Is Rick Santorum suggesting that heterosexuals hide who they are also? Do they lock their children away in the attic along with their wives? Is Santorum too young to realize that DADT was also “social experiementation?” It was an incremental step created by President Bill Clinton to fulfill a campaign promise to gays regarding military service. He met with such resistance he had to offer DADT as an alternative to ending the ban on gays in the military to ward off serious Congressional sanctions/legislation.
Santorum really doesn’t get that being homosexual isn’t always about sex. He totally overlooks the state of being component. How does he propose to put that genie back in the bottle?
And as for those trash-a$$es that booed a service member who is honorably serving his country–SHAME ON THEM. They simply have no class. Regardless of how one feels, the booing was totally unacceptable.
Santorum’s been a ridiculous homophobe for a long time. It was he who compared homosexuality to bestiality, which I assume that he is also secretly fascinated with.
Anyway, I always hear talk of “experimentation” in regards to homosexuality, not just on a social level but on a personal level as well. Last night I decided to do some experimentation.
I hung out on the National Mall, near the public bathrooms. I solicited a couple of test subjects who agreed to engage in some sexual activities for a nominal fee. We set up a makeshift lab in the toilet stalls and videoed the proceedings for future peer review.
My detailed measurements of average time to ejaculate, length, thickness (tumescance), milliliters per ejaculation, pH levels of bodily fluids, and other data is finished and will be published in a future issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. I need to wait for a month or two to finish the paper, to complete a section on sexually transmitted diseases.
The entire subject is just SICK. No other way to describe what a small minority is doing to the basic fabric of this country not to mention the laws of mother nature. We may decide to tolerate them, but to place them on a pedestal, give me a break.
‘Santorum’s and the audience’s response (booing and clapping loudly over his actual response) confirm my opinion of the present day Republican party – too many haters. Gays just happen to be one of the groups the GOP loves to hate.
Santorum spent the night alternating between smiling and seething. PA voters did the right thing by putting him out to pasture. I find it humorous that he would even think he’s presidential material.
Hmmmmmm……so are all Democrats gay?
Did you see the arms on that gay soldier?!?! Gay or not…I want him fighting on my side!
I just hope he doesn’t come up against an ‘attractive’ enemy soldier, or he’ll be in a quandary for sure.
I get it, but I am not sure it works that way when the attractive enemy soldier is shooting at you with a 7.62×39.
On TMZ’s website (Ok – I have my vices) they criticize a famous actress for eating at Chik-fil-A. Chik-fil-A has made contributions to Focus on the Family, and Focus on the Family has been labeled an anti-gay organization. The guy who runs TOMS shoes received similar criticism for his ties to Christian groups.
It’s very sad that Christians have decided to permit themselves to become anti-gay. There are so many other pressing issues. The WAPO has an article about Haiti suffering what might be the worst cholera outbreak in the history of humanity. Famine in Somalia. Wars. Human trafficking. Billions of people in poverty. But two people being gay: that’s gotta stop! I mean, come on.
@Censored bybvbl
Censored,
Why must you condem the entire GOP, because a segment considers repealing DADT a mistake? That would be tantamount to my calling all Democrats “Socialists” because of the comments of a single Massachusetts Senate candidate, which are indeed socialist.
I look at DADT in much the same way as I viewed making the Citadel co-ed. I was 100% in favor of keeping it single-gender. However, the Citadel, seeing what was happening with the VMI court case, decided being forced to allow females into the Corps of Cadets was inevitable, changed its policy. The policy is what it is. No use harping about it. Was something lost? Sure. As one of the last two to graduate from the all-male Citadel (it wasn’t really. Women were allowed to attend the evening college, just not as members of the Corps of Cadets), I do feel that something was lost in the traditional Citadel experience. But, I also realize that something was gained. Now, the daughters of Citadel grads like myself could experience what their fathers and brothers had. Future sons of female Citadel grads can experience the school as their mothers had. So, in the end, the school and the experience will not be better or worse, just different.
