SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
December 19, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

DADT Repealed-Will Buck McKeon’s Head Explode?

After 50 plus years of life I determined the mark of the true, black hearted bigot:  They believe deep in their heart that nearly EVERYONE actually agrees with them, but fails to voice their opinion due to fear of ostracism and punishment by some tiny group of elitists that somehow control societal norms.

I cannot look into Congressman Buck McKeon’s heart, though I have spoken with him on several occasions, but I wonder about his continued opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the face of overwhelming support from the Pentagon, the general public and the rank and file military (measured through polls) and now the overwhelming adoption by the US Senate.

And Congressman McKeon cannot point to a plot by left leaning and fearful Democrats.  The repeal vote included 8 Republicans.  Besides the obvious blue-state RINO’s Collins and Snowe from Maine, the repealers were joined by Brown of Massachusetts and Kirk of Illinois, two additional blue state Repubs that have decided they would like to keep their jobs at the next election.  But look at these additional four somewhat shocking (to me at least) Repubs:  Ensign of Nevada, Burr of North Carolina, Murkowski of Alaska, and Voinovich of Ohio.

It was reported after the release of the poll showing a 70% don’t care or in favor in the military toward the repeal that Congressman McKeon made a smirking comment about “wanting to know who was polled.”

Well, I believe that who was polled were brave young men and women who appreciate the sacrifices and service of their up until now closeted gay comrades, and probably don’t spend ANY time obsessing about what they do behind closed doors.

I would suggest that Congressmen McKeon stop thinking about it as well.

DADT Repealed-Will Buck McKeon’s Head Explode?

Comments (139)

  1. SFC PerezDecember 19, 2010 at 7:51 am
    Kinda like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FTXCqxtwo8
  2. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 8:42 am
    Scanners!!! The head blow up was brutal, but not as brutal as the hair styles of the 80′s!!!!
  3. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 19, 2010 at 9:05 am
    I believe that the repeal of DADT will increase incidents of hazing and other violence against gay soldiers. Sexuality has always been banned in the military, fraternization and whatnot, gor good reason. Now good warriors are going to get caught up in yet another liberal social experiment.
  4. Santa ClaritanDecember 19, 2010 at 9:15 am
    So, your argument is that we should continue government sponsored bigotry to protect gays from bigots and bullies in the military. BRAVO!
  5. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 9:31 am
    Hmmmmm……..in that light, maybe Buck was out to protect gays in the military all along??? What a sweetheart!!
  6. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 9:27 am
    “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” – JFK
  7. 4eyedsueDecember 19, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Thankfully, other countries have already proved this “liberal social experiment” will cause no damage. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay all allow homosexuals to serve openly. It’s time to stop treating homosexuals like second class citizens in America. And the Federal level is the place to start. In 29 states today, in America, you can still be fired from your job just for being gay. DADT- done. DOMA- you’re next.
  8. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    Buck would say (like the one senile general) that these armies are sissified and ineffective. Maybe Buck and the senile general would like to throw down with a gay Israeli commando.
  9. DaveDecember 19, 2010 at 5:00 pm
    Being gay is not a “social experiment”. It’s how nature (God?) made at least ten percent of us, probably more. You might as well get used to it.
  10. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Dave writes, Being gay is not a “social experiment”. It’s how nature (God?) made at least ten percent of us, probably more. You might as well get used to it. I am assuming pretty much everyone here holds dogmatically to Darwinian evolutionary biology. If same sex attraction is how “nature” made at least 10% of the people, how exactly does homosexual behavior confer an evolutionary advantage?
  11. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    Fred bringing out the “straw man.” Was it scarecrow making day at the craft fair?
  12. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 5:58 pm
    Are you going to answer my question or call names. It is a simple matter of consistency with your particular worldview. Or do you not care about consistency?
  13. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 10:45 am
    Hey Fred look up Strawman arguement and you will learn that Tim was answering you by pointing out your false logic.
  14. NickelDimeDecember 19, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    I’ll bite Fred: It doesn’t. Neither does heterosexual monogamy (when compared with the reproductive possibilities outside of a monogamous relationship). What’s your point?
  15. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Monogamy is irrelevant. We are not talking about marriage at this point, but sexual orientation. Heterosexuals can reproduce. Homosexuals can’t. How does evolution explain that and according to it’s doctrine, how does the orientation confer an advantage?
  16. lvogelDecember 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Sadly not ALL heterosexual male or females can reproduce. There are many that cannot.
