By As Chickenhead has pointed out, the first casualty of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell issue has been announced:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates sharply reprimanded the three-star general who commands the U.S. Army in the Pacific on Thursday for publicly advocating against the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law restricting gays in the military.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further, suggesting that Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon should consider resigning over comments he made in a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes earlier this month.
In that March 8 letter calling on troops and their families to fight a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, Mixon wrote: “I suspect many service members, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.
“Now is the time,” Mixon added, “to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.”
Gates and Mullen denounced Mixon’s letter during a Pentagon press conference.
“I think that for an active duty officer to comment on an issue like this is inappropriate,” said Gates.
“I feel the same way and actually it is being addressed inside the chain of command in the Army,” Mullen added. “I’ve spoken specifically to [U.S. Army chief of staff] Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., about this. And Gen. Mixon specifically is – the issue is being addressed with him.” [Stars & Stripes]
What I don’t understand about this is that a number of General level officers have spoke their mind on this issue to include General Casey against immediate repeal of the policy and Admiral Mullen supporting a repeal of the policy. The only thing I can think of is that General Mixon instead of giving his views to Congress instead aired them in the media. Secretary Gates may have issued some kind of memo telling these senior Generals that they could not speak to the media on this issue. If that was the case then I understand why Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are pissed off.
10:36 pm on March 25th, 2010 1
I think the real problem is the general crossed the line from stating an opinion and into political advocacy and activism.
There is such a thing called command influence. Some might feel obligated to do as the general says.
11:41 pm on March 25th, 2010 2
If only he was asking people to defend the rights of fellow service members.
11:59 pm on March 25th, 2010 3
He was my Brigade commander in 2ID, very down to earth guy.
But, he did kind of make the MacArthur mistake on this one.
Hopefully he's not hung out to dry.
12:17 am on March 26th, 2010 4
LTG Mixon clearly went over the line and a call for his walking papers is appropriate. That said, I think its time to invoke two words. Those being double standard. If Mixon has to go for inappropriately advocating, why does Dan Choi get to stay in? Its not like his position is in tune with DADT or this new DADT version 2.0. I would also point out the example of Carol Barkalow who was allowed to stay in the Army and complete her career despite publishing an autobiography and at least one editorial which advocated women in the military position contrary to official policy.
1:16 am on March 26th, 2010 5
At least someone had the courage to speak up when it counted. His conscience is clear.
2:12 am on March 26th, 2010 6
Dear Mr. Gates and ADM Mullen Let me say it for LTG Mixon, because he obviously you didn't hear what he said.
I DON'T WANT THE MAN NEXT TO ME TO ENGAGE IN CONSUMING SPERM AFTER PERFORMING FELATIO ON ANOTHER MAN NOR DO I WANT THAT MAN TO HAVE RECEIVED ANOTHER MAN'S PENIS INTO HIS ANUS WHERE THE MAN AGAIN EJACULATED.
If you believe this is terrible and find it disgusting, then good, you and I think alike.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
2:14 am on March 26th, 2010 7
Dear Mr. Gates and ADM Mullen Let me say it for LTG Mixon, because obviously you didn’t hear what he said.
I DON’T WANT THE MAN NEXT TO ME TO ENGAGE IN EATING SPERM AFTER PERFORMING FELATIO ON ANOTHER MAN NOR DO I WANT THAT MAN TO HAVE RECEIVED ANOTHER MAN’S PENIS INTO HIS ANUS WHERE THE MAN AGAIN EJACULATED AND I DON'T WANT THE MAN NEXT TO ME TO HAVE EATEN ANOTHERS FECAL MATERIAL.
If you believe this is terrible and find it disgusting, then good, you and I think alike.
HOW ABOUT NOW?
2:38 am on March 26th, 2010 8
You have to consider what would happen if pacific Army commanders started forwarding Mixon's letter to their subordinates. Wouldn't it have the effect of official guidance?
His conscience may be clear but probably not his future. It probably won't go well for him. I am reminded of another PACOM commander who spoke up. Remember this quote from 1995?
It was said by Admiral Richard C. Macke. He said that, regarding the sailors and Marine that raped the 12 year old girl in Okinawa; implying that they should have hired a prostitute for the price they paid to rent the van they raped her in.
Since he says in the comment that he had said it several times, I don't think it could have been considered a slip of the lip. While it can be argued that what he said was true, it was still inappropriate for him to say it. Just as it was inappropriate for Gen. Mixon to send that letter to Stripes. Must be something in the Hawaii drinking water.
BTW, retired Adm. Macke found himself involved in another incident that damaged the U.S. military's reputation in Japan. In 2005, he arranged to have the civilians aboard the submarine USS Greeneville when it struck the Japanese fishing training ship, the Ehime Maru, killing 9 crewmembers and 4 high school student. Trouble just seems to follow some people.
3:12 am on March 26th, 2010 9
Honorable Bilirakus,
Here is the reason I oppose the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) I do not have the same core values, morals, or ideas as a man who performs felatio on another man eats their sperm, receives another man's penis into their anus or eats another man's fecal matter. If the repeal of DADT continues the armed forces, comprised overwhelming of men will become a Mecca for homosexuals much like a man serving time in a women's prison. For anyone to say that homosexuals don't act differently than heterosexuals is absurd and that person has not spent time like I have living near homosexuals. Tell them to get into a car and drive across the river into Arlington and ring the doorbell on the homes located on S. Courthouse rd. or attend some of the homosexual free for all parties that I had to witness on that street. Then, if they wish to tell me homosexuals act the same as heterosexuals, I'll tell them to seek mental help.
If at all possible I would like to address the Congress of the United States and say this to everyone and I would really enjoy discussing this in detail to anyone. I put homosexuals into the same boat as child molesters, rapist, and people who lie cheat and steal. If the repeal of DADT continues, how many lives will it cost? How many Matthew Shepards will there be? It will happen, no matter how many orders are given. For Christ sake, we have T.V. commercials on Armed Forces Network telling people "don't shake your baby, and don't drink and drive", but these still continue.
I also want an answer why LTG Mixon the PACOM Commander was reprimanded by the SECDEF and ADM Mullin for telling people to contact their congressional representative. This is clearly a scare tactic to suppress others by obvious partisan politics.
3:23 am on March 26th, 2010 10
LTG Mixon, I wrote my Congressman and wish others had brass balls big enough to speak their minds and stand up and leave the campfire where everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya for fear that someone might get mad. Leaders make decisions, followers sit near a campfire, sing kumbaya and wait for someone to make a decision. The great 56 seem to have wasted their time.
