Alan Simpson is my favorite kind of Republican. He's no longer in office.

People who are afraid of gays are closet cases.

Funny how early armies encouraged gay sex to promote brotherhood in the ranks and our military forbids gays because it would destroy harmony in the ranks.

So, if they deny God's orders, how can we be sure they'll follow their commander's orders?

Fortunately, our Founders thought of this, when they decided that God's orders and the commander's orders should be kept separate.

The DoD are just big wusses - they'd rather not have to deal with the inevitable cases of discrimination and harassment which would arise. They already have to deal with that in the areas of race and gender, same as everybody else.

Otoh, think if they rescind the ban - what rationale would remain to other public and private entities have to continue to discriminate? horrors.

> The problem is that gays openly defy America's
> moral values, by defying God

Um, pray tell, who is America's God?

My all-time favorite comment about gays in the military is Molly Ivins's: I guess they're hiding behind their Foster-Grant sunglasses.

BTW, has Sanchez been terminated yet?

So, if they deny God's orders, how can we be sure they'll follow their commander's orders?

Therefore, people who have divorced or committed adultery should not be allowed in the military, either. Not to mention those stinkin' Moloch worshippers!

If there's a better reason than that for allowing gays to serve in the military, I can't think of one.

Snappier outfits.

Intercourse happens naturally and easily between a man and a woman, but is disease-ridden and a health hazard between gay men

Of course that logic implies that lesbians are God's chosen people.

(btw, surely this was AHock; too ridiculous not to be satire.)

People please, AH isn't arguing, he's dismissing. Don't bother to find a foundation to his opinion, there isn't one. Its noise.

People who are afraid of gays are usually people who have never met a gay person

People who are afraid of gays are usually not certain about or comfortable with their own sexuality.

I'd agree with American Hawk, but he forgets the steamy nights we enjoyed together between trolling Washington Monthly and Daily Kos.

If loving Hawk is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Call me, lover.

our military forbids gays because it would destroy harmony in the ranks.

Which is at least a pertinent (if specious) argument. But the recent comments by Pace indicate that the real reason for the ban has more to do with the wholly irrational argument that gays are immoral.

It's very easy to come to your senses when you are no longer an elected Senator from Wyoming.

I hope those right wing folks extolling the virtues of the new movie '300' know that Spartans encouraged homosexuality in their military.

People please, AH isn't arguing, he's dismissing. Don't bother to find a foundation to his opinion, there isn't one. Its noise.

What makes this any different from the rest of the stupidity he posts here?

Spartans encouraged homosexuality in their military.

It was more than encouraged. If an adult male Spartan did not adopt a young male for (*ahem*) "mentoring", he was levied a stiff fine.

In 1988, I still leaned to the right (or where the right used to be).

I didn't want to vote for Bush I, and I didn't want to vote for Dukakis, who struck me as being the greatest City Manager the country has ever seen.

So I wrote in Alan Simpson, as he was pro-choice, and pro-fiscal responsibility.

I'm still pretty happy I did that.

That's pretty much what Barney Frank said when asked if he was concerned about an amendment to the MA constitution. He said that because the process was so time-consuming--two legislatures in a row had to pass it, and then there was, IIRC, a referendum that there was no need to worry. It would become clear well within that timeframe that gay marriage didn't hurt anybody or anything.

Watching Giuliani in the polls is leading to the conclusion that the wingnuts don't really care about these issues, either. It really is just about power and money. There are no values voters.

Sure there are. They value power and money.

I find it amusing that the military will condone the use of torture and requires the act of murder, but finds consensual sexual contact to preclude service on the basis of "morality."

Wyoming Republican politicians are coming to their senses. Two Republican state legislators have broken with the party line in recent weeks and made impassioned public statements in support of gay rights, including marriage / civil unions.

Wyoming Republican politicians are coming to their senses.

Well, of course. Where do you think all those log cabin Republicans have their log cabins?

