THIS is what's wrong with Republicans:

[Tock]

Right now you are basically saying that the Dems are for the minority groups and the Reps are for the rich religious fruitloops. What about everyone else though?

I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .

[Flagg]

I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .

Then don't vote for the Dems. Likewise don't vote Republican either.

[thegodfather]

I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .

Not really, your previous posts in this thread all equaled, Democrats Good, Republicans Bad. A very blatant example of stereotyping. It is NO DIFFERENT than some bigoted asshole saying "All Gays are pedophiles." Not all of the 200+ Republicans serving in the House, and 30 serving in the Senate believe in the neo-conservative ideology that you and I oppose which unfairly targets gays and others. Even if the majority do, there are SOME who do not. So you have made an unfair assessment of Republicans. Then, if we consider all members of the party throughout the country, and particularly ones like myself who are champions of civil rights and strict construction of the Constitution, even less fall into this category.

Just as I am sure that you would be very unhappy if someone labeled all gays as pedophiles INCLUDING YOU. I am very unhappy that you are saying ALL Republicans believe in this twisted ideology when I certainly DO NOT, and many others like me who are a part of the party do not.

It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.

[BgMc31]

Not really, your previous posts in this thread all equaled, Democrats Good, Republicans Bad. A very blatant example of stereotyping. It is NO DIFFERENT than some bigoted asshole saying "All Gays are pedophiles." Not all of the 200+ Republicans serving in the House, and 30 serving in the Senate believe in the neo-conservative ideology that you and I oppose which unfairly targets gays and others. Even if the majority do, there are SOME who do not. So you have made an unfair assessment of Republicans. Then, if we consider all members of the party throughout the country, and particularly ones like myself who are champions of civil rights and strict construction of the Constitution, even less fall into this category.

Just as I am sure that you would be very unhappy if someone labeled all gays as pedophiles INCLUDING YOU. I am very unhappy that you are saying ALL Republicans believe in this twisted ideology when I certainly DO NOT, and many others like me who are a part of the party do not.

It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.

I thought you were a Libertarian, Godfather...

[Tock]

It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.

Let me say this about that . . .

The Republican Philosophy as expressed in their various state and national platforms are quite uniform in their distaste and disgust for gay people, and express their hope and desires that gay people should forever be trampled upon and if possible, imprisoned.

As an example, here's the latest one's views about gay people from the People's Republican Republic of Texas:
=============


http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServ...pdf?docID=5841

Marriage Licenses

- We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to

perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality

– We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and

leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been

ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are
opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between
persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values

Texas Sodomy Statutes

- We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution
to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
=======================

Compare and contrast those neanderthal gruntings to the comparatively enlightened prose of Texas Democrats:
http://txdems.3cdn.net/85aa04579763d20cf0_9dm6bnhbo.pdf

We believe democratic government exists to achieve as a community, state, and nation what we

cannot achieve as individuals; and that it must not serve only a powerful few.
We believe every Texan has inalienable rights that even a majority may not take away
…the right to vote
…the right to fair and open participation and representation in the democratic process
…the right to privacy.
We believe in freedom
…from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions
…to exercise civil and human rights

…of religion and individual conscience.

Texas Democrats believe all people possess inalienable rights that are protected by freedoms

guaranteed by the Constitution, which places responsibility on our government to protect and
defend those freedoms just as those freedoms place responsibilities on us as individuals. We believe
in and support.
•

equal opportunity and equal protection before the law for all people;

•

full protection of civil and human rights;

• freedom from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions; and

• freedom of religion and individual conscience.

Supporting the Men and Women of the Military

Texas should demonstrate its support for military families and communities. We insist that our
military members on active duty and in the Reserve receive fair pay and allowances. They must be

the best organized, trained, and equipped fighting force possible. We encourage city, county, state,

and federal elected officials to review present benefits and determine how they can be enhanced.

We also demand truth in recruiting, including a provision that parental permission be required to
authorize the recruitment of minors. Texas Democrats support:
•

providing appropriate personal and vehicle protection for all combat military personnel;

•

programs that assist families of deployed service members in managing difficulties created by

longer and more frequent deployments of Guard and Reserve personnel; such as counseling,

debt service delays, tax deferrals, and basic needs assistance;
•

initiatives to financially assist families of service members who suffer an extended loss of

employment income due to extended or repeated deployments;

•

interstate cooperation to enable the successful transition of families forced to move from one

state to another, including changes involving public education, job searches, and health care

continuity;
•

preventing predatory lending practices targeted at military personnel and their families, such

as payday loans and sale-leaseback transactions;

•

a prohibition of a military draft absent a congressional declaration of war; and an end to

practices that change deployment and other terms of service for existing military personnel

in the middle of the game that amount to a draft in disguise;
•

the right of all military personnel to serve without discrimination, sexual abuse or prejudice

and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and

•

the right of female soldiers and dependents to have the same access to the full range of

reproductive choices and related services that are provided to others;

• adequate time off between deployments.

=============================

If Republicans had their way, I'd be in prison for sex with my sweetie. Lucky for me, they don't. I appreciate what the Democrats and their broader views on human sexuality and privacy have done for my basic freedom to be left alone by the police. For that, they get my vote.