6:53 am on March 26th, 2010 11
Some much for gettin that 4th star, he's out…
7:14 am on March 26th, 2010 12
Both Mullen and Gates have spoken out in favor of repeal. This is command influence. The commander in chief, Obama is a passing phase, four to eight years in office. Why should he be allowed to, in my opinion, damage the military with his personal agenda while a few suck ups close to retirement stand by and let it happen. I much perfer a leader like Mixon over the politically correct brown nosers such as Mullen. It is a leaders job to upchannel what the leader preceives to be the attitude of the troops. Gates has already stacked the deck in his selection of the general for the year long review of DADT. Remember, Ham has PTSD and his wife feels he is acting different since going to Iraq. I hope these warriors, as they like to call themselves, never see real combat like that endured by WW II, Korea, or even some Vietnam vets. In the end Mixon will be OK because our military is still controlled by the people not the commander in chief. Mixon has my total respect for having the backbone to represent his troops. For others who feel different I would say kiss my arse but they may enjoy that.
9:09 am on March 26th, 2010 13
Would you be saying the same thing if he complained about women in the military not wearing a hijab and men being forced to cut their beards?
9:27 am on March 26th, 2010 14
So, you're saying it's wrong to ignore the rights of certain people just because others might get mad? Ironic, don't you think?
10:32 am on March 26th, 2010 15
I agree with you. However I believe the biggest problem will be found in the female rank and file. Eventually it will be a turn off for straight women, and limit enlistment as such. Loss of privacy and pressure to join the majority.
On the other hand many male gays are not into the 'macho thing' to begin with, and I doubt there will be any change. There will always be a number of male gays, but the number will not climb if DADT is eliminated.
10:45 am on March 26th, 2010 16
It's a slippery slope that you're threading on. What about banning birth control? It's immoral according to the Bible, after all. Is morality just a valid argument when it is used to infringe on other people's freedoms?
10:53 am on March 26th, 2010 17
I served with quite a few women in Canada. The vast majority was straight.
10:57 am on March 26th, 2010 18
Junior,
I don't know about you, but I'd rather get it on with my wife than worry about what strangers do behind closed doors.
11:09 am on March 26th, 2010 19
Not the feedback that I have heard from women in the US military.
11:42 am on March 26th, 2010 20
You and your wife live behind closed doors.
Those deployed or aboard ship don't.
Plus, there's a human dynamic involved with sexuality- fag or regular- which the social experimenters want to always wave off. Men are different than women. Women are different than men. Fags are different from normal people.
Doesn't mean that any one of them can or cannot perform a given task to an established standard. But it does mean that when you roll all these people with all their instincts into one closed and close society, the interactions which come about are absolutely affected by these "differences".
You don't have to accept it, but it doesn't change it, either.
11:44 am on March 26th, 2010 21
Mullen's a poossy. Typical modern Navy leadership. Same leadership which rushed women into fighter pilot training and cost a few female lives.
12:35 pm on March 26th, 2010 22
Sack him! If he's too stupid to understand the rules of the game at his level, he doesn't belong there. Unquestioning support of his chain-of-command is the only publically acceptable behavior. For him to act like he's some sort of king of a little feifdom just shows how much he doesn't understand his job. He was way out of line.
1:47 pm on March 26th, 2010 23
Unquestioning support of a superior's own personal agenda that has no grounds in law is not only healthy, yes even in the public arena, but necessary. Mullen and Gates have already stepped over the line by using their positions to pressure other military leaders into accepting their own personal agendas on reform, all the while claiming a review is being conducted when they really have no interest in seeing the results of that review. Mullen and Gates have shown that they will see the repeal of DADT regardless of how it affects morale, or combat readiness. The review is pure show. They will shove this down everyone's throat if they need to. Mullen's own time as CNO saw the Navy's ship building and R&D fall to an all-time low in terms of productivity, though certainly not money spent, all the while mouthing some trite interest in seeing a 313 ship navy. Fat chance. Course that was never his real interest.
Given the state of the American people, it's no wonder these two are in charge of the military…we have a nation supposedly at war and the American people continue to live in ignorant bliss. To hell with the next person who says the terrorists win if our way of life is threatened. Life goes on in the good old USA with fast food, fat fucks, daytime dramas, cheating spouses, worries over the most trivial of pleasures and that's all good, because the military is out there somewhere protecting that "way of life." But don't do it too well damnit, we'll put you in the brig if you rough up those poor terrorists a little too much while attempting to seize them before they can kill anyone else.
It's time the American people learn if you want to go to war you accept all that comes with it: conscription, marshall law, national seizure of key industries and assets. If you don't like that or don't think it's worth it, then don't fuckin go to war!! And now, spending military money on things like, appeasement of every last goddamn fringe group that demands equal treatment, instead of things you need in a war like, ummmm weapons and fuel. Next up? Equal opportunity for animal fuckers and cannibals, as long as its consensual of course.
I say promote Mixon for his long-term understanding and dedication and fire Gates and Mullen for betraying not only the military, but the American people. Gates!! Mullen!! get your goddamn eyes on the game men! We're at War!!!! or are we?
2:02 pm on March 26th, 2010 24
Hats off to LTG Mixon. It can't be too soon for Gates and Mullen to step down and stop watering down the military.
2:09 pm on March 26th, 2010 25
I wonder what the AFN sexual harassment commercials will be like when they let gays openly serve. The general has the guts to come out and show his leadership skills. Not go along with the status quo to enhance his promotion status. I also read where the commandant of the USMC has come out with a statement about gays living in the barracks. The military needs more leadership like these two men.
2:11 pm on March 26th, 2010 26
Come on guys, Nancy Pelosi knows what's best for us all… If she says healthcare then you make banners and parade up and down the reflection pond. If she says repeal DADT then you put on spandex and go running around post looking for "free for all parties".
We elected these people and now you will see that YES, elections do have consequences.
So in my view this DADT thing is just a small part of entire Democratic Peoples Republic agenda.
The GEN here got "off the boat and off program", so he will be put on the bench.
2:45 pm on March 26th, 2010 27
Did you ever that LTG Mixon knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe that's why you're not LTG Cal.
"You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything"
2:47 pm on March 26th, 2010 28
Did you ever THINK LTG Mixon knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe that’s why you’re not LTG Cal.
“You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything”
2:59 pm on March 26th, 2010 29
After reading so many post, it is clear to see who the homosexuals are. This is a vision of things to come and it won't get easier or better. True feelings will only become suppressed and add to the tension. This will result to more and more faggots getting killed by people because of their actions.
Matthew Shepard, here come your fag friends… To all you homos, attitudes toward fags won't change for the better, thats the way natural law works. Like it or not!
3:44 pm on March 26th, 2010 30
"Those deployed or aboard ship don’t."
Yes, and that's why there are rules against fraternizing.
The gay orgies…They are just in your mind.
Trust me, I served in a country that allows gays to join.