The general population is moving very rapidly on gitm and gay marraige. In five years it will be hard to find someone (outside the GOP) that will admit to ever having been concerned about these issues. The challenge for the GOP is holding their coalition together. The GOP has been exposed as as weak on national defense, hostile to the military, and inept at all the facets of government except corruption. Their coalition is based on lower taxes, racism, and homophobia. They are entering a world where the demand for the last item is dwindling rapidly. That last item has been critical for them in the last three elections and it is turning against them.

The most effective fighting force in the history of humanity (Ancient Greeks; Spartans) were nearly entirely gay, by social convention, and ritual.

Maybe we could defeat the Persians if we followed the lessons of the past. Bush doesn't seem to be doing a good job defeating the Persians with his phony-macho gay-bashing. Just ask Jeff Gannon.

Well, of course. Where do you think all those log cabin Republicans have their log cabins?Well, of course. Where do you think all those log cabin Republicans have their log cabins?

Heh. Seriously, as I posted on Pandagon last week about this issue, I think the West is deceptively fertile ground for gay rights. There are issues where conventional liberal positions are not going to have much traction--gun control and the environment come to mind--but gay rights is not one of them. I'm not a native, so this is just a feeling from travel and interaction with the locals, but I see a lot of potential in the West's intersection of fierce independence, respect for privacy, and a frontier spirit that values fresh starts.

Let's not forget that Wyoming was the first state to grant women suffrage.

KEVIN DRUM: People who are afraid of gays are usually people who have never met a gay person (or think they haven't, anyway). Conversely, people who have quickly learn that there's nothing to be afraid of.

The most effective fighting force in the history of humanity (Ancient Greeks; Spartans) were nearly entirely gay, by social convention, and ritual.

Not to mention the US Marines....

jayarbee:

To be fair, one element that seems to crop up among Republicans who come over to the humane side on gay rights is that they have a gay family member. (See one of the aforementioned Wyoming legislators, or the Vice-President, for that matter). I can't believe this is a coincidence.

With respect to slavery, never underestimate the inertia of an institution provides free labor and rape to the perpetuators of the institution.

Watching Giuliani in the polls is leading to the conclusion that the wingnuts don't really care about these issues, either. It really is just about power and money. There are no values voters.

There are values voters, but they are mostly not that tuned-in to the facts, but to a narrow band of opinion leaders: those opinion leaders, in turn, are not themselves values voters, but instead interested in their own power and money. They therefore highlight issues that will motivate their values-voters followers only when it serves their personal political and financial interests, and downplay or outright deny the facts otherwise.

People who are afraid of gays are usually people who have never met a gay person

Either that or Monsters Inc. has been over-utilizing a 300+ pound gay man with a killer wolf whistle decked out in full leather motorcycle regalia.

Clinton did it too!

... I didn't want to vote for Dukakis, who struck me as being the greatest City Manager the country has ever seen.

That has to be the most hilarious (and accurate) descriptions of Dukakis I've ever read.

Forget the Army,AH and I are just workig hard to rid the Republican party of those nasty gays.We could not believe that over 40% of the party is gay AH and I have are work cut out for us.David Dryer your next on our list.

As long as the Republicans remain in thrall to their Mouth-Breathing Medieval Magic-Worship Caucus -- who, incidentally, comprise an outsized percentage of their primary voters -- then they'll stay opposed.

They'll say it's about "morality," or "unity," or maybe they'll trot out all the old arguments about why African-Americans were congenitally unfit to be more than mess-hall attendants. But in the end, it's not a reasonable position, and therefore it's not subject to argument based in reason.

The fear and hatred harbored by homophobes is not due to not having met homosexuals, but to prejudice which was instilled . . .
Posted by: jayarbee on March 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's neither of those.

I know exactly what it is - and here's my moment of understanding, and reaching out to the other side: They are afraid that if their kids see to men kissing in public, or two women holding hands, or have a friend with two dads, that they will have to explain "it all" to their kids.

And they're afraid that by explaining "it all" to their kids, they would be robbing their kids of their innocence (for one) and even encouraging "the lifestyle choice" and by doing so, will end up converting their otherwise straight, grandchildren-bearing children, into childless family-legacy-destroying gays themselves.

