Obama to seek repeal of "Don't ask, Don't Tell"

[D1B]

You'all hear that? Any of you'all that oppose the repeal of DADT aren't Americans but are traitors that can eat shit, cause the calm, tolerant dbackjon said so.

It is real easy to pontificate from behind a keyboard when you HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ALREADY that I do not have.

This may be a game to some of you, and the outcome doesn't effect you one way or another. But for me, this is my life.

Yep. Kinda like abortion. You fucking assknobs (Joltin Job, 89...) cant get pregnant so you don't know what the fuck you're talking bout.

[kalm]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

I thought DADT had to do with sexual orientation...not fudge packing.

My wife and I have been married for 15 years and in no way do we feel threatened by equal rights.

Native, you're a total bigot, or latently homosexual - both of which are of course completely your perogative, but do not exempt you from being a complete asshole for the above comments.

And I was starting to believe all of your ' I'm for liberty and freedom, blah, blah, blah" posts.

And good on Ivy for being on the right side of this one.

[native]

The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

I thought DADT had to do with sexual orientation...not fudge packing.

My wife and I have been married for 15 years and in no way do we feel threatened by equal rights.

Native, you're a total bigot, or latently homosexual - both of which are of course completely your perogative, but do not exempt you from being a complete ******* for the above comments.

And I was starting to believe all of your ' I'm for liberty and freedom, blah, blah, blah" posts.

And good on Ivy for being on the right side of this one.

You "progressives" consistently confuse rights with responsibilities and privileges, and actively celebrate every conceivable dysfunctional behavior, especially if you can impose the burden on the rest of society and do so with tax dollars.

When the rabid LGBT lobby can prove their agenda is not a slippery slope to pedophilia, I will be willing to take them seriously as fellow citizens and not dangers to society. BUT the persistent "progressive" blurring of the line between adult rights and criminal activity, for example in the continued support of Obama's child-abusing "Safe Schools Czar," Kevin Jennings, convinces me otherwise.

I didn't ask Ivy's permission to express my opinion, but I respect his opinion, just as I respect your right to an opinion.

[native]

The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

the inability for one to serve in the military based on one's views (in this sense sexuality--how someone views the opposite or same sex) when one meets military codes= inequality

No one is prohibited from serving in the military based on their views of homosexuality. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

[dbackjon]

It is real easy to pontificate from behind a keyboard when you HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ALREADY that I do not have.

This may be a game to some of you, and the outcome doesn't effect you one way or another. But for me, this is my life.

I didn't realize you were in the military.

Do you support preferential treament for homos in the form of awarding them protected status for the purposes of hate crimes prosecutions?

IF there is hate crime legislation, sexual orientation should be treated the same as race, religion, gender, etc.

[kalm]

I thought DADT had to do with sexual orientation...not fudge packing.

My wife and I have been married for 15 years and in no way do we feel threatened by equal rights.

Native, you're a total bigot, or latently homosexual - both of which are of course completely your perogative, but do not exempt you from being a complete ******* for the above comments.

And I was starting to believe all of your ' I'm for liberty and freedom, blah, blah, blah" posts.

And good on Ivy for being on the right side of this one.

You "progressives" consistently confuse rights with responsibilities and privileges, and actively celebrate every conceivable dysfunctional behavior, especially if you can impose the burden on the rest of society and do so with tax dollars.

When the rabid LGBT lobby can prove their agenda is not a slippery slope to pedophilia, I will be willing to take them seriously as fellow citizens and not dangers to society. BUT the persistent "progressive" blurring of the line between adult rights and criminal activity, for example in the continued support of Obama's child-abusing "Safe Schools Czar," Kevin Jennings, convinces me otherwise.

I didn't ask Ivy's permission to express my opinion, but I respect his opinion, just as I respect your right to an opinion.

Whoa, easy there Dr. Laura Dobson.

So the ability to visit your wife on her death bed is a responsibility and not a right?

You first need to edumacte yourself about the difference between homosexuality and pedophiia. Then, get back to me about rights.

Christ, a hundred years ago you would have been saying the exact same things about the negroes marying white women.

[dbackjon]

Jon, let me ask you this straight up. Suppose the federal government passed a law tomorrow entitling gays to every legal right that marriage could possibly confer -- a jazzed civil unions bill -- but they couldn't call it marriage? Insurance, survivor benefits, wills, property division, you name it. Would that be enough?

The experience in New Jersey has shown that many do not treat civil unions equally - especially when it comes to private insurance, hospital visitation.

Nothing wrong with the New Hampshire model - civil marriage for all. That way there is no question.

[CatMom]

Jeezus H Christ Native...he's a kid and you know damn well what he means. If you don't understand the post....DO YOUR HOMEWORK

[youngterrier]

I thought DADT had to do with sexual orientation...not fudge packing.

My wife and I have been married for 15 years and in no way do we feel threatened by equal rights.

Native, you're a total bigot, or latently homosexual - both of which are of course completely your perogative, but do not exempt you from being a complete ******* for the above comments.

And I was starting to believe all of your ' I'm for liberty and freedom, blah, blah, blah" posts.

