Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 9, 2009
Homo Fierce Advocacy Watch
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Maddow's latest on Obama and DADT:
And a "what he said" for Andrew Sullivan:
An interesting comparison: "In 1948, Truman issued an executive order integrating the armed forces. That same year Gallup found that only 13 percent of Americans supported 'having Negro and white troops throughout the U.S. armed services live and work together.'"Today, vast majorities of Americans support allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly. But the first black president does not have the civil rights conviction of his extraordinary predecessor.
Majorities of conservatives support allowing gays to serve openly in the military—as do majorities of regular church goers, as do majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It's hard to see the political risk here, hard to see a reason for Obama's reluctance to lift a finger to end DADT, hard to avoid the conclusion that only cowardice or animus could explain Obama's refusal to act.
And since we know that Obama is no coward...
5
Um, dudes, Congress passed a law - you want it changed, either replace the Supreme Court or get rid of some America-hating Republicants.
That said, I love Maddow, she's fun.
That said, I love Maddow, she's fun.
7
I Love RM.
I wonder if it's a credibility issue for Obama. Maybe if he had served he'd feel more confident making fundamental changes to our military.
I wonder if it's a credibility issue for Obama. Maybe if he had served he'd feel more confident making fundamental changes to our military.
9
@5: And the law that Congress passed, Will, included a provision that allows the president to suspend investigations of homosexuality—the "asking" that still goes on—and suspend expulsions of service members who are found to be gay or admit to being gay. Obama could, this instant, suspend enforcement of DADT while his administration works on a repeal.
He hasn't.
He hasn't.
11
There's only so far you can take this historical analogy. Truman was trying to counter anti-American propaganda about the United States being the leader of the "free world" but still being completely captive to Jim Crow. Obama, meanwhile, is trying to end the "War on Terror" and is not facing any significant pressure abroad based on the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Doesn't make Obama right. It just makes the historical comparison really unhelpful for explaining why Obama might be wrong.
13
@9 - well, there you go. Learn something new every day.
Maybe he kind of wants to pass health care first?
And, since nobody mentioned it, they just passed the $4500 credit for selling your low mpg car/truck/suv and replacing it with a more fuel-efficient one. You know, kick starting the economy, getting green, important stuff like that.
Heck, you can't even get people to vote in a Dem primary in Virginia with a three-way race .... DADT is way way down on anyone's list.
Maybe he kind of wants to pass health care first?
And, since nobody mentioned it, they just passed the $4500 credit for selling your low mpg car/truck/suv and replacing it with a more fuel-efficient one. You know, kick starting the economy, getting green, important stuff like that.
Heck, you can't even get people to vote in a Dem primary in Virginia with a three-way race .... DADT is way way down on anyone's list.
14
So if it's way down on the list, if it's not important to anyone, then no one will kick up a fuss if Obama moves on it, right? Get it off the table, rid us of this distraction, suspend the enforcement of DADT until Congress can take it up.
15
Maddow and Ana Marie Cox have been so insistent about keeping White House honest about its real intentions on this subject. I applaud them both and follow @anamariecox and @maddow on Twitter.
16
Really tepid on this but, Opinions evolve overtime and once you're actually on the ground and you consult with the generals you could moderate your stance. All of us have, why should the man with the most responsibility over the caring of our troops should be any different. Homosexuality is a crime in the places our troops are serving now, our commanders know this.
Parallels with racial desegregation? BS Congressman BS.
Parallels with racial desegregation? BS Congressman BS.
17
@14 - maybe if you stopped spending so much time watching vids you'd know today they finally agreed on a basic all-kids-covered-to-26 on your parents plan, and all US citizens can automatically get on a basic federal plan.
But no, this is your issue.
Wow.
But no, this is your issue.
Wow.
18
@9 & 14
Keep calling him and the people who support civil unions biggots. That strategy really seems to be working.
Keep calling him and the people who support civil unions biggots. That strategy really seems to be working.
19
Nice of Ms. Maddow to have a representative on her show talking about DADT. But it left me wanting more.
Why oh why didn't she ask the obvious questions: "Have you introduced legislation to repeal DADT? Have you sounded out your colleagues on repealing DADT? Could a repeal pass? Why the hell haven't you congress-critters gotten off of your big fat lazy asses and done anything useful?"
Just a few questions. Ones I just can't stop myself from asking.
Obama is a moral coward, but we can override his veto if we have to.
Why oh why didn't she ask the obvious questions: "Have you introduced legislation to repeal DADT? Have you sounded out your colleagues on repealing DADT? Could a repeal pass? Why the hell haven't you congress-critters gotten off of your big fat lazy asses and done anything useful?"
Just a few questions. Ones I just can't stop myself from asking.
Obama is a moral coward, but we can override his veto if we have to.
20
He's acting like my old best friend who stopped calling me back when I came out to him. Or for my married lesbian friend, he's acting like her father, who didn't talk to her for a year when she came out, and then progressed to immediately hang up the phone for the next 10 years if she mentioned her wife, but would at least talk to her at length about any other subject that came up.
By ignoring us, he's embodying the shame that millions will be parading and drinking and partying at in protest this weekend at pride parades all over.
By ignoring us, he's embodying the shame that millions will be parading and drinking and partying at in protest this weekend at pride parades all over.
21
@16 - Yes, homosexuality is a crime in some of the places where we have troops serving. We also have diplomats serving in the same places and many of them are gay. I know one personally. Doesn't prevent him from doing his job.
23
21 not openly, they do not bring up their partners and by doing so keep from exposing our troops to more dangers. This might be fine for an ambassador in Spain or Luxembourg but not in the middle east or the Muslim world, not now is all I'm saying, its dangerous and works against what we are trying to achieve there. We want our troops to return as soon as possible and this might have the effect of slowing it down.
24
@23 What are we trying to achieve there, and how does allowing gay diplomats/soldiers defeat that?
25
I mean think about it what's to prevent an openly gay from suing because his commander is not allowing him to express his gender expression of wearing makeup or what would happen if upon returning for his second tour Michael is now a Diane? How do you think other soldiers would feel about that needless to say what Muslims would do.
26
@11 I don't think Truman's call was mainly driven by propaganda. There had also been ongoing internal military investigations on desegregating the military to produce the best force to counter the Soviets. There were also domestic concerns:
November 1947: Clark Clifford presents a lengthy memorandum to President Truman which argues that the civil rights issue and the African-American vote are important elements in a winning strategy for the 1948 campaign.
[snip]
January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop…
November 1947: Clark Clifford presents a lengthy memorandum to President Truman which argues that the civil rights issue and the African-American vote are important elements in a winning strategy for the 1948 campaign.
