By Here is what Rick Perry thinks about the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy:
Rick Perry said it was “irresponsible” for President Barack Obama to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military.
In an ABC News/Yahoo News interview, Perry called don’t ask, don’t tell a “workable policy.” The Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate accused Obama of playing politics with the military.
“(Obama) wanted to make a political statement, using the men and women in the military as a tool for that,” the Republican presidential candidate told ABC’s Christiane Amanpour. “I truly believe that he did it to respond to his political base.”
But Perry refused to say whether he would reinstate the policy if he were elected president. He told ABC/Yahoo that he would be “comfortable” going back to the policy. [The Ticket]
Like I have always said, the repeal of the DADT will be much to do about nothing in the military, but this won’t stop the politicians and activist groups from trying to demagogue this issue as much as possible for their own cynical political reasons. If Rick Perry did get elected President I would hope the US military brass would fight tooth and nail to prevent him from reinstating the policy.
She hasn’t seen...
7:06 pm on November 9th, 2011 1
Perry is just like George Bush (43), only not as smart.
/After his uber “Rick’s Prayer-palooza For Rain”™ in the Astrodome, the whole state burst into flames.
7:37 pm on November 9th, 2011 2
There should be no homosexuals in the military. They are all left wing radicals. The majority of real sexual abuse and assault already came from lesbians of higher rank, but was/is largely unreported. The queers have been a protected political group even before DADT was repealed, and will continue to negatively influence the military now that they have full protection. What we need to return to is pre-Clinton policy, period. Not many real combat infantryman want queers in their units. Perhaps the support and avaition types dont mind.
7:51 pm on November 9th, 2011 3
It seems to me the (almost) full desegregation of women in the military have had more far reaching negative consequences than gays ever have or will. If we were really concerned about our military we wouldn’t let our policy be guided by political correctness.
7:58 pm on November 9th, 2011 4
Though it may make me sound like a dinosaur, I have to agree that no women should serve. The purpose of the Army is to fight and win the nation’s wars, and real military effectiveness has been hurt since 1976 when this policy was changed by Carter.
I have known many fine female soldiers, NCOs, and officers, but their inclusion was always about appeasing a vocal political group, the feminists. It was never about increasing combat readiness or effectiveness. I mean no slight toward any female who has or is serving, but we would be a better Army if it were male only, for many reasons that Americans understood from 1775 until 1976.
The Army was changed drastically during the 1990′s, with SecArmy Togo West executing a deliberate policy to “De-masculinize” the Army. It has worked.
8:24 pm on November 9th, 2011 5
“De-masculinize” or “feminize” same thing, same result – up to and including our current discipline problems.
Those political feminists (Pat Schroeder, Nancy Pelosi, et al) will never, ever send THEIR daughters to the military but they will use the service of those from the underclasses to further their political aims. None of those aims include defending the nation.
9:05 pm on November 9th, 2011 6
““(Obama) wanted to make a political statement, using the men and women in the military as a tool for that,” the Republican presidential candidate told ABC’s Christiane Amanpour. “I truly believe that he did it to respond to his political base.””
Can’t say I’m surprised. I don’t expect this guy to get human rights. 234 executions while he’s been governor of Texas.
9:34 pm on November 9th, 2011 7
234 executions is a good think. 235 would be better still. Gay is not a “human rights issue”. But it sure makes SOME people feel better about themselves to think it is.
Womens Army Corp. Bring it back! It worked.
Bring back dancers in the NCO club. That worked well also. I’m sure that makes teadrinker feel all icky and stuff. Males watching females dance on a stage. Icky!!!
Murderers being executed, a “human rights issue”? Well YEAH! They should be killed in the same manner as they took others lives. No last meal either!
9:45 pm on November 9th, 2011 8
#7,
It is a matter of human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
And capital punishment is state sanctioned murder, and is not an effective deterrent to crime. The US has 2.5 million people behind bars, more than even China with it’s effed up human rights abuses, think about that.
10:12 pm on November 9th, 2011 9
It’s been about a month since the repeal and as far as I can tell, other than a Las Vegas convention, there has been no mass coming out parades. Most people who were quietly gay before are still quietly gay and remain in the closet.