I admit, that I don't know any gay people. Except one (who is not a stunning role-model). I do feel this creeping fear (what if my son/daughter ends up gay, will I have no grandchildren? Will holidays and family gettogethers be awkward? etc.)

I'm sure that this is the root of all homophobia.

I don't blame the Bible, or any of that indoctrination crap - because people buy-into ideas they fundamentally want to agree with. That's why the same people who are using the Bible to rail against gays are not railing against the wearing of blended fabrics. They look at the practical impact of accepting gays might have on our society, and they fear how things might change. (ie. no grandkids) - They use the Bible as justification to bolster their otherwise weak argument. (ie. the fallacy of Appeal to Authority). But the fallaciousness is exposed when you prod them on other Levitical Prohibitions. Therefore, Religion is not the underlying reason for homophobia. Religion is a tool.

So at the end of the day, no matter how squeamish I feel about "acceptance of homosexuality" and the potential impact it may have on my family; I know that discriminating against gays is wrong. I know that I do not have the right to control other people's private lives. I have the right to control my own life. That's what being an American means.

And; if someone breaks God's law. If someone does something immoral - I worry about my own problems, and ask for forgiveness for my own problems. That's what being a Christian means.

If loving Hawk is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Posted by: Al on March 14, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I hope everyone realizes that wasn't me. It was a totally false innuendo.

As well as the excellent points that American Hawk made, there is another reason that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military: Iran and Arabic countries are extremely homophobic. If gays served in the military, their prejudice against homophobia could cause them to act in rage and inflict My-Lai style massacres on innocent Arab heterosexuals.

Let's call Pace's viewpoint what it is - bigotry. Shouldn't being a bigot be a disqualifying factor for any government job that's high up the food chain? I certainly don't want my military led by bigots.

I've never understood why so many of the military's language experts have been fired for being gay. I mean, it's just kinda odd. Are they over-represented there (for whatever reason), and hence more likely to fall afoul of DADT? Are they present at more or less the same rate as other areas of the military, but for some reason are more likely to get in trouble? Were they being intentionally purged? Or are these firings actually proportional to DADT firings across the board, and we just don't generally grasp, for some reason, how many soldiers we're losing?

"Either that or Monsters Inc. has been over-utilizing a 300+ pound gay man with a killer wolf whistle decked out in full leather motorcycle regalia."

Damnit, toast, I laughed so hard I started choking on my own spit. Anyway, that's in the sequel . . .

to reiterate, the implication that AH and my relationship is based largely on sex is offensive and somewhat misleading. Now, in theory I share al qaeda's distaste for non-procreative sex, but the little general often has a mind of his own.

One of the (fake?) Als: " there is another reason that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military: Iran and Arabic countries are extremely homophobic."

This is supposed to be a drawback? Sounds like a plus to me - another method of deterrence. Behave, or we invade with our big gay army!

We do not lose these people they just become more expensive. They become Halliburton contractors. Of course they do get GSA contracts of their own and go through some sort of middleman, mostly Halliburton, I believe.

You know, I'd probably support a don't ask, don't tell policy if it was about bigotry.

As well as the excellent points that American Hawk made, there is another reason that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military: Iran and Arabic countries are extremely homophobic. If gays served in the military, their prejudice against homophobia could cause them to act in rage and inflict My-Lai style massacres on innocent Arab heterosexuals.

By that, and I use the term loosely, "logic", Christians, Americans, and especially Jews shouldn't be allowed to serve in the US military, since Iran and the Arab states have pretty significant anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-Semitic sentiment, as well.

James, It is now known as Ali-Burton.

, there is another reason that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military: Iran and Arabic countries are extremely homophobic. If gays served in the military, their prejudice against homophobia could cause them to act in rage and inflict My-Lai style massacres on innocent Arab heterosexuals.

Seems like a lot of Arabic countries are America-phobic right now. Sure encouraged them pursue
terrorist tactics against American heterosexuals...