[snip]
January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop…
27
@ 16: The Arab world isn't known for being especially fond of black people, either. So, followed to the logical conclusion, we shouldn't have service members who are gay, female, black, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, or anything else the insurgencies might object to, despite how effective a piece of our military that person is.
Stupid. Stupid stupid stuuuuupid.
Countries all over the world allow gay soldiers to serve openly and with honor. Allies like Canada, Israel, the UK. Why the hell are we taking our cues from the third world instead?
Stupid. Stupid stupid stuuuuupid.
Countries all over the world allow gay soldiers to serve openly and with honor. Allies like Canada, Israel, the UK. Why the hell are we taking our cues from the third world instead?
28
@25 - That's pretty condescending of you to assume that "Muslims" (as if they all inhabited one monolithic mind) can't understand and accept homosexuality. Some don't (just like some Christians), but many do. It's also pretty demeaning to claim our troops are too simple or prejudiced or whatever to accept gays. Straight troops from most other major nations serve alongside gays with little or no problem. Are our troops not as good as those nations' troops?
Spent much time in the Middle East? I have. With my husband. Sleeping in the same bed wherever we went and not getting a comment or funny look from anyone.
Spent much time in the Middle East? I have. With my husband. Sleeping in the same bed wherever we went and not getting a comment or funny look from anyone.
29
I love it when well-to-do white men constantly compare themselves to blacks in the 40's and 50's. Gay rights are a civil right, and no one has to suffer like another minority to make a claim for equality. But there are tremendous differences between the way someone like Andrew Sullivan (or Dan Savage for that matter) and the "average" black person, especially black male today, and especially 50 + years ago, lives in this country.
Oh, and the obvious question. After the military was integrated, where blacks treated equally? Suddenly promoted to the same positions with the same access? No. Military history is rife with descrimination. Sullivan's comparison only skims the surface.
Oh, and the obvious question. After the military was integrated, where blacks treated equally? Suddenly promoted to the same positions with the same access? No. Military history is rife with descrimination. Sullivan's comparison only skims the surface.
30
@25 you don't know any gay people, do you?
It is laughable that you think gay people and transgendered people are the same. I'm embarrassed for you.
It is laughable that you think gay people and transgendered people are the same. I'm embarrassed for you.
31
@29
Right on! These well-to-do white male drama queens have some balls equating the two struggles like they do. Sniff, sniff. Life is just soooooo hard for these white, upper-middle class males today. (cue: violins)
Right on! These well-to-do white male drama queens have some balls equating the two struggles like they do. Sniff, sniff. Life is just soooooo hard for these white, upper-middle class males today. (cue: violins)
32
I think the main difference between the civil rights movement and gay rights is that african americans had eloquent, insightful representatives making the case like Malcom X, MLK, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, et al. Gay Rights have Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan. Wealthy media whores who whine and snark their way through any sort of discourse.
33
31 & 29: Cite posts, articles, TV appearances where Sullivan has claimed that the gay experience exactly parallels the black experience. Then cite evidence that I've done the same. Then go read this article...
http://www.theolympian.com/living/v-prin…
...and then go tell that widow she's a big whiner with nothing to complain about. I hope she decks your ass.
Then go fuck yourselves.
http://www.theolympian.com/living/v-prin…
...and then go tell that widow she's a big whiner with nothing to complain about. I hope she decks your ass.
Then go fuck yourselves.
34
For the benefit of the simpler commenters, the issue isn't that DADT or gay marriage should be a higher priority than health care or peace in the Middle East or whatever. The point is that Obama could do a lot for gays with little effort, at little political cost. DADT could be neutralized, if not overturned as policy, with an executive order, and doing so has majority support. DOMA is harder, but it's clearly a bullshit law, popular sentiment is clearly trending toward marriage equality, and President Smooth could certainly sell a repeal of DOMA with some nice talk about letting states do what they want, letting the states lead, and so forth.
Basically, doing a lot of real, substantive good for gay Americans would cost Odubya precious little in time, effort, and political captial. And yet he does not act.
Basically, doing a lot of real, substantive good for gay Americans would cost Odubya precious little in time, effort, and political captial. And yet he does not act.
35
Loveschild, we also have servicemembers stationed in countries where (1) women are required to wear headscarves or burkas, and (2) where women are not allowed to serve in the military at all. So by your logic, we shouldn't allow women to serve in the military because it might offend some of our allies, right?
36
fuck andrew sullivan. WTF are you linking that Fool for Dan? Again and again you link this log cabin fool. Fuck him.
37
@17 So following your "Loveschild" logic, signing an executive order regarding stem cell research and signing the Lily Ledbetter Act ranked higher in priority than the economy, healthcare, and torture?
When you and Loveschild start seeing eye to eye, your credibility becomes shit.
When you and Loveschild start seeing eye to eye, your credibility becomes shit.
38
This wouldn't be such a big deal if Dan cared about anything else, but he has tunnel vision and can't see beyond his one and only cause.
I'm all for getting rid of DADT too, but, and I've said it before, if Obama intervenes immediately he's going to have a shitstorm on his hands that affects his influence over a large and powerful part of American citizens and politiciants for the rest of his presidency, not to mention it woudl likely put his reelection into jeapordy. It's a sad fact about the state of America right now, but let's deal with it, suck it up for just a while longer while Obama gains some concrete political capital.
Next term, let's go balls out and demand some action, but now, let's go ahead and give him some slack, for our own sake.
I'm all for getting rid of DADT too, but, and I've said it before, if Obama intervenes immediately he's going to have a shitstorm on his hands that affects his influence over a large and powerful part of American citizens and politiciants for the rest of his presidency, not to mention it woudl likely put his reelection into jeapordy. It's a sad fact about the state of America right now, but let's deal with it, suck it up for just a while longer while Obama gains some concrete political capital.
Next term, let's go balls out and demand some action, but now, let's go ahead and give him some slack, for our own sake.
39
Exactly parallel? Or just comparing? Sullivan states:
"An interesting comparison: "In 1948, Truman issued an executive order integrating the armed forces."
Isn't that drawing a comparison to the "black experience?" Like I said, look at the history of the military and the way blacks were treated for years after. My point being, executive orders to integrate were not a magic bullet.
Oh, and for the record, I never said anyone was whining. I've read the story you linked to. I think it's horrible.
"An interesting comparison: "In 1948, Truman issued an executive order integrating the armed forces."
Isn't that drawing a comparison to the "black experience?" Like I said, look at the history of the military and the way blacks were treated for years after. My point being, executive orders to integrate were not a magic bullet.
Oh, and for the record, I never said anyone was whining. I've read the story you linked to. I think it's horrible.
40
Unlike Loveschild, thankfully there are African Americans who really have made a difference in our nation's history and future and who view injustice to gays and lesbians as no less important than the civil rights of blacks (i.e. Coretta Scott King, John Lewis...). Their experiences and struggles inspire and their wisdom and words engender respect.