3:46 pm on March 26th, 2010 31
And the women telling you that were all lesbians? Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I get the feeling it has more to do with cognitive disconnect on their part.
3:46 pm on March 26th, 2010 32
LTG Mixon sir, you are a hero. I afraid you're going to be sacked or made to retire early for your common-sense comments but you have truly shown courage in trying to defend our military from stupid PC social(ist) engineering. Lemmy's comments on the homosexual lifestyle are spot-on. I used to live in San Francisco and some of the disgusting things that the homosexuals used to do would make the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah blush. If someone was ever stupid enough to say anything to two males french kissing and groping each other at a bus stop regardless of the presence of children then bunches of them would come out of the woodwork & to them YOU would be the problem. To mention what happens in the 'gay' bathhouses or at their fagfests would make anyone puke. Thank You again LTG Mixon for your courage.
3:56 pm on March 26th, 2010 33
"After reading so many post, it is clear to see who the homosexuals are"
Based on the notion that the most homophobic men are sometimes secretly gay?
http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activi…
4:34 pm on March 26th, 2010 34
The inalienable right to guzzle goop. Well worth defending….
4:36 pm on March 26th, 2010 35
The main issue is, is homosexuality moral or immoral? Right now, President Obama (and other senior leaders) thinks it is moral, although I have never heard him give a well-reasoned defense of this position.
Many (perhaps the majority) in the military believe homosexuality is immoral. So far, the military senior leaders have not asked the lower ranks what they think, and so I don’t know how senior military officials are indeed evaluating how to impliment it.
I think one of the biggest issues policy makers need to address is privacy. Right now we separate men and women in locker room and other tight quarters, primarily because women have the right to not be lusted after. This privacy right is in even more jeopardy with open acceptance of homosexuals. To be consistent, policy makers should make all public bathrooms/showers co-ed…which of course is insane.
4:51 pm on March 26th, 2010 36
Is that really a concern? Doesn't the military still disapprove of public displays of affection (PDA) even among heterosexuals in uniform?
5:28 pm on March 26th, 2010 37
“Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further, suggesting that Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon should consider resigning”
These guys will back each other up and cover for each all day long when it comes to shady contracts, influence peddling, future payoffs for current corporate-friendly actions… etc.
But when some minor point comes up that allows one to get a political advantage over another, the (fake) indignant and outrage come out.
6:31 pm on March 26th, 2010 38
And for Gates to rebuke Mixon for making his personal opinion known as a n active duty officer, while saying nothing about Mullen's very vocal opinion as an active duty officer is the height of hypocrisy. Mullen, meanwhile, is just disingenuous, using his uniform for influencing public opinion while blasting his fellow servicemember for the same. Mulen has always set off my queer meter and I suspect there is more to his support for repeal than just a little goodwill towards this repressed group of "patriotic" Americans.
6:38 pm on March 26th, 2010 39
As far as I can tell, he wasn't rebuked for "making his personal opinion known." He was rebuked for soliciting others, including those under his command to petition against a political decision.
8:40 pm on March 26th, 2010 40
Units that are worth a damn- yes, very much. Something about "bearing" and "discipline", "esprit de corps", and other outdated concepts as that…
8:43 pm on March 26th, 2010 41
Matthew Shepard wasn't killed for being a faggot- he was killed because he was involved with a couple of nasty drug dealers. That he was a bone eater was only peripheral, but the homo propaganda machine ran with it…
9:20 pm on March 26th, 2010 42
Duke, tell me what you think of this idea. As I was reading this, I was thinking how obvious it is even to non-military people that this is a no-no (the whole MacArthur thing you mention), and I wondered if this guy knew that (a) he could very well be drummed out of the military and (b) his stance would make him a hero in such a way that it could launch a conservative political career.
I know a lot of military folks decidedly don't want a post-military political career, but clearly a few of them crave that. Is he possibly one of them?
10:17 pm on March 26th, 2010 43
Mmm, right. Let's see if this will be deleted again…
http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activi…
10:32 pm on March 26th, 2010 44
The problem isn't that they were gay, it's that they were inconsiderate.
As for the bathhouses… Dude…Tiger Woods. I rest my case.
11:14 pm on March 26th, 2010 45
“I think that for an active duty officer to comment on an issue like this is inappropriate,” was Gates' direct quote if the article was accurate.
Recommending people contact their representatives to voice their own opinions, isn't soliciting, the implication there being that he was pressuring others via his uniform to act in a certain manner, which I don't think he was. Further, he is advocating FOR a political decision, known as DADT, i.e. maintaining current military law. How could advocating continuance of a policy be petitioning against a political decision?
4:30 am on March 27th, 2010 46
4:52 am on March 27th, 2010 47
I'm sick of all the ball lickers and carpet munchers being defended while my hetero hookers are being attacked.
What a frigging world! So, you can get a bj from the other guy in the foxhole for free, but if I want to rent a woman to do the job I'm wrong?
As for Mixon, Glad he spoke up. Hope he runs for office. Glad I'm retired.
And NO. This is not a personel attack.
7:57 am on March 27th, 2010 48
I am happy the drug dealers killed Shepard. Unfortunatly, as a result of the trial, hate crime legislation was introduced and passed in the Wyoming legislature. But let me get this straight, though the entire trial revolved around a supposed "hate crime", you have information to the contrary?
you should report your information to the FBI immediately, you are in violation of the law because two men are sitting behind bars that are wrongfully imprisoned.
8:08 am on March 27th, 2010 49
Also, I should have used Barry Winchell instead of Shepard. Winchell was the faggot that had his brains bashed out by my hero, PFC Calvin "Slugger" Glover. As the story goes: Fisher pitched, Winchell caught and Slugger Glover took his baseball bat and knocked Winchell's head out of the park.
8:14 am on March 27th, 2010 50
Gizzdrinker, in your frolies with serving with faggots, did you ever see male and female soldiers share the same barracks?
8:55 am on March 27th, 2010 51
Oh no- they killed him. But he was involved in a drug deal with them when he was killed. Had really nothing to do with him being a queer.
9:45 am on March 27th, 2010 52
Tiger Woods is gay?
9:57 am on March 27th, 2010 53
Don't know. Only what I have been told by a few women in other branches of service. They seemed genuine in their complaints. I didn't take a survey myself, but "every damn time I took a shower, someone would be reaching for my boobs". On life in the barracks. Or "I got out because of the number of lesbians". Not much to go on, but makes one think.
10:59 am on March 27th, 2010 54
Tiger Woods was in the military?
12:29 pm on March 27th, 2010 55
"never get off boat—absolutely GDR, unless your going all the way. He got off the boat. He split from the whole program—"
CNHMS
4:44 am on March 28th, 2010 56
Teadrinker, I think you're right.