Maybe we shouldn't let Americans serve in the Army either.

If we changed the name to "No Child Left Behind Except the Mexicans", most conservatives I know would be glad to lower the standards to 95%.

So, if they deny God's orders, how can we be sure they'll follow their commander's orders?

I gues we'll be purging atheists from the ranksnext.

Do God's orders include war ?

Left unmentioned, thus far, is the views on sexuality of some of the homophobic.
It's been said already that many are afraid of their own impulses.

Another large subset are those who tend to view potential sex partners(women) as objects, and to sexually assault them on their way to the latrines at night. In their worldview, gay men operate the same way - and they think they'll be forcibly sodomized some dark night behind the barracks. If gays are allowed, they know the defense their assaulters will use "he was asking for it" "he wanted it then, he just changed his mind the next day".

To be clear, I'm not saying that this is the reasoning for applying the DADT policy to lesbians(the only gay veteran I've actually drunk beer with was an Arabic interpreter from GWI who bailed when her enlistment was up), or that gay men objectify potential sexual partners.

I'm saying that many of these homophobes believe that "the other side" thinks the way that they do.

If you have an issue with that idea, I suggest you bring it up at Pandagon, Feministe, Feministing, or any of a number of other blogs or sites that have a feminist perspective. They'll explain it much better than I have.
It's an 800 lb gorilla that doesn't get much attention in the mainstream - most people can't or won't think that critically.

American Hawk, I don't know whether to despise you (for the hate-filled bigot you are), or to pity you (for missing out on knowing a whole segment of our population). I've decided to just pretend you don't exist, because you are a disgusting piece of scum. I pity your family members who are gay (I promise you, someone you pretend to love (I say "pretend" because I don't believe you're capable of a complex emotion) is gay or lesbian -- a sibling, a niece, a child, an uncle -- and they know your attitudes and views and they hide a part of themselves rather than endure a litany of your bullshit at every family gathering.

Please, just end your internet subscription now. Being online obviously has done nothing to open that brain of yours.

Asshat.

Extradite Rumsfeld on March 14, 2007 at 1:07 PM:

I don't blame the Bible, or any of that indoctrination crap.

Most people find it hard to give up on what they've been taught was true, 'specially if it has been force-fed to them Jesus Camp-style.

From what I can see, there's two types of bigotry: active and casual. Concerning homosexuality, Fred Phelps and Pace are examples of the former; the people that worry about not having grandkids are the latter.

Either way, it's still bigotry.

ER raises some good points. A friend of mine, a very liberal ex-Brit, once remarked something to the effect that "I'm a liberal, but when we go to Provincetown I don't like having to explain to my kids why one man is walking another on a dog leash."

But I think the root of the most violent homophobia is latent feelings. In Boston there used to be a very flagrantly gay rock and roll singer that played the same club every Monday night. Every Monday night the same macho biker crowd would show up and verbally abuse him. Quite a few of these soirees ended in violence, but never directed at the singer. What do you suppose kept them coming back? They weren't coming to hear my band (the opening act), that's for sure.

American Hawk, American Hawk, I don't know what to do with you.

I was thinking of tracking your ass down, grinding up an arm, and seasoning you into a nice hot sausage that could inturn be rectaly repatrioted, you being a patriot and all.

Someday you will realize that you are a Satanist, when your lame ass is left rotting behind as us righteous mo-fos elevate to Jesus.

In all of the discussion I have seen about the "gays in the military" debate, I have yet to see anyone make the argument that gays are incapable of serving. Rather, the argument seems to be that the presence of gays in a military unit will bother the straight soldiers in some manner. So if the straight soldiers will be unable to tolerate (so the theory goes) the presence of gay soldiers, which group has the problem?

If gays served in the military, their prejudice against homophobia could cause them to act in rage and inflict My-Lai style massacres on innocent Arab heterosexuals.

Stupidest fucking thing I have ever read, heard, or seen on TeeVee. Hands down.