41
@39 hal:
You'll find it quite liberating to get past the "my oppression was worse than your oppression" mindset. Equal protection isn't about looking for a magic bullet.
You'll find it quite liberating to get past the "my oppression was worse than your oppression" mindset. Equal protection isn't about looking for a magic bullet.
42
@41
"You'll find it quite liberating to get past the "my oppression was worse than your oppression" mindset."
Sigh. It's amazingly patronizing of you, but thanks. I'll try to get past a mindset I DON'T FUCKING HAVE! Oppression happens in multiple forms, multiple ways. And it's all oppression at the end of the day. It doesn't matter if the majority of people of a certain race, or gender, religion or socio-economic status do great in life. It is morally and ethically wrong to hold someone down because they are gay, black, white, female, male or undecided, ok? I've never felt any different.
"You'll find it quite liberating to get past the "my oppression was worse than your oppression" mindset."
Sigh. It's amazingly patronizing of you, but thanks. I'll try to get past a mindset I DON'T FUCKING HAVE! Oppression happens in multiple forms, multiple ways. And it's all oppression at the end of the day. It doesn't matter if the majority of people of a certain race, or gender, religion or socio-economic status do great in life. It is morally and ethically wrong to hold someone down because they are gay, black, white, female, male or undecided, ok? I've never felt any different.
44
From someone who was there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eIMKq1uz…
To draw comparisons is to diminish and belittle the experiences of African Americans from their arrival in chains to this land to the present were subtle discrimination racism still prevails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eIMKq1uz…
To draw comparisons is to diminish and belittle the experiences of African Americans from their arrival in chains to this land to the present were subtle discrimination racism still prevails.
47
So what you asswipes are basically saying is that because gays haven't been persecuted ENOUGH that their struggle isn't similar to that of blacks in this country? Lame. I think the gay people who have been killed just because they are gay are just as dead as those who died because of racial prejudice.
48
Those who say this isn't about civil rights apparently don't know what civil rights are.
When we get around to normalizing the rest of us freaks and geeks, are we going to encounter the same resistance from those who were once our allies?
I hope the heck not. I get it when the locals don't want us breeder sympathists marching in their parade, but I'd like to think everyone will be backing us when our equality issues have their day in the sun.
To those who are actually interested in this issue, let me ask: What the fuck is the President's damage? Is this some kind of late-onset homophobia, or have the same maroon-cloaked figures that whammied McCain into tapping Palin gotten into Obama's head as well?
When we get around to normalizing the rest of us freaks and geeks, are we going to encounter the same resistance from those who were once our allies?
I hope the heck not. I get it when the locals don't want us breeder sympathists marching in their parade, but I'd like to think everyone will be backing us when our equality issues have their day in the sun.
To those who are actually interested in this issue, let me ask: What the fuck is the President's damage? Is this some kind of late-onset homophobia, or have the same maroon-cloaked figures that whammied McCain into tapping Palin gotten into Obama's head as well?
49
@ 44/45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5EaN2ph…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm-oXV89…
http://www.soulforce.org/article/rodney-…
Just goes to show you Loveschild people who were there have different opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5EaN2ph…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm-oXV89…
http://www.soulforce.org/article/rodney-…
Just goes to show you Loveschild people who were there have different opinions.
50
Hey Loveschild, tell that to Matthew Shepards's parents. Your intolerant ignorance towards teh gays is the equivalence of being in the KKK back in the Jim Crow era.
51
48 "When we get around to normalizing the rest of us freaks and geeks, are we going to encounter the same resistance from those who were once our allies?
I hope the heck not. I get it when the locals don't want us breeder sympathists marching in their parade, but I'd like to think everyone will be backing us when our equality issues have their day in the sun."
Can you explain? I don't understand what you meant here Uriel-238.
I hope the heck not. I get it when the locals don't want us breeder sympathists marching in their parade, but I'd like to think everyone will be backing us when our equality issues have their day in the sun."
Can you explain? I don't understand what you meant here Uriel-238.
52
I really feel for the soldiers who have given years of their lives to the army only to be booted out because of their sexuality, which is completely irrelevant to the jobs they are doing. I can't even imagine how betrayed and hurt they must feel. I wonder how different the reaction would be if instead of sexuality, the army started kicking people out based on their religion. A "dont ask dont tell" policy would never ever be tolerated for that, but its an equally important aspect of a persons life. Why can't everyone just try to respect differences in each other and move on?
53
Instead of relying on Obama, why don't we get it done ourselves? The way it works, is Congress. Technically, sure Obama could stop enforcing the DADT law, but then the public pressure goes off, and before the law gets repealed we'll be in a new election cycle and our representatives will let it slide. Instead, get Nate Silver on board (I've written him, but he hasn't responded), figure out which representatives will overturn DADT, which are on the fence, and which absolutely won't. Then we target our money to replace the latter and threaten the fence-sitters, to get them to commit against DADT. We have the money, we have the support, why don't we have a leader to get this done? (Not Obama! a grassroots leader! You know, one of us!)
So, Dan, could you write Nate and ask him if he'll help us figure this out, or recommend a savvy political consultant?
So, Dan, could you write Nate and ask him if he'll help us figure this out, or recommend a savvy political consultant?
54
Or, Dan, it occurs to me that perhaps you like it better this way? Does the outrage bring in a big audience, that you'd lose if DADT and DOMA were eliminated? I always forget to look for the angle *before* I get all riled up, esp. here on Slog....
55
@38 - oh boy, thanks for the snow job. "NO WAIT YOU GUIZE if Obama does this he'll LOSE THE ELECTION!"
Next thing you know, next term is "never".
I'm sorry, but the numbers and the politics say that your point is vapid. If Obama did this RIGHT NOW, it would be a total nonissue in 2012. However, if he waits until, oh, say, October of 2012, well, then you *may* have a point...oh, but the numbers say that it's a popular move, too.
Next thing you know, next term is "never".
I'm sorry, but the numbers and the politics say that your point is vapid. If Obama did this RIGHT NOW, it would be a total nonissue in 2012. However, if he waits until, oh, say, October of 2012, well, then you *may* have a point...oh, but the numbers say that it's a popular move, too.
56
Aren't you all happy you shoved HrC aside for the guy who wouldn't commit to shit for the Gay/Lesbian community? The one who still says he's against gay marriage when Dick Fuckin Cheney is now FOR gay marriage?
I'm a big ole liberal but shit, this guy didn't pass the sniff test in the beginning but The Stranger sure worked to get him installed.
I'm a big ole liberal but shit, this guy didn't pass the sniff test in the beginning but The Stranger sure worked to get him installed.
57
Practically swooned when it happened, eh, 56? I saw all that happen too.
and yet, year after year, the gays are going to go punch the ticket for the Ds and pretend the Ds actually give a shit.
