who are also just as capable of doing the job, but why subject them to the dangers? This is the logical progression of the deconstruction of God’s plan for man and the ultimate destruction of the basic building block of civilization, the family unit, composed of one male, one female, and as many children as they choose to produce.
A woman’s ability or a child’s ability to defend herself/himself is a separate issue and has nothing to do with placing either of them into a combat situation. If an intruder breaks into a home, either the mother or the child may be forced to defend the home, and before the “wusification” of our society, that is exactly what happened. The intruder was promptly dispatched by whichever of them could get to the weapon first, and no charges were filed against the person defending his/her home.
I wouldn’t intentionally allow any amount of arsenic in my drinking water any more than I would intentionally allow open antisocial behavior to damage the military “body”.
Punitive damages have nothing to do with punishing the “thoughts” that led to a crime or a tort, they are included to punish the perpetrator for the actual crime or tort that occurred and to create a disincentive for anyone else who might want to do the same in the future. Bernie Madoff probably didn’t hate his victims, he just wanted their money, but adding punitive damages (punishment damages) sends a warning to any other potential similar Ponzi schemers — except, of course, the politicians in Government who have set up a host of entitlement Ponzi schemes, and theirs are all legal.
Tim, now you are starting to get silly. Already Christians have been hauled to jail for simply exercising their free speech rights at homosexual events, forced into “free speech zones”, one case in Philadelphia comes to mind ….but, why bother to present cases, you probably aren’t interested in the facts. Keep track of how many churches are forced to stop preaching what the Bible says about sodomy and sin as more and more “hate crimes” laws are passed and Biblical passages are deemed “hate speech”. Even you should be alarmed if you really are an advocate of free speech and civil rights.
RICO laws have been brought against several non-related and non-affiliated abortion clinic protestor groups, yet organized attacks on churches and non-profit pregnancy counseling organizations by organized and affiliated homosexual groups were ignored and treated as “isolated incidents”, some being dismissed outright as “protected speech” and dissent.
What part of the punishment is MORE under “hate crimes” laws for someone committing a crime against a homosexual than it is for someone committing the same crime against a non-homosexual do you dispute as creating a special protected class of individuals for homosexuals? That is the very definition of a “protected” class.
If you really believe the rest of your argument, I only have to point to what laws have resulted from the Matthew Sheppard case to refute it. Sexual orientation and even sexual confusion (crossdressing, etc.), have been added to definitions of “civil rights” for purposes of discrimination. Creating a special class of people simply because of their BEHAVIOR, which is changeable and NOT immutable (like sex and race) is both absurd and unconstitutional, but sadly, it is becoming the law everywhere.
The crime is only the act itself, not what was going on in the mind of the criminal. See, that was easy.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:21 pm
…missed your last one. Planning and then committing a murder is different from losing one’s temper in the heat of the moment and committing manslaughter, so the law allows for different punishments for the two different crimes. Hired killers usually don’t “hate” their victims, it’s just a job for money, so should they be given less punishment because no hate was involved than the person who got into a bar fight, lost his temper, and killed another person in the heat of the moment?
…hope I didn’t miss any other salient points, but I’ll be checking back when I have more time.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:57 pm
If I might but in . . . a hired killer is the same as one that plans a murder. You’re right in that they don’t “hate” their victims. Their motive (money) might be different, but their crime (premeditated murder) is the same. It’s not a “hate” crime. Had their victim been a minority of some sort it wouldn’t be a hate crime. I find it hard to believe that you’d have hard feelings against hate crime laws should someone of your religion become a victim of one. If someone were drug around your town at the end of a rope with the words “Christians Suck” cut into their chest I’d imagine you’d think of that as a hate crime. But then I guess that’s a matter of perspective isn’t it? And your religion teaches you that your beliefs are right above all others so I can see how you could be unsimpathetic to minorities.
“Already Christians have been hauled to jail for simply exercising their free speech rights at homosexual events, forced into “free speech zones”, one case in Philadelphia comes to mind ….but, why bother to present cases, you probably aren’t interested in the facts.”
Oh my . . . have homosexuals never been hauled to jail for “exercising their free speech rights”? There are many reasons a group might be hauled away to jail while demonstrating. The first of which is that they became unruly and started breaking things (and people). The second is that possibly the city they were protesting in required getting permits beforehand which they neglected to do. The third might well be that their vitriol was so vile that it incited violence from those they protested (which would make both sides legally in the wrong). These offenses could happen to any group protesting anything.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:08 am
There are children who are also just as capable of doing the job, but why subject them to the dangers?
There are no children anywhere who are “just as capable of doing the job” of a soldier in combat as a mature adult. That is completely false….and kind of odd 0.0 You sound kind of like a tribal warlord, implying that allowing women to serve in combat is somehow equivalent to allowing children to serve in combat.
I wouldn’t intentionally allow any amount of arsenic in my drinking water any more than I would intentionally allow open antisocial behavior to damage the military “body”.
Nobody would *intentionally* allow arsenic into their drinking water….I think you missed the point there….
Punitive damages have nothing to do with punishing the “thoughts” that led to a crime or a tort, they are included to punish the perpetrator for the actual crime or tort that occurred
Not true. The motive is *very* important, and in fact punitive damages cannot be awarded without proof of a clear, deliberate and malicious intent. The mere act of the crime itself is not enough to award punitive damages.
Bernie Madoff probably didn’t hate his victims, he just wanted their money
Exactly — he had a clear motive and intent to deceive his victims. It was intentional, it was not the result of negligence. Hence the additional charges.
Already Christians have been hauled to jail for simply exercising their free speech rights at homosexual events,
This has never happened….
Keep track of how many churches are forced to stop preaching what the Bible says about sodomy and sin as more and more “hate crimes” laws are passed and Biblical passages are deemed “hate speech”.
This has also never happened. No churches have ever been forced to stop preaching anything.
….but, why bother to present cases, you probably aren’t interested in the facts.
No, no, by all means, present some “facts.” I am very interested in hearing about these events which you believe constitute the prosecution of “thought crimes.”
RICO laws have been brought against several non-related and non-affiliated abortion clinic protestor groups, yet organized attacks on churches and non-profit pregnancy counseling organizations by organized and affiliated homosexual groups were ignored and treated as “isolated incidents”, some being dismissed outright as “protected speech” and dissent.
When one party is engaged in harassment (especially of patients at a medical facility), the issue of “free speech” takes somewhat of a backseat. I hardly find this a surprise, much less a “travesty.”
What part of the punishment is MORE under “hate crimes” laws for someone committing a crime against a homosexual than it is for someone committing the same crime against a non-homosexual do you dispute as creating a special protected class of individuals for homosexuals? That is the very definition of a “protected” class.
This paragraph is not very coherent….I can only assume you’re trying to expound on what you said earlier about the “protected class.” There is no protected class. You would receive the same equal protection from any incident of hate crime commission as a gay person would. What you are repeating is a lie.
If you really believe the rest of your argument, I only have to point to what laws have resulted from the Matthew Sheppard case to refute it. Sexual orientation and even sexual confusion (crossdressing, etc.), have been added to definitions of “civil rights” for purposes of discrimination. Creating a special class of people simply because of their BEHAVIOR, which is changeable and NOT immutable (like sex and race) is both absurd and unconstitutional, but sadly, it is becoming the law everywhere.
Their “behavior” is not breaking any laws….protecting people from crimes regardless of their behavior is not equivalent to “creating a special class.”
The crime is only the act itself, not what was going on in the mind of the criminal. See, that was easy.
So then you believe that premeditated murder should not exist as a criminal charge. Fair enough; we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Planning and then committing a murder is different from losing one’s temper in the heat of the moment and committing manslaughter, so the law allows for different punishments for the two different crimes.
Not true. The only thing that’s different is the thought; the crime itself is the exact same — murder.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:14 am
P.S. Another blatant falsehood that continues to be parroted is the idea that any crime against a gay person would automatically be deemed a “hate crime.” This is simply not true, as I have explained. In fact, even *with* hate crime laws in full effect, it would still be very difficult to prove that a crime was, in fact, a hate crime. It would only even apply to the most serious of cases, as punitive damages do in civil suits. The overwhelming majority of crimes committed would never be prosecuted as hate crimes, just as the current overwhelming majority of civil suits do not result in the awarding of punitive damages.
The reason I feel it’s important to say this (again) is because you completely ignored it when I said it earlier….it went something like this:
TIM: Let me reiterate, if I must: A crime against a gay (or black, or any minority, or any majority even) could not be considered a “hate crime” under such legislation simply because it was committed against a gay person or what-have-you. That is a blatant falsehood and has never been proposed. What would make it a hate crime would be the motive. NOT the “class,” as you put it. It would be entirely possible to commit, say, robbery against a gay man and not be charged with a hate crime. Hate crime prosecution would be rare, in fact, because it would require similar circumstances to punitive damage cases — the offending party must have blatantly, explicitly, and demonstrably acted on a motivation of hate targeted specifically at that person for a specific reason, beyond normal or reasonable means.
MR. BRUCE SIR: What part of the punishment is MORE under “hate crimes” laws for someone committing a crime against a homosexual than it is for someone committing the same crime against a non-homosexual do you dispute as creating a special protected class of individuals for homosexuals? That is the very definition of a “protected” class.
Your charges have already been addressed, see….
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 am
P. P.S. I take it also that you have not read any of the proposed hate crime legislation over the last decade?
(Sorry for the triple post….but I was curious~)
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:37 am
Toby, you aren’t reading what I wrote. My religion teaches that we are all one race, the “human” race, One Blood, all of us descended from Adam and Eve. What we call “races” are just “people groups” comprised of variations based on genetics. What makes you think I would be unsympathetic to my relatives, regardless of which “people group” they belong to?
Regardless of who the victim is or who the perpetrator is or what the motive is, the punishment for a crime should be based on the actual crime, nothing else. After the murderer is executed, should more punishment be added because of some nebulous “hate crime” law? Maybe he should be turned into “Soylent Green”!!
In the case in Philadelphia (and many others), the Christians were simply exercising their free speech rights and not “unruly” or trespassing, but they were told they could not protest or carry signs or even speak to the homosexuals. There are many more such cases, and it is getting worse, not better. Abortion protesters are also being harassed by law enforcement. The Constitution does not recognize “free speech” zones created by local municipalities; the entire country is a free speech zone! Do our rights derive from GOVERNMENT or are they inalienable rights that government is supposed to protect? If government gives us rights, government can take them away. Our founders knew this, and that is why they wrote the Constitution to recognize our individual rights as inalienable rights and to LIMIT government’s power to restrict them. Reasonable restrictions such as not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire are just that, “reasonable”. What is being done to Silence the Christians is unreasonable.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:11 am
Sorry, Tim, but your are wrong. It all depends on the “job”. A well trained 12 year old sniper can kill a man at 1000 yards, teenage Kamikaze pilots sank ships during World War II, but you missed my point altogether.
Motive, along with opportunity and other evidence, are required for a conviction. From Wikipedia, “Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.” Clearly, punitive damages are to punish the defendant for his actions and the severity of damage he did to the defendant, not the defendant’s motive, and to defer others from engaging in similar misconduct, as I stated; they have nothing to do with “motive”.
Regarding gradations of “homicide”, if you believe “manslaughter” and “premeditated murder” are the same crime, “murder”, then we certainly can agree to disagree….the LAW agrees with me, and that is why there are different punishments for the various degrees of “homicide”.
The murder of Matthew Sheppard was a murder to cover up a botched robbery, but it was prosecuted as a “hate crime against a gay” and created an entire cottage industry of “hate crimes” legislation. “Civil Rights” legislation is being passed to “protect” even CROSS DRESSERS!!! Public schools are being MANDATED to indoctrinate captive children that homosexuality and other deviant behavior is not only acceptable but in many instances preferred over NORMAL behavior. Biblical scripture is being considered “hate speech”; it already is in Canada, and we are following their lead. Yes, I stand by my contention that a protected class, ever expanding to include any deviant who wants to join, is being created at the expense of the rights of EVERYBODY else, most directly affected are Christians. Do you favor allowing men into public restrooms with females, especially female children, simply because the men choose to wear a dress? THAT is already the law in some places HERE in the United States…check it out if you doubt me.
Not only have I READ proposed “hate crimes” legislation, I am actively fighting against it through every legal means at my disposal, including through my state and federal senators and representatives and a number of Christian legal organizations.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 am
Sorry, Tim, but your are wrong. It all depends on the “job”. A well trained 12 year old sniper can kill a man at 1000 yards, teenage Kamikaze pilots sank ships during World War II, but you missed my point altogether.
Women are not children and to conflate them is just silly (and incorrect).
Clearly, punitive damages are to punish the defendant for his actions and the severity of damage he did to the defendant, not the defendant’s motive, and to defer others from engaging in similar misconduct, as I stated; they have nothing to do with “motive”.
Not true. If it were solely about the actions and the level of damage, then the same crimes would always result in an award of punitive damages. They are meant to deter the criminal from acting in the same way again — and it is only necessary to give them a deterrent if in fact they acted willingly to commit the crime, if it was in some way intentional. If they know it was wrong but it still happened because of negligence or some other factor, then there isn’t as much of a need to deter, and the crime will be charged differently because of the intent/motive.
Regarding gradations of “homicide”, if you believe “manslaughter” and “premeditated murder” are the same crime, “murder”, then we certainly can agree to disagree….the LAW agrees with me, and that is why there are different punishments for the various degrees of “homicide”.
I in fact do believe that they are separate crimes, regardless of what you say or what you believe. I was merely pointing out that your reasoning requires you to believe that they are the same crime — because if the action is all that matters, then the motive is irrelevant — did he kill someone? That’s the crime. Otherwise, you must admit that the thought that was put into the crime matters as well….it is simply inconsistent to say that the motive (which is thought) doesn’t matter in one case, but then matters greatly in another.
And furthermore, as I’ve said, I couldn’t care less whatever conspiracy theory you believe about the Matthew Shepard case.
Biblical scripture is being considered “hate speech”
No it is not. And you cannot prove that it is because it is not. All you have is these silly anecdotes, which are unverifiable and which you seem oddly hesitant to actually cite.
Not only have I READ proposed “hate crimes” legislation, I am actively fighting against it through every legal means at my disposal, including through my state and federal senators and representatives and a number of Christian legal organizations.
You clearly have not. There is no legislation that would outlaw anyone’s freedom of speech, so long as no crimes would be committed — you are free to hate gays and crossdressers all you want, as long as you don’t hurt any of them. Same as anybody else. There is no protected class, sorry~
March 4th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Tim, Tim, Tim, you change subjects on me faster than a politician. You included both children and women, you made a point about children not being able to do the job of a mature male, I gave you two examples (of the many I know of), and you changed subjects again. One of our maids at DaNang reported to the infirmary (the US Military infirmary on base; we gave FREE health care to everyone…when we weren’t “killing babies” and “raping and pillaging” according to the history revisionists /sarc)… Anyway, she had a badly wrenched back, and during the examination and treatment, the doctor asked her how it happened. She said she was carrying a rocket (122 MM Russian-made surface to surface rocket) up a hill to help the Viet Cong launch it on our base when her foot slipped, and she fell back down the hill, hurting her back. Her two teenage sons, ages 13 and 15, had been forced to join a Viet Cong regiment. They told the boys they would kill the entire family if they didn’t fight with their unit against the Americans. They told her that if she didn’t help launch rockets and mortars against our base, they would kill her sons and the rest of the family. War on the side of the Communists was such a wonderful family unifier, wasn’t it?
Read what you wrote in response to my clear explanation of “punitive” damages and you will see that you just confirmed my point.
