Military Board Votes To Suspend Gay Arabic-Speaking Officer
Lt. Dan Choi will fight to stay in the military after a Syracuse, NY army board recommended that he be the first person to be dismissed from the New York’s National Guard for violating “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Cho’s offense? He said he’s gay.
But he said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a better Christian and a better officer.
Choi, an Arabic-speaking officer who served for 15 months in Iraq as a member of Fort Drum’s 10th Mountain Division before joining a New York National Guard unit based in Manhattan, said he would appeal to the higher-ranking officers to stay in the National Guard.
“DADT” means military can’t be asked if they’re gay, but they can’t say they’re gay, either. Obama vowed as recently as this week to repeal this ridiculous rule.
“As I said before — I’ll say it again — I believe ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t contribute to our national security. In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security,” Obama said.
“… I’ve asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal,” Obama said.
More than a thousand retired generals and admirals wrote an open letter this year saying a repeal of DADT would destroy our all-volunteer military. Approximately 10,500 military have been discharged for the offense of being gay between 1997 and 2008, 250 of whom were fired just this year.
Choi held a news conference in East LA, where he vowed to campaign for Obama to issue an executive order to end this madness.
All DADT does is oppress openly gay patriots who only want to serve their country. Getting rid of it is the right choice.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Agreed.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Wasn’t DADT put in directly by Clinton?
Why can’t Obama just issue a different order, eliminating it?
Or what is the process for changing this? My impression is Obama just doesn’t care.
VegasLib Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
He could suspend it instantly, but the president is lagggging it!!! Damnit Obama! WTF.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
My question is this: if this officer joined the military knowing that DADT was a policy…why is he surprised at the outcome of his declaration?
It may very well be a discriminatory policy…but it was a policy he knew was in place before he joined.
VegasLib Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Smart point there, jFT. That’s why it needs to be eliminated.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Or why you just don’t ask don’t tell.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I heard this guy on the radio in Seattle. If I recall, one thing he was upset about was the double standard that as an officer absolute honesty is required, yet they want you to lie. He had some very convincing arguments.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
JAMES,
It’s not they want a person to lie…they just want a person to adhere to established policy. Gays are not allowed to profess their sexual orientation while in the military. That’s not a lying thing…it’s a disclosure thing.
flap Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“it’s a disclosure thing.”
I agree…was he forced to disclose it? If so, he may be in the right. If he was not forced to disclose it, how did he feel “he had to lie”?
Did he feel obligated to “come out of the closet” while serving in the military? Why should anything even be discussed pertaining to that?
Example: let’s say EricG has a fetish for women wearing wet t-shirts with pictures of ASSES (donkeys) on them. Should he feel the need to discuss that if he were serving in the military? All this sexuality stuff shouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. DADT is probably the best way to go.
pizzaman Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 am
Averagejames says: “If I recall, one thing he was upset about was the double standard that as an officer absolute honesty is required, yet they want you to lie.”
No, exactly the opposite. “Don’t ask” means you don’t have to lie, because they . . . “DON’T ASK.” So to say that he was forced to lie is itself lie.
Another lie is that he is being dismissed because he told another man “I love you.” What a skirting of the truth — no pun intended — if not a downright lie. He makes it sound as though in the military, it’s an offense for one man to love another, or to profess love. Perversely wrong on both counts. Soldiers under fire fight for each other because they’re brothers, and love each other that way. That’s not only understood, but encouraged. DADT is a loosened policy advocated by Clinton and adhered to by Obama. Neither Obama nor Clinton made this man lie. And by saying that he was fired for saying “I love you” is another lie. Damn, can’t you people ever tell the truth?
pizzaman
average james Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
When I heard him on the radio in Seattle, he spoke of off duty-at home, you must live a lie, sneak around and hide. Off duty will get you in trouble too.
You have to live a lie.
As an officer, 24/7 complete honesty is required.
Straights can go to the strip clubs and brothels, whatever. Gays ? You get booted.
DADT needs to go.
pizzaman Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 am
average james says: “When I heard him on the radio in Seattle, he spoke of off duty-at home, you must live a lie, sneak around and hide.” Doeasn’t the false logic of that make you stop and think? “MUST live a lie”? “MUST” in order to do what? To stay in the military, where (as you say) truth is demanded of officers? Why “MUST” he stay in the military if he can’t abide by a military code that insists on honesty? Why “MUST” he stay in the military if he can’t abide by its code of sexual conduct? The fact that he has his OWN code of sexual conduct doesn’t mean that he “MUST” lie. It only means that he “MUST” lie if he intends to serve in an organzation that rejects his personal sexual code. It’s like saying that pedophile priests “MUST” lie if they want to stay priests. Well, IN A SENSE, yes. But you get the point: The sense in which a pedophile “MUST” lie to be a priest is a very strained sense of “MUST.”
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:00 am
the problem with DADT is that there is no good reason for the military to have such a code of personal conduct, they don’t boot people for infidelity, fornication, masturbation, prostitution, sodomy (unless of course it’s two men)all of which are frowned upon by a good deal of society.