Same holds true for the post-DADT military. It will adjust, just as it has adjusted to the various social changes throughout history. There was a time when only Officers and Senior Enlisted were married. Now we have junior enlisted married. The services have adjusted to this. There was a time when women served in seperate branches (WAVE’s WAC’s, etc.) There was a time when units were racially segregated. Now they are inegrated. The services will adjust, and the armed forces will be a reflection of the society.
I do think the arguments given by the various service chiefs opposed to repeal of DADT were sound, and I opposed repeal at this time. But, the military is subordinate to the elected civillian government, and this government decided to repeal. It’s done. Adjust. Move on. Santorum fighting a fight that has already been lost is folly.
@Steve Thomas
At some point the moderates in your party are going to have to start publicly objecting to the wing-nuts if you hope to not be identified with them. To remain silent is to be gutless. As in your examples, it’s time for your party to move on – away from gay-bashing.
I’m not a Democrat. Haven’t the Dems been labelled “Socialists” by most of your party’s vocal members already. The hyperbole draws a big yawn from me.
First, I agree, the booing of the soldier was uncalled for and should not be tolerated. However, if you listen to the video, it was a very small number of people. In fact, I hear only one person booing loudly and a few claps. With the number of people present at the debate, blaming the whole party for the actions of a few just reeks of desperation.
That said, the military is not a democracy and it is not meant to be representative of our culture. These men and women have an extremely difficult job where life and death decisions are made on a consistent and constant basis. Therefore, it can NOT be a mirror of the civilian population. There are no votes on recourse, there is not right to disagree, for the most part, soldiers must follow the orders of those above them and unit cohesion is a primary factor that decides the successfulness of our military.
While I don’t agree with Rick Santorum on a lot of things, I do on this. Sex has no place in the military. Now you can argue that “sex” has very little to do with homosexuality, but that is a fallacy. Sex (and your choice of partners) is the underlying component of homosexuality. As stated, the fact that we are allowing a specific group of people special rules within the military leads to a slippery slope. If you mandate that one group of people must be allowed to live their lifestyle against the wishes of the commanders, where does that stop? Slowpoke said it right, to put a group up on a pedestal and to assign them special status is a joke. It diminishes their argument that they are no different. Of course it does, if they have to lobby and legislate special laws, then they are making themselves different.
I have no problems with gays in the military. My only concern is having the person best fitted for the role performing it. If that person is gay, a racist, or whatever, I don’t care. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself and perform your job. It when you start trying to interject your personal beliefs in the military function that I have a problem.
If skinheads now decide that they should be able to live their lifestyle, would they not be able to point to gays and lesbians as a precedent? No, before you start, I’m not comparing gays to skinheads, but yes, a precedent has been set. How can you afford special circumstances to one and not the other.
Lastly, under DADT, there was no “ban” on gays serving in the military. Gays could join and serve as they wish, they were just not allowed to openly display, or act, upon their preferences. Likewise, when I was in the military, I was unable to profess my heterosexuality. If I made advances upon a female soldier, I would get in trouble. If I made sexual comments, I would be punished. If I had relations with a female, and the word got out, I would reprimanded. I was expected to keep the portions of my life not directly involved with the military function outside of the military. How is DADT any different than that?
Oh, and I too agree that booing any Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine is just plain un-patriotic. The law of the land states that gay servicemembers can openly serve in the military. The debate is over. Drive on.
@Censored bybvbl
“At some point the moderates in your party are going to have to start publicly objecting to the wing-nuts if you hope to not be identified with them. To remain silent is to be gutless. As in your examples, it’s time for your party to move on – away from gay-bashing.”
My speck. Your log.
@Rednex
Rednex,
I agree with your rationale as to why DADT should not have been repealed. As I pointed out on a thread long ago on this subject, there is still the matter of certain acts being prohibited under the UCMJ which pretty much cover the entirety of homosexual acts. But the UCMJ does not specify the orientation of the behavior, only the behavior itself. I think the military has every right to regulate behavior, in order to maintain “Good order and discipline”. In your example of the un-wanted sexual advance or comment, you are citing a behavior. I hope the military remains free to regulate behavior. That is the only way this new policy will work, without the total breakdown of good order and discipline.