  17. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm
    Yep. That is true. But that is a small minority. An organism, according to evolutionary philosophy, must still be heterosexual to reproduce. To carry on its genes to the next generation.
  18. 4eyedsueDecember 19, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    Why yes, it is a small minority of heterosexual men and women that cannot reproduce. Estimated to be between 10-15% in industrialized countries. Hmmm… very close to the same percentage of homosexuals in our country. Thank you, Fred Darwin. The “nature” argument makes far greater sense than anyone “choosing” to be treated like crap.
  19. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 10:46 am
    Fred you shouldn’t talk about science or evolution as you know little of either.
  20. NickelDimeDecember 19, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    It doesn’t confer an evolutionary advantage, neither does heterosexual monogamy. If we used evolution as a yardstick for guiding what we tolerate, as a society, we’d be doing all sorts of barbaric things.
  21. dorothymantoothDecember 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm
    uhhh, I beg to differ. Just about any idiot can reproduce, as can be seen on MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” Both heterosexual and homosexual people find alternative ways to have children nowadays. So let’s not use reproduction as an argument for this…find a better one.
  22. 4eyedsueDecember 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    Zoos in Japan and Germany have documented homosexual male penguin couples. They built nests together and used a stone as a substitute for an egg. (Happy Feet!) Both male and female pigeons sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior. Same-sex pigeon pairs will build nests, and lesbian hens will lay (infertile) eggs and attempt to incubate them. Courtship, mounting, and full (*I can’t type it-I’m blushing*) between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. Yup- good old mid-western American Bison. And I can’t even post what those naughty Amazon Dolphins do.
  23. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 5:57 pm
    Kevin of course is correct. The good majority of enlisted military come from traditional oriented backgrounds. Mid-west, small towns, blue collar. They are raised despising homosexuality. Thus, when they encounter them, the tendency is to haze the individuals, not embrace them as fellow brothers in arms. The repeal of DODT is the liberal elitist wet dream. Certainly Lady Gaga can celebrate, but she, like the good many of the liberal elitists, won’t ever be in the military. In order for the repeal to genuinely work in practice, the only thing that can be done is change the hearts and minds of the good majority of enlisted military, which again come from anti-homosexual thinking. That is a much hard rock than getting a bunch of votes in the senate.
  24. DaveDecember 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    Based on this argument, we should roll back the last great “social experiment” that the military performed, which was the racial integration of the armed services. Don’t want to upset anybody’s heart or mind.
  25. Fred ButlerDecember 19, 2010 at 7:19 pm
    Both of those races come from those backgrounds I mentioned. And in a strange break from Democrat philosophy, a good majority of African Americans voted for Prop. 8, which shows that sexual orientation differs greatly from racial diversity issues.
  26. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    Fred: The “good majority?” I guess that means the 70% that said they did not care about the repeal must not have understood the question, or they had forgotten they were “supposed” to despise homosexuals. As far as your conflated demographics Fred, I fit under all of those (Midwestern, blue collar, small town). When did I forget to despise homosexuals.
  27. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
    “The good majority of enlisted military come from traditional oriented backgrounds. Mid-west, small towns, blue collar. ” Evidence to support this statement? [False Premise] Fred you should really study the various logical fallacies… you might actually pursuade someone of something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
  28. TCRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:04 am
    This About article from 2005 states that “…urban areas provide far fewer recruits as a percentage of the total population than small towns and rural areas. “
  29. KevinADecember 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    I really don’t care who the soldier next to me sleeps with. All I care about is can he/she shoot straight?
  30. Local DemDecember 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm
    I don’t believe Rep. McKeon was even in DC when it was voted on by the House of Representatives. If he couldn’t bother to vote then he shouldn’t have anything to say about the vote.
  31. cashDecember 19, 2010 at 11:39 am
    I support the decision (dump dadt) for reasons I have stated in the past. Besides, I doubt gays will start wearing a new name tag to identify their sexuality.
  32. Petz2December 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    DADT was really not the underlying issue as JW and TJMSR know .This is part of the larger attack on DOMA and traditional mariage. There was no real reason to repeal DADT and plenty of reason to retain the existing policy. A political concession to a vocal Dem minority. Secretary Gates was intimidated by an out of control judiciary which is asserting it’s stranglehold oveer the legislative and executive branches of government. The soft tyranny of the minority continues to grow.