Of course a religious institution has a reason to have such a moral code…
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The policies against gays are bullcrap, and once again we are portrayed to the world as idiots and dinosaurs.
craig7120 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Was he surprised of the decision by the military? I didnt listen to the video is that where he says he was surprised?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
CRAIG,
You’re right…”surprise” may have been the wrong word since he knew what the outcome would be.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“More than a thousand reitred generals and admirals wrote an open letter this year saying a repeal of DADT would destroy our all-volunteer military.”
Yeah more than half these officers weren’t even notified that their names were appended to the letter.
Several, in fact, were actually dead.
The people behind all this are the radical evangelical extremists infesting our military like a cancer and we need to cut them out like the malignancy that they are before THEY destroy the military and our country along with it.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
sources…
July 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If the draft is reinstated and our young men and women suddenly turn gay in an effort to avoid serving, you’ll see how fast this policy is repealed.
RDM Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
People have done worse than turn gay to avoid the draft. It’s ashame their are those that would go to such extremes.
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
People will say anything to avoid being drafted and perhaps killed. Look at the great lengths Dick Cheney and John Bolton, the two biggest warmongers around, went through to avoid serving their country.
Notice how these two clowns had no qualms about sending our young off to die in their for profit war.
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Look at the great lengths Cheney and John Bolton went through to avoid serving their country.
Interesting. These two warmongers who were so afraid to die when it was their turn to serve during the VietNam era, had no qualms of sacrificing our young in their for profit Iraq war.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Yes…and look at the great lengths Clinton went through to avoid serving his country.
Clinton sent troops to Somalia but “had no qualms of sacrificing our young”
You keep saying Iraq was a war for profit…your facts to back that up?
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
December 4, 1992, Bush Sr ordered 25,000 U.S. troops into Somalia,
I don’t blame Bush Sr for that….it was humanitarian.
As for the Cheney wars, at least Clinton did not have his own fortunes tied up in industries that profited mightily from his wars.
Cheney had an old pattern of this, pour more money into the defense industry, because some enemy had wmd that ONLY he knows about, since the 70s.
Because it’s not PC to keep bringing it up, people forget, and he gets away with it.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Did you forget that Cheney is donating ALL of the after-tax profits from his Halliburton stock to charity…
Please…tell me where the “profit” is?
Because it’s not PC to keep bringing it up, people forget, and he gets away with it.
Maybe you should do a post on the amount of money he’s donated to charity as a result of his stock…
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Did you forget that Cheney is donating ALL of the after-tax profits from his Halliburton stock to charity…’
……………………………………..
That’s what he said after he was questioned about it. His his profits from Halliburton are a minor compared to his salary from Halliburton, doing business with Iraq, Iran, libya, …, the revolving door.
Also, it’s not just Cheney and Halliburton, it’s CACI, Titan, Bechtel, custer Battles….on and on….Companies that would not have contracts without a war.
And his charities mean very little compared to the loss of life and limb he has caused.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
OLD LEFTY,
You forgot to name all of the Iraqi companies who made money off the war in Iraq…you know, those companies “that would not have contracts without a war.”
His charitable donations may not mean much to you, personally…but I’d be willing to be they mean a whole helluva lot to the people those charities serve…wouldn’t ya say?
I know how you always like to make it about Cheney…demonize him every chance you get…but despite your constant virulence, there is some good that came out of it all, yes?
Yes lives were lost…both American and Iraqi, yes the war was waged on bad intel (from ALL sources, not just the CIA), but what’s done is done…better we take our cue from our current president and be a bit optimistic about where we’re headed and not constantly focus on where we’ve been…yes?
OldLefty Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
JaredfromTexas,
Are you really saying that giving a few local companies some contracts AFTER you have bombed them makes it OK? There were 200 state run companies that were shut down and sold to foreigners by L Paul Bremer.
Money to charity from anybody is good, but it has nothing to do with the wickedness of war and war profiteering. I’m sure that meant a whole helluva lot more to those who saw the carnage of loved ones….. wouldn’t ya say?
As for, “, there is some good that came out of it all, yes? “ we need to see what happens in thirty years, because, that’s what they said about Afganistan in the 80s and Iran in the fifties.
If it DID do some good, than we better hurry up and do it in Darfur, Somalia, Myanmar Tibet , N Korea, China….you get the point.
I never heard a bigger whopper than the “bad intel”, when EVERY bit of intel that indicated no threat, they dismissed.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
OLD LEFTY,
You seem to think that only US companies made some money on the war in Iraq…I was merely pointing out that a vast number of other companies…more foreign than US companies, by the way…are also conducting business in Iraq.
As a matter of fact, US companies comprise a fraction of all contracts awarded in Iraq. Where’s your overt ire for all of the foriegn corporations who have “profited” from the Iraq War…or are you only interested in US Companies…or more specifically…companies associated with Cheney?
ANY good that comes from “wickedness” is good…whether it you think it should be or not. ANY charitable donation is appreciated and accepted…regardless of how you feel it might be tainted.
You can keep trying to push your PNAC conspiracy theory…but you’ve yet to explain to me how the Bush Whitehouse was able to influence not only the CIA, but the british intelligence service, the Israeli intelligence service and the UN to provide false information regarding WMDs in Iraq.
Bad intelligence.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
JaredfromTexas,
I don’t think that only American companies profited.