@Rednex
“Special status”? How about equal status?
What about a soldier who shows up for a function with a same-sex spouse? Is that flaunting something? Is it sex related?
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Those arms were massive.
@El Guapo
“It’s very sad that Christians have decided to permit themselves to become anti-gay.”
Christians aren’t “anti-gay”. They are “anti-sin”. They believe that gay-sex is a sin. They also believe that pre-marital sex is a sin. Why? Because it is called out in the Bible as sin. They haven’t “decided”. It was decided for them, by God. It was also decided for them that to hate the sinner, instead of the sin, is a sin unto itself. This is misunderstood by Christians and non-christians alike. So, if I, as a Christian say “homosexual acts” are a sin, I am on firm theological grounds. However, if I say “being gay” is a sin, or “God hates gays”, there is nothing in the Bible I can point to as a justification for this belief. We are all sinners, and God loves us all. What He despises is sin. What He forgives is sin. “All sin is equal in the a eyes of the Lord.” Being gay is nothing more than a condition of the Fall, as is being an adulterous spouse, or promisceous teen. This is very orthodox, mainstream Christian theology here. The whole ordination of gay clergy debate within the Christian community flows from confusion about separating the sin from the sinner. A priest or minister who happens to be gay, but does not engage in homosexual acts, has not committed a sin, no more than the married minister who resists the temptation to cheat on his wife has.
Not sermon here. Just a response to your broad comment regarding Christians deciding to be anti-gay, from the perspective of a Christian who is not anti-gay.
@Steve Thomas
I would not mind someone booing Corporal Manning. He is a traitor. (if convicted)
@Steve Thomas
I totally agree about regulating behavior.
@Steve Thomas
The problem with both Cidadel and VMI was that the schools were state supported. Many women felt not on my tax dollars was important. Of course, I went to a same sex school that got ‘integrated’ also.
Moon,
I agree and should be more specific: It is unpatriotic to boo any honorably serving serviceman.
@Moon-howler
You are correct, and I am not saying that their “state-funded” argument was wrong. The Citadel and VMI could have made the decision to take the schools private, but decided in doing so, they’d lose more than they gained. I believe they made the correct choice. Again, I think there were very valid arguments on both sides. However, the plantiff’s case would have won in the long run. If my daughter decides to attend the Citadel, I would be one proud alumni parent. Will she have the same experience that I did? No. Not better. Not worse. Just different, but a positive experience none-the-less.
Some people are just fearful of change – whether it’s desegregation by race, gender, gender preference. Once they’ve live with the change for awhile, many overcome that fear. The old argument about unit cohesion or work performance being threatened is often based on fear of the “other”. (Maybe the answer is to rid the volunteer army of homophobes.) The same arguments were made to keep women off police forces and out of fire departments. Spouses feared that their partner would look at their other partner and fool around. Now some GIs are afraid of some guy making a pass. Laugh it off or file a complaint. It’s going to be a rare occasion for this to happen.
This whole brouhaha will look silly in ten years.
@Censored bybvbl
“(Maybe the answer is to rid the volunteer army of homophobes.)”
The answer is to regulate behavior and conduct, and this should work both ways. Homephobic conduct will have to be regulated. You can’t punish someone for what they believe, only in the conduct thereof. Speech is regulated in the military. Conduct is regulated in the military.
I agree with that … to a lot of people, it’s looked silly for a long time.
On sin and homosexuality, I am about to post something long …
Leviticus 11:10
‘But anything in the seas or rivers that does not have fins and scales, regard as an abomination. Do not eat their meat and regard their carcasses as an abomination.”
Leviticus 18:22
“ Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination. ”
I guess eating shrimp with your same-sex partner is REALLY an abomination …
According to all this Biblical logic, raping young girls is less offensive than dinner at Red Lobster. To each their own within the boundaries of US law if you want to believe that.
Do you get bothered when people eat shrimp? Do most people? Should Congress be considering a “Defense of Shrimp” act?