You also confirmed my point about the relevance of “motive” to punishment; there is NONE. The “motive” is ONLY relative in proving GUILT, nothing more. The severity of the crime is based on the ACTIONS taken in carrying out the crime. What the defendant “thought” at any point in the process should not have any bearing on the punishment, only in assuring the jury that the defendant is guilty. Using my example, a hired killer can be thinking where he is going for supper afterwards while he is pulling the trigger. The CRIME is First Degree Murder. Another person can be thinking how much he hates the person he stalked for weeks and planned out each step and is finally killing; once again, the CRIME is First Degree Murder. Capital Punishment is warranted as the PUNISHMENT in both cases. Would you have the judge and jury add “desecration of the body” of the stalker after execution as “punitive damage” because he hated the victim? Motive is only one of the pieces of evidence the prosecution introduces to prove GUILT and obtain a conviction. Why is that so hard to understand? It isn’t “rocket science” — (I should know, I’m a rocket scientist). Justice is supposed to be BLIND, not peeking to see if the defendant is “straight” or white or male and the victim is “gay” or a minority. That is IRRELEVANT, but “hate crimes” laws strip away Lady Justice’s blinders and replace them with RAINBOW Colored Glasses. That is not justice, it is INJUSTICE.
Biblical scripture is being considered “hate speech”, — all over the world.
Did you bother to click on the link I posted to “Silencing The Christians” (or any of the links I have posted)? Are you aware of the rulings in Canada from their “Human Rights Commission”? Are you aware of the same outrageous convictions of pastors and ordinary Christians in Europe (Netherlands comes to mind right off hand)? Are you aware of the Nazi-era laws being used against Homeschoolers in Germany for simply teaching about FAITH in their OWN HOMES? Have you not seen on TV news or read in newspapers or heard on radio shows of these same sorts of outrages being perpetrated against Christians in AMERICA? Do you know that the ringing of CHURCH BELLS on SUNDAY morning in some cities in Michigan is ILLEGAL while calls to prayer FIVE TIMES EVERY DAY from MUSLIM Minarets are perfectly legal (being appealed in court at this very moment)? Do some research and stop dismissing my valid points out of hand.
…same challenge to you regarding my VALID POINTS concerning the proliferation of “hate crimes” laws. Do some research on at least the examples I cited. It will eventually lead to anarchy, but that is the natural progression of every society that rejects God’s perfect plan for mankind, and in our case, the brilliant plan for an ordered and civilized society as envisioned by our founders and codified in the United States Constitution.
I’m a Christian; I don’t hate anyone. I love the sinner and reject the sin. I work hard to help others leave their sinful lives and enjoy the true freedom that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ offers — for eternity, and I have been blessed to have helped hundreds over the years, maybe thousands if those I have helped have also helped others. If you really do believe in free speech and the right of association and freedom of religion and all the other freedoms that the Constitution is supposed to protect, you should be as alarmed and disgusted with what is happening as I am. We are moving toward a soft tyranny. “First, they came for the…..but I’m not a ……, so I did nothing……Finally, they came for me, and there was no one left to help me resist them……”
March 4th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Tim, Tim, Tim, you change subjects on me faster than a politician. You included both children and women, you made a point about children not being able to do the job of a mature male, I gave you two examples (of the many I know of), and you changed subjects again.
Well, we’ve got a lot of subject material to cover and not a lot of time~ In any case….referring to children and women, I did not change the subject. I simply referred to the point of my argument — that the entire idea of not allowing women to serve because of chivalry is blatantly sexist. There is no real argument against allowing women to serve in combat units except that women are somehow “inferior” in some way — be that physically, or mentally (the first being statistically common, while the second is simply not true), or socially.
Although in retrospect, I will say that citing women’s ability to defend themselves did not really illustrate my point well (although it is still very true), and it’s because of that point that we got off-topic. My argument never came from the fact that, with training, anyone can defend themselves and should therefore be included in the army; my argument came from the fact that I do not believe the measures by which entire demographics of the American population are excluded from military combat service should not be as arbitrary as you seem to believe they should. Which is to say, I don’t think sexism or racism or homophobia are good enough reasons to exclude someone from the military service, even if we take it two or three steps removed and say it’s “for the good of military cohesion” (when we cannot demonstrably show how it is so other than appealing to the so-called “obvious”).
(the US Military infirmary on base; we gave FREE health care to everyone…when we weren’t “killing babies” and “raping and pillaging” according to the history revisionists /sarc)
…what? I have to admit that you’ve lost me here….what? Who said anything about the military infirmary raping and pillaging?
War on the side of the Communists was such a wonderful family unifier, wasn’t it?
…what? What does Viet Cong warfare have to do with whether or not women should be able to serve in U.S. combat forces?
Read what you wrote in response to my clear explanation of “punitive” damages and you will see that you just confirmed my point.
You have not. If you had, I see no reason why you could not point it out yourself, maybe even quote where you believe I had.
You also confirmed my point about the relevance of “motive” to punishment; there is NONE.
Are you aware that the punishments for “first degree murder” and “manslaughter” are different by an order of magnitude? Are you aware that the only thing differentiating these two crimes is the motive? They both result in the death of a person; one is intentional and the other is due to negligence or accident. Yet both are punishable crimes with very different potential sentences. Likewise, a “hate crime” would generally be defined as a separate charge from other crimes and be classified with its own bracket of possible sentences. You wouldn’t be able to charge someone with “murder” and then *also* with a “hate crime” that accounts for murder, because that’s double jeopardy (it’s re-defining the same crime and trying them for it twice….in order to try it in the first place, you’d have to decide which crime it was). Which means that it’s no different than manslaughter and murder with respect to how the motive determines guilt and sentencing. It’s not as if people debate in a room like, “well, he killed the guy, so that’s murder, but he hated him too, so let’s tack on 50 years.” That’s just not how it works, and whoever told you that is laughably uninformed about the actual content of the legislation.
….but anyway. Am I correct in assuming, then, that you believe “manslaughter” and “first degree murder” should be unified under a single charge of “killing” after all?
The “motive” is ONLY relative in proving GUILT
Guilt of which crime, yes. And since the crimes are defined differently based on the level of intent or motive, then it’s safe to say that the motive is very, very relative in providing the sentencing as well (because the sentence is given based on the crime of which one is convicted….which is determined by the motive).
The severity of the crime is based on the ACTIONS taken in carrying out the crime.
Actions that include whether or not he/she contemplated the murder.
Are you aware that contemplating the murder beforehand can result in a higher sentence than killing the person in cold blood?
What the defendant “thought” at any point in the process should not have any bearing on the punishment
So you do agree that they should be unified under a single charge of “killing.”
Would you have the judge and jury add “desecration of the body” of the stalker after execution as “punitive damage” because he hated the victim?
That’s a silly bit of nonsense….”punitive damages” are a deterrent and would be irrelevant once the offending party is dead anyway. So of course not -_-
Motive is only one of the pieces of evidence the prosecution introduces to prove GUILT and obtain a conviction.
Exactly — they determine which crime he is guilty of. And of course the severity of the degree of murder is defined by whether or not the act was contemplated beforehand, and for how long. Whether or not you agree, the law is currently that this is actually very important indeed.
(I should know, I’m a rocket scientist).
Seriously? If that’s not a joke, I’m a little disappointed….
That is IRRELEVANT, but “hate crimes” laws strip away Lady Justice’s blinders and replace them with RAINBOW Colored Glasses. That is not justice, it is INJUSTICE.
Oh, that’s a cute little soundbyte~ Where did you get that, if you don’t mind my asking? I want to refer to it a lot from now on in my other ventures….it sounds like a song lyric or something.
Did you bother to click on the link I posted to “Silencing The Christians” (or any of the links I have posted)?
When did you post links? 0.0
Do some research and stop dismissing my valid points out of hand.
Seeing that I know off the top of my head that half of the cases you *just mentioned* are either grossly distorted or simply not true (or even incomplete to the point of incredulity), I’m reluctant to take *anything* you say at this point seriously….but yes, next day I have off I plan to incorporate some reading on the subject into my schedule. I do love skimming old newspaper articles and such~ But what really clinched it for me was that you suddenly typed in all caps. I was so frightened and intimidated that I suddenly had this urge to reconsider my entire worldview XD
In any case, perhaps you could be more specific? Google search isn’t very nice to people with only vague headline descriptions….
I’m a Christian; I don’t hate anyone. I love the sinner and reject the sin.
Do you know the story, “20th Century Boys?” I like that story. There’s this group of people called the “Friends” who go around “rejecting” groups of people who are “immoral” or who are “threatening” to the ideal society….it’s pretty interesting. Like 1984 in the modern age
Your use of the word “rejected” just made me think of it, is all~
I work hard to help others leave their sinful lives and enjoy the true freedom that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ offers
It’s funny to me because you make it sound so nice and happy and pleasant right here, but you don’t seem like that when you’re arguing politics….a lot of super-religious folks tend to do that, I’ve noticed. You guys talk a lot about love and togetherness, but you’re so angry and political all the time that I can understand why people don’t take you seriously. If you guys are so angry about everything all the time, why don’t you start some more Christian punk bands? >_> I think that’s kind of an untapped sector for the Christianity Industry as of yet.
We are moving toward a soft tyranny. “First, they came for the…..but I’m not a ……, so I did nothing……Finally, they came for me, and there was no one left to help me resist them……”
Speaking of punk bands, both NOFX and Anti-Flag (who are decidedly left-wing) used that original quote (in full) on some of their recent albums to describe the nation as it appeared under George Bush Jr.’s regime from 2000-2008. It’s interesting how these vague political colloquialisms can be so easily translated from one side to another and still sound natural….I guess that’s what happens when you stick to vague, scary-sounding bits and bites instead of relying on hard information to make a political point….
Then again, I kinda hate politics anyway, so I feel irritable just *talking* about “political points”….it feels like going #1 in a hurricane….
March 4th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Ghaa….it should say this:
I do not believe the measures by which entire demographics of the American population are excluded from military combat service should be as arbitrary as you seem to believe they should.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Tim, to save bandwidth and to keep this post from becoming as large as “War and Peace”, I will simply try to reply to your points in sequence. You will have to scroll up to your point and then back down to my replies in sequence.
If you have read all the legitimate reasons I have given for not allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military and for not placing women into combat roles and you still believe the ONLY reasons one could have for holding to such a reasoned position are sexism and homophobia, there is no sense in debating with you. None of my reasons for my stance are “arbitrary”, and I reinforced every one of them with arguments and facts. You simply cannot be persuaded with facts, and you choose to ignore the arguments. (note: I sometimes use all caps to call attention to a word, not to intimidate you, so don’t be alarmed when you see a word or two in ALL CAPS.)
I was not talking about military infirmaries “killing babies” and “raping and pillaging”. Almost all Vietnam veterans have been characterized by history revisionists and Hollywood movie makers as “baby killers” and “rapists and pillagers”. Even John FRAUD Kerry returned from his short tour of Vietnam and lied before Congress about “atrocities” committed by all the military in Vietnam on a daily basis under orders or with passive permission by the top military leaders. He equated us with the “Army of Genghis Khan”. My sarcasm obviously went over your head. For a true history of the Vietnam veteran and the smears and distortions perpetrated against them, visit Wintersoldier.com.
You keep mis-characterizing what I said about the gradations of homicide and the relevance of motive in proving guilt. Not only am I aware of the degrees of homicide, I pointed out the differences and gave examples. Motive only provides one piece of evidence for conviction. What if the defendant planned for months to commit a murder because he hated the victim and at the last moment, only beat him up? He “thought”-crimed a murder, but he only “committed” an assault. Should he be charged with First Degree Murder because he “thought” about it when he planned his crime? No, whether the defendant is a hired assassin or a hothead who plans a murder, takes a weapon to the scene, and then actually commits a murder, the crime is First Degree Murder, and the punishment should be the same, regardless of what either defendant was thinking during the commission of the murder. Motive is just one piece of evidence needed to convict him. Placing him at the scene at the time of the crime is another.
Punitive damages are also levied to dissuade others from committing a similar crime, so in my example (using a bit of humor), if the body is desecrated or eaten, it might cause others to think twice before committing a similar crime. In times past and even in some countries today, bodies are left hanging from the gallows for a period of time so passersby will see them and “get the message”.
Yes, I am a “rocket scientist”, but we don’t use that term. Physicist will do, and if you look to the heavens, you will see some of my handiwork orbiting (and some debris still orbiting as well)….’nuf sed.
Some of my earlier posts may have been “under moderation” at the time you posted, so you would not have seen them. I believe they are all showing now. “Silencing The Christians” is about an hour, and it’s free to watch if you simply click the link and wait for it to load, so enjoy.
I am not familiar with “20th Century Boys”, and reading between the lines, I doubt I would care for it. I prefer the “authentic” representations of Christians. Frank is an excellent example. I can provide a list of others you might want to study if you would like.
Have I been rude or brought dishonor to my cause with my posts? I have tried to respond to vitriol with facts and humor and kindness. If I have failed, I apologize. I have no reason or desire to be disrespectful. Please don’t mistake passion for anger or rudeness.
Most of what everyone does involves politics in some form, but there is no law requiring anyone to participate. Those who don’t will be subject to the rules set up by those who do.
…gotta go for now……
March 5th, 2010 at 8:28 am
If you have read all the legitimate reasons I have given for not allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military and for not placing women into combat roles and you still believe the ONLY reasons one could have for holding to such a reasoned position are sexism and homophobia, there is no sense in debating with you. None of my reasons for my stance are “arbitrary”, and I reinforced every one of them with arguments and facts. You simply cannot be persuaded with facts, and you choose to ignore the arguments. (note: I sometimes use all caps to call attention to a word, not to intimidate you, so don’t be alarmed when you see a word or two in ALL CAPS.)
However you justify it, telling a woman that she cannot serve in a combat role because she is a woman *is* sexism. That’s just all there is to it; to discriminate based on gender is sexism. You may feel it’s justified in this case, but it’s still sexism.
But yes, I agree that it’s probably worthless to debate that much further….
I was not talking about military infirmaries “killing babies” and “raping and pillaging”. Almost all Vietnam veterans have been characterized by history revisionists and Hollywood movie makers as “baby killers” and “rapists and pillagers”. Even John FRAUD Kerry returned from his short tour of Vietnam and lied before Congress about “atrocities” committed by all the military in Vietnam on a daily basis under orders or with passive permission by the top military leaders. He equated us with the “Army of Genghis Khan”. My sarcasm obviously went over your head. For a true history of the Vietnam veteran and the smears and distortions perpetrated against them, visit Wintersoldier.com.
Oh, wow….you’re part of the “swift boat” crowd as well? Ah, well. In any case, I’m well aware of the situation surrounding Vietnam, but I don’t know a whole lot of people (in here or in Hollywood) who would automatically assume someone is a rapist because they served in Vietnam. Maybe some hippies or something, but really, I don’t much care what hippies think anyway~
He “thought”-crimed a murder, but he only “committed” an assault.
Oy….look, the “crime” is murder. If he doesn’t kill someone, it can’t be murder. That’s exactly what I said. If, however, he does kill someone, then it becomes murder, and that’s when it’s split into degrees….which are decided based on what he was thinking at the time; did he premeditate? Did he kill in the heat of the moment? Was it an accident? These are the important factors.
You are talking about motive as an aspect of conviction; I am talking about motive as it relates to the crime itself, as it is used to define the crime. As I said, I don’t believe it is a thought crime….however, hate crime laws function exactly the same way as our current method of distinguishing between murder degrees. So if you call one a thought crime, you have to call both a thought crime in order to be consistent.