War, even if justified is the ultimate failure. It is condemning your people to be changed forever in the most horrible ways; to sights , sounds and smells that they can NEVER unsee, unhear and unsmell.
As FDR said:
“Our present emergency and a common sense of decency make it imperative that no new group of war millionaires shall come into being in this nation as a result of the struggles abroad. The American people will not relish the idea of any American citizen growing rich and fat in an emergency of blood and slaughter and human suffering.”
May 26, 1940
Radio Address of the President, Delivered from the White House
In 2004, Time reported in “When Private Armies Take To The Front Lines”; Michael Duffy”
“…Locals often mistake the guards for Special Forces or CIA personnel, which makes active duty military troops a bit edgy. ‘Those Blackwater guys’, says an intelligence officer in Iraq, ‘they drive around wearing Oakley sunglasses and pointing their guns out of car windows. They have pointed their guns at me, and it pissed me off. Imagine what a guy in Fallujah thinks’. Adds an Army officer, who just returned from Baghdad, ‘They are a subculture’.
Iraqi companies were making as much money as they could under sanctions before. They didn’t need to have their country bombed, to rebuild it.
They certainly didn’t need to see people from the Philippines ,India, and Nepal, come to their country and take their jobs, anymore than you want to see immigrants here. Imagine if a foreign country occupied us, and brought them in, while selling your local water filtration plant to foreigners, (AND did it at gunpoint.)
As for the “PNAC conspiracy theory”: It’s not a matter of being able to influence all these others, it’s a matter of discarding anything that did not fit into their version, and giving credence only to those who were with them, for their own reasons, such money, oil, the defense industry, ideology, etc.
YOU have yet to explain, those who said they talked about going in before they came to the Whitehouse, the Manning memo, the Downing ST memo, Curveball, forged Niger documents, Cheney’s 2002 “foreign suitors to Iraqi oil fields “.on and on.
People can know what side their bread is buttered on without it being a grand conspiracy.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
This is about integrity. When I first signed up a few years back they were several questions you had to answer and one was concerning homosexuality or being a member of a communist party ect. So they did away with the sexual question with DADT policy this guy knew it or knew the outcome if he come out. It’s a military policy just like other rules they are to be followed. One example a few buddies of mine were on a beach a few years back and a fair haired boy very light skinned got a terrible sunburn and could not report for duty so he was reprimanded article 15 for dereliction of duty. He knew the rules he broke them period.
Whether the rules are right or wrong a military member must follow them to the letter no questions asked.
hhhhhah Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
i wonder how they would react if you supported Obama’s socalist party?
goliath43 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I don’t trust me on that
July 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“This is about integrity.”
No, it’s about the southern evangelicals running the Defense Dept according to their reading of their edition of the so-called christian “bible.”
“…Cheney is donating…”
He donates nothing.
goliath43 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I have no idea what that is suppose to mean but it is all about Intergrity..He knew the rules he broke them period
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
ROCKY,
No, it’s ENTIRELY about this guy knowing the rules, agreeing to abide by them…but breaking them anyway.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Yes, it was a brave act of civil disobedience.
I commend and respect him for it.
goliath43 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
It was not an act of civil disobedience. He broke the rules why is that so hard to understand. There is nothing to commend or give respect for. If he wants to protest leave the military and as a civilian protest all he wants and I will defend his right to do it. But while in uniform follow Orders period.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
It was not an act of civil disobedience. He broke the rules why is that so hard to understand.
So civil disobedience is about following the rules?
There is nothing to commend or give respect for.
Sure there is. He has put Obama on the spot to live up to his promises.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Um,
Once you join the military you are no longer a civillian. Not only do you swear to follow civillian laws but also the military code of conduct.
If you don’t want to live up to it, then dont’ sign up.
goliath43 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
key word CIVIL as a civilian you are allowed to protest anything you want to But when you raise your hand and swear an oath you follow the orders period
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
There is nothing civil about DADT, or Obama’s lies regarding it.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
What a nice reward for 15 months of service in Iraq. I’m ashamed of Obama for not doing the right thing.
goliath43 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
All he had to do was resign his commision and get out… again he knew the rules
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
CRH3E,
Yes, his service is very commendable…but don’t reward him for his failure to meet his obligations to military policy.
crh3e Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Yeah the rules are the rules. That’s why they need to be changed.
RDM Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Whack! How queer is that!
July 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
[...] Iraq War veteran Lt. Dan Choi, who will likely be discharged for saying he’s gay, tells Alan why he’s choosing to fight the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Is it a right or a privilege to serve in the military?
Who has sovereignty in deciding the protocols, discipline, and hierarchy within the institution?
Will this decision to allow for a minority, who most consider to be abnormal in their sexual orientation, to openly express their sexuality be what’s best for the security of our country?
Should the military be the place for social engineering experiments to be conducted?
No one is saying that gays cannot serve in the military, only that they cannot flaunt it.
They cannot parade it around, they cannot flamboyantly “do their own thing”.
If no one is asking, then not telling anyone makes perfect sense.
Live within the rules and you will have no problems.
Being a member of the armed forces is all about obedience to the rules.
This issue of homosexuality is all about advancing an agenda, and making everyone accept a behavior, whether they like it or not.