  33. Say WHAT!December 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm
    Are there unicorns and goblins in your world? “Attack on traditional marriage” eh? Do conservatives really think that gay people are trying to take anything away from me and my wife? Weird, dude. That’s just weird use of the English language. Maybe we should pass a special DADT policy for ultra right-wing looneys to not use scare tactics and logical fallacies while posting on the internets: we don’t ask them to speak, and they don’t tell us how ignorant they are. Sound like a good law?
  34. cashDecember 19, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    I don’t think the cat is out is out of the bag. Gay marriage, having children, is a different issue. Does being gay make a person a coward less likely to fight for our county or fight to protect soldiers that are not gay? I think not. I am thinking that those that are cowardly would not even join the military, if they thought they would be facing an enemy that wanted kill them.
  35. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 11:06 am
    “There was no real reason to repeal DADT and plenty of reason to retain the existing policy.” The money alone is a “real reason” — According to a 2007 New York Times article, the United States has dismissed 58 much-needed Arabic linguists and 11,000 regular service members since 1998. It is estimated the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would add an additional 41,000 soldiers to our fighting force. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, it costs our military about $20,000 a head to discharge one gay individual. The report concluded the military spent about $190.5 million from 1994 to 2004 due to this policy. With the military experiencing difficulty recruiting, it’s opting to extend 12-month deployments to 15 months, extending the age limit to 42 and even enlisting felons. It just seems foolish to delay nullifying this policy much longer. — Nate thinks Petz needs to get real…
  36. TCRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:15 am
    In the past six years, the Air Force has trimmed its size by 40,000, and the Navy has taken a similar cut. Your information regarding the military’s recruiting difficulties is outdated. About.com provides a good summary of more recent recruiting production. All Active Duty components were above 90% of their goals.
  37. BrianDecember 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm
    Does Buck have ANY military experience ?
  38. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm
    Buck has not served in the military, but he has close family members who have or do.
  39. cashDecember 19, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    Goes to show you that it does not take much background or experience to reach a position of power in politic. Beside, I do not find Buck to be the brightest. He is a nice man, but certainly not qualified to weigh in on military matters. I suspect he was a pretty good Mayor when the city was still a hick town.
  40. Bill ReynoldsDecember 19, 2010 at 3:43 pm
    Sounds like you are referring to President B. Hussein…
  41. cashDecember 19, 2010 at 9:28 pm
    Him to. Bill you know how badly the politicians screwed up the Vietnam war, Buck is not as smart as they were then.
  42. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Petz2 and KK, you are obsessing too much about what a couple of guys do behind closed doors, and that goes for marriage too. Stop it!!! Stop it now!!!
  43. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 20, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    I most certainly care about what our military men and women are doing while on the “fence” protecting me from real enemies. I do not think that the repeal of DADT will in any way improve the job they are doing and feel there is a good chance that it will lead to lower moral. Tim, I will not stop standing up when I see the dippy liberal socialists attempting to remake our society in their image. This was a bad idea and eventually Petz and the rest of us will be proven correct in our suspicions.
  44. ScottEDecember 21, 2010 at 8:33 am
    “This was a bad idea and eventually Petz and the rest of us will be proven correct in our suspicions.” I’ll take that bet.
  45. Petz2December 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    The closed doors happen to be attached to barracks. If the congress is serious then they should have the courage to stop segregating the sexes in the military and require women to sign up for selective service to get student loans. Repealing DADT is just as ridiculous. Petz knows your agenda, he rejects it out of hand. Have they closed Gitmo yet?
  46. TomDecember 19, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    It’s time for McKeon and McCain to retire.
  47. rosierayDecember 19, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    amen
  48. lvogelDecember 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm
    Just a thought….wonder how many rapes have been committed in the military by a homosexual? Why is sex such a hang-up? These young men and women (straight or gay) are risking their lives for us. It’s not a freaking orgy people!!!
  49. Timothy MyersDecember 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm
    lvogel: Petz, KK and Fred are just thinking TOO much about what two men actually do, and they need to stop! I am very concerned.
  50. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    Homophobia is gay.
  51. dorothymantoothDecember 20, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    I want to “like” this comment but I forgot I’m not on facebook.
  52. SFC PerezDecember 19, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    I love how people who arent currently serving, nor ever did, try to impose a personal belief system on those of us who do or have just “wonderful” opinions on what “we” feel lol
  53. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    I love how one person who is currently serving, or ever has, tries to impose a personal belief system on the rest of those who are currently serving or ever have. Don’t let it bother you son, just be a real man and accept it.