Sure, nobody else gives a rat's butt about gay-related issues. There's lots of other issues that the Democrats are better than Republicans, for sure. Medical marijuana, for instance. I never liked it myself, but for medical doctors who's professional experience lead them to prescribe it for their patients, well, who the Fu** are Republican politicians to tell them how to practice medicine?

I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect, or even that they're pretty good. I am saying, however, that they're a lot better than the current crop of Taliban Republicans. When voting time comes around, I compare all the candidates, and any one of 'em that wants to put me in prison for being gay is unlikely to get my vote. That pretty well rules out all the Republicans.

[thegodfather]

I thought you were a Libertarian, Godfather...

Ideologically I am a Libertarian in every way. However, the Republican party's ORIGINAL platform was almost solely based on Libertarianism. I am a registered Republican because there is far too much bias in the United States against 3rd party's to be effective. So I am pragmatic about the fact that in order to effect any change I have to do so within the Republican party. There is a rift going on within the party right now between people like myself, which they have called "Ron Paul Republicans," and the Neo-Conservatives like Lindsey Graham(R-SC). We are trying to effect change from within the party structure, and have been successful in putting our members in positions within the state GOP structures. The main goal is to take the Republican party back to its ROOTS and its ORIGINAL MESSAGE of limited government, non-interventionism, free markets, individual accountability, sound monetary policy, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and civil liberties.

Basically, when a candidate looks like he adheres to all of the ideals mentioned, which are essentially libertarian in nature. Ron Paul will endorse them. So the more members we can get in the House&Senate, the more we can start to push the party in the direction it once was. We have Rand Paul and Peter Schiff considering a run for the Senate, and several other people running for spots in the House soon.

That's why its rather annoying to hear disparaging remarks about ALL Republicans when there are people who are trying to make a difference in the party. Right now I'm only able to offer monetary support, but will become more active once I'm finally done collecting degrees.

[thegodfather]

If Republicans had their way, I'd be in prison for sex with my sweetie. Lucky for me, they don't. I appreciate what the Democrats and their broader views on human sexuality and privacy have done for my basic freedom to be left alone by the police. For that, they get my vote.

Sure, nobody else gives a rat's butt about gay-related issues. There's lots of other issues that the Democrats are better than Republicans, for sure. Medical marijuana, for instance. I never liked it myself, but for medical doctors who's professional experience lead them to prescribe it for their patients, well, who the Fu** are Republican politicians to tell them how to practice medicine?

I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect, or even that they're pretty good. I am saying, however, that they're a lot better than the current crop of Taliban Republicans.
[/LEFT]

You pick out extreme examples and then extrapolate that onto the entire Republican party. Once again, no different than if I were to find several instances of homosexuals sexually abusing small children, or finding homosexual sites that gave tips on how to insert various rodents into the rectum, and then saying that all homosexuals engage in this abusive treatment of animals.

I think both parties if you look at the policies they produce, are interested in regulating your behavior, they just have different reasons. The Republicans say that you shouldn't do X behavior (smoke marijuana) because its morally wrong and destroys the 'social fabric' of the United States. Then the Democrats say you shouldn't do X (smoke marijuana, shoot heroin) because it's bad for you and they want to "protect you from yourself." I mean really dude, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[Tock]

You pick out extreme examples and then extrapolate that onto the entire Republican party.

Extreme? Hardly. I wouldn't suppose you'd understand, since you're not gay.

You've never been kicked out of the military just for being gay. Never lost a job, never got run off from a timeshare presentation, never endured years of public school with the taunt "faggot." Never had close friends beaten by police (yep, it was caught by TV photographers), never lived in a community where police raids and abuse by government agents were commonplace. Never had close friends die from HIV and then have Republicans say they deserved to die. Never had an elected judge announce in the Dallas Times Herald that he gave a light prison sentence to a double-murderer because his victims were gay (and the judge was re-elected). Never had close friends commit suicide because they couldn't deal with the stress of the continuing BS.

Extreme examples? Hardly. I've been gay all my life, and I've seen stuff like this all my life.

All my life.

One of the high points of my life was hearing that the police in Texas couldn't put me in jail for having gay sex. I sincerely hope that you will have better things to cheer.

Once again, no different than if I were to find several instances of homosexuals sexually abusing small children, or finding homosexual sites that gave tips on how to insert various rodents into the rectum, and then saying that all homosexuals engage in this abusive treatment of animals.

Ya, I've seen lots of that crap too. Mostly from Republicans beating Democrats over the head for supporting equal rights for gay people and criticising Democrats as the party of immorality; and then those same Republicans get caught in adultery, rape, child sex, bigamy, etc.

BTW, that "rodents in the rectum" thing is an urban legend.

I think both parties if you look at the policies they produce, are interested in regulating your behavior, they just have different reasons. The Republicans say that you shouldn't do X behavior (smoke marijuana) because its morally wrong and destroys the 'social fabric' of the United States. Then the Democrats say you shouldn't do X (smoke marijuana, shoot heroin) because it's bad for you and they want to "protect you from yourself." I mean really dude, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

Check out the progressive Democrats in Callifornia and Obama -- as a first step to dismantling the drug war, in California they aren't going after the folks using medical marijuana. It ain't much, but it's a glimmer of hope; it's the sort of hope that the Republican party doesn't inspire.