Homosexuals like Lt. Choi are the ones who are intolerant, they are intolerant of traditional morality.
They wish to do away with tradition.
They seek to undermine the traditions of American society and institutions.
They dislike traditional moral values.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
This issue of homosexuality is all about advancing an agenda, and making everyone accept a behavior, whether they like it or not.
Homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is not a behavior (And most of your other paragraphs are hooey too).
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Sexuality is a behavior.
You do not have to engage in it, you make a decision to have sex.
You make a decision to have it and who you will have it with.
It is not something that just “happens”.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Sure, having sex is a behavior, but whether you are attracted to the same sex, or the opposite sex is not.
You make a decision to have it and who you will have it with.
Yes, but you do not choose whether you are attracted to men, women, or both.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Hmm……
So anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is just a sexually repressed bigot?
I disagree with polygamy.
How bout you?
So I guess your just sexually repressed also, to a differing degree……..
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:15 pm
So anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is just a sexually repressed bigot?
Where did I say that? I’m not attracted to dudes – so I have no intention of engaging in homosexual sex. That doesn’t make me sexually repressed, or a bigot.
I definitely don’t think you should have to have homosexual sex either.
I disagree with polygamy.
Hey, I wouldn’t wish two wives on anybody! Imagine all the honey do(s)!
So I guess your just sexually repressed also, to a differing degree
I defy you to show me a single quote where I have ever said anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is sexually repressed.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
You’re something of a rare bird around here, I’ll give you that. And that combined with your honesty and civility is why I like you.
If I disagree strongly with homosexual practices does that make me intolerant?
If I describe homosexuality as a sinful behavior that God will punish if the unrepentant homosexual continues in it, does that make me hateful?
Would that constitute hate speech?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
If I disagree strongly with homosexual practices does that make me intolerant?
No, like I said, personally – I strongly disagree with homosexual practices (in the sense that I am not interested in performing any).
I don’t think anyone should be forced to engage in homosexual practices. I would be intolerant to anyone who thought that there should be forced homosexuality.
If I describe homosexuality as a sinful behavior that God will punish if the unrepentant homosexual continues in it, does that make me hateful?
No, I don’t think that makes you hateful. It seems like an odd thing to focus on, given my understanding of Christianity, but I don’t think it makes you hateful. (The ‘god hates fags’ people are hateful, but I’m assuming you aren’t talking about taking it to that level)
Would that constitute hate speech?
No, and I don’t agree with hate speech laws anyway. If you were inciting people to violence, that would be something else, however. (again, I’m sure that is not what you are referring to)
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
In fact sexuality is specifically a moral behavior.
It is governed by morality.
It used to be anyway………
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
In fact sexuality is specifically a moral behavior.
No, it isn’t. It isn’t a behavior at all.
It is governed by morality.
Morality doesn’t govern whether you are attracted to same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes.
It used to be anyway
Nope.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Yes it is.
If you consciously must make a decision regarding whether or not to engage in an action it is by definition a behavior.
That’s correct, morality advises……
yep. We used to be a lot more moral as a nation, disagree?
Listen to today’s music and compare it to the music of 60 years ago…..
If Clinton had been president in the 40’s or 50’s or even the 60’s or 70’s he’d have been unable to remain in office as a result of his immoral relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Our moral compass is broken………
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
If you consciously must make a decision regarding whether or not to engage in an action it is by definition a behavior.
What does that have to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality? I never consciously decided to be attracted to chicks. If you are talking about having sex with chicks, or dudes, or both – I already said having sex was a behavior.
That’s correct, morality advises……
Well, you said it governed earlier
We used to be a lot more moral as a nation, disagree?
Like when we had slavery? Or when black people had to ride in the back of the bus? Or do you mean when we had children working in factories? Or perhaps when ‘fag bashing’ was common? Or when we very nearly committed genocide against the Native Americans? Or when we broke numerous treaties we had signed with them later?
I don’t know that we used to be a lot more moral as a nation, no. (And I know you didn’t mean that any of those things were moral, just giving examples of areas we have improved on)
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Well, it does both. But you have the ability to reject advice and rebel against authority, in which case it is not governing.
If you accept the moral advice then it is accomplishing the task of governing……
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Oh that’s rich! The gays are intolerant? They dislike traditional moral values? Do you mean like the traditional moral values of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich? I think you’ve finally lost it, Trees.
By the way, I’m sure the gays pretty much don’t care what an irrelevent bigot like you thinks. – and neither do 75-80% of the American population. Too bad for you.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Am I a sexually repressed bigot TDro?
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I don’t know, Trees. But you do seem to harbor quite a bit of anger snd intolerance for people who are different or who don’t measure up to your own personal standards. You really should try to be a little more understanding and accepting. It’s good for the blood pressure.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Why are you asking me and TDro if you are sexually repressed? Ask your wife, she would know better than either of us.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Because I’m interested in your perception of me.
TDro seems to have some imaginary idea of who I am and what emotions I’m experiencing.
I’m curious to explore this.
If I disagree I’m automatically characterized or stereotyped.
I find that interesting.
I wonder if he genuinely believes that, or if he is attempting to demonize.
That’s all.