  54. SFC PerezDecember 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    First off dumba$$ I am of the thought process that if someone wants to serve their country they should be given the right to do such regardless of their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or religion. And if you want to challenge my manhood by all means, step up to me face to face and do such, not behind a computer screen. I dont think I have ever seen you mentioning serving your country other than ranting and raving so I will state for you and any others who wish to tell us in the military how to operate, “Unless you are willing to walk our walk, stay in your lil Starbucks and discuss politics with yourselves and dont dictate a THING to us.”
  55. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    SCANNERS!
  56. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 8:09 am
    SFC Perez, well said. None of these libs will ever look you in the eye.
  57. Gang FangDecember 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    C’mon Bill……we locked eyes when we met, how can forget that magic moment? My heart just sank a notch.
  58. john adamsDecember 20, 2010 at 9:19 am
    Good Luck with that Sgt! and thanks for your service!
  59. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Thank you Bill and John. We in the military defend the Constitution at its highest level and cannot push a personal agenda guided by our personal wants and desires. The military is an extremely diverse organization made up of people from different ethnicities, genders, religions, and no sexual orientations. We defend each others rights to exist since to do the opposite would go against the Constitution and the foundation that we have built. Madison once said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” It has been said by some that the military is not a “social experiment” but history has proven otherwise. Our military fought against segregation long before it was changed in civilian society and we have led the way in most business practices and civil rights that you see implemented later by those we defend. I serve my current Commander-In-Chief respectfully, as I did President Bush(2), President Clinton, and President Bush(1). I have views that would make some conservatives or liberals cringe but I wont label myself as any political party. I believe if it’s a good idea that is best for the people it should be accepted, but once again that is just my opinion.
  60. john adamsDecember 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm
    I love how liberals always use name calling and insults to try and make their point of view valid. Read Tims story again and count the insults and name calling and come up with a number and post it on here. While I agree with his side of the debate I dont ever agree with his tactics. Why not say ” hey this is how I feel and these are the reasons why……..” Look at 4eyedsue’s response above for a great example of how to make a point. Tim could learn alot from that.
  61. 4eyedsueDecember 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    *because I’m not a liberal
  62. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 8:10 am
    R 2
  63. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 11:12 am
    I love how the biggest name caller on this site has always been Bill Reynolds and you ignore that fact. Anytime a neo-con is unable to hold their own in a debate they just claim they are being attacked and cry. MAN UP.
  64. john adamsDecember 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    Sorry Nate, but you have been and I am quite sure will always be the biggest name caller on the site. And not one of your liberal buddies will defend you of that charge.
  65. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    Did you get your feelings hurt…? Do you need a hug? You are obviously turning a blind eye… but what’s new?
  66. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    Hey Lil Natie, if you are giving out hugs I’m sure Gang Fung will be there for you in a NY minute.
  67. Gang FangDecember 20, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    Awwwww, little Billy needs a hug so bad that the thought of two men hugging gets him weepy! That’s sweet!
  68. Santa ClaritanDecember 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm
    Can somebody answer me this: why is there any question on this issue? Why can’t we just call the bigots bigots? This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. This is prejudice, plain and simple.
  69. Gang FangDecember 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    Oh, how some will quake in fear if they don’t have the tags of “conservative” or “liberal” to slather each other in. It’s a thin cloak.
  70. Petz2December 20, 2010 at 4:11 am
    Because calling a bigot who is not a bigot does not lead to clarity, it might make to feel good about yourself for a moment, but that is all.
  71. Santa ClaritanDecember 20, 2010 at 9:56 am
    Even if we grant you your choice argument, prejudice is still prejudice. Don’t know how you get around that one.
  72. cashDecember 20, 2010 at 10:05 am
    That’s easy! People can disagree without being a bigot.
  73. Santa ClaritanDecember 20, 2010 at 10:24 am
    Denying rights to a whole class of people is not simply a “disagreement.” Let’s be very clear on what this is all about. There are people in this country that believe homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us simply because of their sexual orientation. For the life of me, I don’t know how that can be categorized as anything but simply wrong. If the “disagreement” is that you really believe that these people are not deserving of being full members of our society, then there’s not much more point in having a conversation.
  74. cashDecember 20, 2010 at 10:43 am
    Well you are entitled to disagree.
  75. JeffDecember 19, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Fred: I’ll turn your question around on you. Why does god permit the birth of homosexuals if it’s abhorrent to him? What kind of messed up god would do that? Most everyone agrees same sex attraction is genetic at this point (oh how I miss the days when you guys worried about gays recruiting your children) so how come god keeps making them that way?