[Kratos]

Ideologically I am a Libertarian in every way. However, the Republican party's ORIGINAL platform was almost solely based on Libertarianism. I am a registered Republican because there is far too much bias in the United States against 3rd party's to be effective. So I am pragmatic about the fact that in order to effect any change I have to do so within the Republican party. .

I feel the same way, if they could just abandon the God lovers as part of their voting base the party would be better off.

[Kratos]

I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.

I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.

You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.

[Tock]

Nope, DADT has lots of flaws.

Suppose someone discovers you're gay and they blackmail you? Do you pay the blackmail and stay in the military, or report the blackmail and get kicked out?

Everyone has the Constitutional right to petition their elected representatives. If a gay soldier writes a letter to their Congressman saying that he's gay and wants a change in DADT, and word leaks back to the military, should he be kicked out for violating DADT?




If a third party tells someone in the military that you're gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, and they pursue the issue. Lots of guys have been kicked out this way.

If the military discover you've been posting on a blog and said you were gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, they presume you have told, and they pursue the issue.

If they do a random inspection of your dorm room and they find a gay version of Playboy magazine, they can ask.

Sometimes a supervisor or coworker or a subordinate asks anyway, or they find out from a third party, and spread the news around. An investigation begins, and then you're out.

While they aren't supposed to ask, they still do. It's illegal for them to ask, but once they ask, it's illegal for you to lie. But even if you prove that they broke the law by asking first, once the info comes out, then you can't get back in. There is no penalty for anyone who violates the law by asking if you're gay, so nobody hesitates to ask.

Essentially, the law is very one-sided, and gays have absolutely no recourse.


Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1


And here's another take on the policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx6L...eature=related

Ron Paul on DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&NR=1


28 more Generals call for the end of DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiMx...eature=related


Pentagon Chief (General Pace)
Gay Soldiers Violate "Laws of Nature"
General Pace: "The ucmj makes it illegal for members of the same sex or unmarried members of opposite sex to have sex with each other. It is the law, and I'm upholding it."
( . . . of course, only gay soldiers are kicked out of the military, and few if any adulterous heterosexuals are . . . )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2bJ...eature=related


Does it make sense to discharge this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLk5ZHz8PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk

. . . or this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NZDR...eature=related

. . . or this woman, who was a highly decorated nurse?
http://www.cammermeyer.com/

I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.

I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.

You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.

Basically, DADT is in place to satisify the prejudices of ignorant "bubbas" who think it's ok for heterosexuals to "make out" in front of gays, but not vice versa. Ya, kick out the guys with critical skills, and make the idiot jerks happy.

Clearly, DADT is a stupid policy to make stupid jerks happy.

[thegodfather]

Making ASSUMPTIONS is never good practice. I have had one friend who was GAY die from AIDS....So thank you...

Anyway, I am trying to make rational analogies and you are retorting with emotions and not logic, so I'm not going to push the issue or argue any further, as it's obviously something that you are emotionally invested in, and since I am not, I see no reason to argue further and potentially hurt your feelings or insult you because I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...

[Tock]

I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...

These posts are based on facts.

The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults.
Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.

[binder]

These posts are based on facts.

The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults.
Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.

You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

[Flagg]

You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.

[binder]

I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.

exactly! it's a POLITICIAN thing not a party thing....the lines between republican and democrat are very thing. The only thing people distinguish between the 2 parties are the pointless personal choice issues. Both parties run the country almost the same except when it comes to abortion, gay rights, religion...basically what econimists call the "small issues". Not because they don't mean anything, but they honestly do not affect the way the country as whole runs. It only affects the beliefs of the people. Our dollar will not get any more valuable by forcing all 50 states to support gay marriage. Our healthcare will not become cheaper because some politician decides that abortion isn't legal. etc, etc

[Tock]

I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else . . .

I almost agree with that.

I don't think the problem is that "gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else."

The problem is that government has been used to single out gays as people who should not have the same rights as everyone else. Eliminate these needless, foolish, and abusive laws that focus on what gay people cannot do, and simutaneously reduce the size and role of government, and everyone is better off.

[Tock]

Our dollar will not get any more valuable by forcing all 50 states to support gay marriage.

Again, the solution is to reduce the size and cost and influence of government by eliminating the unreasonable laws against gay marriage.

Republicans here in Texas (and a number of other states) would be happy to hunt down copulating gay couples, at government expense, and then throw them in jail at another $40,000 a year (each) of public expense. That is not the hallmark of small government that minds its own business. That is tyranny. Republican Tyranny.

---------------

I might be closer to the conservative ideals of small government than you suspect, and you might be closer to the liberal ideals of equality than I appreciate. Maybe we could be happy living together in the same city, but not on the same street . . .

[Tock]

You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

It's a start, dontcha think?