There will always be those who look for any opportunity to make political and ideological points. September’s court martial stats were all about sex and drugs. Mark my words. Some day, those stats will include sex incidents of the homosexual type and some will be quick to shout “AHA! See! I told you!” That doesn’t require a crystal ball.
There are probably as many homosexual deviants as there are heterosexual. Just look at our politicians and religious leaders. Is it right to use those worst cases to disparage them all?
#2
“They are all left wing radicals.”
Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?
If you, and Rick Perry, were readers of Stars and Stripes and Military.com, you would find that the corruption of the military has gone and will go far beyond what gays can do.
Address the real problems instead of the made up one.
10:24 pm on November 9th, 2011 10
8. Teadrinker is correct: The US Prison For Profit system is a disaster, along with the War on Drugs, which feeds it. The lobbyists for the prison corporations are always pushing for more laws with stiffer penalties. This is a BIG PROBLEM to say the least and the biggest danger to our freedoms and the American way of life, whatever that may be to each individual.
9. Agreed as well: There are a whole host of problems which should take precedence over the ghey issue. Hell, I’m not a big fan of gays and yes there are some with a definite agenda but let’s put out the BIG fires before we blame the flamers.
10:43 pm on November 9th, 2011 11
“It’s been about a month since the repeal and as far as I can tell, other than a Las Vegas convention, there has been no mass coming out parades. Most people who were quietly gay before are still quietly gay and remain in the closet.”
Or could it be that many of the gay who serve in the military are exceptional individuals who, just like the Tuskegee Airmen, are aware that they are expected to fail, and therefore hold themselves to high standards than most others so they won’t give anyone the satisfaction of seeing them falter?
10:43 pm on November 9th, 2011 12
Correction: higher standards than most.
10:47 pm on November 9th, 2011 13
…That and maybe repealing DADT does little to offer them protection against discrimination and harassment. It’s just one step.
1:34 am on November 10th, 2011 14
Rick Perry paraphrased:
“[There are three countries in the Axis of Evil; Iran, Iraq], and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see.
“[Iran] and, let’s see,”
“I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”
Ho boy! Details. Details. Why are we so hung up on details? They don’t matter once you become president.
Just drop the bombs somewhere. Trust in the Lord to sort it out.
Where is Ubekibekibekistanstan, again?
5:10 am on November 10th, 2011 15
Teadrinker #8, Effective deterant? It is not designed as such. It is PUNISHMENT! Punishment for wrongfully taking another person’s life. Is that really so difficult to understand?
(actually, there are a handful of people alive today, because I don’t wish to go to jail for killing them)
#11, Gays are NOT like the Tuskegee Airmen, in any way. They were black 24-7-365. For all to see. Not so with gays. Gays have NEVER been expected to FAIL because they are gay. They are expected to suck genitals, and do the wrong hole because they are gay. Again, not difficult to understand, except for you it seems.
I take it back teadrinker. You’re not gay. You have no IDEA what gay even IS.
As for China having less individuals in jail, well DUH. They kill them.
5:29 am on November 10th, 2011 16
“Punishment for wrongfully taking another person’s life. Is that really so difficult to understand?”
Is it so hard to understand that punishment is meant to be a deterrent? (Well, as long as you forget the interests of the prison industrial complex, that is.)
5:31 am on November 10th, 2011 17
“Gays are NOT like the Tuskegee Airmen, in any way. They were black 24-7-365. For all to see. Not so with gays. Gays have NEVER been expected to FAIL because they are gay.”
They are now. Perry is clearly appealing to a segment of the electorate (some of which are in the military) that desperately want gays in the military to fail so that they can reinstate DADT.
7:29 am on November 10th, 2011 18
Punishment is just that—Punisment, for what was done to others by said individual. It is too late for a deterrent.
They are because you SAY they are? Not good enough. They are not even close. Gays have been successful throughout the past. No reason for them to SUDDENLY start failing now Teadrinker.
Only the ones that want to push the issue onto others will have problems.