Since Lemmy himself keeps volunteering graphically detailed comments about how disgusted he is without "homos" and "fags" and how he fears being near people doing these things he describes in graphic detail — detail he really seems to put a lot of thought into — I don't feel bad about saying what I'm about to say.
I'm 95% certain Lemmy is a closeted homosexual who grew up around so much homophobia that he internalized self-hatred to a very high degree. So high that he consciously or subsconsciously has to act out and show his hatred and disgust, which is really from a deep self-loathing.
I feel very bad for him, even as he irrationally and shrilly rails against imagined demons.
There is help for people like him. I'm guessing the first steps are finding the source of the self-loathing and then honestly coming out to oneself. Maybe then he won't feel so much self-loathing and disgust for the things that his body and mind actually crave.
And no, I'm not saying this to make fun of him or push his buttons. I'm very, very serious, having seen exactly the same type of people back in college or back in the Baptist church I attended when I was young.
Lemmy is giving out a cry for help, and I'm answering him by telling him to go seek therapy. There's no shame in that, only the possibility of an end to his personal torment.
7:21 am on March 28th, 2010 57
If he's gay, we should celebrate it, with parades, and sex demos in front of kids.
I am hoping that soon, someone, somewhere will show the courage to be open about his or her love for sheep and goats.
It's so wrong to hate others for whom or what they love.
7:23 am on March 28th, 2010 58
Exactly. You can't make your point, so you resort to calling other people names, but in a roundabout way. Clever, yet sad.
7:26 am on March 28th, 2010 59
Not really. If one is practising birth control, it isn't out in the open. Same with the current policy. If guys crave the c0ck, they can still be in the service, they just can't prance around annoying other people about it.
9:07 am on March 28th, 2010 60
The question I have for the prohomosexuals in the military people is this: WHY? It is certainly true if DADT was changed more homosexuals would join or those who are already in would not be discharged if their sexual orientation was revealed. This must be balanced with the fact that since the overwhelming majority of troops are heterosexual, if the law was changed a huge amount of troops would not reenlist and many heterosexual civilians would never enlist to begin with. We would end up with, on balance less troops & not more. While most people I believe are tolerant of homosexuality I don't think that it extends to being forced to dress/undress & shower with people who may be gawking at you. If you say just get over it then I would reply to let's make men & women shower, & dress/undress together. There is NO difference. Also importantly we are currently FIGHTING TWO WARS & maybe social engineering can be discussed in peacetime. The attacks on anti-homosexuals-in-the-military as 'closet' homosexuals is simply a way of stifling debate.
9:22 am on March 28th, 2010 61
The attacks on anti-homosexuals-in-the-military as ‘closet’ homosexuals is simply a way of stifling debate.
I'm not sure who this was directed at, but I'm not attacking such people (plural) at all. You make a well-reasoned case for maintaining DADT, and I would not fault you for anything you're saying. I certainly would not have reason to believe or suggest that you are a closeted homosexual.
By contrast, Lemmy has repeatedly not just shown vilely homophobic animosity, but he has done so with graphic depictions of sex acts he claims to find so loathsome. The gratuitousness of those descriptions makes it pretty clear to some observers that there's more at work there than Lemmy is letting on.
11:37 am on March 28th, 2010 62
I would agree with both Kushibo and Tom, on their respective ways of looking at this issue. I am not convinced that DADT must necessarily be maintained in the long run, regardless of what I think of homosexual behavior, and I'm not completely certain of what that is. The issue is to me essentially of two concerns: 1. consideration of the privacy of those who enlisted under the assumption that homosexual behavior would not be visible in assigned living quarters and 2. the wisdom of a decision to divert money during wartime to fund integration as opposed to weapons, fuel and bullets.
It says alot about a nation that would even consider this expenditure without feeling some urgency about actually winning the "war" we are in. Efforts by the violently anti-homo camp that continue to focus on the "bedroom" graphics as opposed to the social and fiscal issues that actually affect readiness and morale will do more to harm the debate and will probably accelerate the move towards lifting DADT too hastily.
12:59 pm on March 28th, 2010 63
Nothing wrong with what Lemmy said- he's just avoiding euphemisms and calling nut-licking and spooge gargling for what it is.
If, in the context of discussing combat trauma and immediate response, I tell you about a casualty who had his entire face taken off by a round which entered the back of his skull and vaporized his face, it isn't exactly pleasant but it is an apt description; it is what it is. So it goes with Lemmy.
What's really going on in this discussion has zero to do with "human rights"- it's all about the plan of this administration. Being a super power is dangerous, in their way of thinking. We should be merely a nation among nations. To do this, we have to bring ourselves down a few pegs. This is a respected institution to meddle with and destabilize. We have seen insidious attacks on it from other angles, and they did their part to cause turmoil, and take attention off an army's only reason to exist- to fight and win. Now, we hear buzzwords like "opportunity" and "right to serve"… as if they belonged part and parcel to an army's existence.
Discuss and debate all you want- the sperm eaters have won. We let them stay with DADT and that was the camel's nose in the tent. This was bound to happen before too very long. There is nothing really any of us can do to stop it. It has NOTHING to do with "human rights"; it has all to do with pushing a de-stabilizing agenda.
Hope. Change.
THIS is exactly where compromise with the left gets us. That's why I don't compromise, but I also know that no one cares about what I, and many others, know from personal experience to be fact. Those people have another agenda entirely, and no logic will stop them because it's immaterial to their aims.
I will have another cold lager and watch it all come crashing down. The sad part is that when it does, no one will notice or care.
It was a good run, and a fine republic, whilst we kept it so.
1:06 pm on March 28th, 2010 64
Nothing wrong with what Lemmy said- he’s just avoiding euphemisms and calling nut-licking and spooge gargling for what it is.
If, in the context of discussing combat trauma and immediate response, I tell you about a casualty who had his entire face taken off by a round which entered the back of his skull and vaporized his face, it isn’t exactly pleasant but it is an apt description; it is what it is. So it goes with Lemmy.
Nah, that's not really how it's going with Lemmy. Lemmy is gratuitously inserting descriptions that go beyond the context, a sign he's thinking about this stuff way beyond what even a homophobic heterosexual would be doing.
Lemmy's neighbor:
So what did you have for breakfast, Lemmy?
Lemmy:
Well, I didn't lick the spooge off the balls of some guy I met in the stall of a gay nightclub, if that's what you're asking. I ate Lucky Charms, which have the Irish guy on the front, not some Chinese guy because I want all the Chinese dead. I'd gladly lay down my life to kill all the fags and Chinese.
Lemmy's neighbor:
Well you have a great day then.