Of all the unnecessary things that government spends money on, don't ya think that chasing down and expelling gays from the military is a big waste of money? Don't ya think that all the time and $$$ spent on getting legislation passed and repealed singling out gays for special punishment is another huge waste of time? Just the Utah Mormons alone spent $100 million fighting gay marriage in California. Crazy. They could have had 30 shiny new pipe organs built instead, and maybe had a few accordians thrown in for good measure for the Osmonds.

So . . . for smaller government, eliminate all laws regulating gay relationships. What's so difficult about that?

[Iron_Pig]

It's a start, dontcha think?

Of all the unnecessary things that government spends money on, don't ya think that chasing down and expelling gays from the military is a big waste of money? Don't ya think that all the time and $$$ spent on getting legislation passed and repealed singling out gays for special punishment is another huge waste of time? Just the Utah Mormons alone spent $100 million fighting gay marriage in California. Crazy. They could have had 30 shiny new pipe organs built instead, and maybe had a few accordians thrown in for good measure for the Osmonds.

So . . . for smaller government, eliminate all laws regulating gay relationships. What's so difficult about that?

I spent 25 years in the army Tock I never saw or heard of any gay man or women being kicked out for being gay. Had a gay medic on my helo for 4 years and he was open about it nothing ever happened to him did his 4 and out the door. So if your saying you were kicked out there is more to the story than your telling here. and yes he was in a relationship while in

[Tock]

I spent 25 years in the army Tock I never saw or heard of any gay man or women being kicked out for being gay. Had a gay medic on my helo for 4 years and he was open about it

Sort of like the first guy in this 60 Minutes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related

nothing ever happened to him did his 4 and out the door. So if your saying you were kicked out there is more to the story than your telling here. and yes he was in a relationship while in

Well, I wasn't the only one kicked out for being gay. Of course, that was back in the 1970's, back when they kicked out Leonard Matlovich too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich
Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich (1943–1988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
Matlovich was perhaps the best-known openly gay man in America in the 1970s. His fight to stay in the United States Air Force after coming out of the closet became a cause célèbre around which the gay community rallied. His outspoken manner resulted in articles in The New York Times and a television movie on NBC. His photograph appeared on the cover of the September 8, 1975 issue of Time magazine, making him a symbol for thousands of gay and lesbian service members.[1] In October 2006, Matlovich was honored by GLBT History Month as a leader in the history of the GLBT community.





Since 1992 when Don't Ask Don't Tell began, the number of gay soldiers kicked out was higher during peacetime, and declined by about half during wartime. I guess that says something about something . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell



Back when I was in the USAF, they'd do terrible things to you if they discovered you were gay. If you volunteered the information, you might get an honorable discharge, or they might screw ya over and give ya something less. I had been brought up in a family that never talked about heterosexual sex, much less gay sex, and I spent most of my free time in church. So I really had no idea what the recruiter was talking about when he asked me if I had homosexual inclinations. But, when after I had spent some time away from my sheltered environment in boot camp, I learned a lot of things in a hurry. One day I saw Sgt. Leonard Matlovich on the cover of Time magazine, and everything made sense, and much to my horror I thought, "Yep, I'm like that guy."
I kept a poker face for the next year or so, until I figured out what I was going to do. I don't mind saying that that sort of position is unpleasant, stressful, and very lonely. But I made it through ok, decided to tell the USAF that I was gay (before they did a random inspection in my dorm room and discovered all the books I had picked up on the subject), but that I wanted to stay in. At first they said I was lying and that I just wanted to get out early, and I replied, "No I'm not lying, but if you still want to keep me in, I'll be happy to stay." They chewed on that for a few months, then sent me to interview with the OSI (the USAF version of the FBI) and then with a psychologist, and then 6 months later they gave me a paper saying I was officially discharged and I had 24 hours to get myself and all my stuff off the base.

The saddest thing was what happened to my dog.
I had been a cop, had been training sniffer and guard dogs. They couldn't find anyone who wanted to work with my sniffer dog afterward, so they shipped him back to San Antonio, and they put him to sleep (I ran into the guy who did it a few years later at Texas A&M, a Col. Craig who ran the military dog program). I wish they had told me they were going to kill him, because I would have taken him.

Oh well.

Anyway, I'm not suprised you didn't see anyone get kicked out for being gay. They liked to keep that sort of thing hush-hush. I made sure everyone in my barracks and as many people as I could tell in my squadron knew what was going on. Only two other guys out of a hundred objected to my being there. I had a few others tell me to let them know if anyone gave me any sh** and they'd fix the problem for me. My immediate supervisor (a Staff Sgt) was a tongues-talking Christian fundamentalist, and he liked me, said I was doing a good job, and said, "While I am convinced that you are wrong, I will defend your right to be wrong to the death." I still went out to eat with the guys at night; nothing changed there. Even went camping in the Ouichita Mountains with some of 'em. Twice.

That's what happened to me. I was in an experimental program too, which cost some $$$ to re-do because they had to start all over with another group of dogs and dog trainers. Oh well.