As for Perry, why do we care. He isn’t getting the nomination.
Again, I have never known a gay to fail at anything — except getting some of my sweet a$$.
7:29 pm on November 10th, 2011 19
Why are we even debating the US Military with a … Canadian. Seriously ….
7:24 am on November 11th, 2011 20
#19,
Debating the US military? No, it’s deeper than that. You should listen to Canadians more often. We have your best interests in mind. What’s good for you is good for us. Don’t believe me? Largest trade relationship in the world, longest peacefully shared border, common ancestry (many Americans are descendants of Canadians, many Canadians are descendants of Americans)…We’re practically family. If you can’t appreciate that, then you’re not as smart as you think you are.
12:25 pm on November 11th, 2011 21
I agree with Teadrinker.
…and I believe that Canada DOES have America’s interests in mind to some extent…
…much in the way a well-meaning dotty old aunt wants to hook you up with this “nice” girl she met at church.
Sure, this girl is a little fat, wears only ankle-length flower print dresses, and has her hair perpetually in a bun… but if you will just listen to your aunt, you will eventually be content… and things will work out pretty well in the long-run… with a couple of band-geek kids, a stable job in middle management, a 30 year mortgage on a picket-fenced tract home, and a 9 year-old brown sedan.
But as an American, you want more.
You want that smokin’-hot, platinum blond, leather-clad heiress to the chain of liquor stores who races Harleys and likes to eat your cream pies out of her girlfriend’s butt.
Dangerous? Oh yes… but oh, so satisfying in a way the couch potatoes can only dream of.
And… this defines the Canadian Experience.
…quite content with the perfectly pleasant and stable life they built for themselves… but always peeping over the wall with a bit of restless envy, tinged with a bit of discomfort, at the carefree lifestyle of their loud neighbors who shoot into the air indiscriminately, play with lots of cool smoke-belching toys, and are constantly having a great party filled with strippers and blow.
Someday, Canada, America may be forced to grow up, leave the party, and get a job.
SOMEday…but not TOday.
12:40 pm on November 11th, 2011 22
21 Damn ChickenHead! You DO have a way with words.
And you are correct. As is Teadrinker in #20. What is good for America is also good for Canada.
12:42 pm on November 11th, 2011 23
Some day, may be far from today.
10:28 pm on November 11th, 2011 24
“but always peeping over the wall with a bit of restless envy…at the carefree lifestyle of their loud neighbors”
You’ve clearly never been to St. Catherines in Montreal.
10:44 am on November 21st, 2011 25
THE IMMORALITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
By
Phil Scovell
Copyright(C) 1997-2003
By Phil Scovell
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of the following is granted by the copyright holder,
Phil Scovell, if such reproduction is done in the spirit in which
it was given. It may not be reproduced and sold for financial
gain without written permission of the copyright holder: Phil
Scovell. Electronic formats may be distributed freely but this
copyright notice must remain with each copy and the text cannot
be altered in any way. For convenience, this copyright
notification may be placed at the end of the document if
reproduced electronically.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Phil Scovell
840 South Sheridan Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80226-8017
Voice: 303-936-2188
Email: Phil@RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
Web: http://WWW.RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
Today the issue of homosexuality is impossible to avoid. On
radio and television talk shows, in the White House and from the
chambers of congress, in our churches, schools, homes and on the
streets, homosexuals are demanding attention. History most
certainly will reflect on the last decade of the 20th century as
the “gay 90′s.”
Though there was a day when homosexuality used to be an
issue of morality, it now has become both a social and spiritual
matter. In spite of the clear Biblical condemnation of
homosexual sin, now homosexuals are claiming to be regenerated,
blood washed, born again Bible Believers. Are they?
Before answering this question, I want to parenthetically
state that I am a born again fundamentalist Christian. I believe
homosexuality is not only wrong but immoral and violates both the
Holy Scriptures and the morals of society. I will also state,
however, that the purpose of this article is to prove that
Christians do not need the Bible to justify their claims that
homosexuality is not only wrong, but immoral.