1:16 pm on March 28th, 2010 65
Discuss and debate all you want- the sperm eaters have won. We let them stay with DADT and that was the camel’s nose in the tent. This was bound to happen before too very long. There is nothing really any of us can do to stop it. It has NOTHING to do with “human rights”; it has all to do with pushing a de-stabilizing agenda.
There is one fatal flaw among your assumptions: The people pushing this agenda don't really think there's anything destabilizing about hanging around with gay people, once the initial shock wears off.
And since so many of you are concerned about fellatio and anal sex, does it bother you as much when a woman "sperm eater" woman "consumes sperm after performing fellatio" on a man, or when a woman "received [a] man's penis into [her] anus where the man ejaculated"?
Should men who perform cunnilingus, women who perform fellatio, and men and women who engage in oral sex also be drummed out of the military if they ever let anyone know about it? Because gay sex involves stuff that a lot of heterosexuals apparently do, too.
2:16 pm on March 28th, 2010 66
It boils down to the fact that Officers in the US Military may not criticize their administration or otherwise become a political advocate. They may support the administration, in fact their expected to, but they may never EVER make public statements against their senior leaders (Sec.Def, President). This rule is old and is designed to separate the military from the politics. Politicians make policy, the military executes it, its that simple. If a senior military commander wish's to make their opinion known they can submit it in writing, or hell even a phone call to their boss's and the JCoS, but never EVER in some form of public media.
This goes for all officers, even the non-commissioned variety. Regardless if you agree with the current administration or not, you can not make political statements about that.
3:15 pm on March 28th, 2010 67
There is one fatal flaw among your assumptions: The people pushing this agenda don’t really think there’s anything destabilizing about hanging around with gay people, once the initial shock wears off.
Wrong. They know it's destabilizing, and that is what they want. America needs to be taken down a notch in their estimation, and this is one route to it.
It isn't about rights or anything like that. Additionally- hetero acts are hetero- that is "oldthought". They demand "newthought".
Have a lager and watch the end with me. I promise not to come on your shirt.
3:16 pm on March 28th, 2010 68
Nice cheap and easy shot of trying to compare anti sicko perversion to racism. It's an old dog that don't hunt much anymore…
3:18 pm on March 28th, 2010 69
And there you have it. There was a time when we could look up to the President as someone who represented what was right and good about America- now it's what's right now and good times about America.
It was a good run, and fun while it lasted. I remember the America I emigrated to. It's another country, and you can't go there anymore, much like the country I left behind…
3:46 pm on March 28th, 2010 70
After even more thought, there's even more– Many don't care that this would be yet another destabilizing assault on a respected institution. They just want what they want and they want it now, damn the repercussions.
That's pretty much what feel-good liberalism is all about….
4:16 pm on March 28th, 2010 71
"Should men who perform cunnilingus, women who perform fellatio, and men and women who engage in oral sex also be drummed out of the military if they ever let anyone know about it?"
And there's the hypocrisy. Actually those things are illegal in the military even between consenting spouses, believe it or not. Sodomy as defined by the USMJ includes fellatio and it is illegal, no questions asked. I'm not saying the military has any right to take a stance like that but they have none the less. Just rarely ever do you find a commanding officer who chooses to enforce such rules, let alone try to dig out such information on his sailors/soldiers.
As to those who want to focus on the particularly perverted acts they see homosexuals taking part in at the same time that they glorify such stuff between heterosexuals, I say you're all the same. Any straight guy that can honestly look at a hot chick and immediately gravitate towards her pooper is in fact GAY. Sorry, but perversion is perversion dudes and you've got more in common with your buddies than you admit. Now I'm just as disturbed with the affects I see the homosexual lifestyle having on not only morale, but larger societial responsibilities but how in the hell can we be so dismissive of the culture of cheating and promiscuity that pervades the military but be so virilant towards homosexuals that keep to themselves. Perversion is perversion, take it all or don't take any of it…just be consistent.
5:35 pm on March 28th, 2010 72
"Any straight guy that can honestly look at a hot chick and immediately gravitate towards her pooper is in fact GAY."
Somebody is showing their naivety concerning the psychology of three-holein'.
Gay doesn't even enter the equation.
8:17 pm on March 28th, 2010 73
I'm not comparing his homophobia to his racism. I'm just, for comic effect, tossing out classic Lemmyisms, like THIS:
I actually pray for a huge earthquake that kills every chinese person on earth and erases their history from the face of the earth. The same goes for Muslims. I guess we forgot about the Chinese students in South Korea when the torch ran by the North Korean refugees who protested the Chinese repatriating Nort Korean refugees. Then the Canadian’s who wore free tibet t-shirts at city hall and were beaten almost to death by the out of control Chinese. I was there and saw it with my own eyes. I am not kidding or joking about every Chinese and Muslim on the face of the earth dying. No, I don’t have any Chinese friends or Muslim friends and I never will just as I will never have a friend who is a child molester, thief, liar, or rapist. (source)
9:03 pm on March 28th, 2010 74
It's callin a spade a spade. It means if you think differently I say you're gay. Suck it up, pardon the pun.
9:53 pm on March 28th, 2010 75
No one says cheating on a spouse is OK.
10:12 pm on March 28th, 2010 76
The attitude of the military towards adultery is ambivalent at best. It has strict policies against it but generally turns a blind eye. My concern is that many of those who are so adamantly against overturning DADT have no such concern with adultery, or whoring, or turning tricks in the barracks. I only ask for consistency…for people to honestly look at homosexual behavior and understand that however awful they may think it is, it can't possibly be worse than cheating and promiscuity that already inundates the military and thoroughly corrupts military order as much as lifting DADT could ever do. I personally don't get homosexualilty but, then again, I don't get beastiality or cannibalism. But I put them all within the same category as cheating on a spouse: a gigantic leap in self-indulgence that defies societal mores. All in all, it's a great human race we have here (eyes roll), and given the "widespreadness" of all these different deviant behaviors it seems a little more tolerance by those who are in fact partakers would be in order. Either way, I'll continure to view them all in the same light.
10:33 pm on March 28th, 2010 77
What army were YOU in? If that went on in my barracks, I would kill people. And if someone was banging someone else's old lady, that MFer would get burned at the stake.
Families take enough hard times due to deployments, long hours, frequent moves, and so on. Having some selfish SOB tearing his or someone else's family apart is one of the reasons that any unit worth a damn doesn't tolerate adultery.
Same with turning the barracks into a whore house. You want some trim? Fine. Go get it. Just don't bring it back.
BTW- I like poji as much as any other guy- but I did my huntin' on MY time, and didn't take the gals back to the barracks to be eye-f'ed by every grunt in the place. And when I was a leader I enforced the rules on my guys.
And I saw more than one a-hole get burned for adultery. As they deserved to be.
10:40 pm on March 28th, 2010 78
Rest assured, I will post the response from my congressional rep when he sends it to me.