In fact, when I was younger and was an atheist I really had no opinion or concern regarding homosexuality.
If you have any real faith then you take God seriously, you study His word and develop a relationship with Him, and since then I’ve begun to realize that our society is in a downward slide, morally speaking.
You were right on with your earlier post concerning slavery etc….
The context of our discussion was sexual morality though.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Well, Trees, I genuinely believe you are a bigot. When you say things like, “They (gays) seek to undermine the traditions of American society and institutions”, what else am I supposed to think? This statement is laughaable at best. You actually believe their goal in life is to destroy traditional moral values? That’s it?
You seem to enjoy demonizing anybody who is different or doesn’t live up to your interpretation of what is “morally acceptable”.
I wonder who God would hate? Tell me Trees, does God instruct you on who you should demonize or do you simply use Him as your excuse for your hatred?
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:25 am
You misunderstand me TDro, In their quest to validate behavior that they themselves know is abnormal and immoral they are pushing to change longstanding traditional institutions and in the process are creating havoc.
The laws of unintended consequences will lead to unforeseen effects.
There is a reason why these homosexual behaviors are not commonplace or accepted.
If this behavior was normal and natural we would have always had it and it would be completely accepted today, it would have been mainstream all along if it was indeed mainstream.
If it was “normal” you would engage in it yourself.
Who decides what is “morally acceptable”?
God has, you should read His book sometime…..
God does not “hate” TDro, but God does not tolerate sin, and he clearly identifies homosexuality as a sin. Engaging in it is open rebellion against the Author of life and the Creator of order. Un-repentant sin will be dealt with, as God has created a place for those who do not desire to know Him and where they will exist in isolation from Him and His people.
The American Judicial system does not hate, it has laws and if you disregard and break them then there are consequences.
Is prison unreasonable TDro?
What do we do with lawbreakers?
If you decide to exclude yourself from a relationship with Him you have that ability, and He will give you up, He will give you over to the desires of your heart, He loves you enough to let you go…….
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
“God has, you should read His book sometime…..”
I’ve read His book, which is why I follow his teachings. Now if your god told you that he’s going to “give me up” well you can believe what you will.
Let me give you some passages that I live by and you might find interesting:
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-44).
John 8:7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.”
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).
“And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is Love; and he that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1John 4:16).
On a personal note, judging by your posts, I think you are one of the “false prophets” that have been fortold in the good book.
The difference between you and I is, I practice what I preach.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Oh and Trees, I forgot a few other quotes, that which is my favorites:
John 15:9-12
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”
Luke 6:31
“Do unto others as you would have them do to you”.
Matt 7:2-5
“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
““God has, you should read His book sometime…..”
……………………..
Funny, that’s EXACTLY what a Hindu I know says.
Of course he’s speaking of the Bhagavad Gita.
average james Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
TDro,
I would not go so far as to call Trees a false prophet.
It sounds to me that you and I are of kindred spirit.
LOVE is the deal. They shall know us by our love.
My understanding of God, of Christ, does not equate with the conservative “christian” Republican right-wing ideology.
What Christ are they following ?
Is it the Christ of, why should I help others whose poor planning or laziness got them
just what they deserve?
Is it the Christ of, torture ?(for a good cause)
Is it the Christ of, you can’t talk to these people, just bomb them.
Is it the Christ of, the death penalty ?
Is it the Christ of, money is the bottom line ?
Is it the Christ of, denying rights to gays ?
Is it the Christ of, not respecting others ?
Is it the Christ of, fear ?
Is it the Christ of, the NRA ?
Is it the Christ of, screw the enviroment, stewardship my #ss !
Is it the Christ of, who cares about some polar bear ?
ON and on…………
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
True dat, AJ. I sometimes have trouble getting my point across. You’ve explained it a lot better than I have.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I am sure that most people here have been in some sort of situation at work where there is some “sexual tension”. Does he or she like me? Should I ask him or her out? When employees start daydreaming about things like this, it breaks down the environment. If two people start dating, there is preferential treatment. If a persons advances are met with denial, there may be feelings of betrayal or hatred. Their minds tend to stray from the task at hand and the work suffers. When a person is sitting in a fox hole or ready to storm an enemy stronghold, they CANNOT be wondering if the guy next to him likes him or not. That is why gays are not allowed in the military. Men eat, sleep and work with one another in the most stressful environment on earth… WAR! There cannot be sexual tension going on. EVER!
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I think Teo makes some valid points here.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
That men and women shouldn’t work together?
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Well, I think there have been problems in the military between heterosexuals of the nature outlined by Teo.
If we allow open homosexuality in the military we would be compounding this problem.
Teo Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Um Cara… On the front lines, where mission accomplishment is the most critical, NO.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
If we allow open homosexuality in the military we would be compounding this problem.
In what way? Presumably the gay soldiers know they are gay, and if they feel any ’sexual tension’ they feel it, whether they are out or not.
Are you suggesting homosexuals should not be permitted to serve, period?
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
No, you know that’s not what I’m saying.
I do think the gay issue makes things more complicated than it needs to be.
I didn’t come up with DADT, and the people that did had enough rationale for the policy that Clinton accepted it.