Does “Shrimpophobia” exist in some parallel universe? Let’s imagine life in that universe if we can :
Bills are moving through Congress right now to prohibit the sale and consumption of shrimp and lobsters. At the Federal level, Congress is moving towards a ban on crab legs, and most politicians are moving towards a line of “If you want to eat seafood other than fish, do it in the privacy of your own home, but for God’s sake don’t do it in public and don’t let anyone know. Don’t wave this abomination in people’s faces”.
Sarah Palin stated to a cheering audience “If you feel you have to eat this stuff, at least do the rest of us the favor of pretending you’re eating something else. How am I supposed to explain to my children and grandchildren what you’re eating and why?”
The military is moving towards a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on consumption of crawfish.
Meanwhile activists are doing their best to push the envelope. In San Francisco, underground crab shacks are popping up where ecstasy-addled revelers pick crabs and wrap the carcasses in cardboard paper, then clear out in the early morning light. “For 50 dollars a night, it’s a good buzz” said one young participant. “It tastes even better if you take some amyl nitrate and dip the meat in butter”. And controversy looms over two new art exhibits being funded in part by taxpayer dollars through the NEA – “Shrimp Christ”, an impressionistic picture of Christ drawn with shrimp tails, and “Total Abomination”, an exhibit of black-and-white photographs of young boys eating lobster.
The connection between starfish and pentagrams has not gone unnoticed by fundamentalists – “The Devil Lives Under the Sea” is a popular T-Shirt among fundmentalist Christians. “Our decadent, eat-everything society has gone too far. That’s why God attacked us” stated Pat Robertson in response to a query about the 9/11 attacks. “If God had meant for man to eat crabs, he would have attached shell hammers to our arms instead of fingers. It’s downright unnatural” stated James Dobson.
Hmm. Is that parallel universe a reasonable possibility? Or is that scenario just too crazy.
.
Lol! You’re on a roll today, Rick. Better label that as satire or it’ll be refuted or refudiated at detail!
heh, thank you.
A painful story about one of the most difficult times in my life, here at http://www.gettingaround.org
43 years ago…
Most of these homophobes, booing or making legislation have never held a dying friend in their arms, and do not understand that in war you’re concerned about protecting the person on your left and your right. Being gay or not has nothing to do with being brave.
“We support the troops” IF they look and act like us!!! – Rick Santorum, 2011
Rick,, that was a show stopper. Am I supposed to ask if those were kosher shrimp?
I’m guessing that observant Jews don’t eat shrimp? Not sure.
I have that bit pre-canned and pull it out once in a while. It’s from an as-yet-unfinished-and-probably-always-will-be standup act I was putting together. I will combine the moral relativism of Lenny Bruce, the angry anti-social tendancies of David Cross and Al Franken, and the nerdiness of Steven Wright into one derivative whole.
I wonder if we will ever arrive at a point where someone who happens not to believe the same way you do, who holds a position of genuine and honest dissent with regard to your own views, is not called a “wingnut.”
@ all the Homophobe comments
Intended towards me or not, stop with the homophobe comments. People are allowed to disagree without be racist, homophobes, etc.
I have no problems with homosexuals. To each their own and it is my belief that people have a right to live how they want in a free society as long as thier actions do not directly affect my freedoms. That being said, I have stated that I believe that sexuality has any bearing in the military. The military is not a free society, therefore the not all the rules of the citizens that they protect apply to them. Their freedom of speech is limited with regards to what military actions they can publicly speak about, how they speak of their commanding officers, etc. They are not free to leave the service when they want, they can not “opt out”. They cannot feely write letters of condemnation without reprisal. They do not mirror the society they protect, so we have to stop thinking that because a behavior is supported in society at large, that it should also be allowed in the military.
As for showing up with a partner, it all depends on their actions that they do while in the public gathering. I, as a heterosexual, was not allowed to have public displays of affection. I can show up with my wife, but risked reprisal for any PDA that I might engage in. Same applies to homosexuals, they can show up with a partner as long as they don’t exhibit public displays. In addition, there are specific articles within the UCMJ that prohibit it. Declare all you want about “equality” but again, the Military is not an image of the society. There were specific reasons why these codes are in there, and it wasn’t because of the military being “homophobic”.