Hint: THEY DON'T.
and yet, year after year, the gays are going to go punch the ticket for the Ds and pretend the Ds actually give a shit.
Hint: THEY DON'T.
58
The gay civil rights movement and The (black) Civil Rights Movement don't have to be completely identical for there to be some parallels between them. Stop acting like it's such a blasphemy to point out parallels where they exist, just because they aren't all-encompassing.
They are both struggles for/against the civil rights of a minority group. In both struggles, popular laws are being passed as the means of stripping the minority group of their rights. In both struggles, people are debating whether or not the judicial branch has/should have the authority to overturn such popular laws. In both struggles, popular preference is being pitted against individual rights. In both struggles, violence and other forms of intimidation are being directed at the minority group. In both struggles, "the collapse of society" is being used as a threat of what could happen if we give rights to the minority group. In both struggles, people are debating whether the minority group should demand full equality, or settle for what is "good enough."
Because many of the debates are similar, many of the same issues are relevant. This is what we mean by "parallels." Drawing these parallels makes the conclusions a little more obvious for people. It's not about which group gets to lay claim to the biggest sob stories, or whether gays get to "feel" as fucked over as other groups. It's about pointing out where faulty logic has been used before to justify oppression, and why it failed. It's about pointing to some of the fairly universal lessons that we learned (or should have learned) from the Civil Rights Movement and applying them to another civil rights movement. For instance, thanks to that movement, we now know that separate is inherently unequal. We now know that individual rights of a minority are not something that should be taken away by the majority through popular votes. We now know that going against tradition for the sake of civil rights does not cause society to collapse. Therefore, we now know that we shouldn't take the religious right seriously when they say all those things about gay rights.
So some of the specifics are different, sure. Blacks were discriminated against based on race instead of sexual orientation. Blacks were separated drinking fountain-wise instead of marriage-wise. Violence against blacks was treated more lightly than violence against gays (though both are treated lightly). Blacks were oppressed in ways that had much greater economic consequences. Maybe the black experience in the US has been more intense overall. But these differences are specific, not fundamental, and to dwell over them is to miss the point. You can't argue that these differences are enough to make the two movements, and the issues relevant to them, absolutely incomparable.
I think it's anything but insulting to the black Civil Rights Movement that people may have actually learned a thing or two from it, and be applying it to other movements.
More...
They are both struggles for/against the civil rights of a minority group. In both struggles, popular laws are being passed as the means of stripping the minority group of their rights. In both struggles, people are debating whether or not the judicial branch has/should have the authority to overturn such popular laws. In both struggles, popular preference is being pitted against individual rights. In both struggles, violence and other forms of intimidation are being directed at the minority group. In both struggles, "the collapse of society" is being used as a threat of what could happen if we give rights to the minority group. In both struggles, people are debating whether the minority group should demand full equality, or settle for what is "good enough."
Because many of the debates are similar, many of the same issues are relevant. This is what we mean by "parallels." Drawing these parallels makes the conclusions a little more obvious for people. It's not about which group gets to lay claim to the biggest sob stories, or whether gays get to "feel" as fucked over as other groups. It's about pointing out where faulty logic has been used before to justify oppression, and why it failed. It's about pointing to some of the fairly universal lessons that we learned (or should have learned) from the Civil Rights Movement and applying them to another civil rights movement. For instance, thanks to that movement, we now know that separate is inherently unequal. We now know that individual rights of a minority are not something that should be taken away by the majority through popular votes. We now know that going against tradition for the sake of civil rights does not cause society to collapse. Therefore, we now know that we shouldn't take the religious right seriously when they say all those things about gay rights.
So some of the specifics are different, sure. Blacks were discriminated against based on race instead of sexual orientation. Blacks were separated drinking fountain-wise instead of marriage-wise. Violence against blacks was treated more lightly than violence against gays (though both are treated lightly). Blacks were oppressed in ways that had much greater economic consequences. Maybe the black experience in the US has been more intense overall. But these differences are specific, not fundamental, and to dwell over them is to miss the point. You can't argue that these differences are enough to make the two movements, and the issues relevant to them, absolutely incomparable.
I think it's anything but insulting to the black Civil Rights Movement that people may have actually learned a thing or two from it, and be applying it to other movements.
59
I'm not looking it up, Loveschild, but didn't Lt. Daniel Cho say that he hadn't been in a relationship, or had sex, since he had been in the military? Sexual behavior was never an issue for him -- just his orientation. Even if so, very few troops (straight or gay) would ever occasion to "flaunt" their mates in a war zone. His subordinates said that his sexuality was never an issue for them.
@51
"...us breeder sympathists..."??? Straight friends and relatives of gays often march in gay parades (I don't know where you get your information), but I wouldn't count you among them, and I would hope you wouldn't be welcome until you change some of your attitudes. Until then, there are always plenty of people of your ilk protesting the parades. Join them.
@51
"...us breeder sympathists..."??? Straight friends and relatives of gays often march in gay parades (I don't know where you get your information), but I wouldn't count you among them, and I would hope you wouldn't be welcome until you change some of your attitudes. Until then, there are always plenty of people of your ilk protesting the parades. Join them.
60
Loveschild, we have have troops serving where Jews are hated, and to be one is a crime. Should we ban Jews from the military?
The United States doesn't restrict military recruitment based on the prejudices and laws of other nations.
It used to be that the military didn't allow women. The rational behind the ban was that a woman's sexuality, and emotionality would get in the way of her doing her job, and that she would be a distraction for the male troops. Was that right? Was it wrong to let women in?
Yes, like your attitudes against gay people, it used to be that many white folks didn't think that black people were comparable to them. You are just the 21st century version of the white bigots of the civil rights movement. You found a group of people whom you believe are less than you, and you want to deny them rights based on your hatred. So sad.
The United States doesn't restrict military recruitment based on the prejudices and laws of other nations.
It used to be that the military didn't allow women. The rational behind the ban was that a woman's sexuality, and emotionality would get in the way of her doing her job, and that she would be a distraction for the male troops. Was that right? Was it wrong to let women in?
Yes, like your attitudes against gay people, it used to be that many white folks didn't think that black people were comparable to them. You are just the 21st century version of the white bigots of the civil rights movement. You found a group of people whom you believe are less than you, and you want to deny them rights based on your hatred. So sad.
61
Dude!
Bloodlust is a troll – do you know what trolls like/crave? Please do not feed the troll.
Give Obama time, he's got a bit much on his plate of late, ya think?
There's lots left he has to do, but they can't all be done at the same time. There's a war on against idiots, and he has to pick his battles one at a time.
Have faith, he'll be there for another 3 years and one more term after that.