Teo Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Um Cara… I can’t speak for Trees, but that is precisely what I am suggesting. Sorry. The military is not in business of rubbing everybody’s belly and making them feel better. This isn’t about equality. It is about life and death. It is very simple. Unit cohesiveness is absolutely critical in times of war. Maybe I am wrong, but I am guessing you haven’t served. Never put your life on the line. I have. And I will tell you this. When I need the man on my right to cover me, I can’t be worried about any feelings he may have for me because I turned down his advances the year before back at the E-club.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I didn’t come up with DADT, and the people that did had enough rationale for the policy that Clinton accepted it.
I think he hoped DADT would apply to what he did with interns.
Obama claims he will overturn DADT, it remains to be seen whether he will.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Um Cara… I can’t speak for Trees, but that is precisely what I am suggesting. Sorry
Hey, you don’t have to apologize to me – no serious politician is talking about banning homosexuals from the military.
The military is not in business of rubbing everybody’s belly and making them feel better.
Well, I assume you are talking about branches other than the Air Force, right?
When I need the man on my right to cover me, I can’t be worried about any feelings he may have for me because I turned down his advances the year before back at the E-club.
What about feeling he may have for you because he suspects his wife has a crush on you?
Your argument is ridiculous (but I suspect you know that).
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
That is why gays are not allowed in the military.
Yes, they are.
Teo Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Semantics. You are right, they are allowed to serve. But I still question whether or not a homosexual man can repress potential feelings for another Marine or soldier to effectively complete a mission.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Semantics. You are right, they are allowed to serve.
My being right is ’semantics’? It wasn’t an unimportant point.
But I still question whether or not a homosexual man can repress potential feelings for another Marine or soldier to effectively complete a mission.
I’m happy you are not in a position to make consequential decisions then.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
None of you get it.
You have no clue what the purpose of the US Military is?
It is not to extend some sexual parameter. It’s not to satisfy some need you might have for social justice. The job of the military is to go places and destroy things and kill people, as efficiently and quickly as possible and better than the military force they may face.
There is a reason why other major military services do not use woman in primary combat roles. There is a reason why other militaries have nothing to do with homosexuals in combat organizations.
(Hey, here’s a dirty little secret for all you who know nothing of the state of our military; The use of females on front line US Navy ships is a complete disaster! Unfortunately, if anybody speaks out about it, they are accused of not being politically correct.)
This idea of sexual freedom in combat forces is absolutely ludicrous. It decreases combat efficiency and discipline, destroys moral, and decreases efficiency.
Let’s get over this silliness. we are talking about the ability of our country to defend itself.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
This idea of sexual freedom in combat forces is absolutely ludicrous. It decreases combat efficiency and discipline, destroys moral, and decreases efficiency.
What idea of sexual freedom? The issue is around whether gay service men and women should have to be super spies, able to keep their sexuality hidden at all costs.
I think super spies should have to be super spies, not soldiers.
pizzaman Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 am
If the policy is DADT, and if it’s not ground dismissal to BE gay, but rather to ENGAGE in gay sex, then 2 things follow: 1) UmCara’s point about not choosing to be gay proves nothing, because gay soldiers aren’t punished for something they didn’t choose, but are punished for something they do choose, i.e., gay BEHAVIOR; and 2) the issue is NOT whether gay soldiers “have to be superspies,” because if merely BEING gay is not an offense, and if you’re not asked about having gay sex, then superspy-hood isn’t required.
pizzaman
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 am
pizzaman…they law doesn’t say they can’t have gay sex…it simply says we don’t ask…and gay people don’t tell us. What they do in private is their own business.
but the policy harbors an unsafe level of personal secrecy, and opens up all kinds of possibilities that could put our troops in harms way.
Our troops should be able to be open about who they are without reprisal.
Um Cara Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Pizzaman,
If the policy is DADT, and if it’s not ground dismissal to BE gay, but rather to ENGAGE in gay sex
Not true, there is no rule against engaging in gay sex.
UmCara’s point about not choosing to be gay proves nothing, because gay soldiers aren’t punished for something they didn’t choose, but are punished for something they do choose, i.e., gay BEHAVIOR;
Not true, there is no rule against gay behavior
the issue is NOT whether gay soldiers “have to be superspies,” because if merely BEING gay is not an offense, and if you’re not asked about having gay sex, then superspy-hood isn’t required.
You have to make sure that no one finds out you are gay (though heterosexual soldiers are not forced to keep their heterosexuality top secret).
You get in trouble if somehow someone finds out about this fairly fundamental part of your life.
Teo Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Thank you.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
No problem, glad I could straighten (no pun intended) you out!
Teo Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Um Cara… not for you. :)
Montana Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I served for 30 years on active duty with women and homosexuals and none of them caused a decrease in our combat efficiency and discipine or destroyed the moral of the units I commanded or served. You are poorly informed or a bigot.
pizzaman Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 am
Here’s a good example of libspeak from Montana: According to this person, the only two explanations for wanting to keep DADT are either ignorance of bigotry. Nevermind that until relatively recently — say 30 years or so — in most of the militaries of the world, the question of allowing gays in the military at all was not even an option because it was thought to counter to the “martial” code of morality. Nevermind that until 30 years or so ago, most of the Western world has thought homosexual conduct to be wrong. Nevermind that by far the majority of the world still does. Nevermind all that. The only thing that can explain DADT — a vastly more tolerant policy that previously allowed — is ignorance or bigotry. Whew! You guys are arrogant.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Here’s the classic “conspeak” from several posters:
“This issue of homosexuality is all about advancing an agenda, and making everyone accept a behavior, whether they like it or not.”