Should two soldiers have a romantic relationship, it could endanger the squad as a whole. Love/infatuation/etc provides a more intense emotional response than simple commaraderie. If one of the two gets shot in battle, it may lead the other to act irrationally endangering the mission or team mates. It could lead to feelings of favoritism. There are all kinds of reasons why these rules are there. It is the same argument as to why women shouldn’t serve in combat operations. Testing has shown that a wounded woman illicits a strong emotional response than a man in the same situation, thus lending itself to people acting irrationally at such times.
Again, the argument is not that gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military. DADT didn’t prevent a single person from serving in the military, it only limited the behaviors associated with that lifestyle. If you go and start mandating that a specific group should get special considerations, you will start down that slippery slope of having to allow all groups. Skinheads, polygamists, gang members? Where does it stop? If living your lifestyle is that important to you, then don’t join the military, no matter what lifestyle that may be. If joining the military is that important to you, then you should be willing to sacrafice to fulfill that mention. I did.
To those who oppose gays in the military, how do you feel about gay marriage or gay common union? If you also oppose those things, you might see why someone might apply the homophobe term.
As Red pointed out, the same argument could be used about women. Well….about 50% of the population is then exclused. Before that, similar arguments were used to exclude blacks from integrated service.
The military is perfectly capable of being able to handle these things. Gays have always been in the military. What’s different? The only difference I can see is that now you aren’t going to be drummed out, just for being gay. I would certainly hope that the UMC would not be relaxed about appropriate behavior. IN fact, from what I have seen, it probably needs to be shored up some in the heterosexual department.
@wolverine
Probably when people to the left of John Birch quit being called socialist and pinko commies.
@Steve Thomas
You say, “Being gay is nothing more than a condition of the Fall”
That’s correct. But stopping being gay doesn’t rectify that. If two gay guys stop geing gay or stop engaging in homosexual acts or whatever you want to call it, what good does it do them? It does them no good. They’re still in the same condition as before.
What did the apostles do? Did Paul go around telling people to stop sinning? No. He preached the gospel. Those that accepted his message he gave instructions to not be gay, not be greedy, not engage in unnatural sex acts, etc… He recommended that one guy be kicked out for his unacceptable relationship. But he did not nor did Peter or James or John instruct Christians to go around telling those who weren’t Christian to conduct themselves in accordance with their set of morals.
Here’s another thought. Jesus was chatting up some fellows one day, and the topic of the Greatest Commandment came up. Jesus told them the greatest commandment and then provided the second. If someone complies with those two commandments and is gay, then first of all he’s doing much better than I am, and second of all, God will work in his heart to change his gayness. And if someone refrains from unnatural sex acts but fails to comply with those first two commandments, then big deal.
There’s a new documentary (on HBO, I think) called “The Strange History of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. It’s an interesting look at the US military and its treatment of gays and lesbians and the effort to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell’.
That will not be permitted under the new policy. The DoD is not required to recognize same sex marriage, as there is no provision for it under federal law.
That is going to be one of the issues that will have to be ironed out–same sex marriage and probably one of the issues that held back overturning DADT.
@El Guapo
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. I am certainly not disagreeing with your comment. My original point was a response to a comment “Christians are anti-gay”. I am saying they are not. But Paul did tell Christians to stop sinning. He told them not to give into temptation. To seek strength in the Lord, and never forget we were bought at a price. He told us to build each other up. Be accountable to each other as to the Lord. We should understand that to be tempted is to be human, but we would not be tempted to the point we couldn’t resist. Being gay and tempted is no different than being straight and tempted. The sin is when we give in to temptation, and in this case, engage in sexual immorality. According to the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline letters. Sexual immorality is that which is done outside of the covenant of marriage, whether it be premarital sex, homosexual sex, pornography, etc. etc. Also, according to my understanding, sin is sin, and the only unforgiveable sin is the blaspheme the Holy spirit. And I don’t disagree with your last point either. Jesus condemned the pharisees as hypocrites. They adhered to the letter of the law, but not to the spirit of the law. I can follow all the do’s and don’ts to the letter, but if I hate the sinner, I have sinned myself. Agape. Brotherly love. Don’t condemn, pray for the sinner, and ask for grace and mercy for them. In doing this, you will recieve the same. At least that’s what my understanding of scripture is.