Salaam, Shalom, Peace
Bloodlust is a troll – do you know what trolls like/crave? Please do not feed the troll.
Give Obama time, he's got a bit much on his plate of late, ya think?
There's lots left he has to do, but they can't all be done at the same time. There's a war on against idiots, and he has to pick his battles one at a time.
Have faith, he'll be there for another 3 years and one more term after that.
Salaam, Shalom, Peace
62
61, Don't worry, LC avoids my posts because I point out the fatal flaws in her arguments, and she doesn't have an answer.
63
It is shortsighted to kick out homosexual soldiers, especially translators.
Because when it comes time to AssRape a 15 year old detainee sometimes the heteros get all squimish on you...
Because when it comes time to AssRape a 15 year old detainee sometimes the heteros get all squimish on you...
64
62
Yeah, for that and because of the pungent smell of donkey shit santorum that lingers over them...
Yeah, for that and because of the pungent smell of donkey shit santorum that lingers over them...
66
60 A case could be made not for restricting the service of Jewish men and women in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia amongst others but to keep anything that could identify them as such at a minimum in their exposure to people from those countries due to the Arab-israeli conflicts and animosity. That's not to say they should not serve but that prudence should be used. Women serving in the military cannot be compared with the gay issue because being a women is a gender issue, besides although women serve in our military there are certain restrictions for what they're allowed to do that safeguard them and reduce their exposure to danger.
67
His silence is saying everything it needs to say, isn't it. Obama doesn't care about gays and lesbians--or even doesn't like them.
68
66, What do you think that gay people deployed in the Middle East are going to do to so that the native people would recognize them as such?
Um, wrong, and you avoided answering the question. Women were banned from the military because of their sexuality, an what was wrongly believed to be uncontrollable emotionality. It was also thought that men wouldn't be able to do their jobs in the presents of a woman. The truth is that men can be distracted by women. Were they right to keep women from serving?
As for the current restrictions on jobs where a woman can serve, if a women wants to work such a position, are you for keeping her out? If so, why?
Um, wrong, and you avoided answering the question. Women were banned from the military because of their sexuality, an what was wrongly believed to be uncontrollable emotionality. It was also thought that men wouldn't be able to do their jobs in the presents of a woman. The truth is that men can be distracted by women. Were they right to keep women from serving?
As for the current restrictions on jobs where a woman can serve, if a women wants to work such a position, are you for keeping her out? If so, why?
69
68 "What do you think that gay people deployed in the Middle East are going to do to so that the native people would recognize them as such?"
Exhibit homosexual traits, or characteristics that are not those of their gender, flaunt their partners look at 25. Otherwise why would you want to repeal DADT for if not to express your gay identity. What about transsexual trannies how are you going to accommodate them also Rob? How do you think a Muslim eye is gonna see this???
Women were kept from the military because of their gender and that was wrong. That's why the two cannot be compared. Women can reside in female only barracks and not be exposed to sexual harassment which is a big problem in mixed tent situations, women do not shower with men, exct. Why should more stress be placed on an already difficult situation by bringing open homosexuals and the demands they will make for their freedom of expression to the picture?
Exhibit homosexual traits, or characteristics that are not those of their gender, flaunt their partners look at 25. Otherwise why would you want to repeal DADT for if not to express your gay identity. What about transsexual trannies how are you going to accommodate them also Rob? How do you think a Muslim eye is gonna see this???
Women were kept from the military because of their gender and that was wrong. That's why the two cannot be compared. Women can reside in female only barracks and not be exposed to sexual harassment which is a big problem in mixed tent situations, women do not shower with men, exct. Why should more stress be placed on an already difficult situation by bringing open homosexuals and the demands they will make for their freedom of expression to the picture?
70
66,
Man your argument has holes in it.
Here's a brief paraphrase.
Rob: Jews are hated in some of the countries our troops are in. You argue, gays shouldn't be allowed to openly be in the military, because of the hatred they may incite. Should any soldier who' faith, sexual orientation, gender, etc., be removed from service because of the hatred they may incite?
Loveschild: No, we should keep them to minimum exposure to people due to "Arab-israeli conflicts and animosity".
Fact: The UK has openly gay service members, and (to my knowledge) there hasn't been any issue of preceived hatred towards gays being responsible for jepordizing their position.
Rob: An argument used to keep women out of the military was that women serving would be seen as a distraction to their fellow male soldiers, and that they are too emotional to do their job well. Should woman be removed from serving because they are potential distractions, as you argue gays who are openly gay would be?
Loveschild: "Women serving in the military cannot be compared with the gay issue because being a women is a gender issue, besides although women serve in our military there are certain restrictions for what they're allowed to do that safeguard them and reduce their exposure to danger."
Bottom line: Loveschild's argument can be summed up in three words, Gay is Bad.
One need only look at her comments on Mr. Holden's post about the petition to put Ref. 71 on the ballot in WA. Miss "You know I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions" stated that she donated to support putting Ref. 71 on the ballot.
Man your argument has holes in it.
Here's a brief paraphrase.
Rob: Jews are hated in some of the countries our troops are in. You argue, gays shouldn't be allowed to openly be in the military, because of the hatred they may incite. Should any soldier who' faith, sexual orientation, gender, etc., be removed from service because of the hatred they may incite?
Loveschild: No, we should keep them to minimum exposure to people due to "Arab-israeli conflicts and animosity".
Fact: The UK has openly gay service members, and (to my knowledge) there hasn't been any issue of preceived hatred towards gays being responsible for jepordizing their position.
Rob: An argument used to keep women out of the military was that women serving would be seen as a distraction to their fellow male soldiers, and that they are too emotional to do their job well. Should woman be removed from serving because they are potential distractions, as you argue gays who are openly gay would be?
Loveschild: "Women serving in the military cannot be compared with the gay issue because being a women is a gender issue, besides although women serve in our military there are certain restrictions for what they're allowed to do that safeguard them and reduce their exposure to danger."
Bottom line: Loveschild's argument can be summed up in three words, Gay is Bad.
One need only look at her comments on Mr. Holden's post about the petition to put Ref. 71 on the ballot in WA. Miss "You know I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions" stated that she donated to support putting Ref. 71 on the ballot.
71
69, So do you think that Jews will exhibit Jewish traits? Flaunt their Stars of David, or their bar mitzvah photos?
There are straight men who act effeminate, and straight women who act masculine. Should they be banned just because they might be perceived as gay?
Have you served in the military? I have. Sexual conduct, touching, public displays of affection: all prohibited, no matter what your sexuality. Also, Transsexuals, and trannies? Women don't get to wear sequin gowns in the military. Male, female, BDUs are are BDUs. Soldiers wear the same thing regardless of sex.