You speak as though a hate crime would punish the thought rather than the action….that’s not true. Without the action, there is no crime, under current or any legislation. All a hate crime law would do would be to factor the motive into the conviction of a crime for which one is already being charged. I said this in my last post and you did not address it at all….did you by any chance read it?
Motive is just one piece of evidence needed to convict him. Placing him at the scene at the time of the crime is another.
That’s not what is being discussed….the act of premeditation (which is not necessarily a motive, but rather an act, an act of thought) is part of the crime. In and of itself it is not a crime, but if you premeditate a murder and then murder someone, it is a more serious crime than if you just kill them.
if the body is desecrated or eaten, it might cause others to think twice before committing a similar crime.
How so? If they’re dead, they won’t care, and they know that. Not exactly the scariest penalty ever….
In times past and even in some countries today, bodies are left hanging from the gallows for a period of time so passersby will see them and “get the message”.
However, that was to display that the penalty is death, not to “desecrate the corpse to send a message.” More of a way of saying, “Yeah, we’ll go there if we have to.”
I prefer the “authentic” representations of Christians. Frank is an excellent example. I can provide a list of others you might want to study if you would like.
Who said anything about Christians? I was just saying that you reminded me of this political cult in some fictional series I read….guilty conscience, perhaps?
Most of what everyone does involves politics in some form, but there is no law requiring anyone to participate. Those who don’t will be subject to the rules set up by those who do.
That’s why a lot of us non-righties get into politics, actually….seeing that the vast majority of politicians like to pretend that we don’t exist. It’s going well so far — agents of the President’s cabinet finally agreed to meet with members of the Secular Coalition for America last month. If that’s not a milestone, I don’t know what is~ Just two or three years ago, it would have been political suicide, but now that the fearpolitik has started to wear off, people are becoming a little more relaxed and open-minded.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Worth quoting the poem in full:
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Interesting to see a right-winger quoting a poem that advocates defending communists and trade unionists; interesting too that Bruce put elipses in their place. As the poem was originally written to point out the failure of Germans to defend the targets of Nazis, its author could equally have included gays in the list of persecuted.
As Tim is a straight man defending the rights of women and gays, I find this a curious choice of poem to quote to him - I’d say he was embodying its theme fairly well. Also, I don’t see the vitriol in Tim’s posts that Bruce claims to.
“If that’s not a milestone, I don’t know what is”
Indeed. Sean Hannity still managed to claim it was an example of favoritism, despite the number of religious groups who regularly meet in the White House.
I’d love to read more about the Michegan case Bruce referred to concerning church bells and minarets. I searched for it online and drew a blank.
Finally, genuine kudos to you Bruce for your obvious commitment to supporting the troops (the straight ones at any rate). And kudos for your job too. Google “Brain Surgeon - That Mitchell & Webb” for a funny sketch that refers to your profession.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
…btw, sorry for all the bold, I failed to close the tag following the single word I meant to bold, and an entire paragraph got bolded.
Sorry, Tim, wrong again.
From Wikipedia: “Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other.” NONE of those definitions apply to the reasons I stated; actually, I’ve shown I hold them in high esteem. I VALUE females more than you seem to, so I see no reason to treat them as CANNON FODDER. Prior to that time, the beginning of the era of “Political Correctness” nonsense, the operative word was “Chivalry“.
Actually, I was an Air Force pilot, but my mission was to pass intelligence to the Swiftboat units along with Army artillery units and other Air Force units. I do have the honor of knowing several of the Swiftboat veterans, though. I even have a couple of their books linked on my website with a couple of free downloadable chapters if you want to add to your education. You would do well to learn the truth about them…and so would John FRAUD Kerry. So far, he has declined to even TRY to refute one allegation they made — and PROVED — against him. Unlike the very accurate and positive and patriotic war movies Hollywood made during and following World War II, most of the Vietnam war movies made in Hollywood were biased against the war, inaccurate on facts, and they characterized the Vietnam war veterans as monsters, dope addicts, psychopaths, and poorly educated. Actually, the statistics for Vietnam war veterans were superior to those of the population at large, but this topic is not about that subject.
Bottom line on hate crimes laws, if a “straight” kills a “straight” because he “hates” him, he gets X punishment. If a “straight” kills a “gay” because he hates “GAYs“, he gets X punishment. PLUS Y punishment. You can call that “Justice”, but reasonable people would call it “INjustice” and a violation of ALL the equal protections of the Constitution.
The Marxists, Black-Separationists, Communists, Socialists, militant homosexuals, terrorists, terrorist-sympathizers, Chicago thugs, ACORN thugs, SEIU thugs, and all the other freaks and tyrants the current Administration is comprised of and associating with and “reaching out” to will bring an end to the America the founders created and left in our care….and you will be forced to live with the tyranny and nanny-state control of your life it creates in its place. Enjoy the “Hope and Change”….
March 5th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
They came for the Marxists, but I wasn’t a Marxist, so I did nothing.
They came for the socialists, but I wasn’t a socialist, so I did nothing.
They came for the gays, but I think they’re all deviants, so I applauded as they were taken.
I’m guessing you are good at self defence Bruce, as you certainly can’t count on anyone being left to defend you once all the people you dismiss have been taken away. Pastor Martin Niemöller was thinking of people like you when he wrote that poem.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Nathan, if a Communist rings the fire alarm or a Muslim rings the fire alarm or a Christian rings the fire alarm, does it change the fact that there is a fire, and assistance is needed? I think you got the point of my quotes excerpted from the poem, in spite of your attempt to spin it.
Vitriol may be a bit strong, and others besides Tim are also posting, so how about “negative exuberance” instead (not accusing Tim or anyone else of insulting me), and if you scroll up, there were a few replies that were more “ad hominem” than necessary. As I said, I’m not concerned, though, just trying to stay civil in my replies.
I willingly risked my life for the entire time I was in the Air Force, and millions of others are risking theirs today, to defend the “rights of gays and women”. Everyone, EVERYONE, has all the same rights I have. Don’t confuse opposition to destructive anti-social behavior or a desire to treat women with the respect they deserve and an effort to try to keep them out of harm’s way with some ulterior anti-rights motive.
Search on “bells noise ordinance” and you will find all sorts of hits. World Net Daily did a series on at least one ongoing dust up. Some of the Christian law associations and a few other Conservative law associations are representing the churches and pastors in their cases. I could write to my cousin in Michigan and ask for some of the newspaper reports and…but you could just search. It isn’t confined just to Michigan. It is getting worse everywhere, not better, and this Administration is hostile to Christianity, so there will probably be even more hits as time passes.
Thanks for the kind words. I’ll check out that skit.
…now back to my alchemy…..lead….Mercury…..add some MSG….a little asbestos…..it’s gotta make GOLD………
March 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
“if a Communist rings the fire alarm or a Muslim rings the fire alarm or a Christian rings the fire alarm, does it change the fact that there is a fire, and assistance is needed? I think you got the point of my quotes excerpted from the poem, in spite of your attempt to spin it.”
No, I wasn’t trying to spin it, and I now confess to being completely baffled by your quoting of that poem. It’s possible you take something completely different from it than the author’s intention (which you are perfectly within your rights to do), or perhaps I’ve completely misunderstood it myself.
Can you explain what you think the poem’s message is, and what message you were trying to get across to Tim?
March 5th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
From Wikipedia: “Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other.” NONE of those definitions apply to the reasons I stated; actually, I’ve shown I hold them in high esteem. I VALUE females more than you seem to, so I see no reason to treat them as CANNON FODDER. Prior to that time, the beginning of the era of “Political Correctness” nonsense, the operative word was “Chivalry“.
So wait….you view men as cannon fodder, then? I’m confused.
In any case….
1) How your view is sexist (and it is sexist) is that it insists that women should not be allowed (i.e. should be denied the choice, as a legal and consenting adult with their own minds and wills) to serve in combat because “they need to be protected.” This implies a superiority on the part of men — that men not only can protect them better than they can protect themselves, but are required to at their own expense. Your reasoning seems to be that, because men are compelled to protect women based on the sole fact that they are women, men will then act foolishly in combat to protect women even if it is not necessary or strategically effective, and therefore “women acting in combat roles disrupts unit cohesion and efficiency.” That is an illogical argument. You are blaming the victim — the woman — for the man’s stupid and foolish behavior. You are saying that, because the man “cannot control himself” and “must defend women” even if it is not strategically necessary or effective, that it is essentially the woman’s “fault” for putting the man in that position in the first place by serving in a combat position, and you are punishing the woman by taking away her opportunity to work in that position.
2) That is logically connected with the old idea that women who dressed immodestly and were victims of sexual assault “deserved” it because “the man can’t control himself, she was teasing him by dressing so promiscuously,” and therefore the woman was at fault.
3) Have you heard of “reverse racism?” It’s when you’re nice to someone because of their race. It’s still racism, just “in reverse.” Racism can refer to positive or negative treatment….the idea is that the person is being treated differently based on their race. The same applies to sexism — in a professional environment, if you treat a woman differently than you would treat a man, or if you give a man career opportunities that you would not give a woman, then you are being sexist because you are judging them based solely on their gender, and not on their qualifications. Naturally there are differences between men and women that society seeks to accommodate, and that is not a problem….but these differences are minimal and their accommodations are small (such as different bathrooms and rooming quarters). Defining someone’s career opportunities for them based on the idea of gender roles *is* sexism, whether you call it chauvinism or chivalry.
4) It may be worthwhile to note that very few sexists are sexist “just because.” Most sexists believe that their views are justified by reality — here in the deep south, this is especially common in the form of the belief that women can bear children, and therefore that is their primary responsibility. Many women are not deemed “successful” by friends and family unless they have married and had children, as if that were their only purpose in existence. That is a form of sexism as well, and it actually is steeped in fact — women can produce children, and that feature is unique to their gender. But the question I would ask is, does that really warrant treating them so differently?
Unlike the very accurate and positive and patriotic war movies Hollywood made during and following World War II, most of the Vietnam war movies made in Hollywood were biased against the war, inaccurate on facts, and they characterized the Vietnam war veterans as monsters, dope addicts, psychopaths, and poorly educated.
I wouldn’t know or care. I don’t watch a whole lot of Hollywood movies 0.0 And when I do, I tend to not let them define how I look at the world.
Bottom line on hate crimes laws, if a “straight” kills a “straight” because he “hates” him, he gets X punishment. If a “straight” kills a “gay” because he hates “GAYs“, he gets X punishment. PLUS Y punishment.
No, he doesn’t get “X” punishment plus “Y” punishment, he gets “Z” punishment — a different sentencing altogether. It can be more severe or less severe than a standard conviction….it’s simply a different classification of crime.
there were a few replies that were more “ad hominem” than necessary.
Honestly? Ever since you admitted that you don’t think women should be given the same military positional opportunities as men, about 50% of our interactions have been me trolling your emotions….there’s just too much to argue with, it would be futile to try *too* hard~
Everyone, EVERYONE, has all the same rights I have.
What makes me so curious, though, is how you define “rights.” To me, rights means opportunities and protections for all. However, you seem to feel that someone’s “right” to be disgusted by gays and not want to work with them overrides the gay person’s “right” to work themselves. It’s just like in a more civilian institution….if you don’t want to work with a black man because you don’t like blacks, you can’t say that it’s the black man that’s disturbing cohesion and efficiency among the workforce. You’d say it’s you because you’re the one causing trouble over the fact that he’s black (or white, or gay, or what-have-you).
Can you explain what you think the poem’s message is, and what message you were trying to get across to Tim?
From what I can tell, protecting people from intense and hatefully-motivated violent crimes is infringing upon our rights somehow, and I’m supposed to be afraid for my right to hate….really, that’s not true of course (not even a little), but even if it was, I could do without that right….since, you know, I don’t ever use it
I just wish the criticism of hate crime laws from the right was as honest as the criticism on the left. The most intelligent argument I’ve heard against it from the left is that it’s unnecessary, because the purpose is to provide additional details for specific instances that are not covered by current violent crime laws….but some say that we can piece together the intent of standing legislation by cross-referencing existing laws, and that the introduction of new legislation would introduce unnecessary clutter. That’s a decent argument, and one of the reasons why I don’t consider myself a full supporter of such laws….but I do support the spirit of the laws, so to speak, which is to protect people from crimes committed by people who take advantage of existing loopholes in the law.
On an interesting side note about HC laws….pretty much the only way you would *ever* be able to convict someone of a “hate crime” under any of the proposed legislation I’ve ever read would be if the person admits to committing the act out of hatred. Even if you can prove that a person hates (or hated) blacks, if he killed a black man, you’d have to prove that he committed that crime, specifically, out of hatred; proving that he’s racist isn’t enough. And it’s basically impossible to get inside someone’s head and “prove” what they thought or when. That’s another argument from the left against HC laws in general, is that they’re unenforceable.
You don’t hear arguments like that from the right (or anyone else, really), though, which is part of why I consider their motives suspect….they are good arguments. Why do these right-wing people who are supposedly so interesting in “defending the rights of citizens” not citing these very relevant and very demonstrable arguments, and instead relying on vague soundbites about rainbows and “thought crimes?” Instead they choose to argue about “our right to hate” and how “it’s none of the government’s business.” Less tangible arguments, more poetry than reason….odd, is it not?
March 5th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Please, Nathan, you know what I meant. Quick summary; I have to go observe a test in a few minutes. Our country is under attack by anarchists, Sal Alinsky devotees, and the hard Left. In the last two elections, “Moderates” were fooled into electing the President and a number of “Moderate” Democrats, falling for the “Hope and Change” mantra. As these Statists began their march Left, knocking off more and more of our liberties and their political enemies and weakening them, us, and our ability to recover from the long term damage they are doing, Democrats didn’t mind because it’s their party making the gains. As they slowly awaken to the effects these policies will have on THEM and THEIR children and grandchildren, who will be enslaved to government control and poverty and a national debt impossible to pay off, they are realizing that THEY are also targets, not just the “evil” Republicans and Conservatives. If they don’t band together with the rest of the country soon and help put a stop to the destruction, by the time the Statists turn on these “useful idiots”, as Statists always do once they have taken full control of a nation, there will be no one left to save them.
You really seem determined to twist my clear meaning, and I have no idea why.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Our country is under attack by anarchists, Sal Alinsky devotees, and the hard Left.
This is part of why people don’t take you guys seriously….you *really* believe that the right alone has had *no part whatsoever* in bringing about our current state of affairs? It’s all “the left” and “the anarchists” and “them,” etc. etc.?
Any time you guys do admit to wrongdoing (or even just less-than-sainthood), it’s for some faux-saintly reason like “it’s our fault for not standing up against tyranny” or something….gimme a break….
“Them and us
Bending the significance to match a whimsied fable
Them and us
Tumult for the ignorant and purpose for the violence
A confused loose alliance forming
Them and us
I heard him say,
“We can take them all”
But he didn’t know who they were
And he didn’t know who we were.
And there wasn’t any reason
Or motive, or value to his story
Just allegory, imitation glory
And a desperate feeble search for a friend.”
As these Statists began their march Left, knocking off more and more of our liberties and their political enemies and weakening them
What “liberties,” specifically, have actually been destroyed since Obama took office, I wonder?
As they slowly awaken to the effects these policies will have on THEM and THEIR children and grandchildren, who will be enslaved to government control and poverty and a national debt impossible to pay off,
Where were all of you guys when G.W. was running up our national debt by billions of dollars a month?
March 5th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Tim, you’re priceless. No, I don’t regard well trained, physically fit, boot-camp-transformed US Military MALES as cannon fodder, although some Liberal civilian leaders do, and they even treat them that way. Some even treat them like “meals on wheels” and glorified waiters and bus boys. Some even think of them as “good photo op” props.