[Iron_Pig]

Sort of like the first guy in this 60 Minutes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related


Well, I wasn't the only one kicked out for being gay. Of course, that was back in the 1970's, back when they kicked out Leonard Matlovich too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich
Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich (1943–1988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
Matlovich was perhaps the best-known openly gay man in America in the 1970s. His fight to stay in the United States Air Force after coming out of the closet became a cause célèbre around which the gay community rallied. His outspoken manner resulted in articles in The New York Times and a television movie on NBC. His photograph appeared on the cover of the September 8, 1975 issue of Time magazine, making him a symbol for thousands of gay and lesbian service members.[1] In October 2006, Matlovich was honored by GLBT History Month as a leader in the history of the GLBT community.





Since 1992 when Don't Ask Don't Tell began, the number of gay soldiers kicked out was higher during peacetime, and declined by about half during wartime. I guess that says something about something . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell



Back when I was in the USAF, they'd do terrible things to you if they discovered you were gay. If you volunteered the information, you might get an honorable discharge. I had been brought up in a family that never talked about heterosexual sex, much less gay sex, and I spent most of my free time in church. So I really had no idea what the recruiter was talking about when he asked me if I had homosexual inclinations. But, when after I had spent some time away from my sheltered environment in boot camp, I learned a lot of things in a hurry. One day I saw Sgt. Leonard Matlovich on the cover of Time magazine, and everything made sense, and much to my horror I thought, "Yep, I'm like that guy."
I kept a poker face for the next year or so, until I figured out what I was going to do. I don't mind saying that that sort of position is unpleasant, stressful, and very lonely. But I made it through ok, decided to tell the USAF that I was gay (before they did a random inspection in my dorm room and discovered all the books I had picked up on the subject), but that I wanted to stay in. At first they said I was lying and that I just wanted to get out early, and I replied, "No I'm not lying, but if you still want to keep me in, I'll be happy to stay." They chewed on that for a few months, then sent me to interview with the OSI (the USAF version of the FBI) and then with a psychologist, and then 6 months later they gave me a paper saying I was officially discharged and I had 24 hours to get myself and all my stuff off the base.

The saddest thing was my dog.
I had been a cop, had been training sniffer and guard dogs. They couldn't find anyone who wanted to work with my dog afterward, so they shipped him back to San Antonio, and they put him to sleep (I ran into the guy who did it, a Col. Craig who ran the military dog program). I wish they had told me they were going to kill him, because I would have taken him.

Oh well.

Anyway, I'm not suprised you didn't see anyone get kicked out for being gay. They liked to keep that sort of thing hush-hush. I made sure everyone in my barracks and as many people as I could tell in my squadron knew what was going on. Only two other guys out of a hundred objected to my being there. I had a few others tell me to let them know if anyone gave me any sh** and they'd fix the problem for me. My immediate supervisor (a Staff Sgt) was a tongues-talking Christian fundamentalist, and he liked me, said I was doing a good job, and said, "While I am convinced that you are wrong, I will defend your right to be wrong to the death." I still went out to eat with the guys at night; nothing changed there. Even went camping in the Ouichita Mountains with some of 'em. Twice.

That's what happened to me. I was in an experimental program too, which cost some $$$ to re-do because they had to start all over with another group of dogs and dog trainers. Oh well.

I am sorry for that Bro really I am you have to remember there were a lot of asshat officers looking to put feathers in there caps at that time. People should just mind there own damn business and let people alone. My medic was a great guy and I told him to his face I do not care who you belive in or the politics you choice to follow you will do your job and that is that and he did.

[Tock]

I am sorry for that Bro really I am you have to remember there were a lot of asshat officers looking to put feathers in there caps at that time. People should just mind there own damn business and let people alone. My medic was a great guy and I told him to his face I do not care who you belive in or the politics you choice to follow you will do your job and that is that and he did.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I agree.

I still miss my dog, though . . .

[Kratos]

Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1


.

Did we watch the same program?

[Kratos]

I kept a poker face for the next year or so, until I figured out what I was going to do. I don't mind saying that that sort of position is unpleasant, stressful, and very lonely. But I made it through ok, decided to tell the USAF that I was gay (before they did a random inspection in my dorm room and discovered all the books I had picked up on the subject), but that I wanted to stay in. At first they said I was lying and that I just wanted to get out early, and I replied, "No I'm not lying, but if you still want to keep me in, I'll be happy to stay." They chewed on that for a few months, then sent me to interview with the OSI (the USAF version of the FBI) and then with a psychologist, and then 6 months later they gave me a paper saying I was officially discharged and I had 24 hours to get myself and all my stuff off the base.
.

Can I ask what you had to gain from bringing your personal life to the attention of your commander?

I think gays should have equal rights, don't get me wrong. I feel like DADT is working well though. You have the right to be gay, but does it have to be known at work. I mean the military is a unique enviroment. Maybe the guy in the next bunk over would just perfer not to know, why should your right to be open take precidence over his preferance not to know?

As younger service men come up in the ranks and become superiors (75% of whom support gay service), less will report it even when told. But seriously, why must you tell?

[Tock]

Can I ask what you had to gain from bringing your personal life to the attention of your commander?

Sure.