@Steve
Somewhere I think that the notion of love the sinner and hate the sin blurs and it really doesn’t matter what one is saying. Perception is reality. Then there is the Westboro Baptist Church. I don’t believe they could possiblty back up their behavior with scripture. Frankly, I am not sure that the NT really does address issues about homosexuality pornography, premaritial sex in absolute terms or in terms handed down by Christ.
I have no problem with churches interpretting behavior from whatever scriptural point they want, as long as it is for their members. At this point, I am not even sure that all of the churches would agree on the definition of adultry, based on the bible. We are told in the 10 commandments that we should not commit it but what is adultry? That is the catch. Different societies have different definitions. Obviously Mormons didn’t think that having multiple wives was adultry 150 years ago. Is it adultry for a person to have a relationship with another while still in a legal relationship with someone else, despite the fact that the original marriage has long been over? Or how about those religions that really don’t accommodate the notion of divorce? I doubt if my own children would be considered legitimate in the eyes of some churches.
In my discussions about DADT with current military members, the attitude of some seems to be “I don’t care anymore about gays in the military, just keep them away from me.” Contrary to what the naysayers say, this attitude does have the potential to affect unit cohesion. And unit cohesion IS important. The heroic acts of Dakota Meyer that saved the lives of 36 members of his unit and earned him the Medal of Honor demonstrated the power of unit cohesion.
Now that gays are a minority group in the military, I am sure that statistics such as promotion rates, casualty rates, and rates of judicial and nonjudicial punishment will be kept. It will be interesting to see if these statistical measures remain the same for gays as for the rest of the military.
I expect many people will chose not to out themselves. No one has discussed that aspect.
There is no DAMT….don’t ask, Must tell.
Don’t know how this thing will work out. I was a young Navy officer at a time when race was still a hot issue. We had Black sailors and White Southern sailors down in some tight berthing areas. A lot of those boys carried the sharp knives used in their work by the deck force. Every once in a while we would have a racial fight break out down there and had to send the petty officers down to break it up.
Now I wonder what will happen if Tom falls in love with Jim and then Jim throws him over for Peter and they all live in the same berthing quarters. And they all have those deck force knives.
@wolverine
I would hope that anyone involved in a racial fight would end up in theh brig. I can’t imagine such a lack of discipline on a ship. I would also say that white southern sailors would be no more likely to fight than white northern sailors. In fact……I might say they would be less likely to fight. The notion that all race relations dissolve when you throw southerners and blacks together is simply a misconception.
Same sex marriage or civil unions (for all) is an inevitability. Because of the mobility of society, there can’t exist such a patchwork of laws defining the basic concept of marriage. Our federal tax code, inheritance rights, equitable property ownership, etc. depend on a basic understanding of “marriage”. Two people who have been living legally as spouses for years in one of the states that recognize gay marriage can’t be expected to lose those rights when they are transferred to or stationed in another state. If the military should decide to recognize those marriages and the soldiers are now stationed in Virginia, Virginia will be hard pressed to deny the same rights to its citizens.
Alright…let’s hear all the typical “but what about bestiality and polygamy?” arguments. I can see a long line of people out there waiting to marry their Great Danes…. (smirk)
@Censored bybvbl
This is precisely the reason that repealing DADT was such a priority. In general the people that pushed for the repeal (Lady GaGa!) don’t know a damn thing about the military, but it greatly advances the LGBT agenda.
Kelly, I don’t disagree that Lady GaGa doesn’t know jack about military. However, there have been over 14,000 service members discharged under DADT. Now certainly some of those discharges have been for unbecoming behavior. How many have been for state of being reasons? I can understand why it might be frowned on to show up at the Marine Corp Ball in a tutu. However…..