10:59 pm on March 28th, 2010 79
You were indeed in a different military than I. Just shy of 8 years in the military, I served on navy(yokosuka and atsugi), air force (yokota and alice springs), army (yongsan) and marine corps (camps fuji and futenma) bases in Japan, Korea and Australia and I never once saw the kind of indignant attitude you are relaying. I saw soldiers get chastised for complaining through their chain of command about such behavior in the barracks and I saw sailors, on the last all-male carrier USS Independence no less, belittled for complaining about girlfriends being banged in the berthing on Tiger Cruises. And you gotta see it to believe it, the porn collection that circulated that pig of a boat of Chiefs doin what sailors make famous in every port the Pacific can host, I mean vintage 70s and 80s stuff of former ships crew. I wasn't born yesterday and I'd assume you weren't either…the military accepts that this behavior goes on and doesn't let out a peep unless there is some danger of it becoming public.
Bottom line, the units I served in tolerated adultery. They committed and encouraged adultery, and given my experience I find it hard to believe that anyone who served more time than I did and used the brains God gave him could in good faith say otherwise. I wish I had served in a military like what you describe but I find it difficult to believe in. In a Navy where gundecking is overtly condemned but routinely practiced, would one expect otherwise? To say the least, my respect of military leadership for its duplicity in this matter is low, to say the least.
11:06 pm on March 28th, 2010 80
If you addressed your rep in the same manner as your eloquence on this thread indicates I doubt your rep will respond much less be impressed by your graphical overtures. Regardless of ones views, as a Rep I would stay as far away from assocation with your views as possible. I am, quite frankly, against DADT being overturned without considering heterosexual right to privacy first and foremost, but people like you will speed along the reversal of DADT for no reason other than a reactionary impulse against anti-homo fanatics without reason or method. Thanks alot.
12:08 am on March 29th, 2010 81
MrChips,
"“Any straight guy that can honestly look at a hot chick and immediately gravitate towards her pooper is in fact GAY.”"
O.K. Here is the deal.
It is kind of strange to equate back-doorin' a girl to homosexuality.
Sure, gay men put their peepees in buttholes… but they suck peepees, too… meaning you can't really enjoy that BJ because gay men put their peepees in mouths.
And lesbians munch carpet and play with boobies… so you can't do that, either.
What's left? Male-dominate missionary position while wearing an All Fags Must Die t-shirt?
I can certainly understand not wanting to do it.
One might not want to degrade a woman they are being intimate with. One might not be turned on by dominating a woman. One might feel it isn't tight in the right places. One might not have met and understood the rare girls who prefer it. One might find it more dirty than sexy.
…and, it seems, one might somehow believe it makes one homosexual.
But this brings up an interesting question. Why?
If the thought is external… believing they will be judged by society as gay for certain private acts, even though they are with a girl and with no thoughts or actions involving another man, it sounds like homophobic paranoia.
If the thought is internal… being worried that being with a girl in a way similar to how gay men are with each other might make them gay, it sounds like insecurity of sexual identity.
Otherwise, I don't get it.
"It means if you think differently I say you’re gay. Suck it up, pardon the pun."
I remember, back in the day, when you had to have sex with another man to be accused of being gay. Now, it seems, you can be accused of being gay even if you are surrounded by virgin schoolgirls not wishing to get pregnant… even if there are no other dudes for miles away.
Maybe the gays are just trying to practice their version of inclusiveness… or maybe it is a gay conspiracy to secretly try to increase their numbers.
I don't understand… and it's all very creepy.
12:48 am on March 29th, 2010 82
hmmm, I didn't find it that much of a conundrum at all. When the good book talks about being "[given] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another" I don't see any difference. Let's be honest, without religous guidelines there isn't much to condemn homosexual behavior as deviant no matter how you want to frame "natural" conditions. And so, it seems to me, the deviation from the "natural" intent of sexual attraction and desire, whether homo or hetero inclined, is perversion that comes down from the same "giving over" to degrading of the body. I personally can't fathom how a guy can still spring wood when thinking about diving in the back door regardless of the target gender. Has it really gotten to the point that perversion has seeped so far into society that that is such a rare reaction? Please tell me it's not. Nevertheless, I'll continue to view perversion as perversion, regardless of its gender characterization.
7:27 am on March 29th, 2010 83
Maybe you have a point- many of us have believed in nothing- and accepted anything- and now we're going to fall for this.
7:38 am on March 29th, 2010 84
Long before the time of Christ, many other peoples of the ancient world, most historically the Greeks, were particularly known for this type of sexual practice, both homosexually and heterosexually. Yet, nowhere in any gospel have I heard that they were specially condemned for it.
I don't think anyone has ever said exactly what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing that earned them the ultimate punishment, but it was probably not That.
7:50 am on March 29th, 2010 85
Nah- They were doing That. Fags that they were…
8:31 am on March 29th, 2010 86
I wonder how anti-gay forces in the military feel about this?
Marine's dad ordered to pay protesters' court fees
12:00 pm on March 29th, 2010 87
MrChips,
I see.
Your supposition that sex with a woman is the same as homosexuality is based not upon logic or reason… but upon your particular interpretation of cryptic and questionably-translated passages from a continually-reinterpreted ancient text.
Reason seldom trumps emotion in cases such as this… so I have little hope in convincing you otherwise.
It is interesting to note that Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality is followed by other great sins such as cutting your hair and beard or wearing clothes made of two types of material.
I'll take your argument much more seriously when you stop cherrypicking to suit your particular dislikes and conveniences and follow ALL the words of God.
As a final thought, if your concern is "degradation of the body", I submit that I can find many examples, from eating fast food to not exercising regularly, which degrade the body much more than pounding a trollop in the turd slicer every now and then.
1:04 pm on March 29th, 2010 88
Joe, that is a jacked up story, hopefully that guy doesn't have to pay Phelps.
8:40 pm on March 29th, 2010 89
So, you are an expert in what passages are or are not accurately translated, you haven't read Leviticus carefully but love to "cherrypick" for nice sensational tidbits, you already know my beliefs concerning "ALL" the words of God because you and I have discussed it so much already, you make my assumptions for me concerning degradation, and you presume my views on fast food and exercise ( I assume the overindulgence in one and the complete lack thereof in the other, but then I'm only assuming) all because I call the anti-homo crowd hypocrites for labeling homosexuality as unnatural, disgusting, sexually deviant, whatever when in fact they themselves engage in likewise unnatural, disgusting, sexually deviant whatever you want to call it behavior. That's anything but reason buddy. I'm only asking for consistency and that's not emotion, numbnuts, that's reason. Take all your homos, all your cannibals, all your dog buggerers, and all your so-called straight guys treating their gals like a bit of prison bait and dump them, reasonably, into the category of what they are…perverts.