I don’t think females should be forced into sexual slavery, either, so does THAT make me a “sexist”? After all, it’s THEIR body, so shouldn’t they be allowed to do ANYTHING they want with it, including sell it to anyone they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want, even on the Courthouse Square? You certainly are determined to find a “sexist” needle in this haystack.
Your long post about racism and reverse racism is interesting, but it only highlights the fact that we are fallen people, mired in sin, a far cry from the people God created us as originally, and we need a Savior, Jesus Christ to redeem us from our sinful nature.
I only posted the info about the change in attitude in Hollywood concerning patriotism because you brought up the points to which my reply was needed. If history revisionism doesn’t concern you, fine with me. I hope you aren’t an educator.
Name a right I have that a “gay” doesn’t have. There is NO “right” to serve in the military, so that one is “out”. I had to meet ALL the entrance criteria, and even today, that includes the LAW excluding open homosexuals from serving in the military. Gays can form same-sex unions in a number of states and jurisdictions, so could I if I wanted to, but neither I nor “gays” can call them marriages (and we can’t redefine a cat as a dog). However, I and “gays” can marry anyone of the opposite sex we want, as long as it isn’t a close relative or under the age of consent or mentally incompetent, ….all the same restrictions placed on us are the same. Name a right I have that a “gay” doesn’t have.
Witness statements, for example, “Bubba told me he was gonna go out and kill himself a GAY because he HATES ‘em” works fine for establishing motive, so you don’t have to be a mind reader or force a confession to inject “hate” into the prosecution and define this as a “HATE” crime. My position is clear. Once the government is allowed to prosecute citizens for what they THINK, –hate, love, who cares, — we have lost our right to free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of association and a lot more. ONLY when a person ACTS on hate or any other emotion or without emotion and commits a CRIME should the law be involved, and ONLY to prosecute for the ACTIONS, not the THOUGHTS. Hate crimes laws just prosecute THOUGHT, that is INJUSTICE, but we can agree to disagree. We do seem to agree they are unnecessary.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Sorry, Tim, I didn’t see your other post. Do you not see the country being transformed from a Representative Republic into a European-type Socialist nation right before your eyes? Do you not see layer after layer of bureaucracy being imposed on us? Rights we used to take for granted are now gone, replaced with regulations and a requirement to “get a permit” even to plant or remove trees and build or remove ponds on our own property. We have LOST our property rights, and ALL other rights derive from property rights. Read how the founders regarded property rights; they were at the TOP of the list. Now, Government controls what kind of light bulbs, toilets, cars, houses, you name it, that we are allowed to purchase and how much water we can use to flush our toilets. We are being micromanaged unconstitutionally. CARBON DIOXIDE — a gas REQUIRED to sustain life on this planet — is now declared to be POISON, not by scientists, but by the EPA and supported by the courts. Most of the changes being forced on us are AGAINST our will by either Leftist politicians ramming them through packed legislatures and a packed Congress or by some unelected bureaucratic behemoth or an activist court. Major sectors of our economy are being nationalized, some already have, and the law, even the Constitution itself, are being discarded in the process. The takeover of the auto companies was patently unconstitutional, and forcing shareholders and first debt holders to take pennies on the dollar while giving unions equity they had no legal right to was government abuse and extortion. That was done under the current administration. Regarding GW Bush, I am millions of other true Conservatives were working as hard as we could to try to convince GW Bush to reverse course when he launched his Socialist policy and spending binge. He was NOT a Conservative, in spite of the impression everyone has of him. I am consistent in my criticism…and my praise. I’ll give him credit for reacting properly to the attack on 9/11 and keeping the country safe for his two terms except for his failures to keep the border closed and in some of his foreign policy where he was timid, and I will harshly criticize his abandonment of Conservative principles in domestic policy such as expanding Medicare drug programs and SCHIP for families earning well above the poverty line….and a lot of other issues that I won’t list since I have made my point.
March 6th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“CARBON DIOXIDE — a gas REQUIRED to sustain life on this planet — is now declared to be POISON”
There’s no reason something can’t be both. You surely wouldn’t argue that flooding isn’t dangerous, because water is required for life. Manure is useful for growing plants, but it can also kill.
If you wish to present an argument that there is some hitherto undiscovered mechanism that PREVENTS high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from trapping heat in the atmostphere, then go ahead and present it. But it’s a non sequitur to simply point out that CO2 is needed for life.
I’m not making any kind of argument here for climate change being manmade, merely pointing out that this is a nonsensical argument against it.
“However, I and “gays” can marry anyone of the opposite sex we want”
Again, this is not an argument that you would accept in other circumstances. It is the same argument people used just 50 years ago to justify laws stopping inter-racial marriage. “Blacks can marry other blacks, whites can marry other whites, therefore no-one is being discriminated against”. It’s a disengenuous argument, and it remains so whether or not one believes gays should not/could not marry.
I’m sure you’ll answer that inter-racial marriage is nothing like gay marriage. But that isn’t the point - the argument remains a bad one regardless of the set of people you apply it to. It’s only convincing to you if you’re already against the group marrying.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Mr. Bruce,
I suppose you’re appalled by this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03.....en.html?hp
And fully support this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....87172.html
Just wondering what you’re thinking might be on these articles.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
No, I don’t regard well trained, physically fit, boot-camp-transformed US Military MALES as cannon fodder, although some Liberal civilian leaders do, and they even treat them that way. Some even treat them like “meals on wheels” and glorified waiters and bus boys. Some even think of them as “good photo op” props.
…what?
I don’t think females should be forced into sexual slavery, either, so does THAT make me a “sexist”?
Non-sequitur. For one, nobody proposed that, so I don’t know why you mention it….but also, in order for that to be considered “treating them differently because of their gender,” you would have to be making the opposite statement for men — that you want men to be forced into sexual slavery, but not women. Which I can only assume that you don’t believe. So no, that would not be a good example.
Your long post about racism and reverse racism is interesting, but it only highlights the fact that we are fallen people, mired in sin, a far cry from the people God created us as originally, and we need a Savior, Jesus Christ to redeem us from our sinful nature.
…what?
I only posted the info about the change in attitude in Hollywood concerning patriotism because you brought up the points to which my reply was needed. If history revisionism doesn’t concern you, fine with me. I hope you aren’t an educator.
…what? You are too vague.
Name a right I have that a “gay” doesn’t have.
If you were paying attention, you may have noticed that I used the word “right” in quotations. We would not consider the “right” to have a job a “right” in the sense that we would consider our “rights” to life and pursuit of happiness….all the same, a person has some degree of a governmentally-recognized “right” to work opportunities, hence terms like “equal-opportunity employment.” You have every right to deny work opportunities to people who are obstructive or incompetent, but you do *not* have the “right” to discriminate against employees based solely on your personal dislike of, say, gays or blacks. That was my point. By your reasoning, the black man would be at fault (even though he was the victim of discrimination) because the white people were uncomfortable around him and therefore unable to work as efficiently.
I had to meet ALL the entrance criteria, and even today, that includes the LAW excluding open homosexuals from serving in the military.
You beg the question again….I challenge the need for such a law. The fact that it is already a law has no bearing on this whatsoever….if anything, you’d need to argue about the reasons the laws were enacted in the first place. Which is what I am doing.
Gays can form same-sex unions in a number of states and jurisdictions, so could I if I wanted to, but neither I nor “gays” can call them marriages
Yes we can. I do it all the time.
and we can’t redefine a cat as a dog)
Of course not, silly! That’s because the animal we call a “dog” is biologically variant from the animal we call a “cat” in ways that are unique and distinct in a way that their familial breeds are not.
In any case, are you also mad at Webster’s Dictionary for “co-opting” marriage as a physical term? According to my dictionary, “marriage” can refer to a spiritual or religious union or the ceremony recognizing such….it can also, however, refer to any explicit act of “bringing together” literally. One example is the technical term “marriage” in computer science, referring to the union of two compatable cable ends (as in, “I’ve married the component cables”).
Marriage is not a Christian Original(TM) term, and it never has been. Christianity is just one of many industries which have utilized the term since language was invented.
Witness statements, for example, “Bubba told me he was gonna go out and kill himself a GAY because he HATES â€em” works fine for establishing motive
Word of mouth is not sufficient evidence to prove anything in the court of law. In itself it is worthless; it is only useful if there is other evidence to corroborate the testimony. Perhaps you should dabble in a law class or two before we debate this further? You have to cross-reference *any* new legislation with existing laws to provide proper context….you act as though hate crime legislation would exist in a sort of “legal vacuum,” immune to all prior legislation which was meant to weed out unconstitutionalities and things like that. That’s not the case.
My position is clear.
And false.
. Once the government is allowed to prosecute citizens for what they THINK
In theory….but again, that sort of policy is completely unenforceable as long as there is no method of reading or controlling people’s minds, so even if it *were* proposed (which it hasn’t been, not yet), the few of us who weren’t busy laughing at such a pathetic attempt to control us would be arguing about how impossible it would be to enforce such a regulation…but anyway, as long as we have criminal defense attorneys, you can bet that this kind of law will never exist.
Hate crimes laws just prosecute THOUGHT, that is INJUSTICE, but we can agree to disagree. We do seem to agree they are unnecessary.
You said exactly the same thing before, so I’ll wait and see if you try to address what I said in response before I say it again.
Do you not see the country being transformed from a Representative Republic into a European-type Socialist nation right before your eyes?
If what I’m seeing is “Socialism,” then call me a Socialist…
Read how the founders regarded property rights; they were at the TOP of the list.
Yeah, even more than human rights. Nice guys, not giving women equal voting rights….or property rights…or any real rights, for that matter.
CARBON DIOXIDE — a gas REQUIRED to sustain life on this planet — is now declared to be POISON, not by scientists, but by the EPA and supported by the courts.
Carbon excess is hazardous. Just like pure Iron is extremely deadly if it enters your bloodstream alone. But if it’s correctly bonded with proteins, Iron is actually very good for you. By your reasoning here, if a person injects pure Iron into a person’s bloodstream and that person dies, then it’s not murder because “Iron is not a poison.”
Most of the changes being forced on us are AGAINST our will by either Leftist politicians
There are incompetent fops on all sides of the political spectrum….the right wing is no exception…
He was NOT a Conservative, in spite of the impression everyone has of him.
No True Conservatism! That’s a new one.
March 6th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Nathan, my point is, the government has no authority to impose any of the regulations they are imposing under the hoax-junk-science-based “Cap and Trade”. They don’t own the air we breathe, and if they are allowed to regulate it, they OWN us. Man-made global warming or climate change or whatever they call it next is a scheme to impose total government control on us and everyone else in the world, but this entire discussion is off topic, so if Frank opens a conversation on it, I’ll consider posting to it.
Even black leaders in the civil rights movement have debunked the comparison of homosexual “rights” to the civil rights movement. As far as mixed marriages, which of my friends and relatives who are in mixed race marriages should I be bigoted against? I love all of them.
You do realize that EVERY argument for homosexual marriage is an argument for every other kind of union. If the definition of “marriage” is changed from its universally-accepted definition of one man and one woman, who gets to redefine it, what is the new definition, and by what authority is it defined? Why does it have to be limited to two “persons”? Why not group marriage? Why not humans and animals? Civilized societies have accepted the current definition universally. All major religions recognize the God of their religion as the source and authority for that definition. God created marriage. By what authority does man change it?
March 6th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
You do realize that EVERY argument for homosexual marriage is an argument for every other kind of union.
False. The “two consenting adults” argument does not apply to “any” pairing, for one.
If the definition of “marriage” is changed from its universally-accepted definition of one man and one woman, who gets to redefine it
1) That definition is not “universally accepted.” If it were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
2) Who gets to define it now? You guys? A 2000+-year-old book? Marriage is not yours to define and never was…
God created marriage. By what authority does man change it?
Correction: you believe that a god created marriage.
Man-made global warming or climate change or whatever they call it next is a scheme to impose total government control on us and everyone else in the world
Who is it, exactly, that you believe wants the government to have “total control over everyone in the world?” There is no group of people whom this would benefit, with the exception (maybe) of “the government” itself….of course, that’s ignoring the fact that the government is made up of the people that it’s supposedly trying to “control.”
In any case….the scientists whose lives are dedicated to studying what you call “junk science” would not benefit from that (and they know it), and they are the ones who are most actively pushing for these sorts of regulations.
Do you really think you are the *only* party who has thought this situation through? What expert knowledge do you possess about climate change?
March 6th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
P.S.
Even black leaders in the civil rights movement have debunked the comparison of homosexual “rights” to the civil rights movement. As far as mixed marriages, which of my friends and relatives who are in mixed race marriages should I be bigoted against? I love all of them.
There were plenty of women who “came out” during the 60s and 70s, during the earlier days of the feminist movement, saying that women didn’t need the rights to vote, equal pay/equal opportunity employment, and so forth. What you are referring to here is called an “argument from authority,” and it assumes that a certain class or group of people has an “authority” that the rest of us do not have — that, because a black person says that gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage, therefore it is not.
On a side note….it is also an Evangelical Argumentative Tactic that I had chronicled from awhile back, called “Retroactive Justification.” You portray this theoretical black person as innately having more authority, but since you cannot explain why being black gives them this “authority,” I can only conclude that you bestow it upon him/her only because he/she supposedly agrees with your cause.
There is nothing inherent about his/her blackness (or your presumed non-blackness) that makes either person’s case any more compelling. For example, what compels me to use the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage is not the fact that a black person told me to compare them, but rather that the logic used to ban them at their respective points in history is/was exactly the same. The exact same arguments are employed against gay marriage that were used against interracial marriage. That is what you must argue against if you want to make a reasonable argument differentiating between gay marriage and interracial marriage.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Tim
False. The “two consenting adults” argument does not apply to “any” pairing, for one.
Why just two consenting adults? Why not three men and a baby? You argue from a narrowly filtered and biased wish list, not from any standard. What is the BASIS of the “two consenting adults” argument? There is NONE. The point is, what gives THAT definition of marriage any more weight than any other grouping other than the true definition of marriage that has been “established by law” and accepted by every society from the beginning of civilization of one man and one woman? There is no basis for your definition to the exclusion of ANY other grouping. If your definition is acceptable, why isn’t every other definition? The end result is NO definition of marriage, and that is EXACTLY what the militant homosexual activists want. They don’t want marriage, they want the end of marriage. Every group wanting to define their association as a marriage has just as valid an argument, and they are all INVALID.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Tim, search on the term “climategate”. You can also read about the recent revelations and recantings of the UN IPCC members, also Dr. Jones, Professor Mann, …..really, you need to come up to speed. Manmade global warming or climate change or whatever they want to repackage their junk science as is a HOAX and a SCAM aimed at transferring wealth from the rich, producing nations to the poor ones….actually, to themselves. They are scoundrels of the first order.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Just from the standpoint of “value to society”, the argument for one man and many females is stronger than the one for “two consenting adults”. That marriage unit could produce more children and would not require egg or sperm donors from outside the marriage partners. The “two consenting adults” model is the least effective, most burdensome on society, and it offers NOTHING that a simple civil union or even a contract under current law allows. BOTH “marriage” models have been rejected by civilized societies. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, reasonable restrictions for age and family members notwithstanding.
March 6th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
I think my other posts have been blocked because they contain links, and the software here may block linking to other sites. Search for these stories:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Change, by General MERRILL A. McPEAK, the Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994 and at the time the DADT policy went into effect. He defends the current policy. It’s in the New York Times, and it’s a short but very informative read.