  76. SFC PerezDecember 19, 2010 at 11:17 pm
    I myself dont care if it is genetic or a personal decision. Bottom line it is how someone has chosen to live their life and I respect it as such. I dont view it as me having the right to judge them as such. I can only judge someone based off their character and even then thats to a limit.
  77. Petz2December 20, 2010 at 4:14 am
    We do not agree that sexual orientation is genetic at this point. Nature vs nurture is very much in question.
  78. Say WHAT!December 20, 2010 at 8:53 am
    Petz, I’d LOVE to hear your theory on how you think homosexuality could possibly be “nurture” as opposed to “nature”. Are you one of those wackos who thinks one can “pray themselves straight?”
  79. TCRDecember 21, 2010 at 1:38 am
    I think the logical foundation of the “nature” theory is shaky. The argument that I have seen presented for “nature” is that no one would choose to be ostracized/mocked/marginalized/etc. The overall conclusion is that someone should not be judged or treated differently because they did not have a choice in their behavior. Following this logic, Petz would not choose to voice an unpopular opinion on this blog. Petz must have been born without the ability to accept the popular opinion. Isn’t it reasonable for you to accept his opinion, since Petz cannot change who he is?
  80. CCDecember 20, 2010 at 10:12 pm
    Petz, you obviously don’t support Free Will, let alone Freedoms as supported by our Constitution. Your sex hangups are stunning. These men and women deserve our respect for they serve with their lives.
  81. Fred ButlerDecember 20, 2010 at 5:51 am
    God doesn’t make them that way. It has nothing to do with God being “messed up.” Come on, you are enough of a Catholic to understand the impact of sin in the world. Hetersexual sin, which military men do much more frequently, is just as abhorrent to God. A related question is why does God allow it to begin with without destroying them, or any sinner for that matter. That has to do with His Grace and that He redeems individuals from such peverted lifestyles, both homosexual, as well as heterosexual.
  82. NickelDimeDecember 20, 2010 at 6:44 am
    Hold on… so when one makes the proclamation, “I’m gay”, what does that mean to you?
  83. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
    5 Cents is gay?
  84. NickelDimeDecember 20, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    I guess it all depends on Fred’s answer!
  85. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    So you don’t know…
  86. Gang FangDecember 20, 2010 at 6:59 am
    Sermon time.
  87. Say WHAT!December 20, 2010 at 8:56 am
    Uh, sorry… THERE IS NO GOD. Occam’s Razor and all. Just sayin’… logic is your most useful tool. Use it.
  88. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 11:14 am
    Hey Fred did you hear they cured someone of HIV? Yikes it is like God is losing to the homosexuals.
  89. NateDecember 20, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    Once again False Premise, tha is irrelivant to the topic anyway. It doesn’t matter if “god” made someone that way or not. What matters is they are Americans with the right to be and do what they want… remember that whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing? Remember the liberty that seems to be so much in jeopardy soon as conservatives lost an election? Gays have a right to be who they want to be, if that means it is a “sin” in your eyes. You have no facts, you have no principles. You only have some ramblings from an ancient mythological book. Fred don’t talk about others sinners. I have never seen someone who claimed to be “spiritual” yet had such an angry, carnal spiri as you. I don’t believe that the spirit of “god” lives inside you, if he does you have beat him into a corner.
  90. CCDecember 20, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    Bigotry is abhorrent to God.
  91. cashDecember 20, 2010 at 10:11 am
    Jeff, is that a rhetorical question? Is there a reason God did not create males to give birth? Did God create females to give birth but only after being with a male for a reason?
  92. BrianDecember 20, 2010 at 11:14 am
    Where does most of the anti-gay come from? Young immature men. Why? Because if we were to look at men in general, we have very few big bubba types which personify the manly ideal. Most of the men fall into a general male role. We are not bad ass, we don’t get in fights and many are feeling like they have diminished manhood, whatever that really is. That’s why we like shoot em up movies and games. So we bond together and find a group which ‘real’ men can thump their chest and feel superior. The Gays! Faggots, wimps and so many other invectives. Find one, kick their ass and have a beer. We rule! That’s the military mindset, especially my firsthand experience in the Marines. Peer pressure and the overwhelming need not to be like a Gay. Not everyone feels that way, although to speak out makes you, yep, gay. Options were limited. Some grow up to know better and some opened hateful churches to continue the hate and bigotry. America the childish and immature. We complain of indecent exposure visible through a telescope and a 1/2 second boob shot which everyone missed until the group told them to pause the VCR and be offended. When will we grow up? Sex in the barracks was never acceptable before so why expect different now? Again, grow up!