Get the stupid-helmet and crown the new king. Al(l) hail the King.

Good point Navamske. If our straight soldiers were so disturbed by gayness as to have their effectiveness as a fighting force deminished, how well would they respond to being shot at? The answer is, they aren't that flapable, and as the polling of servicemen demonstrates, would be happy to have anyone cover their backs, gay or straight.

I mean cover their backs as in protect them, not in the gay way that Al and American Hawk like, what with the spraying and the dripping and the hoy hoy. Good for them, BTW. Their gayness, if rejected and closetted, is the most interesting and redeeming factor about them. I'd just like to say, cut out the Meth guys. You don't have to addle your brains to hide from the hotness of it all. Stop ruining the temple of your bodies and love each other clearly, shamelessly. Their are programs for this sort of thing, at least there were before Dubya's latest request for another 100 billion in Iraq.

If gays served in the military, their prejudice against homophobia could cause them to act in rage and inflict My-Lai style massacres on innocent Arab heterosexuals.
Posted by: Al on March 14, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Just as heterosexuals in the military inflicted the Haditha-style massacre on innocent Arab heterosexuals.

Most people find it hard to give up on what they've been taught was true, 'specially if it has been force-fed to them Jesus Camp-style.
...
Posted by: grape_crush on March 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Those kids will grow up, and most of them will think about what they were force-fed at the American Madrassas, - this could go either way.

Either we'll have Christian Suicide Bombers blowing themselves up at Gay Pride Day parades, or we'll have adults looking back angrily at how these bastards tried to brainwash them into hating in God's name.

I think that you can't have a free society, and not have some amount of this kind of brainwashing. But the point of a free society, is that you can be brainwashed, and then you can go and figure things out on your own. I hate the American Taliban as much as anybody. But if you replace one system of indoctrination with another, the end result is not a free society, and there's the danger that the replacement system of indoctrination; even if it came about under the best of intentions, will be taken over and twisted by opportunists. Remember Stalin?

Extradite Rumsfeld on March 14, 2007 at 3:13 PM:

Either we'll have..

Both, probably. Recovering Catha-holics and snipers outside of women's health clinics, likely.

But the point of a free society, is that you can be brainwashed, and then you can go and figure things out on your own.

Disagree. The 'point of a free society' is that individuals can choose their own path, are actually aware that they can choose their own path, and are aware of and responsible for the consequences of their choices.

The difference is between teaching how to think versus drilling people in what to think...Feeding a kid a steady diet of indoctrination doesn't do much to promote self-awareness or critical thinking.

..if you replace one system of indoctrination with another..

Which no one is arguing that we do.

People who are afraid of gays are usually people who have never met a gay person (or think they haven't, anyway).

That, or they are actually gay themselves, and struggling like mad.

American Chickenhawk: "The problem is..."

...that you get dumber every day. Why do you bother to jump on the keyboard with your elementary-school prattle when you are incapable of reading the posts? What a fucking waste of space you are.

"In Boston there used to be a very flagrantly gay rock and roll singer that played the same club every Monday night. Every Monday night the same macho biker crowd would show up and verbally abuse him. Quite a few of these soirees ended in violence, but never directed at the singer.

thesites, that's oddly sweet.

quoted very liberal ex-brit: ""I'm a liberal, but when we go to Provincetown I don't like having to explain to my kids why one man is walking another on a dog leash."

Fair enough - but it's a heck of a lot easier explaining why some other men are coming back from Iraq who aren't going to be walking, period, whether in P-town or Peoria.

(And when you get down to it, it's not that much harder than explaining to kids why strangely-dressed men in funny hats are standing in front of Buckingham Palace, let alone why there are even odder-looking fellows in the Tower of London whose job involves (involved?) feeding ravens.

Although I have to admit, Ravenmaster's a damn fine title. Must be fun - So, Edwin, what do you do? Oh, I'm the Yeoman Warder Ravenmaster . . .)