‘Hate’ laws could label 5-year-olds ‘offenders’
Government procedures demand paperwork on playground spats
…a 5-year-old is now a criminal and on a list of offenders for calling a playground playmate “gay”, a term which he had heard but didn’t understand…thought it meant “inferior”.
March 6th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Tim, surely you have seen the video or the photo and heard the speech by President Obama with US military troops behind him where he turned and looked at them and said, “You guys sure do make a good photo op”. You really do need to visit some other sites besides HuffPo, Democrat Underground, and Daily KOS.
Being AGAINST one evil doesn’t require me to be FOR a variation on the same evil. It’s not an “either” “or” problem. I’m against slavery of any kind. Voluntary military service is certainly not slavery, so your point is irrelevant to the subject of the discussion and to my example.
No, the burden of proof for repealing the law against open homosexuality in the military is on those wanting to repeal the law. Otherwise, EVERY law on the books would have to be defended every time a criminal is arrested or a law suit is filed BEFORE the trial could continue. That would lead to chaos. The evidence of unit readiness and cohesion under the current policy defends the position of retaining the policy. So far, no counter arguments have ever been presented to show that open homosexuality would maintain the status quo, to say nothing of IMPROVING those necessary attributes. The mission of the military must not be degraded, and allowing open homosexuality would degrade it for all the reasons already listed.
You might want to check the temperature of the water in the pot you are sitting in before it reaches the boiling point….too late for the frog.
If you want to learn about true conservatism, read about Ronald Reagan. Better yet, get a copy of Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Nathan, Anything in excess can be destructive, even fatal. Treating an element or compound or a gas necessary for sustaining life and the production of which man has ZILCH control over as a poison that MAN must LIMIT is committing national suicide….and for WHAT legitimate reason? To think we could even do so to any measurable extent is arrogance and ignorance and for Christians and Jews, it is a direct rebuff of God’s commands to be good stewards over His creation.
Here is some more on CO2 and why the EPA and the courts and the politicians and the eco-freaks should leave it alone. I can’t post links, or the software here will block my posts for some reason, probably because the site doesn’t want cross-linking. A few links have posted, but maybe they have changed the policy or they allow some and block others. Anyway, I will not post links, just search words or article titles and where I found them.
Who’s Afraid of CO2?
got to the NCPA dot org website
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.
This Brief Analysis was prepared by NCPA environmental analyst H. Sterling Burnett and NCPA vice president of domestic policy Merrill Matthews, Jr.
The percentage of carbon dioxide was 0.03%in the atmosphere 30 yrs back and is still the same now. As a greenhouse gas, it is a blip. Water vapor is much greater, but man is not contributing to either of them. Levels change, and they have been much higher during prior times, even before man was even able to contribute.
All of the planets in our solar system have experienced the same global warming that we have. Is man contributing to global warming on MARS, too?
A search of just the World Net Daily site provided these hits…just on the first page of the search. Drudge Report has been running these for months. Did you have to shovel any “global warming” out of your driveway this Winter? Record cold temperatures and snowfalls have been recorded all over the world. For those who blame snowless Winters on “Global Warming” and then try to claim that record snowfalls are due to “Global Warming” are not only hypocrites and liars, they are also not scientists.
Here is a short list in case you have not heard of the scandal dubbed “Climategate”. Search on the term and see what you find out. A US Senator has asked Al Gore to testify before the Senate, so this is no joke.
Clash over ‘global warming’ ratcheted up another degree
Congressman wants funding stopped; scientists plan retaliation campaign March 05, 2010
How government corrupts science
Exclusive: Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., exposes powerfully destructive effects of federal ‘help’ March 03, 2010
Climategate prof ’sent awful e-mails’ to hide data
Researcher talks about using ‘trick’ to massage figures, ‘hide decline’ March 02, 2010
Darwin is freezing over
Exclusive: Ellis Washington likens evolution ‘fraud’ to today’s ‘global warming’ scare February 20, 2010 by Washington, Ellis
Coal company to EPA: Explain ‘greenhouse’ flaws
Peabody petitions for re-examination of government pollution decision February 19, 2010
Climategate scientist: No warming since 1995
‘Expert’ may have actually lost data tracking temperatures February 14, 2010
….they are even admitting they DESTROYED data to hide the actual DECLINE in temperature over the past decade…..
…THEREFORE, open homosexuality in the military is a BAD idea……QED.
…hey, I can reach any conclusion I want if the UN IPCC and all the other global-warming-”experts” can reach any conclusion they want without any empirical evidence to support it….at least I have empirical evidence to support my conclusion.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Why not three men and a baby?
Because three men and a baby are not two consenting adults. As for “why two consenting adults?” Because that is what our constitution allows — the freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as nobody is acting to harm or endanger others, their behavior is considered acceptable and thus there is no reason to discriminate.
You argue from a narrowly filtered and biased wish list, not from any standard.
No, I argue from an interpretation of human rights as applied equally to all.
What is the BASIS of the “two consenting adults” argument? There is NONE.
What is the basis of the deconstructionist argument that you put forth? “I believe that god made it that way.” Well, what is the basis of that argument? We can play the deconstruction game all day long….that’s why I said I didn’t want to bother….
The point is, what gives THAT definition of marriage any more weight than any other grouping other than the true definition of marriage that has been “established by law” and accepted by every society from the beginning of civilization of one man and one woman?
So you argue from popularity instead, then? Well, logically speaking, the fact that it’s popular or widely practiced has nothing to do with whether or not we should accept it — otherwise, if we accept arguments from popularity, then you should accept homosexuality because it is popular and widely-practiced.
There is no basis for your definition to the exclusion of ANY other grouping.
Yes there is; any other grouping does not consist of two consenting, mature adults and therefore cannot be truly willing and legitimate.
The end result is NO definition of marriage, and that is EXACTLY what the militant homosexual activists want.
I don’t believe there are such things as “militant homosexual activists.” For one….how many straight folk have been beaten to death by gays, do you think?
They don’t want marriage, they want the end of marriage.
Why don’t you ask them what they want instead of telling them?
Every group wanting to define their association as a marriage has just as valid an argument, and they are all INVALID.
False. For one, I’ve never heard of *any* group of people who campaign for the “right” to marry children, animals or any of these other odd arrangements you come up with. Even NAMBLA doesn’t touch the marriage issue with regard to underage boys. So it’s safe to dismiss those allegations as cheap scare tactics. Second….none of those other oddball relationship equivalents have the same leg to stand on that gay relationships have.
Tim, search on the term “climategate”.
“Climategate?” Seriously? Does anyone still take that seriously anymore? It’s been long since explained and dismissed. Only bitter conspiracy theorists of the extreme right still even bother mentioning that anymore….it’s up there with the “George Bush was behind the WTC bombing” theorists on the left….
As for your other “sources,” all I can say is that you seem very, very hasty to accept what you are told.
Just from the standpoint of “value to society”, the argument for one man and many females is stronger than the one for “two consenting adults”.
Well then I guess it’s a good thing that those of us who are not Christian (or are Christian but more liberal-minded) do not value relationships solely based on their “value to society,” and nor do we define one’s “value to society” based solely on their reproductive abilities.
You know, for all you guys like to accuse scientists of being cold and scheming darwinists, it seems to me that you are the ones who tend to dumb down your view of the world into one that is primal and animalistic. You restrict the role of a woman in a relationship to “producing and raising children,” and if she cannot do that, then her relationship with a man is functionally no different than that of two gay men.
BOTH “marriage” models have been rejected by civilized societies.
Not by ours.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, reasonable restrictions for age and family members notwithstanding.
Marriage can mean a lot of things….
Tim, surely you have seen the video or the photo and heard the speech by President Obama with US military troops behind him where he turned and looked at them and said, “You guys sure do make a good photo op”. You really do need to visit some other sites besides HuffPo, Democrat Underground, and Daily KOS.
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I prefer to let jokes be jokes. Otherwise I’d have to hole myself up on the extreme left and repeat tired, unsubstantiated slogans fed to me by the political blogosphere. I much prefer thinking things through myself.
I’m against slavery of any kind. Voluntary military service is certainly not slavery, so your point is irrelevant to the subject of the discussion and to my example.
….I just glanced over my last few postings, and I don’t see where I mentioned slavery at all….
No, the burden of proof for repealing the law against open homosexuality in the military is on those wanting to repeal the law.
It should’ve been on the people who passed the law in the first place….but they got a free ticket because of the social norms of the time, and now we’re left with the burden. In any case, I still don’t think there’s a good case for the law in the first place, as I’ve pointed out.
Otherwise, EVERY law on the books would have to be defended every time a criminal is arrested or a law suit is filed BEFORE the trial could continue.
Problem with that analogy is, though, that under normal circumstances, we need adequate reason to pass a law in the first place. If we passed a law today that said “blacks can’t work in fast food,” then I would hardly say that the onus is on black people to prove why that law shouldn’t exist. It’s an unjust law that I would challenge at every turn, and I would expect that everyone who respected the constitution — black or otherwise — would do the same.
The evidence of unit readiness and cohesion under the current policy defends the position of retaining the policy.
No it does not. And since you cannot show how you think it can, I feel comfortable resting my case.
So far, no counter arguments have ever been presented to show that open homosexuality would maintain the status quo, to say nothing of IMPROVING those necessary attributes.
It does not matter whether it “improves” the status quo. It does not hinder the status quo, except for instances in which straight people with a bias allow themselves to inhibit the status quo based on their own personal biases. That is not the fault of gays, nor is it grounds for punishing them by preventing them from serving. That is entirely the fault of those who are acting on their own biases.
If you want to learn about true conservatism, read about Ronald Reagan. Better yet, get a copy of Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.
It seems to me that Conservatism is a lot like Christianity — if you try to pin point exactly what it is, somebody somewhere will tell you why that doesn’t represent “true [x]”. So I would have to say I don’t believe in “True Conservatism,” or “True Liberalism,” or “True Christianity.” “True” just basically seems to mean, “My version of.”
Nathan, Anything in excess can be destructive, even fatal.
Then you understand why it’s necessary to control excesses of something like Carbon.
To think we could even do so to any measurable extent is arrogance and ignorance
To be aware of the negative impact our actions can have on the world is hardly “arrogant.” To err on the side of caution in the interest of future generations doesn’t really seem “arrogant” to me, either. But that’s just my opinion~
….they are even admitting they DESTROYED data to hide the actual DECLINE in temperature over the past decade…..
No they did not….that is completely false. A “nontroversy,” I believe we’re calling them now.
In any case, even if we assumed that all such blatantly false charges were true….that would not change the information that we have about the potential effects of climate change. We have an understanding of the way carbon acts alongside the chemicals present in our atmosphere; we understand the steps of this process and how it is instigated. We can demonstrably show how carbon can damage the ozone layer. There is no reason for me to believe that it is “impossible” for us to damage the atmosphere and cause mild climate change.
At this point it’s a lot like this….we know that heavy objects damage weaker objects when they hit them at a high velocity. We know that a large boulder is heavier than a four-door sedan. We then see a large rock tumbling down a steep hill towards a four-door sedan, and we can reasonably conclude that there will be damage to the car, even though we haven’t actually seen it happen yet — it very probably won’t completely destroy the car, but there will be visible damage. It is a reasonable judgment to make….so there are some of us who insist on maybe moving the car. Even though it might be a little bit laborious and time-consuming, once it’s moved and we’re all used to its new location, we will adapt and the damage will be minimized. Also, we remove the possibility of larger boulders hitting the car again in the future.
Then, there are others who insist that the car should stay where it is because it would be a waste of gas to move it, or because it would take too long and be too much work. They say, “you just want to move the car because you want to be in the driver’s seat!”
To which the other party might respond with, “If the car stays where it is, there might not even *be* a driver’s seat….so you’re kind of missing the point, here….”
(…wow, we sure got off the topic, didn’t we? o.o)
March 7th, 2010 at 1:23 am
Tim
As for “why two consenting adults?” Because that is what our constitution allows - the freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Cite the Article and sections of the CONSTITUTION that authorize “two consenting adults” to marry.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence……nice try, though…
The rest of you post is starting to get silly and illogical. I’ll think about responding to parts of it, but most of it is strawmen and mischaracterizations of my points.
Do you seriously still believe in manmade global warming given all of the facts that have now come out about the fraudulent data and the reprehensible conduct of the “experts” and the IPCC?
March 7th, 2010 at 1:32 am
Yes, you did mention slavery, but again, you missed my point and mischaracterized what I said and then addressed your strawman.
Tim D. Says:
March 6th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Non-sequitur. For one, nobody proposed that, so I don’t know why you mention it….but also, in order for that to be considered “treating them differently because of their gender,” you would have to be making the opposite statement for men — that you want men to be forced into sexual slavery, but not women. Which I can only assume that you don’t believe. So no, that would not be a good example.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:35 am
Do a search on “IPCC Admits” and see what shows up.
March 7th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Do a search on “Kevin Jennings” if you want to learn about just one of the “militant homosexual activists”….and you can search on “militant homosexual activists”, too. If you want to read graphic details of how Jennings has been promoting teaching “fisting” to children from kindergartners and grade schoolers all the way through college, do a search of the archives of Gateway Pundit blog. Jennings is the Obama Administration “Safe Schools” Czar. Would you feel your school was “safe” in the hands of a homosexual pedophile like Kevin Jennings whose hero, by his own admission and according to his own writings, is the founder of NAMBLA?
March 7th, 2010 at 2:32 am
Tim, there is a significant difference between taking prudent and reasonable steps to protect the environment vs. committing national suicide by destroying our economy and regressing back to the stone age for a now-proven HOAX. I’d move the car if it could be moved AND it didn’t take the entire national treasury and put every business and farmer out of business and bankrupt the nation and destroy EVERYONE’s standard of living…assuming the rock really was coming down the hill at the car. Thirty years ago, the same scammers were telling us the rock was rolling UP the hill at us at breakneck speed, using YOUR analogy…and . yes, this really is far off topic.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:22 am
“Thirty years ago, the same scammers were telling us the rock was rolling UP the hill at us at breakneck speed”
The meme that scientists were all touting ‘global cooling’ thirty years ago is itself a hoax. You’re comparing a few journalists pushing a story then with a huge body of evidence gathered by a huge number of scientists in the following three decades.
“Nathan, Anything in excess can be destructive, even fatal. ”
Exactly, you debunk you own point! So saying ‘it’s essential to life’ is utterly irrelevant to the argument.
“Even black leaders in the civil rights movement have debunked the comparison of homosexual “rights” to the civil rights movement”
What do you mean ‘even’ - they are the FIRST people I would expect to reject the connection. They believe the comparison hurts THEIR cause. Them rejecting it doesn’t debunk it. And the comparison makes a lot more sense than you saying “Why not three men and a baby?” If you see no difference between consenting sex and non-consenting, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Rape laws rest on that distinction.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:49 am
“The government has no authority to impose any of the regulations they are imposing under the hoax-junk-science-based “Cap and Trade”. They don’t own the air we breathe”
So you wouldn’t agree with laws to prevent corporations polluting water either, given that the government doesn’t own the water we drink? You can argue that carbon isn’t a pollutant, but that is a separate argument. Are you saying here that even if you could be convinced that it WAS a pollutant, the government would still have no authority to regulate how much our air is polluted?
This seems an odd stance to take.
Who’s job DO you think it should be to protect my children from breathing polluted air? A straight question here, please try to answer directly. That means NOT just saying ‘the air isn’t being polluted’. You said very clearly that the government doesn’t own the air we breath, and therefore preventing air pollution is not their job. Please tell me whose job it is.
And Tim is right regarding the ‘nontroversy’, but your arguments don’t even work if all the climate data is false.