3:07 am on March 30th, 2010 90
Hmmm…
Let's dissect your post.
"So, you are an expert in what passages are or are not accurately translated"
Not really. I can, however, using the Internet, access at least TWENTY current English translations of the Bible… all of which shade the passages with different nuances based on sectarian agendas… not to mention past ecumenical councils… but, then, that's why we have schisms, isn't it? I don't need to be a biblical expert to clearly see there are conflicting versions… one of which, you have partially chosen to base your life decisions on… and selectively used as justification for publicly vocal opinions.
"you haven’t read Leviticus carefully but love to “cherrypick” for nice sensational tidbits"
There is no sensation. There is what is clearly written in all versions of the Bible. There is following the Word of God and there is following HALF the Word of God. Accusing me of 'cherrypicking sensational tidbits' for pointing out the clear commands of God that you choose not to follow is a rather weak position… and it detracts from the legitimacy of the beliefs you profess.
"you already know my beliefs concerning “ALL” the words of God because you and I have discussed it so much already"
Not at all. However, I do know that you cut your hair on the sides, have no beard, eat pork, eat lobster and shellfish… and probably wear blended fabric… meaning that you follow only the commands of God that are convenient or fit your secular belief structure… such as condemnation of homosexuality. This greatly weakens any argument you may make based on scripture.
"you make my assumptions for me concerning degradation,"
No. You spoke first of "degrading of their bodies". I simply pointed out that a large number of people, including devout Christians, are degrading their bodies in much worse ways.
"and you presume my views on fast food and exercise"
No. Once again, I simply pointed it out.
"all because I call the anti-homo crowd hypocrites for labeling homosexuality as unnatural, disgusting, sexually deviant, whatever when in fact they themselves engage in likewise unnatural, disgusting, sexually deviant whatever you want to call it behavior."
That may, or may not, be true… but that's not what I was commenting on. I was commenting on, "Any straight guy that can honestly look at a hot chick and immediately gravitate towards her pooper is in fact GAY."
I simply said that a lot of guys come in by the back way without any aspect of homosexuality being involved.
As you now clarify, you may personally place them in the same category as homos and perverts… but it doesn't make them "in fact GAY".
Further, hetero (and even experimental homo) anal sex may or may not be deviant. A quick Internet check gave me some shocking statistics about how common it is.
"That’s anything but reason buddy. I’m only asking for consistency and that’s not emotion, numbnuts, that’s reason."
I see. Scripture is your baseline… so, in your paradigm, your request for consistency is reasonable.
Your emotion-over-reason comes from a much deeper level.
As for calling me "numbnuts", that pretty much confirms they type of "Christian" I suspected you were. As with most, it is a shield or a crutch and not a way of life.
Also, on a personal note, my nuts aren't numb. I have been fondling them on and off while typing this and they are very tactile right now… especially as the weather has warmed up and they are swinging lower than they have for the last 6 months.
"Take all your homos, all your cannibals, all your dog buggerers, and all your so-called straight guys treating their gals like a bit of prison bait and dump them, reasonably, into the category of what they are…perverts."
That's very narrow-minded. Some of those actions affect others and some don't.
Consenting homos aren't anyone's business… and any God that will condemn a good-hearted homo while blessing some of the "Christians" I have met is not a god worthy of following.
Cannibals can consume all the human flesh anyone is willing to donate or no longer needs (I lived on Papua New Guinea and I have a soft spot for certain types of cannibals).
Dog buggery is kinda hard on the dog… I can't condone that.
And guys who treat "their gals like a bit of prison bait and dump them" are probably shytbags… but guys who have anal sex with a willing girl aren't.
What else is there to argue about?
I have nothing against you personally. You did good work in Japan for almost 5 years… and now in Korea as well… and you aren't a bad guy… but I am more than happy to debate the fine points if you wish to go on.
If your statement has been modified to, "In my opinion, guys who backdoor girls are perverts," I can accept it… but I will disagree with, "Any straight guy that can honestly look at a hot chick and immediately gravitate towards her pooper is in fact GAY."
That's all.
5:51 am on March 30th, 2010 91
My hat is off to you again CH.
Well said.
Have you written any books yet? If not, perhaps you should.
I would like to pre Order!
9:15 am on March 30th, 2010 92
Mr. Chips. I am anti Homo in the US military but CH calls into question your beliefs and the basis thereof. I have never met a true “Christian” in all my life. If a TRUE Xian follows their book to the letter, they would be serving time in prison. But, that would be the deity’s will, so it’s ok. One cannot pick and chose when it comes to the inerrant word of the Almighty. One must submit and follow and let the earthly authorities punish as appropriate. So it is written. Your time on earth is short compared to your eternal heavenly reward, so GO FOR IT!
Go in peace my brother.
10:47 am on March 30th, 2010 93
Well, I guess I should never go into these diatribes expecting to get someone to agree but it's good to know someone can at least respond, for the most part, in a genuine and creative manner. Of course I'll still stand by what I wrote. I think you've displayed that you don't have enough exposure to what Scripture actually says, in any version, or to what I actually believe from it to make a judgment on the former's interpretation or my following of it. Clearly there are differing personal interpretations, of every single book that was ever written. Doesn't inherently make every person's interpretation wrong. And, it certainly isn't cause to be dismissive of the book or not try to understand that an interpretation may still have validity. Nevertheless, as I will highlight, you brought Scripture into the debate, not me; I only responded with it to highlight that you shouldn't be arguing from something you don't know regardless of tangential information you may have come across on different versions, strange Jewish customs, and church history, all of which is moot to me when considering the act we're talking about.
Example argument: "However, I do know that you cut your hair on the sides, have no beard, eat pork, eat lobster and shellfish… and probably wear blended fabric"
Really? You know that about me? That's what I'm talking about. Two-fold, that shows that you don't really understand what Scripture says, in any version, and that you're making assumptions about me, that at least from that quote of yours above are most certainly wrong on multiple points. Be honest, I didn't bring the Scripture argument into this, you did. But once you did, I only called into question your understanding of it, hence the inappropriateness of trying to argue based off it, and then I followed up with a quote, which was not from Leviticus though I'm guessing you didn't catch that may go and look up later. But you probably don't care because you can pick passages you think say something to zing someone with, without enough basic knowledge to know that there's more in scripture than just Leviticus. I don't think too many people, regardless of debate on other issues, would take a commandment specifically leveled at a small group of people and give it universal application. The quote I responded with, however, absolutely has universal application. You can choose to ignore both passages though I don't know why given the context you would be considering the Levitical passages.