And good on Ivy for being on the right side of this one.

You "progressives" consistently confuse rights with responsibilities and privileges, and actively celebrate every conceivable dysfunctional behavior, especially if you can impose the burden on the rest of society and do so with tax dollars.

When the rabid LGBT lobby can prove their agenda is not a slippery slope to pedophilia, I will be willing to take them seriously as fellow citizens and not dangers to society. BUT the persistent "progressive" blurring of the line between adult rights and criminal activity, for example in the continued support of Obama's child-abusing "Safe Schools Czar," Kevin Jennings, convinces me otherwise.

I didn't ask Ivy's permission to express my opinion, but I respect his opinion, just as I respect your right to an opinion.

I just lost all the respect I had for you

[native]

You "progressives" consistently confuse rights with responsibilities and privileges, and actively celebrate every conceivable dysfunctional behavior, especially if you can impose the burden on the rest of society and do so with tax dollars.

When the rabid LGBT lobby can prove their agenda is not a slippery slope to pedophilia, I will be willing to take them seriously as fellow citizens and not dangers to society. BUT the persistent "progressive" blurring of the line between adult rights and criminal activity, for example in the continued support of Obama's child-abusing "Safe Schools Czar," Kevin Jennings, convinces me otherwise.

I didn't ask Ivy's permission to express my opinion, but I respect his opinion, just as I respect your right to an opinion.

Whoa, easy there Dr. Laura Dobson.

So the ability to visit your wife on her death bed is a responsibility and not a right?

You first need to edumacte yourself about the difference between homosexuality and pedophiia. Then, get back to me about rights.

Christ, a hundred years ago you would have been saying the exact same things about the negroes marying white women.

I am in favor of the contractual rights for adult relationship you are espousing, such as the hospital visitations, but I do not like or trust the rabid LGBT lobby, I detest the lawsuits they have burdened upon good organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the cultural destruction they have visited on the Girls Scouts, they LGBT propaganda they push onto schools, and I believe they constantly over-reach and over-preach.

You need to edumacate yourownself, kalm, on the child-abusing Jennings, Obama's serving "Safe Schools Czar," proudly and loudly supported by the "progressive" LGBT lobby. When I see you and dbj consistently and convincingly recognize the harms caused by the LGBT lobby and denounce Jennings and organizations such as NAMBLA, I will take your views on this subject more seriously.

[youngterrier]

the inability for one to serve in the military based on one's views (in this sense sexuality--how someone views the opposite or same sex) when one meets military codes= inequality

No one is prohibited from serving in the military based on their views of homosexuality. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

DO YOUR HOMEWORK...AND SOME READING COMPREHENSION WHILE YOUR AT IT.

[youngterrier]

Jeezus H Christ Native...he's a kid and you know damn well what he means. If you don't understand the post....DO YOUR HOMEWORK

thanks but I don't need protection ...but i've come close to typing inappropriate language when my intelligence is being questioned

[native]

No one is prohibited from serving in the military based on their views of homosexuality. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

DO YOUR HOMEWORK...AND SOME READING COMPREHENSION WHILE YOUR AT IT.

There are thousands of serving gay persons = they are not prohibited from serving.

They did not change their views, they do not have an "inability to serve..." so what is your point?

[youngterrier]

DO YOUR HOMEWORK...AND SOME READING COMPREHENSION WHILE YOUR AT IT.

There are thousands of serving gay persons = they are not prohibited from serving.

They did not change their views, they do not have an "inability to serve..." so what is your point?

They are not allowed to serve for being openly gay, which really doesn't matter if they meet strict military code. So if they aren't disruptive they can be thrown out for saying they are gay, not doing anything gay, not being disruptive or a distraction, hence a viewpoint that is discriminated against because they meet code but view the opposite and same sexes differently than anyone else, and thus their views are discriminated

[native]

Jeezus H Christ Native...he's a kid and you know damn well what he means. If you don't understand the post....DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Geezums H Krud yourslef, catminlf, young pup is NOT a helpless little baby sucking your titty.

Youngterrier is a smart kid who is entitled to his own opinion but who cannot improve his self expression if you and all the other bleeding heart idiot jackasses continue to make excuses for him. He needs to say what he means and mean what he says. What he actually said is patently absurd and untrue.

If you will get out of his way, I am sure he will come back with a much better riposte than you can imagine.

[dbackjon]

If you equate homosexuality with pedophilia, then you are truly fucked in the head, and no further conversation with you is possible.

You seriously need to understand the difference.

[BDKJMU]

Jeezus H Christ Native...he's a kid and you know damn well what he means. If you don't understand the post....DO YOUR HOMEWORK

thanks but I don't need protection ...but i've come close to typing inappropriate language when my intelligence is being questioned

No, don't worry, you won't get in trouble on here for that.

[youngterrier]

thanks but I don't need protection ...but i've come close to typing inappropriate language when my intelligence is being questioned

No, don't worry, you won't get in trouble on here for that.

not here, but I can with soulman/DungeonJoe ...