Regarding saying ‘that was in the declaration of independence, not the constitution’, I’ve lost count of the number of religious people who’ve tried to tell me how the founding fathers put God in the constitution. When I challenge them to find anything beyond a reference to ‘in the year of our Lord’, they’ll hmm and harr, and eventually admit they were getting confused with the declaration. It doesn’t matter where the idea of consent being important comes from - it’s a good idea. If you want to chuck it out then, again, I don’t really know what to say to you.
The founding fathers didn’t even given rule out slavery, so I don’t see how it helps your cause to cite them against gay marriage. And citing the bible doesn’t help either, given the number of under-age and polygomous marriages you’ll find there.
This leaves you with arguments that gays already can get all the same rights through civil partnerships - which is simply factually incorrect; and aguments that, in your own words, could equally be used against existing forms of marriage. If civil partnerships give all the same rights, why should ANYONE get married? Or, ‘they can’t reproduce’ is a good argument against it, then why not seek to ban marriage between post-menopause couples.
At any rate, it’s a eugenecists argument to say that we only value partnerships that can lead to children.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:45 am
It’s worth reading the whole of this article, but I’ll quote just two parts.
Google “While the Pentagon Studies, More Gays Fall” for the whole thing
“As the Pentagon begins its year-long study of the impact of ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the unaffordable talent loss among gay troops continues to pile up. An Infantry company commander and West Point graduate who deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan and received three bronze stars for his service is right now facing discharge for allegations that he is gay. The officer, who commanded two 170-soldier companies, was called by his superiors “an exemplary commander” whose “desire to lead Soldiers enthusiastically and with uncompromising standards is un-matched by his peers.”"
“As summarized in an article by an Active Duty Air Force Colonel in Joint Force Quarterly, the military journal published for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”"
Meanwhile: “Since the Great Recession, recruitment has been strong, as the unemployed sign up to serve. But while the military has been kicking out gays, it was letting in historic numbers of felons, substance abusers, and high school drop-outs who remain in the force. These troops were granted waivers when recruitment was at a low just before the Recession, when unpopular wars meant pulling teeth to fill slots. In 2005 the army increased by nearly 50 percent the number of new recruits it granted moral waivers. Between 2003 and 2006, 4,230 convicted felons, 43,977 individuals convicted of serious misdemeanors, including assault, and 58,561 illegal drug abusers were allowed to enlist.”
March 7th, 2010 at 10:22 am
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence……nice try, though…
OH SNAP!
In any case, I never said anything about the constitution authorizing us to marry….but since you brought it up, do you believe that we have any such “right” to life or liberty or pursuit of happiness? Or do you think that’s something we should set aside because it’s not in the constitution?
The rest of you post is starting to get silly and illogical. I’ll think about responding to parts of it, but most of it is strawmen and mischaracterizations of my points.
Too hot to handle? ;/
Do you seriously still believe in manmade global warming given all of the facts that have now come out about the fraudulent data and the reprehensible conduct of the “experts” and the IPCC?
What fraudulent data? The only charges of “fraudulent data” I know are the ones touted by deniers who blew things like “climategate” out of proportion….even going so far as to give them catchy names like “climategate” in an attempt to make them sound as scandalous as Watergate….it’s laughable XD
Yes, you did mention slavery, but again, you missed my point and mischaracterized what I said and then addressed your strawman.
AH….you should probably be more specific. When you said “slavery,” I assumed you were talking about Civil War-era slavery, given that we were talking about blacks….in any case, I misrepresented nothing. I was explaining that saying something about a woman (or women) isn’t in itself sexism; it’s only sexism if you do not apply the same standards to men. Thus, in order for it to be sexist to say, “I don’t think women should be sold into sexual slavery,” you would have to make a differing statement about men as opposed to about women. But since you weren’t (I assume), that would not be a sexist viewpoint.
For example….if I said, “I think women should have the same legal rights as men,” that would not be sexist because I am making the same statement about women and men. It would only be sexist — and against men, at that — if I were saying that I thought women deserved all the rights, but men did not. Do you see now?
Tim, there is a significant difference between taking prudent and reasonable steps to protect the environment vs. committing national suicide by destroying our economy and regressing back to the stone age for a now-proven HOAX.
1) There is nothing “proven” as a hoax….if you were as eager to accept evidence of something like, say, God as a hoax, as you are to accept “evidence” of global warming as a “hoax,” then you would be an atheist now.
2) I won’t get too deep into this argument lest we both succumb to rabbithole syndrome….but the basic argument behind the global warming denier lobbyists seems to be that the corporations’ “rights to production” outweigh the “rights to clean air and water” and so forth that the rest of us rely upon to survive. Corporations get very angry about climate legislation because it slightly inhibits their production….not because of any noticeable damage to production, mind you (the “damage” in that area is minute and containable, and would hardly be noticeable after a few years), but because of this concept of “rights;” they insist that their “right” to produce even beyond the available means of pollution management somehow “trumps” the right of people to live in a clean and healthy environment. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a system that says, “You can produce all you want, so long as you manage your waste material so that it does not cause any lasting harm to the environment.”
3) Basically….the economy will not be destroyed by climate regulation, noone’s standard of living is in danger. It’s safe to dismiss “concerns” like that as scare tactics spread by wealthy corporations who have become obsessed with overproduction beyond manageable means.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:31 am
P.S. As expected, the Gateway Pundit article is….lacking….I tried to explain why but the site doesn’t want me to, so I won’t….not here, anyway.
March 7th, 2010 at 11:05 am
“even going so far as to give them catchy names like “climategate” in an attempt to make them sound as scandalous as Watergate”
That name is particularly ironic, given that the scandal in Watergate was right-wingers trying to bug and spy on people they disagreed with, just like what has happened here.
I’m happy to see debate about the data of climate change, and the cost of doing something vs doing nothing, and different people’s ideas of the PROBABILITY that it is true. But arguments along the lines of ‘it’s not the government’s job to protect the health of the people’ are just bizarre.
Sure it’s not the job of the government to restrict companies for no good reason, but that’s not what the debate is about. No-one is arguing ‘the government should be allowed to restrict for no good reason’. The debate is whether CO2 emissions cause damage or not. If they do, then it is clear that something needs to be done about it. If they don’t, then no-one would argue that restrictions are needed.
The reason I find that particular argument bizarre is because if we had equivalent debate about a TERRORIST threat, then those on the right would have no hesitation about saying it was the government’s job to protect us, through the military. Imagine you had an equivalent number of experts telling us that Iran was planning to pollute our atmosphere, with an equivalent potential damage to the countries climate (floods, crop failure etc).
In this situation, I doubt many people would argue that because the government doesn’t own our air, it isn’t the military’s job to prevent Iran causing this pollution.
And if there was an equivalent debate over whether the threat was real or not, I’m sure most people on the right would say it was worth the relatively small financial outlay to prevent the potential risk.
In fact, that was the reasoning that convinced me to support the Iraq war (along with humanitarian concerns for the people of Iraq).
The ‘climategate’ nontroversy in this analogy would be if we found that after 20 years of research into the issue by countless respected military leaders, it was discovered that a couple of generals had planted small amounts of ‘WMD’ evidence to back up their case. It would be serious disciplinary matter for those generals, but it wouldn’t be a game changer if we still had decades of observation of weapon-producting factories etc.
That’s why I think the rejection of climate evidence is emotional rather than intellectual. People were rejecting it for years before ‘climategate’ anyway, so it’s dishonest for them to claim that’s why they reject it.
And the argument that it’s ‘arrogant’ to believe we could be changing the climate is nonsensical too. We have the weaponry to make large areas of the planet virtually uninhabitable for centuries. It’s not arrogance to accept this, is being responsible.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
I could stand in front of you guys with a magnetic compass in my hand, point to the big yellow ball in the sky, say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and you would reply FALSE! and go into a long soliloquy about the phases of the moon.
Have you bothered to conduct the fact-find searches I asked you to do?
I’ll give some thought to replying to your latest strawmen, but frankly, I think we have run the string on this topic, and although I believe the law banning open homosexuality in the military will be repealed, possibly in this current corrupt Congress along with the other destruction they are wreaking on our nation, I have no doubts the results will be detrimental to military readiness and national security.
Cya…..
March 7th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Well it’s been repealed in many other nations. Did those bad things happen in them? Not to my knowledge.
As for your ‘East/West’ thing, straight back at you!
March 7th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I could stand in front of you guys with a magnetic compass in my hand, point to the big yellow ball in the sky, say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and you would reply FALSE! and go into a long soliloquy about the phases of the moon.
….how could you possibly know that unless you asked me?
In any case, where I am right now, the sun is more white than yellow….
Have you bothered to conduct the fact-find searches I asked you to do?
I tried to do an interesting breakdown of that Gateway Pundit article, but there was some key word or something that wasn’t allowing me to post it….I ended up removing that entire segment from my post and it went through fine. I have checked several of your sources, though, yes.
I’ll give some thought to replying to your latest strawmen
Feel free to describe how you think your real position differs in any way from the “strawmen” I am supposedly manufacturing. In fact, this might be a good time to say that almost all of my questions (the ones that weren’t completely trollercoasteriffic, that is) were geared towards getting you to solidify your position so I can decide what it is we’re even talking about. You were quite vague in your initial statements, and it’s rather difficult to discuss something of this nature without being specific.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
P.S.
Well it’s been repealed in many other nations. Did those bad things happen in them? Not to my knowledge.
At this point, Mr. Nathan, I believe it’s just a matter of time. I’ve been speaking with this other Evangelical blogger who said, back when Obama was first elected, that he (Obama) would completely destroy our nation in his first four years and that we’d be some kind of 1984-esque communist state by 2012. I made a bet with him the day before the election that such a thing would not happen, and I’ve been checking in with him regularly to monitor the terms of our bet. And in 2012 when we are still not a 1984-esque communist state, I’ll probably drop back by and say something snarky about how I was right, and then we’ll all move on with our lives just like any other day.
When a person decides to abandon reason and make a ridiculous fear-based argument about what supposedly “will” happen in the future, about all the rest of us can do is show them that it won’t happen. It’s a lot like getting an arachnophobe to get over his/her irrational fear of spiders by letting him/her play with a family of defanged pet tarantulas….after a little while goes by, you say, “See? It’s not so bad.” And nobody dies or loses their job or whatever.
[/tangential rant]
March 7th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Nathan, the clock is still ticking and the jury is still out on those other countries. More importantly, there is NO other military on Earth that compares to the US Military — NONE. Only a fool, an ideologue, or a saboteur would consciously impose changes to degrade its readiness. No argument to date has shown that allowing open homosexuality in the US Military would IMPROVE readiness — or even maintain the status quo…..back atcha…. :)>
Tim, there was a scene in (I think it was “Bullitt”, but in any case it was a Steve McQueen movie). McQueen’s character says, “A guy jumped off a 10 story building, and as he passed each floor, someone would ask, ‘How’s it going’? The guy would reply with a big grin, ‘So far, so good’.” The disasters that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are setting in motion won’t take full effect for years, maybe a decade or more, but every economist and even experts in other fields are sounding the alarm…obviously to no avail in your case. The members of Congress and the Administration who orchestrate this transformation of America from a Representative Republic to a Socialist “Utopia” will be long gone when the time bombs explode. I hope you and your children and your grandchildren enjoy their poverty and 12th Century lifestyle. At least you’ll feel “good” about making the sacrifice.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
The disasters that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are setting in motion won’t take full effect for years
Pat Robertson Plausible Deniability Clause. “It’s going to happen….but we don’t know when.” I’ll take my chances with the current administration, myself.
But seriously….what “disasters” are they setting in motion, do you think?
but every economist and even experts in other fields are sounding the alarm
“Every” economist?
If everybody in every field is on your side to begin with, then what’s the problem? ;/ This should’ve been a done deal by now. Which leaves us with two possibilites: a) there is some absolutely *massive-scale* government conspiracy between all sorts of nations to control everything….for no apparent reason other than for the evulz. Or b) you are incorrect, and there are plenty of credible scientists who take issue with the practicality of such “concerns” as you have listed here.
I hope you and your children and your grandchildren enjoy their poverty and 12th Century lifestyle. At least you’ll feel “good” about making the sacrifice.
Thanks, but I’m not worried
Although, maybe it’s just because I’m not really a Christian, but personally, I wouldn’t “hope” that anyone live in poverty and misfortune, regardless of the circumstances….
March 7th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
P.S. I would advise anyone who maybe lurks or reads the posts here to check out those sources that Mr. Bruce quoted earlier….they really bring to light exactly how much he is exaggerating his case…..
March 7th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
James 1:8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
Tim, do you see the hypocrisy or at least the double-minded dilemma you are in? On the one hand, you support destroying the economy of the entire world and reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the astronomically small possibility that “man-made global warming” is real, yet you dismiss out of hand all the clear evidence that the current administration and Congress are ACTUALLY destroying this nation. You will reap what you sow; I was not “wishing” ill on you or your descendants, I was warning you.
Yes, by all means, do some searching on all the points I made and you will find I have actually given the benefit of the doubt to those defending the opposing point of view. Things are actually worse than we think. There is certainly a concerted effort on the part of the Leftists who have finally achieved the perfect conditions to ram their Socialist agenda down the throats of the American people virtually unopposed, having super majorities in Congress and control of the White House. They are even willing to sacrifice their careers “for the cause” of imposing Statism. Call it a conspiracy if you want.
…gotta go, the Children’s program at church starts in 15 minutes….
March 7th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Bruce: I’d like to point out that we reached these “perfect conditions to ram their Socialist agenda down the throats of the American people” not in the past year, but due to the past 8. And in using the phrase “ramming down their throats” you’ve shown that you’re parroting what you’re hearing on Fox News as was clearly shown on the March 3 episode of The Daily show in the clip titled Anchor Management and starting at about the six minute mark. I’ll provide a link in the next post.
Until then, I’d like to know why you think our “evil government’ want’s us all to be socialists and oppressed. Did you cry and scream when Bush signed the patriot act? Or invaded a country that we had no business invading? How come the conspiracy theories only come out from super conservatives, people like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones?
March 7th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
James 1:8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
My favorite one was always Proverbs 12:16 — “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.”
On the one hand, you support destroying the economy of the entire world and reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the astronomically small possibility that “man-made global warming” is real
I’m not worried because all of your concerns are founded in falsehoods. Nobody has proposed that we “destroy the economy of the entire world” or “revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.” That’s a silly exaggeration that people take literally. That’s how I know not to worry about any of your concerns — because you base them on such obvious untruths as this one. You are too eager to believe what you are told.
yet you dismiss out of hand all the clear evidence that the current administration and Congress are ACTUALLY destroying this nation.
Well, it helps that there is none, because they are not.
You will reap what you sow; I was not “wishing” ill on you or your descendants, I was warning you.
Whatever you want to call it. I wasn’t offended — I expect as much from the angriest end of the political spectrum — but I did think it was odd.
I have actually given the benefit of the doubt to those defending the opposing point of view.
Well, from my angle it looks more like you took as little information as possible from as friendly a source as you could find (a source that had taken the liberty of blowing it out of proportion in advance for you), and then blew it out of proportion again to make it seem like an astronomical disaster. Like the books mentioned in that article about Obama’s Czar. Track the books on that list down on Amazon and read the descriptions yourself sometime when you have time.
Things are actually worse than we think.
I suppose that depends on your definition of “worse…”
There is certainly a concerted effort on the part of the Leftists who have finally achieved the perfect conditions to ram their Socialist agenda down the throats of the American people virtually unopposed, having super majorities in Congress and control of the White House.