This was back in the 1970's, before DADT. Back then, if they discovered you, you could be royally screwed. They could (and sometimes did) kick ya out with dishonorable discharges, just because they discovered you were gay. They'd interrogate one guy, get him to spill the beans on lots of other gay people, and then they'd spill the beans on other people, and lots of careers would be ruined. They'd keep on probing until either they ran out of people or people started doing crazy things like suicide.

Oh ya, one major reason I wanted to keep my Honorable discharge was that I wanted to keep my eligibility for Veterans Benefits. There are 5 possible discharges ranging from Honorable to Dishonorable, and you don't get VA education benefits if you get less than a General discharge. They were doing a lot of surprise random barracks inspections, and it was pretty much just a matter of time before they discovered my library in my dorm room and figured out what my story was, then kicked me out without my VA education benefits.

I had known a couple other guys who had been through witch hunts, and my defense lawyer guided me through the system as best he could. He advised me just to tell 'em I'm gay, and if they asked about anyone else, not to say anything. I got through ok, got out with an honorable discharge, so I didn't have to explain anything in subsequent job interviews.

I think gays should have equal rights, don't get me wrong. I feel like DADT is working well though. You have the right to be gay, but does it have to be known at work.

Here's my take on that . . .
An environment where some guys get to talk about their love lives and other guys can't, well that doesn't sound very equal to me.
Imagine yourself caught on a planet of gay people where you have to fake having a boyfriend 24/7. And all the while you're secretly wanting to be with a woman. Sure, it's not the worst thing that could happen to a person, but it's entirely unnecessary. And unfair.

[Kratos]

Sure.

This was back in the 1970's, before DADT.

Here's my take on that . . .
An environment where some guys get to talk about their love lives and other guys can't, well that doesn't sound very equal to me.
Imagine yourself caught on a planet of gay people where you have to fake having a boyfriend 24/7. And all the while you're secretly wanting to be with a woman. Sure, it's not the worst thing that could happen to a person, but it's entirely unnecessary. And unfair.

In my opinion the military is a diffent place now from the experience you had. You don't have to pretend you're with a women, you just can't talk about being with a man. It isn't 100% equal, no, but it isn't as bad as some people think.

Allowing people to be open I think would create some unique problems, because then you have to create policy around it. For example, now you have to make sure a sufficent number of gay people are being promoted. Adopt a policy of how harrasment both physical and mental will be delt with. And the other way around...because what if an openly gay guy happens to be a meat gazer in the mens room or shower, or makes comments to str8 guys like, "I'd like to hit that honey." The reality that gay sex will happen on duty, and how to deal with it. I mean, if some guy has a boyfriend on a sub...do they get to have sex or kiss each other? Some gay people will cross the line between being open and flauting their sexuality, and that isn't fair to the other people they serve with. You have to admit the military isn't just any working enviroment, so it might just be easier to leave the personal lifstyle choice just under the surface in the eyes of the brass, rather then it being for hatred of gay people. I think you'd be impressed with the progress that has been made from what I hear from friends in the military.

In fact the acceptance of gay people in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years has made huge strides. Some day gay people will be able to serve openly, I'm confident of that, and I support it. It must be a smooth transition however and Rome wasn't built in a day. The current military policy isn't the atocity that gay rights groups make it out to be. There are some specific examples of individuals that prove it isn't perfect. It isn't the end answer, but it is a stepping stone.

[Tock]

In my opinion the military is a diffent place now from the experience you had. You don't have to pretend you're with a women, you just can't talk about being with a man. It isn't 100% equal, no, but it isn't as bad as some people think.

It wasn't really all that tough back then, either. Almost everybody in my K9 section knew about me, but it wasn't any big deal. Everyone had more important and more interesting things to concern themselves with. Military law required them to turn me in, but nobody did. Of all the people I ever dealt with, only one had anything smart to say, and one other guy seemed to be uncomfortable in my presence. I still showered with the rest of the guys as usual, and it wasn't any big thing (no pun intended).

The biggest barrier to my success in the USAF was military policy. The official policy said that just my being there would result in a negative effect on morale. I asked almost everyone in my squadron if they thought that was true. They had a different opinion -- they thought the rule was rediculous. I was working with dogs at the time, and I don't think they cared one way or the other, either.

---

I can picture several ways in integrate the military. Chances are it's gonna be done the hard way. But, if it was up to me, I'd do it a bit at a time. I'd put all the new gay recruits into non-combat positions for about 20 years while the remaining opposition to gay people softened. Any gay people who found themselves in combat situations could stay as long as they felt they weren't in danger from getting hurt by homophobes in their unit. I'd deal severely with officers who wouldn't assist with the integration efforts.
A lot of other countries have already figured out how to do this, and it would be worth finding out what tactics they used to make integration work for them.

When it happens, fundamentalists will bleat about the Judgement of God and the End of The World and Immorality and etc etc etc. Given how many hypocritical conservative fundamentalists have been caught in all sorts of immorality themselves, I don't thing they'll get as much traction with that BS as they used to.

Nevertheless, there will always be a few individuals who will be inclined to murder gay people. A few of us are going to get wasted, but all of us are going to have to pick up from there, and keep on going.

[kickinit]

This gets two FARTs on my ass-o-meter.

[Tock]

This gets two FARTs on my ass-o-meter.