I think what I am trying to say is, there are gays in the military and there always have been. I think gay people on active duty would prefer not to lead a secret or double life. Who do they get to take up their cause? Obviously the Pentagon isn’t going to do it. The activist groups have to do it. So as for agenda, I think that is a little unfair. That makes it sound like some gay activist groups just landed on gays in the military as a mission, rather than being a group that advocates for gay individuals who just happen to be in the military. There are no military groups to really advocate for them because the minute they identify themselves as such, they are at risk for getting booted out.
@Kelly3406
I’d suggest watching the documentary I mentioned. It is told from the point of view of those wanting DADT repealed but includes many opinions of gays and lesbians serving in the military. It also discusses “unit cohesion” and whether that is indeed threatened or not – and the origin of that term.
I don’t see how this argument against gays and lesbians being in the military is any different from that argument used against women and African-Americans. I’m old enough to remember those as well. I remember all the arguments my father gave me about women being unfit for being FBI agents ( not strong enough, too timid, etc.) and then when their policy changed asking me to follow his lead and become an agent. Old guys just need to adapt to a changing world.
Our children and grandchildren will wonder how we could have been such scared bigots. (And they will think in terms of bigotry, just as we think of racists and sexists that way.)
@Censored
Will you please leave the name of that documentary again?
I have probably told you of the story of my father writing home from Seattle during WWII to my mother and how outraged he was over some Indian soldier who was not allowed to go in a bar out there and buy a drink. That man was serving his country blah blah blah. I was pretty proud of Dad until I asked my mother the unfortunate question about his outrage over how black soldiers were treated and how come his outrage didn’t extend there. My mother said she didn’t know. Cognitive dissonance. I doubt if the black soldiers were allowed in that same bar either and they certainly were pretty much relegated to the quartermaster services.
Probably the Navajo code talkers did much to elevate the ranks of all native American Indians during WWII. They were extremely valuable. Then there was Ira Hayes. Of course, he probably didn’t do much to help the bar situation for Indians, considering he was thrown out of many of them for drunkeness.
@Moon-howler
“Frankly, I am not sure that the NT really does address issues about homosexuality pornography, premaritial sex in absolute terms or in terms handed down by Christ.”
If you ever like to sit down and go through the NT, I’m sure we can find answers to these questions. No pressure. I just happen to be one of those people who needs to get answers to questions, but I acknowledge that not everyone is like this.
@Steve, I did that many years ago. I would be more inclined to take you up on your offer if I were personally having question over any of those questions but I am not. I think different people find their own comfort level. But I would let you know if I change my mind.
I expect I would probably make you tear your hair out. There is nothing more frustrating than an old non-literalist. I also come from a long line of very devout non-literalists.
@Moon-howler
The offer stands. Anyone can seek knowledge and have their original beliefs challenged. I am living proof of that.
@Steve, true. Mine seem to be moving in a more holistic pattern. Manesfestation. We have had that conversation before.
@Moon-howler
“The Strange History of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” on HBO
Now, come on, Moon, an inter-racial fight, almost always one-on-one, breaking out in the tight berthing area of a naval vessel in a time of changing racial patterns in the hot tropics in a war situation is hardly an example of race relations between Blacks and Southern Whites dissolving. Those fights were usually the result of a Black guy reacting to being insulted one time too many by some tar who couldn’t keep his opinions on race to himself. And the petty officers were quick to step in. Captain’s Mast, not the brig. Those were incidents, not the redux of an era of race riots or a breakdown in shipboard discipline.
All I am saying is that there may be some negative results here and there if you put two potentially competing elements in the same small space and that, perhaps, we can expect to see some of it before this whole thing has a chance to smooth out.
Then they were disciplined. Good. It also sounds like the issue should have been dealt with by the petty officer long before it was. Its pretty hard to ride someone when all your peers are telling you to knock it off.
I was merely reacting to the scene described.
Some of the worst racists I have ever known were not southerners. I tend to be defensive about the south.
Thank you Censored, I watched that. Pretty interesting.
McCain really comes off as the villian. Seems pretty homophobic IMO. Funny to me because I was once in a line with the old guy, getting onto a plane, and heard his private phone conversation for a couple of minutes (he was talking with some lobbyist). He sounded muich more … um … how should I put this … “fruity” in private that in public. Strikingly so. Also looked much older and frailer without makeup.