Why? What would be the point of such an agenda? What motive does any member of Congress (or the President) have to impose this “Statism?” Once the President is out of office, he’d be a slave to the system again just like everyone else. Same for all elected officials. Nobody has any motive or benefit to/from giving the government absolute control over anything. Like the song says, “You are the government,” but only temporarily. Once you’re out of office, you’re in the same boat as the rest of us. They know that. So they’d be stupid to impose a dictatorship on the U.S. because they’d be destroying their own futures as well. And as exciting as I’m sure it is to imagine that everyone *except you* is heading down some kind of path to unrealized self-mass-destruction, I simply don’t find the evidence to force that conclusion.
So no, I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, really. I’d call it a paranoid delusion.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Toby, I don’t “parrot” anyone. I think for myself, and I reach my own conclusions. I’ve even passed tips to major news outlets. I don’t watch television at all, not even sports. I listen to the radio when I have time, and I read a great deal. Try it, you might learn something by visiting sites with views different from your own.
Haven’t you wondered why the Obama Administration’s #1 issue, nationalizing healthcare, has not passed yet, more than a year after he took office, even with a filibuster-proof Senate and a large majority in the House under the control of the Democrats? In spite of their total control of the government, even some Democrats realize how bad these “changes” will be to the country. You should be worried about the future, not cheerleading for the destruction of your own country.
I’ve already posted my displeasure with and criticisms of the GW Bush administration. He was not a Conservative, he started this current fiscal mess, but he just wasn’t an ultra-Leftist like the people running the government now.
If you want to know why our current leaders want us to be transformed into a Socialist Utopia, read Sal Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, Karl Marx’ “The Communist Manifesto”, Mao’s “Little Red Book”, or any of the other books on Obama’s recommended reading list.
I’ve heard of Glen Beck, but who is Alex Jones? The only Jones I have heard of lately is Van Jones, the Communist who was Obama’s “Green” Czar until he was exposed as a 9/11 “Truther” and a radical Communist and forced to resign.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
, that wasn’t an insult, it was an observation and critique of your logic.
The evidence of fraud in the entire “AGW” hoax is mounting faster than the national debt. Ignore it at the peril of your own credibility.
I gave you a few search terms, mostly the benign ones, so if you want to dig deeper and use more pointed search terms, you’ll find even more evidence that I am correct. The American media, nothing but the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, spikes stories counter to the Leftist template and narrative on ALL topics. It has become like the propaganda outlets in the old Soviet Union. Look to foreign news outlets for stories that NEVER appear in American news media, the UK Guardian alone has enough stories to support arrest warrants for fraud for several “scientists” and IPCC officials, and they may soon be coming down. The IPCC and the fraudsters supplying the falsified evidence for “AGW” are imploding. I’m tempted to post more, but that would take all the fun out of letting you discover it for yourself so you can’t say I “salted the mine”. Like I say, ignore the facts at the peril of your own credibility.
Leftists ideologues need no rational reason for destroying this nation and rebuilding it as a Socialist Utopia. That is their goal. They are elitists, they think THEY know what is best, many don’t care what is best for “the masses”, the masses are too stupid to know what is best, so the elitists will take control and do it for them. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, but they ignore that fact and blame the failure on the people who tried it, not the ideology. They are so arrogant they believe THEY can make it work because THEY are the smartest people in the world. It doesn’t take a “conspiracy”, it just takes the right conditions with enough of these types in control. Obama, on June 3, 2008 said: This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. He is well on his way to remake this great nation into a Socialist tyranny so that it may always reflect HIS very best Socialist ideals. You have to understand Communist-speak to figure out what he is really saying, and he is a master of it.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Haven’t you wondered why the Obama Administration’s #1 issue, nationalizing healthcare, has not passed yet, more than a year after he took office, even with a filibuster-proof Senate and a large majority in the House under the control of the Democrats?
It *might* have *something* to do with the fact that there is debate among Democrats as to how to approach the process. This is a normal part of the democratic process and is hardly enough evidence to prove a “conspiracy to commit socialism.” In fact, I dare say that debate within a party over important issues is probably a good thing. I would be more alarmed if all of the Democrats (or Republicans) were in universal agreement than I would if there was no debate whatsoever.
If you want to know why our current leaders want us to be transformed into a Socialist Utopia, read Sal Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, Karl Marx’ “The Communist Manifesto”, Mao’s “Little Red Book”, or any of the other books on Obama’s recommended reading list.
In fact, I would recommend those books for anyone, not just “Marxists” or “Socialists” or people who go by whatever other name it’s cool to call Democrats nowadays. It’s useful information whether you’re a socialist or a capitalist or anywhere in between.
Van Jones, the Communist who was Obama’s “Green” Czar until he was exposed as a 9/11 “Truther” and a radical Communist and forced to resign.
Weird, that Obama would allow one of his supposed “co-conspirators” to resign if in fact his goal was world domination, no?
that wasn’t an insult, it was an observation and critique of your logic.
Oh I know, I was just trolling ya~
The evidence of fraud in the entire “AGW” hoax is mounting faster than the national debt. Ignore it at the peril of your own credibility.
My credibility in your eyes, maybe….which, to be honest, I’m not really worried about….I’m not here to change your mind.
if you want to dig deeper and use more pointed search terms, you’ll find even more evidence that I am correct.
If it’s anything like the “evidence” you’ve offered so far, I expect much hyperbole and exaggeration.
. The American media, nothing but the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party
Whoa whoa, you know Fox News is part of the American Media, right?
the UK Guardian alone has enough stories to support arrest warrants for fraud for several “scientists” and IPCC officials, and they may soon be coming down.,
I’d be very interested to actually see that happen.
The IPCC and the fraudsters supplying the falsified evidence for “AGW” are imploding.
Oh please….if something actually imploded every time one of you guys said it was going to, there’d be nothing left in the world today~
Leftists ideologues need no rational reason for destroying this nation and rebuilding it as a Socialist Utopia.
So you *do* assert that they’re doing it “for the evulz,” then?
Me, I don’t really believe that someone would do something like that without a reason. For one, it’s an awful lot of work. Two, it’s impossible to sustain. Three, it’s hilariously expensive. Generally it takes a motive to lead someone to attempt that sort of thing.
That is their goal. They are elitists, they think THEY know what is best…They are so arrogant they believe THEY can make it work because THEY are the smartest people in the world…[etc. etc.]
“Despite that he saw blatant similarity
He struggled to find a distinctive moiety
All he found was vulgar superficiality
But he focused it to sharpness
And shared it with the others
It signified his anger and misery
Them and us
Lobbying determined through a mire of disbelievers
Them and us
Dire perpetuation and incongruous insistence
That there really is a difference
Between them and us.”
March 7th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Tim, there is NO debate; that is the problem. The Democrats have even changed the locks on conference rooms and ordered security to keep Republicans OUT. The Republicans have offered no less than 35 bills along with scores of amendments, yet all you hear is, “Where are the Republican ideas? They are just the party of NO.” The bills are being crafted behind closed doors with only a handful of top Democrat leaders and hoardes of LOBBYISTS, SEIU, ONLY LEFTISTS being allowed. There is NO transparency, either. Where are all the hearings and debates on CSPAN like Obama PROMISED? Is that your idea of “debate”? Why do you think the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party movement has gained so much momentum? The latest trick goes like this. Nancy Pelosi will convince Democrat holdouts to vote for the Senate bill, which has already been passed in the Senate, with the promise that it will be “reconciled” to put in the stuff the holdouts want later or by means of a separate bill. If they vote to pass it, GAME OVER! It goes straight to Obama for signature, and ALL the Democrats who voted for it go under the bus.
Obama had no choice but to throw Van Jones under the bus when he became “radioactive”. There are a few others in that category. Obama even threw his grandmother and his pastor of 20+ years, Jeremiah Wright, under the bus. Van Jones and a few of the others have resurfaced in less conspicuous positions, so Obama has shown his true {red}COLORS{/red}.
Fox News is not as Conservative as you think, look at Shep Smith and a number of others. At least they regularly have Liberals on all their panels and in equal numbers, not the 10 to 1 on the “mainstream” networks (and the “Conservative” on those networks is usually a moderate at best). BTW, one of the Saudi Princes has bought a significant interest in News Corp, parent company of Fox News, and you will no longer see any of the whistle blowers against radical Islam, most of whom were Muslims who have left that faith for good cause.
Follow the news on Drudge Report. It has links to every major outlet (both Left and Right) and often breaks stories the lapdog media tries to hide or spike. The UK Guardian is linked there (so is HuffPo and the rest of the usual suspects). One of my favorites is “News Busters”. They expose the hypocrisy and fraud in the mainstream media and on the cable “news” shows. Try some of the Conservative links, too, you will expand your world.
Interesting but useless poems. Here’s a better one (should be the theme for the Democrat Party).
A flea and a fly in a flue,
didn’t know what to do.
Said the fly, “Let us flee!”
Said the flea, “Let us fly!”
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.
March 7th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
“Ehrlich’s lifetime of hot air”
Google that phrase and read the story. Interesting read.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:20 am
If “Obamacare” is so popular with Democrats, why are the holdouts being bribed and arm-twisted and still holding out? The latest bribe was the nomination for a seat on the 2nd District Court of Appeals of the BROTHER of one of the DEMOCRAT holdouts? I’m sure you have heard of the “Louisiana Purchase” (for Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana) and the “Cornhusker Kickback” (Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska) among the most outrageous?
If “Obamacare” is such a great deal and will “save cost”, why do the TAXES to pay for it start immediately yet the “benefits” not start for FOUR years? Would you buy a house if the mortgage payments started immediately but you couldn’t move in for FOUR YEARS? It is a gimmick to hide the true costs. They score it over TEN years, the TAXES are for ten years, but the BENEFITS are only for the last six years. Even by cooking the books, it will add nearly 2 Trillion dollars to the national debt, but we all know the true cost will be much higher.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Tim, there is NO debate; that is the problem.
Well, which is it? Just a while ago you said:
even some Democrats realize how bad these “changes” will be to the country
Which implies that there is some kind of debate going on.
Why do you think the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party movement has gained so much momentum?
1) lol “teabaggers”
2) The endorsement of Fox News.
Obama had no choice but to throw Van Jones under the bus when he became “radioactive”.
Sort of like how you guys threw GW under the bus?
Obama even threw his grandmother and his pastor of 20+ years, Jeremiah Wright, under the bus.
Well now that’s kind of a stretch. I can’t blame Obama for the stuff his pastor was saying, and if he comes out against it, then good for him.
…yeesh. If he hadn’t spoken out against Wright, you’d have said he was a racist. But he did, so now he’s still a racist but “secretly?” No wonder you guys are eaten up with these conspiracy theories….
Follow the news on Drudge Report. It has links to every major outlet (both Left and Right) and often breaks stories the lapdog media tries to hide or spike. The UK Guardian is linked there (so is HuffPo and the rest of the usual suspects). One of my favorites is “News Busters”. They expose the hypocrisy and fraud in the mainstream media and on the cable “news” shows. Try some of the Conservative links, too, you will expand your world.
Yes, I’m well aware of the Guardian and the likes. They were some of the biggest holdouts for people during the Bush administration, when simply *discussing* certain topics could get you branded as a “traitor” or “anti-American.”
Interesting but useless poems. Here’s a better one (should be the theme for the Democrat Party).
Not a poem, actually….a song….also, mine’s better~
If “Obamacare” is so popular with Democrats, why are the holdouts being bribed and arm-twisted and still holding out?
1) What do you mean, “if it’s so popular?” I said there was debate. That doesn’t mean it’s popular or not popular, that means there’s debate. Which there should be.
2) The GOP is being excluded because they are refusing to compromise or allow the process of the healthcare debate to continue with their bull-headed faux-patriotism. Obama himself said that if the GOP is not going to work together with him, then he’s going to leave them behind. I think it’s great that he finally grew a pair, myself
3) Yes, I’m sure if I drew out a chart and allowed for enough steps removed, I could connect just about *anyone* to *some* kind of conspiracy theory.
If “Obamacare” is such a great deal and will “save cost”, why do the TAXES to pay for it start immediately yet the “benefits” not start for FOUR years?
Because you have to build a pool of funding to draw from. Do you know how a bank works? When you first open a bank with a large number of customers, the service relies upon the fact that some of those customers have their money in the bank. If all of them come and take their money out at once, then there can be problems (for the large-scale version, see: stock market crash). There needs to be a stable, rotatable pool of income to draw from for use with federal programs.
Would you buy a house if the mortgage payments started immediately but you couldn’t move in for FOUR YEARS? It is a gimmick to hide the true costs.
Of course that would be different. The house is actually *there* to use. The money is not, however.
Even by cooking the books, it will add nearly 2 Trillion dollars to the national debt, but we all know the true cost will be much higher.
That’s *if* the GOP continues to block efforts to cut spending in less important areas; Anthony Weiner actually made a really interesting case when he appeared on “Fox & Friends” awhile back, talking about efforts to cut some funds from Medicare and Medicaid, and talking about government-run healthcare systems (like, you know, Medicare and Medicaid). You can probably youtube the segment if you like. In any case, if the deficit goes up, you can thank none other than the GOP; as with any program, the money needs to come from somewhere. Since Obama hasn’t raised taxes (or in some cases has decreased them for sectors of the middle-class), we have slightly less money to work with….which means we’ll have to decide what to pay for and what not to pay for. It’s just like balancing a checkbook. The money will have to come from existing (but unnecessary) programs or aspects thereof.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Glad people are citing The Guardian. Google and read any of George Monbiot’s column’s in The Guardian on the evidence for climate change.
The existing health system in the US seems odd. I read that currently US citizens pay more in tax towards the US system than UK citizens pay toards the NHS, and that’s BEFORE Americans pay extra on top of medical insurance. Seems the whole insurance thing is just an extra layer of bureaucracy. And the reason debate continues on the issue is because so many people involved are creaming off and making so much money from the existing system.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Google and read any of George Monbiot’s column’s in The Guardian on the evidence for climate change.
Doing so right now….after 5 minutes or so I found this paragraph which I felt the need to reproduce here; it’s from a piece discussing the hacked emails, titled The Real Climate Scandal, and subtitled, “Shocked by the hacked emails? Wait till you see what the other side’s been up to.”
Emphasis mine:
“Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence which could possibly be disputed - the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents - the evidence for manmade global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.
No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years(1). The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the earth’s orbit, doesn’t explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed - no science ever is - but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for manmade global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to AIDS.
Needless to say, I have added this page to my LONG LONG LONG list of political bookmarks
March 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
P.S.
This one’s from an actual Guardian article by Monbiot, titled Climate change: The semantics of denial, with the tagline, “They claim they’re sceptics – but when any explanation will do as long as it backs their theories, ‘climate change deniers’ is the only term good enough.”
I use the term deniers…because I can’t think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods.
I remember that actually happening, the day that Al Gore was set to make a speech on global warming and they were snowed into (or was it out of?) the conference. Everyone was pointing out how ironic that was and how it meant there was no such thing as global warming….
The OED defines a sceptic as, “A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions.” This is the opposite of what people like Booker, Bellamy and Tomlinson are. They have their definite conclusion and will defend it against all comers, however many inconvenient truths might stand in the way.
…
There is another class of people, whose materials these independent deniers often use: those who are paid by corporations to defend definite conclusions. I have documented this trade extensively (see also my book Heat). But many of these people still masquerade as free thinkers. Earlier this month, for example, the Guardian’s Comment is Free site published an article by Patrick Michaels. The Guardian described him as “a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes”. What it didn’t say is that he has been paid extremely well in the recent past to promote the views he expressed here by interests which, as far as I can discover, he has never voluntarily disclosed.