Let's follow the argument past the failed attempt to insert Scripture as the redherring means of invalidating my statement. So far, you saw my "all butt pluggers are gay" comment and first simply labeled me naive (good debating tactic), then second tried to act as if I needed a physics lesson on why it might be actually pleasurable for some (sounds like a personal excuse), then YOU tried to bring scripture into it by assuming my SOLE basis lay there, and proceeded to argue against any belief derived from there in order to invalidate anyone's belief against homosexuality when in fact I never actually stated such a belief nor quoted any scripture, SPECIFICALLY directed to that. You bring in scripture then accuse me of cherrypicking when I provide a followup quote that has nothing to do with your Levitical context, nice.
My original statement stood without any kind of religious backup or intention so please don't try to frame my argument solely into that when you don't understand either what I believe from it or the basis from which you are arguing. If you think homosexuality, by definition, can only be the external sexual act of like-gender people then I can't convince you, nor can I understand you. I firmly believe that any man who would consciously have a desire to have anal sex with a woman is only barred from doing so with a man by his pride. So, I say being a homosexual is in your head not merely what you do and if a man has desires to have anal sex with a woman, I think he'd be willing to try the man route… oh yeah… and he's gay. Sorry if that narrowmindedness catches some of you self professed womanizers in its net. I won't lose sleep over it.
PS
Does "numbnuts" really highlight what "type" of Christian I am? Come on, what were you really looking for? some kind of unearthly behavior? What is it about "numbnuts" that you find to be indicative of a "type" of Christian? Is there an ideal behavior you want Christians to attain to but don't really care to follow yourself? I direct that more to anyone who likes to point the finger at Christians and mock at what they think is hypocrisy, not necessarily you. I have never met a single person of any faith who exhibited all the requisite characteristics of a Christian all the time, but the only ones who ever came close, were indeed Christians. I might be "unChristianly" crude sometimes for which maybe I should apologize. I'm not sure this meets the criteria – I mean really…numbnuts is over the line for you? I'm not thinking your standard for Christians is anything other than self-serving. But either way, I make no excuse for my exasperation with people who want to point the finger at homos for being sexually deviant when many of them are, to me, in the same category.
12:48 pm on March 30th, 2010 94
Making this a discussion on religion is a fast track to nowhere. All of us have our beliefs/lack thereof. For some of us, these beliefs manifest themselves in a very real way in our daily lives.
But this is really not a religious question- it's a cultural question. Granted, the western culture is indeed based on Christian values and traditions, but in and of itself, our culture is not a religion, nor is it particularly religious. On the flip side, it is not "non-religious", either, and there was a time when there was a place for thsoe who held more defined religious beliefs.
But that time has passed. Now, those who hold religious views are seen as part of the problem, whilst those who would be arse bandits are held up as an "alternative". Having had to live next to faggots, and the more strictly religious people, I would have to say that I prefer those of the religious bent. Your mileage may vary…
1:08 pm on March 30th, 2010 95
JoeC, Just a note to let you know that Bill O'Reilly said on his show that he would pay the fine levied on the fallen Marine's father which was more than $16,000. Good for Bill O'Reilly. That so called church makes me want to puke. If my son in the Navy was to die and some SOB was to carry picket signs saying that it was a good thing then I would be sending this message from prison.
1:15 pm on March 30th, 2010 96
THIS what you're talking about? Good on Mr Reilley.
1:39 pm on March 30th, 2010 97
I think that this discussion has somewhat gone off track. Saying that any male who has motorcrossed up a females hershey highway is a homosexual is silly. I have and am not. If that is not your thing then fine. Also the discussion on the Bible. Paul in the New Testament in talking about some of the laws in the Old Testament about food or circumcision said that acceptance of Christ's atonement made these laws mute. Also while scripture in the Old Testament condemned homosexuality Paul condemned homosexuality in the New Testament, let me add that this is NOT the reason that I oppose the repeal of DADT. As I said in earlier post my main concern is protecting the privacy of heterosexual troops from being forced to dress/undress & shower with homosexual troops. I asked before and never got an answer, if you say 'just get over it' then I say why not made men & women shower together. There is NO difference. I have served proudly with homosexual troops who simply wanted to SERVE but didn't want to hang a neon sign saying 'look at me.'
2:06 pm on March 30th, 2010 98
A few comments…
"Be honest, I didn’t bring the Scripture argument into this, you did."
I was somewhat surprised when you suggested that I brought scripture into this discussion… as that is a behavior which I more frequently ridicule than practice.
I was worried that I might be losing my mind.
Fortunately, a quick check revealed that after my rather secular post concerning peepees and buttholes, you posted:
"hmmm, I didn’t find it that much of a conundrum at all. When the good book talks about being “[given] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another”"
At first, I was shocked at the possibility that there might be ANOTHER Good Book of which I was totally unaware… but, no, you were quoting Romans 1:24 from New International Version (©1984).
That, I believe, would be, technically, the introduction of scripture… and introducing it to support a point of view and strengthen your argument… followed by shameless denial and an attempt to shift blame to me.
May I refer you to the rather important Exodus 20:16… and, perhaps, the ending of Matthew 19:18… among many others.
Once you framed the discussion in terms of theology rather than sociology, psychology, hygiene or personal tastes, I ran with it.
I brought up Leviticus 18:22/20:13 because they are 2 of the most popular of the 7 major biblical passages which are used to condemn homosexuals… ONLY gay men in the King James version… but Living Bible translations have sneakily included lesbianism by blatantly changing the wording and meaning… see my previous comments about different versions of the Bible.
None-the-less, God is very clear about male homosexual acts, bacon and lobster. You can't take the one you want and leave the rest while blaming strange Jewish customs for commands you don't wish to be limited by.
"If you think homosexuality, by definition, can only be the external sexual act of like-gender people then I can’t convince you, nor can I understand you."
The Bible seems to define it this way. Nowhere will you find condemnation of heterosexual anal sex… nor any direct Leviticus-style condemnation of girl-on-girl.
"Does “numbnuts” really highlight what “type” of Christian I am? Come on, what were you really looking for? some kind of unearthly behavior? What is it about “numbnuts” that you find to be indicative of a “type” of Christian? "
James 1:26
That was a cheap shot.
How about Colossians 3:8.
Once again, we have cherrypicking about what commands of God need to be followed.
We can go on and on about this… but, likely, anything you say can be nullified by clear and direct quotes from the Bible that need no reinterpretation.
I'll say again, you are welcome to find anal sex needless and disgusting. We can discuss the fine points if you insist… and we may well agree on most.
But a blanket statement claiming that all men who engage in heterosexual anal sex are secret gays is wrong.
3:51 pm on March 30th, 2010 99
Reason will never win over emotion, its why we have such screwed up politicians these days.
7:02 pm on April 1st, 2010 100
Best point in support of Mixon I have read. "Since when are commanders forbidden from supporting existing policies?"