Annetta Briant sacrificed her career in the 1970′s for her
belief that homosexuality was abnormal. She was right and her
position needs to be acclaimed again in this decade.
First, homosexuality is abnormal because it is biologically
incompatible with nature. There isn’t a single creature in the
animal kingdom which affords reproduction between species of the
same sex. the human race does not, nor has it ever, nor will it
ever, reproduce by same sex procreation. thus, homosex sexuality
is biologically abnormal.
Second, homosexuality is abnormal physically. The human
body is anatomically incompatible with same sex expression. Even
if one doesn’t believe in God’s existence, rejects the divine
creation of man, or denies the inerrancy of the Bible, but rather
lays claim to evolutionary progression, we would have to
logically agree that there is no physiological compatibility in
homosexual copulation. Unless, of course, some perversion is
employed to compensate for the anatomical differences. The way
homosexuals are forced to express themselves physically, due to
the lack of anatomical compatibility, demonstrates the
abnormality of their sexuality.
Finally, there is the emotional aspect of the homosexual
abnormality. Today gays are attempting to convince us (they’ve
already convinced the White House) that homosexuality is not only
normal but socially acceptable. They want minority status,
military recognition, political equality, social integration,
Christian integrity, civil accommodation, societal complicity,
educational credibility and employment uniformity. Though I’ve
not heard the argument by the homosexual community, it won’t be
long before they claim emotional equality and stability with the
rest of society. I suggest it is psychologically impossible to
justify the emotional normality of a person who is attempting to
reverse, or otherwise distort, what is physically and
biologically normal.
Now that I have made these statements, a number of questions
demand our attention. Do homosexuals have rights? Should they
be allowed in the military? Should government grant gays
minority status? Should they be treated differently? Do they
have the right of employment? Should homosexuals be allowed
to teach our children? Should they be allowed to come in to our
schools and inform students of the gay life style as an
alternative? What about transsexuals. Are they male or female?
Concerning Christianity, can homosexuals be born again? Should
they be allowed to teach Sunday school? Should they be permitted
to serve as deacons and elders? What about homosexuals in the
pastoral office? The answers to all of these questions is
dependant upon one’s view of sexual normality. If homosexuality
is in fact physically and emotionally normal, (biologically it
cannot be) then we would be forced to grant homosexuals every and
all courtesies, rights and privileges the rest of society shares.
If, on the other hand, homosexuality is abnormal, then the answer
would be different. Before I personally address these questions,
let me relate a personal experience.
I was raised in a conventional Christian home. My father
was a preacher, my mother active in all phases of church work and
my sisters and I all went to Bible colleges. One of my best
friends during my teenage years, however, was gay. He was about
three years older when we began spending a lot of time together
and he had already completed one year of Bible college. He was
very musically skilled; playing both piano and organ in church.
His parents had been African missionaries. When he embraced
homosexuality and accepted himself as such, he dropped out of
Bible college and enrolled in nurses training. I spent many
hours with this young man and though I knew he was homosexual,
the subject never once came up and I was never physically
approached by him in any way. We occasionally spent weekends in
the dormitory, swimming together in the school pool, slept in the
same room, shared meals, and even often attended church services
together. Never was there any hint of sexual suggestiveness or
involvement. We were simply buddies. Years later I learned he
was also a confessed pedophile at the time. I say this to make
sure it is understood that my answers to the questions I have
raised are not based on a homophobic response or personal
predigest.
In light of this, here are my answers to the posed
questions.
Do homosexuals have rights?
Of course. They are human beings just like anyone else.
they have the right to be treated as such; to hold jobs, pay
taxes and to function in society as anyone might as long as it is
within the law. Do they have, or should they have, special
rights? No. Unless, of course, they claim they are somehow
different than the rest of society and today they are claiming
sameness (I.E., normality).
Should they be allowed in the military?