No, again women were banned in the military because it was thought that their gender was incapable of serving and getting the job done do to their sexuality and emotionality. It was thought that the mere presence of a woman would cause disruption amongst the male troops. It was once thought that women couldn't do anything other than housewife.
What do you think an open homosexual is going to do to a straight person? Again, I've served in the Military, and we had both sexes in our barracks, and when out in the field. Sexual conduct, pda, or even just general horseplay is prohibited regardless of sex or sexuality.
You also avoided answering, If a qualified women wants to serve in a job that is currently restricted to women, is it okay to keep her out?
There are straight men who act effeminate, and straight women who act masculine. Should they be banned just because they might be perceived as gay?
Have you served in the military? I have. Sexual conduct, touching, public displays of affection: all prohibited, no matter what your sexuality. Also, Transsexuals, and trannies? Women don't get to wear sequin gowns in the military. Male, female, BDUs are are BDUs. Soldiers wear the same thing regardless of sex.
No, again women were banned in the military because it was thought that their gender was incapable of serving and getting the job done do to their sexuality and emotionality. It was thought that the mere presence of a woman would cause disruption amongst the male troops. It was once thought that women couldn't do anything other than housewife.
What do you think an open homosexual is going to do to a straight person? Again, I've served in the Military, and we had both sexes in our barracks, and when out in the field. Sexual conduct, pda, or even just general horseplay is prohibited regardless of sex or sexuality.
You also avoided answering, If a qualified women wants to serve in a job that is currently restricted to women, is it okay to keep her out?
73
Michael of the Green, that was actually me that Loveschild was quoting, and yes, I was taking a shot at the tendency for discrimination to exist even amongst those who know first hand what discriminatory oppression looks like.
In my case, I've been told by members of the local gay community that I don't get to march being a mere sympathizer and not actually gay. Of course this may have been a misrepresentation of policy, rather than a state of preference.
But in similar veins, I know plenty of gays/hets whose orientation switches whenever the gender of their new relationship doesn't match their old orientation, because bisexual identification is not well received; homophobes generally think bis are still gay (not unlike the white guy who's 1/32 black, I suppose) and gays commonly regard bis as traitors to the cause.
Most of the time, this sort of micro-discrimination doesn't affect the generalized politics that circumscribe a fringe group, but like the difficulty I've seen amongst biracial kids fitting in with their peers, it is something that affects us on a personal level.
Loveschild, I'll clarify my position in more detail later, but in short form, the normalization of gays into mainstream culture is not the end of the continuing struggle towards equal human rights for all. There are quite a number of groups against whom the mainstream continues to openly discriminate.
I wonder how many will disregard their plights as civil rights issues as well.
In my case, I've been told by members of the local gay community that I don't get to march being a mere sympathizer and not actually gay. Of course this may have been a misrepresentation of policy, rather than a state of preference.
But in similar veins, I know plenty of gays/hets whose orientation switches whenever the gender of their new relationship doesn't match their old orientation, because bisexual identification is not well received; homophobes generally think bis are still gay (not unlike the white guy who's 1/32 black, I suppose) and gays commonly regard bis as traitors to the cause.
Most of the time, this sort of micro-discrimination doesn't affect the generalized politics that circumscribe a fringe group, but like the difficulty I've seen amongst biracial kids fitting in with their peers, it is something that affects us on a personal level.
Loveschild, I'll clarify my position in more detail later, but in short form, the normalization of gays into mainstream culture is not the end of the continuing struggle towards equal human rights for all. There are quite a number of groups against whom the mainstream continues to openly discriminate.
I wonder how many will disregard their plights as civil rights issues as well.
74
Sorry Uriel-238 and Loveschild for misunderstanding the span of the quote. I was just a little flummoxed by the sudden claim of "sympathy" by LC, and thought she misunderstood the meaning of the word.
I'm still confused about what "homosexual behavior" LC expects will be exhibited on the battlefield (what HETEROSEXUAL behavior is exhibited there?).
I'm still confused about what "homosexual behavior" LC expects will be exhibited on the battlefield (what HETEROSEXUAL behavior is exhibited there?).
75
Above, Loveschild, I noted that the rest of us freaks and geeks wait in the sidelines since there usually isn't enough airtime in the media (or space in the 100 IQ brain) to acknowledge all the going equality struggles, so only a couple at a time get their day in the public eye.
My fear is that the lack of empathy I've seen from people like you, or more frighteningly someone like Obama (who I'd expect to be academically aware of the nature of civil rights conflict) is endemic of being within (or at least in a closer orbit to) the mainstream. How many of us on the fringes will get infected by the whitebread cootie once we're allowed in the treehouse, and find we don't want to include anyone else that might distress our comfort zone? I, of course, hope less than more.
But let me remind us all of the there are other fringe groups that are yet to get their day. Stay Tuned.
My fear is that the lack of empathy I've seen from people like you, or more frighteningly someone like Obama (who I'd expect to be academically aware of the nature of civil rights conflict) is endemic of being within (or at least in a closer orbit to) the mainstream. How many of us on the fringes will get infected by the whitebread cootie once we're allowed in the treehouse, and find we don't want to include anyone else that might distress our comfort zone? I, of course, hope less than more.
But let me remind us all of the there are other fringe groups that are yet to get their day. Stay Tuned.
76
Transgenders are the top of the not-yet-equal list, and seem to make everyone uncomfortable. Hopefully, as gay marriage becomes accepted, and with the continuing blurring of gender roles, the transition to accepting transgenders into the fold of the mainstream will become easier. As things are, however, states are unsure how to regard someone who is still pre-op and going through RLT, or is no-op or no-ho. Where gay marriage is outlawed, they can't get married to anyone since they're either physically the same sex as their partners, or otherwise identify as the same as their partners. Plenty of kids who are transgendered, or even gender-obscure still get committed (as in to the funny farm) and assigned electroconvulsive therapy with hopes that zapping their brain will set them straight. Sure, no-ho trannies might be able to pass as straight, and that feels about as normal for them as it would an African having to wear full white face and a uniform every day to fit in.
77
Non-Abrahamic faiths have a special place in the hearts of the far-right evangelist-laden conservative community, since most neocons believe in dominionism (and the necessary revisionism of early US history so that these two thoughts don't conflict). Dominionists feel its their duty to scour the country of heathens, heretics (groups who aren't Christian enough) and infidels (Jews, Muslims and Unitarians) and reform the country back into scripture conforming shape to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. During the '90s, Wiccans were finally allowed to exercise ritual while on base. Their chaplain is a volunteer (and doesn't get chaplain pay), but this isn't enough to stop activists from raising hubbub over the fact that witchcraft is being practiced by the US Army. To date, only Christian ministries have been able to take advantage of the Bush-era faith based assistance benefits offered from our federal till. Pagans who are outed in some counties can have their children taken away and baptized. Pagans still wrestle with codes against open expression of their faith in places where open expression of Abrahamic beliefs are allowed. Around the turn of the millenium a girl in high school was suspended for engaging in witchcraft. At the most extreme, LaVeyan Satanists are either not taken seriously, or are taken too seriously, depending. Of course, all these people can pass for straight, too, which feels about as comfortable as having to wear jewelry of, and regularly oath fealty to some elder dark god on the edge of the cosmos you desperately hope doesn't actually exist.