Why would anyone fart on your ass-o-meter?

[Kratos]

They were doing a lot of surprise random barracks inspections, and it was pretty much just a matter of time before they discovered my library in my dorm room and figured out what my story was, then kicked me out without my VA education benefits.








.

The biggest barrier to my success in the USAF was military policy. The official policy said that just my being there would result in a negative.

It sounds like your biggest barrier to success in the USAF was you. You basically asked to be kicked out, rather then throw out your porn collection.

Why did you choose to serve knowing what their policy was?

[Tock]

It sounds like your biggest barrier to success in the USAF was you. You basically asked to be kicked out, rather then throw out your porn collection.

I was not speaking euphamistically. I had a library of the best serious books I could find on homosexuality at the time (1977) which included a first edition of Kinsey's 1948 report "Sex in the Human Male." Nary a single porno mag in the bunch, unless you want to call GQ porn. I took every one of them with me when I went to plead my case before -- I forget what it was called; they had a Colonel review the charges against me and listen to what I had to say. But it amounted to two grocery sacks of books, and they were deposited in whatever record they kept.
Oh ya, I corresponded with Dr. Wardell Pomeroy at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, and he was kind enough to send them a notarized statement saying (something to the effect) that they knew of no reason why a gay person should be excluded from military service only because they were gay. That's small potatos these days, but back then, it was the dark ages.
Ya, one of the "popular" reasons they didn't want gays in the military -- they said we'd be security risks. I told them they could tell my parents, my brothers and sisters, everyone in my family, everyone that I worked with on base, everyone that I knew; I told them they could post somebody to walk ten feet in front of me whereever I went, shouting, "homosexual! Homosexual!" and then nobody could blackmail me.
But they didn't really care about that. They were just idiots parroting whatever sounded good at the time. Me, I was trying to deal with something; those fools, brainless & bigoted, were the ones who the military kept.

Why did you choose to serve knowing what their policy was?

I didn't.

I enlisted in the 1970's, and I grew up around people who didn't talk about gay people or sex, even in general. I spent most of my free time in church, so I wasn't going to hear anything about sex there.
For whatever reason, when I enlisted in the USAF, I was under the impression that it was customary for guys to like other guys, but instead of doing anything about it (which I never saw), they devoted their lives to marriages that were more-or-less happy. That's all I ever saw, that's all I ever knew.

The upshot is, when I signed up in the recruiter's office, I had no idea what the word "gay" meant. I had spent 12 weeks talking to a shrink because I was miserable and depressed (mostly because of my awful home situation), and he asked me once if I was happy being male. I thought that was an odd question; he may as well have asked me if I was happy not being a refrigerator. And no, I never wanted to wear women's clothes, and no, I never craved anything up my rear. Honestly and truly, I had no idea what he was talking about. Nevertheless, I distinctly recall thinking that the shrink was attractive. But I never once connected what I was thinking with what I was probably repressing in my mind.

I had a weird upbringing, weird parents, and I was steeped in fundamentalist Christianity, and I knew more about the the Bible than I did about my own sexual orientation. That's just the way things were back then.

----------

If you ever get a chance, pick up a copy of Dr. Jerry Reuben's famous book, "All You Wanted to Know about Sex But Were Afraid To Ask." It's chuck full of bizarre notions, especially the chapter on homosexuality. It was, however, the best information most people had on the subject. Everything about gay people was stereotypes from start to finish. And that was the source material the USAF shrink (and probably the OSI people) used to question me. "What's is a gay person's favorite holiday? -- Halloween." (I didn't know that.)
The world has come a long, long way since those dark days . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyth..._Afraid_to_Ask)
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) is a book (1969, updated 1999) by U.S. physician Dr. David Reuben. It was one of the first sex manuals that entered mainstream culture in the 1960s and had a profound effect on sex education and in liberalizing attitudes towards sex. It was the most popular non-fiction book of its era and became part of the Sexual Revolution of modern America.[citation needed]
The book was translated into 54 languages and sold in 52 countries and ultimately reached more than 150 million readers. In 1972 it was loosely adapted by Woody Allen into a comedy film of the same name.

[Bull_Nuts]

And here is an example of whats wrong with demoncrats....

Nancy Pelosi saying debate with democratic politicians is un-american but bumped her gums constantly when Bush was in office....

Hipocracy at its finest.

And its so fvckin funny to watch her attempt to explain her political stance when given difficult questions....she's she sounds more idiotic than bush ever sounded...what a dumbass cvnt! rotmfflmfao...

[Bull_Nuts]

As younger service men come up in the ranks and become superiors (75% of whom support gay service)

and where did you get this data?

and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum

hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket

[Flagg]

and where did you get this data?

and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum

hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket

Why bother joining this site? Just to fvcking troll? You know you'll probably be banned for saying shit like this so why bother? Your homophobia is that rampant that you have to join random sites just to vent?

[Kratos]

and where did you get this data?

and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum

hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket

I must have made it up jackass
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071802561.html

"Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces."

Of course there will always be ignorant poeple like you though who have built up anger, becuase secretly you have gay tendencies and need to over-compensate.