(I'm actually having a little trouble believing the wikipedia entry isn't some odd hoax, but that's just my American provincialism, no doubt . . . )

Judging from Lawrence of Arabia and a lot of other British examples, you can't have effective Arabists without having a lot of them be male homosexuals.

Ah, finally someone mentioned the "British men are gay" slur.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin:

the whole familiarity removing hatred is the whole point of why these people don't want gays in the military. They know this, and this is the last real bastion where the small-minded hatred can continue to be enabled, nay, mandated. without that, people might learn that gay people don't have horns, and that just wouldn't do.

American Hawk: "Intercourse happens naturally and easily between a man and a woman ..."

The clap, herpes, syphilis, ED and the proverbial "I have a headache" excuse notwithstanding, of course.

"... but is disease-ridden and a health hazard between gay men (most people with AIDS in America are gays, despite the fact that gays only account for 4% of the population)."

Cite your sources, please. Most reliable statistics put the percentage of gays and lesbians at anywhere between 8% and 12% of the general population. I'm guessing that "4%" might be the percentage that is out of the closet, and thus not reflective of the actual total number of gay people.

Further, AIDS is not a "gay" disease, as you infer (even if not on purpose).

The primary means of HIV transmission in Africa, where the greatest concentration and occurence of AIDS in the world, is heterosexual intercourse.

And in the United States, the vast majority of heterosexual HIV transmission by sexual means is from male to female.

Straight people better damn well be aware of those facts, lest they risk becoming a statistic through their own general ignorance.

Incidentally, the healthiest people in the United States are lesbians. Go figure.

Al: "I'd agree with American Hawk, but he forgets the steamy nights we enjoyed together between trolling Washington Monthly and Daily Kos."

Well, then, that certainly explains all that cheesy porn movie soundtrack we kept hearing every time you guys were online ...

Disputo on March 14, 2007 at 4:45 PM:

Ah, finally someone mentioned the "British men are gay" slur.

It's all right...just say "Steve Sailer" three times while lisping each initial 'S', and you'll feel much better.

How much of a Unabomber hermit living alone in the middle of the woods do you have to be to think you don't know a gay person?

As usual, what wakes a lot of people up from prejudice is the potential loss of income, personal status or dumbass wars, not an actual attempt to follow the golden rule. Well, whatever works, I guess.

Has Chickenhawk been banned? I don't see his hilariously insipid loogy at the top of the page.
Granted, he drags down the tone wherever he goes, but I'm starting to miss the little feller;
it's always good to have someone around who gives up his lunch money so easily.

navamske wrote:

"In all of the discussion I have seen about the "gays in the military" debate, I have yet to see anyone make the argument that gays are incapable of serving. Rather, the argument seems to be that the presence of gays in a military unit will bother the straight soldiers in some manner. So if the straight soldiers will be unable to tolerate (so the theory goes) the presence of gay soldiers, which group has the problem?"
____________________

My eldest stepson is gay and I haven't much concern about the morality of homosexuality (if it is immoral, it's not my job to condemn them), but there is a reasonable argument against homosexuality that is often misunderstood.

That is the jealousy factor, which is exactly the same reason why women are excluded from close combat units. The Army works hard to make sure that favoritism is kept to a minimum in combat units because long experience (and many studies) has shown that sex and sexual pairing is a leading cause of favoritism and jealousy. Outsiders find it hard to realize how sex of any kind can be so corrosive to unit cohesion. But in situations where people live in each other's pockets even when off duty, the suspicion that Sgt X is favoring Private Y, because they've got a thing going, can be pretty devastating. Often, it doesn't even matter if they have no relationship at all. If others perceive favoritism, they'll imagine reasons for it.

You can attempt to squash unwarranted favortism at every turn and the Army does. But throw sex into the mix and favoritism will happen, or it will be perceived to happen. This occurs in mixed gender units all the time with a depressingly large number of courts-martial resulting every year. The military, by banning gays, is seeking to minimize the chances that soldiers will hook up with each other or be perceived as hooking up, thus reducing the occurrences of favoritism and cliques.

And it doesn't have anything to do with it being immoral.