78
Fetish, leather and altsex communities have it much easier to pass for straight, since they generally only dress up to paint the town (as it were), but there have been plenty of cases in which participants were outed, say, during a messy divorce, by a curious maid, or due to a bit of misplaced confidence. The sideshow spectacle that has become of David Carradine's premature demise demonstrates how well non-vanilla sexualities are accepted in the mainstream. In the last decade or so, fetish outings have been cause to lose custody of one's children, get jailed for battery (even when the recipient openly admits to consent), or even indicted for murder (when scenes go really, really wrong). Even in Carradine's case, news-agencies and relations preferred to believe suicide or ninjas were responsible for his death than engaging in autoerotic asphyxiation.
Ageplayers and Teen Sexters get special mention as a subsets, thanks to the ongoing witchhunt of child pornographers and sexual predators, since the police are, nowadays, quicker to arrest and out someone for paraphernalia or otherwise legal pornography (i.e. lolicon manga). We have teens getting marked as child predators for sexting their peers. We have eleven year old girls being charged with rape. We have representatives getting accused of pedophilia (fetishism of underaged children) when they're really guilty of ephebophilia (the non-paraphilic tendency to be attracted to young, post-pubescent, i.e. breedable adolescents). And we have guys on Chris Hansen's show getting let free due to entrapment.
Ageplayers and Teen Sexters get special mention as a subsets, thanks to the ongoing witchhunt of child pornographers and sexual predators, since the police are, nowadays, quicker to arrest and out someone for paraphernalia or otherwise legal pornography (i.e. lolicon manga). We have teens getting marked as child predators for sexting their peers. We have eleven year old girls being charged with rape. We have representatives getting accused of pedophilia (fetishism of underaged children) when they're really guilty of ephebophilia (the non-paraphilic tendency to be attracted to young, post-pubescent, i.e. breedable adolescents). And we have guys on Chris Hansen's show getting let free due to entrapment.
79
78 I just had to, to stepback and read again your comments, I can't believe that you really mean all this stuff.
You know, I feared what your response would be, but I had no idea that you would think that satanic worship was now the new equality struggle frontier. You make Mr Savage (who equated heroine use under the banner of civil rights)seem as a pious, intelligent man, Uriel-238.
You must agree with him on that also don't you.
Are polygamists also one of the groups in line? Why not. Same for those who practice bestiality (they fit the freaks category perfectly too). And what would be according to you, the appropriate age of consent for an adult to engage in sex with a youngster or as you put it with "breedable adolescents" and not be classified as a pedophile? Which of these groups that you see as 'fighting' for their 'equality' do you belong to? And where do you draw the line?
You're joking, Uriel-238, right?
I always enjoy reading your comments, although I don't agree with most of what you write, there's sometimes somethin insightful but if these are not mere crude humor on your part then I don't know what to make of them anymore.
You know, I feared what your response would be, but I had no idea that you would think that satanic worship was now the new equality struggle frontier. You make Mr Savage (who equated heroine use under the banner of civil rights)seem as a pious, intelligent man, Uriel-238.
You must agree with him on that also don't you.
Are polygamists also one of the groups in line? Why not. Same for those who practice bestiality (they fit the freaks category perfectly too). And what would be according to you, the appropriate age of consent for an adult to engage in sex with a youngster or as you put it with "breedable adolescents" and not be classified as a pedophile? Which of these groups that you see as 'fighting' for their 'equality' do you belong to? And where do you draw the line?
You're joking, Uriel-238, right?
I always enjoy reading your comments, although I don't agree with most of what you write, there's sometimes somethin insightful but if these are not mere crude humor on your part then I don't know what to make of them anymore.
80
Yes, I'm serious, Loveschild, though you seem to have come to conclusions about my positions I didn't intend. I will do my best to clarify:
On the religious front, I would say Neopagans and Wiccans are on the horizon of the equal rights struggle, along with atheists and non-theists (I'll get to them later). The frontier of religious equality would be fringe Christians (Mormons, Unificationists, Gnostic Revivalists), non-Christian Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Muslims) and popular non-Abrahamic faiths (Buddhists, Hindus, Confucianists, etc.) We may see in the next twenty years a Jewish or Unitarian President, or heck even a Scientologist.
Acceptance of Satanism, that being LaVeyan churches such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set are beyond the equality horizon, but establishes the bar when we can effectively say we've truly achieved religious equality. The degree to which you find this concept unbelievable demonstrates how far we are from establishing a true wall of separation between church and state. When a Satanist could be an elected representative, or a Satanic church could receive the same state-sponsored benefits that can a Christian ministry, that will be a strong indicator we've established the religious tolerance to which our nation aspires.
Your reaction is typical of the misinformed mainstream, who (as I said before) either regard Satanists as fictional (as per teen Satanists -- really rebellious Christians -- or as a subsect of the Goth subculture) or regard them as contrary to Christianity, hence as inherently evil. Those in the latter category often believe Satanists they function as described in the Malleus Maleficarum. (They don't; Satanists are rather peaceful and nonviolent.) The SRA scares continue to have a following of believers not unlike the UFOlogy and abduction community, though the running dogma of each is equally as likely. Participation in (otherwise legal) Satanic practices can still be a lynching offense when they're not worthy of jail time, harassment or other denials of rights.
As I said, we're a long, long way from regarding Satanist faith groups as having equal standing under law as Christian faith groups, for no reason other than dogma declaring one as the enemy of the other. Many Conservative Christian communities still regard any non-Christian faith, usually including Hinduism and Buddhism and sometimes going as far as including Catholicism and fringe or liberal Christian faiths as Satanism incognito, not unlike political groups comparing their adversaries to Nazis. But on a similar vein, as much as I find neo-Nazis and white supremacist rhetoric ignorant, bigoted and personally offensive, I find it a greater offense to deny them the right to make asses of themselves spouting it in public. Hopefully, Christendom can come to a similar understanding regarding Satanists, and anything they might regard as a lesser evil.
Somewhat relevant: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
More later...
More...
On the religious front, I would say Neopagans and Wiccans are on the horizon of the equal rights struggle, along with atheists and non-theists (I'll get to them later). The frontier of religious equality would be fringe Christians (Mormons, Unificationists, Gnostic Revivalists), non-Christian Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Muslims) and popular non-Abrahamic faiths (Buddhists, Hindus, Confucianists, etc.) We may see in the next twenty years a Jewish or Unitarian President, or heck even a Scientologist.