“They wish to do away with tradition.”
“They seek to undermine the traditions of American society and institutions.”
“They dislike traditional moral values.”
“[libs] who’ve substituted bumper-sticker responses for real thought”
“It is just plain and simple not a natural thing to do. It goes against nature’s law and God.”
“For you, these people ought to be married simply because you believe it is good because it is what you know… or think you know.”
“also…homosexual desires are not a sin…acting on those desires is”
*******************
When others point out that the same exclusionary thinking was there with race, gender, age and so on, they are accused of promoting an agenda, having no respect for traditional marriage, etc.
What got the voting age lowered was the idea that one can be old enough to die for their country but not old enough to vote for who sends them.
Once blacks served in segregated units, people thought that if women served the Republic would fall.
Of course, they felt the same about interracial marriage, and suffrage.
It seems that much of the “conspeak” is to call people immoral, or intolerant of “traditional values”, then play the victim, and throw that accusation back at the other side.
“Whew! You guys are arrogant.”
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
I’m pretty arrogant on a few topics…and I don’t apologize for that.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
As we all are Lefty and Guido. No one is ummune to being arrogant from time to time.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
GuidoVanHorn,
I’m quoting pizzaman.
I think that unless you resist any kind of critical thinking, then being arrogant on things you passionately believe is not something you should apologize for.
My problem is when one side is accuses the other of arrogance, as though it typifies a weak argument, then claims the same trait on their side as a strength.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
well…one of your quotes is unashamedly mine…
and what’s this about being critical of my thinking???? :)
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Two of those quotes are mine and of which I am not ashamed of either.
One is actually a parady of sort of one of your quotes Lefty.
Helipilot Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
No, I am not a bigot.
Like you, I have first hand, front line experience over 25 years and to suggest that homosexuality or females in units does not create problems is to live with your head in the sand.
Want me to make my argument?
Read all the responses here and ask yourself these two questions;
“Does any of this discussion go on in the military?”
“Is this topic distracting?”
Poorly informed? I think not. Perhaps you have never led troops in combat.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
DADT is a flawed policy and should be ended as soon as possible before we lose anymore fine soldiers.
that being said (and I didn’t watch the video) Choi should simply accept his punishment as he broke a clear and concise rule. Fine if you want to work towards changing the law, but you can’t expect preferential treatment if you are going to break the law as it is presently constituted.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Coorection: I meant to say “a vastly more tolerant policy THAN previously allowed.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 am
GuidoVanHorn, and Daddio,
‘those quotes are mine’
…………………….
That’s fine, my response response to PIZZAMAN’s post was based on his accusation that the arguments from my side are nothing but insults, as though it is not true from his side as well.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Good enough Lefty.
Have a good day.
pizzaman Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 am
I NEVER said that all arguments from the left are always insults or ill-thought-out. But way too often they are . . . as are many arguments from the right. My own arguments sometimes use excessive insult, in which case they cease to be genuine arguments. I admit that. The problem with sarcasm is not that it hurts — tough titties — but that it mistakes wit and cleverness for truth. I’m thinking John Stuart here . . . terribly clever and funny, but also terribly false.
pizzaman
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Who voted for this??
This CHANGE must be stopped at once ~ to protect American’s.
Perhaps the motivation and outcome of “the change plan”, should be reviewed – before – the damage is done.
Has Obama provided his birth certificate to verify that he has the prerequisites needed to rule?
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“DON’T ASK” is the new slogan of this administration, just follow like good lil’ sheep.
I don’t believe anymore.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
UmCara:
Regarding my statement that “If the policy is DADT, and if it’s not ground dismissal to BE gay, but rather to ENGAGE in gay sex . . .,” I was making a good faith conditional statement.
But if it’s true that you can be relieved of duty not for angaging in gay acts, but merely for BEING gay, then you and I MAY be in agreement. MAY. I’m no expert in military law, nor an expert in how best to run a male-dominated killing machine. (Let’s admit it, that’s what we run. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Anyone who WANTS otherwise has neither the country’s interest nor our womens’ and childrens’ interests at heart. But that’s an aside.) So tell me, what IS the policy? Does being kicked out require a gay act, or just a gay inclination? NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 am
I’m not Um Cara but from my understanding you can be dismissed on grounds of DADT, for being completely heterosexual and telling people you are gay.
I’m sure if you were caught by your commanding officer butt humping your bunkmate, that would be grounds…not because of the butt humping, but because you did it in a place and manner in which others are blatantly aware of that inclination.
Point is…it’s a flawed policy and needs to be rescinded.
Um Cara Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
yep. the words ‘I am gay’ will get you kicked out. A man having a gay partner will not (as long as he is a super spy and keeps anyone from finding out. There is no rule against him having a gay partner, only a rule against letting anyone find out).