  93. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 11:35 am
    Brian, your experience in the USMC is something synonymous with being in the combat arms, which I did in the Army forever and a day. Things are changing though in the military and I can tell you that from first hand experience what may have been acceptable for me when I first joined in 89 is 180 degrees different now. As leaders, we in the military have to understand the rules and apply them to lower enlisted and live them ourselves. If we cannot accept such a task we need to get out and allow those who can, make it happen. Too often you see someone’s religious beliefs guide them and that is fine until they are at the point of forcing this belief on someone else, and that cannot be tolerated in society and most definately not in the military. We have regulatory guidance and constant training advising us what is permittable and what isnt. And since when was sex never tolerated in the barracks?? Like I said, things have changed lol
  94. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 11:35 am
    Forget this: Ooooorah!
  95. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 11:46 am
    WOW! Wonderful post Brian. You wrote, what my brain was thinking, but couldn’t articulate. I have always felt sorry for those so called men that hate (yes HATE) homosexuals and must feel more manly about themselves by stating and unfortunately exhibiting that hate. I feel sorry because they are insecure little boys who will never feel good about others, let alone themselves.
  96. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    Usually behind those hateful ppl are a hateful parent and society as a whole who doesnt take someone to task for these views. Compare it to when Lil Johnny gets in trouble at school for bullying and Mom n Dad rush to his defense denying any such behaviour. As opposed to analyzing what may have really happened and teaching Lil Johnny right from wrong.
  97. navigatorDecember 20, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    I don’t quite understand some of the arguments for the repeal. Gays have the right to serve now. If they want to serve why do they need to advertise their sexual preferences as well? Same with religion. I don’t care what your religious beliefs are just quit trying to sell me on it.
  98. Santa ClaritanDecember 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    So, if a straight guy says “I like women” we give him a dishonorable discharge? Why should the heterosexuals be able to “advertise” if the homosexuals cannot? Why is equality such a difficult concept for people on the right?
  99. navigatorDecember 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    Tell you what SC, I won’t advertise that I prefer women if you promise not to advertise that you like men. Now we are all equal.
  100. cashDecember 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm
    Or that you are bi, or that you may like little boys, perhaps animals, etc……… Seems man was made for woman, and woman for man. The rest, well it’s just not right! I don’t see why that is so difficult to understand.
  101. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 1:07 pm
    I find the term ‘advertising’ interesting, navigator. Yes gays and lesbians can serve their country and put their lives at risk now, but only if they keep it too themselves. They are asked to fight for us, but to keep who they are to themselves; why? Because some are uncomfortable with anothers sexual orientation? Because even though these men and women have trained hard and worked hard to be the best at what they do, there are those that believe they will not perform as well because of their sexuality. This is a battlefield not a love-in.
  102. navigatorDecember 20, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    “This is a battlefield not a love-in”. Nor should it be. Job performance has never been the issue. Using some of the logic presented here would indicate that homosexuals cannot do (or won’t do) their job because of the fact that they can’t expose their sexuality. That makes just as much sense as a hetero thinking that they can’t do their job because they ARE homosexual. The main arguing point for DADT is the living proximity that cramped quarters provides. Why pour gas on a fire? Are there complete homophobes in the service and elsewhere? If not this wouldn’t even be an issue. Are there racists out there? You don’t have to look very far. Should we ban African Americans from the service because of that, you ask? Of course not, but then they don’t have to worry about DADT do they? I guess my point is that we should use some common sense instead of political correctness sometimes.
  103. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    “Why pour gas on a fire?” So should we ban women from serving, navigator? “The Pentagon’s latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25%. When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving — twice the rate in the civilian population.” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html#ixzz18h3jRJHQ Wonder if those that are raping our female soldiers care whether they fight (or sleep) next to an openly (non-oppressed) homosexual? YOU BETCHA!
  104. navigatorDecember 20, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    You just made my case against women on warships and in foxholes. Is it their fault? Of course not! Just another argument against putting a cookie in front of dog.
  105. navigatorDecember 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    BTW, check out the stats on women deployed on warships that come back pregnant.
  106. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm
    If I’m not mistaken, pregnancy while serviing is a punishable offense, no? A female soldier will be removed from combat if she becomes pregnant by another soldier and possibly discharged. If this was the result of a consentual act, she will face whatever awaits her at home. However, if it’s a ‘dog’ that can’t control himself and becomes a pig who decides to rape the female soldier (and she becomes pregnant) that would mean, hopefully, court martial for the male soldier. So no women on ships or in foxholes; where would it be okay, and safe, for a woman to serve?