Acceptance of Satanism, that being LaVeyan churches such as the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set are beyond the equality horizon, but establishes the bar when we can effectively say we've truly achieved religious equality. The degree to which you find this concept unbelievable demonstrates how far we are from establishing a true wall of separation between church and state. When a Satanist could be an elected representative, or a Satanic church could receive the same state-sponsored benefits that can a Christian ministry, that will be a strong indicator we've established the religious tolerance to which our nation aspires.
Your reaction is typical of the misinformed mainstream, who (as I said before) either regard Satanists as fictional (as per teen Satanists -- really rebellious Christians -- or as a subsect of the Goth subculture) or regard them as contrary to Christianity, hence as inherently evil. Those in the latter category often believe Satanists they function as described in the Malleus Maleficarum. (They don't; Satanists are rather peaceful and nonviolent.) The SRA scares continue to have a following of believers not unlike the UFOlogy and abduction community, though the running dogma of each is equally as likely. Participation in (otherwise legal) Satanic practices can still be a lynching offense when they're not worthy of jail time, harassment or other denials of rights.
As I said, we're a long, long way from regarding Satanist faith groups as having equal standing under law as Christian faith groups, for no reason other than dogma declaring one as the enemy of the other. Many Conservative Christian communities still regard any non-Christian faith, usually including Hinduism and Buddhism and sometimes going as far as including Catholicism and fringe or liberal Christian faiths as Satanism incognito, not unlike political groups comparing their adversaries to Nazis. But on a similar vein, as much as I find neo-Nazis and white supremacist rhetoric ignorant, bigoted and personally offensive, I find it a greater offense to deny them the right to make asses of themselves spouting it in public. Hopefully, Christendom can come to a similar understanding regarding Satanists, and anything they might regard as a lesser evil.
Somewhat relevant: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
More later...
81
Uriel-238, do you honestly believe that satanism is a good thing that needs to be protected? Am I reading you wrong in thinking that you are a satanist? I'm gonna tell you if you have fallen victim to the enemy of all souls, that whatever that spirit has told you is a lie. All that's good and noble comes from God, forgiveness, family, and love are good and only come from our Creator, not from satan. Uriel-238, you use as your handle the name of one of God's archangels (light of God), why would you then go against him in this way? I prayed last night for you even though I don't know you, I couldn't keep from feeling the need to after reading your comment, at first I was frightened and then after praying I just felt sad that you have been deceived into believing these satanic lies. What drove you into this?
Now I kinda understand why you would advocate for things that would lead to the deterioration of the traditional family, of morality, even if you don't see it that way. You have fallen victim to the lies, you seem like such an intelligent man though that's hard for me to grasp how you could've.
Now I kinda understand why you would advocate for things that would lead to the deterioration of the traditional family, of morality, even if you don't see it that way. You have fallen victim to the lies, you seem like such an intelligent man though that's hard for me to grasp how you could've.
82
He's arguing for "establishing a true wall of separation between church and state", and religious tolerance, not any particular group.
83
Loveschild @81, I've revealed before on SLOG that I'm a naturalist and a humanist. LaVeyans see Satan as an archetype, not merely the fallen creation of Yahweh. While I'm all for Jungian archetypes, I find generic good and evil to be too simplistic concepts to describe elements of the human experience. But rest assured, I don't spare Satan, (or Yahweh, for that matter), with the credit of existence, nor do I spare spirits or souls from the skepticism I focus on all other natural events.
But this does reveal the bichromatic lens with which you perceive nature. I've also argued on SLOG the dangers of an inerrant, literalist interpretation of Abrahamic scripture, which suffers from both a lack of clarity (and thus a mutability to the agendas of given ministries) and the inherent prejudice before reason that emerges from any divine command doctrine.
kim in portland explained my intent perfectly. The United States was founded on a principle of personal liberty, of live and let live, so long as one's personal practices do not harm, nor violate the rights of others. The application of biblical values on the mere grounds that they come from divine scripture is inappropriate. This is also why the Lemon Test exists, to cull laws that serve no secular purpose.
Getting back to our friends, the Satanists, if you argued that their doctrine promotes violence or denial of the human rights of others, I'd say you might have a point. Except that it doesn't; they don't. The fact that Satan's name is in their church is not grounds to dismiss them as an illegitimate faith, or ineligible for the rights due one.
You can learn more about those you fear here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/satani…
More...
But this does reveal the bichromatic lens with which you perceive nature. I've also argued on SLOG the dangers of an inerrant, literalist interpretation of Abrahamic scripture, which suffers from both a lack of clarity (and thus a mutability to the agendas of given ministries) and the inherent prejudice before reason that emerges from any divine command doctrine.
kim in portland explained my intent perfectly. The United States was founded on a principle of personal liberty, of live and let live, so long as one's personal practices do not harm, nor violate the rights of others. The application of biblical values on the mere grounds that they come from divine scripture is inappropriate. This is also why the Lemon Test exists, to cull laws that serve no secular purpose.
Getting back to our friends, the Satanists, if you argued that their doctrine promotes violence or denial of the human rights of others, I'd say you might have a point. Except that it doesn't; they don't. The fact that Satan's name is in their church is not grounds to dismiss them as an illegitimate faith, or ineligible for the rights due one.
You can learn more about those you fear here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/satani…
84
Loveschild, I think you and I have one powerful thing in common. I hope we can meet someday to discuss this. Bless you, dear.
85
@9
Dan, come on. The authority you refer to is not part of the don't ask don't tell statute itself. It's a pretty tortured argument, relying on a totally separate provision:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members
of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to
active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion,
retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces
who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States."
This allows the President to suspend expulsions (1) only if reserve soliders are involuntarily called up and (2) only if he determines that suspending expulsions is "essential to national security". He could do it, but it would be a stretch, and, when mandatory call ups of the reserves ended, so would his authority.
I don't think it's crazy for Obama not to rely on a stretched, convoluted reading of expanded executive authority (ala Dubya) to do something that Congress really needs to do if it's going to be a real and lasting change.
Dan, come on. The authority you refer to is not part of the don't ask don't tell statute itself. It's a pretty tortured argument, relying on a totally separate provision:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members
of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to
active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion,
retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces
who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States."
This allows the President to suspend expulsions (1) only if reserve soliders are involuntarily called up and (2) only if he determines that suspending expulsions is "essential to national security". He could do it, but it would be a stretch, and, when mandatory call ups of the reserves ended, so would his authority.
I don't think it's crazy for Obama not to rely on a stretched, convoluted reading of expanded executive authority (ala Dubya) to do something that Congress really needs to do if it's going to be a real and lasting change.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (85) RSS