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 am
Daddio, Lefty, and Guido:
You all seem to think that “arrogance” is a commendable trait. You may well be right. It’s a fine line between condience and arrogance. Personally, I rather hear someone’s arrogance than hear the falsely humble, “That’s just my opinion.”
But what I mean by arrogance is the unreasoned assumption that history, as well as political and moral philosophy, always move forward, and that is what is in vogue today is presumptively better than traditional values. The burden is on the side of those who want change. It’s not arrogant for them to assert the need to change, but do castigate anyone who hews to old ways as ipso facto an old fart IS arrogance. We conservatives (thank God for both us us) are like the sayting, “Show me the money.” Except we say, “Show me your premises.” You have the same right. Except that our premises have at least a SMALL presumption of correctness, while yours don’t. That’s purely a law of inertia.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 am
I’ll just say it again. There are a few topics on which I’m quite arrogant, and I feel no need to apologize for that.
There are also a few other topics of which I’m completely ignorant on, and I do apologize for that, as I seek to gain more knowledge.
I also recognize there may be a couple topics of which I concede I may be completely wrong on, however none of those topics come to mind.
average james Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Pizzaman,
IN MY OPINION you are wrong.
Over the years many of my ideas and values have changed, I think of it as growing up.
Personally, I think you are an old fart who hues to the old ways.
or
In my opinion, I think you are an old fart who hues to the old ways.
pizzaman Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 am
Left says these are examples of classic “conspeak” from several posters:
“This issue of homosexuality is all about advancing an agenda, and making everyone accept a behavior, whether they like it or not.”
Lefty: What’s false about this quote?
“They wish to do away with tradition.”
Lefty: What’s false about this quote?
“They seek to undermine the traditions of American society and institutions.”
Lefty: What’s false about this quote?
“They dislike traditional moral values.”
Lefty: What’s false about this quote?
“[libs] who’ve substituted bumper-sticker responses for real thought”
Lefty: You got me on this one. Some libs can think beyond bumper-stickers. Very few on THIS web site, however.
“It is just plain and simple not a natural thing to do. It goes against nature’s law and God.”
Lefty: What’s false about this quote? For my side, I could cite either Plato, Aquinas, or the ever-teleological Wayne Fonatana and the Mindbenders (”The purpose of a man . . .”
“For you, these people ought to be married simply because you believe it is good because it is what you know… or think you know.”
Say whaa?
“also…homosexual desires are not a sin…acting on those desires is”
Lefty: What is false about this quote?
Finally Lefty says: “When others point out that the same exclusionary thinking was there with race, gender, age and so on, they are accused of promoting an agenda, having no respect for traditional marriage, etc.
I respond to Lefty: It does not follow that because large majorities had been mortally sinful about race discrimination, they are now also sinfully wrong about homosexuality. What you say is simply illogical. One might as well say that because a large majority of Americans was wrong about racial segegation, they are also wrong about . . . what? . . . forbidding 10 year-olds from marrying. Or geese. The one doesn’t follow the other. Not even if (as just shown) you limit your categories
to “discrimination.” BY THE WAY, you might check out standard Catholic teaching on this: It is no sin to be tempted about ANYTHING — and that includes sex, whether hetero or homo. Sin comes from willfully entertaining temptation and/or acting on it. What’s unreasonable about THAT? (Unless you’re say, along with Alan, “Well, I never gave much thought to what sin is when I was a young man.” He actually said this one night. Geez. No wonder. Talk radio’s leading liberal and he scarcely gave a thought to what constitues sin when he was being raised. Ha! No wonder.
Hey, Alan. How ’bout chickens? Oh, OK. They can’t consent. THAT’S the problem.
OldLefty Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 am
pizzaman,
What qualifies those quotes as “conspeak”, not so much true or false, is that they are only a matter of personal opinion, not fact.
They were examples of the right explaining away the anti DADT beliefs as “undermining morality or forcing an agenda on others”, even as you claim that we on the left dismiss you as engaging in “ignorance of bigotry”.
I could also post all the quotes accusing the right of “ignorance of bigotry”, and ask, “What’s false about these quotes?”
It’s a matter of opinion.
What I find illogical is the CONSTANTLY equating gay adults with “ forbidding 10 year-olds from marrying. Or geese. “
As you say, one does not follow the other any more than assuming that pedophilia is part of Catholic doctrine because they covered it up.
The point is that those who believed in denying equal rights based on race also based that belief on THEIR version of morality and tradition.
While it does not necessarily follow that the same denial of rights to gays is the same thing, it does not follow that it is not EXACTLY the same thing.
As recently as 1965, it was considered OK for contraception to be illegal for married couples, but that did not make the law moral.
As for Catholic teaching, if one does not subscribe to Catholic teaching, it does not matter to them what they say. They also said the sun revolved around the earth, and excommunicated Jackie Onassis because she married someone who had been divorced.
All the talk of what is sin is STILL a matter of opinion; Osama bin Ladin also believes that HE knows what is moral and what is sinful, based on HIS religious beliefs.
As Thomas Paine said,
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”
He also said,
“That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.”
My main point , before even entering into the DADT argument, is an annoyance I personally have with labeling, one side as “libspeak”, while engaging in “conspeak”.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 am