[Tock]

August 19, 2009
------------------

Republicans are quick to condemn, but slow to take responsibility for their own adultery:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/..._ensign_affair

Republican US Senator Ensign: I did nothing 'legally wrong'

FERNLEY, Nev. – Sen. John Ensign told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his affair with a friend's wife was a mistake but not as bad as former President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern because he didn't lie about it under oath.

"I haven't done anything legally wrong," the Nevada Republican said.

"President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. "You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus the fact I thought he committed perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment."

Ensign made the remarks before being introduced to a standing ovation from about 100 people at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in rural Fernley, about 40 miles east of Reno.
Ensign opened his speech by acknowledging what he called a "distraction."

"I think it would be inappropriate to start any other way than to say I'm sorry," he said. "I've said I'm sorry. I can't say I'm sorry enough. I made a big mistake in my life and I apologize once again to all of you."

The luncheon was Ensign's first public appearance in his home state since acknowledging in June that he had an extramarital affair with former campaign aide Cynthia Hampton.

Ensign resigned as head of the Republican Policy Committee after admitting to the affair with Hampton from December 2007 to August 2008. Hampton's husband, Doug, was Ensign's administrative assistant in his Washington, D.C., Senate office and the families were friends.

Ensign's attorney has also said that Ensign's parents paid the woman and her family $96,000 after learning about the affair.
Ensign once called on President Bill Clinton to resign after his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky erupted in 1998, declaring: "The truth must come out."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, government watchdog group, has called for investigations into Ensign by the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Elections Commission.
Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said Ensign's distinction between his situation and that of Clinton was essentially an attempt to claim his affair was less contemptible.
"Isn't that a little like saying, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?,'" she said in a statement Wednesday. "One politician comparing his illicit affair to another's is a sure sign his career is in trouble."

Ensign told the AP on Wednesday that he can understand how some people might "have a problem" with the fact he called for Clinton's resignation but won't resign himself.

"But if you look at the times ... I was in the House of Representatives but basically was sitting in judgment of the president evaluating the case. I was basically a jurist at that point. I thought there was a violation of a felony," he said.
Ensign said in the interview he never considered resigning from the Senate and is focused on fulfilling his six-year term.
"What we're trying to do is go around to people in the state of Nevada and tell them how sorry I am for what I did. But now I need to focus on earning their trust back by working harder than I've ever worked for them," Ensign said. "There's no magic to hard work. It is literally focusing on what is important to Nevadans. Right now, the biggest issue Nevadans and the rest of the country face is health care."


Ensign spoke for about 30 minutes at the luncheon and answered a handful of questions submitted on cards. None were about the affair.
Later Wednesday he toured a U.S. Forest Service project at Lake Tahoe aimed at thinning forests to reduce fuel loads in an effort to reduce wildfire threats. On Thursday, he is scheduled to host the 12th annual Tahoe Environmental Summit that Clinton and Vice President Al Gore first hosted in 1997.

[thegodfather]

and where did you get this data?

and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum

hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket

You won't be here long. There is no room on this board for the type of bigoted hatred that you are spewing. I have no tolerance for uneducated inbred pieces of shit like yourself. How does a human beings personal preference with who they choose to love and have sexual relations with in any possible way, shape, or form effect your life AT ALL? It doesn't.


Anyway, I don't see one single reason that a persons sexual orientation should matter in military service. It sounds akin to the baseless reasons that people gave about why "Negroes" couldn't serve in the military or fly planes. Them there "Negroes" just ain't as smart as everyone else, that there's a fact. There is no reason that if every heterosexual person talks about their wife/girlfriend/fiance that a homosexual person in the military shouldn't be allowed to talk about the great weekend they had with their boyfriend before returning to base. So f**king what if it makes someone uncomfortable? I'm sure there are still some people in the military who are uncomfortable being around black people, or asian people, or indian people, does that mean they shouldn't be in the military because they make someone uncomfortable? The Constitution doesn't guarantee that you won't have your feelings hurt. It just guarantees a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has no obligation to make sure your feelings aren't hurt. Quite simply if you are uncomfortable in a situation, either remove yourself from it, or get the f**k over it.

[Panzerfaust]

Let me say this about that . . .

The Republican Philosophy as expressed in their various state and national platforms are quite uniform in their distaste and disgust for gay people, and express their hope and desires that gay people should forever be trampled upon and if possible, imprisoned.

As an example, here's the latest one's views about gay people from the People's Republican Republic of Texas:
=============


http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServ...pdf?docID=5841

Marriage Licenses

- We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to

perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality

– We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and

leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been

ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are
opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between
persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values

Texas Sodomy Statutes

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]

Apparently some politicians still have common sense.


What's next, allowing people to marry cattle, sheep? It makes as much sense as homosexuality.

[BgMc31]

Apparently some politicians still have common sense.


What's next, allowing people to marry cattle, sheep? It makes as much sense as homosexuality.

Do I detect of bit of hypocrisy in your posts, Murilo? Aren't you a "live and let live" type guy?

Besides that, your logic is flawed because animals, minors, etc., can't enter into a legally binding contract whereas two consenting adults (regardless of gender) can.