[native]

If you equate homosexuality with pedophilia, then you are truly **** in the head, and no further conversation with you is possible.

You seriously need to understand the difference.

But you know damn well I did not equate the two, jon. I said the LGBT lobby does not stand against pedophilia or other child abuse. One data point of proof is the continued "progressive" and LGBT support for the "Safe School Czar" even though he has admitted to the abuse of a minor.

If you are to be taken seriously, you must be consistently outspoken in your attacks on child abuse and pedophilia, just like southern politicians must stand against the klan.

[native]

There are thousands of serving gay persons = they are not prohibited from serving.

They did not change their views, they do not have an "inability to serve..." so what is your point?

They are not allowed to serve for being openly gay, which really doesn't matter if they meet strict military code. So if they aren't disruptive they can be thrown out for saying they are gay, not doing anything gay, not being disruptive or a distraction, hence a viewpoint that is discriminated against because they meet code but view the opposite and same sexes differently than anyone else, and thus their views are discriminated

Better! But still falls short. It is not the views of gay service members that is the problem under the current policy. It is the articulation of those views that is contrary to policy. No reading comprehension problems here.

[youngterrier]

Jeezus H Christ Native...he's a kid and you know damn well what he means. If you don't understand the post....DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Geezums H Krud yourslef, catminlf, young pup is NOT a helpless little baby sucking your titty.

Youngterrier is a smart kid who is entitled to his own opinion but who cannot improve his self expression if you and all the other bleeding heart idiot jackasses continue to make excuses for him. He needs to say what he means and mean what he says. What he actually said is patently absurd and untrue.

If you will get out of his way, I am sure he will come back with a much better riposte than you can imagine.

no it wasn't, gays are not allowed in the military because of who they are not what they do, you just didn't read it right

[kalm]

Whoa, easy there Dr. Laura Dobson.

So the ability to visit your wife on her death bed is a responsibility and not a right?

You first need to edumacte yourself about the difference between homosexuality and pedophiia. Then, get back to me about rights.

Christ, a hundred years ago you would have been saying the exact same things about the negroes marying white women.

I am in favor of the contractual rights for adult relationship you are espousing, such as the hospital visitations, but I do not like or trust the rabid LGBT lobby, I detest the lawsuits they have burdened upon good organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the cultural destruction they have visited on the Girls Scouts, they LGBT propaganda they push onto schools, and I believe they constantly over-reach and over-preach.

You need to edumacate yourownself, kalm, on the child-abusing Jennings, Obama's serving "Safe Schools Czar," proudly and loudly supported by the "progressive" LGBT lobby. When I see you and dbj consistently and convincingly recognize the harms caused by the LGBT lobby and denounce Jennings and organizations such as NAMBLA, I will take your views on this subject more seriously.

Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember several child molestation cases perpetrated by married heterosexual pedophiles.

In case you don't understand, homo = same, pedo = kid.

In any event, I have two boys in cub scouts, and while I haven't seen any obvious LGBT activity at the den meetings I've hosted yet, I did notice that some of the designs in the Rain Gutter Regatta were rather "gay".

I'll keep my eye out for ya and report any dubious activity.

[bobbythekidd]

[native]

Geezums H Krud yourslef, catminlf, young pup is NOT a helpless little baby sucking your titty.

Youngterrier is a smart kid who is entitled to his own opinion but who cannot improve his self expression if you and all the other bleeding heart idiot jackasses continue to make excuses for him. He needs to say what he means and mean what he says. What he actually said is patently absurd and untrue.

If you will get out of his way, I am sure he will come back with a much better riposte than you can imagine.

no it wasn't, gays are not allowed in the military because of who they are not what they do, you just didn't read it right

It's not what they ARE, it's what they SAY they are.

What gays actually DO to stay in is "Don't ask and don't tell." What they DO to opt out is "tell."

Although not your words, I understand that you, dbjon and others believe this to be an unfair and unbearable burden.

Perhaps you meant to say, "Gays are not allowed in the military because of what they articulate..."

[native]

I am in favor of the contractual rights for adult relationship you are espousing, such as the hospital visitations, but I do not like or trust the rabid LGBT lobby, I detest the lawsuits they have burdened upon good organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the cultural destruction they have visited on the Girls Scouts, they LGBT propaganda they push onto schools, and I believe they constantly over-reach and over-preach.

You need to edumacate yourownself, kalm, on the child-abusing Jennings, Obama's serving "Safe Schools Czar," proudly and loudly supported by the "progressive" LGBT lobby. When I see you and dbj consistently and convincingly recognize the harms caused by the LGBT lobby and denounce Jennings and organizations such as NAMBLA, I will take your views on this subject more seriously.

Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember several child molestation cases perpetrated by married heterosexual pedophiles.

In case you don't understand, homo = same, pedo = kid.

In any event, I have two boys in cub scouts, and while I haven't seen any obvious LGBT activity at the den meetings I've hosted yet, I did notice that some of the designs in the Rain Gutter Regatta were rather "gay".

I'll keep my eye out for ya and report any dubious activity.

Not what I said, kalm, but have some fun with it.