  107. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    I dont appreciate the analogy of me, nor my comrades, being “dogs.” But either way, you as an adult have to control yourself even if separated from the opposite sex for months on end. And yes it is a punishable offense to both get pregnant and impregnant a fellow servicemember while on deployment. We have laws to follow that would make the most uptight evangelical shudder.
  108. Santa ClaritanDecember 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm
    Glad to see you’ve decided to go celibate.
  109. Kevin D. KorenthalDecember 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm
    I am trying to figure out which, if any of the following nations could sustain vigorous war activities on their own for any real length of time: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay. Anyone know the answer to that question?
  110. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    Are we fighting on our own?
  111. Bill ReynoldsDecember 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    Yep…
  112. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    No other NATO forces in Afghanistan, huh Bill Reynolds?
  113. Bill ReynoldsDecember 21, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Check their numbers and their efficiency… America is in charge and handling the lion’s share of combat. Having a few other minor participants is for political purposes…
  114. BrianDecember 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Can you explain why we enlisted a ‘coalition of the willing’ which consisted of some of the aforementioned countries? Are we now a country of haters who only respect the big dogs? Again, America lacks the emotional security to be a part of a United world. We are too engrossed in the my way or the highway. America has become fat, lazy and intellectually backward. Other countries are more compassionate and tolerant. (It may be TV, but watch the shows on BBC America to see a society which gets along for the most part. Law and Order UK impresses me.) Other countries actually have their priorities in order. America is still fighting battles based on theological constructs and refuses to accept a multicultural world. WikiLeaks shows the lengths we go to force our will on others. Look at the American religious people in Uganda trying to make a law which executes homosexuals. USA! USA! Aren’t you all so proud?! You can shout USA! USA! all you want, but that doesn’t make us number 1. It really is time to become less violent as a society. What does that say about us when love is ridiculed and criminals praised. Torture anyone? That must come with national maturity, which we have yet to embrace. Why else are we at war with our fellow citizens?
  115. IndyDecember 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    Excellent points Brian.
  116. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Switzerland, and United Kingdom definately. Most of the others not because of homosexuals serving but more so the structuring of their armed forces. Israel is probably the best option on that list due to their being at constant war since their existence, with UK being a close 2nd.
  117. Staci GarciaDecember 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    Such an interesting topic. I was a female on active duty in the USMC for four years. I can tell you that over 50% of the women I served with were gay (granted, women make up less than 10% of the Marine Corps) and countless men were openly gay. I served as an enlisted person and our compensation was horrendous. I moved on to college after serving 4 years, 3 meritorious promotions and a few medals – making about $17,000 a year. I would have made the Marine Corps my career – had it paid above the poverty level. It was truly the finest “job” I have ever had and I am more than honored to have had the opportunity. My thought on this subject is that it was a mute point to the majority of the men and women I served with. It simply didn’t matter – as long as you performed your duties to the highest standard and gave 100% every day – this really is an after thought. I have always said that the military is an exact smaller segment of any society. It is filled with moms, dads, children, gays, rich, poor, educated, doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, rapists, murderers, jocks – everything under the sun. In this sub-culture there is and always well be “homophobic” people. There will be those that don’t deal well with another individual being “different”. There are people who are uncomfortable sleeping in close quarters with African American’s and numerous others that have ill feelings against another sub-culture. Common sense would go a long way – and as far as I am concerned – maybe Congress should be discussing the pay these individuals make – not who they sleep with. Just my two cents…..
  118. lvogelDecember 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    I for one appreciate your ‘two cents’, Staci Garcia…..and your service! Thank You! My daughter-in-law is a marine stationed in Afghanistan and she too is honored to serve and thinks she has the best job ever. However, fighting for your country does not pay well and, like you, she will not make it a career.
  119. The real King of SCVDecember 20, 2010 at 6:07 pm
    I hope she returns well. I honer her service.
  120. SFC PerezDecember 20, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    Ooorah Marine! We in the military are constantly taught diversity but its up to the individual to accept or not. Alot of times I see people accepting change well with the “newer crowd” as opposed to some of the older folk. When did you serve btw?
  121. The real King of SCVDecember 20, 2010 at 5:57 pm
    Where is the big boob himself Bill Clinton on this? Isn’t he still the anointed one for the democrats. The left are hiding this guy from the issue. Why? He should be able to infuse some impute on this issue. Or does the media want everyone to forget that he was architect of DADT?