Take a look at this leaked memo[hyperlink] circulated by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) in 2006. IREA transmits electricity – most of which is produced by coal-burning power stations – across the US midwest.
The memo reveals that IREA was about to start buying electricity from a new coal-fired plant, replacing some of the gas production it was using before. But the cost advantages would be wiped out if a carbon tax were imposed. In the hope of averting this prospect, IREA had:
(quote excerpt from memo)
[decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources … In February of this year IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all the G&T’s [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels group.[
Hmm. If we go by the rules you’ve set thus far to define a “conspiracy,” this seems like it fits the bill spot-on….interesting.
March 9th, 2010 at 9:59 am
I have changed position recently on gay rights, i feel gay people should get married if they want to. love is an amazing thing, i know i’ve experienced it. God bless to all peace and love,Emily
March 9th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Good for you Emily. Perhaps the opponents of gay marriage are simply those who haven’t experience real love for themselves. Or else are like Senator Roy Ashburn and Ted Haggard, and are just in denial about who they really are.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I was in the military when Clinton initiated the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. That didn’t work because with most of the Gay people in the military you didn’t have to ask, you could just tell!
March 10th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I was in the military when Clinton initiated the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. That didn’t work because with most of the Gay people in the military you didn’t have to ask, you could just tell!
OH SNAP!
XD Seriously. I actually did snicker at that
March 13th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
True love? Really?
Love is a natural phenomenon, I agree. Love is amazing, I agree.
But how can love, a NATURAL phenomenon, manifest in a behavior which contravenes the natural order?
I believe that what is being confused here is “love” and “extremely strong desire”. I could have an extremely strong desire to wrestle in high school and grow an attachment to the sport, but I don’t “love” it. I merely desire to participate in it because I enjoy it. A man could have a strong desire to be with another man, and the plight is that he usually confuses these feelings of desire with love. A natural behavior cannot come from a behavior from that which is not natural, just like life cannot come from that which is not alive or inanimate.
Just one more thing: I must disagree with the statement of “who they really are”. Homosexuals are not a different species of humanity, and thus “who they really are” is still human. However, the choices that they make in regards to their sexual behavior does not comprise the essence of who they are. “Homosexuals” are not “born gay”; they are only different in the fact that they have chosen to rebel against the natural order, which was designed by God. Who they really are is who they were born as; natural heterosexuals. Maybe some traumatizing experience catalyzed the rebellion, or maybe some kind of spiritual deception, but “homosexuals” aren’t born.
Let’s leave with a question: If “homosexuals” are born naturally, then what does that say about the sanctity about the natural order itself?
Just so that you can have my answer beforehand, it means that the natural order will have contravened itself. Homosexual behaviors cannot result in reproduction, cannot continue the human race, and stifles the process of life. Thus by saying that “homosexuals” are born by nature, it’s the equivalent of saying that the nature of the natural order is casually self-destructive.
March 13th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I feel like I have erred.
My initial two statements [”True love? Really?] aren’t siting well with me.
Before I could rethink, I submitted, and I believe now that these phrases can appear to be denouncing and rude.
I apologize for this small snippet of the comment; please, disregard it.
God Bless and Go with Christ,
Altair
March 14th, 2010 at 3:46 am
“Homosexuals” are not “born gay” - this is an assertion not backed up by any evidence, and in fact refuted by a large body of evidence.
“they are only different in the fact that they have chosen to rebel against the natural order, which was designed by God. ”
Who are you to claim to know what plan God has for other people?
“Maybe some traumatizing experience catalyzed the rebellion”
Countless psychological studies attempted to prove just such a hypothesis about the causes of homosexuality throughout the 20th Century. All failed. Instead we see strong correlations between identical twins when compared to non-identical twins.
In other words, they took a large number of twins, then they separated the identical pairs from the non-identical pairs. They found that if a boy from the ‘identical twins’ group was gay, the likelihood of his brother also being gay was four times higher than if he was in the ‘non-identical’ group.
This points to a strong genetic causation. The same figures still applied when you used twins who’d been separated at birth and had had completely different upbringings.
“I believe that what is being confused here is “love” and “extremely strong desire”.” - Speak for yourself. Feel free to say that what YOU feel is just strong desire and not love, but it’s a bit arrogant for you to make such a call on behalf of other people. I’m glad that you then denounce that statement.
“If “homosexuals” are born naturally, then what does that say about the sanctity about the natural order itself?”
Perhaps it means that if natural order indeed has a sanctity, then it includes gays, and it is, again, arrogance on your part to presume to say otherwise. Why not say that the thousands of non-reproducing drone bees in a hive are ‘contravening natural order’? Is someone born with missing limbes ‘contravening a natural order’? There are birth defects all the time, in all species - in natural order is sanctified, you have to accept that it includes ‘mistakes’, or creatures that are born ‘different’.
March 14th, 2010 at 3:56 am
“Homosexual behaviors cannot result in reproduction, cannot continue the human race, and stifles the process of life.”
This is incorrect on several levels that I don’t have time to go into right now. But, very much in short, studies show that sisters of gay men tend to have more kids than average. And again, this is so whether the siblings grew up together or not (in other words, sister isn’t just doing it to compensate for her brother). Nature is smarter than you think.
At any rate non-reproducing relatives can certainly help the process of life by aiding their reproducing relatives.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:34 am
A man could have a strong desire to be with another man, and the plight is that he usually confuses these feelings of desire with love. A natural behavior cannot come from a behavior from that which is not natural, just like life cannot come from that which is not alive or inanimate.
That’s nothing more than wordplay, though, really. “Love” is not a tangible phenomenon that can be attached to one specific type of person or relationship, it’s a metaphor. It can happen, even if not everyone likes it. For example….there’s the “love” between a couple, and there’s the “love” between a parent and child….some people may confuse the two and “love” the child the way they would “love” the spouse, which we would consider “abnormal”….but of course that is different in many ways from the way a person could “love” someone of the same gender in the same way that they would “love” someone of the opposite gender. The point is that it can happen; it’s just that you think it’s abnormal.
(And for the record, no, I did not just compare being gay to being a pedophile….)
Maybe some traumatizing experience catalyzed the rebellion, or maybe some kind of spiritual deception, but “homosexuals” aren’t born.
That is planned and intentional condescension to gays, I think. It reminds me of how, when an atheist gives a valid reason for not believing in god, a religious person simply ignores that reason and insists that the atheist “must have had a traumatic experience that turned them away from god.” That’s stubborn and silly.
Thus by saying that “homosexuals” are born by nature, it’s the equivalent of saying that the nature of the natural order is casually self-destructive.
This doesn’t just happen with gays. Men and women are sometimes born sterile and are never able to reproduce their entire lives. We still value them as members of society and we do not discriminate against them. It doesn’t make sense to use gays’ inability to reproduce as a reason to discriminate against them unless you are also willing to do the same to straight women and men who want to reproduce but cannot because of natural-born disabilities, limitations or illness.
Long story short: It’s been logically established that reproductive capabilities are not enough grounds on which to base discrimination against homosexuals. If someone brings up that argument in a debate, I have reason to believe they have an ulterior motive that they are not being honest about.
“Homosexual behaviors cannot result in reproduction, cannot continue the human race, and stifles the process of life.”
False;
1) In order to *stifle* the production of life, gays would have to actively stamp out life, not just be unable to produce it. In order for that to be true, they’d have to be actively murdering the life that others are creating. As it stands they are simply unable to contribute, just like a large number of other humans — straight or gay — already do and already have since the beginning of humanity.
2) You are also not considering the grand picture here; do you know why we don’t freak out on a massive scale when we find out that a particular woman is incapable of producing children, or that a particular man isn’t able to get anyone pregnant? Because there are already millions upon millions of others out there who are actively reproducing. Our future is ascertained because of that. In fact, we are already reaching threat levels of overpopulation at our current rate. A very small segment of the population deciding not to reproduce will be less than a drop in the bucket “against” humanity, in that sense. It will never, ever be more than that, unless *every single person in the world* becomes gay and refuses to produce children.
3) The assertion you’re making can only work if everyone on earth was gay and nobody ever had children. Whether or not “gayness” is a “natural phenomenon” or a “deviant behavior,” that is never ever ever going to happen. We will never even have a majority population of gays, I’d put money on that. So there is no worry of gayness threatening the growth of human population.
4) If you really do believe your assertion, then you would also be required to say that sterile women (and men) cannot result in reproduction, cannot continue the human race, and stifle the process of life. You may or may not also believe that. But if you do, I imagine that saying so about straight women has very different implications to you than saying the *same thing* about gays….but keep in mind that they are the exact same from this standpoint.
5) Gays can and do frequently produce children. A lot of times, lesbian couples will undergo artificial insemination to get pregnant and have children. Likewise, gay men have options such as inseminating a surrogate mother.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“The assertion you’re making can only work if everyone on earth was gay and nobody ever had children”
Or to put it another way, you might as well say that men are evil, because if everyone on the planet was a man, then the population would die out!
My great Aunt never had kids, but I doubt my granny + grandad would have been able to raise six kids without her help. There are rumours that this late relative of mine may have been homosexual, but equally she may never have had kids for other reasons. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? If you’re against her for not having kids, then why do you care what reason she didn’t have them for? All I know was she that she was the kindest person I ever knew, and she made a huge difference to the lives of her 20 grandniece/nephews.
To say she was ‘against nature’ for not having kids is not only stupid, it’s untrue.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
FRC Allies Occupy Capitol Hill for Military Hearing
Today the Senate Armed Services Committee held yet another hearing on the issue of homosexuals in the military, with the chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), pushing aggressively for repeal of the current law and even a moratorium on its enforcement pending repeal. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) countered that the Pentagon’s current review of the issue shouldn’t focus on how to change the law, but on whether to do so and why. Two “victims” of the current policy–an Air Force major “outed” by personal emails on a business account and a Naval Academy grad who openly announced her lesbianism–were ably countered by retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan.
During his testimony, Gen. Sheehan described an incident from his service in Vietnam when a unit was seriously disrupted by an incident in which a homosexual soldier attempted to molest another. Members of the FRC staff were at the hearing to hear him reject the common claim that allowing homosexuals in the armed forces has had no effect on the armed forces of our European allies, noting the failure of a Dutch unit in the war in Serbia that he attributed to a number of “liberalization” measures, including acceptance of homosexuality. When Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) asked a serious question about the threat to recruiting and retention posed by homosexuality in the military, comedienne Kathy Griffin (who for some reason is a “pro-gay-military” activist) muttered something and stormed out of the hearing in disgust. And good riddance–the need for good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion in the military is no laughing matter.
Scouts Plant Doubts on Abuse
Yesterday, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) took a different oath–this time on the witness stand. As a civil trial kicks off against the BSA in Oregon, all eyes are on hundreds of files recently released by the Scouts that detail case after case of child sexual abuse between 1965 to 1984. The plaintiff in Portland’s case is arguing that these documents are evidence of a troubling pattern in the Scouts to cover up incidents of molestation, of which he claims to be a victim. Until recently, those archives had been locked away in the Boy Scouts headquarters to protect the confidentiality of their members.
Although the BSA was not justified in hiding this information, it does show that they weren’t arbitrarily opposed to homosexual scout leaders when they banned them from serving in the late 1990s (a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in June of 2000). Far from being intolerant, the Scouts took the necessary steps to cut down on the episodes of sexual abuse that had been plaguing the Association since the middle of last century. For years, the Scouts have taken a public beating from the Left–all because it was trying to create membership criteria in the best interest of their kids’ safety.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:26 am
Not sure what Scouts abuse has to do with all this. Seems to me like yet another example of Christian organisations being havens for abuse, CF yet more damaging revelations about Catholics in Ireland.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Sexual abuse in the boy scouts is no more “proof” that being gay is “bad” than normal sexual abuse is “proof” that being straight is “bad.” Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, straight or gay; it’s not bad because it’s straight or gay, it’s bad because it’s freakin’ sexual abuse!
During his testimony, Gen. Sheehan described an incident from his service in Vietnam when a unit was seriously disrupted by an incident in which a homosexual soldier attempted to molest another. Members of the FRC staff were at the hearing to hear him reject the common claim that allowing homosexuals in the armed forces has had no effect on the armed forces of our European allies, noting the failure of a Dutch unit in the war in Serbia that he attributed to a number of “liberalization” measures, including acceptance of homosexuality.
The same principle applies here; assuming that *did* happen, even if that soldier was gay, that is sexual misconduct that would be inappropriate whether it was a gay person or a straight person. It’s molestation. This in no way applies uniquely to gays….
March 19th, 2010 at 7:11 am
P.S. In the case of the Boy Scouts….why would they assume that the person was an abuser because they were gay? Why not because they were male? There are plenty of gay people who do not ever molest children, so it’s demonstrable that being gay does not lead one to child molestation (and therefore being gay cannot be the cause). Is it because it was a boy that was molested instead of a girl? Do you think that, if the same person had been straight, he would not also have molested a girl in a similar situation? Would that have been somehow “better” in your view?
I think the fact that such people have tendencies to molest children is more of a point of interest than whether they are gay or straight….I mean, when you see a straight male child molester molesting a little girl, do you think, “Those straight people are so gross, they all molest children?” No, because you know that’s irrational. So why do you insist on going that direction with gays?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 am
Hmm. Interesting responses.
Thank you for the rebuttal; it is much appreciated.
Nathan, I was most intrigued by your responses. As I have limited time to answer your questions and statements posed, I shall keep all statements as brief as I can.
To what evidence is homosexuality determined a natural genetic cause? The examples that you’ve given show only an influential and choice based cause, having nothing to do with genetic alteration or mutations. Please, attempt to correct me if I have erred.
No, I do not claim to know the full extent of God’s plan for the lives of other people. However, I do know for a fact that he desires for them to to live at least naturally in the carnal sense. He does not desire that they work that which is unseemly. Now, i am not calling the participants of homosexuality unseemly; I call their behavior unseemly because I does not align with God’s law for sexual behavior.
Now look. The identical twin study is interesting. Children don’t come from the womb and automatically determine homosexual tendencies unless they were influenced to so by social factors or something else. I mean, how bad would things have to go if humans were born attracted to the same sex?
I think you’ve misunderstood what I said. I didn’t denounce my statement; I denounced the way I presented it. It was presented in a rude fashion, and that’s out of character for me. I once again appologize for HOW I said what I said initially, and not what I said. I may not know these people, but I know what comprises love. The kind of love that is world has to offer is noting compared to real love, the Love designed of God. His kind of love cannot be found in a behavior that shoves Him away. And His love is the only one that is unbreakable.
I’ve got to go now, but I’ll finish later.
God Bless, and Go with Christ
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
“Please, attempt to correct me if I have erred.”
You’ve erred, and it was pretty clear in my posts why. I haven’t got time right now to spell it out again. Perhaps try reading my post again.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“However, I do know for a fact that he desires for them to to live at least naturally in the carnal sense.”
This is an odd claim to make. How do you know this ‘for a fact’? You claim to know the mind of God?
“Children don’t come from the womb and automatically determine homosexual tendencies unless they were influenced to so by social factors or something else.”
I never claimed that children ‘come from the womb’ and ‘automatically’ determine tendencies of either sexual persuasion - hetero or homo. These tendencies aren’t displayed for many years, but that doesn’t mean they were not determined at a younger age.
“The examples that you’ve given show only an influential and choice based cause”
The examples I gave directly go AGAINST influential and choice-based causes. While they don’t all necessarily point to ‘genetic’, they do clearly show pre-birth causes.