Actually I differ with most leading fundamentalists on this
issue. I frankly have no objections whatsoever to homosexuals
serving in the military. The argument I have heard from
Christians on this question is, not the inability of the
homosexual to serve and do as good of job soldiering as anyone,
but it is a matter of drawing the line somewhere. With this I
concur. If, however, the military establishment is going to ask
recruits if they are homosexual, they should also ask if the
recruit is immoral in his heterosexual behavior. Adultery and
premarital sex is just as immoral as homosexuality. Any service
personnel found acting unbecoming of an officer should be band
from military service. There is, for that matter, absolutely no
evidence homosexuals in the military are less or more immoral
than heterosexuals. Contrary to most popular beliefs,
homosexuals are generally interested in establishing sexual
relationships with other homosexuals; not heterosexuals.
Should government grant gays minority status?
Of course not. Homosexuals desire the right of liberty as
do all Americans but their minority status is a result of
personal choice; not of birth. Though some will argue to the
contrary, there is thus far no scientific evidence to
substantiate the claim.
Should they be treated differently?
It depends upon the meaning of “differently.” If we are
talking about every day courtesy, the answer must be no. If we
are speaking of acts of immorality, they should be treated as
anyone who is living an immoral life.
Do they have the right of employment?
Most certainly; as do all Americans who are willing to work.
Should homosexuals be allowed to teach our children?
Most Christians say no. This is largely due to fear that
the teacher will somehow interpose his beliefs on to the student.
this, of course, is the price we all pay for public education.
Even when I was in high school in the late 1960′s, some of my
public school teachers, without a doubt, attempted to project
their evolutionary and immoral ideas into their teaching. We
knew, even as teenagers, some were living immoral life styles by
the way they conducted themselves in class.
Should they be allowed to come in to our schools and inform
students of the gay life style as an alternative life?
No more than someone living an adulterous life should be
allowed to enter a school and attempt to teach their life style
is socially acceptable. Immorality is immorality no matter who
teaches.
What about transsexuals. Are they male or female?
they are what God made them before their surgery.
can homosexuals be born again?
Anyone confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and repenting of
their sin can be born again. There must be a great deal of
doubt, however, if one confesses Christ as Lord but his life does
not change.
Should they be allowed to teach Sunday school? Should they
be permitted to serve as deacons and elders? What about
homosexuals in the pastoral office?
Only if there is genuine repentance of sin and a
renunciation of immorality and a demonstration of faithfulness to
God’s Word. In which case they would no longer be homosexuals.
Christians have a lot of misconceptions about homosexuals,
one of which is that all homosexuals are pedophiles. This most
certainly is untrue but Christians are justified in demanding
that a line be drawn. The Christian’s view, besides being
Biblical in nature, must also be one based on normality.
Homosexuality is not only immoral but abnormal by its very
nature. It is such for the same reasons sex with animals is
abnormal because all three areas of reasoning, biologically,
physiologically and emotionally, all apply accordingly.
Finally, the Christians attitude is (should be) one of
regeneration and forgiveness. Homosexuals who come to Jesus
Christ, confessing Him as Lord and Savior of their lives, are not
only forgiven but changed and made new just as anyone else.
Though some behavior by human beings may be unconventional and
even considered abnormal, it may not be immoral. Homosexuality
is both abnormal and immoral and the Bible declares immorality
sin whether it be homosex or heterosex. Fortunately, all can be
forgiven and made right with God and His Son Jesus Christ.
11:28 pm on February 9th, 2012 26
@21 Chickenhead I am probably going to Hell for just reading your post but…..bahhahaha!
11:39 pm on February 9th, 2012 27
@24 Don’t let me piss on your head while YOU tell me its raining lol!
3:44 am on February 11th, 2012 28
Doesn’t the Canadian government let poor people with cancer die if they are over 65 because they’re no longer productive members of society (therefore contributing less taxes) and have laws limiting the amount of American television that can be shown?
6:57 am on February 11th, 2012 29
28, Sounds like a good idea that. America should do that with it’s poor as well.
You’ve been on food stamps for (pick a length of time). Couldn’t get a job or pay your rent and taxes for say 5 years. America is now done with you.
Oh, and for those whores that are on public assistance for their third baby and not married ever — Tie those tubes or no assistance for you. Drug users on public assistance? Rat Posion.