  122. CCDecember 20, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    Really? this is your argument? Wow.
  123. PotCallingKettleDecember 20, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    Really? That’s your response? Wow.
  124. Bill ReynoldsDecember 21, 2010 at 8:07 am
    Bubba cracked the door open for “The Messiah” to expand his plan. This is exactly how Liberals operate… first a little Obamacare and then WHAMO… full scale social healthcare. First a little social security, then BAM… outa control.
  125. Say WHAT!December 21, 2010 at 10:40 am
    Yep, that’s how we operate. It’s a big conspiracy to rob you of your rights to hate others. I see that it’s working. Muahhahaha!
  126. Bill ReynoldsDecember 21, 2010 at 11:47 am
    It is difficult for socialists to openly admit these things.
  127. Petz2December 21, 2010 at 6:15 am
    The process by which repeal was achieved was dishonest like most things involving Obama and the Dems. The immoral majority was paying back a vocal minority that saw DADT repeal as a stepping stone on their way to attack DOMA and gain recognition for same sex marriage at the federal level of government. The military did not request DADT repeal-a policy which was working well except for those with an exclusive politcal agenda. Obama refused to defend the executive branch of government from an out of control judicial branch-which was the only reason Robert Gates urged DADT repeal. Repeal of DADT was a bad policy decision -thrust upon the civil society by a liberal minority that temporarily has political power. Petz said it….that should finish it.
  128. ScottEDecember 21, 2010 at 8:45 am
    ” … a stepping stone on their way to attack DOMA and gain recognition for same sex marriage at the federal level of government …” Now THERE’s a good idea!
  129. 4eyedsueDecember 21, 2010 at 8:46 am
    77% of Americans support the repeal of DADT. This support crosses partisan lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents in favor of homosexuals’ serving openly. (Washington Post 12/15/10). So, that “dishonest” repeal is supported by most of our fellow Americans. That “immoral majority” did what the people thought was right. And, *gasp* a little over half of Americans in 2010 favor same-sex marriage. So, as for DOMA… yup..I say “attack”! Petz2- Fear is not a good place to live.
  130. Gang FangDecember 21, 2010 at 8:22 am
    Woke up this morning, and DADT was still repealed. Funny how that works.
  131. Bill ReynoldsDecember 21, 2010 at 11:45 am
    HooRay! Gang Fung can now join the US Army!
  132. Gang FangDecember 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    And out comes the “you must be a damn faggot too!” response. As predictable as sunrise. Save a Christmas kiss for me, Billy. On second thought, I just got a new mistletoe belt buckle – care to try it out with me?
  133. HermanDecember 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
    It’s pretty lame if the best you can do is label anyone that doesn’t agree with you a bigot and call that your argument.
  134. Santa ClaritanDecember 21, 2010 at 4:08 pm
    It’s pretty lame that a bunch of prejudiced people seem to think there is any justification to denying millions of American citizens their rights. A majority of this country was fine with slavery when we started out (even to the point of making some people less than a person in the Constitution). There were laws against interracial marriage enforced up until the year I was born (the Supreme Court put an end to that). We now acknowledge (or at least the vast majority of us do) that these things were wrong (regardless of what polling at the time would have indicated). People that still ascribe to those views are properly shunned by most of society. We don’t take the position that they simply “don’t agree” with us. We properly label them as bigots. It is a shame and a disgrace that we don’t treat those who would deny rights to citizens based on sexual preference in the same way. A few decades from now (hopefully much sooner), I have no doubt we will. In the meantime, I see no reason not to call the bigots out.
  135. Petz2December 21, 2010 at 9:21 am
    Petz said it…that should have finished it.
  136. Say WHAT!December 21, 2010 at 10:42 am
    Are you for real? Where do egos like that come from?
  137. ScottEDecember 21, 2010 at 10:53 am
    He’s not for real. He’s not the droid you’re looking for. You can go about your business. (Trust me on this, you’ll thank me someday)
  138. 4eyedsueDecember 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
    It’s signed! And standing over the Presidents shoulder: Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva- the first American wounded in Iraq. He was awarded the Purple Heart after a landmine blew off a leg and busted an arm. After his medical discharge he went to work for the Human Rights Campaign to push for the end of DADT. Brave soldier. Loose your leg for your Country- but don’t offend us with your gayness… NO MORE!
  139. BrianDecember 22, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    Do we need even more people in the overcrowded world? Reproduction is an insane argument made by bigots looking for any excuse to justify their narrow world view. Those espousing this point need to see what a true gay American looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGxhphlJN-I

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support